31 out of 36
looks like i'm not autistic after all
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - Verbatim
« on: October 22, 2020, 12:09:38 PM »
........................available for a limited time
Unfortunately, this seems to be a recurring strategy for Nintendo as of late, and it's really pissing me off.
Recently, to celebrate Mario's 35th anniversary, Nintendo dropped Super Mario 3D All-Stars, a collection of three remastered 3D Mario games (64, Sunshine, and Galaxy) as well as Super Mario Bros. 35, a free-to-play (as long as you're subscribed to NSO) version of the original Super Mario Bros. that's been retooled into a competitive multiplayer battle royale, similar to Tetris 99, where 35 concurrent players try to outlast each other in the classic game. However, due to this apparent new marketing strategy that Nintendo has begun to employ for any sort of rerelease of their retro back catalogue, these games will only be available until the end of March next year.
In other words, you have until April 2021 to purchase 3D All-Stars for your personal collection until you won't find it in stores anymore. As for Mario 35, because this game is exclusively digital, the game will simply poof out of existence, so that nobody will get to play it anymore. This is fucking AIDS for obvious reasons, and the trend does seem to be continuing for this Fire Emblem localization, coming out on December 4.
To be positive for a sec, the fact that they're localizing this game at all is pretty damn cool for a retro gamer such as myself, and for someone who's never really cared about the Mother series, you could actually say that this game is like my Mother 3. It's that exciting for me, because I've been waiting SO LONG to play the original Fire Emblem game in a language that I can understand. I just kind of hate knowing that I'll inevitably be forced to challenge my own principles with this one, because my inevitable purchase of this localization will inevitably feed into this new anti-consumer practice that Nintendo has adopted for their retro games. Kinda makes me sick, and sours what is otherwise fairly exciting news for Fire Emblem fans and fans of old-ass games alike.
« on: August 21, 2020, 12:51:36 AM »
it's times like these when i wonder if i really should get out of this place
« on: July 28, 2020, 05:08:42 AM »
i thought this was just delightful
the fact that we all have to share the same planet
if we didn't, i would be the happiest and most laidback person ever
oh, you watch kill la kill and voted for trump? that's cool man, you do that
in the meantime, i'll be over here on this other planet where people don't do stupid shit like that
Earlier last year, and against my better judgment, I decided I was gonna try to make an effort to play more modern games. If only for this year alone, I wanted to pick up at least one new game for every month of 2020—but then, of course, a world-stopping monkey wrench known as COVID-19 was thrown into every industry known to man, with video games being no exception. There have been a great deal of delays and push-backs aplenty over the past six months, and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight, leaving a relative dearth of overhyped and overproduced bullshit for us to consume. Whether that's ultimately good or bad is up to you, but that's just kinda the state of things right now.
Nonetheless, I still wanted to follow through with my plan, even if it meant buying some bum-ass indie game on Steam, because nothing else came out that month. So, here's everything that's been on my radar:
☐ Journey to the Savage Planet
☐ Yakuza: Like a Dragon (Japan only)
☐ Hypercharge: Unboxed
☐ Puzzle & Dragons Gold
☐ Romance of the Three Kingdoms XIV
☐ The Walking Dead: Saints and Sinners
☐ Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot
☐ Kandagawa Jet Girls (Japan only)
☐ AO Tennis 2
Basically nothing came out this month, which, for January, isn't out of the ordinary. I was initially somewhat interested in the new Yakuza, but it won't be coming stateside until later this year, and I haven't even played any of the others anyway. On top of that, I guess it's going to be an RPG, which seems to be a major departure from the rest of the series—so I'll have to pass on it, unfortunately.
That doesn't really leave very much, though. The only thing here that has me mildly interested (at best) is Journey to the Savage Planet, which looks kinda decent, but it also just looks like a bootleg Ratchet & Clank game to me, so I'm hesitant to drop $29.99 on it. I'll see if I can't get it on sale, or something.
☐ Granblue Fantasy Versus
☐ Vitamin Connection
☐ Boris and the Dark Survival
☐ Katana Kami: A Way of the Samurai Story
☐ Persona 5 Scramble (Japan only)
☐ Death end re;Quest 2 (Japan only)
☐ Zombie Army 4: Dead War
☐ Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA Mega Mix
☐ Space Channel 5 VR: Kinda Funky News Flash!
☐ Dota Underlords
☐ One-Punch Man: A Hero Nobody Knows
☐ The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance Tactics
☐ Monster Energy Supercross 3
To think that if Dreams never came out, I'd be stuck playing some weebshit fighting game instead. Long story short—Media Molecule did it again this year, having dropped what is almost assuredly going to end up being my GotY, although it's certainly debatable as to whether such a release should even count. Nonetheless, playing Dreams is the most consistently mind-blowing virtual experience I've had in the past ten years.
Dreams isn't just a sandbox game, or a simple creative tool—it's a straight-up game engine, but streamlined to be as welcoming and as user-friendly as possible. You can make anything with it; the degree of creative freedom that you're granted is seriously un-fucking-paralleled, and truly something to behold. As much I'd love to prattle off a list of things that I've seen created in Dreams, it would be futile, because the list of things that I haven't seen would be significantly shorter. The possibilities truly are endless with this one, and to top it all off, it's only $39.99. How can you beat that? An absolute and emphatic must-have for any PlayStation owner.
☑ Animal Crossing: New Horizons
☐ Ori and the Will of the Wisps
☐ Half-Life: Alyx
☐ Nioh 2
☐ Doom Eternal
☐ Good Job!
