Music Geek 2

I have not heard this song is 10 years. I was working and it came up on my boss' Pandora. It made me think of another time in my life. God love music and its power to produce memories. Thank you Dispatch.

Music Geek 1

I can't stop listening to this song. The video is pretty hokey, but I like it anyways.

Geek post 1

Review: Galaxy on Fire 2 HD for iPhone
A few days ago I was looking at the app store on my phone, and finding the same old crap. Angry birds and random stuff. When I saw a game called Galaxy on fire 2 HD. It had a cool space icon, and looked like a ship on it. So I looked at the reviews and the pictures.




I was amazed it how good it looked. I downloaded it, best $.99 I have ever spent on an app. I don't usually buy apps or games, but man this was worth it. Cool space battles, doing missions, mining ore from asteroids, all for credits to buy new upgrades for weapons, shields, cargo holds, and even new ships.
Very hard at first, but you soon get on a roll, fighting pirates, and defending space stations, transporting goods across galaxies.

Act Your Age

Last month, this author was one among many adult males that were looking forward to a new video game, set to come out for the Xbox 360, titled “Mass Effect.” It is a science fiction role playing game, set in the future. The gamer assumes the role of a captain of a spaceship in which he can fly around the universe, complete with stunning graphics and complete freedom to make choices that impact the in-game world. This game is rated “M” for “mature.” These ratings are issued by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB, and these ratings are printed on every video game released in America. “M for mature” means the purchaser has to be seventeen years of age or older to purchase the game. Its effectiveness is suspect, in that like seeing a rated R movie, a youth can always get their parents to purchase it. In 2010, only five percent of games had this rating, but out of those, twenty nine percent were the best selling games of the year.(Pereira) Such a small percentage of released games made millions of dollars in sales. This speaks to the attitude with which video game developers are approaching their content. Their target audience is largely adult gamers; the ones that don’t have to ask their parents’ permission to buy a game. Video games are just one part of a culture of “adult-children” who are reading adult comic books, going to see children’s movies in the theater without children, and spending time living on another planet, in another time, in another universe through books and video games. Adults are engaging in activities that could be considered as “for-kids”. With the mass media targeting adults through youth content, it has become more socially acceptable for adults to entertain themselves like children.

One of the foremost examples of companies marketing to adults is adult arcades. Some very popular places, like Dave and Busters, contain a huge arcade specifically marketed towards adults. Their tag line reads “Eat, Drink, Play.” A patron must be 18 or older to enter after six p.m., where they have a plethora of arcade games and serve alcohol. The author has heard it referred to as “The Adult Chuck E. Cheese.” The author has been to this place for many of his friends’ birthday parties. Drinking liquor and acting like a kid sounds like a great way to celebrate getting older. Portland has Ground Kontrol downtown, which is a popular bar/arcade with vintage arcade games in it. When mentioned to other collegiate classmates, their responses were along the lines of: “Oh, that place is awesome.”

Another example is the appearance of more and more video games with adult content. In Mass Effect, the player has the choice to start a relationship, and through their choices can have sex with another in-game character. There is no nudity, but it’s done in a PG-13 sort-of-way, in that all the vital parts are covered. Mass Effect is in no way the first game to do this. One of the most notable demonstrations of sexual content is the “rocking car” found in the Grand Theft Auto series of games. In these games, the player has the ability to pick up a female streetwalker, and their money total goes down twenty five dollars. There is no nudity, but the explicit act is implied. Adult themes, including extreme violence, seem to be the center of many of these games. Certain games have imagery of literally blowing the player’s opponents to pieces rendered in fantastic computer art. Many have said that these games are going too far, and that they are becoming too real or too violent. Some of these games exhibit the “uncanny valley” effect, wherein gamers experience revulsion when violence “looks too real.” This author believes this to be entirely perception based. Whenever there is a beautifully made human character in a game, the author marvels at its creativity and craftsmanship. Perhaps games are not quite at the point to sicken people from sheer appearance? What about when a player shoots the perfectly crafted digital human in the head, with a flash of blood, and then moves on to the next digital victim? Tom Bissell was playing the kind of game I am describing. He plays Fallout 3 for seven hours straight, instead of watching history in the making. This adult would rather play a game. (Bissell)
A further example are children’s films that have adult themes in them to attract adult viewers. A great example of this phenomenon is the Shrek series of movies. They seem to always cut off at the last minute before an offensive word, or make subtle reference to sexual themes, or include subtle references to other R-rated films. Some would argue that this would be so that adults who take their children to these films can enjoy the movies also, and this author does not disagree with that. Conversely, is it socially acceptable for adults without children to go and see these films? Also, do these children not pick up on these innuendos? Society is already questioning Disney’s moral compass; the media does not need to add layers of adult content to kids films. We look back on old Disney films and think how morally outdated they are: racism, sexism, a false sense of history. Are future generations going to look at our films and say how pervasively adult our kids films are?
So what came first, the chicken or the egg? Video game developers, films producers, arcade owners making adult themed media and making it more socially acceptable for adults to play games, watch cartoons, get drunk and play skeeball for tickets to buy that big pink teddy bear? Or are adults really drawn to children-themed content? A sad look at our society would say we all are looking for something to cover up or de-stress our adult lives.

