Sorry about the hiatus. I've been job hunting and then I spent the last weekend getting crazy at Bonnaroo. If you want to read about the experience at what we'll generously call my day job, check out the article:
RIGHT HERE
What happened while I was gone? The Hangover was big (um...Zack Galifianakis was good), the Braves have gone into the toilet (just in time to face the Sox, the Yanks, and the Phils), and I got Ghostbusters the game. In the next week I'll try to post some old reviews that aren't online, explain my unnecessarily complicated new rating system, and write my much-postponed article about the female equivalent of a bro.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Project Natal
For those of you who have lives/jobs and weren't watching the Microsoft keynote address at E3, you missed the announcement of Project Natal, a motion sensor gaming apparatus that XBox 360 hopes will make controllers obsolete, beat the Wii, and give them some of that sweet, sweet casual gamer money. Unlike the Wii, Project Natal allows you to control the 360 with your entire body. You can navigate the menu by waving your hand around, and play games by moving your body, legs, and head too. This could be a game changer, but I have a few questions.
Question 1: Does it work?
This kind of goes without saying, but this is all meaningless if it doesn't work. I'm not at E3 and thus have not tried it, but the thing they used in the demo worked pretty effectively. But can it work that well in your living room? Can it improve upon the Wii's motion sensor (which I'd give about a B-)? I guess what this really depends on is the difference between trying to detect a controller and trying to detect a body.
Question 2: Is this an effective mode for gaming?
Another Wii-inspired question, but one that needs asking. There was a time when the Wiimote was going to revolutionize gameplay, but today all its good for lame gimmicks and mini-game collections. Outside of a few of the Nintendo regulars (specifically Galaxy and Zelda), there's really been no games that have found an interesting way to use the Wiimote and still functioned on a creative, artistic level. There's been 0 third party success, and very little success outside of the minigames or the youth-oriented games. And many games (especially third-party ports) feel like they've shoe-horned in motion sensitivity and it becomes a burden instead of a perk.
So is that the path that awaits Natal? Not necessarily. For one thing, the Wii has been hamstrung by its weak graphics engine. And the problem with most of the Wiimote controls is the boil down to wiggling or wanking (for lack of a better term) the controller, which feels pretty silly and asinine. Natal's 3D motion sensor could allow for more natural movement and a much larger range of options. But, then again, a lot of the Wii's games are just too simple-minded because they're made by hardcore gamers aimed at casual ones, resulting in gameplay that feels condescendingly straightforward. But this is a developer problem and Microsoft's developer outreach is still second-to-none. There's nothing inherently wrong with pursuing casual gamers, but the game still has to fun to play.
Question #3: Are we ready to move past the word "game" in "gaming console"?
I'm still not convinced that, even if Natal takes off, we'll be seeing Resident Evil 6 or Bioshock 3 played without a controller. And as Molyneux's presentation (as well as the paint thing) showed, the implications of Project Natal stretch far beyond playing games. Molyneux seemed to be interested in creating a crude, proto-Skynet with that vaguely creepy kid who will be your friend. There's also the simple way that a lack of a controller would change the way you navigate the 360. The microphone and camera could provide a new, Horizonsesque way of interacting with your friends. Add this to the fact that the 360 can now stream live TV (in the UK), play 1080p movies and TV on demand instantly, and will soon have Facebook and Twitter, we're heading towards a world where the gaming console is the media and social hub of your living room. However, since they said that the number of console owners is still under 50% (if my memory serves). Is pitching the XBox as some sort of family entertainment center the ay to get boxes in the rest of those houses? Can it beat the PS3 on that front (or, to ask that another way, does Minority Report-style menu control trump a BluRay)?
So, in conclusion, Project Natal is an interesting new development. However, for Microsoft to pull off what they want to pull off, they're going to need to pay close attention to where the Wii went wrong and make sure that Natal is an innovation, not a gimmick, that is supported by a broad cross-section of talented designers.
P.S. They also announced the first ten songs on Rock Band: The Beatles. No "Helter Skelter" or "Drive My Car" yet, but the picks are solid and the idea of being able to use up to three microphones to sing harmony is really cool. Here's the trailer.
Question 1: Does it work?
This kind of goes without saying, but this is all meaningless if it doesn't work. I'm not at E3 and thus have not tried it, but the thing they used in the demo worked pretty effectively. But can it work that well in your living room? Can it improve upon the Wii's motion sensor (which I'd give about a B-)? I guess what this really depends on is the difference between trying to detect a controller and trying to detect a body.