☐ Murder by Numbers
☐ Twin Breaker: A Sacred Symbols Adventure
☐ Bleeding Edge
☐ Cooking Mama: Cookstar
☐ Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Rescue Team DX
☐ Panzer Dragoon: Remake
☐ Black Mesa
☐ My Hero: One's Justice 2
☐ One Piece: Pirate Warriors 4
☐ MLB The Show 20
☐ R.B.I. Baseball 20
Probably the strongest month of the year in terms of options. I'm definitely interested in the new Ori game, but I still need to play Blind Forest. I love Half-Life, but I don't have a VR device (nor a PC powerful enough) to handle Alyx, so I'll keep my fingers crossed for a PSVR release. I also haven't played Nioh, so I'd rather hold off on the sequel, and I've never really given a shit about Doom, so Eternal was kind of off the table for me.
That pretty much leaves Animal Crossing: New Horizons—which is just as well, because as several others have pointed out, this game could not have come out at a better time. After putting up with the ongoing turmoil in the outside world, day in and day out, some of us really needed a relaxing game where all you do is hang out in a cute little village with your cute little animal friends. It's not a game for everybody—and indeed, it's yet another one of those games that challenges the definition of "game" itself—but regardless, with 13 million units sold in six weeks, it seems plain enough that AC was exactly what a lot of people needed in their lives.
☑ Telling Lies
☐ XCOM: Chimera Squad
☐ Streets of Rage 4
☐ Moving Out
☐ Legends of Runeterra
☐ Predator: Hunting Grounds
☐ Final Fantasy VII Remake
☐ Resident Evil 3
☐ Trials of Mana
☐ Gears Tactics
☐ Picross S4
☐ Bokuhime Project (Japan only)
☐ MotoGP 20
If you're anything like me, and you don't really give a shit about remakes, then this month was even weaker than January for you, especially if you don't care about XCOM. Streets of Rage is a classic series, and all, but I don't necessarily need a fourth one. That leaves Telling Lies—a live action game where you try to solve a mystery by listening in on Skype calls between four people, and piece together whatever bits of information you can scrounge up, which is an admittedly neat concept, but I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to spend on that.
If you do care about remakes, then this was a pretty good year. Final Fantasy VII Remake dropped, which is kind of a big deal, as well as Resident Evil 3—both of which seem to have been very well-received. I'm interested in picking up the former, but only after I play the original Final Fantasy VII—which, in turn, I will only play once I've beaten I-VI, because I want to be the first American to ever play the Final Fantasy games in sequential order. That's gonna take a very long time, though... so, maybe I'll have to settle for Telling Lies.
☐ The Persistence
☐ Minecraft Dungeons
☐ Deep Rock Galactic
☐ Cannibal Cuisine
☐ Synaptic Drive
☐ Umihara Kawase BaZooKa!! (Japan only)
☐ The Elder Scrolls: Blades
☐ Golf With Your Friends
☐ Super Mega Baseball 3
Slim pickings this month once again. Both my initial pick and my back-up pick—The Last of Us Part II and Ninjala—were pushed back from this month, which pretty much left nothing else to look forward to. Maneater looks kinda funny, I guess, but not something I'd spend real money on. Crucible is appealing strictly on the basis that it's free to play, but beyond that, it looks like a generic piece of shit. The Persistence is mildly interesting, but also not really.
So, the game I'm currently waiting to go on sale for is Wildfire. $14.99 seems a bit steep for a game like this, but it does look like the best option available.
☑ The Last of Us Part II
☐ Death Come True
☐ Desperados III
☐ Brigandine: The Legend of Runersia
☐ Pokémon Café Mix
☑ Jump Rope Challenge
☐ Kingdom Hearts: Dark Road
☐ SpongeBob SquarePants: Battle for Bikini Bottom – Rehydrated
I've had my sights set to three games in June—The Last of Us Part II for obvious reasons, but also two lesser-known games: Death Come True and Liberated. The former is another live action game, this one being Japanese and created by some of the people behind Danganronpa and Zero Escape. It's a choose-your-own adventure where you wake up with a dead body in your apartment, but with no memory of how it got there. The police arrive shortly thereafter, leaving you to think fast and Heavy Rain your way out of the situation. It looks pretty cool, if you ask me.
Liberated, on the other hand, is an action game with graphics made to look exactly like you're reading a comic book. I'm a sucker for cool gimmicks like this, so I'll probably pick this one up down the line. The Last of Us Part II took precedence, though, of course. Despite the controversy surrounding it, I've been thoroughly enjoying myself so far, and I guess you could say I'm still waiting to understand why people are so upset about it.
That's pretty much it, I think. July's not looking spectacular right now, but I'll probably end up choosing Ghost of Tsushima if nothing else.
Just for fun, I made a tier list for sorting out all the games you're interested in playing, and I included everything that isn't a port, remaster, update, expansion, collection, or anything that's not a new and original title, or a full-fledged remake. I couldn't be bothered to add sports games like MLB: The Show 20, so I apologize that those are missing, and Battle for Bikini Bottom: Rehydrated is included because it was advertised as a full remake, even though it turned out to just be more of a remaster.
So, what have you been playing?
1600+ indie games, including some heavy-hitters like Celeste and Night in the Woods, for just $5, with half the proceeds going towards the NAACP Legal Defense, and the other half going towards the Educational Fund and Community Bail Fund. Three days remaining.
Yeah, most of these are flat-out garbage, but who cares, it's for a good cause.
