Observations on Star Wars #2

The Clone Wars. Is it canon? It sure seems like they're trying to make it canon. I just really have a hard time accepting it. I mean, it truly is, to it's core, a kids show. Not that Star Wars shouldn't be about kids, but it should be about everybody. The target audience should be everyone. It's obvious that Clone Wars is targeted for kids, from the animation style, the characters and the channel it airs on (which has also gone WAY downhill in my opinion). If we are supposed to believe that a children's show is official Star Wars canon, why not make the children's novels canon, like this one:

Yeah, I read it when I was little. It's not bad. It's also not canon. I can understand why it shouldn't be canon too. It's not a very mature story, obviously, and it would also create a bit of friction with the rest of the novels (the adult ones).

Now Clone Wars IS bad. And I'm not biased towards anything prequel. What I am biased towards are ridiculous stories and characters that are entirely unnecessary.

But you know what was good? You know what I whole-heartedly accept as canon, and may, in fact, be better than some of the movies?



Hell yeah.

When this came out in 2003, I shat fucking bricks. Well, no, I thought the animation was weird at first, but after I saw the first episode, I shat fucking bricks. The story was dark, intense, and war-like. The Clones were like real soldiers. Really good soldiers, sure, but still soldiers, and they acted like it. The Jedi were fighting a ceaseless army of droids as well as an unseen evil enemy. It was crazy! It felt right.

I loved the original Clone Wars. It was the perfect introduction for Revenge of the Sith. The perfect bridge between Episode II and III. This new Clone Wars is just all over the place. Sometimes I can't even tell if it's still Star Wars. It starts acting like some childrens space adventure series.

So overall, old once again triumphs over new. Is this the fate of every new Star Wars story? Will the original trilogy always be better than the prequels? Well, it seems that one is already in consensus with the fans, so yeah. But what if Lucas decides to fulfill his old plan to make nine movies? A whole new trilogy? Would it just not have nearly the same luster as the older movies did? Or worse, would it ruin the series entirely? I'm always up for more Star Wars, but not if it means destroying what we know and love. I wouldn't wven know what it could be about. I mean, they've already pretty much covered everything leading up to the prequels (with The Old Republic novels, games and comics), so going farther back in time is out of the question. Perhaps some more sequels. It'd have to be WAY far in the future, since the expanded universe has done a lot that direction already. Maybe something like a super-sequel? It certainly would go along with the whole "4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3" thing. It'd be 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9! Wow.

Well, I guess if George wants it, it could happen. He'll have to hurry though. He's not the healthiest guy ever, or the youngest.

OMG OMG OMG

I am reading The Elder Scrolls: The Infernal City and it makes my fan-head EXPLODE!

Just thought I'd write that here.


BETTER POSTS COMING SOON

Observations on Star Wars #1

This article was originally written on TheSnakeSoup.org on Sun Nov 23, 2009 at 1:14 pm. Forgive any bad grammar as simply being what is most often seen on internet forums and the like.


I want to put in some observations I made while reflecting on the Star Wars series. Specifically, I am talking about the Dark side of the Force and its followers, the Sith.

When Darth Bane finally set in stone the Sith law of the Rule of Two 1,000 BBY, he created a custom that would be carried on for a thousand years, until Darth Krayt abolished it. It should be noted that there are a few purposes for this law. One is to secure the position of a ruling Sith Lord. There can only be two, Master and Apprentice. Power hungry Sith are cut out of the equation by not existing. A second purpose of the law is efficiency. Darth Bane noted how the bonds between Master and Apprentice were very strong among the Jedi, and how their teamwork got things accomplished. Another purpose was to have one Sith embody all that is the power of the Dark side, and another to crave that power. This lead to the inevitable conclusion of the Apprentice assassinating their Master.

But there is also another, much more secret reason. One that, if the Jedi were aware of, would create a chaos in the Order that might lead to a destruction of the whole galaxy. The last purpose of the Rule of Two is to concentrate the Dark side of the Force within only two Sith Lords, so as not to spread it thin as when the Sith Empire was ruled. This grants the two Sith powers beyond any Jedi, so long as they are united.