Question 2: Is this an effective mode for gaming?
Another Wii-inspired question, but one that needs asking. There was a time when the Wiimote was going to revolutionize gameplay, but today all its good for lame gimmicks and mini-game collections. Outside of a few of the Nintendo regulars (specifically Galaxy and Zelda), there's really been no games that have found an interesting way to use the Wiimote and still functioned on a creative, artistic level. There's been 0 third party success, and very little success outside of the minigames or the youth-oriented games. And many games (especially third-party ports) feel like they've shoe-horned in motion sensitivity and it becomes a burden instead of a perk.
So is that the path that awaits Natal? Not necessarily. For one thing, the Wii has been hamstrung by its weak graphics engine. And the problem with most of the Wiimote controls is the boil down to wiggling or wanking (for lack of a better term) the controller, which feels pretty silly and asinine. Natal's 3D motion sensor could allow for more natural movement and a much larger range of options. But, then again, a lot of the Wii's games are just too simple-minded because they're made by hardcore gamers aimed at casual ones, resulting in gameplay that feels condescendingly straightforward. But this is a developer problem and Microsoft's developer outreach is still second-to-none. There's nothing inherently wrong with pursuing casual gamers, but the game still has to fun to play.
Question #3: Are we ready to move past the word "game" in "gaming console"?
I'm still not convinced that, even if Natal takes off, we'll be seeing Resident Evil 6 or Bioshock 3 played without a controller. And as Molyneux's presentation (as well as the paint thing) showed, the implications of Project Natal stretch far beyond playing games. Molyneux seemed to be interested in creating a crude, proto-Skynet with that vaguely creepy kid who will be your friend. There's also the simple way that a lack of a controller would change the way you navigate the 360. The microphone and camera could provide a new, Horizonsesque way of interacting with your friends. Add this to the fact that the 360 can now stream live TV (in the UK), play 1080p movies and TV on demand instantly, and will soon have Facebook and Twitter, we're heading towards a world where the gaming console is the media and social hub of your living room. However, since they said that the number of console owners is still under 50% (if my memory serves). Is pitching the XBox as some sort of family entertainment center the ay to get boxes in the rest of those houses? Can it beat the PS3 on that front (or, to ask that another way, does Minority Report-style menu control trump a BluRay)?
So, in conclusion, Project Natal is an interesting new development. However, for Microsoft to pull off what they want to pull off, they're going to need to pay close attention to where the Wii went wrong and make sure that Natal is an innovation, not a gimmick, that is supported by a broad cross-section of talented designers.
P.S. They also announced the first ten songs on Rock Band: The Beatles. No "Helter Skelter" or "Drive My Car" yet, but the picks are solid and the idea of being able to use up to three microphones to sing harmony is really cool. Here's the trailer.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
How to Fix Angels and Demons
Just to get this out of the way up top, I did not like Angels and Demons, nor am I a fan of Dan Brown (I read 50 pages of Angels and Demons, thought it was dumb, and put it down). However, I think the Langdon movies are a gigantic missed opportunity that, if done right, could have been a lot of fun. Here's my advice on how to fix it:
Step 1: Replace Tom Hanks: There are two directions to take Robert Langdon. He could be a clear, unsophisticated action hero (a la Indiana Jones), but that's a little tired and I don't think that's what appeals to people about Langdon. So, instead, the best course would be to go in the other direction and make him a total nerd. But Tom Hanks isn't convincing in either part, he's in bland, nice guy mode and loses that snarky edge that makes him so appealing when he's at his best. Instead, why not go for Paul Giamatti, who could perfectly nail the awkwardness, the dorky intellectualism, and the prickly, somewhat antisocial exterior that tends to characterize brilliant college professors.
Step 2: Fire Ron Howard: Ron Howard really only ever works in one mode: lofty, Oscar-contender. His comedies are middlebrow, his dramas are middlebrow, and it was no shock that his action film lacked any sense of fun or excitement or grit, and you've got to have one of those to make a good action movie. A better choice would have been someone like J.J. Abrams, Matthew Vaughn, or, if you want a reach, Brad Bird.
Step 3: Throw the book out: Watching Robert Langdon stand around and solve puzzle after puzzle is about as compelling as watching your grandmother do a Sudoku. The crushing flood of history lessons and word problems may work in prose, but it absolutely does not on film. So boil the plot down to the bare essentials, toss everything else out, and make an adventure movie. Still not convinced? Read the source materials for Jaws and Rear Window and then watch the movies.