« on: May 27, 2020, 04:58:24 PM »
Shortly after the COVID-based cancellation of EVO, which is basically the Superbowl of fighting games, it was announced that an online iteration of the tournament would be held over the course of July—but only for a select few games—none of which were featured in the original lineup, which consisted of Street Fighter V: Champion Edition, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, Tekken 7, Dragon Ball FighterZ, Soulcalibur VI, Samurai Shodown, Granblue Fantasy Versus, and Under Night In-Birth Exe:Late[cl-r].
These games will not have proper tournaments held for them; instead, they'll have "special exhibitions and content" (although, I'm not exactly sure what that entails)—with the notable exception of Smash, which will conspicuously not be featured at the event in any form whatsoever. This is probably because the game's netplay sucks giant donkey dick.
Of the four chosen titles for their online tournaments, quality of netplay seems to have been the common denominator:
- Mortal Kombat 11: Aftermath
- Killer Instinct (2013)
- Them's Fightin' Herds
- Skullgirls: 2nd Encore
Unfortunately, I'm not a big fan of these games. While I do love Killer Instinct, and I have the SNES port of the original game to credit for getting me into the genre in the first place, I don't have an Xbox One or a strong enough PC to run the latest title. I've never taken Mortal Kombat seriously as a competitive fighter, and Them's Fightin' Herds is literally just that one brony fighter rebuilt into its own IP, so... No thanks.
That leaves Skullgirls—a game that ALL of my fighting game friends say is incredible, and that I'd really enjoy it from a pure gameplay standpoint, but at the same time, if you know anything about me at all, you already know what my biggest problem with the game is. I did just buy it, though, because it was on sale, and because I'm miraculously able to run it on my shitty-ass laptop—but I haven't tried it yet, and I don't really know if I actually want to just yet.
« on: May 12, 2020, 05:28:28 PM »
is it someone's job to do that, like a janitor or something?
or are they just placed by some random good samaritan? if so, do you need somebody's permission first?
i've never seen somebody actually place one before, and i've always wondered
Had a somewhat fun idea for a tier list:
Here, you can rank all the games that were nominated for GotY over the past decade by The Game Awards (or their previous incarnation, the Spike Video Game Awards).
Note the hardcore Western bias, and the emphasis placed on the most mind-numbingly commercial crap imaginable. The terrible selection of games should make this all the more interesting, I think. If the tiers don't work for you, you can relabel them to whatever you need them to be. Most of you should probably add a "haven't played" tier, for example.
I'm personally not qualified to make my own list yet, because I haven't played 90% of this bullshit, but I know most of you guys have, so I'll leave it up to you. Instead, I decided to relabel the tiers and rank them in terms of how interested I am in playing them.
If I had to pick a personal GotD from these fifty-two, I'd have to say BotW (it's actually Dark Souls, though).
Oh, and if you're wondering about "RTHST," that's supposed to be Hearthstone, but it wouldn't fit because it doesn't have any packaging artwork. Journey and PUBG are cut off for similar reasons. Sorry about that.
sooooooo did anyone end up playing this? the resident kojima fanboy is out of the building, so it hasn't really been posted about
i beat it two months ago and thought about posting a review, but i decided it wasn't worth it
anyway, i absolutely loved it—8/10—but i feel like most of you wouldn't like it
The Fairly OddParents was actually a really bad show
like, actually terrible
it was the ultimate "watch it when it's on" show for me as a kid, and i still kinda liked it because i was dumb i guess? but thinking back to it, that was probably the stupidest and most obnoxious show of all time
first of all, have you actually listened to the voice acting in this show? everyone talks like a cat getting fucked—especially cosmo and wanda—and it's the most grating shit ever
the premise itself has always just kinda been dogshit—why doesn't timmy just wish for the solution to every episode? even if his wish is prohibited by DA RULES or whatever the fuck, that certainly wouldn't happen every single time, right? and even then, why can't he just think of a workaround
like, i get that part of timmy's character is that he's an idiot, which is why he fails all of his classes, which i always thought was a weird character trait anyway—is that supposed to be relatable, or something?
like, he's supposed to be an "average" kid, right? that's what they say in the theme song, but i'm pretty sure the average kid doesn't get straight Fs on his report card, and i think it's probably irresponsible for a show aimed at kids to say that flunking all your classes is somehow normal
i remember there was this whole episode where timmy gets fed up with being a stupid idiot, so he wishes that he was as smart as AJ—which works out okay for him at first, except for the fact that it's against DA RULES to exploit wishes to win competitions
so when he enters this quiz bowl or trivia contest or whatever to compete with AJ, he's not smart anymore, so he loses, and he gets all sad or whatever—i don't remember exactly how it goes down
but there's this moment at the end where AJ's trying to make him feel better by saying something like "don't feel bad, everyone has their own special talents" yadda yadda
and timmy's like "yeah you're right, you're good at math, and i'm good at uh... uh..."
but he can't come up with anything, so AJ blurts out, "...playing video games!"
