The Entire Planet Observed on a Daily Basis

How Jeremy Lin is Exposing (and Conquering) the NBA

2012-02-16T12:43:00.003-08:00

Now, I said I would no longer post about the NBA for the rest of its season in pure protest. But I have to back away from this to discuss Jeremy Lin. He is all the talk of the town, all the rage, and biggest of all he is conquering the NBA with his happy-go-lucky attitude, determination, willingness to share, high risk-high reward style of play, and transcending ideals that is appealing to the working class, the religious groups, and of course the Asian communities in New York. To think a couple weeks ago he was inches from being cut from the Knicks. But the emergence of Lin is revealing two things about the NBA: it is being exposed as a league that no longer knows how to defend point guards, and the league truly only cares about the larger markets.

Let’s start with the first point. Somewhere along the lines, sometime in the past couple of years, the NBA became an offense-heavy league and totally forgot how to defend the frontcourt. Nowadays, a younger Steve Nash, Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas and John Stockton would have a field day with the current NBA system. The team with the best treatment of the point guard positions wins. J.J. Barea, a rather average point guard, was able to suddenly explode in the playoffs last season and helped propel the Mavericks to their first NBA title. The top teams in the NBA have one thing in common: great point guards. See the Bulls with Rose, the Heat with the Wade/James combo, and the Thunder with Westbrook. Other mediocre point guards like Brandon Jennings, Jamier Nelson, Deron Williams still find success because few teams have developed an ability to truly stop them. In the 90s, the three previous point guards I mentioned would not even have a job.

Jeremy Lin has a very aggressive (and exciting) approach to playing, and its working miracles. He will run towards the basket at full speed, somehow breaking past everyone, and with a willingness to knock against the bigger bodies. And what happens when he runs into said wall? He finds someone else closeby who finishes the deal. Lin doesn’t just score, but he is becoming an assist machine—he isn’t afraid of sharing the ball. Take notes Kobe Bryant. And this aggressive approach is also leading to high amounts of turnovers, which is fine as long as the tactic is getting you wins. Even against the stingy Laker defense he managed several turnovers, but in return nearly banks 40 points against Kobe Bryant. How does a team being run by a player who is averaging about 7 turnovers a game manage to win? Because teams just don’t play defense anymore, especially against the smaller, quicker players. Similar to the NFL losing the ability to guard tight ends that suddenly can explode on offense, almost every NBA team has problems guarding the frontcourt, and Lin is looking like an MVP because of it.

Which leads to my second point: Jeremy Lin’s success and exposure to the media is definitely helped by the extreme East Coast bias. Thanks to the Knicks of New York having a feel good story, the rest of the world is forgetting about the mammoth MVP numbers of LeBron James (nearly 30 points a game, along with nearly 7 assists and 8 rebounds), the colossal numbers of a player that doesn’t care about his own team anymore (Dwight Howard: 20 points, 15 rebounds, 2 blocks, and leading his team in steals), and the emergence of another point guard that has a very bright future: Ricky Rubio.

Isn’t anyone paying attention to Ricky Rubio? With no help outside Kevin Love (also ringing up underrated numbers) he is averaging 10 points a game, 4 rebounds a game, and nearly 9 assists per game. And this is in his rookie season, and for the Timberwolves—in the far tougher Western Conference. Bringing some excitement to Minnesota is far tougher than bringing the excitement to New York and Rubio is delivering. Not to take away anything from Lin, but if we had seen him explode in numbers in the Rockets (where he was supposed to go before Stern became fascist) it would be nowhere near as dramatic or as well-documented. New York exaggerates every small little detail, and they will take over the headlines for the smallest of reasons. Jeremy Lin was at the right place, at the right time, under the right circumstances. Lin, be happy you didn’t receive your chance at Golden State or Houston.

Post-Note: Imagine if Rubio becomes an Orlando Magic and participates in the trigger-happy offense under Van Gundy? You’d be surprised how well he would fit. Moving on.

So how much longer can the Linsanity reign? Probably much longer as long as the Knicks keep winning, the East Coast keeps screaming, and as long as Carmelo Anthony learns that he is going to have to share territory with the newcomer. Anthony is perceived to be a ballhog and an attention-grabber, so he is going to have to adjust his game or else he is going to be delightful trade bait when the deadline is near and the Magic are running out of hope to keep Howard after the off-season. I am pretty sure the northeast will partake in a collective joygasm if the Knicks manage to trade for Howard to play alongside Amare and Jeremy.

Oh great, now I am participating in the Linsanity.

I for one am enjoying this trip of craziness that is overtaking the NBA, but let’s not forget—none of this would have happened if David Stern hadn’t been so evil and blocked the Chris Paul trade. With that veto Stern was trying to prevent the larger markets legally monopolizing the quality and popularity of the NBA. But if Jeremy Lin has taught us anything, you can never escape the shadows of the Big Markets.

And that Madison Square Garden hasn’t felt such optimism in a very, very, very, very, very, very long time.

The QB Roundabout Trade (That Should Happen)

2012-02-09T08:18:00.001-08:00

Now that football season is over, there is only thing to do: look at next season. When you are a Miami Dolphins fan, that’s pretty much all you can do. It feels like forever ago when they went a shocking 11-5 and knocked the Jets and the Patriots away from the playoffs (that was a good time). That was when Soprano was relevant, and our Wildcat was replacing the flaw of us not having much of a quarterback at the helm. Then, the Wildcat started disappearing from the playbook and we desperately tried being a run-of-the-mill run-n-gun clichéd football team. We tried becoming like every other football team; a team whose sole focus is getting a strong quarterback to throw us some touchdowns and lead us to victories.

One little problem, we’ve been quarterback-cursed since Marino, as many hopeful talents just never delivered. The Dolphins have also been unlucky with the injuries, but our biggest flaw was that we didn’t continue being a unique squad with a different offensive mindset. Here’s a fun little secret: the NFL has trouble defending College Football play or anything different. The recent Patriots team was a great example as a mediocre team made the Super Bowl because tight ends suddenly became throwing targets, and everyone else struggled to adjust to that. If Gronkowski had been healthy against the Giants, we would have had a totally different ballgame. But back to the Dolphins and losing their identity as a scrambling running squad that likes to mix it up a little. We can get some of that energy and fun back if we perform a simple trade. Well, not simple, but one that can result in the Dolphins becoming a dominant team again. Hint: It involves Peyton Manning. Sort of.

The Colts need help, desperately. Their defense stinks, they have no offense, the offensive line crumbles like cookies in milk, and they just don’t have a leader or a go-to man. They are getting Andrew Luck unless they firmly believe in making sure their team never ever wins again. Guess what, Luck and Manning cannot work together, not happening. Not saying either is a prick, but Manning wants another Super Bowl ring and his time is running out. Andrew Luck will probably want to run this team immediately ala Cam Newton-style. The more time Peyton Manning spends as the leader of the Colts, the more hindering of progress will occur to Luck. Manning has to go, most unfortunately. In order to move forward, the Colts must part ways with the main player that has made them relevant in the last 10-12 years.

The Dolphins have been interested in Manning for a while now, as he is a very valuable asset despite his rising age. If Peyton Manning has a good offensive line, then he can still do some damage. In the trade market, he’s worth a couple good defensive players and whatnot. Teams that he would fit well with: Dolphins, Chargers, Jets, 49ers, and lastly the other team involved with my dream trade—the Denver Broncos.

Ah, the Broncos. John Elway would probably salivate over the possibility of Peyton joining the Mile High city. And he hates Tim Tebow with an absolute passion that can be heard underneath his few words of encouragement. Even if Tebow improves slightly as a passer (and more as an Act of God) he will still look mediocre in Elway’s eyes. And the coaching staff also would much rather see someone else running the show—they even picked the pitiful Kyle Orton over Tebow in the earlier part of the season. So here’s what we have now: the Dolphins need a quarterback, the Colts need help, and the Broncos want to part ways with Tebow as quietly and swiftly as possible.

Now comes the magic: the Dolphins should trade a few draft picks (we usually waste them anyway) and a few players for Peyton Manning. Then the Miami Dolphins should trade Peyton Manning to the Denver Broncos for Tim Tebow straight-up. A Manning-for-Tebow trade wouldn’t work since the Colts will have Luck. But if the Dolphins grab that playing card, they have a very good hand to deal. None of the three teams will have to give up too much, and since they are all in different divisions there will be minimal conflict of interest.

Everyone wins here: the Colts get a few building block pieces to support Andrew Luck and eliminate the Manning contract. The Dolphins get Tim Tebow, whom is one of the better running quarterbacks in the NFL and will do wonders with a newly-formed Wildcat offense—plus it will improve a dying fanbase. The Denver Broncos will have their veteran quarterback that Elway and co. prefers over everything else—plus it won’t piss off the fanbase too badly that they eliminated Tebow. Tim Tebow wins because he will be back in Florida where he grew up and studied, and will definitely play for a group of people that truly madly deeply love him. Gotta love the SEC pride. Peyton Manning wins because he will get to play in an easier division plus will get plenty of protection and a larger window of opportunity to make the playoffs.

This trade may not happen, but the possibility is definitely there, and I don’t see any negatives coming from all this. The Colts and Dolphins have nothing to lose, since they are staring at the bottom of their division regardless. The Broncos, despite winning the division, still needs plenty of room to grow to compete with the yearly juggernauts Steelers, Ravens, and Patriots---and will have that boost by getting a hungry future Hall of Famer. While three-team NFL trades are definitely rare, especially when compared to the other professional leagues, but this is one with few strings attached, few drawbacks, and little sacrifice. Best of all, all three teams improve, especially my Miami Dolphins. I’ve said in the past that we should have gotten Tebow by any means necessary and should still try to get him, and this trade will definitely make the dream a reality.

Bringing Oscar to Hollywood Studios

2012-02-08T20:32:00.000-08:00

So we are less than a month from the Academy Awards and there’s an interesting thing happening at the Hollywood Studios: nothing. Absolutely nothing. The park with the Hollywood theme, early 1900s Hollywood vibe, Great MOVIE Ride in the center isn’t pulling anything special for the Academy Award season. No red carpet, no subtle changes to some of the area to match the season, nothing at all. This is nothing new; after all I am pretty sure Hollywood hasn’t done anything at all to celebrate the Oscars since 1989. But isn’t it time that they do something about it?

This park is now the least-attended of the four major Disney World parks. Star Wars Weekends is losing some appeal, the ESPN Weekend is totally null and void, and there hasn’t been an outstanding new attraction since Toy Story Mania many years ago. If someone brings up American Idol we will have problems. But one way we can definitely breathe some life into this park is by creating some exciting events similar to how Epcot spices its attendance with the Flower and Garden and Food and Wine Festivals. I propose 28 Days of Oscar.

What I would do is throughout February you spice up the Hollywood Studios with new features, shows, and events involving the upcoming Academy Awards, which are usually done at the end of February. Before the Oscars, you can use the Premiere Theater and continuously show the most popular movies that have won Academy Awards. They can range from modern Oscar-winning classics like Forrest Gump and Spirited Away to older classics like Casablanca, Mary Poppins, Gone With the Wind, etc. In the Drew Carey theater, you can do Oscar trivia games where guests can earn prizes and whatnot. Inside what used to be the Narnia exhibit can be an Oscar exhibit which showcases all the films in the Disney/Touchstone line that has won Academy Awards over the years.

The Citizens of Hollywood can do special Oscar-themed games and events throughout the day to commemorate the upcoming telecast. You can even change the music around the Great Movie Ride area to play music from every film that has won for Best Original Score. I know that certain competing companies might complain a little but there are over 80 years of music to go through, I am sure we got the background music part covered. In the Animation area they can play original scores from animated movies that won the Oscar (Up, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Mary Poppins, etc.).

Lastly, the Fantasmic stage can be used to create a great montage of Oscar-winning films past and present. Set to music, a few special effects here and there, and plenty of Oscar flair, we can create a 30-minute experience that shows us all of the wonderful Oscar-winning moments we grew up with and love. What better way to celebrate the Oscar winners past and present than with a grandiose presentation in the Fantasmic area? Yes I know the stage is for Fantasmic, but this area has so much potential for other events. For those that know me best know I've been drooling for a Star Wars-like show during their Weekends.

Anyway, back on topic. The big night. Oscar night.

On Oscar night they should hold a very special ceremony for guests that are willing to pay a little extra. We can re-create Hollywood by rolling out an actual massive red carpet stretching from the front of the park to the Chinese Theater. Select guests that decide to participate will show up in their very best dressed ways and will walk down the carpet with the Citizens of Hollywood (and the Photopass team) posing as paparazzi and reporters. Inside the Chinese Theater they can watch the Oscars and are treated to an all-you-can-eat banquet inside the area throughout the Academy Awards. I have never been a fan of separate-ticketed events but this event is much too small for every random guest to enjoy.

But the regular guests will not be left totally in the dark. They can witness the well-dressed guests walking the red carpet, but will also be allowed to watch the Academy Awards from multiple locations including the American Idol screens inside and outside, the Premiere Theater, inside some of the quick-service restaurants, and of course, the Hollywood Brown Derby. On this night Hollywood Studios can stay open normally until 5:00, re-open at 6:00 with all the additional changes, and run until 11:00 at night, when the Oscar usually finishes.

Most of these changes are low-key, but can definitely spice up a park that has seen better days in the past. What once used to dominate the four parks in terms of events (Soap Weekend, Star Wars Weekend, ESPN Weekend) has really calmed down lately. Hollywood Studios has the space, themeing, and ability to re-create the park into a temporary Academy Award shrine and can re-create some of the hype and fun of attending the Oscars on the other side of the country. Remember, in Disney its all about the small details, so why not dedicate a month to celebrating movies that are associated with Oscar gold? It would definitely give repeat visitors a reason to return to Hollywood Studios in February. And best of all can bring back some of the original theme to the park: celebrating the movies.

Super Bowl XLVI Hangover

2012-02-06T05:44:00.000-08:00

Now that the dust has settled, here are my random thoughts about last night’s Super Bowl:

1) Madonna did decent, but she is not the right performer to get us amped up for the second half. I really think we need a louder rock band rockin’ the halftime show next year. Motley Crue’s cameo in a commercial was more football-related energetic than Madonna singing ‘Music.” Me and my brother propose some Battle of the Bands-type Halftime Show.

2) M.I.A. flipping the bird. The life of a one-hit wonder…..

3) Wes Welker should have caught that ball. Brady in the 4th quarter threw at least four good passes that were dropped. Not sure why Boston has become Choke City in recent years (Bruins, Patriots, Red Sox multiple times). Welker should have caught it and it bears repeating. The game would have been over if he had made that clearly catchable catch. I don’t like blaming one said person for the loss of the Super Bowl, but Welker…..there is no excuse.

4) Eli Manning is the luckiest s.o.b. quarterback I have ever seen. Two Super Bowls that were won because of awesome catches that were done with mediocre throws. I will never believe that Eli is even close to the level of Peyton, its just never going to happen. The Giants overall are just a far superior franchise as compared to the Colts. The Giants have always had far better defense, far better receivers, and far better support.

5) One minute left in the game, two timeouts left, 1st and goal. Why on earth did the Patriots not let this team just score and get the ball back as soon as possible? The Giants were going to take the lead anyway, they were going to run the clock. Why not just give them the 7 points and get right back to work? The defense of the Patriots have been a letdown for the last couple years, it’s the offense that has always propelled them to wins. Instead, inexplicably, they tried to play defense, were forced to call a timeout, and decided one play later to let them score. If I were the Patriots, I would throw them at the end zone and just hope for a game-winning drive.

6) This was a good Super Bowl, it was a nice tough game, and it didn’t have much stupidity. The Giants definitely deserve to celebrate, while the Patriots deserve to go home empty.

7) Eli……..2 Super Bowl rings, Dan Marino none…………..ugh…………………………………………..

8) This was my favorite commercial

9) Have a nice day everybody

Post-Note: Go Dolphins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's go get Tim Tebow from the I-Hate-Tebow John Elway's Broncos.

The 10 Biggest Snubs of the 2012 Academy Awards

2012-01-30T20:49:00.000-08:00

The Oscar nominations have been revealed and to be honest I am not as excited about this batch of movies as I have for previous years. But of course since it’s the Oscars, they always have their wonderful share of snubs, omissions, and disappointing choices. And here I am to rank what I think are the most disappointing snubs of this upcoming Academy Awards.

Note: Hans Zimmer decided not to compete this year, which means the fourth Pirates and Rango did not have a shot at Best Original Score. Although the fourth Pirates wasn’t too great, Rango definitely had a great chance of winning the entire thing. It’s a shame.

#10: Andy Sarkis
Did Not Get: Best Actor or Supporting Actor

He played the role of King Kong, Gollum, and Caesar of the latest Planet of the Apes. All phenomenal performances and none of them will have a shot at the Best Actor. This is a shame though, because he does bring plenty of life into these roles that not every actor can pull off. While I do believe he should not walk away with the big prize, he should at least have gotten a nomination after nearly a decade of excellent motion-capture work—from Lord of the Rings to Adventures of Tintin.

#9: Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Did Not Get: Best Picture

David Fincher is pretty much officially too underground for the Academy. With Fight Club, Seven, and Social Network under his belt, you would think he would finally get his Oscar opportunity with yet another highly acclaimed dark film, right? Well, unfortunately, the Academy was not feeling the darkness this year, as only one rated-R movie got a Best Picture nom (and it’s the Hawaii-backdrop The Descendants) . Total shame because Fincher (and Rooney Mara) went the whole nine yards with this production.

#8: Rango
Did Not Get: Best Screenplay

Westerns have been pretty much dead since Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven. The Academy thinks so as well as the genre hasn’t seen much Oscar gold in decades and even those with glimpses of Westernness don’t find success. Just ask Tarantino and what happened to Kill Bill Vol. 2, arguably the best film of the 2000s. Rango is also on that boat as despite being one of the 10 best films of the year didn’t get the Best Picture nod, and more inexcusable, the screenplay nod. This movie was an adult film wrapped in a kids film body with plenty of subtle nods to the classic Westerns of the 50s and 60s while at the same time giving it a fun modern edge.

#7: The Adventures of Tintin
Did Not Get: Best Film Editing

Motion-capture is not easy to pull off, and I can guarantee you its even tougher to pull off when the film happens to be an action/adventure one. The Adventures of Tintin had a phenomenal set of great action pieces, and each of them are paced so crisply, so quickly you barely have time to breathe in between moments. A lot of detail and care was given to those action scenes and the editing team should at least have gotten a nod for it.

#6: Rango
Did Not Get: Best Song

Only two songs were nominated. Couldn’t this song have gotten a chance? Its catchy, its fun, and its full of spaghetti western flavor. Come on, only two songs were nominated!! What gives?

#5: Alan Rickman
Did Not Get: Best Supporting Actor

Alan Rickman has not been nominated for a single Academy Award, and this is a major disgrace. Of all the actors and actresses that successfully translated the Harry Potter books into decent films (with the exception of Half-Blood Prince, ugh), Alan Rickman’s portrayal as the mysterious Snape was by far the best and most compelling. And considering what his character goes through in the final film, Rickman did not disappoint by unveiling the softer and much more tragic side of the usually-polarizing character.

#4: Bridesmaids
Did Not Get: Best Screenplay

It was a zany script that was very funny, very heartfelt, and runs a bit deeper than your average comedy. But just like the original Hangover, originality and subtle depth does not get recognition if it has the raunchy R-rated humor attached to it. This is what happened to other great R-rated comedies like There’s Something About Mary, Caddyshack (seriously), The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Animal House, and National Lampoon’s Vacation. The similarity between all these movies? All great comedic classics, no Oscar gold whatsoever.

#3: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Did Not Get: Best Picture

We have spent countless years watching these characters develop, grow up, age, evolve, and further embed themselves in our lives. The last entry of the Harry Potter saga was a well-received one, as the franchise ended on a good quality note (despite the few little tiffs I have with it). And what most of us expected here would be a similar move to what the Oscars did with Return of the King---finally give it some Oscar recognition not for the film, but symbolically for the entire franchise. Sadly, the Oscars were not as heartfelt and didn’t reward Harry Potter with anything past a few technical nods. Harry Potter gave us two mediocre films, three decent films, and three fantastic ones (Goblet of Fire is still in my opinion the best). Isn’t it time they finally get at least, at the very least, get a Best Picture nod? Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire I believe were snubbed, and sadly, it happened again this year.

#2: The Adventures of Tintin
Did Not Get: Best Animated Feature

Let’s see. Great direction from the master Steven Spielberg. Script by (among others) Edgar Wright. Production work by Peter Jackson. Great motion-capture work. Superb casting. Plenty of action and humor throughout. Has the imaginative movie magic we just don’t see in the movies anymore. Got rave reviews from most of the critics. Won the Golden Globe for Best Animated Movie. But…..no Animated Film Nomination!?!?!? Puss in Boots got one before you did? Riiiiiiiight.

#1: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Did Not Get: Best Actor

50/50 was one of the best and most heartbreaking films of the year. Dealing with a young healthy adult that suddenly develops a rare cancer, Joseph Gordon-Levitt owned the role as the main character by giving us the many different layers and emotions that a cancer victim goes through during the battle, and during the mental and physical therapy. Gordon-Levitt has been a phenomenal actor and has given us phenomenal work in the past decade ranging from indie flicks like Brick and Manic to sleeper hits like 500 Days of Summer and Inception. But not a single nomination. Not one. The other omissions can be slightly justified, but Gordon-Levitt’s snub is inexcusable. He carried this film past its flaws and gave us a very entertaining and moving performance that made us moviegoers laugh as well as drive us to tears. He’s one of the best talents in Hollywood, and its about time the Academy recognizes this.

P.S. Jackie Chan still doesn’t have an Oscar. Ugh…

Hollywood Studios: Disney World's Weakest Park

2012-01-26T11:51:00.000-08:00

Before I point this out, I just want to say that all my negativity in this article has nothing to do with the outstanding ensemble of cast members that we have working in the Hollywood Studios. Before I point this out, it has nothing to do with the folks that are out there day in and day out, providing magic. Okay, here it goes. Hollywood Studios sucks. As a park, its totally devoid of a consistent theme, doesn’t have enough activities, hasn’t evolved as much as the other parks, and needs a major major overhaul that the higher ups are not acknowledging. The attendance of this park has dwindled and now it’s the least-attended Disney park in Orlando. Granted this park still beats Universal Studios (Had to throw that in there); its guest count lead on the competitive Hollywood parks has quietly been dying. Hollywood Studios as a park is officially the weakest of the four and I am about to explain why.

We can start with theming, alright? What is Hollywood Studios’ theme? Movies? Because we don’t see much emphasis on that anymore with the inclusion of American Idol and Toy Story Mania (which is based off a movie, but isn’t about a movie). Hollywood? Because besides the front of the park there isn’t much Hollywood going on. And let’s focus on the front of the park now. It is supposed to represent the olden days of Hollywood, yet we get a dismal flash mob in the front of the park before the parade, and then have the inappropriately placed Rock n’ Roller Coaster next to an old-school hotel. And then (this one is a bit pickier) we have the citizens of Hollywood sporting microphones next to their face, eliminating the sense that these characters are from the early 1900s. We’ve progressed far enough in technology, there is a way to put invisible microphones in their clothes—there’s no need to make them look like they are in a NASCAR race.

The theme totally dies when approaching the hat. We have the awful American Idol on the left, which should cease to exist as soon as possible. And even if we are pushing for a television-section in the park, American Idol is not the way to go. Unless they make it accessible for everyone to sing (among other changes I had pointed out before), it’s going to remain a mediocre scar on the park. Next door to that we have plenty of space but no movement, as Drew Carey’s attraction was the right idea, wrongfully executed. I can see the Jedi Training Academy show being moved in there, or maybe a sketch show getting a place in there. Or if we want to return back to the theme of the movies, do a variety of special/visual effects presentation in there (sadly, it might be Avatar-themed down the road).

Then there’s the hat. The hat has nothing to do with Hollywood, what are you doing in there? And in front of the former symbol, which is a movie theater?!?!? Now let’s discuss Great Movie Ride: isn’t it about time we change it? The show runs at least 25 minutes, so that’s plenty of material space that can be changed/altered/deleted/removed/eliminated. It baffles me that it hasn’t become a ride that showcases how far along we’ve come in the movies. If it were up to me, I’d start with Charlie Chaplain and run through each decade and display the movie that best resembles that decade---Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Sound of Music, Godfather, etc.

We are just getting started. Pixar Place is where my next gripe is going to be. We as the public are not allowed to enter Pixar’s facilities in Cali unless we work there. But wouldn’t it be cool to have an Art of Pixar gallery, or at least a few glimpse into Pixar’s future? The Narnia building (which should have burned down forever ago) is prime location for such a thing. Next door to Toy Story Mania is a building that has not been used in 7-10 years. Continuing ahead we have the backlot tour, which has not been changed in years. And then after that we have the Streets of America, which provide no purpose whatsoever except in the winter time.

If you want more evidence that the Imagineers seemed to have given up with this park: we have Pizza Planet and Toy Story Mania on opposite sides of the park. We have the Backlot Tour and Backlot Express on opposite sides---even though there is a quick service place next to the Tour that can be renamed just for the sake of geographically being less confusing. The Cars characters and Buzz and Woody are from Pixar, so why are they also on opposite ends of the spectrum? Couldn’t we just, you know, group them up? Phenias and Ferb, a very popular kids cartoon is on the opposite side of the Disney Animation building and the Disney Junior show. I can guarantee you no other Disney park is as geographically and inexplicably confusing.

Lack of changes also mars this park. The Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular has not changed since 1989 (That’s over 20 years for anyone keeping track), making it arguably one of the few Disney attractions to go through over two decades without changing anything. Backlot Tour hasn’t changed in forever either. Great Movie Ride as I’ve said before has been the same for ions. Muppets 3-D is a classic…but…should probably change a little. Tower of Terror has done a great job in providing different thrills, but Rock n’ Roller coaster has remained the same, even though there are over 30 years of Aerosmith music to run through. And for the sake of others, would it kill them to install a couple jukeboxes to allow guests to pick music to listen to while waiting in the queue line? And lastly, wouldn’t it be nice to change the music inside the ride to match the music of a musician when it’s their birthday? I’d like to hear music from Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Carlos Santana, and others when they are celebrating a birthday. Lastly, Beauty and the Beast. Isn’t it about time to make this show a little more….accurate to the film?

This park needs more movie-related material, more from the old-school days and much more from the modern days. A new Indiana Jones ride would be awesome; a new Star Wars roller coaster would be nice. Hell, Phenias and Ferb has two episodes dedicated to the building of a roller coaster---can we get a kids coaster? Can we get a martial arts stunt show? Another Broadway show? To be honest, I don’t have the answers on how to fix this park (although I tried before), but one thing is certain, this park it a lot of unmet potential. Bringing the movies to life is a grandiose idea, but Disney has drifted far away from that theming and focused more on other aspects not related to Hollywood.

As a Disney fan, I will admit, Hollywood Studios stinks. And needs a big change and shift back to what it was supposed to be: the past, present, and future of the cinematic world being brought to life.

The Better Late Than Never Tourism Plan

2012-01-20T18:35:00.001-08:00

Obama was in Magic Kingdom recently to announce that he plans on expanding the tourism industry by making it easier to travel the US of A. He mentioned rising countries like Brazil, China, India, and Israel that still have trouble traveling to the United States receiving some help in fixing this issue in the near future. He also points out that those whom travel often will have a quicker way of going through the nuisances of the airport. It was a short and sweet speech that discussed one of the most important economical foundations of the United States, which is tourism. President Obama won’t admit it, but the tourism industry outside the Disney World area and arguably New York City has been in the negatives pretty much.

The United States used to be one of the tourist hotspots in the world but in recent years because of a multitude of reasons the appeal of the United States has diminished severely. Hell, we have national cruise ship sales on the increase in recent years, which by the way are trips LEAVING the country. Not to sound biased, but honestly Orlando has been one of the few exceptions to the rule, as Disney has remained on top for attendance numbers, and we have Universal Studios nearly doubling in popularity in recent years. So is Obama’s plan a good one? Of course, but one problem, it should have happened a very long time ago especially when the economy was beginning to suck.

In my opinion there are three main things that will always make money in this country no matter what the circumstances: drugs (shut up and accept it), sports, and tourism. All the U.S. has to do is not make it such a pain in the butt to travel and I can guarantee you we will see a consistent flow of money. Vacations are a part of life just like breathing, so it’s not like people aren’t willing to go elsewhere to escape. But flying from place to place needs to be easier; we need to fix the lines, the annoyances, everything. I used to say that there should be a way for us to be able to send in our luggage one day in advance so it’s one less hassle to have to deal with. How will this be accomplished you ask? No idea, but wouldn’t that be nice?

Most important, the tall walls of the United States borders need to come down and we need to be much more inviting to other nations. What kind of message are we sending about trying to spread peace if we make it easy for some nations to visit, while a grueling marathon for others? Brazil is the most baffling example. This country has been explosive in its economy, actually developing a middle class, and has become appealing enough to nab a World Cup and the Olympics within the next 6 years. Brazil would be the first country that I’d focus on, as they absolutely love the East Coast---Miami, Orlando, and New York can agree with me.

But Brazil isn’t the only one. I am pretty sure all of South America gets the shaft as they don’t get the open traveling benefits of the Europeans, and that must change. Argentina, Chile, Columbia, Venezuela, Peru, and Uruguay are nations that also enjoy visiting the Hispanic-friendly confides of Florida, and I can see a nice increase of tourism if we make their Visa-acquiring lives a little easier.

We do need to always play it safe, but we also need to stop living in the past. It’s a new decade, a new generation, its time for change. Its time to embrace other cultures. And one way to start is by allowing other cultures to visit ours and with minimal pain, wait, money, and hassle. So Obama, Congress, Washington, get it done. Make tourism (more) prevalent again.

P.S. Obama, if you really wanted to score some points, you should not have limited the amount of people that could see your speech in front of the castle to a simple dirty dozen.

My Version of the Cowboy Bebop Movie

2012-01-16T21:40:00.000-08:00

For those that know me best, know that one of my most ambitious writing projects that I want to tackle is a live-action Cowboy Bebop movie. Cowboy Bebop remains my favorite anime because of its incredible blend of wonderful animation, spectacular music, great cast of characters, and the ability to remain three steps ahead of the audience. No two episodes are the same in tone, pacing, style, and content. While on the surface its bounty hunters in space, the anime dwells far deeper than that. So the question is how can I duplicate its random and unpredictable nature for the big screen? I think I have an idea.

