Stay Out Of My Game

I was very disheartened to find out recently that Mortal Kombat 9 will be featuring Kratos from the God of War series. Now, I have to say that of all the characters in existence, Kratos has got to be the best possible choices for a Mortal Kombat crossover. He’s brutal, he’s violent, he has his own plethora of ‘fatalities’. Ripping off the head of Helios, impaling the hydra onto a ship’s mast, forcing a guillotine blade through Clotho of the Three Fates, the list goes on and on. However, to put it plainly, he just doesn’t belong in a Mortal Kombat game.

Firstly, didn’t Midway learn from Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe that Mortal Kombat shouldn’t venture outside its own franchise? That had to be the worst crossover series I’ve ever seen. Liu Kang vs. Superman? Shang Tsung vs. Batman? Lex Luther? Wonder Woman? The Flash? Why are these spandex clad superpeople sparring with Scorpion and Sub-Zero? I mean really, was that a joke? Because not even the Joker thought that was funny. In fact, the Joker was probably the only character that could have worked in that game, but the sheer idea of those two worlds crossing over was nothing short of ridiculous.

Now, as I said, Kratos, if anyone, would mix well in the Mortal Kombat universe considering his already violent nature. But you can’t come out with seven, count them, SEVEN titles in a series that stands on its own, and then just start doing crossovers because you’ve run out of ideas. MK1-4, DA, D, & A were all defined by their own lineup of ninjas, warriors, and otherwise bloodthirsty characters. So there’s really no place for any other series to be intruding upon them. Soul Calibur, for example, has always worked because aside from the original Soul Edge, every title has had a guest character. Yoshimitsu (Tekken) permanently made his mark in SC1. Link (Legend of Zelda), Heihachi Mishima (Tekken), and Spawn (Spawn) were in the Gamecube, PS2, and Xbox versions of SC2, respectively. There were no guest characters in SC3, with the exception of Yoshimitsu. And then Yoda, Darth Vader and the Apprentice from various Star Wars titles joined the fray in SC4, in addition to five original characters contributed by various guest artists. Finally Soul Calibur: Broken Destiny featured Kratos from the God of War series. Yes, Kratos has already been featured as a bonus fighting character, so what makes his appearance in MK9 so special?

Point being that Soul Calibur initially defined itself as a game with its own original roster of characters, with each game presenting a couple of game-specific characters joining the fray. Mortal Kombat did not. Mortal Kombat started running out of good character ideas after Mortal Kombat 3, and now feels the need to compensate by borrowing already-established characters like Kratos. And this is especially a shame, because although their past few titles have been pretty dismal, the new Mortal Kombat coming out was actually looking really good. I mean so far, only characters from the original three titles have been announced, plus tag team gameplay, returning classic stages, three [great] fatalities per character, I mean what were they worried about?

Collaborative fighting games need to be careful when making a crossover. The two (or more) clashing franchises need to clash together well. Recently, Tekken vs. Street Fighter was announced. I don’t know much about either, but physically they seem to work well because of similar visual styles, and they’re also arguably two of the most popular series out there. Marvel vs. Capcom is a series that you’d think would be as unsuccessful as MK vs. DC. However, I believe this worked because it was established as neither a Marvel game nor a Capcom game, but it’s own series entirely, unlike MK vs DC, which was really established as Mortal Kombat 8. Also, MVC characters match pretty well in terms of visual style. Marvel is gritty, and fewer of their characters fit the spandex and cape appeal like many of DC’s characters do. And just like Super Smash Bros, another phenomenal crossover series, there’s a huge variety in characters. Be it anywhere from X-men, to Megaman, to Resident Evil, to the Avengers, to Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom makes for a very broad range of character choices. Just as Super Smash Bros takes from Super Mario Bros, Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Kirby, Donkey Kong, Pokemon, etc.

Now, with Mortal Kombat 9 slated for release in Spring of 2011, I’m not too worried about it. Kratos in no way belongs in Mortal Kombat, and he really does pull away from the focus of what Mortal Kombat is. However, Mortal Kombat 9 has a lot more going for it, and one poor character choice isn’t going to ruin it. It just baffles me when a company makes a mistake like MK vs DC Universe, and instead of avoiding making that same mistake again, they openly try again just with an altered perspective. DC didn’t work because it was a terrible choice, but it shouldn’t have been a crossover to begin with. Now, that being said, I’m not saying MK can never enter another franchise fray. On the contrary, I think a Mortal Kombat vs. Street Fighter STANDALONE title could be great. After all, MK draws a lot of inspiration from the Street Fighter series, they’d clash well in terms of visual style, and they were rival series back in the day. But when making a crossover series, it must be its own new series. Mortal Kombat vs. Street Fighter =/= Mortal Kombat 10.