it's like, WOW, so he's literally good at NOTHING, thanks AJ, this totally isn't the most depressing shit in the world
that's your main character who every millennial child in america is projecting themselves onto right now—a talentless fucking loser who gets everything he wants, but still causes all of his own problems
i wonder how many seeds of self-hatred were sown within the minds of children as a result of this show
it doesn't even end there—do you remember that fucked up episode where timmy wishes he never existed, and it turns out that everyone would be better off without him? obviously, it's a parody/reversal of It's a Wonderful Life, and the whole point is that timmy ends up aspiring to become a better person in the end, which would be an okay message for adults i guess, but HOLY SHIT, that is such a godawful message to send to children
especially when a lot of the things that ended up changing had nothing to do with timmy at all—like elmer not having his boil, or AJ having an afro, or chester not being poor—"everything is your fault, and your very existence ruins everything, you should never have been born"
jesus, what a stupid fucking mean-spirited show
it doesn't even have any good memes—and why do you think spongebob does? probably because it was a genuinely good show, and one that people have fond memories of
nobody seems to remember or give a shit about this show, and for good reason—it just kinda hit me just now, though
« on: April 08, 2020, 01:39:09 AM »
"maybe abortion sends the child back into the ether, where they have a chance of being born in a world that doesn't suck instead"
not something i actually believe, of course, but maybe this logic is more persuasive to idiots
what do you guys think? i've never tried emotional appeals before
« on: April 01, 2020, 06:34:12 PM »
the first two rules are going to be
1. anyone who says "that's just your opinion" after somebody states an opinion will be instantly and permanently banned
2. anyone who says "that's just my opinion" after stating an opinion will be temporarily banned after one warning
there will be no other rules
sound good? yes
The Oscar nominations were just announced, I'm gonna try watching all of them this time. For every film I see, I'll update the thread with my thoughts on it, especially with respect to what it was nominated for.
Films nominated for a "big five" award (either best picture, director, actor, actress, and/or screenplay):
☐ Ford v Ferrari
☑ The Irishman
☐ Jojo Rabbit
☑ Little Women
☑ Marriage Story
☑ Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
☐ Pain and Glory
☑ The Two Popes
☑ Knives Out
Films nominated for other shit:
☐ A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
☐ Richard Jewell
☐ How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World
☑ I Lost My Body
☐ Missing Link
☑ Toy Story 4
☐ Les Misérables
☐ Corpus Christi
☑ American Factory
☐ The Cave
☑ The Edge of Democracy
☑ For Sama
☑ In the Absence
☐ Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl)
☑ Life Overtakes Me
☐ St. Louis Superman
☐ Walk Run Cha-Cha
☐ Nefta Football Club
☐ The Neighbor's Window
☐ A Sister
☐ Dcera (Daughter)
☑ Hair Love
☑ Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
☐ Frozen II
☐ Ad Astra
☐ The Lighthouse
☐ Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
☑ Avengers: Endgame
☑ The Lion King
Looks like I have a lot of work to do.
Here, I'll just briefly go over the few films I've already seen:
Unsurprisingly, this was a great movie. Martin Scorsese is my 2nd favorite director, and I'm almost always pleased with his output. While it does tread around some familiar gangster movie territory, its deliberate pace and slow-burning approach to its storytelling helps it stand out—not to mention its epic 3h30m runtime. It's probably Scorsese's most grounded and mature film, too. Like, if you're under the age of 20, you'll probably find this movie boring as fuck. I think it requires a lot of perspective to fully appreciate, which is to say that I probably don't even fully appreciate it myself. I mean, we're essentially dealing with the affairs of a bunch of very old men from a bygone era, so there's layers to how disconnected I am from this kind of story, being a young person who doesn't know what it's like to feel overcome by my own waning mortality. I can only imagine what it's like, and for what it's worth, it's palpable and scary, and the film explores these emotions beautifully.
Even putting its themes aside, it's still such a treat to see legendary actors like De Niro, Pacino, and even Pesci come out of the woodwork to give it their all for (perhaps) the last time in their careers, if not their lives. As far as general entertainment value, I wouldn't necessarily put this film on the level of Goodfellas, Casino, or even The Wolf of Wall Street, but it's still a remarkable achievement, and I wouldn't complain if it won almost any of the awards it was nominated for... except for visual effects, I guess. They weren't the best. The de-aging effects are impressive, but you can still tell how old the actors really are by their movements, and Robert De Niro's contact lenses were so unnaturally bright-looking at times that it was honestly a little distracting.
Joe Pesci, though. Give that man an Oscar. We're never gonna see him again after this.
Overall, I'd give this an 8/10. For perspective, I'd probably give Casino a 9/10, and Goodfellas a 10/10.
This movie was cool, but I don't know if I'd consider it to be "best picture" material. Joaquin Phoenix could definitely walk away with an Oscar for his performance, and I'd be happy about that, but there's not much else about this movie that stood out to me as anything worth celebrating. It has a really cool tone and look to it, I suppose. The distinctly gritty aesthetic was more tasteful than Zack Snyder's idea of grit, and the quick outbursts of intense violence broken up between softer and quieter moments of introspection were pretty refreshing to see in a comic book movie.
Ultimately, my biggest problem with the film is that it's basically just Taxi Driver combined with The King of Comedy. That isn't a problem in and of itself—inspiration breeds creativity, and Scorsese is a wonderful director to take inspiration from—but instead of using these two films as a springboard for new ideas, I can't help but feel like they've been used a crutch to actively avoid needing any new ideas. Much of the film's entertainment value, as a result, is carried by Joaquin and his fantastic performance.
This movie is a 7/10 for me, which feels a bit generous, but 6/10 feels too harsh, so I'll just go for a 7/10. It's an impressive job and a likable effort coming from the guy who directed the Hangover movies, which I despise.
If you have Netflix, and you're into some heavily emotional and dialogue-driven dramas, I highly recommend that you check this one out. The title is ironic; it's actually more of a divorce story, and it's a fairly captivating one at that. Adam Driver and Scarjo give two utterly fantastic performances—some would even say the best of the year, which I can't corroborate yet, because I haven't seen that many 2019 movies. What I will say is that they're the two best performances I've seen in years—at least, for this type of movie.