Instead of Cowboy Bebop being one main plot, I would separate the movie into three smaller storylines that intertwine in the film. My movie starts off with a short scene that quickly reveals how our main characters do things in the bounty hunter business (It would be very similar to the intro to the animated movie of Cowboy Bebop). And then we’ll throw in the infamous theme song to run the opening credits. After that is where it gets interesting. I want three storylines to run after the credits—one involving Spike, one involving Jet, and one involving Faye. So it will resemble more the television show, focusing on smaller shorter stories as opposed to trying to create a long, long plot. The episodes would be 30-35 minutes each. Doing the math and adding the opening sequence time will make this movie around 105-115 minutes. Not bad, right?

Whom I want acting in the movie is a total mystery, as its going to be a massive challenge finding the right actors/actresses to portray the iconic roles. The one main one I have figured out is Spike, as I’ve narrowed it down to whether Michael Weatherly (from NCIS) or John Krasinski (The Office). As for Jet, only Kimbo Slice comes to mind (Google him, he can pull off that look), and I really doubt he would take this role...and I would doubt that he could pull off the role. But I do know who I would love to see directing this: Edgar Wright. His track record is phenomenal (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), and his attention to detail and hyper-kinetic editing style would work perfectly with the Cowboy Bebop look. As for the music, if I can’t get the original composer Yoko Kanno, I would use Michael Giacchino (The Incredibles), who already has experience working with bebop jazz for film.

This is where the fun begins. Now, I want to try something different. I would be writing one movie, but two different versions of said movie. 25 different states in the U.S. will get one version of Cowboy Bebop, and the rest of the country will get a totally different Cowboy Bebop. The totally different version will feature the same intro, but different opening credits, and three totally different episodes. To break it down:

On Release Date:

25 States Furthest East
Cowboy Bebop a
Spike Story 1
Jet Story 1
Faye Story 1

25 States Furthest West
Cowboy Bebop b
Spike Story 2
Jet Story 2
Faye Story 2

And then after several weeks, reverse the switch by giving the eastern states the b version of Cowboy Bebop, and give the western states the a version. So in the end, in a span of three months audiences nationwide will have essentially two Cowboy Bebop movies, six smaller episodes in the big screen overall. This will stir up fun confusion as well as add variety to the moviegoing experience. You’ll have one side of the country discuss a totally different movie from the other side, although they have the same title.

What are the storylines you say? And when in the chronological order will these adventures take place in? Not sure about the storylines but one thing is sure, I want them to be like your usual Cowboy Bebop episode---part of the canon but can also be viewed standalone and without much knowledge of the background of the characters involved. It’s not going to be easy, but I would love to hear the theme song blasting through the speakers in the movie theater before seeing a live-action variation of arguably the best anime of all-time.

Can you see it too?

Why Super Bowl XLVI Has to Be Patriots/Giants II

2012-01-16T13:06:00.000-08:00

Now that the Football Church of Tim Tebow is closed until later this fall and the Packers found the perfect time to forget how to run routes, the Final Four has been revealed for the NFL Playoffs. What we have left is the feisty Baltimore Ravens, the no-longer-cursed New England Patriots, the unexplainable San Francisco 49ers, and lastly the suddenly-decent-after-looking-like-crap-for-several-months New York Giants. It has been an interesting playoff season, as we have had upsets and surprises left and right. If there’s one thing that is certain though is what Super Bowl matchup we have to see by the end of this month: the New York Giants vs. the New England Patriots.

Seriously, Giants/Patriots II must occur. It is the only way. This will be the Super Bowl for the ages. The ratings, the hype, and the anticipation will be at its all-time high. It will be the Patriots trying to avenge the Perfect Season that Never Was, while we have the G-Men trying to prove that their Super Bowl win all those years ago wasn’t a stupid fluke that to this day I still claim it is. Both sides have plenty to avenge, plenty to lose, and plenty to prove. Both quarterbacks are trying to eliminate the past, and both teams are trying to re-prove themselves to the league. This Super Bowl has to happen. Seriously.

Let’s talk about the Patriots first. After Spygate in early 2007, a little curse marked the team as they became the greatest team in the history of football to not win the championship. Some will argue the 1998 Minnesota Vikings, but let’s save that for another topic. The Patriots did not play their usual game, and the Giants took advantage. All of the strengths of the Patriots practically disappeared on that infamous night—although they still had their shot at winning the game if it had not been for some poor decisions, and a lucky catch. The Helmet Catch. We all know what I am talking about.

After said Super Bowl, the Patriots actually couldn’t win a single game in the playoffs until this past Sunday when they beat the Broncos. The shadow of that Super Bowl to this day hangs over the Patriots because not only was it the last time they were at the big dance, but it was the last time we really really feared Brady and company. Even to this day they are not taken seriously, as we had the audacity to point out that the hapless Broncos had a chance to win in Foxboro. The Pats should have finished the season perfect; it was supposed to be their year. And not only did they lose that Super Bowl, it was against the worst team ever to win it all.

The New York Giants were a terrible team (who loses to the Redskins at home?!?!?!?!) that through strokes of luck went in the playoffs that year. Here’s a fun tidbit about the 2007 Giants: “The New York Giants lost to the Dallas Cowboys (twice), Green Bay Packers, and New England Patriots in the regular season but defeated them all in the post-season.” Does this mean the Giants got better as the year rolled on? No, it meant that the Giants faced teams that dropped the ball in every single playoff game. While we expect the Cowboys to always falter, the Giants went past the Bucs that slipped at the wrong moment, and even were able to enter Lambeau Field at 0 degrees and upset the Brett Farve Packers.

As you can tell, I remain unconvinced that the Giants deserved that Super Bowl ring, even if they were the last team standing. But I am not alone on that sentiment, as when we mention champs of the recent past we seem to overpass that Giants squad. It’s always mentioned that the Patriots lost that game as opposed to the Giants winning it. I don’t believe in Eli Manning, as he is a mediocre quarterback that has incredible receivers that make him look good. I don’t believe in that team, which have the luck of an old leprechaun and are always in an easier league of competition. Honestly, do you prefer playing the Packers, Cowboys and Falcons in the regular season? Or would you prefer facing the Patriots, Ravens, and Steelers? Yea, the Giants got it made, just like the Texas Rangers and the ridiculously easy division they get to play in when compared to the evil, cynical AL East. Bitter, party of one. Moving on.

And now we’ve come to the Final Four of this season. Can you imagine if the Patriots and Giants run into each other again? Can you imagine all the hatred, all the angst, all the chaos that is going to follow? This is the Patriots’ chance to totally obliterate the bitter taste of that infamous season. This would be their chance to have their payback against the team that has had their unjustified number ever since 2007. As for the Giants, this would be their “Tebow Time,” their opportunity to defy the odds, and once again prove the haters wrong. The G-Men can prove that their win back then was not a fluke, but just a consistent technique of winning it all—sucking at first, building momentum towards the end, and blind siding the competitors in the playoffs.

Brady/Evil Manning II would answer all the questions that have remained buzzing since that absolutely crazy night that actually threw Las Vegas in the negative (true story). Did the Patriots just choke at the absolute worst time? Or do the Giants have the secret magic needed to beat Tom Brady and company? Are the Giants of 2007 the team that got very lucky? Or are the Giants a franchise that every few years defy the odds and go the distance? Is Eli Manning a fluke quarterback? Or will this second win enable him to be uttered amongst the greats like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees? This game will finally put the final, true nail on the coffin of that night.

Yes, of course the Ravens and 49ers actually have to lose first, so all of this is premature speculation. That being said, wouldn’t you love a chance to see these two teams turn back the clock and reawaken old demons? I personally would love to see them square off once again. It could become the hottest rivalry in football, and they are in different conferences. And this is coming from a guy that was absolutely dreading a rematch between Alabama and LSU. That was boring, but Giants/Patriots II? Excitement to the max.

Super Bowl XLV: The Rematch.

I can see it now.

The Broken Championship

2012-01-10T19:37:00.001-08:00

Really? That was the championship game? A couple worthless field goals, a lifeless team, an uninspired touchdown? That was the great big rematch that we were anticipating? It wasn’t just that one team dominated the score, with Alabama scoring everything---it was the fact that this so-called #1 team, LSU, was utterly lifeless from the first minute to the last. This is your #1 squad? This is your #1 team? And Alabama, despite having their way with the other pitiful dead-heartbeat team, only pulled in 21 points....consisting of a multitude of field goals. The kicker had more success than the quarterback. Wait, that sounds familiar.

That was what happened the previous time they met earlier this season!! A field goalapalooza! And what makes it worse was that we had so many amazing games from truly dominating teams (and hungry teams) in previous Bowl Games, ranging from the pissed-off West Virginia to the much-more-pissed Boise State. And let's not forget the record-breaking numbers of West Virginia, Baylor, Washington. Those teams truly wanted to win, they played their hearts despite each knowing that they are in a broken, flawed, and miserable system. LSU played like total crap and pretty much wasted their pampered ticket to the big dance.

I want to believe that Alabama is truly the best team in the nation, and deserves that national title. At first I wanted LSU to win to avoid the controversy, that was until the end of the first quarter when it looked like they were lazily lollygagging through the biggest state in college football. But here's the truth: Alabama's loss in the season came against a team that really isn't that good-----and it took until this ugly championship game as proof. Oklahoma State lost one game, and that loss was after a horrible tragedy struck the school. Boise State in the past four years have lost three games by a total of just 5 points---and are even farther away from having a remote shot at a title. Stanford's only loss came against a nasty Oregon team--who scores about 40+ a game.

I want to believe that Alabama becoming #2 was justified, and eliminating LSU entitles them to becoming the top college football team in the land. But my mind can't accept that, not now, and probably not until we get that darn playoff system that only makes too much sense. If there is any evidence that states that we need a playoff badly, desperately, truly, madly, deeply, it was last night’s awful fiasco. It was a bad game. An ugly game. A boring game. And there was nothing the ESPN analysts and commentators could provide that would tell me otherwise.

The ranking system is probably still necessary to create the seeds (although the way we rank the teams should also be fixed) but the top teams all deserve a final shot at the final game. Top 8, Top 16, something, anything, for goodness sakes. We need momentum in this sport, we need a scheduling drive of some sort. Bowl games should whether be extremely limited or fully eliminated. If it were up to me, the top couple teams from each division (or top 16 ranked teams) should compete in a one-game-winner-takes-all playoff. Last team standing wins, and it will finally be fair and justified because they all had their chance, instead of us embezzled in the Woulda' Coulda' Shoulda' thoughts.

Bottom Line: This is most likely me overreacting to this game since the misery is still fresh in my mind. But one thing is certain, the uneasy feeling circling around the college football champs in recent years has been increasing dramatically. Its no longer just the SEC and Big 10 crafting a plethora of decent teams. We have Stanford, we have TCU, we have Boise State, we have West Virginia (among others) suddenly creating ripples in the competition. And until we craft a playoff that blends all these teams together, we will be stuck with an unfair system that we do not trust, and champs that we do not believe in.

I believed that the Packers, Mavericks, Bruins, and Cardinals are the champs of their leagues.

Alabama...not so much.

Let's fix this. Now.

Tale of an Underrated Baseball Player

2012-01-09T16:29:00.000-08:00

So we have this baseball player who used to play from 1979 to 2002. Played in 4 different decades for 7 different teams. He had his tough career of unfair salaries, drugs, illnesses, and underrated numbers.....and of course, playing for the Montreal Expos. Now, despite this he was a 7-time all-star, played for two World Series teams, was in the MVP race multiple years, runner-up in Rookie of the Year, won a Batting Title, and led the National League in stolen bases for four years in a row. Good stats, right?

It gets better. He holds the Expos/Nationals record for career singles, triples, walks, stolen bases, runs created and times on base. He has a .988 fielding percentage while also leading the league in double plays-----as an outfielder. He batted over .300 ball in five different seasons, while being amongst the top switch-hitters in hits, runs, walks, times on base, singles, doubles, triples, times on base, and several other categories. Good stats, right?

How about we throw in the fact that only four players in the history of baseball have stolen more bases than him, and not one of them have had a better success rate than this man. 808 stolen bases in total, which is 200 more than any current player in baseball. He stole over 70 bases six times, while at one point stealing 40 straight bases without getting caught. This man is the best lead-off hitter not named Rickey Henderson in the history of baseball.

So tell me, why is this man, Tim Raines, still NOT in the Hall of Fame?!???!?!?

My only post about the 2011-2012 NBA Season

2011-12-14T21:40:00.000-08:00

So with Chris Paul going to the Clippers for essentially nothing, this month has been quite possibly one of the dumbest amongst any sports league in the history of mainstream entertainment. Honestly, seriously, how much stupidity can possibly fit in a league? The dumbness of it all is exactly why I will not be watching this season of the NBA.
Now, this will be my only article about the NBA until the season is over, but here are all the instances in which the stupidity amongst the players, teams, and higher-ups in the league itself provide nothing but baffleness (not a word, I know) to the trained mind.

1) 50/50 Split is unfair…..
Players, what on earth is wrong with a 50/50 split!?!/ Never mind, I’m not even going to dwell on this one…what’s done is done..

2) The Lakers
Okay, I totally understand that the trade with the Hornets was extremely unfairly nixed. That I understand. But why in the heck do you trade arguably your third best player to the team that totally annihilated your arse the previous season? And for nothing. You just made your blood rivals even stronger, and gave them even more reason to destroy you this season. Now Odom is pissed, Kobe is pissed, the Lakers are weaker, and the Mavericks are stronger. This trade was unnecessary, pointless, and dumb.

3) J.J. Barea
You win a championship with the Mavericks, the Lakers can’t seem to catch a break, and most of your team is remaining intact. And…..you sign with the Timberwolves for four years, a franchise that just might die within the next year. A franchise that has not done anything useful since…2004. I hope money equals happiness in your life, because playing in Minnesota wont deliver that.

4) Dwight Howard
You want to leave. You want to stay. You love Orlando. You hate Orlando. You want to play for a contender. You mention New Jersey. Dwight Howard is one of the best players in the NBA, and is worth every penny, but he has become a total nuisance. He loves Orlando but not enough to swallow the pill of constant defeat (which will continue to happen if we have the same GM) .

5) Orlando Magic
With all their stupidity, they don’t deserve Howard. In the past couple seasons you give up nearly your entire roster of the team that TOOK YOU TO THE NBA FINALS, traded away a disappointing-but-still-decent Rashard Lewis for a I-will-never-succeed Gilbert Arenas, signed an aging Vince Carter, traded away Howard’s ONLY backup center, traded with the Suns and did NOT get Steve Nash, and let me repeat this, traded FOR GILBERT ARENAS. And you thought about getting that overrated trash Bynum from the Lakers (among other players) for Dwight Howard? And you signed Big Baby Davis?!?! No wonder this franchise is going down the crapper.

6) David Stern

7) David Stern

8) David Stern
You deserve three spots for your hail mary of stupidness. You rejected a legit deal from the Lakers and Rockets for no particular reason whatsoever, yet allow the Hornets to get essentially nothing and trade Paul to the Clippers, the one team that shares their home with the bigger, older, and more handsome brother Lakers. You do know L.A. is going to flip out right? You do know that the Hornets now pretty much have no future...not for a couple of years. You do know you just added to the conspiracy theorists about the evilness of the NBA, right? And lastly, you do know that you just busted the plans of multiple franchises with one unfair swoop, right? I am going to repeat this: the Lakers trade was a legit one.

David Stern, you were a no-nonsense commissioner back in the day. What happened?

Once again, I am done. I will sit through the rest of the rather-boring NFL season and wait for baseball next spring.

My its been a while

2011-12-12T12:11:00.000-08:00

I will resort back to writing in the near future. it has been a tough past couple of months.

The Tampa Bay Rays and Baseball's Circle of Life

2011-10-04T17:11:00.000-07:00

I have a movie idea that actually developed during the crazy September races. Its going to be about a 1899 baseball team. There was a ballclub back in the 1890s called the Cleveland Spiders, which was not drawing good attendance figures for several years. The owners spent decent money, and even won a championship with this team several years earlier---but the people just weren’t showing up, and they just weren’t making enough money. So in a pure act of revenge, these two owners buy a second baseball team in the same exact league (St. Louis Perfectos, eventually becoming the St. Louis Cardinals), transfer all the excellent players to said new team, and spit up a bunch of minor league misfits to play for the Spiders.

The Spiders went on to become the worst baseball team in the sport’s excellent and lengthy history with a 20-134 record, with a TOTAL attendance of 3,179 people----most likely also the worst in the history of baseball. All of this is true, but I am going to spice things up with a bit of fiction. My movie (The Series) will be about the last four games of the Cleveland Spiders’ season, which happens to be against the St. Louis Cardinals, a team fighting for a playoff spot, that second team that shares the same owner. The bulk of the movie will be the Cleveland Spiders trying to play spoilers as a pure attempted act of revenge against the owners and their new franchise---especially after learning that the team will dissipate after the season.

Now, the script idea dwells deeper than just an extremely tense and hostile 4-game series which sees all of baseball wanting to see the Cardinals go in—it looks upon the relationship between fans, and owners, and players. How much blame should be placed on the owners for a dying team if the fans don’t show up? How much blame should be placed on the fans for not providing enough revenue to keep a team competing in the Major Leagues? And lastly, how can you blame the team for an incompetent season if they have no fans, no light at the end of the tunnel, no momentum? Is the failure/success of a season dependent totally on just the team? Or is it a collective effort from the fans, owners, players, and ultimately the city?

Part of this argument that eventually sets the themes of my baseball movie comes from the 2011 season of the Tampa Bay Rays. This squad lost at least 12 players between the end of last season and the first week of the new season. Worst of all, they were most of our better players, the players that helped the organization win the AL East in 2010. This happened because lower attendance numbers for the millionth season in a row prompted for the owner to cut costs heavily, not allowing for the Rays to re-sign all of the players prepared to head elsewhere. While losing Carl Crawford and Raphael Soriano was inevitable, losing the smaller key players like Grant Balfour, Tony Pena (despite a miserable average, still provided power numbers), Matt Garza, Benoit, among others hurt a bit more. There was no way this team was going anywhere. They were predicted to remain dead last in the AL East, especially after losing the first six games.

A funny thing happened: the Rays made a run. They were first place in May, and lingered throughout the standings throughout the summer. The trading deadline was upon us, but because of the still-depleting attendance figures and the owners being intent on maintaining their minimal budget, we didn’t make a move. Nothing. No push to trade the valuable Upton, no trading Shields even though we had several starters and one in the minors ready to jump in, and no attempts for a move to make a true push. While the Rays were a decent team, they still had a struggling offense that was constantly being bailed out by the phenomenal pitching. Adam Dunn was available. Hunter Pence was available. Despite the longshot, Prince Fielder was available. A lot of availability out there, but nothing happened.

We can call this Rays team a pure miracle. The owners gave up on them (secretly), all the pundits gave up on them, the fans gave up on them (15%+ attendance drop this season), ESPN gave up on them, and overall baseball gave up on them. They were reduced to being the thorns on the sides of the Yankees and Red Sox, as this Tampa team always plays them tough. We rose from being a thorn and became a playoff team despite being down 9 games in September, despite being nearly eliminated almost every day in late September, and despite having a plethora of rookies and leftovers running the show. Originally, the Rays were the team to look out for in terms of playing spoilers.

Instead, by pure miracle, heart, and determination, we stormed into the playoffs in the final game of the season after an intense battle against the Yankees. We had the guts the Yankees lacked, the heart the Red Sox lacked, and the pure determination that most of your higher-payroll teams could never develop. This wasn’t the best Rays team in history, but its definitely the team I was proudest of. As opposed to taking a step back in the season when we lost everyone, Joe Maddon pushed everyone to the brink and we entered the postseason regardless. Its just a shame the Cinderella story has ended. We lost to a better team; it’s as simple as that. The Texas Rangers gave us a good fight, and ultimately won.

Here’s the difference: their owner, Nolan Ryan, really wants to win. Ryan pulled out all the stops to change his team into an even stronger ballclub than the World Series team the year before:

• Esteban German, minor league deal, November 2010
• Yorvit Torrealba, two-year, $6.25MM signing, November 2010
• Endy Chavez, minor league signing, December 2010
• Adrian Beltre, five-year, $80MM signing January, 2011
• Mike Napoli, acquired from Blue Jays for Frank Francisco January 2011
• Koji Uehara, acquired from Orioles for Chris Davis and Tommy Hunter, July 2011
• Mike Adams, acquired from Padres for Joseph Wieland and Robert Erlin, July 2011
• Mike Gonzalez, acquired from Orioles for Pedro Strop, August 2011
• Matt Treanor, acquired from Royals, August 2011

So the question is, how good could this Rays team have been if we had gotten the same attention that owners and general managers give to the Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, Phillies, Dodgers, and Mets? Now I am not saying the Rays should spend as much as they do, but actually put an effort and make some moves, try to keep the roster that won a division title. We were honestly a few bats away from being a legitimate elite team. We were already one of the fastest teams in baseball, one of the best fielding teams in baseball, and have one of the strongest starting pitching rotations in baseball. What if the fans had shown up? What if that revenue started coming in? What if we got that one necessary big bat?

I am proud to death of this Rays organization for providing great baseball to middle Florida in recent years, especially this year. But, that being said, I can only ponder what type of team we’d be if we just had the money required, if we just had the slightly higher payroll. Look at the Brewers: not a team that spends a lot of money, but does spend, do pick up players, and do continue to maintain a fun fanbase. Now, they are one game away from going to the NLCS for the first time in who-knows-how-long. The scouts and coaches here have all the makings and talent of crafting a World Series-caliber team—we just need more care.

And so the argument persists: who are we to criticize the front office when we don’t show up to the games? Who are we to get mad when they don’t spend much when we don’t spend $10 to see a baseball game in an air conditioned (albeit, crappy) stadium? That’s what I plan on exploring when I (eventually) write the script for The Series. The Cleveland Spiders were constantly winning, yet nobody was showing up to the games. So, are the owners really the villains for setting their sights elsewhere? Or is it the fault of the fanbase? In a Circle of Life-like cycle, the fans depend on the team and to a smaller extent the owners, the team depends on the owners and slightly the fans to have the mental advantage, and the owners depend on the team and the fans significantly. No fans means no money, no money needs less of a chance to compete, and less of a chance leads to a weaker team or a team with minimal future---which leads to less fans watching. It’s a tough cycle the Rays are in, and unfortunately despite all the winning they can’t seem to escape the yearly uncertainty.

Tampa Bay Rays, I congratulate you from the bottom of my heart for a spectacular 2011 season that was never supposed to take off the way it did. Despite being 0-6 in the first week of baseball, despite losing the division lead in the summer, despite being 9 back in September, despite being 3+ back with less than 10 games left, and despite trailing 7-0, the Rays hung on and made the postseason in thrilling fashion. I couldn’t be prouder. Hopefully next season our fanbase will be better, leading to more popularity, leading to more money, and hopefully leading to more opportunity for the Rays to build the team necessary to win finally win the World Series. Joe Maddon deserves it, the front office deserves it, and the fans......well.......Joe Maddon deserves it.

Thanks for a wonderful season Rays, you brought me more amazing memories, and more reasons to forever be a big baseball fan.

Go Rays!!

Where is Super Mario 64 2 Anyway?

2011-09-25T20:23:00.001-07:00

In 1996, one of the greatest video games of all-time invaded stores and jump-started the Nintendo 64’s launch. Super Mario 64 would forever change the world of gaming by introducing a new look into 3-D gaming that would set the benchmark for the way platform, adventure, and all 3-D games are made. After years of rumors of a Super Mario 64 2, instead we wait until the Nintendo Gamecube to get another massive Mario adventure. Super Mario Sunshine wasn’t the best of the main Mario titles, but still has its share of fun.

And with the Wii we receive two gems, two masterpieces, two instant classics that tested the graphical and creative limits of the folks at Nintendo. Super Mario Galaxy 2 at one point was placed in a tie as my favorite Mario game, although nowadays it will quietly maintain itself in the top 5. And then we also got the ultra-selling New Mario Bros. franchise that has sold over 48 million copies on two systems. That being said....it has been over 15 years and we still haven’t had a true blue sequel to Super Mario 64. And I am about to explain why, and I am about to explain why it’s been too long and it should happen.

Super Mario 64’s playcontrol has remained the most underrated aspect of the game. Mario 64 has over 30 different moves that you can perform. And remember this was back in 1996, his arsenal of moves were far advanced from the norm. For starters you can choose to walk, run, or crawl. If you were to very lightly move Mario in a certain direction he can even do a sneaky kind of walk. You can jump, double-jump, triple-jump, long jump, backflip, cartwheel, punch, double-punch, kick, wall kick, low kick, high kick, stomp, slide, somersault, climb, do a handstand, sidestep, dive, swim, spin, and just so much more. And this is the list of moves without getting a power-up.

While all of this seems trivial, remember this: Grand Theft Auto to this day still prevents their main characters from doing anything other than a weak combination of punching and kicking. It took over a decade since the debut of the franchise before their main character could even swim. Sonic still can’t do a quarter of the moves Mario did in Mario 64. And you know who else doesn’t do as many moves as Super Mario 64 Mario? Super Mario Sunshine Mario. Super Mario Galaxy Mario. New Super Mario Bros. Mario. And lastly, the upcoming Super Mario 3D Land Mario.

With Mario Sunshine, his waterpack prevented him from doing a variety of the moves from Mario 64. Surely he can hover above the ground with the water pack, but you are limited to the amount of different ways of finding the “stars.” In Super Mario 64, there were many different ways you could locate and collect the star, depending on what moves you were better at doing. Super Mario Galaxy was closer in matching the amount of moves in Mario 64, but still was held back because the Wiimote simply has less buttons. In terms of pure combat, Mario can only jump, throw stars, and spinning. That’s about it.

The 2-D Marios are also limited, but because of the limited space. With a dimension tucked away and not in the foreground, Mario is limited to running, jumping, and a few other moves. While 2-D Mario has come a long way since Super Mario World, he still doesn’t have a developed arsenal of 2-D moves. On a technicality, Yoshi’s Island offered you more moves to do. Super Mario 64 gives Mario the most freedom to run around and do whatever he pleased, defeat opponents however he pleased.

Super Mario 64’s freedom is what I honestly miss the most. And I don’t mean just the overworld either. Mario 64’s overworld was massive, as it consisted of the courtyard, the castle, and all the hidden layers of said castle. Remember reaching the balcony? Remember finding the basement? Remember finding hidden paintings inside the castle? There was so much to find, and you could roam around and dictate your pace while exploring. I never felt as free when running around Mario Sunshine and Mario Galaxy. And with Mario Galaxy 2 eliminating it altogether, that game just felt....smaller. Mario 64 was our first glimpse of what it would feel like if Super Mario had a Zelda-quantity adventure. And it felt good.

Even the levels themselves felt more Zelda and less 2-D Mario. Unlike what happened in the Galaxy games and also the Sunshine game to an extent, Mario 64’s stars could usually be collected in a different order. Not only that but the levels could mostly be explored in whatever order you desire---once you get enough stars. Remember the Hazy Maze Cave? Remember Gritzy Desert? Remember Rainbow Ride? These levels were huge, and extremely non-linear. If there was a flaw to Mario galaxy 2, its that sometimes the levels were a little linear, giving it more a 2-D Mario touch.

Bottom Line: We have had a lot of Mario games since the 1996 gaming jewel, but none have been a spiritual sequel. As opposed to expanding upon the adventurous, non-linear Super Mario style of gameplay, we get Mario with a water pack, we get Mario back in 2-D form, and we get Mario with a smaller set of moves in a new art style. And like I said before, don’t get me wrong, all the following Mario games were great in their own right, but none can become called true sequels. They don’t have the spirit of Super Mario 64, even if they have the Super Mario magic.

I want to see Super Mario in not just a larger environment, but a larger environment in which you can explore every single cranny of it. Of course Galaxy seems bigger, but the planets and stars themselves are a bit smaller than they could have been. Can you imagine if they had incorporated Mario 64 elements to Galaxy? We would have Mario exploring entire planets looking for stars. Imagine spending an entire gaming session browsing around a planet you just unlocked. Imagine a Mario game in which you leave the confides of the castle and explore the Mushroom Kingdom the size of an Elder Scrolls area. It might not be the direction that the Nintendo folks want to engage in, but it’s a direction I’d love to see explored at least once more. Give us at least one true, blue, sequel to Mario 64. Give Mario his freedom back. The WiiU can accomplish this. It’s just a matter of if Nintendo wants to.

So what is it? Mario 64 2? Or Super Mario Universe?

Nevermind: The Album that Musically Started the 90s

2011-09-20T21:51:00.000-07:00

It was 1991 and the music scene consisted of 80s pop crossing over to the new decade with minimal competition. Artists like Michael Jackson, Paula Abdul, Janet Jackson, Guns n’ Roses, Bon Jovi, and others rocked the 80s and were prepared to run away with the 90s as well. Pop pretty much dominated all as r&b had not yet really caught on; rap had just got only their second #1 hit in the Billboard charts in history (Ice, Ice, Baby), and rock music really was reduced to the glam rock that the underground was growing tired of. There had not been a big new musical wave since Led Zeppelin and the Arena Rock scene back in the mid-late 70s. Music at the time was sugar-coated candy that’s enjoyable in small bursts until the next new pop song comes along. And then came Nevermind.

It has been 20 years since Nirvana’s legendary breakthrough album quietly popped into stores and jump-started a new wave of music, a new sound, and a new voice for a generation that had been shunned musically for quite some time. Under their worldwide smash “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” Nirvana’s Nevermind became arguably the first alternative rock album to fluctuate away from the college and underground crowd and seep into the entire musical mainstream. And Nirvana didn’t just become a huge popular band, but opened the door for dozens of other rock bands that had been under-the-radar in the 80s and also for up-and-coming bands within the same region.

R.E.M., Metallica, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots, Weezer, Bush, Radiohead, Oasis (whether you guys like it or not punks), and Blur (among many many others) rose in popularity at around the same time period as Nevermind’s Billboard and worldwide reign. One band is coincidence. Two bands, perhaps coincidence. More than a dozen? Beginning of a revolution. Beginning of something new. Nevermind started out small and by the end of 1992 was outselling Michael Jackson’s latest album by a longshot. Not only did this instant smash destroy the career of many pop and rock acts, it would sell over 30 million copies worldwide and remains one of the most influential and important albums in the last 30 years. This album set the benchmark for the sound of 90s rock—alternative or not. The 90s didn’t start in 1990, but in 1991 when Nirvana truly arrived.