Drinking, drugs, escapism into literature, and playing video games are ways in which adults can avoid that one thing they can never escape from: their own boring lives. Adults are always paying bills, worrying about one’s credit, working a crap job, living a life that is not enjoyable, and feeling a sense of hopelessness. Pick your poison. there is feeling of wonderment that has been lost to mundane life, that is recovered through video games and films. This recovery occurs through simple whimsical storylines to far-off destinations, of places no one will travel to. They contain noble characters, with straightforward goals and purposes. They contain magic love, where one doesn’t have to worry about saying the wrong things. Avoiding the problems can potentially be unhealthy, but at what point does one’s obsession become unhealthy? It is completely subjective. If there is no way to directly fix life’s problems, maybe the “de-stress activity” is the only way to avoid going insane. As long as someone is not overly obsessed with said activity, do not judge people for what they do to relax.

Relationship status (in television)

I have noticed a pattern with relationships among main characters of television shows. The pattern is this: opposite sex partners and friends who care about each other, but can not actually be a couple for any number of reasons. I noticed this while watching Castle, one of my favorite shows. I enjoy this show mostly because of Nathan Fillion who plays Richard Castle and his relationship with his female counterpart (Kate Beckett, played by Stana Katic).They are in Season 3 now, and seems to be following a similar path of many shows. The main characters both love each other, but they cannot be together. Their reason seems to be they are afraid of being together. But this writing ploy, that is, the characters who work together that are in love but for whatever reason are not together, why is this used so much?

For example, Fox Mulder and Diana Scully, from The X-files. Will they get together? They almost kissed in the first X-files film. Never quite get together. Apollo and Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica; they consummate their love, in the middle of season 3, only to not be together for whatever reason. Dr. Temperance Brennan and Agent Seeley Booth, from Bones (This is an example of one that I lost interest in). I think for these shows to work, you must do something withe the sexual tension that you have built up, otherwise the audience will lose interest. This is the proverbial “shit or get off the pot moment”. But as soon as these characters get together, the show seems to get stale. Fringe started down that path in Season 3.Peter and Olivia getting together, only to be ripped apart by time altering mumbo-jumbo. Can you only build this tension for 3 seasons before you have to do something about it? What about season 3 is the magic number?

If Starbuck and Apollo had stayed together, would Battlestar have been as good as it was? Do these characters have to never be together until the end? It seems they need these tensions as part of the show. They can never quite be together otherwise the shows fire is gone. Ross and Rachel from Friends get together to early. In my opinion, the season that they are together is some of the worst Friends moments. Their relationship ends, and for the remainder of the seasons, they build that tension back up. Why? We finally got what we wanted. The main characters got together, and everything is happy. But with the characters happy, we lose interesting story arcs of secret, unrequited love. It’s sad to say, but these characters will always be apart until the show ends, as with the last episode of Friends.

With this knowledge, you can arm yourself against the show runners who want the characters to get together. But the show will suffer if they ever do. No one wants to see a happy couple in a show. It’s like seeing the end of a movie, and then actually seeing what the characters are like: Living together, paying bills, planning their lives, real-life stuff. Not as interesting as the love that we can never be together, because I don’t go old, and it would make me to sad to watch you die (Doctor Who).