But can you just picture it? Chun Li versus Sonya? I’m there.

The Legend Must Die

A number of weeks ago, I held a conversation with my sister (who you can find at These Gentlemen) about a stunning new record. The sales of music from the hit TV series Glee have surpassed the Beatles in record sales. And apparently a lot of people are upset about this. Now, this is understandable considering the sheer musical dynasty that the Beatles were responsible for. In the seven years before they disbanded, they recorded 12 studio albums, 13 EPs, and 22 singles, on top of the 56 compilation albums released over the course of the past 48 years, leaving them with approximately 305 songs, making nearly 15 straight hours of music, and that’s not even counting their solo careers. And apparently the cast of Glee, which have only been around the past year and a half, have surpassed this feat.

This is not entirely true, however. Whether we were misinformed, or I simply misheard, the record in question was actually the number of songs on the Billboard Hot 100 list. The Beatles have had 71 songs take place on the Hot 100 list throughout the course of their career, 20 of which actually managed to hold the No. 1 spot. Glee, however, recently surpassed them with 75 songs making it onto the Top 100 list. None of them, however, have managed to be No. 1, with their rendition of Bon Jovi’s “Livin’ on a Prayer” being the highest at No. 4. The record sales of the Beatles still trumps the Glee cast in terms of sales. The Glee recordings have sold an impressive 11.5 million in terms of sales, but the Beatles still dwarf them at over a billion albums sold.

Statistics aside though, what if what I had heard was true? Love or hate Glee, this is an issue I see a lot of. The Beatles were a phenomenal band, no one is disputing that. But someday, someone better will come along. The Beatles weren’t always number one, after all. Before the Beatles, there was the Beegees. Before the Beegees, there was Elvis. Before Elvis, there was Sinatra. And just as with everything else, there will be a successor, just as there was a predecessor. The Beatles won’t be the best forever, so there shouldn’t be such a stink when a new talent comes along and surpasses them in any manner of fashion. After all, this is the entertainment industry, so as long as we’re being entertained, it shouldn’t be an issue. Considering the fact that their music continues to be as popular as it is nearly fifty years later is an impressive feat in and of itself.

This is also not to mention that times and tastes are changing.  What defines pop today is radically different from pop forty years ago. In that sense, there are plenty of people today who may not even like that style of music, and because they didn't grow up with it, they may not have that same connection with the music. In reference to Glee however, Glee has surfaced during a critical time period in our lives where the internet is like a second life to us. It’s now easier than ever to purchase music online instead of purchasing a physical copy. Plus, Glee is the first television musical to date. It’s sole purpose every week is to take an average of five or more popular songs anywhere from today’s pop culture to the British invasion of the 60s to the jazzed up musicals of the roaring 20s and who knows where else? This means that every week, they’re releasing roughly five songs that were all popular hits at one time or another. If the cover is good, which many of them are, then hundreds of thousands of people will be downloading at least one new Glee vocal each week. And at a quick and easy $1.29 per song, no one is upset about making a few purchases to add to their mp3 library. Those make for some considerable numbers in the long run, and although when Glee does eventually die, I don’t expect the sales to last quite like the Beatles before them, however there very well could be another successful group or artist that does.

But that’s not the entire issue here. This issue is faced every time a popular song gets covered by anyone. This can be said about Glee, Across the Universe, Mamma Mia, and really, any artist out there that’s ever covered another song. Just like I said in my previous “Book Was Better” post, the original isn’t always going to be the greatest. I’ve heard plenty of excellent covers in my life. They may not necessarily be “better” than the original per se, but are oftentimes a good match if nothing else. I’ve heard at least three different versions of “I Wanna Hold Your Hand”, and the Beatles version is actually my least favorite to be honest. You can make your own comparison with the list I’ve made at the bottom.

The point is, Lily Allen’s “Womanizer” isn’t as good as Britney Spears’. And just about every cover Glee-star Cory Monteith tries sucks. But I’ll tell you what, if it weren’t for the fact that they’re chipmunks, I’d even like the musicality of Alvin & the Chipmunks’ “Livin’ on a Prayer” better than the original Bon Jovi’s. And I frickin’ love that song. But they’re chipmunks, so no dice. And you know what else? I think David Cook’s take on “Always Be My Baby” is so different from Mariah Carey’s, a proper comparison can’t even be made, so personally I love them both. When two songs are so radically different, it’s best to just accept them both if you like them.