So just what makes this album so special? What allowed it to hit such a nerve in the music industry? Well, we can start with what listeners had been dealing with for years. 80s glam rock consisted of your overblown, over-produced music that had lyrics abut rampaging around, having fun, messing around with the ladies, taking drugs, among other crazy things everyone did in the 80s. Surely some of it was great (Van Halen anyone?) but none of this music truly touches the soul, truly strikes emotional nerves. Glam rock is to rock fans what pop music is to the mainstream---good, but ultimately forgettable candy-coated minutes of amusement to the ears. 80s metal actually was happening as a way to combat this glam rock---Metallica, Anthrax, Slayer, Iron Maiden, and others were playing music as loud, fast, and ferocious as possible to appeal to those sick of the Van Halen-Poison-Bon Jovi sound.

Nevermind’s sound consisted of music that you swear was played in a garage with no production value whatsoever. Three people were in this band: a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer; nothing more, nothing less. In an age when dozens of people worked on Michael Jackson’s music or when 5-6 people were involved in the same rock band, Nirvana’s simplified sound can be attributed to the fact that there was no rhythm guitar, no keyboard, no extra bassist, no extra drumming in the background, and very minimal cleansing of the guitars. That’s what grunge is, very distorted, very edgy, very raw rock music that is unpredictable, unfocused, unorganized, but just catchy enough to grab your attention and force you to adapt. They didn’t sound like a band set out to make ishloads of money, they sounded like a band that just loved to play. And they didn’t make music for the mainstream, the mainstream adapted to their music.

And they didn’t just play, they played from the heart. While they aren’t the first band to write all the lyrics with their hearts on the sleeves, they popularized the technique for a new generation. Glam rock avoided the emotions and tribulations of life; Nirvana hit it straight-on with full intentions. Vague and constantly-questionable lyrics plagued the entire album, as its mystique and vague aura of it all actually contributed to the unique sound that struck all the right nerves to a new generation of rock fans and wanna-be rock stars. Grunge isn’t ever limited to just one consistent sound either, Nevermind and the best grunge music out there (Pearl Jam’s Ten, Nirvana’s In Utero, Stone Temple Pilots’ Core) features a wide range of vocals, guitars, and moods.

Smells Like Teen Spirit is a 5-minute anti-everything medley that features a great guitar solo, a screaming finale, and a very catchy riff. Something in the Way is a purposely quiet tune that rarely ever increases in noise, as if they are performing this in a secluded, isolated part of town. Come as You Are is a guitar-heavy track that sounds like more bass than anything else, while incorporating a very slow pace and of course, vague lyrics. Drain You is a very dirty song in terms of production value, and for that it works well. In Bloom, arguably their best song in the album is an extremely ironic song about people singing along to songs despite not knowing what it means with an excellent guitar solo, a very catchy guitar/bass riff, and of course, a roller-coaster like transition between light and heavy sounds. And another one of my favorites, Lithium, is just a crazy sinister song with lyrics bouncing all over the place, a wide range of vocals and volumes, and all wrapped up with a great chorus.

The album has so many influential tracks, sounds, moments, and innovative techniques that to this very day we see bands constantly trying to hammer out the same type of sound produced in this made-for-$500,000 medley of Northwest rock. While most of its modern-day success can be attributed to the fact that Kurt Cobain became a martyr of the rock star life with his suicide, you can’t deny its power back when he was alive, Nirvana was alive and strong, and all these new bands were bursting with anticipation for a chance to shine. Massive musical revolutions like this one do not happen often (Beatlemania, Rise of British Metal in the 70s, Arena Rock /New Wave in the early 80s, The Backstreet Boys Pop Group Takeover of the late 90s, The Latin Revolution of 1999, the Flower Power Pop Scene of today) but it’s even rarer to see a whole portion of the population represent itself through the music of one band.

One can only imagine what would have happened if Kurt had stayed alive and been around for the continuing domination of alternative rock and the eventual rise of nu-metal. The question is would the music scene be totally different had Kurt Cobain not killed himself and brought down all these grunge bands with him? Would we have the music of today reigning supreme if Nirvana had still existed? Nirvana was a few steps away from becoming the next Beatles, whether you like it or not.

The Beatles, love them or hate them, definitely did not keep the same sound. They started out as a pop group and evolved into a psychedelic rock band in a mere couple of years. But as they evolved, their fans were intently following, eating up any music the Beatles were throwing at them. That band couldn't miss. Despite their eternal influence on an entire generation of people, the band barely lasted over half a decade before the unfortunate breakup. With In Utero, Nirvana’s third album, being (purposely) dramatically and extremely different from Nevermind, how much longer would Generation X follow this band? Its one of the great mysteries of music history, and all we can do is ponder because after Cobain pulled that trigger, escaping all the fame he didn’t want, Nevermind and its revolutionary tale of success came to an end.

But we are not here to be saddened by his death, we are here to preserve and continue his legacy by recognizing the greatest work from one of the best bands in recent decades. While they didn’t spend much time together in the music scene (and stopped performing way too soon), their few albums paved the way for an influx of music that would temporarily kill the pop scene, usher in a lot of wonderful music, and end the careers of many artists from the 80s, rendering them as afterthoughts. Nevermind is a masterful album that has honestly aged quite well. Its tunes are still catchy, its lyrics are still crazy and sometimes unstructured, and Kurt Cobain despite not being the best singer, or guitarist, or writer, dug deep into his soul and still managed to create beautiful music. Great music can come from anyone, and Nevermind was the defining example of this. They were three men in Seattle with an underground audience that worked together to make something that didn’t just hit, but struck pure gold. And started something new.

Happy 20th Anniversary, Nevermind.

And rest in peace, Kurt Cobain.

Drive: 0/10

2011-09-19T10:32:00.000-07:00

A Multi-Layered Abuse to the Film Industry,
19 September 2011

So I walked out of the movie Drive. This is the first time I've ever done such a thing. I've seen a lot of bad movies in my day but there has never been one that infuriated me to a point in which I couldn't continue. And being a film lover, I sat down and analyzed just why exactly this movie ticked me off so much. What was it about this movie that drove me up the wall to a point in which I walked out before I even got to see the conclusion? It wasn't the acting. It wasn't the music. And it wasn't the lush cinematography. What irked me the most was that Drive was disguising itself as an indie flick when in actuality it wanted to become an action movie so badly.

And this strategy while an insult to the entire institution of filmmaking, worked. It got rave reviews at film festivals here and there and got nice reviews from critics, lavishing the acting, supposed tension, and cinematography. I watch this movie because of the rave reviews and literally saw the Transporter movie wrapped in an indie flavor, nothing more. The first half, where we supposedly see "character development," consists of characters engaging in extremely minimal small talk and the rest of the time just staring at each other. I am not kidding. After the tense opening which reveals our main character's secret job (which is familiar to the opening of Transporter), we get nothing for about 40 minutes. Except a lot of pointless scenes.

Drive is about a very good stuntman that doubles as a secret driver at night (Ryan Gosling) who silently falls for his new neighbor (Carey Mulligan) while at the same time gets mixed up in a mob scene (which loosely is a Transporter plot). The first half has all the development, only in the second half is when we see all the action and driving you've been observing in the previews. Based off a novel of the same name, the script must have been easy to write, because it barely has any dialogue while the story is pretty much a mashup of Tarantino-like violence with Transporter-like symptoms.

The movie is so inconsistent, and amongst the small pieces that don't fit together they are all sparkles of what we've seen before—and what we've seen before has all been superior. The supposed amazing chase sequences? Bourne and Ronin does them better----and to a similar budget extent, The Transporter. The supposed amazing violent tension? I can name dozens of movies that do it better. And the extreme violence that is inconsistent with the theme, tone, pace, and characterization of the first half of this slum? Of course, while it doesn't quite match the plot it's been perfected years upon years ago by Tarantino and even to an extent Robert Rodriguez.

But another big reason why I dislike this film so much is because with Drive, we've seen it all before, and yet the critics will not point this out—or choose to avoid it. We've seen these types of movies before (quiet men that has their actions do all the talking), we've seen this type of ultra-action before, and we've seen these stupid attempts at conflicting and blending genres far too many times in the indie and mainstream scene. Drive was originally billed as blockbuster during development so what do they do? Hide the fact that it's the clichéd low-caliber blockbuster that's trying so hard to be a European Tarantino hybrid. They trimmed the dialogue, screen time, and for the Cannes Film Festival nixed the action billing and called it an independent film. They literally were changing the packaging and tone of the movie based off of box office numbers. That's disgusting. They were trying to sway the critics by changing the entire genre.

Bottom Line: Drive, you are a pathetic, pointless, stupid, trite, slow, muggy, grudgy, tasteless, senseless, disposable, forgettable movie with abysmal pacing, abysmal writing, and no sense of direction whatsoever from the first second to the last second I watched before deciding to walk away. You don't know what movie you want to become, as you literally spit yourself through at least three different genres that actually repeal each other like a magnet. You barely clock in at 100 minutes, yet it felt like two hours the first half in. I will not blame the acting, for they had next to nothing to work with. I will not blame the cinematography, which wasn't bad either. I will blame the fact that your crew decided to pretend like your movie was artsy, underground, and indie, when in actuality your movie is this ultraviolent action movie that rears its ugly head long after the audience has fallen asleep through the numbing first half.

Your movie sucks.

Bad.

The Darko Treatment

2011-09-19T08:32:00.000-07:00

I am going to coin a brand new phrase that I know will not catch on but darn it, I am going to use it for all my future sports articles. After seeing Cam Newton once again deliver a powerful performance (and against the Packers to boot) I am sure everyone in Denver is pondering what could have happened if they had given Tim Tebow the same type of love. Not saying Tebow can provide these types of numbers (although he is more than capable of doing so), but what I am saying is that with time and care, he could have developed into a nice quarterback going into his second year. Instead, we have the hapless Broncos barely etch out a win over the Bengals (at home) while observe the most dangerous 0-2 team in the NFL, the Carolina Panthers, stand tall and mighty behind their brand new quarterback.

It’s a darn shame the Panthers don’t play the Broncos this season, which would have made for potentially excellent football. So while Kyle Orton continues his subpar-below .500 performance, New-in-Town has already thrown for over 800 yards in just a couple of games. Remember, the Panthers have been 2-16 in their last 18 regular season games yet they carry more momentum than the Broncos. But alas, Tebow is third-string. As long as he is in Denver, he might never have a chance to succeed. And that my friends, is the Darko Treatment.

The Darko Treatment is what happens when a young player with plenty of talent that succeeded in many levels during the college/minor league days isn’t given a chance when entering the big leagues for one reason or another. The Darko Treatment is when potentially great careers are tarnished, damaged, ruined because they didn’t get the proper help, care, and devotion once they hit professional ball. In all honesty, the best way to ensure that you unpolished talent shines like a nice diamond in the future is with time-----playing time. My new coined phrase is named after the very sad career of Darko Milicic.

Darko was selected 2nd in the NBA Draft by the Detroit Pistons way back in 2003. Larry Brown had no plans to ever using him, as they already had a powerful lineup that took them to an NBA Title and constant rushes to the Eastern Conference Finals. The man was used only when the Pistons were winning by a couple touchdowns late in the game. He was averaging barely a half-dozen minutes per game. And this didn’t happen one season, it actually happened for three seasons in a row until the Orlando Magic finally got him. By that time, instead of becoming a star player or a well-developed sidekick, he was a benchman that was bouncing around from team to team. Last I checked he was playing for the Timberwolves.

Let’s compare him now to the #1 draft pick of that same season: LeBron James. While I hate the man now, back in his first year he practically was given an immeasurable amount of care, time, and devotion to make sure he truly developed into a star. He worked closely with Mike Brown, the underrated coach at the time for the Cleveland Cavaliers. LeBron James was fresh out of high school, but had a thirst for basketball and a great amount of talent. He was a post-up game and attitude check away from being the next Kobe Bryant. Eventually, the Cavs would become a powerhouse franchise, constantly entering the playoffs and at one point had back-to-back 60-win seasons. Did they have a good team? No, what they did have was fully-developed talent (that didn’t even go to college) and a good coach backing him up. One can only wonder what would have happened if Larry Brown, another well-known defensive specialist, had worked with Darko’s potential. He was a 7-foot center that can shoot, move the ball, and defend. What more do you want?

Tebow and Darko aren’t the only examples of the Darko Treatment: J.J. Reddick is an outstanding example of this--and one that personally affects me being a Magic fan. He is a Duke legend, one that has broken nearly every scoring record for his school, and yet here he is still on the bench when for three years he was promised a starting role in the Magic rotation. He is hands-down one of the most popular players for the Magic, and this is despite not actually being a starter. Unlike some of the bums that give minimal effort towards anything in that lineup, J.J. gives his all continuously. He will never fully blossom because he spent so many years under the cellar. Stan Van Gundy has been a great coach for a mediocre team in the past years, but has dropped the ball with this man.

And let's compare this to a baseball team that has purposely has avoided the likes of the Darko Treatment in recent years, leading to surprising successful runs year after year after year. The Tampa Bay Rays actually throw their new talent in the thick of pennant races, start them off in very tough situations. David Price, Jeremy Hellickson, Desmond Jennings, and now Matt Moore are just prime examples of players that started out playing in the middle of a heated race with the Yankees and Red Sox. While some critics will say that this is no way to start off young talent, Joe Maddon and co. do this because it displays their trust in these upstart rookies. This type of trust ensures that these players are more than just pawns in an eternal chess match against the rivals--they are part of the future of the organization. And now, with one of the youngest (and cheapest) squads in the majors, the Rays are still in the Wild Card race against the heavy-hitters Boston Red Sox and California Angels.

So back to Tim Tebow, this man needs his chance to play. You can’t squander his youth years otherwise he can’t mature and develop when he becomes a full-time pro, if that ever actually happens. How does a man with two national championships under his belt (and in the inane SEC conference) still get lack of respect from the other Broncos peers? Kyle Orton is a miserable 12-18 with the Denver Broncos. What does it take for Tebow to head out there? A 0-16 season? The Broncos are ruining a great talent, and you all know that’s one of my pet peeves---wasted talent. That’s what LeBron is, but for very different reasons.

Broncos, you have wonderful talent on the bench. The SEC, despite being evil in every single way possible, can craft good wholesome quarterbacks. The Panthers saw this in Newton and used him as first-string immediately. And while the Panthers are 0-2, their confidence level is as high as it has been in years. They see a future. With the Broncos, they don’t see any future, just a muddled present.

Broncos, please stop the Darko Treatment; you are killing a career slowly but surely.

Laugh at My Pain: 6/10

2011-09-10T14:11:00.000-07:00

Dear Kevin Hart: You are funny, but you ain't no Chappelle yet

Kevin Hart has risen from underground sensation to a mainstream comedian with a massively successful tour that rivals that of Eddie Murphy's conquering of the 80s. In the midst of his tour they decided to make a film out of it. I strongly believe that it wasn't originally planned at the start of the tour because of the way the film turned out. Yes it was funny but it was a very disorganized film that prevented itself from being one of the better stand-up films—even though it was leagues under classics like Eddie Murphy's Raw and Richard Pryor's Live on the Sunset Strip. A lot of disjointed moments limited the rate of laughs from the audience to a point that the ending became quite sour. However, this is a must-see for Kevin Hart fans. For others, you won't be converted to a fan from this material.

Laugh at My Pain consists of three acts: the first act being about Kevin Hart's tour of Philadelphia to the audience, the second act being his stand-up performance in Cali, and the final act being a random skit about robbing a bank. I did not make that up. Let's now talk about Kevin Hart. Kevin Hart's comedy comes at the style of Bernie Mac, not afraid of humiliating himself while telling a plethora of amusing (and sometimes exaggerated) stories about his upbringings and his lifestyle. He is one of the better modern-day comedians, but still lacks the variety, stamina, and the slick substance of Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle.

His stand-up here was definitely the best part of the movie, far more entertaining than the slightly egotistical but heartfelt intro in Philly, and much funnier than the awful skit that finishes the film. His stand-up routine isn't his best, but still delivers. He talks a lot about his dysfunctional family (including an excellent bit about his infamous uncle that's a staple in his comedy), his sex life and impending divorce, and about financial lifestyle. The one evolution you'll see here when compared to his past work is that he likes to run his jokes now, constantly repeating some of them throughout the bits. The audience I was watching the movie with was eating up this performance; they loved every second of it. Kevin Hart fans will not be disappointed.

And then there's the final third of the flick. Kevin Hart's stamina isn't as long as Bill Cosby, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, and not even the likes of Dane Cook. By stamina I mean length of his actual stand-up. While Bill Cosby and Eddie Murphy (back in the day) can easily pull almost 2 hours of bits in one sitting, Hart doesn't have that ability----yet. And because of this, he had to throw in something extra so the movie doesn't feel like an extended television episode. The final skit however was absolute garbage. First off the audience Hart appeals to will most likely not catch the references to Tarantino and Michael Mann filmmaking. Second off, it broke the entire pace of the movie. Third off, t was unnecessary and just all-around not funny. I strongly suggest walking out after his stand-up part finished so you can walk away from the theater with a smile and not a frown.

Bottom Line: Kevin Hart would have delivered a better movie if he extended his comedy and not try to become a Chappelle (his show was a hilarious underground phenomenon) or Rock by providing a skit. Skits are leagues different from stand-up and unless you have a true grasp on how to time your humor in these things, you are better off not performing any of them. Kevin hart's brand of humor is conventional, not too edgy or underground (like George Carlin) and will appeal to most audiences as long as you can tolerate the language. But if you are expecting a stand-up comedy classic like those we saw in the 70s and 80s, then you will be disappointed. This film isn't a game-changer, but will entertain plenty, especially in the middle bulk.

How the MLB 2012 Season Should Look Like (Attempt #2)

2011-09-07T20:56:00.000-07:00

So we got football season approaching around the corner. And all the attention in the sports world will shift to the NFL although there is a great season of Major League Baseball still occurring. And that’s fine, its acceptable. Although baseball is my personal favorite sport, the NFL is just a much easier sports league to follow, and football is the representation of American sports. And whenever a sports season drags on too long, we shift focus—look at what happens in the spring when the NBA season is STILL dragging on and baseball can be felt in the air. But I had a random thought a couple days ago while thinking about the scheduling in baseball and how it can be improved: what if MLB was only done on weekends?

Now, for those avid readers of my blog, I have already done an outlook on how I think MLB should be scheduled in the coming years. But another idea popped into my head that just might be crazy enough to work. Picture this:

1) Baseball is only played on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays (with a few exceptions here and there, special games, make-up games, etc.).

2) Four games a week, with the double-headers occurring on Saturdays.

3) 2 bye weeks, to even out the playing field. This scheduling scheme can only work fairly if the proposed re-alignment plan of moving an NL team to the American League to even out the number of teams actually occurs.

4) Only four weeks a season will all 30 teams play, and that’s during Interleague play, when this is indeed possible. The Interleague system I have discussed before, but I strongly believe we should keep the interstate rivals (Mets-Yankees, Marlins-Rays, Royals-Cardinals) and always repeat the World Series of the year before.

5) 15 of the weeks will two teams have a Bye. Later in the season, 5 weeks will give six teams a bye week. That way every team in baseball has the same number of resting weeks.

6) Crunching in the numbers, it totals to a 24-week season, and 88 games per team overall.

Now, if you want a better visual representation of what the weekly breakdown of the games played will become under this format, here it is coming right up.

As for the playoffs, well, I’ve already discussed it in this article. Keep it the same; just add a second wild card to have a one-game playoff before the real playoffs start. Its simple, but it will definitely work. Now the question is, why on earth would we dip the season from 162 games to 88? Now I am not 100% serious on wanting this insane decrease of games and far more structured format, but if we played baseball on weekends, then it would be much easier to follow, and would be a much smoother addition to daily life as opposed to seeing the games bounce all over the place in the calendar and by the time you blink, you’ve already missed three-four games of baseball. And just like my other proposal, which would dip the season to a more modest 126 games, each game would hold far more weight as opposed to one-of-162 ballgames.

Football’s biggest appeal is the fact that it simplifies everything schedule-wise, and hands massive weight on each and every game. Almost all games on Sunday, one on Monday, later in the year we got one on Thanksgiving, and then a few sprinkles of Thursdays but everyone else still stuck on the Sundays. The average American can honestly adjust their life so that they can fit in a viewing of their favorite team without sacrificing too much from their daily routine. Baseball is 162 games, and without the playoffs that’s already 40-44% of your year. With football, the 16 games is barely past 4%.

If you pit baseball on weekends, then we can track our favorite teams better, and perhaps even plan out the weeks so that we can make a better effort to go to the games. While this doesn’t apply to your higher-market-high-fanbase teams like the Yankees, Phillies, Giants, and Cubs, this definitely applies to the Marlins, Orioles, Rays, Athletics, and especially the Rays (worth repeating). Of course the biggest problem is that this would utterly destroy every scheduling tradition in the book, and we all know baseball is about the tradition. Think of how the record books would be tarnished if we shanked the season to 88 games. So here is the other potential solution, although the players would probably hate me for it. A lot.

5 games a week. Double-headers on Friday and Saturday, with the potential series-tiebraker on Sunday nights. What would the total of games be? 24 X 5, which are 120 games. My other scheduling idea? 126 games. Not too far off, and baseball players would get 4 days off a week, while we fans still get 5 ballgames a week. Decent trade-off if you ask me. Last time any baseball league had this few number of games? 1886 National League. Yes folks, baseball goes this far back. And with all these days off, it gives us plenty of time for make-up games and potential tiebreakers towards the end of the year.

Bottom Line: Major League Baseball was a smash hit back in the day because it was chock full of legends, stories, history, rivalries, and memorable moments. But most of all, the world was of a slower pace, and allowed for us to enjoy baseball at its finest form. That was then. This planet is a far faster and more chaotic society today, and its one that doesn’t have time for 162 games of baseball unless you are a hardcore-hardcore fan. While my scheduling ideas are a bit on the drastic side (this one far more than the other) , why I am trying to accomplish is a way to make baseball more relevant without removing some of its Cracker Jack flavor. One thing is certain though, the sports world is evolving rapidly and there’s no way baseball can participate in the evolution if it sticks with its current scheduling guns.

An Ode to a Modern Summer Classic

2011-09-03T17:43:00.000-07:00

In the midst of this terrible blockbuster season, I looked back and pondered just why it has been such a miserable year for movies. The answer is simple: too much retreading, not enough originality. The plethora of sequels, 3-D movies, remakes, and comic book adaptations became overkill and worst of all none of them really made much of a push to be anything decent. The critical reviews and dismal box office numbers proved this, as there were way too few hits (Pirates 5, Harry Potter 7.2, Transformers 3, Horrible Bosses) when compared to the disappointments (Green Lantern, Cowboys and Aliens, Captain America, Cars 2, Fright Night, The Change-Up, etc.). The message is simple: we viewers are tired of all the sequels, and we are tired of the sequels just not even trying anymore. But there was a blockbuster film on television today that best exemplifies what type of movie we audiences are actually craving. I give you: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.

Major Note: Now, in order for me to fully make this argument, you have to try to forget that the writers and director pretty much tarnished the franchise forever with the third installment. Neglect the fact that At World’s End ever happened. Lesson to all you aspiring filmmakers: never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever try to mix spaghetti western with swashbuckling action. This does not nor will it ever work. Now, back to our original article.

It has been 5 years since this movie came out, can you believe that? And special effects-wise, it still holds up. As a matter of fact, I would take this summer movie or anything we’ve seen this year. And for this reason mainly I still say in terms of summer movies throughout the history of film Dead Mans Chest is one of the most underrated. It raised the bar for special and visual effects like Jurassic Park, it delivered a very unique tale with high presentation like The Matrix, and does an excellent job raising the stakes and ramping up the action as a sequel like Terminator 2. And best of all, this movie has all the makings of a true Oscar contender, except having the personality that it actually gives two shifts about the Academy Awards.

The screenwriting, albeit a bit muddled, gives us a barrage of excellent and memorable characters. We have the irreplaceable Jack Sparrow, the feisty and unpredictable Elizabeth Swan, the sinister Davy Jones, the trusty partner Joshamee Gibbs, and the varied crew of the Black Pearl. The production effort in this film was to the scale of Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and all your other massive grand-scale cinematic mammoths. Just look at the movie again and look at the detail towards the set designs, the cinematography, the make-up (Naomie Harris, a naturally beautiful woman, was very uglified when she became Tia Dalma), and the sheer number of different locations used.

P.S.: where’s the Oscar nomination for best Original Score for Hans Zimmer? He aided this movie with his rounding musical compositions.

Dead Man’s Chest’s acting was also up to par. You think it’s easy to play pirates? You have to be a mix of intimidating, charming, entertaining, and also sympathetic. Remember, these are murdering monsters whose life mission is to rummage through the seven deadly sins without question. And yet, we are still rooting for them. That requires a good blend of writing and acting. There are very few heroes in this tale, and yet we quietly cheer for the scoundrels. Never easy to do. And of course, there’s Johnny Depp, who should have gotten an Oscar nod for his flawless performances in the first two Pirates (the latter two aren’t disappointing, but it’s unfair to ever nominate someone who has practically molded into said role).

Best of all, Dead Man’s Chest has something that has been sorely lacking in this summer season outside Fast Five (which actually doesn’t even qualify in the summer season since it came out in April): action. Lots of it. Remember the movie? Dead Man’s Chest had some of the best action sequences in the past 15 years, with the three-way showdown that started out simple and expanded into a massive sequence that looks like involved the entire island.

Come on now, two people were duking it out on a moving wheel while Jack Sparrow was inside the wheel desperately trying to get a key. At the SAME TIME, Swann and a few other pirates engage in a showdown against invincible henchmen of Davy Jones’ crew. AT THE SAME TIME (again) a massive monster was lurking in the depths, waiting for the return of Jack Sparrow to the ocean. Unlike the seemingly-endless fight in the end of Transformers 3, this movie never loses its creativity and variety, and never becomes redundant. Throw this skillfully directed sequence with the other fun sequences which includes: a chase scene between hostiles and the crew, a smaller showdown against the Kraken at another point in time, and a fun bar fight in Tortuga.

And finally, there’s something in this great popcorn flick that you just don’t see in any summer movie anymore: surprises. Looking back, Dead Man’s Chest was a very unpredictable tale that reeved up the number of plot twists and surprises in the second half of the movie. Let’s see: the treasure winds up in the hands of the East India Trading Company, Elizabeth Swann transforms from a higher-class citizen to a pirate, James Norrington betrays everybody involved, Elizabeth Swann assists in the murder of Jack Sparrow, Jack Sparrow actually dies, and biggest of all, Barbossa decides to make an appearance in the final shot. Doesn’t sound like a big deal now, but being in that audience back in the summer of 2006, this film turned lots of heads with its final act.

Bottom Line: We need more summer films like Dead Man’s Chest: a sequel that doesn’t copy the first, but expands upon it with a bigger budget, more effort, more action, more humor, and more surprises. The creativity of Dead Man’s Chest is exactly why I marveled and truly enjoyed this movie (and can still watch it today): it was unique and separate from the usual popcorn movie bunch with its special effects, storyline, and crazy action sequences. While the latter installments tarnished the reputation of this movie (much like how the Matrix sequels screwed up the mythology and written precision of the original) this movie can still stand the test of time as it doesn’t age, just maintains the quality it originally had five years ago. If filmmakers like Michael Bay, Joe Johnson, Jon Favreau, and Michael Bay (oh yea, repeating on purpose) took notes from this movie, we’d have a far better crop of movies as opposed to what we saw in the past few months.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest: an underrated summer gem that doesn’t get enough respect. Even after 5 years and few movies that have been able to top it.

And remember, At World's End never happened.

The Toy Story Breakdown

2011-08-28T21:37:00.000-07:00

So with the Summer of Toy Story long gone and the pain of Toy Story 3’s ending finally dissipating away, its time to analyze these three films and truly pick out which of these three masterful films honestly stands the tallest. Now, all of these three films I have scored 10/10 as they achieved the highest marks in storytelling, direction, and overall satisfaction and quality fit for generations to come. But, when you dig deeper, they all have their different strengths and with enough analyzing, we can determine which one I think is the best.

Now, here’s the point system:
First Place: 3 points
Second Place: 2 Points
Third Place: 1 Point

There are 10 categories for which I will be ranking these films in. They range from larger categories like directing and editing and boil down to smaller categories like the musical score and cast of characters. Here we go:

Category #1: Writing
Winner: Toy Story
Runner-Up: Toy Story 2

Toy Story wins because of sheer originality. While its technically not the first film to explore a concept of a toy coming to life (Pinnochio and Child’s Play anyone?) it was the first to truly explore the unique concept of just what seemingly lifeless objects do when nobody else is looking. This fun concept explains why we constantly lose things, or other things pop up in random areas of the house. While we are used to the idea now, back then it was a very fresh idea---and gave Toy Story an Oscar nomination for original screenplay. By the way: Toy Story is the first film in the history of animation to nab that honor.

Category #2: Humor
Winner: Toy Story 2
Runner-Up: Toy Story

Toy Story 2 was hands-down the funniest of the three films. One-liners snap and crackle around every corner, every character has their fun chance to shine, several hilarious scenarios and running jokes are played-out, and to top it off all the pop culture references were light, loose, and don’t date the movie in the least bit. This was probably one of the more underrated aspects of Toy Story 2, it was straight-up funny.

Category #3: Heart
Winner: Toy Story 3
Runner-up: Toy Story 2

This is a no-brainer. I went to the midnight premiere of Toy Story 3, and I must say I was emotionally drained by the time the final frame had finished. Random strangers were holding each other, the manliest of men were driven to tears, and the entire audience was barely breathing during the now-infamous furnace sequence. No Toy Story accomplished such a feat. Toy Story 3 was the most emotionally-charged movie of the trilogy and arguably the most heart wrenching from any animated film since Grave of the Fireflies. Oh yea, I am going that far back.

Category #4: Musical Score
Winner: Toy Story
Runner-up: Toy Story 2

Toy Story 2 and 3’s music were basically retreads of the original score by Randy Newman in the first installment. Not saying it’s a bad thing, but the original has to win in this category. And on another note it has the best piece of orchestrated music in the trilogy, which was the moment in the climax when Woody and Buzz are flying above the clouds and trees in a surprise dramatic twist.

Category #5: Best Songs
Winner: Toy Story 2: When Somebody Loved Me
Runner Up: Toy Story: You’ve Got a Friend in Me

The original Toy Story’s flagship song is the recurring song throughout the franchise and the Pixar brand. That being said, it doesn’t hold a candle to the emotionally-driven and incredibly personal When Somebody Loved Me by Sarah McLachlan. Those few minutes of beautiful singing, light piano work, and light strings perfectly explained Jessie’s backstory and why her hatred against humans existed. Few songs can exemplify an entire backstory but this sad gem did just that and more. How it lost to the still-decent-but-not-as-good “You’ll Be in my heart,” I will never understand why.