Now I watch Castle and think, I am happy they are not together. Sure I want them to be together, but I know it creates so many more interesting aspects of Television, if they do not. These shows all worked, because of the building of the relationship. It’s just as uncomfortable when you keep waiting and waiting and nothing happens. Will they get together this episode? Will they kiss finally? This keeps you coming back.

Sequels and remakes: Comic book movies

When I heard they were making a new Spiderman, restarting the series with new actors, and a new director, my first thoughts were not “joy!” but, “Man, they are really running out of ideas.” And when I say “they,” I mean Hollywood in general. In the amount of movies that have come out in the past years, there has been a steady increase in sequels of movies that worked or didn’t work, remakes, reboots, and movie-do-overs.

Spiderman is the most recent idea of, “hey, this idea can still make us money.” This happens a lot. Or, “let’s just restart or change the actors, maybe that will fix mistakes made before.” I do not particularly like the first few Spiderman movies, but combined, they made almost 3 billion dollars world wide. Maybe it’s just that I do not like Sam Raimi’s directing style, or Toby Maguire, or, Kirsten Dunst. Even the last iteration, Spiderman 3, was meet with terrible reviews from critics and fans. Yet it grossed 900 million dollars. (boxofficemojo.com) So who cares if it’s really bad, and they ruin the character for fans, “they” are going to make tons of money.

I am not saying that I won’t go see The new movie, “The Amazing Spiderman”, but I feel like it’s just a little to soon. I mean, the idea is still fresh in everyone minds. They will have to be very careful to not be redundant and bore the audience, with a retelling of his “origin” story. Having said that, I will probably go see the new film, but if it sucks I am done. Saying this now, as a comic book movie fan, I will never see a Spiderman film again, if they ruin this for me. I just can’t handle another disappointment.
Marvel studios has tried this before, back in 2008 with The Incredible Hulk. They attempted series reboot, from the 2003 utter disappointment. It was not exactly a series reset, as it did not retell the origin story. They simply replaced all the actors and added a new director, and we got a far better film than 2003’s Hulk. God, Ang Lee, what were you thinking? Giant Hulk dogs?

The best series reboot by far is the Batman series. It’s fantastic. The the reboot shows you how bad the original Batman films really were, and stepped up comic book movies to another level. The difference between Batman & Robin and Batman Begins was 8 years, and since Batman was watch-able, since Batman returns, it’s been 13 years. So at that point we were happy to see a restart. But after The Dark knight Rises, where will we go from here? I think it will be Zach Snyder’s Man of Steel, another comic book reboot. It seems they won’t stop rehashing these characters. As a comic book fan, I just hope these people show some respect to the characters that I know so well.

I guess it’s going to be never ending, as long as people will go see these movies. I mean they make a crap movie and how does it effect “them” well they are out a bunch of money, but we, the comic book fans are they ones that are hurt. You can’t put a price on a fan’s love of an Iconic character. Even if they are crap, they will keep trying over and over, until they have sucked the ideas dry and no one cares about them anymore.There I’ll be, reading comics, content.

Skyrim review volume 1: Bethesda hates magic

Skyrim is probably the best video game I have ever played. It’s incredibly immersive and just down right beautiful. All I hear about online is how much everyone likes it and thinks it’s amazing, which is true; it is amazing. I think, however, there are still some things that don’t quite fit right or that there are mechanics of the game that don’t work for me.

Now, I should start by saying I have logged 100 hours into this game since it came out. I have a level 64 character, I have beat the main quest, and have I completed the big side quests, including: the College of Windhelm, the Thieves Guild quest, The Companions, and the Stormcloak side of the rebellion quests. So, I feel I have a pretty firm knowledge of the game. The character I created was Imperial. I picked an imperial because it had the nice mix of magic/melee that I was going to make (leaning more towards the magic side). I always seem to want to make a jack-of-all-trades when I play these games, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas; maybe that is my downfall. I start out doing fine, with a little fireball, a little alteration spell for armor, a little hitting you with the sword, etc. Around level eight is where I started to have trouble.