To end this week’s post, I want to post a few links to some good covers. By no means am I saying I think all of these are better than the original. Some, I am. But many of them are just good covers. Each song listed has both the original and at least one cover to follow. At least, who I think is the original. There may be a few I'm wrong about.And I’m not saying everyone should agree with me. This is, afterall my own opinion. However give at least of a few of these a listen if you haven’t already and I’ll let you reserve your own judgment. Oh and one last thing. Glee haters can rejoice because I held back. I wanted to do so many more Glee songs, but there's only a couple on here. And these will be audio only, so there's no video bias, even though Chris Colfer's performance broke my heart. Though there are a few I couldn't find a vid-less version of. And yes, I am serious about the Chipmunk musicality. Just listen to it and picture a human voice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I Wanna Hold Your Hand – The Beatles

I Wanna Hold Your Hand – T. V. Carpio

I Wanna Hold Your Hand – Chris Colfer

Always Be My Baby – Mariah Carey

Always Be My Baby – David Cook

Livin’ on a Prayer – Bon Jovi

Livin’ on a Prayer – Alvin & the Chipmunks

Dreams – The Cranberries

Dreams – Faye Wong

Me Against the Music – Britney Spears & Madonna

Me Against the Music – Heather Morris & Naya Rivera

Hey Jude – The Beatles

Hey Jude – Joe Anderson

Defying Gravity – Idina Menzel feat. Kristen Chenowith

Defying Gravity – Lea Michele & Chris Colfer

Smooth Criminal – Michael Jackson

Smooth Criminal – Alien Antfarm

Vogue – Madonna

Vogue – Jane Lynch

Hallelujah – Rufus Wainwright

Hallelujah – Elisa

Helter Skelter – The Beatles

Helter Skelter – U2

Helter Skelter – Dana Fuchs

Empire State of Mind – Jay-z feat. Alicia Keys

Empire State of Mind – Glee Cast

Distant Worlds – Izumi Masuda

Distant Worlds – Susan Calloway

Il Dolce Suono – Gaetano Donizetti

Il Dolce Suono – Inva Mula

Il Dolce Suono – Vitas

Scarborough Fair – Simon & Garfunkel

Scarborough Fair – Stella Voci

Finally There

For a change of pace, I’m not going to talk about things industry related. Not directly at least. It’s been about two weeks since my last entry, and for that I apologize. But there’s a good reason why. My personal life just pulled a complete 180 on me, and I am now situated in Los Angeles, CA. In fact, my last blog post was being written in Baltimore/Washington airport. Since I got here, I haven’t had the time or the resources (internet) to update, so that’s why I’m a little late.

But after a hectic first couple of weeks I can officially say that I am now a part of the industry I’ve been blogging about for the past eight months. I got a job doing stereoscopic conversion for a company called Stereo D, which is why I made the move to begin with. Now, for those who don’t know, which I imagine is nearly everyone, stereoscopic conversion is directly related to the new 3D craze all CG movies seem to want to be a part of. Basically what I do is take flat, 2D footage and draw shapes around the characters and environment aspects. These shapes are animated to follow their movements, so that they can be roto’d, or cut out and separated into layers, which is what creates the 3D effect.

Now by trade, I’m not a roto artist or compositor of any kind. However, I picked up roto quite easily and am doing well so far at the company. Traditionally however, I'm an animator, and anyone who reads this blog can find my work at http://www.chasecg.com. What I ultimately would like to do however is get my Master’s in Media Design because I want to be at the creative head of my own company someday. Whether I form the company or rise to the top of my own, it doesn’t matter as long as I get there. But I’ve always been interested in characters and story most, so I would like to work in character design and story development. Ever since I was a kid, I’ve created stories and characters in my head, so I already have multiple projects in the lineup.

In the argument of movies versus games, I’d really be fine working on either. What’s great about movies is that they have a larger audience, but I would rather develop video games solely because of the vast scale of world they bring, and the sheer length of story they tell. With a movie, you get two hours, three max. But video games are often praised the longer they are, and can get up to forty hours, or fifty hours before reaching their conclusion. These are immense stories that I want to tell because I have too many ideas to trim them down to a two-hour flic.

Another aspiration of mine is to be a voice actor. Once I’m more settled in, have some money to spare, and am not working an insane amount of hours, I would really like to get an agent and start doing voice work for movies, tv, and games. My biggest goal is to be a Disney villain someday. The 2D kind (no offense to Mother Gothel). I don’t simply want to provide my voice though, I want to provide multiple voices that all sound different. Christopher Sabat is a very talented voice actor who sounds completely different in multiple roles (when he doesn’t sound like Piccolo at least), and that’s what I want to do. I’m always making up characters, and alter-ego personalities, male and female, young, old, or otherwise that all sound entirely different, so I would like to provide voice work for various, “Disney-esque” characters if you will. Characters where the voice makes the personality.