Category #6: Best Editing/Pacing
Winner: Toy Story 2
Runner-up: Toy Story

Toy Story 2 flowed the best of the three movies, although the original isn’t far behind. Toy Story 2 immediately treated us to an action sequence and ten minutes in the themes of immortality and growing apart from people are presented. Toy Story 3 may have had more heart, but it took quite a bit longer for it to take off. Toy Story 2 was quicker, and gave us more to see in a tighter amount of time.

Category #7: Animation
Winner: Toy Story
Runner-up: Toy Story 3

The original Toy Story set the bar for all animation by becoming the first full-fledged computer animated film. It was leagues ahead of anything we had seen, its hard to imagine this film came out at the same time as Pocahontas. The sequels did a superb job in terms of details, lighting, and special effects but we have to give this category to the original that started it all. The last time we saw an animated movie drive itself leagues ahead of the competition in terms of said animation was Sleeping Beauty way back in the 50s.

Category #8: Directing
Winner: Toy Story 2
Runner-up: Toy Story

John Lasseter may have seen better days before he went Cars-crazy, but the man was a fantastic director back in the day as he knew how to time the laughs and tears at just the right moments, while throwing in well-placed action sequences and deep moments that hit the adults while skipping over the kids. Toy Story 2 was the best example of his technique, as it has the best mix of heart and humor, and neither element tries to overwhelm the other at any given moment. Toy story 3 had a great script, but it could have really benefited from a better director like Andrew Stanton or Brad Bird.

Category #9: Ending
Winner: Toy Story 3
Runner-up: Toy Story

There are no words to describe how perfect this film ended. That being said its value will diminish severely if they ever make a fourth installment. I hope not. In the meantime, just watch it, and you’ll understand why it’s easily the best in the trilogy. And one of the best emotional moments in the history of Pixar animation.

Category #10: Cast of Characters
Winner: Toy Story 2
Runner-up: Toy Story 3

In Toy Story 2, every character had their memorable moment, had their chance to shine, and had their perfect one-liner. Already expanding upon the nice cast of the original, Toy Story 2 treated us to Barbie dolls, Rock em’ Robots, an adorable dog, Woody’s Roundup crew, a second Buzz Lightyear, and a delirious Emperor Zurg. And while these new characters are appearing, the likes of Hamm, Mr. Potato Head, and Rex deliver some of the funniest secondary character material from any animated movie. They became the humor side of the movie while Woody has to face his past and face his friendship mortality with Andy.

Overall Points:
Toy Story:
22

Toy Story 2:
23

Toy Story 3:
15

Bottom Line: The first two in my opinion are far better than the third installment (although Toy Story 3 was indeed a grand film that deserved all its praise and the Best Picture nomination) but I have to hand it to Toy Story 2. Quoting another writer, the most unoriginal part of Toy Story 2 was its title. Toy Story 2 was the first film to truly utilize and perfect the modern-day Pixar formula: for every laugh there should be a tear. And while not all Pixar movies do it as successfully as others (*cough*Cars*cough*Cars 2*cough*), Toy Story 2 was the first to branch off this old-school Disney idea about mixing in the heavy emotions while blending in plenty of humor and a great cast of characters to move the story along. Toy Story was Pixar getting their feet wet, and Toy Story 2 was them diving in and embedding themselves further into animation history. I love all three movies to death for all different reasons, but in my opinion you can’t top Toy Story 2.

That being said, this is one of the greatest movie trilogies in the history of film.

Pixar, leave it that way.

Happy 25th Anniversary Metroid!

2011-08-27T18:33:00.000-07:00

The Metroid franchise hit its 25th anniversary earlier this month as a quarter century ago the original NES classic found its way into stores everywhere and shocked the gaming world with its loose gameplay, sinister tone, and surprise ending. And while Nintendo has done next to nothing for Metroid’s celebration as of now, its still worth noting that Samus is turning 25 this month. While she hasn’t been in the same pillar of success as Mario or Zelda, she has been involved in some of the greatest video games of all-time.

To add to that, this franchise is constantly evolving and shifting (sometimes for the better, sometimes in the wrong direction) and it only has room to grow. We can only hope and beg that Nintendo looks past the weaker sales of recent games and continues to give Samus more adventures to engage in. In the meantime however we are going to highlight the best Metroid games and in between provide some of the best music ever composed for the game—and some of the better OCRemixes. So here we go, the 7 best Metroid games of all-time, as of now.

#7: Metroid Fusion
System: Game Boy Advance
Year: 2002

This game is much more linear than the typical Samus adventure, but it still works well because of its gripping storyline, intense action, and introduction of Dark Samus. The idea of being the hunted as well as being the hunter added a sense of silent terror to the entire gaming experience. Remains one of the best GBA games ever released.

#6: Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
System: Nintendo Gamecube
Year: 2004

The forgotten game in the Prime trilogy, Echoes unfortunately was in the shadows of Halo 2 and made practically no money for Nintendo. What it did provide however was fantastic gameplay with a tough challenge to boot, as well as beautiful graphics, plenty of space to roam around, and another encounter with Dark Samus. While the light/dark world thing has been done to death, it wasn’t tedious here. Too bad the multi-player wasn’t as polished….it could have been something special.

#5: Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
System: Nintendo Wii
Year: 2007

Even though the game went more in the Halo direction in terms of presentation, music, and style of gameplay, Metroid Prime 3 is still quite entertaining. What separates this one from the rest are the incredible controls, which in my opinion proves that the Nintendo Wii could have been the ultimate system for first-person shooters. The motion capturing controller allows you to feel more like Samus as she blasts her way through a tense adventure full of twists, turns, and plenty of action.

#4: Metroid II: Return of Samus
System: Game Boy
Year: 1991

It is quite dated when you look at it now, but this sequel was bigger than the original in every possible way: length, amount of content, amount of abilities, and the amount of surprises. While the revelation that she is a female bad-arse hero was a crazed shock, the fact that she saved the final Metroid as opposed to killing it definitely left its mark on gamers back in the early 90s. This game tested the limits of the capacity of the original Game Boy, but the full potential of this gem can never be realized until it is remade for a more powerful system with some colors and a cleansing of the graphics. This game is Samus at her bounty hunting best, as you get to hunt down all the Metroids in an entire planet.

#3: Metroid: Zero Mission
System: Game Boy Advance
Year: 2004

This is the original Metroid on steroids. Zero Mission is happily guilty of practically taking all the good elements from the original, Metroid II, and Super Metroid and combining them into a massive adventure full of action, different ways of competing the mission, and surprises (a constant theme in the franchise). The soundtrack got an upgrade, her abilities got an upgrade, and of course the challenge got a nice upgrade as well. This is the perfect game to start with if you have not experienced a Metroid game. It is a handheld underrated classic that is not imitated enough by following Metroid titles. I think Metroid works best in 2-D. Although…..

#2: Metroid Prime
System: Nintendo Gamecube
Year: 2002

We had no hope for this game. A rookie company, 8 years between titles, and a first-person view as opposed to the 2-D we grew up with and got used to? There was no way this game was supposed to succeed. But Metroid Prime wasn’t just a game; it was a darn good game, to the point of it being a work of art. The game is still one of the most visually impressive games out there, while cranking out a killer soundtrack, and plenty of content to keep Metroid and non-Metroid fans busy for weeks. The details of this game were absolutely astounding, from the water rolling off your helmet to the small particles that float by as you enter a new world. This is one of the 25 best video games ever made, no question about it. Retro Studios proved to the gaming world that they are no niche company; they are ready to play hardball at any time. Metroid Prime played flawlessly, and to this day keeps its title as the best Gamecube game ever.

#1: Super Metroid
System: Super Ninetendo
Year: 1994

It has been over 15 years since the release of this masterpiece and I still find new quirky little details that scrimmage around the massive adventure that miraculously fit inside the SNES cartridge (and Youtube shows me some new fun things too). The sheer amount of new elements that Super Metroid introduced not only to the franchise but the entire world of gaming makes this not just a brilliant game, but an important one as well. Super Metroid was an adventure game to the grandest of scales and several different ways to complete it. And let’s not forget the graphics, the eerie flawless soundtrack, an immersive world full of small secrets accompanied by a creepy sci-fi horror atmosphere, the slick controls that gave Samus dozens of fun abilities and moves, the nail-biting challenge, and finally the pure satisfaction of the experience. Metroid Prime may squirm around the top 25 list of all-time games, but this game cannot fall anywhere below top 10. It is that good. And if you have not played this game, then your life is not complete.

Whenever you think of Samus or the Metroid name, the image in your head will almost always consist of a screenshot of this game. Whether it’s the image of fighting Ridley the first time, or the first time you enter Zebes, or the final showdown against Mother Brain, when you think Samus, you will most likely think the one, the only….Super Metroid.

Happy 25th Anniversary Metroid! Hopefully we gamers can have 25 more years of epic adventures from Samus.

P.S. The Best OCRemix of a Metroid song:

Potential future ballparks of the Tampa Bay Rays

2011-08-21T22:34:00.000-07:00

The Tampa Bay Rays are the best baseball team in terms of pure value. While teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Rangers, and Tigers spend a good dollar to craft their good teams (and this is by no means as much of a complaint as it is an observation) the Rays manage to compete in the AL Wild Card and in the bloodthirsty AL East while having a payroll lower than every team in baseball except for one (Kansas City Royals). The Rays are about a dozen games above .500, have better records than some divisional leaders, and still remain a thorn in the sides of the Red Sox and Yanks up until the very end.

They are the defending AL Champs and were a couple bad plays away from pulling within distance of the World Series last year. So with that all being said, there’s only room for growth in this organization as long as we have the mighty manager Joe Maddon at the helm. Now of course in one aspect we have to improve is the stadium. Despite the impossibility of us leaving Tropicana Field, we all know my pure hatred of this wretched place. Here is one example. Here is another example. And here is a third example.

Oh and one more.

Now, my mind is buzzing as to what type of stadium we should build for the Rays organization. As a matter of fact, I ponder just where exactly this team would end up in the future. After all, rumors swirl around that Bud Selig told the owners of the ballclub to not make any longtime investments in the St. Petersburg area—which means there might even be a change in cities. Maybe the Rays will move to actual Tampa? Maybe it will hit up a beach? Or maybe better yet it will wind up in Central Florida? Either way, here are three potential options as to what I think should be the outlook for the Rays’ next baseball stadium.

#3: Type of Stadium: Stadium Amongst the Lights
Location: Downtown Orlando

The first potential option I can see would be a nice stadium embedded in the downtown Orlando area. While metropolitan Tampa looks to have run out of room (as from what I’ve seen) the Downtown Orlando area has proven that its not only a thriving community, but its one that can make room for a major new building with minimal issue (See the fast-paced construction of the Amway Center as an example). Yes the struggling economy has put a hold on other expansion ideas for Orlando but when the economy bounces back, how awesome would it be to build a stadium with the lights of the city in the background?

While I am not a fan of Downtown Orlando in the least bit, I acknowledge that the very youthful audience in Central Florida will flock to a sporting event in no-time. Look at the consistent sellout crowds for the Magic games and the decent attendance numbers for AFL games. I can see a ballpark with a retractable roof overlooking the city and being a staple of I-4 sightseeing. But I am sure the veteran drivers of I-4 would hate another reason for the interstate to be packed to the core.

#2: Stadium on the Beach
Location: Clearwater

For years, ideas of the Rays moving to a stadium next to the beach have constantly been buzzing. After all, some of the best beaches in Florida are in the Tampa Bay area. How unbelievably awesome would it be to build a stadium right next to the beach? How awesome would it be to be able to kick back and hit the ocean shortly after a ballgame? To add to that, it doesn’t rain as often in the Clearwater/St. Petersburg area as much as you’d think. Nothing spells out summer perfection like going to the beach and then walking over to a Rays game a few hours later.

They can enhance the experience by giving the entire stadium a beach theme—offer aquariums, a surf machine, laid-back music, aquariums everywhere (this is similar to what the new marlins stadium is supposedly going to offer) and even a few pool bars to make things interesting. Part of the appeal of the Amway Center is that there is a lot to do, even when your team is blowing it during the game. By offering a lot of activities throughout the game, the visit to the ballpark can become an experience, no mater whom the Rays are playing. And with beach access being far easier than access to a shoddy part of St. Petersburg, you will definitely see an increase in attendance.

Of course, there is a big drawback to this idea. If you are going to fling this close to the beach, a lot of properties would have to be sacrificed. To add to that, it would be hella difficult to honestly build this close to the beach without causing major traffic problems and major protests from those that live close to the ocean. But if both sides could make peace, we could have something quite special here.

#1: Baseball Park inside a Park
Location: Disney World or Tampa or Hidden Area in Orlando

I stole this concept from a minor league ballpark in Texas somewhere. Nonetheless, this idea is pure gold, and I am shocked that more teams don’t consider doing this in the future. Actually, I take it back as I understand why. You need a lot of space to pull off this feat, and very few big markets nowadays have such space to give away to a baseball field. A ballpark inside a massive park. Just imagine a baseball park smack dab in the middle of a big, big city park. This will be one of the few cases in which attendance to a ballpark area will be potentially high even though there might be nothing going on.

Picture this: you park your car in the massive parking lot several hours before the game even starts. Why? Because you get to slowly stroll through a massive park full of smaller baseball fields, picnic areas, recreational activities, several outdoor restaurants, a few food trucks, a place to bbq, and best of all an area to quietly and calmly tailgate as the Rays are just a couple hours away from entering the field. A massive HD screen plastered on one of the sides of the stadium showcase other baseball scores or other ballgames as you await the time to go in.

If I honestly had the money, I would invest in this in a heartbeat. Now, of course this type of park could not happen in any Downtown area of any sort, which leaves us with fewer potential locations. I don’t know much about Tampa so I’m not sure if anywhere near Downtown would have the space. But I do know closer to the Busch Gardens side has a bit more available space. So the outskirts of Tampa is option number one. Now if I could convince Disney to sell off the land or be a part of the Rays organization, then Disney World would be another spot. Disney still has tons of land left, and it’s all at a prime location.

To wrap it all up: in order for this type of stadium to become a reality you need a lot of land and far more support from the city as opposed to the other ideas. But the payoff I think would be far better than any ol’ ballpark. I’d love the chance to lounge around next to a baseball park even when there isn’t a game happening. I’d love the chance to play a little scrimmage game with family and friends before the actual game occurs. All in all I would love the chance to turn a game inside the ballpark into an all-day relaxing and chill experience.

A fella can dream, right?

Go Rays!!

One Day: 4/10

2011-08-20T05:49:00.001-07:00

This movie had plenty of potential. Surely it was a consistently grim and depressing film but the themes about love and the main cast kept us interested. This movie had potential in which the aura of hope was strong enough to keep us wanting to see a nice resolution---in the midst of the depression. One Day could have been a wonderful film about love and friendship across different fields of time and distance—something that only the film Before Sunset accomplished in every degree imaginable. And then came the third act. That bloody awful third act.

One Day is a film that was running a certain direction, and then totally flips the switch in the final third of the movie, resulting in a jumbled mess of inconsistent themes, inconsistent pace, and just a story that seems like its only goal is to drive the audience to tears and suicidal thoughts. While it was accurately faithful to the book, sometimes this is a bad thing as novels do have their pitiful moments (See: No Country For Old Men). Worst of all, the screenplay was from the author so any hope of changing some of the material or some of the extremely weak parts of the novel were pretty much dead and gone.

This movie is about a friendship between two characters that spans a couple decades, and we the viewer see where they are in their lives as they meet each other on the same day every year. Despite their scenario and financial/martial/emotional status, they find a way to see each other to catch up. Like I said before, the script was from the same writer as the 2009 novel, David Nicholls. Nicholls had a fresh concept a fresh twist to the romantic drama genre, but in order to keep one step ahead of the reader he shifts gears in the final moments of the novel—winding up with a book I would most likely wind up hating. And all those events lead to a script that I wound up hating.

The 2011 Summer Season has been a very disappointing one, but we’ve had great performances left and right that have saved certain films (Bad Teacher, On Stranger Tides) and propelled others to new heights (Horrible Bosses). Anne Hathaway and Jim Sturgess kept my interest in the movie, as they delivered fine performances that chronicled them at their happiest and at their downright most depressed. Sturgess had a lot more to work with because of the events on his side and he handled them quite tell. Hathaway despite using an accent (not necessary if you ask me) also did a fine job, and being a naturally beautiful woman had to find a way to look unattractive and unappealing to the audience—meaning she also had to do some tough work. The rest of the cast did a decent job, but our main stars kept the film afloat……until the third act.

Lone Scherfig, who directed the under-the-radar Oscar bait An Education, did quite well in spite of the frustrating material she was dealt with. She handled her shots quite well, and sometimes let the visuals describe the emotions and mindset of our main characters. Sadly Scherfg’s direction was marred by the editing, which oddly left out some vital material, and shuffled around some scenes awkwardly. If your movie is being done in chronological order, why mess that up in the final act? Why skip out some of the better character-relationship-building scenes, only to use them for the final act, once their relationship has already been established? I’m telling you, this third act is poison.

Bottom Line: An ending can make or break a movie; it can erase some of the shortcomings in the first two acts, or ultimately weaken the entire structure of the film. One Day’s final act will leave you frustrated, will leave you upset, and it’s not just because of the events that happen, but in the manner that they are presented. Everything you were learning about the movie, all the lessons and themes and nice moments the script was giving us are flung out of the window in favor of an unexpected finale that crushes the soul of the entire body of work. The ending of this review will remain consistent with the rest of the article: Do not watch unless you are a fan of depression or subpar material.

Where are you Star Wars: Episode Seven?

2011-08-16T12:09:00.000-07:00

Harry Potter has recently taken over Star Wars and has become the top-grossing movie franchise of all-time, domestic and worldwide. The eight films were not only based off of history-changing books, but they honestly weren’t half-bad, with 6 and maybe part 2 being the exceptions. Their fanbase has remained consistent, and so has the entire cast. It has been a mix of good and lucky but overall had led to a success story that topples that of Star Wars. So what should Star Wars do to reclaim this title? I think its time to finally actually propel the series….forward. No more prequels, time for a legit sequel.

Star Wars 7 needs to occur; we need to continue the storyline of Luke Skywalker. We need to see what happens just after the evil empire went down---again. Everything in life doesn’t just return back to normal, that’s just impossible. The heroes don’t just dance on Endor and that’s that. It’s not like every person for the dark side just got up and left. And it’s not like the Jedi won’t be blamed partially for the nonsense that went down for several decades. Return of the Jedi was not just a good movie; it was a great movie, and a fitting end to the original trilogy. That being said, we were still left with a plethora of burning questions. Star Wars 7 can also provide Luke Skywalker with his full first movie as a legit Jedi, and arguably the final one in the universe.

Now, I know that there was a lot written about Luke after the Battle of Endor in a variety of books and whatnot, but I am giving Luke the comic book treatment by offering an alternate storyline as to what I think should happen after the events of Episode VI. The seventh film should be a solely Luke Skywalker vehicle as I find it hard to be able to replace Princess Leia and Han Solo with any other actor. As for Luke, no offense to Mark Hamill, but he had less to work with and he’s easier to physically duplicate as he’s not as big a movie star or Hollywood figure as Harrison Ford. And lastly, his story is the least developed of the three major heroes. Here’s my take:

Star Wars 7 should be an action film combined with elements of spaghetti western. The overview plot is that Luke struggles to find out what to do with his life after the war finished, with him having no home technically, his father dead, his sister disappearing to look for lingering refugees from her home planet, and his mentor Yoda also deceased. Luke then decides to be part of a team of Rebels dedicated to searching for any remaining forces of the Dark Side attempting to start more nonsense. Basically it’s like a bounty hunter in a western strolling into town looking for someone. The change here of course is setting and time. Luke starts his quest in the massive city planet Coruscant to restore peace and make sure the Dark Side remains just a thing of the past.

In the meantime, we discover that Darth Vader was training someone to become his replacement in case Vader were to pass away. This new Sith, the last remaining Sith, is being driven insane because of the voices in his head coming from The Emperor. The Emperor repeatedly tells him that Luke destroyed his destiny, as the new Sith’s destiny was supposed to become the new partner-in-crime once Darth Vader becomes no more. The Emperor tells him that if he ever wants to have any relevance in the universe, he must hunt down and kill Luke Skywalker. In the meantime, a mysterious figure is putting up a massive bounty for Luke’s head—as he is technically the last remaining Jedi left. So the Sith, the bounty hunters, a few remnants of the Dark Side, and Luke will have their paths intertwine in the city planet.

Bottom Line: While my idea for the next Star Wars movie isn’t quite the direction that the franchise is known for, I think a full-fledged action movie with Luke Skywalker is exactly what Star Wars needs to dethrone Harry Potter and become the new king. Honestly, it’s a total shame that Luke finally overcomes his father’s shadow in Episode VI—only to see his story end. He is finally a Jedi, isn’t it time for us to see him off the chains breaking out those skills? We had an entire prequel trilogy dedicated to Anakin, whom becomes Darth Vader.

Argue what you will, the original trilogy wasn’t just about Luke, it was about the war itself. This film should focus more on Luke and his travels, with a few supporting characters joining along the way. Even if my idea for Star Wars 7 isn’t a good one (I never want anyone to think that MYT plot for Star Wars 7 is the ONLY one that works), a part 7 has to happen. I would love to see what Luke does next after the second Death Star was destroyed. For me, he should be a traveling Jedi about to meet more trouble in the City Planet. But his story deserves continuing. He suffered too much for us just to leave him with a bunch of tiny bears as his final cinematic scene.

What do you think should happen in Star Wars 7?

Denver Broncos: A Tale of Two Quarterbacks

2011-08-09T15:54:00.000-07:00

Why do quarterback controversies exist? Why must we overcomplicate things? Currently the stupid Denver Broncos, fresh off a crappy season, have decided to stick with the same quarterback that helped fling them into a beautiful 3-13 record last season, and also was responsible for their awful collapse the season before. Despite whom the fans prefer, the Broncos are sticking with their man. Kyle Orton has not had much of a reputation in the NFL despite his talents, constantly proving that he can run down a team just as easily as he can lift them to the next level. Yet, Tim Tebow once again is put in the backburner as second-string quarterback. It does not make sense. This controversy can be eliminated almost immediately, before it causes problems with the team and its fans.

One of three things has to happen here for the Broncos to have any sort of shot at honestly accomplishing anything this season. Option number one, give Tebow a chance. Tim Tebow is the same quarterback that helped the Gators win two national championships during his days in college. He is a Heisman Trophy winner, and became the first quarterback to rush and pass for 20 touchdowns in the same season. He is a special kid with a lot of talent and a willingness to play. The man can throw, but he can also create plays with his running abilities. If the Broncos are going to waste his time and not try to develop him he is going to turn into the NFL version of Darko Miličić.

While we are at it, let’s mention that the Broncos were 3-10 with Orton, and this is in a very weak division in which the Raiders were 5-0 against the divisional rivals. Did you hear that? Raiders. 5-0. If this isn’t more evidence that its time for a change, I don’t know what is. Kyle Orton’s numbers have worked well, but when your team fails to make the postseason in a shady division for multiple consecutive years, why not switch things up? I say give Tim Tebow a couple of games in the beginning and if things look bleak, go back to Loser.

The second option is to trade Tebow for some defense. This is probably the option that makes the most sense, and with many NFL teams going trade-crazy, I’m shocked this has yet to happen. The man is popular, quite talented, yet the rumors persist that he was inches from getting the third slot in quarterback in the Broncos organization. So why not utilize his current value and fame and try to get some defense? While I am currently on the Kyle Orton Hate Parade (especially after recent comments about winning over the fans being last on his to-do list) he did post these numbers last season: 20 TD, 9 INT, 87.5 quarterback rating. But have you seen their defensive numbers? 2nd in giving away the most rushing yards and 9th in passing yards, and lets combine that with being 30th in tackles, 25th in INTs, and in the bottom 15 in total takeaways. Isn’t it time for defense?

Now who is the team that most desperately wants/needs a quarterback? The Miami Dolphins. What do the Dolphins have? Defense, and tons of it. What do the Dolphins need? A good quarterback. The NFL is now a league in which it’s a requirement to have a good quarterback to win it all. The last team to win the Super Bowl with a mediocre quarterback was Eli Manning’s Giants during their historic upset of the Patriots back in 2008. The last one to win with a miserable quarterback? The Ravens way back in 2001. The Dolphins need, badly, Tebow in order to compete in the devastatingly deadly division against the Jets and Patriots—two teams that got a lot better this offseason. And let’s not forget the Dolphins lost Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams. For the sake of both franchises, this trade needs to happen.

The last option, why not let them both play? Give Tim Tebow the first half, and then totally mess things up by giving Orton the second half. Can you imagine being the opponent and being forced to create two different strategies when facing the Broncos? You get the run-n-gun style of Tim Tebow, which would wear down the defense, and then have the underratedly (not a word) accurate throw bombs of Kyle Orton to seal the deal. Not only does it force everyone else to switch styles of defense mid-game, but it gives less time for each quarterback, and it makes them less tired throughout the season. I am shocked that more football teams don’t follow a similar strategy—imagine the Eagles using Kobb last year to start, and then throwing a monkeywrench with the fast, feisty, and unpredictable Michael Vick in the second half. Its like a powerful relief pitcher and a closer wrapped into one for the second half of the game.

(Even the cheerleaders haven't been as good in Denver)

Bottom Line: The Denver Broncos’ quarterback controversy does not have to linger at all, as long as Denver does something, fast. They may think the current situation will not effect the season, but they are dead wrong. What if Orton struggles the first couple games? Then the fans, media, and perhaps even the players will become nervous and restless and set a bad tone for the rest of the year. Controversy needs to be stomped, and this can be achieved by whether switching the starters, trading away the popular second-string, or giving them both facetime and drive the opponents insane. They can add some annoying “oomph” by not even announcing the starter until half an hour before the game. There is a lot of talent here, and it can be utilized. But as long as Orton is a prick and Tebow is Denver’s sweetheart, its going to be tough for the team to improve upon its dismal record last year.

P.S. Dolphins, Ronnie Brown signed with the Eagles for just one million. You couldn’t up the contract ante? You bums.

Turning NASCAR into Mario Kart...for the good of the sport

2011-08-08T18:34:00.000-07:00

For those that know me best know that I am not a fan of Nascar in the least bit. The massively long races consisting of cars going around in circles for a long period of time has never attracted my interest. I personally think that the races are too long, most of the tracks are the same, and that the racers get far much more credit than they deserve. When you win races, you honestly have to give it to the cars much more than the person because of the length of driving required—and a good portion of the credit goes to the pit crew. So what happens if a very good driver has a weaker car and a weaker pit crew? Then he doesn’t have a chance. And that’s not fair, I’d rather the driver have to work to earn his/her honor of being one of the best racers out there.

Nascar to me is like Mario Kart Wii in real life---you can be an excellent driver but if good luck and fortune is not on your side, then you just aren’t going to win. Perhaps this is what upsets me the most about the league; they don’t make it so that truly the best driver wins. Now I have assembled a way to make Nascar more interesting for me, and perhaps this will make Nascar more interesting for the rest of us. Because honestly its become like baseball—a sport that has suffered mildly because the society we live in is now more ADD than ever...and needs mild adjusting. How can I be a huge fan of racing games (ironically, even Daytona USA, an arcade game about a Nascar race) yet barely tolerate the sport that is all about racing?

For starters, the time trials should still occur to determine our order of cars. The 50 best times will go to the big race. Now, the big race will consist of not one race, but a total of 6 individual, much smaller races. The top 10 cars at the time trials face off in the first race, then the next 10 cars face off, and so on. Instead of the 194897741 laps that each car must do around the track, we are going to limit them to a simple yet effective 10 laps. That’s it. You have 10 laps to prove yourself to be the best driver. That makes the race shorter, more intense, and leaves with the drivers less time to make a mistake. Now, the winning car gets to have his car fixed up by the pit crew while awaiting the other races to finish.

We get a starting-off total of 5 10-lap races, and the winners of each race square off in one final race that determines the winner. The spectators get a total of 6 races, and 60 laps of cars going in circles. The stakes are higher amongst the participants and the spectators won’t have time to show signs of spectating fatigue. And we the viewer can be glued to the event pretty much the whole way through as oppose to being able to get up, leave, grab a sandwich, flirt with the neighbor, fight zombies, and then return to watch the final hour of the race. Zzzzzzzz.

Oh, and with the point system you ask? Only the top 5 get points, period. Winner gets 50, 2nd place gets 40, 3rd place gets 30, 4th place gets 20, and 5th place gets 10. There is no need to complicate things in the least bit with all these added rules and regulations. Currently only 10 points separates 1st place from 11th place. You serious? While there are other recommendations I would love to present (different track terrain, much more variety amongst the tracks in the Nascar series) the one that is most required is the shortening of these races so that they are much more…watchable.

Bottom Line: So how can we improve Nascar? Make the races shorter, and make the point system easier to follow. The most popular sport in the world is soccer, and it’s mostly because it’s the easiest to follow. Why not apply the soccer treatment to Nascar by creating 10-lap races and giving points only to the top 5 drivers? I think if we apply these major but easy-to-make changes, then it would build a better fanbase, and would be easier to pick up and follow for a new generation of fans. Racing is a lot of fun to watch, let’s not kill it with 2,300-lap races.

Let’s work together. Let’s make Nascar.....unboring(I know, that’s not a word)

Rock Music today needs to Germanify Itself

2011-08-04T19:49:00.000-07:00

Dear Upcoming Rock Bands,

Stop trying to make yourselves sound as complex and as complicated as you really are. Stop trying to display your skills in moments when you don’t need to. Stop trying to add so much noise that the piece of music holds no true personality. There is a growing influx of bands trying too darn hard to sound loud, yet ambitiously skillful as humanely possible. It is time for every American rock band to sit down and start taking notes from the one modern-day band that in recent years has consistently delivered despite using a very basic formula: Rammstein.

Rammstein is by no means the most complex band out there. They are by no means the loudest band. They are also by no means a band that displays the most talent in their music. And they are not even close of having the best lyrics. However, they are the one light in the dark tunnel that is the current state of rock/metal. They have been active for nearly 20 years without a single line-up change, without a single “disappointing” album, without any traces of potential “selling out.” This band has created the perfect formula of creating consistently good music and its time more bands take notice.

They achieve this by knowing their limits, and the limits of our ears. Just because you can play at 80 notes a second doesn’t mean you should ever do it. Rammstein’s guitar riffs are usually loud but slow enough so that it grooves into a beat, into a likable rhythm. And in case it ever becomes tedious, change up the tempo a couple times before retreating to the original addicting rhythm. Rammstein is like a new-age AC/DC, same sound, doesn’t stray far from it, but darn it its heavy enough for us to forgive them. The drums never go insane during a song; they maintain the tempo and heartbeat without ever straying far. The guitars are loud but never squeal, never scream unnecessarily, and never spew useless notes.