The screenplay is incredible. Both parties are equally sympathetic, with their respective sides of the story being given equal consideration and weight. You may find yourself siding with one of the two characters in the end, but you won't find yourself rooting against the other at any point. On top of this compelling narrative, we're provided with this remarkably poignant commentary on the state of marriage in the US, and how soul-crushing, bureaucratic, and Kafkaesque the divorce procedure can be—and, without spoiling anything, there does naturally come a point where it all explodes, and I have to say that it's probably my favorite singular scene from the few movies I've watched so far. You'll know it when you see it.
This is not the kind of film I normally watch, but here I am, giving it a strong review and recommendation. This is an 8/10, go watch it if you're interested.
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Despite the fact that I'm the only person in the universe who truly understands Star Wars, I really honestly couldn't give a fuck less about it at this point. The thought of giving a Star Wars movie any kind of praise from an artistic standpoint is kind of laughable to me, because it's always been nothing more than a silly cartoon, but this movie is only nominated for its score and visual effects anyway, so whatever I guess.
This movie was pretty stupid, but entertainingly so. JJ Abrams played it safe as we all expected him to, which was boring, but every time there was a stupid twist (and there were like, five of them), I had a big smile on my face, like, "Sure! Let's go with that!" and that was my takeaway. I guess I would've preferred a more serious attempt at a movie, like The Last Jedi, but I have real movies for that.
That said, the visual effects were typical Star Wars fare, and John Williams kinda phoned it in, like he has been doing for this entire trilogy. I fucking love John Williams, but he has enough Oscars at this point, and I really don't think he put in the effort to deserve another one.
I give this movie a 6/10 for what it is, although it probably deserves a bit lower. I'll never see it again to find out. My feelings on the franchise as a whole are ultimately negative, no thanks to the fans who wouldn't let me enjoy my prequels in peace until Disney showed up, but I think the new trilogy is still my favorite of the three trilogies (which isn't really saying a lot).
This movie was fun... at times, but it wasn't nearly as fun as Infinity War. It was kind of a dizzying mess, in fact, which lost it a lot of points for me, but it's only nominated for visual effects, which is a category I couldn't really care less about. I like it when visual effects are used to make a movie look stylish and distinctive, and not necessarily photorealistic. I'm not impressed by photorealism anymore, and I don't think I ever really was.
In general, superhero movies are about in the same realm as Star Wars for me, unless they're going for a more adult approach, and there haven't really been any Marvel movies made for adults yet (Deadpool doesn't count, because Deadpool is for manchildren, and Logan is at the tail-end of a long-running series of films I don't give a fuck about).
I don't really know what to rate this movie. Probably a 6/10? It did the bare minimum for me, as far as I'm concerned, and that's to just keep me from being completely bored, but it was also kind of annoying at times, especially with how they turned Thor into a fat drunk, except they won't put any fat on Chris Hemsworth's beautiful face, because we can't allow people to think he's unattractive now or something. It was cool that they embraced the stupidity of their time travel system, I guess, but it also made Thanos as boring as he was in all of his previous cameos. It's just such a weird, weird mixed bag of a movie, and it's impossible to watch unless you've seen 500 other movies. The fact that I was able to myself makes me feel kinda gross. I guess by rating it a 6/10, I get to keep my personal bias in check.
All right, that's it for now I guess. I gotta see more shit. The Two Popes, I Lost My Body, Klaus, American Factory, The Edge of Democracy, Life Overtakes Me, and Brotherhood are all on Netflix, so I guess I'll start with those.
« on: December 28, 2019, 11:23:56 AM »
because i want you to know that you're still retarded
« on: October 01, 2019, 03:57:25 PM »
Tool is a metal band
and during an action scene, they just start playing the fucking terminator theme as if it's theirs
this isn't even the first time they used it in the movie and i'm only 30 minutes into it
is this normal? because it's kind of hilarious
also this movie is 5 minutes shy of being 3 hours long, and i'm not sure if i can handle that
« on: August 04, 2019, 01:56:56 PM »
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was the most disappointing thing since my son. I mean, how much more could you possibly fuck up the entire backstory to Star Wars? And while my son eventually hanged himself in the bathroom of a gas station, the unfortunate reality of the Star Wars prequels is that they'll be around. Forever. They will never go away. They can never be undone.This right here, I think, summarizes the main thing disconnecting me from most Star Wars fans. It's one thing to think of a film as a complete disappointment, but so many people hate the prequels to such an over-the-top extent that it's almost become Internet law to say that you actually enjoyed them. I totally get being passionate about your interests, but I've never honestly felt so passionate about a media franchise that I'd ever get this dramatic about it, especially over a few bad installments. It's just kinda pathetic.
The nice thing about the character of Mr. Plinkett, though, is that there's an innate self-awareness to his sense of humor. Mike Stoklasa must have known how obnoxious people find it when fanboys complain about their stupid Star Wars bullshit, because nobody who's normal could possibly give a fuck about who shot first, or whatever pointless debate is currently a hot topic among the Mr. Plinketts of the world, and that's the point. He plays up the fact that Mr. Plinkett is just one of these old, gross, hobbiless losers who incessantly whines about shit that doesn't matter, but resonates with a lot of jaded yet nostalgic Gen X-ers.
It's clever, but I think this aspect of his character is lost on the people who cite his reviews as gospel truth.
In any case, I am prepared to slam dunk on this review. I just wish I had found the time to do it sooner.