Step 4: Let Langdon be Langdon: Robert Langdon is, to put it mildly, a bit of an asshole. He whines about 500 year old censorship, he bitches at Vatican officials about locking out his research when there's a bomb about to go off, and he's generally uncooperative. So why does everyone bat their eyelashes and go on as if he's just given them an interesting history lesson? And why does the script seem to play it like Langdon's just a normal guy. I say, let Langdon be an asshole, make him a bigger asshole, and let that give the film a much needed dose of humor. Just think of how awesome this film was if it had the symbology equivalent of Jeff Daniels' character from The Squid and the Whale trying to save the world.
Step 5: Try a Little Tenderness: Going along that line, if you're going to pair Langdon up with hot women, why not have him hit on them? And (and this is the important part) have them not reciprocate. At all. It makes him more of a doofus and gives the film another sly way to both nod at and subvert its predecessor: the Indiana Jones series.
Step 6: While We're At It, Give the Females Something To Do: Pretty self-explanatory.
Step 7: Drop the Idiotic Mystery: Its so obvious who the bad guy is from the start, and its a distraction that makes the whole film a lot less interesting. Give us a bad guy and give us a really good one.
Step 8: Less Talk, More Rock: The biggest fight or action scene in Angels and Demons is Robert Langdon versus a glass wall. This is unacceptable. BLOW THINGS UP.
Step 9: Fix the Ending: Clearly, this movie should end with it turning out that all the Cardinals are actually aliens. Then, when Langdon defeats them all, with no one left able to lead the Catholic Church, he becomes the new Pope, ushering in a new, pro-science era. AND THEN THE VATICAN EXPLODES. Cut to black.
Step 1: Replace Tom Hanks: There are two directions to take Robert Langdon. He could be a clear, unsophisticated action hero (a la Indiana Jones), but that's a little tired and I don't think that's what appeals to people about Langdon. So, instead, the best course would be to go in the other direction and make him a total nerd. But Tom Hanks isn't convincing in either part, he's in bland, nice guy mode and loses that snarky edge that makes him so appealing when he's at his best. Instead, why not go for Paul Giamatti, who could perfectly nail the awkwardness, the dorky intellectualism, and the prickly, somewhat antisocial exterior that tends to characterize brilliant college professors.
Step 2: Fire Ron Howard: Ron Howard really only ever works in one mode: lofty, Oscar-contender. His comedies are middlebrow, his dramas are middlebrow, and it was no shock that his action film lacked any sense of fun or excitement or grit, and you've got to have one of those to make a good action movie. A better choice would have been someone like J.J. Abrams, Matthew Vaughn, or, if you want a reach, Brad Bird.
Step 3: Throw the book out: Watching Robert Langdon stand around and solve puzzle after puzzle is about as compelling as watching your grandmother do a Sudoku. The crushing flood of history lessons and word problems may work in prose, but it absolutely does not on film. So boil the plot down to the bare essentials, toss everything else out, and make an adventure movie. Still not convinced? Read the source materials for Jaws and Rear Window and then watch the movies.
Step 4: Let Langdon be Langdon: Robert Langdon is, to put it mildly, a bit of an asshole. He whines about 500 year old censorship, he bitches at Vatican officials about locking out his research when there's a bomb about to go off, and he's generally uncooperative. So why does everyone bat their eyelashes and go on as if he's just given them an interesting history lesson? And why does the script seem to play it like Langdon's just a normal guy. I say, let Langdon be an asshole, make him a bigger asshole, and let that give the film a much needed dose of humor. Just think of how awesome this film was if it had the symbology equivalent of Jeff Daniels' character from The Squid and the Whale trying to save the world.
Step 5: Try a Little Tenderness: Going along that line, if you're going to pair Langdon up with hot women, why not have him hit on them? And (and this is the important part) have them not reciprocate. At all. It makes him more of a doofus and gives the film another sly way to both nod at and subvert its predecessor: the Indiana Jones series.
Step 6: While We're At It, Give the Females Something To Do: Pretty self-explanatory.
Step 7: Drop the Idiotic Mystery: Its so obvious who the bad guy is from the start, and its a distraction that makes the whole film a lot less interesting. Give us a bad guy and give us a really good one.
Step 8: Less Talk, More Rock: The biggest fight or action scene in Angels and Demons is Robert Langdon versus a glass wall. This is unacceptable. BLOW THINGS UP.