The keyword I am trying to derive myself towards is: simplicity. Rammstein is simple, pure and simple. They use a simple rhythm, simple drumline, simple lyrics, and a simple simplistic approach to their heavy music. And, it works. It’s heavy enough to allow you to headbang but never too irritating to make you cringe in the middle of the moshing. They are intense, but display tolerable intensity, the kind that forces you to pump your fists in the air with pure joy.

When you have modern-day bands like Avenged Sevenfold, Dragonforce (ESPECIALLY them), Trivium, System of a Down (whom had one incredible album but never veered better than that), Bullet for my Valentine, and many other examples complicating their sound by trying to do so much at the same time in terms of volume, speed, and intensity, it really brings down the genre of rock several levels. All of you bands today need to sit back, calm down, and take a better, smaller approach. You have the potential to provide consistently special music....you guys just clutter and cluster yourselves in the music-making to a point in which you stop sounding like music and sound more like........grungy noise. Stop trying so hard. Please.

Be more like Rammstein.

Simplistically Epic.

Sincerely,
Music Fan

How to improve the American Idol Experience

2011-08-02T07:53:00.000-07:00

Hollywood Studios is in need of some help fixing their attractions. Of all the attractions in all the theme parks, the American Idol Experience is literally the only one that actually gets advertised over the speakers.

They get such little support from the guests that they have to announce in the morning and throughout the day (through “commercials”) that the attraction still exists and could benefit from more people actually seeing their shows. Have you seen the attendance of their afternoon shows? About a half past bearable. While my solution is to destroy it altogether and build something new in the area, we probably have a contract that we must fulfill. If I have to keep American Idol in the park, this is what I would do to try to save it.

For me, American Idol should be done Fantasmic style: only once or twice a day. Several shows a day doesn’t work because the so-called voting portion of the show is not believable when there are 10-15 people seated in the audience. I say do two really big shows involving 7 singers; you can make one right before the parade at the 1:30-1:45 mark, and then do the second showing at the 6:00-6:30 range. Both shows can also be broadcast outside for people not inside the building to see. It would be a great way to pass the time while waiting for the parade to start.

The content needs a total overhaul. And by content I mean the music. The song list is only about 100-145 songs. It does sound like a lot until you notice this: only 13 Disney songs, only 8 Latin songs, and barely any true rock songs. Are you kidding me? Some of the toughest songs out there are in the rock realm, and those that can truly nail those notes are the ones that deserve the so-called American Idol dream ticket. But when you get shoddy easy songs like “Black Horse and a Cherry Tree,” “Drops of Jupiter,” and “Don’t Stop the Music,” it diminishes the entire experience. That being said, I am not saying we should have heavy heavy rock music like this on the setlist---our country is still afraid of metal. Honestly.

This is a Disney attraction, only 13 Disney songs is unacceptable. You should have much more music to choose from---and to make it more irritating 6 of them are from the sugar-coated nonsense of the Disney Channel. When Buffalo Wild Wings has more songs than the American Idol, we have a problem. When Rising Star Karaoke, which consists of an actual live band performing behind you, has nearly as many songs as the American Idol Experience, we have a problem. The beauty of music is how incredibly diverse it is, and when an aspiring singer has only 140-something songs to pick from when displaying his or her best skills, it’s a bit of a problem. I’ve even been told that the producers mildly force them to sing a certain song. I encountered a guest that was told to sing a song he had never sung before. That’s ridiculous.

American Idol Experience becomes extremely repetitive in that final show because everyone sings the same exact songs. I used to think it’s because of the guests, but now I am veering more into the idea that the producers and cast members of the show push them towards it. I say, let them sing whatever they want, it’s their career, and it’s their funeral if they shoot for a song they can’t nail. And this would add variety to a show that has become dull, very quickly. Sometimes, you need those repeat visitors from the locals to maintain popularity and relevance. The Idol Experience has neither.

And P.S. on the song selection: can we please let them the entire darn song? A song like Bohemian Rhapsody is insulted when you only nab a snippet. That song requires the widest vocal range of potentially any pop song in music history----give that aspiring singer the chance of his/her lifetime by making them take on the entire song.

Two shows, 7 singers each. Give out two tickets a day. Each show can run around an hour to 75 minutes, depending on how long the songs are and depending on the introductions. And like I said, it’s a great way to pass the time. Do one elimination round in which 4 of the 7 singers are eliminated, and have the top 3 do a final performance to show off their skills one last time. And then we vote on the top 3 who the winner is. More music, more performing, more mayhem, more judging (the judges aren't that bad to be honest), stakes are higher, the show is a little more interesting.

And hey, while we are at it, why not give it an extra event during Extra Magic Hours? This will never happen, but I am a dreamer, so let’s talk about it anyway. We should do the American Idol Karaoke Party. This is the truth, not all of us are born singers, its honestly a God-given talent. Yes you can work on the vocal chords as much as you want, but if your voice doesn’t support the notes there’s no way you can ever be on that show. That being said, the American Idol Karaoke Party allows for any guest (and cast member, since the show prohibits you from participating) to sing on that stage. If you don’t want to compete, you can sign up for the party early in the morning. We give you a Fastpass like ticket to go to the building at a certain time. You pick the song, and you go up there and sing away. Of course any silly business and the mic gets cut off immediately. But as opposed to a typical karaoke bar, you get the stage, the lights, the people watching and interacting, and your dream coming true. And no criticism will follow after you sing--unless its from your peers.

Bottom Line: The American Idol Experience needs help, because it’s becoming as stale as the television show. We should cut it down to two big shows, expand the setlist, and give more freedom to the singers. These solutions do not cost extra, and nor will they totally alter the dimensions and the theming of the attraction. And then to top it off, give everyone and I mean everyone a chance to sing with the karaoke party. Honestly, when karaoke is involved, you can’t possibly go wrong. Just doesn’t happen. Two shows, karaoke, more songs: these are the three essential ingredients to providing a better American Idol Experience.

Take this idea Disney, its free.

The 9 Biggest Tearjerkers in Pixar Films

2011-08-01T10:55:00.000-07:00

Cars 2 is a mess, going to say that right now. And the main reason why Cars 2 doesn’t work as a decent movie is because of its utter lack of heart that we are used to seeing from Pixar. There is no standout moment in the movie, no moment that tugs at the heartstrings. Well, prepare those tissues because I am about to deliver my saddest list yet: the ten saddest and more tear-jerking moments in the history of Pixar animation. These 9 moments propelled their movies into new quality heights, sometimes achieving emotional value that you don’t find in live-action dramas. Prepare for sadness, here we go:

Spoiler Alert. Plenty of spoilers ahead.

#9: Monster's Inc Ending

#8: Wall-E Ending

#7: Finding Nemo's Opening Sequence

#6: Furnace Scene in Toy Story 3

#5: Don't Want to Forget from Finding Nemo

#4: Married Life scene from Up

#3: When Somebody Loved Me from Toy Story 2

#2: Toy Story 3's Ending

#1: Turning the Page Scene from Up

Here's to hoping we get more of these classic Pixar scenes as opposed to this drivel.

Five Oscar Categories that should be included in the Academy Awards

2011-07-25T09:04:00.000-07:00

It is never too early to talk about the Academy Awards. Okay, I lie it is too early when there hasn’t been any Oscar-worthy flicks that have come out in recent times. For crying out loud even Harry Potter 7.2 has a shot at Best Picture, and while it was a good movie its not even the best of the Harry Potters. Our year of movies in terms of Oscar-caliber has been extremely weak. But enough about that, I think its time to add a little spice to the Academy Awards. I think its time for some brand new categories that could make the public more interested, and can give recognition to some of the more underrated talent in Hollywood.

Now, I know you will complain that the Oscars are already run long enough with the categories that already exist, but I have the solution to that. Two things: first the Oscars should start much earlier than 9:00. They should run at around 7:00 eastern time, giving more leverage room in case anything runs too long. Second, I will quote myself from an article from a while back:

“…there should be some awards that shouldn’t even mention the nominations, but mention the winners and then give them about 2 minutes of fame by discussing the procedure and why it wins. The awards that should be handed out without mentioning the nominees include: Documentary, Short Film, Short Animated Film, Makeup, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Costume Design). Give these winners 1-2 minutes and you’ll save at least 10-15 minutes of unnecessary Oscar time. Not diminishing these awards, but I actually think the audience would pay more attention if all the focus is on the winner.”

Will the Oscar committee and the public buy into this? Not sure, but it would definitely make things faster. And now, my picks for what new Oscars should come out in the coming years….and which people should get honorary Oscars for their work in that realm. And these are not in any order:

1) Best Stunts
Honorary Oscar: Buster Keaton (Arguably the first true stuntman)
Jackie Chan (I do not need to explain myself)
Zoe Bell (Adding flower power to the world of stunts)
For years the stuntmen of Hollywood have been fighting for their own Oscar. After all, stunts are truly essential to all the big (and small) action/suspense/drama/spy flicks that you see coming out every single year. And with CGI replacing nearly everything in terms of stuntwork, we need to save the industry by introducing an Oscar before everything becomes CGI’d and none of it containing the realistic touch. Adding the Stunts Oscar would also give big blockbuster flicks (that aim for entertainment above Oscar recognition) a chance to earn some gold.

2) Best Choreography
Honorary Oscar: Jackie Chan (Yes, he deserves this one too)
Bob Fosse
Yuen Woo-ping
Choreography is extremely essential to dance/action movies, and its an utter shame that this is not an Oscar yet. What would the Matrix be without the incredible choreography work of Woo-Ping? What would Jackie Chan films look like without the extremely unnerving and relentless efforts of Jackie Chan? And how would Chicago and Cabaret run without Bob Fosse’s touch? It is time that the people coming up with the dance moves and fight scenes deserve their chance to shine.

3) Best Soundtrack
Honorary Oscar: Quentin Tarantino
Martin Scorsese
This one is a fun one, because this Oscar doesn’t require that the music in the movie be original. Sometimes, a good soundtrack full of older music (some of it used before) can actually propel a movie to a new level. The greatest example is in 1994, when Pulp Fiction’s surf rock and edgy 60s tunes and Forrest Gump’s amazing collection of classic 60s-70s hits helped push these two movies to be the best to come out that year. A third example would be Goodfellas, which featured barely any instrumental work or any music made FOR the movie, yet had dozens of songs that when you listen to now—will bring you back to a scene in that film. Goodfellas immortalized “Layla” by using the piano sequence to introduce the massacre that eventually arrived two-thirds into the movie.

4) Best Opening Titles
Honorary Oscar: Saul Bass
Sometimes the opening titles alone gets you excited (or scared) for the movie that’s about to be shown. This aspect of the movies has become very dated, as there is very little effort in the opening sequences, unlike what happened back in the 50s and 60s when legendary Hollywood designer Saul Bass ruled the world. He was responsible for the creepy opening of Psycho, the majestic opening of Vertigo, and the thrilling opening to North by Northwest—all now-classic Hitchcock movies. But they wouldn’t be the same without Saul Bass’ extra touch in the intro. Best opening title in recent years? Fight Club of course. David Fincher knows its essential to get a movie off in the right foot--with Fight Club and Se7en being the best examples.

5) Best Quote
Honorary Oscar: Samuel L. Jackson
Will Ferrell
Sometimes in life all you need is a very good quote. Comedies have the toughest time earning the Oscars, as comedies tend to not be taken as seriously (pun not intended) as dramas in the Oscar field. But with the Best Quote, comedies can now strive for some gold by delivering a line that can become a classic staple in American pop culture as well as garnish the only Oscar they can ever get. The big question is who should get the Oscar— the person that wrote the line? Or the actor/actress that delivered it?

Bottom Line: The Oscars over the years has done a good job in recognizing talent in the film industry, but with these awards we can expand the talent recognition as well as award certain types of films that otherwise would never have a shot at earning anything at all in February of each year. Someone like Jackie Chan is a household name and one of the greatest men to ever make movies, but until categories like Best Stunts develop, he will not get that well-deserved gold unless he gets an Honorary one. And trust me, I've fought over that one too.

Any awards you guys would like to see added to the Academy Awards?

The Inexcusable Shunning of Winnie the Pooh

2011-07-20T15:16:00.000-07:00

Not sure if anybody noticed, but Winnie the Pooh came out in theaters. It was the first major Pooh film coming from the head Disney animation studio since 1977, when The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh hit theaters and was quickly overshadowed by the other Disney animated film The Rescuers, and of course Star Wars. Not sure if anyone noticed, but this is Disney’s 51st animated film in the official canon. Not sure if you noticed, but it has opened to very positive reviews. Not sure if you noticed, but Disney is pushing this film quickly out of the way for unknown reasons…despite being the second most popular Disney character (after Mickey Mouse of course).

The conspiracy theorist in me is beginning to ponder: is John Lasseter, lead of Disney animation nowadays, purposely sabotaging the movie? Is he setting up the movie to fail because it’s not Pixar? Is he not putting forth any sort of effort because of its lack of computer animation or lack of technological advancements? Is he trying to make this film flop for a secret, hidden reason? On paper, this sounds preposterous, but let us analyze the facts:

Winnie the Pooh had a release date of July 17th, which the entire planet knew was the release date of Harry Potter. Why on earth did you release this on the same day as the final Harry Potter movie? Any marketing major would have told you that it was box office suicide. Usually on major-major blockbusters the other studios tend to back away from the release date, or release it sooner, or throw a grade-B counter-marketing flick. None of this happened to Winnie the Pooh, as Harry Potter’s fanbase is of all ages and Winnie’s release date was never fixed to avoid the assault.

Why didn’t they release it just a week before? They would have had to take on….The Zookeeper. Much easier competition. They could have been the counter-measure to Horrible Bosses and really could have racked up some more millions before Harry Potter conquers the planet. And then the total lack of hype for this movie remains a baffling mystery. ABC Family, a Disney-owned network, was constantly airing marathons of the Harry Potter movies in anticipation for the next chapter. But it’s not Disney, why aren’t we airing previous Winnie the Pooh films instead? Why is Disney Channel not mentioning a single blurb about Winnie the Pooh when they went apeshift over Cars 2 for months?

Now, one of two things is happening: Disney’s marketing continues to fail miserably (if the film is not blockbuster-potential, expect the Disney movie to struggle making money nowadays) or since it’s not Pixar, Lasseter is letting the movie die out in the box office without a complaint. This is the same studio that complained about the lack of marketing towards Ratatouille and Wall-E several years ago. And yet a movie based off a character that has earned the company billions upon billions of dollars over the years is making barely past $15 million as of right now...and nothing is being said. By the end of the run it will be lucky if it can cross $40. Now I know this new Winnie the Pooh wasn't going to break records, but its the lack of effort that's bothering me more than the lack of success. Cars 2 on the other hand thanks to its marketing-blitz campaign made over $40 mill in three days…and that’s with its dismal reviews. Want more proof that they might be setting up this movie for fail? Check out the poster: it says Spring. So why move it from spring to fight Harry Potter? Hmmm..

Bottom Line: Disney is being ridiculous by not advertising this movie and Pixar and pals are being more ridiculous by not ruffling any feathers over the whole ordeal. Before, I used to say that Pixar was as close to Walt Disney’s old-school films as we will ever get. But with the extremely disappointing Cars 2, which went against everything Disney animation usually stands for, and with Winnie the Pooh being brushed off as a C-List animated movie despite being part of the main canon and being a sequel to one of Walt Disney’s final works of art is making me reconsider a little. Where is the love for Pooh, the one character that best represents the innocence, charm, and quality of old-school Disney? Look at all the positive reviews, we have a potentially beautiful film here that’s a total contrast from the 3-D, loud, computer-crazy, and sometimes obnoxious animated works of nowadays. Where is the love?

Shame on you Pixar.

Shame on you Disney.

You are backing away from a link to the past, a past that if it had not existed, you would not be the success story that you are today.

Shame.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2: 8/10

2011-07-17T17:21:00.000-07:00

Enjoyable Swan Song of a Legendary Franchise
15 July 2011

Harry Potter has taken moviegoers on quite a ride ever since the original flew into theaters 10 years ago. There's been some decent moments (Sorcerer's Stone), excellent moments (Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire), and some miserable moments (Half-Blood Prince). With the final installment, the cast and crew pulled out all the stops to try to deliver the most epic film in the entire saga. The drama, tension, and action were revved up to the maximum to compete with the final book—which was also a plethora of drama, suspense, and resolution. And while the tone still isn't as sinister as the book it's referencing, Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 remains a very entertaining and emotionally-charged finale that wraps up the saga nicely.

Just in case you haven't actually read the novel, Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 follows the events from part one as Harry and company attempt to find the essential parts to crippling the strength of He-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named to a point in which he isn't ridiculously invincible. Along the way, major sacrifices are made, Hogwarts is in major trouble, and nobody is safe. Considering how good the original source material is, Steve Kloves' biggest job was to be able to translate it all in a reasonable amount of screen time. Considering that they were willing to split the last book into two colossal films, it shouldn't be too big a problem, right? Kloves actually decided to minimize the dark tone of the final book and cut back on the amount of "grimness" that was featured in the final third of the story. Adding to that are a few small changes in terms of content and structure. Whether or not this is good depends on how much of a novel purist you are. To me the changes were not necessary, but didn't distract too much. The entire cast was back and all delivered their performances with no trouble. Let me just say: it is a pure miracle that the kids from the original grew up to become quite talented, and it's a miracle that they were able to maintain such an excellent group for all these years. No other movie franchise can ever boast such an achievement. We honestly take it for granted: Alan Rickman, Helena Bohnman Carter, Ralph Fiennes, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Emma Thompson, Gary Oldman……

It is honestly the cast that makes this movie work, since they perfectly bring the literary characters to life. J.K Rowling was totally on the lucky side in terms of casting. But enough about that, let's praise the pure amount of effort put into each of these movies. The special effects, sets, background design have been top-notch all these years and did not disappoint in the final act. Every detail from the book has translated well on-screen with barely any controversy. While there wasn't much to marvel at in the first third of the movie, once the final battles at Hogwarts took center-stage, the visuals will leave you breathless.

David Yates for some odd reason became the main director of the franchise after the fifth installment—which was not as well-directed as the previous two Harry Potter movies. After his awful sixth installment, I lost faith in him. With Deathly Hallows however, he proved to me that he has learned his lesson. While the movie still paces a bit slow, unlike the last installment the slower moments were still very necessary. The backstories sprinkled throughout the film added a layer of emotion to the movie that we just didn't experience in the previous three movies combined.

That being said, the action could have been better. Deathly Hallows has clearly the most battling of any Harry Potter story/film and could have really delivered a battle to the scale of a Lord of the Rings showdown. Unfortunately despite the great special effects and gargantuan scale; the fights themselves felt a little underwhelming. David Yates wanted to give every major and minor character in the movie some screen time and their final chance to say/perform something memorable. And while this does happen, it leaves less room for the wand battles between the dark forces and our heroes. Come on now, after years of torment and years of the destruction of countless innocent lives, Harry deserves at least a 15-minute showdown with his nemesis.

Bottom Line: Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 improves over the first, definitely improves over Half-Blood Prince, and is a nice and touching finale to the franchise that the world has grown up with and loved. Prepare those tissues, because the deeper invested you are in the series and all the characters involved, then the more its going to hurt viewing the final half. Everyone did a phenomenal job translating a quite difficult novel into a watchable epic and misses the "epic" quality by a few notches. The main question now is: what are we going to do in a world without an upcoming Harry Potter piece of work?

The 20 Greatest Guitarists. Ever. For Now.

2011-07-11T14:04:00.000-07:00

Part of my feature on how rock music isn’t what it used to be, I am going to deliver you a list of the best guitarists I’ve ever listened to. This is by no means a list just about technical skill, but moreso a list of guitarists that are irreplaceable, deliver the energy, mayhem, and skill necessary to catapult their band to the next level. These twenty guitarists carry their own unique style and sound, and without them ever getting involved in the music world, we’d have a totally different outlook on music today.

#20: Adam Jones
Band: Tool
Favorite Work: Schism
This man is by no means conventional, by no means traditional, and by no means willing to play by the standard rules of playing a guitar. That being said, he is very skilled at what he does, and few guitarists out there can match up and catch up with the extremely off-key and awkwardly-toned sounds of Tool.

#19: Santana
Band: Santana
Favorite Work: Black Magic Woman
Santana is an extremely skilled guitarist that sometimes has these long periods of fail with several consecutive less-inspiring albums. But when he is on top of his game, he can deliver some nasty good tunes and some killer guitar solos. Unlike any guitarist on this list, his best work has decades of range—as his first three albums were amazing, and then made an epic comeback over 20 years later with his Supernatural album.

#18: Bob Bogle
Band: The Ventures
Favorite Work: Diamond Head
The Ventures are hands-down one of the most underrated important bands in the history of music. They experimented like crazy, they were among the first bands to experiment with several different tunings, guitars, and accessory equipment like the whammy bar (which is used extensively nowadays). Bogle’s best work was definitely in the 60s however with his influx of hip, clever, and addicting surf rock tunes that still are a major influence to the world of rock music today. When you usher is a new era of guitarists, you deserve a place on this list.

#17: Kurt Cobain
Band: Nirvana
Favorite Work: In Bloom
Cobain is by no means an extremely skilled guitarist to the likes of Santana, B.B. King, or Van Halen. Instead however, he introduced a new sound, a dirty, distorted, simpler guitar sound that resonated with an entire generation of people in the early 90s. And unlike the three I mentioned in the previous statement, Cobain was not at all afraid of taking risks and challenging his audience and fanbase with a diverse roundabout of sounds, guitar solos, and distorted fun. Cobain’s Nirvana started a musical revolution that lasted several years, and it was one that destroyed glam rock once and for all. Killing genres deserves respect, and Cobain pulled it off within one album.

#16: Bradley Nowell
Band: Sublime
Best Work: Santeria
Ska was successful on rock/mainstream radio only once, and that was when Sublime rocked the airwaves. This very underrated band had this fun mix of island/beach rock with some nasty punk and a heavy dosage of ska embedded. Nowell was the ringleader of the band with his decent vocals but far superior guitar work, which ranges from relaxing, melodic, to sometimes absolutely chaotic. Nowell can play surf rock, can play punk rock, and could have been able to play metal if he hadn’t died so soon.

#15: Alex Lifeson
Band: Rush
Best Work: Working Man
Canada’s best musical gift to the world lies in the lightly intense band Rush. While the band will forever be known for its nearly-flawless drum work and complex-yet-engrossing bass work, we can’t forget the guitarist and all his glory. Just like Adam Jones, Lifeson’s rather complicated sound to his guitar solos and riffs despite off-key are mildly addicting and infuse an extra layer of uniqueness to an already outside-the-box rock band.

#14: Tony Iommi
Band: Black Sabbath
Best Work: Paranoid
Respect the legends, you must. One of the earliest examples of metal guitar, Tony Iommi is one of the biggest reasons why the British invaded the rock scene back in the 70s with his incredible display of talent in the first couple Black Sabbath albums. What he lacks in guitar solos he makes up with excellent metal riffs as Paranoid and Iron Man are staples to the world of metal. Nearly every metal band in the 80s and 90s were influenced by Black Sabbath’s early-early work, whether they want to admit it or not. And let’s not forget him keeping Black Sabbath afloat after Ozzy left and formed his own band.

#13: Daron Malakian
Band: System of a Down
Best Work: Chop Suey
A recurring theme amongst the guitarists on my list is that they are willing to experiment, bend the rules, and just ultimately distance themselves from the norm in every possible way. System of a Down does that as they combine heavy metal with punk mannerisms with nu-metal and with a hintage of Middle Eastern influence. Malakian might be a horrible singer (who ruined the latter System albums) but his guitar skills cannot be denied as his work is just as intense as the subject matter. No two solos sound the same as he can build masterpiece riffs and solos using multiple pitches and tones, and when its time to crank up the noise, he isn’t afraid to deliver. Toxicity is one of the best albums in the last 15 years, and the guitar work from Malakian is definitely one of the reasons why.

#12: John Frusciante
Band: Red Hot Chilli Peppers
Favorite Work: Other Side
His importance on Red Hot Chilli Peppers is best shown when you display the band’s best work. In 1991 with Blood, Sugar, Sex, Magik----Frusciante was there. 1999’s Californication album---Frusciante was there. The band’s worst years? 1995-1999---when Frusciante left the band. This guitarist focuses less on skillpower and much more on emotion and pacing, two important elements when creating the funky Californian sound of the band. This man is quite underrated, as he nearly destroyed the band he helped build in a couple years by simply leaving. His irreplaceable status is best represented in those grim times in the 90s.

#11: Eddie Van Halen
Band: Van Halen
Favorite Work: Hot For Teacher
I will forever argue this: if Van Halen had gotten along in the 80s then they would have gotten Rockin’ Roller Coaster in Disney World instead of Aerosmith. Why? Nobody represents the skill, talent, popularity, and intensity of 80s glam rock quite like Van Halen. And good ol’ Eddie is the main reason for the band’s signature and timeless sound, as he can play furiously fast, or just blaze the song with an addicting riff. Or…do both like he did in Hot For Teacher. While he calmed significantly in the 80s after some fast-paced tunes in the 70s, there is no denying that he can jam out with the best underground guitarists, while appeal to the mainstream in the exact same time. His range is relentless, and it’s a shame that overrated bums like Slash get all the attention when discussing the 80s.

#10: Tom Morello
Band: Rage Against the Machine
Favorite Work: Bulls on Parade
When you hear the modern-day abusing of the whammy bar, or the ridiculous approach to frets, harmonics, and anything else used to change the pitches of a guitar, you have Morello to thank. While a few bands here and there altered their guitars in a variety of ways, nobody used it as extensively, as creatively, and as successfully as Tom Morello. Morello was a revolutionary in guitar sound, as he went to great lengths to find unique ways of producing sounds, riffs, and solos from the same instrument used to create his also-well-known heavy metal riffs. Rage Against the Machine was not the most talented band, as the drummer wasn’t that great and the singer was never really singing—but Morello put the band on the map and kept them there.

#9: Angus Young
Band: AC/DC
Favorite Work: Back in Black
Angus Young is definitely not known for range, creativity, or an attempt to try something different. Throughout his entire career, which spans four decades, he uses the same pitch, the same tone, the same style, and the same chords. Despite all this: this man can play the guitar, and quite well I might add. While they are not exactly heavy metal, they definitely are an influence thanks to Young’s antics and ability to play the guitar at high speeds and more intensity than your typical guitarist in the same decade. Picture an improved version of Eddie Van Halen: powerful enough for the metalheads, but fun enough to appeal to the masses.

#8: Eddie Vedder
Band: Pearl Jam
Favorite Work: Yellow Ledbetter
Pearl Jam may have been in Nirvana’s shadows for quite some time, but they were definitely the more talented band, even if they weren’t as influential. The main reason is Eddie Vedder’s very impressive skills with the guitar, which are usually not utilized because of his band’s simpler sound. But unlike Nirvana, every so often they like to crank out the heavy rock tunes and with this, we witness Vedder’s amazing ability to create these wholesome sounds that contain just as much emotion as his singing and subject matter. And long after the grunge era Vedder continued to impress with his solo work: ranging from a ukulele album (very few talents in music can crank a full album with a simple Hawaiian instrument) and especially with his music for Into the Wild.

#7: Rodrigo y Gabriella
Band: Rodrigo y Gabriella
Favorite Work: Diablo Rojo
This entry is mildly unfair because its two people in one entry, two people in one group. But these two have proven time and time again through tours and live performances that they can strive perfectly fine by themselves---yet when they are together incredible magic is created. Without saying a word they deliver the emotion, complexity, and talent of all the best current rock bands combined. They are currently my favorite act in the music scene today, as they mix heavy metal riffs with the beautiful sounds of classical guitar. While it took them a while to gain the recognition they deserve, there is no denying that they absolutely blow away any other instrumental guitarist out of the water today or any other day. Classical guitar is a tough instrument, and to be able to deliver exceptional work for years is truly proof that you have talent.

#6: Kirk Hammett
Band: Metallica
Best Work: Master of Puppets
Funny story. If this article had been done in 1992, he would have been in the top 3, perhaps even gunning for the #1 slot. And then came Load and St. Anger, ruining a lot of his credibility. But during the 80s he was the master, he was the king of metal by being responsible for some of the best rock albums in the history of music. His heavy riffs, impressive guitar solos, and just pure ability to maintain the pace while Metallica shreds the amps for 5-6-10 minutes remains a wonder to be heard. Whie unfortunately we remember them for selling out, hating MP3s and selling out, we must try to remember that during the Master of Puppets days---Metallica was the undisputed heavyweight king of metal—and it was partially because of Hammett.

#5: Jack White
Band: The White Stripes
Best Work: Black Math
Now, most of the guitarists here had the blessing of being backed by incredible talent to help them produce their music. This especially applies to Hammett, Young, and Vedder—all in the top 10. Now, can those three turn a two-person band into a garage rock talented powerhouse even though the drummer had never taken a single drum lesson? Perhaps not, but this man could. Jack White has the skills of a Rodrigo, the creative structure of Tom Morello, the hyperness of Angus Young, and just an overall knowledge of music you don’t see with many guitarists. This man cannot quit, as he has been with three bands, and is the best piece in each of them. You want a Jack White in your band.

#4: Brian May
Band: Queen
Best Work: Stone Cold Crazy
Most people are going to disagree with this man being so high up the list. After all, Queen has never been really truly known for skills or for the production value— instead more for the lead singer, who is still the best I’ve ever listened to. But Brian May was responsible for creating several sub-genres of music, with arena rock and speed metal being the best examples. Queen had a different sound for nearly every single album, nearly every single song, and few musicians can ever thrive in that type of atmosphere. This is the man that provided the guitar work to We Will Rock You, Bohemian Rhapsody, Another one Bites the Dust, Killer Queen, We Are the Champions, and much more. Each of those classics sound vastly different, but are each helmed by a man who can convert a good guitar solo as well as create music that will be copied for decades to come. The entire subculture of 80s thrash metal owe a major thanks to Brian May and Queen. Seriously.

#3: Dimebag Darrell
Band: Pantera
Favorite Song: Walk
The top 3 are not just the best, but they are absolute legends. Dimebag was hands-down the most important and best ingredient in the underrated powerhouse of a band known as Panetra. This man can shred (Domination), this man can wipe out the whammy bar (Cemetery Gates), he can craft some of the most incredible and rage-driven solos (Cowboys From Hell), and best of all hammers out the best riffs in the history of music (Walk, I’m Broken). And unlike most of the great thrash/metal bands of the 80s, he is not afraid of totally changing up the tuning and experimenting heavily (Floods). Whenever the singer ws at his weakest, Dimebag is there. Whenever the song needs new life, Dimebag will be there. Dimebag IS Pantera, and there has been nobody even close to him in terms of talent since his unfortunate death.