If you're someone who's under the age of like, twenty, who says his least favorite film in the series is The Empire Strikes Back because it was "the most boringest one," then I suggest you shut this review off right now before I carefully explain how much of a fucking idiot you are.Indeed, when this video was originally uploaded in December of 2009, I had just turned fourteen, and Empire was indeed my least favorite film in the series, and it really was because of how fucking boring I found it. So you could say that Mr. Plinkett had directly called me out. I didn't "shut the review off," though. I watched everything, and in spite of what all the brainless drones in the comment section were saying, it really wasn't that great of a review, even if it did alter the landscape of YouTube film analysis and influence many of the channels that I still watch today.
I'm twenty-three now. I'll be twenty-four in a couple months, and The Empire Strikes Back is still my least favorite Star Wars film, and it's still the most boringest one.
The Phantom Menace, on the other hand? It's pretty okay. I loved it as a kid, because it was made for kids. As an adult, I'd probably give it a 6/10, which means "decent" on my scale. Not great, not even necessarily good, but certainly not bad or even mediocre. It's just all right.
Honestly, the only reason I've felt the need to defend it tooth-and-nail for all these years is because Star Wars fans are so rabid and ridiculous about it, and it's funny to watch them writhe and seethe as I carefully explain to them how much of fucking idiots they are.
But where do I possibly start?I think it's fair to argue that George Lucas probably had too much creative control, and that nobody was willing to question him at the time, because George Lucas was the man. However, these speculative portions of Mr. Plinkett's reviews have always been my least favorite part of them, because of how easy it is to manipulate footage and paint a certain narrative with it. The fact is, we don't know any of this shit. We weren't actually there. It's funny to think about, but it's ultimately a waste of time, unless you're just desperate to have your bizarre hatred for a film validated.
1. THE CHARACTERSI agree that this is a formula that generally works very well in a lot of these classic, ultra-popular movies from the '80s and '90s, but in many ways, it's a pretty stale formula. If you try writing a protagonist like this in your movie today, then you've probably written an extremely boring and hackneyed character. Harry Potter fits this formula pretty well, but no one's favorite Harry Potter character is Harry Potter (and in fact, he's many people's least favorite). I think people in general have sort of gotten fed up with the "relatable protagonist" trope, if you ask me. That's why characters like Tony Stark have erupted in popularity. In the original Iron Man, he's not the most relatable guy. You might even describe him as kind of a dick, but we still like him because he's witty, charismatic, and we can tell that he has a heart of gold beneath his tough exterior (with the arc reactor being a literal representation of this). His eventual arc is that he becomes humbled after feeling the weight of the world on his back.
Not everyone has to like a character written this way, but it proves that you don't always have to stick to this "every protagonist must be relatable and down-to-earth" formula, which I think a lot of writers seem to use a crutch nowadays. Ultimately, what matters is that the protagonist is charismatic. You just have to like them, and even if you don't like them, you have to like disliking them. It sounds simple, but it doesn't have to be. The most interesting protagonists, to me, are the ones where they don't take that easy route. The Phantom Menace uses a particular method that happens to be one of my favorite ways to establish a protagonist that I will discuss later.
Anyway, Mr. Plinkett clarifies and proceeds to acknowledge that not every movie has to follow the same formula:
Now, I need to explain that I don't think that all movies should be the same, or conform to the same kind of structure, but it works well in certain kind of movies. So unless you're the Coen brothers, David Lynch, Paul Thomas Anderson, Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock, Lars von Trier, David Cronenberg, Gus Van Sant, Quentin Tarantino, John Waters, Wes Anderson, Sam Peckinpah, Terry Gilliam, Martin Scorsese, Werner Herzog, or Jim Jarmusch, you really shouldn't stray away too far from this kind of formula, especially if you're making a movie that's aimed at children that has a cartoon rabbit in it that steps in the poopy. [another clip of that scene]Okay, so he's not saying that ALL movies should be the same, but in order to break the rules of storytelling, you have to be one of these crazy talented, world-famous, auteur directors like Martin Scorsese or Quentin Tarantino. If you're not Wes Anderson, don't ever try to be creative, especially if you're making a fantasy adventure movie with a childish sense of humor.
Now, I know that's not necessarily what he's saying, but it is what he said, and I just don't think it's a very intelligent point. Obviously, it doesn't matter who you are. Writers should be able to take whatever risks they want, because that's the art form. That's the point of art.
I don't think Mike would dispute this, and I get that he's just trying to say "I think this movie would've been better if they had played it safe with the characters," but that's kind of a platitudinous observation, isn't it? You could say that about fucking anything.
He continues with his point, and proceeds to make his first actual criticism of The Phantom Menace:
This is all, of course, completely applicable to the original Star Wars film, and the character of Luke Skywalker.So the movie chooses not to have one obvious main character. So what?
Obviously, the movie doesn't have just one main character, but this was clearly intentional. Whereas some stories will have a delineated hierarchy of protagonist importance, where terms like "deuteragonist" or "tritagonist" may be used, The Phantom Menace uses a particular storytelling technique where multiple characters almost equally fulfill the role of the protagonist. The purpose of this is simple: to give every individual in the audience someone to relate to and root for by covering and providing a surrogate for several demographics, rather than just having your one typical young male character who is far more likely to resonate only with young males in the audience.
If you're an older man, father, or father figure, you'll probably see yourself in Qui-Gon and his earnest attempts to pass off his wisdom to his young apprentice.
If you're a little boy, you'll probably see yourself in Anakin, with his bright-eyed enthusiasm and excitement towards life in spite of his unfortunate circumstances.
If you're somewhere in between, you'll probably see yourself in Obi-Wan (this is where I find myself), a young adult who's trying to figure out his life and other people. If you really need the movie to have just ONE protagonist for some reason, you can watch the movie from Obi-Wan's perspective, and he fulfills that role just fine in the traditional sense, by virtue of him having the most in common with the average Star Wars fan.