Once the Rule of Two was founded, the outcome was set in stone. The Apprentice would always kill the Master. Bane was well aware of this when he created the Rule. Now throughout the history of the Sith, after the Rule was created, it was only broken by two Sith, and on multiple times. Until Darth Krayt abolished the Rule, it was only ever broken by Darth Sidious and his Apprentice, Darth Vader.

Darth Sidious broke the Rule on a few occasions. One of which was the training Maul and Tyranus at roughly the same time. Another time was when he commanded his Tyranus to take on Grievous as a pupil. He broke the Rule a third time when he had Dooku killed after failing to defeat Anakin Skywalker, breaking the Apprentice killing the Master part of the Rule. And finally, he broke the Rule one last time when he attempted to sway Luke Skywalker to the Dark side and kill Darth Vader. Vader broke the Rule by taking on two Apprentices of his own, while still under the tutelage of Sidious, Galen Marek and Hethrir.

So two of the most well-known Sith Lords broke the Rule. The motives for this, on Sidious' side, was to gain power. Sidious was so power hungry that he actually broke Sith tradition to affirm and maintain his control of the galaxy. This inevitably led to his and the whole Order's downfall.

Vader tried to find Apprentices to overthrow the Emperor, and free himself from his oppressive Master. His actions do seem to be more noble, although he was still following the Dark side.

So does this mean that the Sith, whose ideals are that of complete power, would limit themselves by following the Rule of Two? The Masters could not surely gain complete power if they were fated to be killed by their own Apprentices? Perhaps, while on the outside, the Sith are all about personal gain, they have hidden motives of assuring the Dark side as the strongest force in the galaxy. The lust for power is not entirely what the Sith stand for. Maybe it's just a front? Maybe a true Sith, a true follower of the Dark side must understand their place in the Order and forgo their need for power to better the side of the Force they uphold?

We may never learn the answers...

This concludes my observations on the Sith.

New Moon Review

Ah, yes. The second Twilight movie. The film that makes fangirls (not just the girls) scream and critics sigh. I may be a critic, but fortunately for me, I have a fangirl for a sister, so I get a rare treat into the realm of the fanpires! Also, I went to the midnight release and took part in the festivities of waiting in line. But enough about my adventures, lets get into the movie.

Last year, the release of Twilight created a shitstorm of shrill screams from fans across EVARYWARE EVAR!!!!!!!! I jest, but it actually wasn't as bad as I thought it'd be. Sure it was corny, and the whole mythos pisses me the fuck off, but it wasn't bad. It was okay.

The sequel isn't as lucky though.

New Moon picks up pretty much right from where the last movie ended. The heroine Bella (Kristin Stewart) is starting her senior year of high school, and her life with Edward the vampire (Robert Pattinson) has been going pretty well. She's been accepted into the Cullen's vampire clan and everything is working out. But all of this goes to hell soon. While celebrating her birthday at the Cullen's, Bella gets a paper cut as she unwraps one of her gifts. She's now in a room full of hungry vampires and she's bleeding. This creates a bit of a dangerous situation and Edward decides he must leave forever for Bella's own good. Bella is left alone and depressed, and she eventually takes to thrill-seeking. The reason behind this is that every time she is doing something dangerous, she sees a vision of Edward imparting safety knowledge to her. It's like Sonic Says, except with more teen angst.

So Bella is sad but she soon finds a good friend in Jacob (Taylor Lautner). Bella begins to find solace in Jacob, but then he starts going through some changes. He's now a guy full of RAGE and pretty much ditches Bella to hang with some shirtless-guy-cult. We find out that he is actually part of a family that turns into sharks, I mean wolves and is basically going through wolf-puberty. The drama continues!

Oh, and also, Edward decides that he can't live without Bella, so he plans on revealing himself as a vampire to the people of Italy, I guess, so that the Volturi, who are vampire royalty, are forced to execute him, because that's their thing.

So that's enough about the plot details. Now to get into the opinions.