Step 9: Fix the Ending: Clearly, this movie should end with it turning out that all the Cardinals are actually aliens. Then, when Langdon defeats them all, with no one left able to lead the Catholic Church, he becomes the new Pope, ushering in a new, pro-science era. AND THEN THE VATICAN EXPLODES. Cut to black.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Top 10 Country Histories
In the spirit of last week's top ten, here's a new top ten list: the ten countries with the coolest history:
1. France - France has got the two things I'm most interested in: awesome wars and rich, powerful people having sex with each other. Its also got my favorite revolution, because how many other revolutions featured the guillotine and deteriorated into tyranny so bad that Napoleon looked good?
2. England - English history teeters off a little bit after the Georges take over, but man the Tudors did some crazy things. Pretty much any king who got a Shakespeare play is awesome and their civil war is pretty exciting. Plus they have their own William Henry Harrison: Lady Jane Grey, who was Queen for 9 days.
3. Russia - Russia had czars instead of kings, a fucking wizard who advised their leader, and a revolution. So, why not number one? Because this is apparently a myth.
4. Japan - This ranking isn't just about the samurai...
5. China - They keep to themselves, and I respect that. But they're also missing out on the next level sex and violence of some of these other countries.
6. Ethiopia - Did you know Ethiopia was never colonized by a European power? Because Ethiopians are pretty hardcore.
7. America - We're too young to be any higher, but we've packed some cool shit into the last 400 years, between the pilgrims, the Revolution, the West, and the 1920s.
8. Italy - Yeah, you had the Roman Empire, but except for the Renaissance (which is more of an artistic movement and not really involved in this discussion) there hasn't been much else to Italian history.
9. India - I find India's colonial period absolutely fascinating, plus four major religions started there.
10. Australia - Did your country start as a prison colony? That's what I thought.
1. France - France has got the two things I'm most interested in: awesome wars and rich, powerful people having sex with each other. Its also got my favorite revolution, because how many other revolutions featured the guillotine and deteriorated into tyranny so bad that Napoleon looked good?
2. England - English history teeters off a little bit after the Georges take over, but man the Tudors did some crazy things. Pretty much any king who got a Shakespeare play is awesome and their civil war is pretty exciting. Plus they have their own William Henry Harrison: Lady Jane Grey, who was Queen for 9 days.
3. Russia - Russia had czars instead of kings, a fucking wizard who advised their leader, and a revolution. So, why not number one? Because this is apparently a myth.
4. Japan - This ranking isn't just about the samurai...
5. China - They keep to themselves, and I respect that. But they're also missing out on the next level sex and violence of some of these other countries.
6. Ethiopia - Did you know Ethiopia was never colonized by a European power? Because Ethiopians are pretty hardcore.
7. America - We're too young to be any higher, but we've packed some cool shit into the last 400 years, between the pilgrims, the Revolution, the West, and the 1920s.
8. Italy - Yeah, you had the Roman Empire, but except for the Renaissance (which is more of an artistic movement and not really involved in this discussion) there hasn't been much else to Italian history.
9. India - I find India's colonial period absolutely fascinating, plus four major religions started there.
10. Australia - Did your country start as a prison colony? That's what I thought.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Here comes Medlen
Braves fans know that Tommy Hanson is the future, but if you haven't been watching Gwinnett closely, you may not know about Kris Medlen. He's kind of like the Robin to Hanson's Batman if Robin led the minors in ERA (0.96) and was 5-0, having not given up an earned run in his last 3 starts. To learn more about Kris Medlen, check here. Still, I'm shocked and a little excited to see that its Medlen, not Hanson, who is getting called up to replace Reyes in the rotation. The reasoning is that he's just a placeholder until Glavine's ready to come back (I'll believe it when I see it) and that makes sense to me, but as someone who has become a Kris Medlen fan (because of his versatility - moving from shortstop to closer to relief to starter - the fact that he's not the whiz kid favorite that Hanson is, and his interviews, where he seems like a pretty down-to-earth guy), I'm rooting for him to dominate in his big chance in the spotlight. I've also heard rumors that he may be tradebait, rumors that I hope are false because the idea of a 2012 Braves rotation with Hanson, Jurrjens, and Medlen makes me happy in my pants.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Holy Crapy, Lost!!!!