You see, it's pretty much the same exact formula, but it's being poured down more than one tube, because different people see different things differently. Of course, this technique is not new, by any means—it's very common in serial media, like cartoons, sitcoms, and TV dramas. Neon Genesis Evangelion uses the technique, as well, and it's one of the most appealing and interesting aspects of the show. Young boys will relate more with Shinji Ikari, whereas young adults will relate more with Misato Katsuragi. The different angles from which you can enjoy the show give it a certain depth that a lacking of this device simply wouldn't provide.
Plus, if you're an empath, this kind of storytelling allows you to rewatch the film from the other perspectives that the story provides. This way, you're guaranteed to take something new away from the film every time.
Now, I did say that the technique is more common in TV shows than in movies, and this is because movies usually don't have as much time to flesh out each character's personality, so they often limit themselves to a few. Otherwise, you'll have a whole bunch of flat, cardboard characters instead of a small number of strong, three dimensional ones. Does The Phantom Menace suffer from this issue? Yeah, kinda. You could definitely argue that. But I don't personally view that as a terribly crippling flaw, and I find myself liking almost all of the characters in spite of this relatively small issue (except Anakin, but that's more because of his annoying dialogue and Jake Lloyd's poor acting).
I would also maintain that I'm not necessarily looking for fleshed-out 3D characters in a Star Wars movie, because they've always just been the quintessential popcorn entertainment flick to me. In any case, I think if the film stuck with the same formula that the original Star Wars film did, it would only have made the film seem all the more boring and hackneyed to people. So I'm personally glad that they tried something unique, and even if it didn't pay off with flying colors, I still don't find myself disliking almost any of the film's characters. They're all fun and memorable to me, and that's part of what I go into a Star Wars movie for.
At this point, Mr. Plinkett goes on to list all the characters that he doesn't consider to be the "main" protagonist, because Mike Stoklasa apparently doesn't understand the point of having multiple protagonists:
I can tell you it's not the Jedi. They were just on some kind of boring mission that they didn't really care about. Plus, they were fucking boring themselves.What does it matter if you find the characters boring? I don't understand why that suddenly means they can't be a protagonist. To go back to the Harry Potter example, there's lots of people who believe Harry Potter is pretty boring when you compare him to the other colorful characters in his story, but nobody would deny that he's still the main character.
Personally disliking a character does not actually change their role in the story. That's fucking stupid.
It wasn't Queen Amidala, because she was some foreign queen the movie was certainly not really about specifically, either.Well, I can't dispute this one, because she's obviously not really a main character. Women in the audience might like or relate to her, I guess, but like he said, the movie is not really about her specifically. The thing is, I don't think the movie's even trying to say otherwise. She's there, and she has a role, but at no point is that role ambiguous or confusing. No one would even think or consider her to be a main character. I'm not even sure why she's being mentioned here.
You might be thinking that it's Anakin, because he was like, a slave, and saved the day at the end by accidentally blowing up the starship, but the audience doesn't meet Anakin until forty-five minutes into the movie. And then the things that are happening around him are pretty much out of his control or understanding. If a protagonist has no concept of what's going on, or what's at stake, then there's no real tension or drama. Without that, there's no story. So the conclusion is that there isn't one.Again, this point would ONLY hold water if Anakin really was the only protagonist. But he's not. The fact that we have multiple characters to attach ourselves to allows us, if necessary, to shift our perspectives to the characters who do have a concept of what's going on. And the kids in the audience who are too young to understand the plot anyway will still be entertained, because they still see a little boy in a starship who's doing some cool shit in outer space. Everyone's entertained, no harm, no foul. Not even for the integrity of the story.
Before the movie opened, I was really excited to hear that Scottish actor, Ewan McDonald, was going to be playing Obi-Wan Kenobi. I thought that was a great choice, and that he'd be perfect as the lead of this movie.I like Ewan McGregor, too, and I think he was perfect as Obi-Wan. Not only does he look exactly like a younger Alec Guinness, which is amazing, the speech patterns and mannerisms he worked into his performance tend to emanate a "wise beyond his years" vibe, which fits in perfectly with his character.
The fact that he complains a lot is part of what makes his character. It's a neat reversal of the "cautious master, brash apprentice" trope, where Qui-Gon is the confident risk taker, and Obi-Wan is the stuffy and overly cautious one. Anyone in the audience who thinks Qui-Gon's choices throughout the film were stupid and irresponsible will probably consider Obi-Wan to be very sympathetic, and therefore more likable.
This is, dare I say, good writing. Am I saying it's the best writing ever? No, but it works, and it works just fine in my opinion.
So YOU may like the characters... You know, if you're stupid.Fuck you.
I like how he stops there after that one example, too, as if he already talked about all the other characters. Again, I'm not saying The Phantom Menace has the best characters, or even great characters, but I think they're all likable enough to where I could handily defend all of them. Yes, even Jar Jar.
But let's ask some real people about the Star Wars characters, and see what they say. I posed a simple challenge to them:This is one of the most well-known parts of any Mr. Plinkett review, and I'm willing to bet it's the part where most people started subscribing to him, because it's a clever and fun concept that gives you a quick break from having to listen to Mike's stupid Plinkett voice, and because it's a challenge that they can participate in themselves.
The problem with the "real people" he interviews in the actual video, however, is that they are all his close personal friends that he continues to review films with to this day on Half in the Bag, including Jay Bauman, Rich Evans, and Jack Packard (back when he had hair). I don't recognize everyone in this section, but it's obvious that Mike made absolutely no effort to actually interview strangers to ensure that no bias would be factored into the experiment.