I can really only think about this movie critically by comparing it to the last one. Twilight was overall not a bad movie. Not great, but definitely watchable. In fact, I've probably seen it about eight times now (thanks again to my sister) and it does grow on you, in a very weird way. The directing is pretty good, the acting is, meh, alright, the writing is okay and the effects are a huge laugh. I'll watch it. New Moon on the other hand is just worse in pretty much every way except for the effects, which from my point of view doesn't count for much. They replaced Catherine Hardwicke, the former director, and brought in Chris Weitz. What Hardwicke accomplished, Weitz fails at, and, in Lautner's case, makes him constantly remove his shirt. Weitz just puts Bella and Edward into scenes and then calls it a day. There is no feeling in it. Melissa Rosenberg returns to write the script, which I hear is pretty much a direct adaptation of the novel (not that that means its good or anything) so I can only pin the blame on the director. Hardwicke got it to work well enough, and Weitz just didn't. Maybe he should go back to directing talking polar bears instead.

Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson both try their damnedest to battle the black hole that swallows the life of the film, but both fail in the end. Taylor Lautner is a little better only because he’s the one character out of the three mains who doesn't spend all of his screen-time being depressed. He also gets the best material. Still, its a lost cause. Michel Sheen and Dakota Fanning bring a little more flavor into it, but their parts are so small (basically cameos) that it really doesn't even make a difference. I will say though that Sheen kinda reminded me of Mark Hamil's Joker in some scenes. Weird, eh?

New Moon is definitely more sparkly (haha) than Twilight, but only because they were treated to a much larger budget. What Twilight got right, New Moon got wrong. The film misses the core ideas that should have been the guiding light of the movie, leaving you wishing you could just watch the original again afterward. I can only hope that the next movie, Eclipse, is better. Directing now is David Slade, who has horror film experience form Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night. The latter being, OMG, a vampire movie. Can I hope? Perhaps.

Movie Reviews

You know when you say you'll do something and you don't get around to it until a long while after? Yeah, that's what happened to me. I said I'd write a review of a few films, and I didn't. But you know what? It's never to late to right a few wrongs! Here are some reviews of a few movies I've seen recently!

Zombieland

Ah yes, a zombie movie. Simply classic, eh? Ever since Romero's Living Dead series, zombie have been a big thing in popular culture. Well, this isn't really a serious zombie movie, it's more of a comedic approach to the lovable flesh eaters, like Shaun of the Dead.

Zombieland is set in the post-zombocalypse America where the walking dead rule and humans have pretty much hit extinction. The film follows the story of Columbus (played by Jesse Eisenberg) who is traveling to Columbus, Ohio (the reason for his name) to find his family. He has a list of rules for surviving the zombie-infested world, which the film makes constant reference to when scenes are appropriate.

Early on in the film, Columbus meets up with Woody Harrelson's character, Tallahesse, a hardened badass whose main mission in the film is to find a Twinkie. Tallahasse's not a afraid to die, so long as he takes as many zombies with him as he can. He takes zombie-killin' to a whole new level.

Along the way they meet up with Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), two devious girls who are trying to get to a theme park in California called "Pacific Playland", which, rumor has it, was spared from the zombie attacks.

This is a great comedy and a truly happy zombie movie if one ever existed. All the characters are likable and you just get to love the terrible world they live in. There are some tense scenes, but all in good fun. I especially loved the celebrity cameo half-way through. True genius.

If you like comedies or happen to be a fan of zombies and you haven't seen this movie, I highly recommend it. A great watch for anybody who loves to laugh and have fun.

Law Abiding Citizen

Now this was a tense movie. Law Abiding Citizen, starring Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler, is a crime thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat.

It's the story of a man named Clyde Shelton (Butler) who, ten years after his wife and daughter are brutally murdered, returns to extract justice from the assistant district attorney, Nick Rice (Foxx), who prosecuted the case against their killers. His vengeance threatens not only the man who allowed mercy to supersede justice, but also the system and the city that made it so.

Shelton is a genius engineer who formerly worked for the CIA. He brutally murders his family's killers and then turns himself in. Shelton confesses to the murders during an interrogation with Rice, but vows that more murders will occur so long as the system does not change. They all find out just how serious a threat this is when authorities within the justice department are systematically picked off, even though Shelton is locked tight in the prison.