I will post a full Lost recap when I can wrap my mind around it, so for now, here are a few stray notes:
1. What if everything we saw this year (perhaps ever) is the attempt of a few Desmond-like people to slightly alter the timeline. Just like how Desmond couldn't change the fact of Charlie's death but he could change when it happened, maybe the bomb was always going to go off in 2004 when Desmond turned the key, they were able to slightly manipulate events they knew of to take advantage of the island's unique time-travelling properties to get the bomb to go off in 1977 instead. Who are they? And to what end would they change it? I couldn't really say.
2. If Ben had never seen Jacob, then he was clearly lying at the cabin. So maybe it wasn't Jacob in the cabin at all, but the Man in black from the beginning (hereafter known, as in the cast list, as Man 2). Man 2 has spent the past two seasons manipulating Locke (and Ben) into thinking he was Jacob (another long con) in order to get around whatever that loophole was. In the same vein, I think that MiB is the smoke monster or else has some control over it. I'm betting that Locke is another version of the Christian Shepard thing. Maybe Jacob did something to MiB, disembodying him into that black cloud, so now he can only take on the form of dead things on the island. To take that another (perhaps too ridiculous) step further, maybe MiB and Jacob are manifestations of the island's unique electromagnetic and time travelling properties.
3. All in all, I thought that was one of the most intriguing and moving episodes of Lost ever. I have no idea where this show is going or what season six will look like (did the bomb change anything? And, if so, how will the new timeline still be able to resolve the 2007 cliffhanger?) Well played, Lost. Well played
1. What if everything we saw this year (perhaps ever) is the attempt of a few Desmond-like people to slightly alter the timeline. Just like how Desmond couldn't change the fact of Charlie's death but he could change when it happened, maybe the bomb was always going to go off in 2004 when Desmond turned the key, they were able to slightly manipulate events they knew of to take advantage of the island's unique time-travelling properties to get the bomb to go off in 1977 instead. Who are they? And to what end would they change it? I couldn't really say.
2. If Ben had never seen Jacob, then he was clearly lying at the cabin. So maybe it wasn't Jacob in the cabin at all, but the Man in black from the beginning (hereafter known, as in the cast list, as Man 2). Man 2 has spent the past two seasons manipulating Locke (and Ben) into thinking he was Jacob (another long con) in order to get around whatever that loophole was. In the same vein, I think that MiB is the smoke monster or else has some control over it. I'm betting that Locke is another version of the Christian Shepard thing. Maybe Jacob did something to MiB, disembodying him into that black cloud, so now he can only take on the form of dead things on the island. To take that another (perhaps too ridiculous) step further, maybe MiB and Jacob are manifestations of the island's unique electromagnetic and time travelling properties.
3. All in all, I thought that was one of the most intriguing and moving episodes of Lost ever. I have no idea where this show is going or what season six will look like (did the bomb change anything? And, if so, how will the new timeline still be able to resolve the 2007 cliffhanger?) Well played, Lost. Well played
Monday, May 11, 2009
Watching the Watchmen: Casiotone Part 1, The Music Problem
Watching the Watchmen is a semi-regular feature where I whine about explore questions and problems related to writing pop culture criticism.
I have a couple of problems with this review of the new Casiotone for the Painfully Alone album. So why don't we all read it, listen to some of it on the lala sidebar, and then reconvene here.
I think that all in all, this is a pretty thoughtful review of an excellent record that does a good job of breaking down its main thematic motif: child panic and the societal expectation to be a parent. The record's focus on criminals, and its subsequent turn with the boyfriend-wants-you-to-get-an-abortion stunner "Killers," reflects the idea that its kind of criminal in our culture not to settle down and make some babies. That's what society expects you to do, which is why the record spends so much time making these old school, folk hero-type ballads about bank robbers, painting them as romantic Dillinger-esque social rebels.
But there's a gaping hole in this music review: only one sentence is actually about the music. Aside from a parenthetical at the end, there's no mention of what the record sounds like. And sure, the project's name kind of perfectly describes the sound that Ashwroth is going for, but that doesn't mean there's not interesting things to mine with the music. For example, the way the jangly tambourine and piano give a more traditional folk ballad feel to the album compared to Ashworth's more electronic work. And the way that music compliments Ashworth's lyrics about criminals, giving a Depression-era feel that evokes Bonnie and Clyde as strongly as the album art or the words. And not even a mention of the "When the Saints Go Marching In" quote in "Optimist Vs. The Silent Alarm?"