Nonetheless, let's take his little challenge:
Han SoloThey forgot "insufferable" and "annoying." I always hated Han Solo. Never liked him in any of the original movies.
But okay, let's keep count here.
Rich Evans described him with three terms: "Rogue," "scoundrel," and "has a dark streak."
Jay only described him with two: "Arrogant" and "charming."
Jack described him with four terms: "Roguish," "wannabe dashing," "pigheaded," and "thief with a heart of gold."
The woman described him with two terms: "Totally dashing" and "completely sexy in a bad boy sort of way."
And the other man described him with three: "Smarmy," "cocksure," and a "womanizer."
Controlling for synonyms, that gives us, like, seven or eight different terms combined. Obviously, Han Solo is a character that Mike Stoklasa considers to be well-written, and you only need to describe him with seven or eight words to demonstrate how strong of a character he is. Got it.
Qui-Gon JinnOkay, my turn.
Qui-Gon Jinn is wise, mature, soft-spoken, and stoic. Very mild-mannered and dry, but that's only because he takes his job seriously. Has shades of grey sewn into his moral compass; he's not above things like gambling and lying to his adversaries, frequently using Jedi Mind Tricks to get his means. He would be a risk-taker, but the point is that he's so confident, that he doesn't view them as risks at all. He's also a very stern, no-nonsense kind of person, and frequently gets annoyed with Jar Jar's hijinks. To some, he may come across as a little cold, but in a fatherly sort of way where he ultimately knows what's best for his disciples.
Boom. Fucking easy.
Now, let's see how these idiots do:
Rich Evans: He's... stoic.Instead of making a point about the characters in Star Wars, Mike chooses to throw his friends under the bus by making them look like complete fucking idiots.
Well, Rich Evans isn't a complete idiot. He almost immediately used the perfect word to describe him: "Stoic," which I used to describe him as well. He's the quintessential stoic Jedi who's all wrapped up in the niceties of his profession. He's not particularly emotional, because emotions cloud your judgment, according to Jedi teachings which parallel a lot of real world religions. It's a great word. Good on you, Rich Evans. Not so good on you for struggling to come up with any other words, because there are plenty of them.
I don't blame the woman for not remembering Qui-Gon's character, but she says "I don't remember" in a way that implies that she's only seen The Phantom Menace once, which is clearly the case, otherwise she would've done a better job. Meanwhile, she described Han Solo as if she saw the original trilogy at least ten times, which is probably the case. That's not really fair, now is it?
Jay was being a fucking shithead in his interview. First of all, he said not to describe the character's physical appearance. Second, he's clearly bullshitting. "He has a beard." Get the fuck out of here with that shit.
Jack Packard's interview was clearly about to give us a few adjectives, and he sounded enthusiastic about his answer, but Mike decided to cut it off before he could say anything. Nice. What an honest way to make your point, Mike!
The laughing guy shrugs before using "stern," which is certainly one decent description. He could've come up with more if he really tried, but he's playing dumb, because he sees the point that Mike is trying to make, so he decides to play along with it, because he doesn't like the Star Wars prequels and wants to help his friend make a good video.
Fuck this part.
C-3POJack kinda fails right off the bat by describing his role in the story, rather than his character, as outlined in the challenge's rules. "Sidekick" and "comic relief" are roles, not necessarily character traits in and of themselves (though "bumbling" sidekick has a character trait built into it, I suppose). "Effeminate" is a good word to describe him, however.
The other guys did okay. They still only used, like, two or three, maybe four different words to describe him, which isn't a lot, but Mike decided to play the Star Wars theme over these portions, and NO music at all during the prequel character portions, which manipulates me into thinking that he's making a good point.
Queen AmidalaMy turn, I guess:
This one's a weird example, because there's two different characters playing the role of Queen Amidala. There's the Queen herself, Padmé, played by Natalie Portman, who appears in and out of her role as the Queen, but then there's the oft-forgotten Sabé, played by Keira Knightley, who played Amidala's decoy. The fact that the Queen lacks a personality makes it easier for Sabé to stand in for her, because she doesn't have any mannerisms to imitate which she would otherwise have to learn.
So, I mean, yeah. She doesn't have a personality. That's not a problem, though, because it's woven into the plot.
Padmé herself, on the other hand, has... a little bit more personality to her. Not a lot, but when she's not having to be the Queen, she just seems like a nice, kinda sweet and caring, yet strong and conscientious person. Now, she doesn't necessarily SCREAM any of these qualities at you, but that's okay. She's very down-to-earth about it. She's like a normal teenage girl. I can see how you'd think she's boring, but she doesn't lack character in my opinion.
Rich Evans: That is going to be fucking impossible because she doesn't have a character.I was kinda giving these people the benefit of the doubt earlier, but shit. Maybe they ARE just fucking idiots.
The woman won this round, concluding that she was just "kind of normal." Yeah, that's true. She's clearly the only one there thinking Padmé, and not the Queen, which is good. She passes that part, but fails the description part.
Jay Bauman, meanwhile, once again puts his dick into his mouth and pulls it straight out of his stupid ass. "She looks like Keira Knightley"? What the hell do you mean? She WAS Keira Knightley, you fucking dipshit. Why did Mike interview you when you haven't even seen the movie? How embarrassing. They don't even look that much alike.
CONTINUED IN PART 2
« on: August 01, 2019, 09:43:41 PM »
In-depth review of Dragon Warrior (1986)
i guarantee you that this is the most anyone has ever had to say about this game in the past 10 years