#2: Jimi Hendrix
Band: Jimi Hendrix Experience
Favorite Song: The Wind Cries Mary
Let’s go out on a limb and pretty much declare the rock world non-existent if it weren’t for the innovative and forever-life-changing works of Jimi Hendrix. Before Hendrix, the guitar was just a guitar. Before Hendrix, you record, clean up the vocals, and that’s that. Before Jimi, music was quite boring….and yes, the Beatles had been around for a few years too. Jimi Hendrix changed the entire scene of music by turning guitar playing into an art, by crafting a new form of post-production in terms of music crafting, invented the modern guitar solo, and was arguably the first guitarist to mess around with wah-pedals, amplifiers, and anything else related to the guitar. He is the first guitarist in modern music history that we modern scholars can call: talented, purely, utterly, truly, madly, deeply talented. Don't let the old farts at the magazines fool you: B.B. King, Chuck Berry, Elvis, and the Beatles are leagues under Jimi Hendrix.

His style of playing the guitar ranges from early-early metal to progressive rock to psychedelic rock to indie rock to even some slick blues rock. Jimi Hendrix didn’t just know how to play, he showed an extremely diverse range that to this day few can imitate. He can riff, he can solo, he can perform live, and best of all, sticks away from the clichéd guitar-playing script. Jimi is Jimi, and there is no substitution.

#1: Jimmy Page
Band: Led Zeppelin
Favorite Work: Heartbreaker

Most people put Hendrix at first and this man in the top 3, maybe top 10. Now, the reason why I place this man #1: he made a subpar band phenomenal and extremely successful without having to use his voice….ever. They had one of the most overrated vocalists in the history of music and still managed to deliver billions in sales thanks to the diverse, phenomenally crazy, and highly innovative guitar work of Page. Page MADE Led Zeppelin, and everyone in the band quietly (and not always happily) knew this. When Robert Plant was at his singing worst (which was often) Page would be there to save the day with a killer solo and a killer musical transition. At times we heard Plant just yelling and Page has to work twice as hard to save the song (See: Immigrant Song, Whole Lotta Love).

He made Stairway to Heaven with those opening notes, he made Kazmir with that riff, he exploded Heartbreaker out of the gate with his (made up on the spot) guitar solo, and in the latter years would help create arena rock, while at the same time experiment with psychedelic, Latin, hard, soft, and blues rock. Jimmy Page deserves the #1 slot because unlike most on this list, he had very little to work with. Great drummer that never quite hit his full potential, a bassist that never developed anything special, and a singer that…….just paled so badly in comparison to the likes of other British acts of the 60s/70s like Ozzy Osbourne, John Lennon, Sting, and especially Freddie Mercury.

Jimmy Page is a guitarist on top of his game at all times, because he wants to and because he HAS to. And with that necessity to step up his game, he is the greatest guitarist I have ever listened to. Led Zeppelin dominated an entire decade, and its because of the guitarist. No guitarist on this list ever dominated an entire generation of music---with the exception of my #1 pick. Bow down, because Page is indeed as good as it gets.

My opinion.

Horrible Bosses: 9/10

2011-07-10T05:34:00.000-07:00

I'll take my comedy raw, blackened, with a side of crazy please.
9 July 2011

Murder. Car chases. Scandal. Rape. Conspiracy. Blackmail. Revenge. These are usually the key words to a suspenseful drama, but in this case are applied to a dark comedy that is relentless, chaotic, and just as funny as advertised. Horrible Bosses is the type of movie that would make Danny DeVito proud, as it blends a fun plot full of fun twists with standout comedic performances, plenty of surprises, and the inability to ever become predictable. Unlike most recent R-rated comedies, this film is raunchy without truly crossing the line, profane without becoming redundant and outrageous without becoming tedious. Don't look now but this movie is legitimately funny, and among the better comedies released in quite some time.

Horrible Bosses is about three average joes (Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis) that are stuck on their job with awful bosses (Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Ferrell) all for different reasons. After all three reach their breaking point, they decide that their lives would be better if their bosses ceased to exist. What follows is their hilarious efforts in finding a way to get it done without getting caught. The premise was promising and thanks to a fresh script by Michael Markovitz, John Daly, and Jonathan Goldstein, the potential was indeed delivered—although not in the ways you'd expect.

The cast is hands-down the standout reason why this movie works. As a matter of fact its also its one minor flaw because we have tons of talent that were not utilized enough because some of the performances were so hilarious in the minimal material given. The bosses themselves were convincingly awful, especially the always-reliable Kevin Spacey as this sadistic, manipulative, and extremely cruel president of a company. Colin Ferrell and Jennifer Aniston step out of their usual roles and surprisingly deliver plenty of laughs with their own cruelly aggressive mannerisms. The main three also provided plenty of laughs and played off each other perfectly well, with Charlie Day being the best of the three. Day's experience with the mildly-dark "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" definitely shows off here, as his whiny and high-pitched voice perfectly matches his character persona and offers the most laughs and one-liners.

Seth Gordon's resume as director has been an interesting one; ranging from the enjoyable Fistful of Quarters to the weak-weak Four Christmases. In here, he keeps the pace constantly quick, constantly throws a crazy scenario to pit our heroes in, and never gives you a chance to breathe and realize how preposterous this movie really is. The movie's raunchiness is matched by its grim sense of humor—you need a dark strong heart to laugh at some of the mean-spirited shtick that is embedded in the 100 minute timeframe. In this movie, nobody is safe, and you never know just what might happen next. Unpredictability is essential in comedy, and the best part of Horrible Bosses is how it can remain one step ahead of you while still giving plenty to laugh about. We are laughing at our heroes but secretly we are definitely rooting for them too. Yes folks, you will secretly be hoping that they do indeed do the dirty deed.

Bottom Line: The talent pool runs deep here, and is the main reason why the film works. Luckily for us and the cast, they also got to work with great pacing, a fun script, and fresh dark humor that can inject life in this dismal summer season. The underrated talent of Sudekis, Day, and Bateman continue to quietly shine in Hollywood as they are hilarious from the first second to the closing credits. But let's not forget the triple-villain team of Aniston, Spacey, and Ferrell, which infused even more humor (and craziness) into the comedy. To sum it up, the film works in its dark manner, as Horrible Bosses never takes itself seriously, but you'll be too deep into laughter to notice the difference. The movie is dark as the movie earned its R rating easily, but if you can handle it you are in for a uproarious ride. Keep an eye on this one, as it is one of the best summer surprises in recent years.

How the MLB 2012 Season Should Look Like

2011-07-05T20:17:00.000-07:00

With the NFL and NBA hitting lockout status in recent days this is the opportunity for baseball to make a leap of faith and change up its image a little, to try to attract new fans. Yes baseball is the most traditional professional sport out there, as no other sport contains so many small, faulty, and unwritten rules. MLB has never been a fan of changes, even if it means improving the overall sport. I am going to present to you my dream season, what I think the 2012 season should look like in terms of scheduling structure. As for changes to the game itself, I’ve already discussed in many previous articles.

My dream season consists of:

1) The Houston Astros moving to the AL West OR the Milwaukee Brewers move to AL Central, moving Kansas City Royals to AL West.

It is extremely unfair that the divisions are not evened out. The AL West becomes a cakewalk because of minimal competition when compared to the likes of the AL East and the NL Central. The sixth team from the NL Central should be removed and placed in the AL. If it’s the Astros, automatically throw them in the West so they can match up with their rival the Texas Rangers. If it’s the Brewers, the last team to switch leagues, then they should go back to the AL Central while at the same time move the westernmost AL Central team to the West—in which case it’s the Royals. It might be odd to see the Royals in the same division as the Athletics and the Mariners, but we need 6 divisions of 5 teams. It is the only fair way to do it.

2) 6 Games versus every non-divisional opponent in your league

One way to limit the amount of games is reduce the amount of times you play each team in your league. We can start with the teams not in your division. Usually the number varies from 6-9 games. We should flatten it, even it out, make it just 6 games against each opponent, no questions asked. As long as your opponent is in the league but not in your division, you will engage in two series against them—one home, one away. With my 15-team format, that means you’ll get 66 games in this category.

3) 12 Games versus your divisional rivals

Usually each team has to play each rival 18 times. If we can lower that down to 12, the value of the games will increase dramatically and can make the season far shorter. With the 15 team format with 5 teams in each division, you’ll see 4 teams a total of 12 times each. That makes it 48 games. If we do the math, we are now at a far more manageable 114 games against your division as opposed to 140+ in seasons we see nowadays.

4) 6 Games against “Rival” Franchise

Love or hate Interleague, its here to stay. The numbers have always been better, the ratings have always been good, and so have the attendance figures. Almost every team has their so-called rival, and these games must remain on schedule. The Mets should still play the Yankees, the Marlins should still play the Rays, the Royals should still play the Cardinals, the Orioles should play the Nationals, etc. One series at home, one series away. Still doing the math? We are now at 120 games.

5) 6 Games against Lottery Drawing Team

I have mentioned many times before that we should have a lottery drawing for interleague play, that way any team can have an equal shot at taking on higher-profile teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Dodgers, Cubs, etc. Let’s be honest, the schedulers will probably not make a Cubs vs. Royals or a Yankees vs. Nationals series unless it’s randomly chosen. I say out of pure fairness this lottery should occur. Gives us a better chance to see extremely odd matchups like Reds vs. White Sox, Rays vs. Giants, or Red Sox vs. Padres. Doing the math again, it pushes the schedule to 126 games. Just 126 games. Doesn’t that sound much better than 162 games?

In this day and age, 162 games is just far too much. But 126 games sounds much more suitable, and definitely enhances the value of each baseball game.

6) Top 5 Teams make the playoffs

Let me start by saying that I am thoroughly enjoying the current playoff format. I think it’s perfectly fine. And I will be the first to admit that I was hesitant in accepting the format that has been floating around for about a year. The format would be the 4th and 5th seed would fight for the final spot and take on the #1 seed. The only argument is whether or not it should be a one-game elimination match or a three-game series. I say with this format next year, it should be a one-game playoff. Some of the greatest games of all-time have come from one-game playoffs. That way it forces the Wild Card to avoid nabbing the Wild Card seed because they are still one game away from losing the entire season. It would add more insanity to the already-crazy playoff race that occurs every year in Major League Baseball.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon: 6/10

2011-07-01T21:12:00.000-07:00

The "D" in the report card full of "F"s
1 July 2011

We are now up to the third installment of the action-packed franchise. Is this Transformers also stupid? Yes. Does it still have stupid characters doing idiotic things? Yes. Does it still have Optimus Prime disappearing throughout most the film and still not being quite as bad-arse as his cartoon 80s days? Yes. Is Michael Bay still dropping the ball as director? Yes. Does the franchise still not know how to have a decent ending? Yes. And finally, does it still have this overgrossing obsession about the military? Yes. Despite all this, we have clearly found our best entry in the trilogy, as Dark of the Moon mixes the humor and heart of the first, with the utter carnage of the second, while jacking up the ante in terms of conflict and suspense. That being said, it is freakin’ frustrating to watch sometimes.

With Dark of the Moon, we follow Sam with a new girlfriend but no job and a frustration of now advancing far in life despite saving the world….twice. In the meantime, the Autobots and the Decepticons race to discover the secrets of a spacecraft that had crashed on the moon many decades ago. This discovery will lead to the most haunting conflicts in the franchise as well as a multitude of surprises and twists and turns. Unlike the first two scripts, which didn’t really pack anything juicy other than action scenes, Ehren Kruger’s script actually does a great job fixing the Megan Fox dilemma while adding a dosage of much-needed heart with a much more likable cast of characters and less of the embarrassing stereotypes that we had to suffer through in Revenge of the Fallen. The stakes are much higher and the film never really drags along with unnecessary scenes. That final battle did take a while though….

The special effects have always propelled this franchise during the dullest of moments, and they shine once again with Dark of the Moon. If this doesn’t get at least an Academy Award nomination, I will be extremely disappointing. Action junkies, you will definitely get your money’s worth as a major city becomes a massive battlefield full of nasty destruction and pure mayhem everywhere. In the meantime the Transformer fights, while (once again) minimal, deliver in the visual department. That being said, it was odd to change the blood of the robots from a dark color in the second to a clear red. Not quite sure what they were trying to pull off there. That little note can be pushed aside as we see a gigantic building get torn in half literally and fall on top of another building.

The cast in the third was the strongest, and it’s mostly because of the small roles. While Shia LaBeouf actually disappointed a bit, the Megan Fox replacement (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) didn’t do half-bad with the minimal material she was given. In the meantime, check out the talent in the small roles department: John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Ken Jeong, Leonard Nimoy, John Turturro, Patrick Dempsey (okay, so the last one might be pushing it, but he did well. Honest..even though his character was indeed stupid). Of course, the parents once again weren’t in the movie enough (Kevin Dunn, Julie White) and pretty much disappear way before the climax.

Here is where the ball is dropped: Transformers 3 is a pretty stupid movie. There is some heart, some soul maybe, but no smarts. Without spoiling too much, some of our characters (heroes and even villains) just make some dumbfounded moves and utterly questionable decisions that defy logic. And then, Michael Bay, once again, falters as a director. He does indeed have a knack for explosions and military-based scenes, but the robots fighting each other (yet again) are sometimes hard to distinguish. And then he does some very questionable things lake fading the screen to black far too many times (in one instance three times in a small scene that wasn’t even necessary). I miss 90s Michael Bay, when he kept the action close and crisp, but never too close to a point of getting a headache. He got the carnage and destruction scenes right, but once the action picks up amongst those robots, it becomes a frustrating game of Where’s Waldo.

Bottom Line: Transformers: Dark of the Moon is the best of the three films, but that’s still not saying too much as the direction is still shoddy, I still don’t care about Shia LeBeouf’s character, there is plenty of stupidity sprinkled throughout, and it still just doesn’t have the quality factor of the better summer blockbusters we’ve seen over the decades. While the casting, writing, and special effects improved, we are still treated to strong potential not being met. The main villains (and coolest robots) are still idiotic and reduced to cameos, as Optimus Prime once again does his I-am-going-to-disappear-for-a-while-and-then-re-appear-later-to-kick-some-arse-once-the-chips-are-down routine. If you are a Transformer fan, you will probably appreciate this much more, as the transformers (while some reduced to cameos) visually look amazing, and the chaos they create is incredible on the big screen. But if you are looking for quality, you may want to peek elsewhere. For some mindless fun, look no further.

And be happy that this is far better than Revenge of the Fallen.

Cars 2: 5/10

2011-07-01T20:13:00.000-07:00

After many home runs, Pixar finally strikes out
1 July 2011

Pixar is arguably the last remaining film company with a perfect track record. From Toy Story to Toy Story 3, each of their films had been met with grand acclaim and multiple Academy Awards. However, I can safely say the perfect track record ends this month. Cars 2 is a bafflingly disappointing movie that tastes even more bitter since its coming from Pixar, the makers of the best computer-animated films of all-time. Everything that has made Pixar movies range from decent to incredible to perfect was neglected here: from the piss-poor script, to the lack of heart, to the lack of humor, right down to even commercializing their film a bit with some awkward product placements and a multitude of new characters that provide nothing more than just providing more toys to sell. Cars 2 was totally unnecessary, and just didn't deliver in any way shape or form---except for the animation.

In Cars 2, we have this bizarre spy plot weaving in with a grand prix championship that takes place around the world. Without spoiling too much, there is a conspiracy going on throughout the grand prix and Tom Mater is sent on a mission to uncover who it might be. At the same time, it loosely threatens his relationship with Lightning. In terms of script, this was by far the weakest because there was no character development, minimal true conflict, no surprises, and it absolutely contradicts the lessons (mildly) learned in the original Cars movie. This movie was made purely for the kids as it offers very little subtle adult humor aside from all the snarly vehicle references.

I will never understand why Pixar felt the need to create this movie whose only purpose was to make money and merchandise the heck out of it. You would think after billions of dollars in revenue with original and clever stories it would be enough to keep their creative juices flowing while at the same time deliver a profit for Disney. But this film was easy to market, easy to distribute. And with that comes laziness, and it was all-too prevalent here. Cars was the film least necessary in the Pixar lineup to warrant a sequel, prequel, whatever. Just the fact that Pixar drove a movie just for profit sake heavily tarnished their credibility as an animation studio that e used to believe was focused in telling great stories in multiple ways.

Let's at least focus a bit on the positive. The voice cast was all back (with the exception of George Carlin and Paul Newman, of course) and with a few new voices in the mix. For the most part they did a good job, even though some didn't have much to work with, incredibly Owen Wilson as the main character Lightning being the main example. The animation was stunningly beautiful, but what else do you expect from Pixar? They are leagues ahead of the next-best animation studio, as their vehicles and settings were detailed down to a T. The action scenes were well-drawn out and have better cinematography as the typical action flick.

And now we shall go back to complaining. The movie felt a lot like Speed Racer: it was a decent racing movie but had a plot too convoluted for children, yet had a premise that was appealing mostly to the kids. Cars 2 suffers from this same fate, it has a spy storyline that complicates itself to a point in which the kids will be utterly lost, but still doesn't have the feel of a movie that the entire family can enjoy—its more a movie for younger boys, who will be utterly lost once the second act kicks in. The movie also doesn't dwell into deeper adult themes like previous Pixar movies like Toy Story 3, Up, and (especially) The Incredibles.

Bottom Line: Cars 2 is Pixar's first disappointment, and it hurts so much more because we know what the studio is capable of. What baffles me the most is the sheer minimal amount of effort to continue the trend and tradition of the preceding Pixar movies. Much like what happened with Indiana Jones 4 (which to this day I deny it exists), it deviated so badly from the formula of success that any strength it may have had is deterred by the fact that….we have seen so much better from that same staff. Cars 2 was pointless, redundant, lifeless, and just nothing like what we are used to seeing.

The original was subtly hinted to be a pet project of Pixar's leader John Lasseter, and the only reason we are even seeing a sequel is because its Lasseter's pet and because merchandise sales were the greatest for Disney since 1994's The Lion King. Let's hope this is just a speed bump and not a downward spiral, because I would hate to see less Up-quality films and more Cars 2-quality flicks. Maybe this will be a wake-up call for the company--especially if they don't win the Best Animated Film Oscar next year. In the meantime, prepare for a snorefest if you are dragged to watch this. Pixar, you finally flopped. Took 25 years and countless good memories, but it has happened.

Bad Teacher: 7/10

2011-06-24T23:01:00.000-07:00

Let's hope they paid the actors more than the writers.....
24 June 2011

Bad Teacher is a great concept that resulted in a style of humor like most of the Adult Swim cartoons you see today: When the jokes hit they hit well, but when they miss, they miss quite badly. The cast was delightful, but could only go so far with the material. As a matter of fact, it was the cast that saved the movie from being a total disaster by providing their comedic chops, their charm, and their good comic timing that you don't see enough of nowadays. Despite all that however, Bad teacher is a shiny apple with a few rotten parts.

Elizabeth Hasley (Cameron Diaz) is a foul-mouthed, bitter, and quite nasty teacher that is keeping the job only to pay the bills after her rich fiancée dumps her. Facing debt, aging, and loneliness, Elizabeth starts setting her sights on a boob job and on a new (rich) teacher (Justin Timberlake), whom has also captured the attention of a manipulative rival (Lucy Punch). The script was helmed by two veteran writers of The Office (Gene Stupnitsky, Lee Eisenberg) as they use their non-television ratings boundaries to mix plenty of vulgar and raunchy humor with even some tidbits of cruel humor. Unfortunately, their lack of boundaries led to a mediocre script.

This film's biggest falters come in the form of the script. Despite the promise in the premise and the cast involved, the script was convoluted, and didn't have much structure until the second half. As a matter of fact, the film switches up the pace very unexpectedly when the next act approaches. Pretty much almost all the crude and vulgar humor failed to draw laughs, with one notable exception involving one of the odder "sex" scenes in recent memory. The movie was a great idea not exactly explored upon, and was full of smaller ideas that were not utilized. Many good smaller characters did not get enough time in the script; most notably the students, the gym teacher (Jason Segal) and the main character's roommate (Erik Stonestreet).

Despite the writing being a fickle mess, the cast was superb, from the small roles to the big ones. Cameron Diaz I can honestly say is one of the most underrated talents in Hollywood, because she rarely ever delivers a mediocre or weak performance. She has this aura, this energy that can save the worst of films (See: What Happens in Vegas) and it is no different here. Despite her smoking/drinking/vulgar/manipulative/cynical/cruel/superficial ways, we still secretly root for her to succeed in reaching her goal. Very few actresses can pull off this type of charm.

Lucy Punch, despite having a bit of questionable material, delivers as Diaz's rival. Jason Segal could have helped the movie a lot more if he was in it more often, as he delivered the laughs every time he was on-screen with his wit, sarcasm, and I-don't-care attitude. Television staples Phyllis Smith and Erik Stonestreet were hilarious in the far-too-few moments they were on-screen. The movie does indeed have its laughs, but the potential was so much greater considering all the talented actors involved.

Jake Kasdan as a director doesn't have much of a resume, but he does have the comedic chops and timing, and he proved this with the underrated Walk Hard. With Bad Teacher, he did not have as much good material to work with but could have still helped the movie if he had tightened the first third of the movie better. There was a lot more unnecessary fluff in the first half of the movie compared to the second half. Smaller plot lines were never resolved, certain jokes literally fell off without a punchline, and certain situations were brought up but never explored. Many concepts were also never explored: especially that of how shallow and shady we all become towards each other in the workforce.

Bottom Line: Bad Teacher was a great idea, poorly executed, but relentlessly saved by the energetic cast. This movie could have mixed the dark charm of Bad Santa with the subtle workforce ridiculousness humor of Office Space to become something very, very special. But neither style of humor was dwelled upon deep enough. The first half had its laughs, but was far too convoluted and was salvaged mainly because of the hilarity of Cameron Diaz. The movie definitely picks up later, but by then its too late, the potential was wasted. Either way, you will certainly laugh, you will remain entertained, but will also be bothered by what it could have been.

The Past, Present, and Potential Future of Smash Brothers

2011-06-21T08:41:00.000-07:00

Super Smash Brothers has enjoyed an impressive run ever since its surprise hit appearance on the Nintendo 64 way back in 1999. Yes folks, the franchise of Smash Brothers is over 10 years old despite having only three entries. Smash Brothers Brawl is the best-selling fighting game of all-time, and Melee is close behind at second place. And while the Street Fighters and the Marvel fighters and the Mortal Kombats are more associated with the genre, Smash Brothers dethrones them all in terms of sales, reputation, and critical reviews.

In E3, it was announced that not only will Smash appear in the next Nintendo console (WiiU, stupid little name isn’t it?), but it will smash its way into the Nintendo 3DS. Yea, that one handheld that nobody is buying. This article is going to be huge, and it’s going to become purely dedicated to the franchise, where it has been, and where it should (in my opinion) be heading. In this article, I am going to showcase my dream Smash Brothers 4 title, and offer recommendations on how we can improve one of gaming’s most underappreciated franchises.

First things first, we are going to dedicate a few moments to Smash Brothers Melee. This is going to come off as a potentially blasphemous statement, and I don’t care. Ready for it? Here we go: Super Smash Brothers Melee is in my opinion the greatest fighting game in history. I rank this sucker above Street Fighter II, Soul Calibur, Marvel vs. Capcom 2 (I am still protesting 3), Killer Instinct (where is that sequel anyway?) and even Smash Brothers Brawl. Look, the fighters I mentioned are great in their own right; but Melee was the first fighter to truly become customizable to a point in which you can spend years brawling in different ways. Melee has the speed of the MvC franchise, the technical aspects of your strictest Street Fighters, and the combo-creating freelance gameplay of your earlier Soul Caliburs.

Smash Brothers Melee didn’t force you to rely on memorizing button combinations in order to pull off devastating moves. Instead, it forces you to learn 8 basic attacks (button “A” in four directions, button “B” in four directions) and quite literally build from there. Smash Brothers for the N64 was arguably the first video game to force you to alter your fighting strategy depending on what items suddenly appear in the field. Honestly, are you going to remain on the offensive towards your opponent when he is holding a bomb-omb? Smash Brothers also became the first major fighting game to get the environment involved by altering its happenings every so often, forcing you to sometimes play defensive not against other people, but from the obstacles in the course. Melee expands upon this by not only throwing more items in the field, but having the environment engage in the fight even more.

Unlike most fighting game sequels, that present more of the same without tweaking the formula too much, Smash Brothers Melee took all the strengths and weaknesses of the N64 cult classic and expanded and improved upon it. The game became much faster, much more furious, and allowed you to do so much more. You can now dodge attacks in the air, catch items, hold energy to deliver a more devastating blow, have more attacks to choose from (Melee was the first to have special moves executed by pressing right or left and “B” at the same time). The roster became much more balanced and while it wasn’t perfect, it was darn near close.

Earlier during this Melee lovefest, I mentioned its customizability. In single-player mode alone, there are multiple ways to battle. You can do an adventure mode, or just do it like a regular fighter and fight through the roster before taking on the final boss. Of, you can do an event mode in which pits you in dozens of different situations that you must fight through. Playing by yourself is rarely ever satisfying when it’s a fighting game. Honestly, Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat wears on you a bit until the next person is available. But Melee has hands-down the greatest single-player mode in any fighting game….ever. With all the trophies you have to collect, the deep adventure mode, and the multitude of secrets, it will take a very long time before you ever create a collective sigh and wonder when others will join in on the fun. And then there’s the multi-player.

There are a dozen different multi-player modes, and each of them you can customize the way you want to determine the winner. Even for the fighting game purists, there is a stamina mode that allows you to fight old-school fighter style—with a health meter going down with every hit. And guess what, you don’t always have to fight until someone dies: you can do a timed mode, or fight for the most points, or even fight for the most coins. If you do the math after all the counting of different modes, there are over 60 ways to fight each other. And that’s not including the fixing of what items can be on the field.

Now, most of you are going to argue that Brawl has all this and then some. This is true, Brawl has more characters, more stages, more gaming modes, and even a customizable map. However, in terms of the gameplay itself it took a step backwards. For some odd reason, they wanted to make this usually-hardcore fighter a bit mainstream by tweaking and fixing the speed and furiousness of the previous entry. The result is a slower game, a much slower game. And with the speed dimming down, the game just doesn’t feel as impressive when pulling off a killer assortment of combos. To add to that, they watered down several characters in order to make the roster more balanced. But what good is a balanced roster if you even watered-down Jigglypuff!??! And while there were more characters, the removal of Roy, Pichu, and especially Mewtwo is inexcusable.

Brawl is not a bad fighter by any means, but it’s like Marvel vs. Capcom 3: much more mainstream friendly, and with that we have a weaker, slower, and not as fulfilling fighter. Part of the fun is all the misguided mayhem, and this is where Melee (and Marvel vs. Capcom 2) succeeded the best. Can Smash Brothers 4 fix these lingering issues? Of course they can, but as of now, Super Smash Brothers Melee is the greatest fighter in the franchise, and arguably the best ever. The replay value of Melee stands as one of the best in the history of gaming.

Fixing Smash Brothers is no easy task, especially considering that they nearly perfected the formula to begin with—even if they took a few steps backwards. That being said, there are some elements that can be worked upon. The visuals are a no-brainer, and do not count in this article. HD-Smash Brothers will sell like hotcakes, no matter what. But here are 10 things I would like to see in Smash Brothers Armageddon (I am guessing that will be the title). These are in no particular order:

1) Improved Online Mode
This is a toughie because of the sheer speed of the fighting franchise. I honestly could not tell you how they can technologically pull off a lag-free versus mode over the internet. I think the only thing I recommend is minimize the amount of stages, and minimize certain items. Or, you can capture the hearts of certain purists by removing all items altogether. The fact remains that: Smash Brothers will never achieve its ultimate peak of quality until the online mode is implemented, and it works without any drag whatsoever. The exchanging of maps was a good idea, and worked well…that should become a staple in Smash Brothers.

2) Much Bigger Roster
I don’t want to hear any nonsense about balanced rosters. Look at Marvel vs. Capcom 2 and look at 3. While 3 was much more balanced, its character roster was so miserable that you become bored of it…..fast. The lack of Venom and Gambit to this day baffles my soul. Smash Brothers Armageddon needs to have at least 50 characters, I don’t care how, but it adds even more mayhem to a franchise that thrives on it. Add more Pokemon, add more third-party characters, bring back some of the forgotten ones, transform certain assist trophies into legitimate characters. This can be done, this can indeed happen, and it definitely should. Smash Brothers 4 should not become a Marvel vs. Capcom 3. Really Capcom…She-Hulk!!!?!?!?!?

3) Better Tracking of Statistics
This one is more implied towards the online portion of the game, but there should be a massive worldwide leaderboard system involving the game. Your accomplishments should find its way online for comparison with other people. They should also be easier to access. I am pretty sure that the original Smash was the easiest in terms of finding statistics. But like I said, this one is definitely not as important as some of my other requests, but would be nice nonetheless.

4) Not So Much “Fluff”
Part of the downfall of Brawl was that it added so much, that some of it became wholly unnecessary. The addition of CDs was a great idea. The trophies? Sure, that could work. The extra games that you can play for a mere minute? Not so much. The stickers? Meh, now we are pushing it. Smash thrives on replay value, but there comes a point in which its excessive. I think the next Smash should just stick with the trophies, and throw in the CDs. Nothing more, nothing less. Give me secret characters, and secret songs.

5) Removal of Final Smashes
This has to go. What was a good-looking idea turned into a bad one by creating these unnecessary one-hit KO attacks that cheapens the entire fight. I know that they can be removed in the item selection menu, but the mere offering is more proof that they are just trying to nab the mainstream-not-so-great-at-fighting-games crowd. Part of why Melee works so well is because no one character has that one irritating move that is unnecessarily deadly and pulverizes you regardless of situation.

6) Power-Up System
While Final Smash was a bit of a cheap shot, there should be a rewarding power-up system that makes you stronger the better you fight. And when you reach certain levels, then you can deliver a devastating blow. For example: Link. At level 1, Link is fighting normally, nothing special. At Level 2, his moves becomes a little stronger. At Level 3, hitting a certain button allows him to create a devastating combo attack. And, at the final level, he can create a crazy combo that can pretty much instantly kill anyone in the way. Now, I know this contradicts my complaints about Final Smash---but with a power-up system you have to EARN your way to a deadly move, as opposed to just getting an item. I am all in favor of adding a MvC-like power-up system to give the fight just a little more depth.