I empathize with this problem because, as someone with no background in music theory or composition, I have a very hard time analyzing what's actually happening in the music. The temptation is to latch onto the words because they're easier to wrap my mind around and actually understand. But ignoring the music only gives you half the story and the story of this Casiotone album is one of a musician adjusting his sound in subtle, but very smart ways. The review misses what Ashworth has actually achieved with Vs. Children, how his sound has evolved, and the way this record achieves such a quietly moving catharsis during the slow-burn ending. I don't mean that music writers need to know everything about music or spend paragraphs painstakingly detailing chord progressions. But a film review wouldn't ignore the behind the scenes elements like cinematography and editing, and a game review wouldn't ignore the actual process of playing a game.
Stay tuned for Part 2, where we look explore ratings systems and just how much of a difference a tenth of a point can make
I have a couple of problems with this review of the new Casiotone for the Painfully Alone album. So why don't we all read it, listen to some of it on the lala sidebar, and then reconvene here.
I think that all in all, this is a pretty thoughtful review of an excellent record that does a good job of breaking down its main thematic motif: child panic and the societal expectation to be a parent. The record's focus on criminals, and its subsequent turn with the boyfriend-wants-you-to-get-an-abortion stunner "Killers," reflects the idea that its kind of criminal in our culture not to settle down and make some babies. That's what society expects you to do, which is why the record spends so much time making these old school, folk hero-type ballads about bank robbers, painting them as romantic Dillinger-esque social rebels.
But there's a gaping hole in this music review: only one sentence is actually about the music. Aside from a parenthetical at the end, there's no mention of what the record sounds like. And sure, the project's name kind of perfectly describes the sound that Ashwroth is going for, but that doesn't mean there's not interesting things to mine with the music. For example, the way the jangly tambourine and piano give a more traditional folk ballad feel to the album compared to Ashworth's more electronic work. And the way that music compliments Ashworth's lyrics about criminals, giving a Depression-era feel that evokes Bonnie and Clyde as strongly as the album art or the words. And not even a mention of the "When the Saints Go Marching In" quote in "Optimist Vs. The Silent Alarm?"
I empathize with this problem because, as someone with no background in music theory or composition, I have a very hard time analyzing what's actually happening in the music. The temptation is to latch onto the words because they're easier to wrap my mind around and actually understand. But ignoring the music only gives you half the story and the story of this Casiotone album is one of a musician adjusting his sound in subtle, but very smart ways. The review misses what Ashworth has actually achieved with Vs. Children, how his sound has evolved, and the way this record achieves such a quietly moving catharsis during the slow-burn ending. I don't mean that music writers need to know everything about music or spend paragraphs painstakingly detailing chord progressions. But a film review wouldn't ignore the behind the scenes elements like cinematography and editing, and a game review wouldn't ignore the actual process of playing a game.
Stay tuned for Part 2, where we look explore ratings systems and just how much of a difference a tenth of a point can make
Boldly Seeking Change
I didn't get the chance to talk about this in my Star Trek review (which, if all goes well, could actually be online this week, details forthcoming), but I think that Star Trek is the perfect blockbuster to kick off the Obama Presidency.
What's at the heart of Star Trek (standard caveat: I'm not a Trekker, but I've seen most of the movies, I just get bored by the TV shows) is Roddenbery's upbeat view of a future where human ingenuity has overcome our baser instincts. Earth unites under a single governing body and racism and sexism are no longer problems. Its an idea that I'm sure seemed pressingly relevant in 1964, as did the notion of a future where we had a robust fleet of spaceships committed to exploring new worlds. Unfortunately, pretty much everything that has happened since has pretty much made that notion seem ridiculous. There's been the Vietnam War, Watergate, Reagan, 9/11, and George Bush have created a world more polarized and divided than ever, racism and sexism are still major problems, and America's interest in scientific discovery and advancement has been replaced by religious fanaticism and the Grapple. Star Trek has been having problems since the waning days of The Next Generation and there are all kinds of reasons why: the nerd stigma that became attached to the series, the hopelessly complex mythology that mortals had no hope of grasping, the lack of writing, and the stodgy refusal to let the series naturally grow and move forward are all to blame. However, on a deeper level, Star Trek was dying because it didn't speak to the world we lived in.
But the election of Obama has changed that. Not only is it a big step forward for civil rights, but it makes me feel less foolish for hoping for a truly better world. And, looking at what really matters, it created a situation where an optimistic view of the future could come into vogue again. I think its no accident that the first trailer for Star Trek featured a speech from John F. Kennedy or that Kirk's joyride is underscored by a Beastie Boys song. Star Trek can be our world if we want it to be, and there's something very exciting about that.