A true crime saga, Law Abiding Citizen is a rollercoaster of action, intrigue and suspense. It actually sent me back to The Dark Knight, which says a lot about this movie. The murders are so ingenious, the lines are so powerful and the drama is so intense that I couldn't help but think of the Joker. I sincerely recommend this movie.

A Christmas Carol

As previous posts attest, I am a supporter of 3D. In this Robert Zemeckis directed film starring Jim Carrey we see the old and familiar Dickens tale retold on the big screen, this time in 3D. I see no reason to go into the plot details of this movie because, frankly, we all know the story.

What I will go into is the 3D aspect of the film. I loved The Polar Express and Beowulf, Zemeckis' previous 3D movies, and I thought that the years since the release of those films has shown how the technology has improved. The characters look more realistic and the 3D effects have evolved to allow a more complete immersion into the world projected on the screen. There are parts, like flying scenes and overhead shots, that almost make your heart skip a beat. It seems very real and is very amazing. I loved ever minute of it because of this.

Carrey's performance(s) are great also, as are Gary Oldman(s). It has it's humorous parts and also it's dark parts. The reason for the latter is that it follows the original Dickens novel more closely than most of the adaptations. Still, it's a fun filled adventure for all ages and I feel that it properly captures the message Dickens intended, even though the Industrial Revolution is so far behind us. I recommend this for anybody who likes Christmas movies or who is interested in the future of cinema technology.

3D is the future. No srsly gaiz.

3D is just a crappy gimmick from the 1950s, right? You always go to a movie expecting to be amazed and have it feel "like real life" and you leave disappointed and confused.

Yeah, that’s what everybody believes too. But it wont be the case for much longer now.

An impressive superhero of the age.

After reading so much, hearing so much and talking so much about James Cameron's upcoming movie "Avatar", I believe 3D is the real future of cinema and electronic entertainment. 3D will follow along the same tracks as a certain other format with an acronym ending in "D". Comparing the early days of high-def to 3D these days does yield similarities.

It’s easy to be a skeptic when the guy with the new tech tells you that you don't know what real 3D media is. He mocks the classic red-and-blue paper specs and presents you with a clunky pair of plastic shades as a replacement, and you feel like you're being had. But the fact of the matter is, it's true. This new 3D just makes everything so much cooler, to an extent of intensity which will force you to sit back and remain silent.

This new technology isn’t the blurry, red and blue layers of old. It’s a sharp, solid and lifelike experience. The current example I have is Robert Zemeckis's Polar Express and his other 3D work, Beowulf. So real, you believe you could reach out and touch the movie.

And best of all, it didn't feel gimmicky.

The phrase “What’s the point?” has been synonymous with 3D for quite some time now. Movies work fine without it, and its inclusion certainly won’t expand the possibilities of cinematic design. But we had exactly the same doubts about the importance of HD a few years ago, didn't we? Remember that? How it wont make a lick of difference?

You didn’t need HD. In fact, you probably didn’t even want it at all, but once you’d seen it, your face shriveled with disgust at every glance towards your old standard-def TV. And ever since you’ve played in 1080p, how often has your favorite movie list been coupled with the phrase “That would look great in HD”?

This guy understands.

Well, lookie here, we’re the same way with 3D now! It may not be necessary in all circumstances, but it really feels like the same jolt you get when watching in HD. In fact, it’s almost like the missing piece of HD technology. We’re already used to high counts of "p", but when those graphics are augmented by ‘real’ 3D display, their true potential is realized.

We really just can’t help but re-imagine our favorite movie in this new third dimension.

This guy right here will revolutionize the industry. Don't believe me? Read this.

3D has a hard road ahead of it. There will be skeptics. There will be hard-asses. There will be seething, loathing masses who are outraged by this technological bastardization of all that they love. But then there will be people like me, who support the fledgling little format. It wont be overnight, but someday soon, 3D will take it's place in the world of cinema just like sound did in late 20s, color did in 1939, and HD did in this new millennium.

James Cameron's "Avatar" is schedule for release December 18, 2009.