7) Removal of Clones/Diversify the Lineup
The clones were mildly annoying, but a forgettable afterthought in Melee. Brawl however; it went into overkill as we had Fox, Falco, AND Wolf with similar moves. And then Ganondorf STILL doesn’t use his sword, while Luigi still isn’t that far separated from Mario, nor is Toon Link separated much from Link. Then there is the Lucas/Ness combo, and the Ike/Marth combo. I don’t have a problem with these characters per say, but their movesets should become much more varied, much more different from the others. I propose that certain characters when you choose a different suit/style, their fighting technique differs. For example: with Mario you can choose whether you want regular Mario, or Dr. Mario, or even Sunshine Mario with his jetpack. With Link you can pick the age, Young Link, Teen Link, or Adult Link—and they differ. Hell, throw in Dark Link for good measure. But, the point is, a more diverse lineup would definitely help Smash Brothers 4

8) Deeper Level Design Mode
The map creation mode was a nice addition in Brawl, but was quite basic. In a time when Little Big Planet allows you to create entire levels (and eventually mini-games), Smash Brothers 4 should have a far deeper level design. More options should be implemented, more obstacles should be thrown in, just more of everything. The implement was nice, now let’s expand it.

9) Make it More Hardcore
Smash Brothers Melee was the hardcore title of the franchise. But even then, there were some more hardcore elements in the original. In Brawl, the hardcore element , disappeared. Items disappeared, characters disappeared, the game was smaller in scale, it was not as complex and deep, it was not as fast, and even the sound effects weren’t as effective. Smash Brothers Armageddon should be a game made for the hardcore Smash crowd—the crowd that competes in all the tournaments, that discovered the wavedashing techniques, the kind that can transform Jigglypuff from extra character to a deadly force. The sounds need to be more explosive, the game has to be faster, and just has to be nastier. Even the CPU was tougher in Melee. This is Nintendo’s chance to go back to the tough-fast-furious roots. I want Smash 4 to test me, I want Smash Brothers Armageddon to test my skills and limits before even considering facing other opponents.

10) More Surprises
Part of the appeal of Smash is all the nice little goodies and surprises that are sprinkled throughout the game. The fourth installment should have more of this, but should include some really nice stuff that can be obtained only longggg after you first start playing. If I remember correctly, Brawl was easier in nabbing extra characters and trophies when compared to Melee, leading to finishing the game and finding all the major stuff a lot sooner than I wanted. For my final request, keep those extra goodies, those nice little snippets coming, because they are fun to find, and fun to see. And by more surprises I also mean more characters too.

But now that we are on the subject of upgraded rosters and whatnot, the question is, who else should be in the roster for the next installment? Brawl opened up a new can of worms by throwing in some third-party characters. While it was nice to see, now our imaginations are going wild as to whom else can we see battling Mario in the next Smash Brothers. Capcom time and time again has in a subtle manner expressed interest in working on the Smash franchise. There were even rumors of a Nintendo vs. Capcom video game that were quickly squashed. But we can always dream, right? And this is exactly what the next section is: a lot of dreaming. These are 15 characters I would love to see added to the roster for the next Smash Brothers:

1) Many More Pokemon
We have Pokemon Trainer, Pikachu, Jigglypuff, and Lucario running around. But there are over 500 Pokemon in existence, and some incredible ones too. I would love to see Pokemon like Magmar, Alakazam, Gengar, Typhlosion, and others thrown in the fighting mix. I’ve always said there should be a Pokemon Smash Brothers, but until then I’d love to see more Pokemon in Smash 4.

2) Mewtwo and Pichu
The reason they have their own category is because they were in Melee, and for some odd reason removed from Brawl. Mewtwo is far cooler a character than Lucario, and Pichu was a cute ball of devastation in his own little way. They deserve to come back. Especially Mewtwo.

3) Samurai Goroh
Arguably Captain Falcon’s best-known rival is a big, fierce, strong, sword-wielding baddie with a nasty attitude and short temper. Sounds perfect for Smash 4, as he can slice through opponents with his sword and push others away with his physique.

4) Little Mac
Send this boxer into the ring with his arsenal of boxing moves and quick agility. It would be interesting to see Little Mac attempt t fight with no kicking moves.

5) Mega Man
Considering that Mega Man is inexplicably missing from MvC3, he should be included here to take on Samus as they are a bit similar in design. Mega Man can be slow, but extremely powerful with that unpredictable blaster.

6) Knuckles
We have Sonic, so why not add Knuckles? He can fly, he can punch, as he is a stronger, mightier, slower, but more intimidating version of Sonic. Nobody dare mention Tales.

7) Geno
It has been 15 years since we last saw him in a new game. But with the fanbase following him, its hard to believe that. No more, its time to bring Geno back. Give him all his majestic magical powers and weaker defense to the battlefield. I would love to see him brawl.

8) Ridley
While this one is tougher considering his size, Smash Bros. did manage to miniaturize Bowser so why won’t they do it for the famed Metroid villain? This sucker can fly, breathe fire, throw its body around quite fiercely, and of course has that deadly tail.

9) Giovanni
Pokemon Trainer exists with his three Pokemon, so why can’t Team Rocket have their variation? I’d love to see Giovanni with three evil Pokemon taking on the other characters. And like Pokemon trainer, just see him in the background.

10) K. Rool
Donkey Kong’s archrival should have his time in the sun too. Pit him against Bowser for baddest brute in the Smash Brothers series.

11) The Golden Sun Crew
Whether it be Issac, or Felix or Alex, Golden Sun has a lot of sword-wielding heroes with plenty of power and some Dijnn to boot. Everyone knows that if the next Smash has Final Smash again, we will see a major Dijnn attack that will take 30 seconds to execute, but will look gorgeous.

12) Bomberman
He has gotten no love in recent years, so its time for a comeback. Bomberman should have an arsenal of explosives to counteract with his weaker fighting abilities and slower speed. I’d love to fight with someone that has an endless supply of bombs.

13) Kamek
This could spice things up, by throwing a character that has the ability to alter all the other characters and potentially the environment.

14) Crono
No chance in hell. But Chrono Trigger would be an awesome inclusion to the Smash Brothers series, as there are plenty of awesome characters that can jump in the roster. Frog King anyone?

15) Captain Syrup
Wario’s biggest nemesis not named Mario, Captain Syrup is a very athletic, tough, nasty female pirate that can easily hang out with the tough females like Samus and Peach. She can wield a pirate sword and be just as fast as Shiek.

Bottom Line: The Super Smash Brothers franchise boasts a perfect record as they yet to release a disappointment. While Brawl is nowhere near as good as Melee, its still a worthy addition to the bunch because of its balanced fighting roster and great inclusion of ideas. What we need however is a Smash that is more the speed and intensity of Melee, mixing in with the great sounds of the original and the plethora of effort presented in Brawl. Unlike most Nintendo franchises, which has seen better days, the Smash franchise is just as strong as ever, and can only go up from here, granted we get our online mode fully fixed and our roster a bit tweaked. Now if you’ll excuse me, all this talk about Smash Bros. is making me want to play Melee again.

Here’s to Smash Brothers!!!

The 2010 Theme Park Attendance Results

2011-06-17T21:21:00.000-07:00

Due to my love for the theme park numbers and competition that follows (and my inability to be patient), I e-mailed the TEA and asked for their 2010 attendance report, since they usually release it in April/May and it had mysteriously not come out yet. What can I say? I love numbers and wanted to see how much of a punch Harry Potter delivered. Without explanation, they kindly e-mailed back and told me they would send the report as soon as it was ready. Surprisingly, they actually stayed true to their word and in the nicest manner sent me a rough draft of the report. So now, without further interruption, I am going to present the 15 most-visited theme parks around the world.

Here are the 2009 Numbers

Once again, a million thanks to the TEA.

The percentages indicate the change in attendance between 2009 and 2010.

=========
#1: Magic Kingdom
16,972,000
-1.5%

#2: Disneyland
15,980,000
+0.5%

#3: Tokyo Disneyland
14,452,000
+5.9%

#4: Tokyo DisneySea
12,663,000
+5.5%

#5: Epcot
10,825,000
-1.5%

#6: Disneyland Paris
10,500,000
-2.6%

#7: Animal Kingdom
9,686,000
+1.0%

#8: Hollywood Studios
9,603,000
-1.0%

#9: Universal Studios Japan
8,160,000
+2.0%

#10: Everland
6,884,000
+11.6%

#11: California Adventure
6,278,000
+3.0%

#12: Islands of Adventure
5,949,000
+30.2%

#13: Universal Studios Florida
5,925,000
+6.1%

#14: Lotte World
5,551,000
+22.4%

#15: Hong Kong Disneyland
5,200,000
+13%
===========
A few things stood out as I saw this report. Mainly, the power of Harry Potter. Islands of Adventure’s attendance exploded by over 30% in a struggling American economy. And this comes as a major surprise seeing that nearly every Disney park in the Central Florida area dropped heavily in attendance. To add to that, Sea World in Orlando dropped over 10%, and after one year as the top non-Disney park, slipped from #12 to #16. Very shocking and sadening fall, since its been improving a bit in recent years---AND they got rid of that awful Believe show.

To add to the numbers falling, all the water park attendance dropped in Central Florida, especially Aquatica and Wet n' Wild. And adding to this news from the TEA, the attendance of the first quarter of 2011 in Harry Potter Lan--er, Islands of Adventure had gone up over 80%. Should Disney be sweating? Not now, but in the future if those numbers still linger they may have to pull a few trump cards. Even the dated and mediocre Universal Studios went up heavily as a result of the younger brother raking in the millions.

Hollywood Studios is now the least-attended Disney park, losing to Animal Kingdom. While Everest, the Nemo show, and our reviving love towards animals boosted the park to recover after a sluggish start; Hollywood on the other hand has struggled to bring in the numbers even after Toy Story and American Idol. And after experiencing Star Tours II open up Star Wars Weekends, it looks like the muggy streak may not end. The park really hasn't gotten much of a boost with the release of the revival. Perhaps limiting Fantasmic to a few nights is starting to take effect. And perhaps the dying appeal of American Idol, their attempted new flagship attraction, also had an effect.

Magic Kingdom is once again the top banana, but the lead over Disneyland is swindling. And with the Fantasyland expansion not arriving until.....well, we don't know, and with the other parks not providing enough incentive to make you vacation there, can Disneyland claim the top spot of 2011? Or could it be one of the parks in Japan? Both Disney parks in Japan, despite being far behind, went up over 5% last year. And with American tourism still low and Asian attendance remaining high, we might see a foreign winner in the future. I lie, its hard to bring down Magic Kingdom, and unless they screw up the marketing for the new Fantasyland (Like they have for....everything in Hollywood Studios), Magic Kingdom's throne should be safe for a while.

Only two parks in the top 15 are not Universal or Disney, with Disney once again occupying the top 8 parks in the world, and the top 6 in the United States. Everland once again is the top park not from the theme park industry giants as it consistently rakes in at least 8 million visitors in a country that doesn't have a strong tourist economy when compared to the other competitors. With an 11.6% boost, its another example of the Asian theme park economy not being affected by the small American slump.

Bottom Line: The top 10 remains dominated by Disney, even though Epcot and Animal Kingdom moved up a notch or two while Disneyland Paris and Hollywood Studios dropped. Harry Potter is sending Universal Studios to numbers it couldn't dream, as now they overtook Sea World Orlando and became the top non-Disney parks in North America--and are even creeping into the top 10 as Harry Potter Mania continues to overwhelm and meet the customer demand. While Disney shouldn't have to look in the rearview mirror anytime soon, I am sure they'll have to check the gas and see what they can deliver in the tank. Only time will tell if this new controversial Fantasyland expansion can actually deliver the phenomenal boost that Universal has been receiving from the famed wizard.

Only time will tell if Harry Potter is the next Star Wars, or the next Lord of the Rings--an epic that ran its course and doesn't quite have the lasting power of the most potent franchises. As for the overseas markets, they are definitely improving a bit, with Japan being the outstanding example and rising global leader China not being too far behind.

In the meantime, congrats to Disney for being #1...and #2...and #3....but don't slack off too much now, because Universal is back with a vengeance.

A million thanks to the TEA for making this possible.

The Official Star Tours II Review

2011-06-10T19:12:00.000-07:00

Star Tours II is the long-waited, long-overdue sequel to the classic attraction that when first opened was ahead of its time, ahead of the curve, and definitely an immediate hit. While the ride remained entertaining, we all knew it was slightly dated. With Harry Potter over in the theme park dark side becoming a smash success, Disney decided to go to this ride and give it a much needed upgrade. It closed in fall of 2010 (amidst a lot of complaints nonetheless) and the details concerning the ride remained deathly secret. Nobody knew anything for the longest, we all just knew it was going to be 3-D and would have new destinations.

At the same time though I was deathly afraid that it was going to disappoint because of the recent streak of Disney’s newer attractions….and we are all still trying to mentally recover from the abysmal Pixar parade currently polluting Hollywood Studios. And let's not forget Disney Channel Rocks. Now that I think of it, Hollywood has seen better days. Not sure if my heart could handle Star Tours being disappointing.

The queue area is very similar to that of the original, except with a much more modern and cleaned-up look. C-3PO did not look like rusty metal, as he shined and gleamed as he talked to the cast member waiting around. In the next room there was less garbage being moved around, but the two robots inspecting the area hilariously interacted with each other and seemingly with the people waiting in line. There are cameos all over the place in this room, and totally makes up for the endless barrage of garbage that was being transported around in the original Tour. Patrick Warbuton lends his talents to yet another Disney thing, as he voices one of the robots.

The loading area was also the same, but looked cleaner, fresher, and much more Star Wars-like. After more endless waiting (It was only 5 minutes, but felt like 555), I was finally seated, with the 3-D glasses, ready to rock. Now, I am strongly against 3-D everything, but I was still willing to give it a shot. It is Star Wars after all.

The ride was like this: a Christmas, Hanukah, Kwanza, Anniversary, Birthday, Unbirthday, Valentine’s, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day, Grandparents’ Day, and Graduation present wrapped into one delicious package for Star Wars fans. The more embedded in the Star Wars culture you are, the more you are going to enjoy this ride. In other words, there will be tears and the manliest of men squealing like little girls during Star Wars Weekends while riding this. While the original had its subtle Star Wars references, this one has references sprinkling and scattered throughout the entire movie. This one also has a handful of references to the original Star Tours, and even one towards George Lucas himself.

Look at this number: 54. Remember this number: 54. There are 54 different variations of Star Tours---as there are multiple beginnings, multiple destinations, multiple surprises, multiple intermissions, and multiple endings. While the differences are small amongst the variations (aside from the potential destinations) the fact is you can ride this many times and chances are you’ll have a totally different experience. The five times I rode it I got something different, and they range from good to fun to spectacular. On one instance I was racing on Tatooine, on another I was smack in the middle of Hoth (my personal favorite), and even engaged in a high-speed escape in Coruscant, and at one point had a showdown with a familiar foe in Geonosis. I am still missing at least 4 destinations. I am begging, begging that they still kept the original battle on the Death Star from A New Hope.

Begging.

The 3-D aspect of the ride is by no means a distraction, and definitely loosely enhances the ride with some cool effects and some cool moments. Could it have been done without the 3-D? Perhaps, with a much wider screen. But the 3-D allows for the action to be closer to your face, as you’ll see many droids come after you, lasers fly towards you in a brisk pace, and even snow scatter through the corners of your eyes. I am not a true convert to 3-D (I will never watch it in movies) but I will accept the fact that in order for Star Tours II to truly function, the glasses are needed.

Now of course, there comes its drawback. You know I had to find one--even though technically it was another Star Wars fan that started this conversation. The first Star Tours had a concrete storyline and it worked; basically a tour went wrong as you land smack inside a battle to destroy the death star. In here however, the chronological order of the adventures you encounter sometimes doesn’t work as you may start off at Hoth (Episode V), but then wind up in the past (Episode III) as you fight in the planet __________ (I can’t spoil every detail now). Disney has backed off a little on adding cohesive storylines to its attractions (What the heck is Toy Story Mania about anyway??) but you aren’t going to care as your tour blasts through multiple destinations in the Star Wars canon. And, they all look spectacular too. Even the locations from the prequels (heh, heh, heh...)

Bottom Line: Star Tours II is not just a remake, but instead a long-overdue (I am re-using these words, I know, shut up) sequel/celebration of the Star Wars franchise, and all the characters, settings, and mayhem involved in the six epic movie chapters. The special effects are definitely improved, the 3-D effects are nice, and the sheer variety of the ride itself doesn’t just warrant but flat-out demands multiple visits. There honestly is little that can be improved upon, as the Imagineers were truly given the freedom (and budget) to create an out-of-the-ordinary experience. If they honestly had the same amount of creativity they imposed on this ride to most other Disney attractions, we would have a totally different Walt Disney World. But that’s another story (and eventually another article). In the meantime, I strongly recommend the new Star Tours, and especially if you are a Star Wars fan.

And then ride it again. And again. And again.

P.S. These Vader cupcakes are freakin' legit.

The E3 2011 Opinionated Runaround

2011-06-07T16:34:00.000-07:00

All three conferences of E3 have been unveiled, of course to plenty of surprises, controversy, and disappointment. Microsoft went first, and Sony follows several hours later. Nintendo did theirs on the very next day, perhaps with the most anticipation since they have a new system coming out next year. Surely enough this is one of the most important E3s in a very long time as the eighth generation of gaming was emerging quietly. I will breakdown each conference, what they did wrong, and what I predict is in their future.

=========
Microsoft
=========

What They Did Right: Halo 4. Microsoft’s flagship franchise despite a lot of skepticism (Bungie left, remember?) was a nice (albeit, somewhat expected) surprise to round out the evening. On an E3 with few surprises, Halo 4 was a nice addition. And I guess I should be proud of Microsoft for sticking with Kinect rather than treat it as a small fad that was used only to counteract with the Wii.

What They Did Wrong: The Kinect. The hardcore crowd I am sure must feel a little offended that the gimmick created to rival the other gimmick is cutting into the hardcore time. The fact that Kinect will be used for titles like the next Gears, the next Forza, and the next Halo means the games have to be adjusted a little to suit with the new technology. The Kinect should stay away from XBox’s better franchises and should stick with light party games—much like Wii Sports Resort. And the new Fable looks quite disappointing. As a matter of fact, the entire conference reeked of mediocrity. The XBox 360 has had a fantastic run, don’t get me wrong, but all we see are more shooters, more sequels, and more Kinect nonsense. Metal Gear Solid Rising once again is noticeably absent, and there just wasn’t much reason to truly be excited for the future of the long-running system.

Predicting Their Future: I predict that while the Wii is running out of steam, the XBox 360 will continue to have a light consistent flow of games being released. In the holiday season however, the 3DS and the PSVita is going to severely cut into their sales. Microsoft had a nice boost with Kinect, but that ship will sail very fast as superior handheld technology and a stunning array of software creeps its way into the final three months.

My Ranking: 3rd in E3.

==========
Sony
==========

What They Did Right: The PSVita. It’s a nice-looking handheld, cheap in price, and looks like it will simplify gaming for the masses. In other words, its pulling the Nintendo Wii strategy while at the same time attempt to overthrow sales of Apple’s IPod Touch and IPads rather than directly take on Nintendo. The handheld resembles much more Apple’s nifty toys rather than the dual-screens of the DSs. This strategy just might work, as the mainstream and non-casual gamers tend to appeal to that type of gameplay. Sony dedicated a nice portion of time to this handheld and did not hold back on the details. The price tag was definitely a nice added touch, as it rivals the price of the 3DS. Uncharted and Little Big Planet for the PSVita? Nice indeed.

What They Did Wrong: AT&T? Really? On a more serious note, the PSVita got plenty of love and showcased its attempts to appeal to the hardcore and the mainstream. That being said..........the Playstation 3 was pretty brutally avoided. All the highlights and best portions of the presentation came from the handheld, as they really had little punch left with the PS3 outside the already-dismally-irritating Move. None of the trailers looked that impressive. Along with the 360, it looks like there isn’t much punch left, nothing left in the tank. The Playstation 3 made a miraculous comeback, and it’s a miracle if Sony can pull any type of large profit in spite of all that’s happened, but I personally believe that Sony should start prepping for the PS4. Its time. One final note: no apologizing over the recent shutdown of the network is a no-no.

Predicting Their Future: The PS3 will continue to fight neck-to-neck against the XBox 360 in the coming months, but when the PSVita comes out the focus will shift. I think the Vita will become a massive sales hit in the holiday season, and unless the 3DS can pull some heavy punches this might be the first holiday season in which a handheld not by Nintendo sells the most.

My Ranking: 2nd in E3

============
Nintendo
============

What They Did Right: Saved the 3DS from anymore destruction in reputation. It’s a nice handheld machine with plenty of potential, but none of it has been met in the slightest bit. A plethora of software of exclusives later, there is some life in this handheld. Mario Kart, Star Fox, Kid Icarus, AND a new Mario adventure in the same exact year? And throwing in Zelda: Link’s Awakening and the Virtual Console? That’s new life. And then there’s the WiiU. The potential in this system is phenomenally high, with long-overdue HD graphics and a controller that is destined to provide hours upon weeks of unique gameplay. Like I said, while Nintendo was extremely ho-hum on the details, the potential is there, and Nintendo followers everywhere have other choice but to drool. The backwards-compatibility part is a nice addition as well. Plenty of news, not too much talk about how they are outselling the world, and of course, a brief mention of a Smash Brothers arriving in the 3DS AND the WiiU.

What They Did Wrong: Oh….boy. Potential. The Wii was knocked around a lot critically because of unmet potential, and now I am sticking the same type of complaint to them because of this conference. They revealed the biggest news of E3, but failed to capitalize on it. They got the system, but just got their feet wet in terms of details. Nintendo had no knockout punch, no overwhelmingly awesome surprising news that would send this company to the unquestionable peak of E3 stardom. The 3DS had a great lineup, but they still weren’t 100% convincing you to get the handheld. WiiU sounds extremely promising, but they lacked the AAA software that put you over the top on excitement. Nintendo had the hook, the line, but missed the sinker. No price tag, no specs, and no announcement of what’s coming at launch; when on earth are we going to get these details? Nintendo is trying to win back the hardcore crowd, but while the hardcore was pleased with the 3DS (Slightly), its a much tougher draw with the WiiU when we were limited to tech demos.

P.S. They are not doing enough for Zelda’s 25th anniversary. Where is the collection of games? Why is it just Awakening at Virtual Console instead of Minish Cap, Oracle of Ages, and Oracle of Seasons joining in?

Predicting Their Future: Nintendo’s Wii system is going to struggle mightily throughout the year, before getting a small boost with Skyward Sword coming out. That being said, Skyward will pull a Majora’s Mask and provide very weak sales—regardless of how good the game might be. Why you ask? Because its extremely late in the lifespan of the system, like Majora’s Mask back in 2000 on the N64. The 3DS is going to have some nasty competition coming from the Vita, as they must pull off a great marketing campaign to get the gamers to notice.

Last but not least, we will definitely get news about the WiiU this Fall at a random time.

My Ranking: 1st, but not by much.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This E3 was quite an interesting one, as many surprises were unveiled, and the next generation of gaming and technology was revealed to plenty of skepticism, criticism, and mayhem. Only with time will we see what the future of gaming will hold. One thing is for certain, your days of playing video games with just a simple controller are long long over. Just ask the 3DS, Kinect, PSVita, Playstation Move, ITouch, IPad, Wii, WiiU.................

How to Star Warsify the Star Wars Weekends

2011-06-06T10:02:00.000-07:00

It was my first Star Wars Weekends at the Hollywood Studios working and also attending. I finally got to witness the chaos that follows those bloody three days of Star Wars fanatics running into Star Wars junkies running into Star Wars actors and actresses. To add to that, Star Tours got an overhaul and re-opened to the public to kick off the Weekend, which by the way has opened to good reviews. But there’s something about this year that seemed a little off.

While it was crazy and was a bit hectic, it still didn’t feel like the crowd hit its full potential, and didn’t seem like Disney went the whole nine yards for this event. There was not much of a crowd waiting at midnight for the event to start, and they had an entirely new Star Wars ride waiting for them! The guests didn’t seem as geeked out and thrilled as the stories used to suggest. So has Star Wars lost its luster to the likes of Harry Potter and Marvel? Has Disney stepped back on the lazy scale for this event? And biggest question of all, why has it been only a 45-60 minute wait on a brand new STAR WARS ride? It seems like all these years, Disney hasn’t done much to enhance Star Wars Weekends to appeal to the masses—they’ve stuck to a familiar formula. Well, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right? But what if its time for a change? Surely we got the Star Wars ride, but why can’t we Star Warsify other attractions in the park?

Why can’t we have Star Wars versions of Toy Story, Indiana Jones, and especially Fantasmic? In the case of Indiana Jones, we saw the full potential that can be unleashed when Star Wars and arguably the greatest trilogy in the history of film collides. Last Tour to Endor was a fantastically-done event that featured a superb Star Wars fireworks show that inexplicably is absent from all Star Wars Weekends, and featured a hilarious mash of Indiana Jones and Star Wars. While we can’t have all the celebrities from that specific event all the time, we can do a decently-abridged version of that show for the Weekends. I mean, seriously, why not?

I think the Star Wars peeps would love to constantly see Boba Fett and Indiana Jones duke it out, and eventually Darth Vader showing up to battle Indiana Jones. With some slight fixtures, this could become an awesome staple to the Star Wars Weekends events. And Toy Story: Midway Mania is a ride that because it relies a lot on projections and screens, can also get the Star Wars treatment. Wouldn’t it be awesome to use the Star Wars blaster sound effects while smashing plates that have Jar Jar Bink’s face on it? Wouldn’t it be awesome to dim the lights a little and have the Star Wars music blasting away in the background? It would not be that difficult to pull off if you ask me.

Another ride that can definitely change a little without much money being involved is the Rockin’ Roller Coaster. The ride structure doesn’t have to change, but change the music so you can hear Star Wars and its sound effects while going on the loops and corkscrews. While it would be a mix of themes, isn’t that what the Indiana Jones crossover was? A mixing of themes? You can hear Yoda start the countdown before you blast off. And at the projections in the end instead of Aerosmith, you see that band of aliens playing the infamous Cantina song. Of course, the background music before the ride can all be Star Wars.

Last but most definitely not least, is Fantasmic. So Disney decides not to throw fireworks in sync to Star Wars music like in Last Tour, but why on earth could they not fix up Fantasmic and create a visual/audio presentation of the Star Wars saga? This would be extremely easy to maneuver considering they have all the technology intact. They can create a 15-20 minute movie about the Star Wars movies, syncing with the dramatic score from the films. Think about it, the images on the water can show scenes from all the movies while John Williams’ epic score blasts in the background. It can be a sort of medley, start with the settings and the heroes (and some supporting characters), as you present each of their themes. And then it can progress to the villains, and all the haunting music that follows. I can see Darth Maul swinging around a glow-in-the-dark dual-lightsaber in the middle of the stage with fire suddenly emerging in the middle during the gloomiest parts of the medley.

Of course, we have the impressive battle music as we see all the aerial space battles that have taken place throughout the movies. We can throw in lasers flying everywhere, a few “explosions” sparking the area, and then a grand final explosion when the Death Star gets blown up. For the final sequence of the medley, we can have the throne room music as all the heroes are presented and all the planets can be seen celebrating. As for the grand finale, one final medley showing the most memorable scenes from the six movies, and finally, the recognizable credits sequence as the show ends. Seriously, this has to be done. Disney, you can nab this idea for free. Just get this done.

Bottom Line: Star Wars Weekends used to be the hotspot to get your true Star Wars fix, but progressing technology and advancements in geekdom has led to us being able to enjoy everything Star Wars without having to travel hundreds of miles to visit a place that has reduced the event to signing a few autographs, having a few merchandise things, and having a Star Wars ride. In these tougher times, if you want people to truly come in droves, you better step up and deliver much more. We hit half the attendance we expected on opening day, and that’s with a new ride attached. Is it honestly the economy? Or can it be because the appeal of Weekends is dying? I am sure the pure insanity of Star Wars Weekends can make a comeback if Disney can prove that they will enhance what they already have. At least show you are really trying.

Nowadays, its going to take more than celebrities and a small dance-off to bring everybody to your park.

So we can declare Gaming Wars VII over, correct?

2011-06-04T19:47:00.000-07:00

With E3 around the corner, and Nintendo and Sony introducing next-generation stuff, it is pretty much time to determine and announce the winner of this current generation of gaming. Despite the weak second half, despite the total lack of support from third-parties, despite the hardcore pretty much neglecting it to a point of disease, and despite the awful reputation given to it on the internet, the Nintendo Wii pretty much dominated this generation and was the outstanding winner by a wide margin. The funny thing is if Nintendo had supported it a bit better, it could have broken every sales record in the book. If Nintendo had applied a little more effort during the latter years of its run, we really could have had the biggest system in the history of gaming.

If only the phenomenal support from the first couple years had continued. Within the first few years, we already had a Zelda title, one Mario title, a Metroid title, a Smash Brothers waiting around the corner, and a few new franchises bouncing around. If only they could have continued this wonderful trend in later years with more F-Zero, Kirby (legit Kirby, by the way), Star Fox, Pokemon (legit one, no knockoff stuff), Earthbound, Kid Icarus, the Mario Sports games, and a little more from the main franchises.

And no, Metroid: Other M does not count.

Nonetheless:

7 of the 20 best-selling video games come from the Nintendo Wii. The best-selling game of all-time is on the Wii. The best-selling racing game of all-time is on the Nintendo Wii. The two best-selling fitness games of all-time are on the Wii. The best-selling fighting game of all-time is on the Nintendo Wii. They have over 10 games that have sold over 7 million copies, which is something no other system has accomplished. The Wii has been around for about 55 months, and has sold at a rate of 1.5 million a month. It beat the Gamecube in overall sales in just a couple of years. At one point, it had nearly 70% market share, which is something no system (except the NES) had ever pulled off.

They accomplished all this with no third-party support, much weaker hardware, pure shunning from the hardcore crowd, and much less excellent games when compared to the other two systems. What Nintendo did right was market their product to the mainstream, damning the hardcore crowd after the abandonment of the Gamecube. The Wii shoved the world of gaming into the limelight and the mainstream, and their focus on cheaper games with innovative ways of gaming paved the way for the success of Apple’s influx of tiny games that are quietly chomping into the handheld market. Nintendo made games accessible not just to the teenage/college crowd, but also families, retirement homes, and even fitness centers.