There are, I think, a number of factors behind Star Trek's big opening weekend (which hopefully won't lead to a second week cratering like Wolverine deservedly got) - including J.J. Abrams' populist bent and the fact its suddenly cool to be a geek - but I think it says something about the national mindset that, a year after obsessing over the paranoia and bleakness of The Dark Knight, that we're finally ready for a movie that makes us feel good about our future again.
What's at the heart of Star Trek (standard caveat: I'm not a Trekker, but I've seen most of the movies, I just get bored by the TV shows) is Roddenbery's upbeat view of a future where human ingenuity has overcome our baser instincts. Earth unites under a single governing body and racism and sexism are no longer problems. Its an idea that I'm sure seemed pressingly relevant in 1964, as did the notion of a future where we had a robust fleet of spaceships committed to exploring new worlds. Unfortunately, pretty much everything that has happened since has pretty much made that notion seem ridiculous. There's been the Vietnam War, Watergate, Reagan, 9/11, and George Bush have created a world more polarized and divided than ever, racism and sexism are still major problems, and America's interest in scientific discovery and advancement has been replaced by religious fanaticism and the Grapple. Star Trek has been having problems since the waning days of The Next Generation and there are all kinds of reasons why: the nerd stigma that became attached to the series, the hopelessly complex mythology that mortals had no hope of grasping, the lack of writing, and the stodgy refusal to let the series naturally grow and move forward are all to blame. However, on a deeper level, Star Trek was dying because it didn't speak to the world we lived in.
But the election of Obama has changed that. Not only is it a big step forward for civil rights, but it makes me feel less foolish for hoping for a truly better world. And, looking at what really matters, it created a situation where an optimistic view of the future could come into vogue again. I think its no accident that the first trailer for Star Trek featured a speech from John F. Kennedy or that Kirk's joyride is underscored by a Beastie Boys song. Star Trek can be our world if we want it to be, and there's something very exciting about that.
There are, I think, a number of factors behind Star Trek's big opening weekend (which hopefully won't lead to a second week cratering like Wolverine deservedly got) - including J.J. Abrams' populist bent and the fact its suddenly cool to be a geek - but I think it says something about the national mindset that, a year after obsessing over the paranoia and bleakness of The Dark Knight, that we're finally ready for a movie that makes us feel good about our future again.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Top 10 Fast Food Restaurants
Inspired by this week old post on KSK (and a desire not to do my work), here's my Top 10 fast food restaurants in order:
1. The Varsity: Perhaps a slight tinge of nostalgia is what powered this over IAO for the number one, but whatever the reason, I've got to take The Varsity first for two reasons. First, the onion rings, which may be the most perfect onion rings in human history. And second, the peach and apple pies which blow my mind. Oh yeah, and this.
2. In N Out Burger: Pretty much the universal number one, and with good reason. Essentially McDonald's evil twin, In N Out Burger focuses on the basics (all you can get are burgers, fries, and milkshakes) but they get them perfect. The secret: the spread, which takes the one thing McDonald's gets right (the secret sauce) and makes it even better. Just read about the Animal Style Burger and tell me you're not starving.
3. Cook Out: As far as I know, they've just kept these in North Carolina, because they know that if they get out, the entire country will weigh 300 pounds. For 3 or 4 dollars, you can get a combo that is a) delicious b) not ridiculously filling and c) includes chicken nuggets AS A SIDE ITEM. That's right, you can get a hamburger, french fries, and CHICKEN FUCKING NUGGETS. And an awesome milkshake.
4. Zaxby's: The Wings and Things meal consists of the following: The Best Fast Food Buffalo Wing (suck it Buffalo Wild Wings), their delicious chicken finger which, while not superior the Chik-Fil-A on its own, gets the edge thanks to Zax Sauce, some damn good fries, and Texas Toast. I've also over the last couple of years become a fan of their kettle chips, which are neither too soft and greasy nor too crispy and old.
5. Five Guys: I always get exactly the same hamburger everytime I go to Five Guys (lettuce, pickle, grilled onions, sauteed mushrooms, A1 sauce) but because their menu has 25 different toppings, I feel like I have so many more options than I would otherwise. Then, when you order your meal, not only do you get a massive amount of fries in a cup, but they take an additional scoop of fries and dump them in your bag. Plus, they have peanuts, which are always fun.