Halo 3:ODST Review

A bit late, but it's better than never, right?


The latest installment to the wildly popular Halo series is a bit different from the majority of it's kind. Instead of playing as SPARTAN super-soldier Master Chief, you play as a unit of Orbital Drop Shock Troopers (more commonly referred to as "ODST"), an elite group of UNSC Marines that specialize in special warfare tactics. Called "Helljumpers" for their method of infiltration by orbital drop, the ODSTs are the badasses of the military who carry out spectacular and impossible missions, even with the handicap of being normal humans.

The story begins during the events of Halo 2. You primarily play as "The Rookie", a quiet and mysterious new recruit who, during their drop into the besieged Earthly city of New Mombasa, is separated from the rest of his comrades. He is knocked out when he makes a crash landing and awakens to find the city deep in nighttime, with Covenant forces all around. He must find clues to his companions whereabouts while trying not to get himself killed.

This is when the most interesting part of Halo 3: ODST occurs. The game was originally called Halo 3: RECON, and when you play as the Rookie, you can see why it would get this title. The ODSTs, while being great fighters, are still human, and take very human damage. For this reason, it is sometimes advisable to stay that itchy trigger-finger, and try to avoid too much combat. You are given a VISR, a night vision screen on your helmet that outlines enemies and allies in different colors. This adds a tactical touch to the game. Also, your health doesn't regenerate, so keeping a watch on your gauge is more important than ever. You are given a HUDless stamina meter which, acts similarly to the shield of the previous games, and is a good indicator of when you should find some cover and wait to regain some strength before continuing your firefight. This adds a very human quality to ODST, and is all the more compounded while you wander the dark, open-world streets of New Mombasa with a emotional soundtrack behind you. You can truly feel how alone the Rookie is in his search for his friends.

When you aren't playing as the Rookie, you're playing as the other members of your unit through flashbacks. You find out where your buddies have been through these missions, and they tell the story of the game through their combat experiences. Each soldier is equipped with a default weapon, which I assume is catering to their specialty, although this doesn't play into the game at all. Playing as the other characters is more like the usual Halo experience, with high-powered combat and flashy battles, but still lacks the ability to perform the gargantuan feats that the Master Chief made look so easy.

Okay. I kept most of my own opinion out of this review so far, but now I am going to hit you with what I really think. Here it is:

Halo 3: ODST is the best game in the Halo series. It beat Halo 2, which occupied my spot as the best for a long time. I still haven't really played Halo 3, but from what I hear, it isn't as good as Halo 2. ODST captures what I loved about Halo 2, and then adds more. There have been complaints that the campaign is brief, but I find that it makes up for that with it's powerful story and interesting gameplay. Another great bonus is the inclusion of the Halo 3 online multiplayer, with all of it's DLC included. This is a fantastic addition for people who were a little late to the fight, like myself.

Halo 3: ODST doesn't reinvent the series entirely, but it does create a new style of playing that is all it's own. If you're a veteran of the series or a newcomer, you can find a lot of enjoyment in this game. I give it a 9.5/10. Play it and have fun.

Update: I've played through Halo 3 now, and Halo 3's campaign beats Halo 2's. Halo 2's multiplayer is still nostalgia X100 and really good, but Halo 3 has a better story. Also, on reflection, Halo 1 was pretty awesome. Well, at least before the Flood show up. Then it becomes your average shooter, with dark corridors and shotguns. So Doom rip-off. But the first parts are amazing, like traveling around on the ring and checking out the environments. Okay, this edit has gone on for a while now, so let me wrap this up by saying Halo 3: ODST is still my favorite in the series, but Halo 1 comes in close second, followed by 3 and then 2. Now we all know how I feel.

Also, REMEMBER REACH, FALL 2010!

Sup?

So yeah. If you know of me from wherever (perhaps some of the forums I visit, perhaps REAL LIFE) that's cool. If you just found me, also cool. If you happened to stumble in here and are now thinking "WTF is this shit? Who is this faggot!?" that is cool too.

Now then! I will try to update this regularly (not that anybody will read this) and I will attempt to give you all something enjoyable to read while you should be doing something more important.

Peace!