What prevented this massive rush of success from hitting PS2 heights (and we all know it could have happened) was the incoming competition, the momentum running out of steam, the support dying in an alarming rate, and also Nintendo realizing they could pull all they could from their little machine. Graphically, they peaked with Super Mario Galaxy---and that was just two years in!

The Kinect made a much stronger hit than we may have predicted (Nintendo really had no answer, nor did they try) leading to nearly 10 million in sales. The Sony Move-controller-crap thing failed to do much but provide superior technology and more reasons for us to laugh at them. But the Wii was looking dated with the Kinect around, and then the mainstream started distancing itself from the machine, moving instead to Apple and their IPad/IPod/IPhone invasion. Nintendo didn’t have the hardcore (or technological opportunity) to fall back on, so therefore, less sales despite 2010 being a more than decent year of gaming for Ninty. The Wii had nearly fully run out of steam.

The XBox 360 and PS3 were clearly designed to last in the long run of this war, but neither expected that a) Nintendo would take such a massive lead and b) Nintendo would jump ship so fast, so sudden, and so...out of nowhere. Not only did Nintendo win the war, but also dictated the pace of it, by moving to the next generation as soon as the Kinect started pushing the motion-capture technology. That’s all Nintendo could do, as the Wii really couldn’t do much more than decent motion-capture gameplay. No HD support, no ability to play any DVDs, the online is still leagues behind Sony and especially (especially) Microsoft. The Wii was like the aging boxing legend: amazing at his prime, but has nothing left to compete with the younger guns.

But unlike previous generations when Nintendo would pull off questionable decisions, they hit all the right targets with the Wii. They knew how to profit immediately (something Sony and Microsoft could not accomplish at all), knew how to market it, and knew exactly when to quit. They knew that superior technology was right behind them, which is why they pushed the 3DS so quickly, to take away from the momentum of the shifting tides. Just a shame 3DS has no software yet……………

The XBox 360 could have been the first system to ever win the war despite coming out first and a bit ahead of the competition. Check out the previous systems that started out first: Sega Dreamcast (disaster), Sega Saturn (Even more disaster), TurboGrafx-16 (Do you even know what this is?). But what happened was simple: too similar to the Playstation 3. The XBox was nowhere near as good as the 360, but had a better core (quantity-wise, that is) of games exclusive to the system. The 360 however chipped into Sony’s third-party support—from Final Fantasy to Grand theft Auto and even the seemingly impossible-to-receive Metal Gear Solid. This led to Sony dropping significantly, but also prevented Microsoft from truly making a push for first. I am sure they can settle for the “Most Successful American-Made System in History” title—which started ringing true a couple years ago after topping the Atari hardware sales.

If the XBox wants to grow into the #1 spot, they need to step up its first-party game, something that has saved Nintendo time and time again. It is such a shame that Rareware never became the powerhouse that it used to be with the Nintendo 64. Most of the success stories of the 360 can be found on other systems, and even if they weren’t at first, eventually shifted away. Bioshock was the best example, as it was one of the better games of this generation but Microsoft couldn’t prevent it from moving to the Playstation.

As for Sony, they need to get back down to earth. Its ridiculous price tag for the first few years was unjustifiable and purely stupid, even with the Blu-Ray feature. Sony has far better first-party support than Microsoft but lacks the reputation of being more willing to adhere to gamers. The best examples include the pathetic launch, nasty high prices, and recent disastrous fights against Anonymous and the eventual consequences---I truly believe that organization was involved in the shutdown of the Playstation Network. What good does it do Sony to have excellent franchises like Little Big Planet and Uncharted if they actually sued a person that actually bought one of their systems? Yes, he is a hacker, but he was one man, didn’t hurt the company one bit. Sometimes an image can make or break you—just ask Disney and how they still make money despite pricy offerings.

Bottom Line: In the seventh generation of gaming, I declare the winner to be the: Nintendo Wii! With 47% market share and 86 million sold, there’s no question they will remain the best-seller if this generation, despite what happens in the future.

Nintendo won the crazy war because they knew how to market their far-cheaper machine and also because they were the first to not avoid the mainstream, but to embrace and invite the mainstream into the world of gaming. Hopefully though, they will push to win back their hardcore crowd with Project Café. This generation of gaming brought us some of the nastiest battles and some of the greatest games ever created, and it’s great that this gaming warfare continues to rage on between the three. As for now, I can safely give Nintendo the crown as they have a 30 million-sale lead over the others.

Unlike previous generations, each system had a great chance to win, but ultimately bad decisions, nasty economy, and a little luck gave the advantage to the Nintendo Wii in every possible way. Can Nintendo ride this wave to the next generation? Only time will tell, but as for now, the competition has some catching up to do.

Here’s to the future of gaming, and Gaming Wars VIII. Cheers.

P.S. **$#*(#*($ it, where is my Earthbound sequel?!?!?!

A Letter to Delusion

2011-05-27T10:43:00.000-07:00

Dear Scottie Pippen,

Shut up.

Immediately.

Right now.

What on earth are you trying to prove by mentioning that LeBron James could become the greatest basketball player, better than Jordan? Why do you even say that? What is the point in saying that right now? How can you say that without laughing out loud? First off LeBron has yet to win a ring, while Jordan led a team YOU were on to 6 of them. Second off, LeBron is notorious for disappearing in important basketball games, when Jordan would give you 115% every single game---leading to notorious confrontations with the other Bulls players when facing weaker opponents. And dare we remember the game you walked out on just because you weren’t going to take the final shot? Third off, Jordan is among the all-time leaders in points, steals, minutes per game, and points per game, and dozens of other categories. Fourth off, Jordan didn’t have the superstar help that LeBron currently has. Jordan makes other players better, and this especially includes Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, and you. Fifth off, its freakin' Michael Jordan. The amount of legendary basketball moments he created is borderline endless.

I can’t believe that you might still be bitter about how we forever mention Michael Jordan long after he retired while you are a mere footnote. Maybe it’s because you weren’t as good as we remembered. Maybe it’s because some of us have yet to forgive you after quitting on the Bulls on that one fateful day. Maybe it’s because you never seem to truly appreciate the efforts and achievements of Jordan. You were a great player, I can't deny this, potentially even spectacular. But don’t you dare try to diminish the accomplishments of the best player of all-time, your ex-teammate, by comparing him to a player that has yet to lead a team to a championship. Still don't know what you are trying to prove.

LeBron is one of the best players in the NBA, but he still has fewer rings than Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Paul Pierce (hurts to put this name here), Shaq, and even his own partner Dwayne Wade. And even then, it’s not just the rings, to be the best you have to take the hits and beatings as well as the rewards of being great. Michael Jordan spent years with the Bulls before finally winning one, and didn’t try to win one by combining forces with other superstar players. LeBron definitely played his heart out for a while, but when the going got tough, he got going.....elsewhere. Micahel Jordan wasn't just a superior scorer, but he is a superior defender, playmaker, clutch player, and far better all-around player. The only thing I will give LeBron the advantage is physical stature and rebounding ability. But everything else, every single other category, if you compare LeBron now to Jordan at the point in the career, it is no contest whatsoever.

Pippen, I am not sure what drugs you are on, but its going to take much more than just a few nice comebacks, athletic ability, and a potential ring to compare anyone with Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan is part of the Mt. Rushmore of ultimate athletes in the history of sports. Don’t you dare try to deface it. Stop being in over your head, please. And where is Kobe in this conversation? Why even pass off on Kobe, who has 5 rings?

I think you are just trying to stir up trouble. I know its an opinion, but your opinion stinks. Badly. I can smell it from here.

And you should quit talking.

Now.

Sincerely,
Me.

The Hangover II: 6/10

2011-05-26T00:44:00.000-07:00

A raunchy, funny roller coaster you've already ridden before, 26 May 2011

Select All. Cut. Open New Document. Paste. Thesaurus. Print. I can nearly guarantee you this was the process in writing the sequel to the most successful R-rated comedy of all-time. In one of the craziest and most blatant filmmaking moments of carbon copying an earlier installment I have ever witnessed Hangover II paces, moves, and delivers in the exact same method, style and speed as the original. The musical transitions are the same, some of the set-ups are the same, some of the conflicts and revelations were eerily alike and worst of all, the entire third act felt like the original----and they are thousands of miles from the United States. Every strength in this movie is deterred by the fact that Todd Phillips and company put no effort in trying to change things up a little aside from setting.

Is the movie still funny? Yes, it is funny and there indeed some standout moments. But, all the freshness and originality of the first Hangover is definitely not present here, and it hurts more because they could have fixed some of the setbacks of the original. This time Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married in Thailand in order to gain approval from his fiancée's father. During a night of drinking with the "Wolfpack" (Bradley Cooper, Zack Galifianakis, Justin Bartha) and the fiancée's brother, something went wrong, and the crew is many miles away in Bangkok. And of course, one of them is missing. And of course, they don't remember anything. And of course, they are mixed up in multiple situations occurring within the city. The difference between this one and their stint in Vegas is that the stakes are much higher, as the adventure in Thailand is much more grim and dark than in Sin City.

Hangover part one was hilarious, unique, and had flair of comedic originality. However, it needed a few polishes in order to become a true comedic classic. Zach as Allen is the biggest of the flaws. His characterization in the original was very uneven, too random, and just didn't deliver as much sympathy as the other characters. In the sequel, he is ruder, crueler, and an absolute pain to witness. In the original his actions are mildly justified because of his stupidity. Here however the stupid act gets old extremely fast. It doesn't help that Galifianakis doesn't have the comedic timing that superior funnymen possess. The rest of the cast throughout the movie was great, with Ed Helms and Ken Jeong being the best examples.

Todd Phillips should have known better, as he is a good director with a nice track record. I am extremely disappointed that instead of taking an approach to trying something new while still offering the same type of R-rated college humor, he chose to stick to the formula far too close. You can copy some of the jokes and get away with it, but to imitate the entire three-act structure of the original Hangover is nothing more than lazy and uninspired filmmaking. He still has a few tricks up his sleeve with a few raunchy and hilarious surprises, but far too much potential was wasted in order for me to forgive him.

Bottom Line: You will most likely have a good time watching this if you enjoyed the original. That being said, it will feel exactly like the original---except it's in Bangkok and the setting is much darker. They cranked the ante in conflict, but failed to improve anything or change anything from the 2009 comedy smash hit. Playing it safe hindered this movie, as part of Hangover's appeal was its inability to stick to a formula. Hangover II is funny, but lacks the satisfaction, zaniness, and appeal of the original. Hopefully they can spice things up for the third installment (you know it's coming out, stop lying to yourself) otherwise all I have to do is copy this review and paste it to the third chapter.

9 Moments of Music Inexplicably Missing From Disney World

2011-05-21T19:55:00.000-07:00

Walt Disney World is known for its music and its variety. But there is some music that seems to be missing from the parks, and it makes no sense why. Once again, another list. This time it’s the 9 most inexplicable omissions from the background music in the Walt Disney World parks.

#9: Kiss the Girl in Voyage of the Little Mermaid
This attraction is short enough already, honestly. But arguably its best song being totally edited out? That makes no sense. They can really pull off some nice water/special effects for this now-famous scene, and can add some life into this show---which is essentially lifeless when compared to Beauty and the Beast and Fantasmic.

#8: ANY other song in Peter Pan’s Flight
The queue music in Peter Pan’s Flight is barely a minute long. To repeat this constantly in a queue that is known to push one-two hour waits on a daily basis is borderline-torture. Peter Pan despite its flaws has a nice soundtrack, and should be fully utilized.

#7: It’s Not Easy Being Green in the Muppets area
Arguably Kermit the Frog’s most popular song, and I can’t hear it in the Muppets area? What? Huh? How? Why?

#6: Mary Poppins Music in Great Movie Ride Queue
In the Great Movie Ride area, you can hear a lot of themes of classic movies of the past-past like Wizard of Oz, Meet Me in St. Louis, and then randomly Pirates of the Caribbean. But…where is Disney’s most acclaimed and classic-looking movie? Where is the Mary Poppins music in the background? Fascinating how Disney’s only film to garnish 5 Oscars gets no love from all the parks with the exception of a few character sightings.

#5: Frank Sinatra music in the Streets of America
The Streets of America lacks a lot of personality as aside from the occasional Mulch, Sweat, and Shears, there is little reason to stick around besides catching the Lights Motors Action show. With most of the streets resembling New York, why not play music from the man that best represents the old-school feeling of the Big Apple? It only makes so much sense.

#4: Jungle Book Music in Adventureland
Jungle Book is one of the biggest hits in the history of Disney, and it has a very recognizable score and assortment of music. However, its music is nowhere to be found within the jungles of Adventureland. Its already enough that it doesn't have an attraction or anything of those sorts in Magic Kingdom (or Animal) but to totally neglect its soundtrack? That's cold.

#3: Anything not Toy Story in Pixar Place
I understand that Toy Story represents Pixar, but a place called Pixar Place should feature music from their other movies. Where is music from Finding Nemo? Ratatouille? The Incredbles? And worst of all, Up? Up has by far the best musical score from the Pixar movies and is the best I've heard in many many years. However we hear nothing except excerts from the three Toy Story flicks. That's just unnecessary shunning of wonderful music in Disney's repertoire.

#2: Several Modern Day Television Theme Songs in ABC Commissary area
Now, in this area we get these songs to popular television shows in the history of ABC. They range from Batman to Three's Company to Home Improvement. But...no Modern Family, no Dancing With the Stars, no Cougar Town, no Desperate Housewives, and most baffling no Lost or Grey's Anatomy--two shows that virtually saved the network during the harshest ratings times. Why?

P.S. I was wrong. Grey's Anatomy can be heard. But still..no Lost. Hmmph.

#1: Ennio Morricone Music in Great Movie Ride
This is a sin more than an omission. No Good, Bad, and Ugly theme in Great Movie Ride area? No Once Upon a Time in the West? Are you kidding me? I understand that some themes cannot be used because of "competitive" reasons, but Morricone is one of the greatest composers of all-time and not one of his songs is represented in the classically-themed Hollywood Studios. That is a darn shame. And should be fixed. Immediately.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: 7/10

2011-05-20T01:35:00.000-07:00

Law and Order: Special Victims Unit is one of my favorite television shows, even though its gone a bit downhill lately. Is it the cast? No, because they are mostly intact. What is actually happening is that each of the main characters, known for their superb chemistry amongst each other, are suddenly spending less screen time with each other and more time to themselves. This story actually has a point. On Stranger Tides suffers the same fate: fantastic cast that don’t spend as much time with each other as we hope. Add some pointless plotlines, a calmer first-third of the flick, and you have yourself the fourth installment of Pirates of the Caribbean.

That being said, its still quite entertaining. On Stranger Tides follows a variety of people searching for the fabled Fountain of Youth. Unfortunately for us, its not just Jack Sparrow. We have Blackbeard, the Spanish, the British (led by Barbossa), Angelica, and more doing the same thing. Subplots pertaining to this quest include Jack’s past with Angelica, Barbossa’s questionable change in character, some random guy falling for some random girl (I am serious, this part was totally pointless), and the pointless Spanish people that flock in and out of the movie.

This is by far the weakest part of the movie, the script. For some odd reason, they borrowed far too much from the novel (whose pacing and themes far differ that of the Pirates brand) and forgot that sometimes simplicity is best---which is what made Curse of the Black Pearl such a great film. It was the easiest to follow, and On Stranger Tides didn’t learn from the previous two installments. To add to that, the script utterly separated everyone, even those with the best on-screen chemistry. Barbossa was barely with Jack Sparrow, Sparrow was rarely with his ex-lover, and worst of all reliable Gibbs spent minimal time with Sparrow. When they are together, the humor, the banter, tension, and the charm works well. When they aren’t, well, the movie drags a bit.

Thank goodness the cast is still on their game. Johnny Depp once again breathes life into the pirate movie with his smart, unpredictable, and hilarious portrayal of Jack Sparrow. Despite what the reviews say, Jack Sparrow’s shtick isn’t getting old as he is still a delight to watch. Geoffrey Rush once again shines as Jack’s best rival Barbossa, as his quiet intentions resemble that of Sparrow in earlier films. Penelope Cruz adds a layer of sexuality that we definitely did not have with the other Pirates of the Caribbeans, it’s just a shame she didn’t have much time with Sparrow. Director Rob Marshall was able to shell out good performances from everyone in the cast, but he definitely wasn’t the man for this job.

Almost all the chase scenes or action sequences were done with very low-lighting and poor camera angles. With the exception of the mesmerizing and chilling mermaid sequence and the opening chase, all the action moments were missing that special touch. While the bizarreness of Gore Verbinski will not be totally missed (although his style worked perfectly in Rango), his ability to crank out excellent stuntwork and fights was sorely missing here. At least we got to see plenty of it, from the opening chase to the final dramatic (and short) showdown. Say whatever you want, but there has yet to be anything that can top the infamous three-way sword fight/old mill showdown from Dead Man’s Chest.

Bottom Line: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a mix of frustration and fun. There was plenty of potential that wasn’t met because of questionable plotlines, pointless moments, lack of chemistry (once again: writer’s fault. Good going Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio), and uneven direction. All that banter aside, Pirates is also plenty fun with several delightful moments, funny lines, and much more action than the last Pirates flick. Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz and company keep the movie afloat, and prevent it from being a pure bore. But I think the franchise works better when Verbinski is behind the camera. On Stranger Tides is decent summer entertainment, but doesn’t have the inescapable magic and charm of the first two.

My eventual letter to the Tampa Bay Rays

2011-05-17T09:00:00.000-07:00

(After yesterday's events, I have decided to write a letter to Tropicana Field. And beware, none of this is happy. And this will (maybe) be my last post about the issue between me and the current homefield status of the Tampa Bay Rays)

My latest adventure into Tropicana Field to support my first-place Rays provided me with enough rage to potentially begin a total protest of the area. Now, living in the edges of Orlando, it takes me about two hours to get to St. Pete and the Tampa Bay area (one and a half if you are driving a bit faster) to get to the Trop. There was a huge game between the first-place Rays and the second-place Yankees. The Rays are trying to end their homefield losing ways, while the Yankees are desperately trying to recover after getting swept by the Red Sox. I arrive to the Trop at around 2:30 to buy tickets at the box office before any potential bad news of there being a sellout.

There were a couple Rays employees collecting money for parking as there were already a few cars wanting to get in and prepare for the matchup. I approached one and told her that we just wanted to go to the box office quickly to buy the tickets. The lady had the nerve, the audacity to tell me that she has to charge me $20, even though I wasn’t even going to park there. I specifically said all I wanted to do was buy the tickets to return later, and her only excuse was that “it’s a Yankee game,” which mildly didn’t even make sense. So if it’s a game against the Tigers or the Mariners, it’s ok for me to head out front to buy tickets and pay for parking later? Why if for a Yankee game all of a sudden it’s an issue? I had to park about half a mile down, leave my brother at a Chinese restaurant, and literally walk towards the stadium, passing by the rude lady who would not let me through.

I arrive at the counter to try to buy ten tickets. I was going to pay in cash and then charge the rest in debit card. And once again, another stupid rule was revealed, as I can only pay in one form of payment. I was with my cousin at the time. So what they wanted us to do was: one of us step back into the line and buy the other half of the tickets in cash, after I purchase my five. Can anyone see a point in this rule? My blood was already boiling, because after all, we suffer enough in Tropicana Field for reasons I shall explain later, and these extra nuisances were just contributing to my hatred of the area.

Now, fast-forwarding to much later while trying to find a parking space amongst the legion of cars, I happen to come across a parking lot that honestly was lacking many, many cars. It was just 20 minutes before gametime, and the man wouldn’t let us through because the lot was only for prepaid parking tickets. He points us to the very next parking lot area. This parking area was $30 for V.I.P. The extremely rude lady barely gave us time to come up with the ridiculous price tag of 30 bucks for parking (by the way, my patience had run thin, which is why I didn’t even bother fighting it) and once we parked, we came to a stunning revelation: the V.I.P. parking is actually farther from the stadium than it is if you were to park from up front a bit early. Why do you even call it V.I.P. parking if it accomplishes nothing V.I.P.-like? It cost me more to park the car as opposed to getting a seat to watch the Yankees. Oh, this story gets better.

This was my first game of 2011 going into the ShiTrop and low and behold, many subtractions from last year. The lineup board outside the stadium is missing, the small Hispanic band that played music on the right field seats is missing, the mildly energetic young group that tried energizing the crowd was missing, almost all the eateries in the third floor of the stadium were boarded up and closed, most of the better eateries (not just serving hot dogs and chips) are just on the first floor, there was random crap just lying around everywhere, and even after all these years the only major change was the turf. Tropicana Field is showing its age, and is beginning to fall apart. What the heck is going on?

I know the Rays aren’t making as much money as the higher-market teams; but being the seventh most-watched team in Major League Baseball, getting plenty of money from the luxury tax, harboring a major cut in player payroll, and maintaining an obvious financial setback in stadium maintenance should count for something. Anything. For goodness sakes, this is the defending AL champion Tampa Bay Rays! Where the hell is their support? Where the heck is anything!? After all these years, it’s still an absolute pain to see them play, it’s still an absolute pain to witness the stadium, and it is still a ridiculous pain to leave the area. In terms of the team, there has been plenty upon plenty of improvement thanks to an incredible manager, an excellent staff, and a farm system that is leagues above and beyond anything we’ve seen in baseball since the Expos. But just like the Expos of the 80s and 90s, they deserve better, much better.

I used to blame the lack of fans. I used to blame their lack of support. I used to blame everyone except the real culprit in all this mess: Tropicana Field and the folks running the dump. This stadium is still a mess, still an ugly jumble of useless garbage that just so happens to have a baseball field. The production value of the stadium remains minimal, the attempts to hype up the already-small crowd remains minimal, and the attempts to improve the experience in the stadium remains nowhere to be seen. I’ve had it, I am done with putting up with the nonsense to support a stadium that clearly is run by people that don’t care much about the Rays, are just there to reap in the profits. We need to fix this stadium now that we are stuck there for the next God-knows-how-many years, and we need to fix the area. It is time to do an overhaul to that vacant lot we call a stadium. It is time for more lights and more police to help with the traffic after a busy game. It is time to actually help the motorists figure out where the interstate is instead of following other cars and begging that they are looking for the same thing.

Florida is the fourth most populated state in the nation. There are 2.7 million people living in the Tampa Bay area, and its not just a simple crowd either. This is the same young crowd that makes USF the eighth largest university in the nation, UF the sixth largest, and UCF the second-largest. Florida isn’t a wasteland for sports, as you see the colleges fill up to the brim when its football season, and these schools aren't easy to reach either. The University of Florida football program is one of the most successful, as their entire 2010 football season was sold out--with the stadium being able to pack 90,000--and Gainesville is in the middle of the boondocks.

P.S. Population of Gainesville: 125,000.
Population of Tampa Bay: 2.7 million

Now check out these numbers:

Orlando Magic: 9th in attendance in NBA (100%)
Miami Heat: 5th in attendance in NBA (100%)
Miami Dolphins: 16th in attendance in NFL (90%)
Orlando Predators: 2nd in attendance in AFL
Tampa Bay Storm: 1st in attendance in AFL
Jacksonville Sharks: 3rd in attendance in AFL
Tampa Bay Lightning: 84% attendance (Top 20 in NHL)
Jacksonville Jaguars: 94% in attendance

P.S. Before you bring up the Florida Marlins, it has less to do with the fanbase and more to do with the owners, which dismantled the squad TWICE after previous years winning the World Series.

So the question is, why is the young, talented, and exciting Tampa Bay squad almost dead last in attendance? Is it because of lack of people? That can’t be the case, with all the attendance numbers I just put up. It just might be, and it most like is, because of Tropicana Field. I know we aren’t going to get a new stadium like the Miami Marlins (which despite low numbers will be sure improve dramatically when the economy improves and their stadium opens up next year) but let’s at least work on what we have. And unfortunately like all my articles about this team might fall on deaf ears because as long as a profit is assembled, I don’t see any extra effort in the future concerning improving the experience of following the Rays.

Bottom Line: I am at the point of purely 100% protesting the stadium because of what I had to put up with this past day when the Rays beat the Yankees. There was no energy in the crowd, and I used to think it was us. For years I used to totally blame the fans. But after more analyzing and digging a little deeper, its baffling that the Central Florida area, an area known for a lively young college crowd embedded in a great nightlife, just flatout doesn’t try to support this exciting baseball team—when we support most of the others. I know if we moved the team further in Tampa, or move the team to Orlando, perhaps even Disney World, then we would see the Rays fans arriving in droves. But until my dreams of seeing the Rays playing in an actually nice stadium come true, I have to put up with the Trop. And I put up with the Trop for many years, and I think my patience is worn out.

Could our fanbase be much better? Of course it can, but it all begins with effort from the other side of the field. We need to see the owners and higher-ups running the franchise to actually care, otherwise we'll see little reason to do the same. We changed the entire name, outlook, color, design, and mindset of the Tampa Bay Rays when we dropped the green colors and the word “Devil.” Why can’t we do the same to Tropicana Field? Why can't we totally fix and change-up Tropicana Field? If I had any power vested in me, I would move this team elsewhere, away from the dismal stadium, away from the shoddy neighboring areas close to the spot, and away from Tampa Bay altogether. If I had that money, I would do whatever it takes to give the team the support they truly deserve. Unfortunately though, I don't have that power, and I have to rely on you guys.

I am not asking for any compensation, I am not asking for a refund.

As a lifelong Rays fan I request one thing:

Fix your damn stadium. I am sick of Tropicana Field.

Sincerely,
Rays Fan

NBA player hungry, NBA player want win!

2011-05-14T20:44:00.000-07:00

(Extremely loose Rugrats reference in the title. 15 points if you caught the reference)

This NBA Playoffs has been very interesting, with phenomenal games, incredible moments, and a slew of pleasant surprises. But unlike other playoff years, the talent pool has become so evenly matched, that nearly any team can take out any team. The defending champions of the past couple years were eliminated, and the four teams left standing in the playoffs were not in the Conference Finals the year before---nor the year before that. So the question is what the heck is going on? The answer is simple: the hungriest team wins. Not the most talented, the hungriest.

This is why the Magic are gone. This is why the Lakers are gone. This is why the Celtics are gone. Those three teams I mentioned were far too talented to get knocked out as fast as they did. Nonetheless, it has happened, and we are going to have a new champion because these quieter upstart teams are this new-school NBA league of confident, unselfish, and ready to stand up to any Goliath. This explains the surprise-surprise success of the new-look Mavericks, the Hawks, and most shockingly the Grizzlies.

Let’s start with my team, the Magic, shall we? On paper, this was the only team that can truly stop whom I pick as eventual NBA champion, the Miami Heat. They had the excellent center that could clean up house in the front court, the endless pool of shooters, and enough speed to catch pace with the young Heat. But this Magic squad lacked the magic of the Finals squad a couple years ago—which had this young core of talent that shared the ball, relied on each other, and were not afraid of any opponent. Remember, that Magic squad took down two very intimidating teams the Boston Celtics and the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Rafer Alston, Marcin Gortat, Michael Pietrus, and Courtney Lee quietly transformed a Magic team from a good one to an excellent one with its hustle and phenomenal effort. They were the best Magic squad in history—with the exception of the 1995-1996 Magic. Now, we have none of those players and guess what, the first round we disappeared. Nelson got cocky (never liked him), the rest of the squad dismissed the Hawks as a mere road bump, and 6 games later they are sitting at home watching the Hawks give the Bulls a good fight. The Hawks wanted it more. Were they the better team? Hell and no. But they wanted to win. Talent didn’t matter, because if talent doesn’t show up, there’s no hope. And this is why the Suns trade was a wasted opportunity because there was a man on that squad who wants to win just as bad as anybody else in the NBA. And we are talking about Steve Nash.

We are talking about the two-time MVP, playmaking, hockey mentality, incredibly diverse, incredibly talented and starving Steve Nash. While I was against the trading away of Gortat and Pietrus; if we had given the Suns those two, and add Nelson, we could have gotten Steve Nash, and we would have been a Finals-worthy squad. Imagine Nash running around with the equally fast Dwight Howard constantly spitting buckets. It would have been a match made in heaven. Nelson I have criticized time and time again, and the truth is he isn’t a good point guard. The Magic need a good point guard, a good playmaker, and most of all a man that wants to win. Steve Nash fits that bill like no other.

The Celtics is hands-down the best example of this lack of hunger. Unlike the Magic, whom just got cocky and lowered their guard, the Celtics lost the will to win after upper management ruined a perfect team. The Celtics wanted their vengeance after their disgusting and disgraceful loss to the Lakers in the Finals the year before (Ron Artest beat them...…ARTEST). At the frontend of the season, they were playing hard, they were vicious, and were a force to be reckoned with. And then came the Perkins trade, which can now be classified as one of the stupidest trades in the history of the NBA. Want to know where Perkins went? The Oklahoma City Thunder, who are still in the playoffs.

The Boston Celtics lost their bite, lost their identity, and lost their hunger—they were now full of anguish and despair. They barely squeaked by an injury-ridden New York Knicks squad and were hammered by the same Miami Heat team they had figured out so well just a couple months ago. They did have the talent to beat the Heat, but this Boston squad was nothing like the one that won it all years ago, nothing like the one that entered the finals last year, and nothing like the team we experienced back in December.

The Los Angeles Lakers was the most shocking example of them all. This Laker squad was the defending champions; they had won two in a row for crying out loud. They essentially had the same squad. And they were led by a Hall of Fame player and were being coached by the most successful NBA coach in history. And they were facing the Dallas Mavericks, a team notorious for faltering in the playoffs—especially after their NBA Finals collapse. We were expecting at least a good series; somewhere in the 6-7 game range. Instead we got a 4-game sweep. Kobe Bryant played the same, but the heart just wasn’t there. In the midst of the finger-pointing, yelling, blame game, meltdowns, and shocking emotion displayed by Phil Jackson was a team that was exposed to be one that didn’t have the willpower to fight through 16 games to try to earn that trophy again.

Bottom Line: The NBA is evolving rapidly, as the big squads that had dominated in years past were whimpering and faltering against these small, upstart squads. Even teams that lost in the first round put up good fights: the Indiana Pacers, the Denver Nuggets, Portland Trail Blazers, New York Knicks, and especially the New Orleans Hornets. Now we suddenly have the Memphis Grizzlies upsetting, the Atlanta Hawks upsetting, and even the Dallas Mavericks upsetting. Nobody is safe, and the Magic, Celtics, Lakers, and Spurs have learned this the hard way. The talent is spread quite well all over the NBA, which is good for the league, bad for teams that are expected to win.

This year its not just about how well you play, its about how badly you want to win.

"Halt I am lockout! Halt I am lockout!"
(End very very loose Rugrats reference)

P.S. I still miss the NBA on NBC.