6. Chik-Fil-A: This is the thing I've missed the most over the last four years. What makes Chik-Fil-A work is the simplicity: just a bun, chicken breast, and pickles. There are some people out there who will tell you that their waffle fries are inferior to normal fries. Those people are morons.
7. Skyline: The Southeast bias on this list has admittedly been a little extreme, so here's something from America's heartland. I think adding fries was a bit of a mistake, but the five way, coneys, and oyster crackers are still so good.
8. White Castle: White Castle has taken gross, disgusting fast food expediency and turned it into an artform. There's something refreshingly honest about a burger patty that's faker than Steak-Ums and a bun streaked with grease. Plus, no burger makes better use of onion and its so satisfyingly gluttonous to walk into a restaurant and order 5 hamburgers.
9. Chipotle: In an alternate universe where In N Out Burger is the nation's number one fast food chain, Chipotle is our Taco Bell. The sheer, ridiculous weight of the burrito means that I almost always eat myself sick, but its worth it. And they use fresh, natural ingredients, which is always nice.
10. Panera Bread: The bread is fresh, the soup and salad is good, and the cookies and muffin tops are delicious. A solid choice when the grease and mass of numbers 1-9 are just too intimidating.
1. The Varsity: Perhaps a slight tinge of nostalgia is what powered this over IAO for the number one, but whatever the reason, I've got to take The Varsity first for two reasons. First, the onion rings, which may be the most perfect onion rings in human history. And second, the peach and apple pies which blow my mind. Oh yeah, and this.
2. In N Out Burger: Pretty much the universal number one, and with good reason. Essentially McDonald's evil twin, In N Out Burger focuses on the basics (all you can get are burgers, fries, and milkshakes) but they get them perfect. The secret: the spread, which takes the one thing McDonald's gets right (the secret sauce) and makes it even better. Just read about the Animal Style Burger and tell me you're not starving.
3. Cook Out: As far as I know, they've just kept these in North Carolina, because they know that if they get out, the entire country will weigh 300 pounds. For 3 or 4 dollars, you can get a combo that is a) delicious b) not ridiculously filling and c) includes chicken nuggets AS A SIDE ITEM. That's right, you can get a hamburger, french fries, and CHICKEN FUCKING NUGGETS. And an awesome milkshake.
4. Zaxby's: The Wings and Things meal consists of the following: The Best Fast Food Buffalo Wing (suck it Buffalo Wild Wings), their delicious chicken finger which, while not superior the Chik-Fil-A on its own, gets the edge thanks to Zax Sauce, some damn good fries, and Texas Toast. I've also over the last couple of years become a fan of their kettle chips, which are neither too soft and greasy nor too crispy and old.
5. Five Guys: I always get exactly the same hamburger everytime I go to Five Guys (lettuce, pickle, grilled onions, sauteed mushrooms, A1 sauce) but because their menu has 25 different toppings, I feel like I have so many more options than I would otherwise. Then, when you order your meal, not only do you get a massive amount of fries in a cup, but they take an additional scoop of fries and dump them in your bag. Plus, they have peanuts, which are always fun.
6. Chik-Fil-A: This is the thing I've missed the most over the last four years. What makes Chik-Fil-A work is the simplicity: just a bun, chicken breast, and pickles. There are some people out there who will tell you that their waffle fries are inferior to normal fries. Those people are morons.
7. Skyline: The Southeast bias on this list has admittedly been a little extreme, so here's something from America's heartland. I think adding fries was a bit of a mistake, but the five way, coneys, and oyster crackers are still so good.
8. White Castle: White Castle has taken gross, disgusting fast food expediency and turned it into an artform. There's something refreshingly honest about a burger patty that's faker than Steak-Ums and a bun streaked with grease. Plus, no burger makes better use of onion and its so satisfyingly gluttonous to walk into a restaurant and order 5 hamburgers.
9. Chipotle: In an alternate universe where In N Out Burger is the nation's number one fast food chain, Chipotle is our Taco Bell. The sheer, ridiculous weight of the burrito means that I almost always eat myself sick, but its worth it. And they use fresh, natural ingredients, which is always nice.
10. Panera Bread: The bread is fresh, the soup and salad is good, and the cookies and muffin tops are delicious. A solid choice when the grease and mass of numbers 1-9 are just too intimidating.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Shorter Hazards of Love Review
The Decemberists have finally made their full-on, no holds barred, Black Sabbath record. Don't sweat the narrative (it doesn't really matter that much) and you'll have a good time.
Longer review forthcoming.
Longer review forthcoming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)