From the get-go I could tell that Skyrim was not built for the magic user. Like most RPG’s, it made for the “tough guy melee type,” the run-into-the-middle type and kill-everything-and-survive type. Not much love for us, who want to stand back and shoot you with a fire ball, types. My hope was that in later levels the magic would pay off. I was sorrily disappointed that the game seems to focus more on melee and weapon damage heavily, and magic seems like an after thought. For example, leveling smithing is the easiest thing in the game to do. I was about level 20 smithing when I figured out that you could take one ore bar and one leather strip, the easiest, cheapest things in the game, and make iron daggers over and over until you get to 100, which doesn’t take very long. As apposed to enchanting and alchemy, which get progressively harder to level. It’s like the game wants you to wear heavy armor and use a weapon. With your smithing you can improve your armor; exceeding higher than any alteration spell, and improve your weapons to do more damage than any destruction spell. So, just some reflection, you have an easier time leveling, and surviving, when using heavy armor and weapons, and in later levels can do more damage than a magic user can ever do. Yep.
I could spend some time talking about the many glitches in the game. Namely, dragons flying backwards for no apparent reason. Or the quests that you can’t complete even though you did them before you had the quest. And the ill-timed freeze up, that always seems to happen at the exactly the worst time. But every game has bugs, so I wont nit pick that to much. Just commenting on the fact that they exist.
Like smithing, I got my enchanting skill to 100, begrudgingly. I began to make sets of Dragon armor, with varying enhancements to play styles. I had made a character that I would allow me to do whatever I wanted. One set had enhancements to armor, weapons, health, and weapon damage. The second set was an utter disappointment; the only magic skill you can add to armor reduces the cost of a particular school of magic. You can put enough enchantments for a particular school, reducing any spell, to nothing. Sounds cool right? But then you start to think about it. Why did I put so many points into magic when I leveled, yet my spells cost nothing? What’s the point of having 500 magic when it never goes down? I would have liked to know that before I put so many points into it; maybe those points would have been better for health and I would have survived a little more. To be continued!

Perspectives on terrorism (in film)

Imagine that you hear a story on the news: we catch a known terrorist, the police and FBI are integrating him. His known associates break into a building, kill 50 police, and blow up the bottom floor of the building. They steal a helicopter and break out their friend, killing anyone who gets in their way. They then proceed to crash the helicopter into a building, possibly killing hundreds. In the end, they get away. Sound familiar?

Flash forward to the future. London. A rogue solo bomber blows up the Old Bailey, (google it). Are there people inside? Unknown, we are still sifting through the rubble. This rogue terrorist then breaks into a news station, and proceeds to kill Innocent police. Guys that are probably just doing their job, and like the good benefits that a government job gives them. Instead, their kids will grow up with out a father. This bomber then gets on the television, and rants about some tyrannical government. Whether he is right or not, he is still a criminal who blows up buildings and kills government workers. How well are you going to listen to him?
Going back to the first group of terrorists, you are in The Matrix. You are not some holy warrior, working with the human resistance, doing crazy flips and shooting guns. You are just a father of three working at subway, trying to make ends meet. Little do you know, that you are just a battery in some machine’s power source somewhere. But you don’t know that, you are just living your life and wanting some one to do something about people getting killed. You don’t really understand why these people in black trench coats keep killing people. When they kill an agent, a person dies. All that is left of them is the person the agent downloaded into.
You live in London, and the government sucks. They kill people and arrest people for no reason. How did it get to this point? Oh, that’s right, you were scared about some virus killing everyone, so you gave government tons of power to sort it out. But wait! You’re still a democracy, right? You elected a dictator? That doesn’t make much sense. Your country has been a democracy for a long time. How did it get to this point? By not going to protest or give a crap that your vote got taken away. In that case, you deserve to be ruled. Sounds harsh, but in the movie V for Vendetta, that’s what it has come to.

When V blows up the building, you do not know whether there are people inside. That detail is just glossed over. It’s at night, granted, but are there security guards or janitors in there? These are the same people He is trying to free from the evil government.

These movies are both great, but in the end, I am thinking how other people who live in these universes would view what’s happening. Remember, you are not Natalie Portman, you don’t have V explaining everything to you. You’re just some random person. Now, this begs the question, “do the Wachoski brothers like terrorists?” They wrote the screen plays for both these movies. The “V for Vendetta” graphic novel was written by Allen Moore. He is a great writer, but that dude is nuts. He seems to have it in for governments and corporations. The Wachoski’s still choose to bring these movies to the masses. Seems like kind of a strong message when you look at it like that. Maybe they do not even know they are doing it, or I could be blowing this out of proportion, but I think it’s fun to think about.