Finally, related to that last paragraph, I would like to have a say when it comes to English dubs. While English dubs have gotten better by leaps and bounds over the years, I still keep seeing common mistakes when a great Japanese dub receives a less-than-stellar English voice over. But I’ll save that extension for another post. It’s probably too big of a dream to strive for my own dubbing company on top of my own game company and a professional voice acting gig, but hey, impossible dreams are the ones that keep us working longest. Either way, I’m finally here in the industry. The first job is the hardest to get, but it does get the wheels in motion. So for anyone that’s still struggling out there, and feels like their dreams will never be attained, they certainly won’t if you just sit around all day and don’t do anything about it. I applied to over a hundred industry jobs, both in and out of the country, related and unrelated to my craft, hiring and not hiring, and I finally got one. And that’s really what starts it all.

Disney Retrospective

A number of days ago, Walt Disney Pictures released their 50^th animated feature film, "Tangled". The term Disney has been something of a household name since Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was released an astonishing 73 years ago. At an average of once every 18 months, Walt Disney Pictures has presented us with a new animated classic just about every year. In honor of their 50th title, I want to take a step back, and see where they are as a company, where they came from, and where their future lies.

Snow White wasn’t Disney’s first project. Mickey Mouse was created long before the Evil Queen tricked our fair-skinned princess into eating her way into a coma. Even Mickey wasn’t Disney’s first attempt at a loveable cartoon character. However, what made Snow White and the Seven Dwarves so impressive was the fact that it was, in fact, the first full-length, animated feature film in history. People gathered for miles around to witness Walt Disney’s epic masterpiece. It was unlike anything anyone had ever seen before from the compelling animation, the musicality, the lushly painted landscapes and the rotoscope of real, human-like movement. This paved the way for Disney to make more incredible visual masterpieces. The lead heroine sparked the lineup of a Disney Princess franchise. And the wretched evil queen set the standard for a string of some of the best villains out there.

The magic didn’t stop with Snow White. Although it certainly wasn’t an original story line by any means, Disney continued to use classic fairy tales as its base when creating feature films. Before anyone knew it, classic tales such as Pinnochio, Cinderella, and Alice in Wonderland had been re-imagined onto the silver screen. All the while Disney became more involved in music. While Snow White only bore two musical interludes, entire movies started being set around the very concept of music. These include the Three Caballeros, Make Mine Music, and the original Fantasia, which contained visual representations of multiple classic songs such as “The Nutcracker Suite”, and the now personified “Night on Bald Mountain”.

Disney didn’t rely entirely on humanoid characters however. On the contrary, many of their classic tales featured anthropomorphic creatures to play the lead. This became first apparent with “Dumbo”, which featured a young elephant in a travelling circus. Later classics featured Pongo and Perdy from “101 Dalmations”, Tod and Copper from the aptly titled “Fox and the Hound”, and Bernard and Miss Bianca from “The Rescuers”. There was a lengthy period of time where it seemed just about every Disney movie featured an anthropomorphic hero, from deer to rats to various breeds of dog, Disney certainly wasn't shy about making animals the stars of many of their classics.

Whether animal, vegetable or mineral however, strong character development was never entirely on the lead. On the contrary, some may say that Disney villains are more charismatic than the heroes themselves. Just like the Disney Princesses have spawned their own franchise, so have the villains. In particular, Cruella DeVil is considered one of the strongest incarnations of ‘pure evil’. And Maleficent is sometimes considered to be the ‘queen’ of the villains. Future villains like the warlock Jafar, sea-witch Ursula, and god of the Underworld Hades, succeed in matching Disney’s earlier antagonists with their own unique characters, quick wits, and smooth tongues.

Disney really hit its stride in the 80s and 90s. While nearly every Disney masterpiece is worthy of a space on the shelf, the Little Mermaid sparked what many people refer to as Disney’s Golden Age. From “The Little Mermaid” to Mulan, literally every single films in that lineup make for some of the best movies around. The soundtracks are well orchestrated, the music is funny, the humor is witty, and the stories are just fantastic. Disney’s creative genius overflowed from “The Little Mermaid”, to “Beauty and the Beast”, to "The Lion King", to “Aladdin”, to “Pocahontas”, to “The Hunchback of Notre Dam”, to Hercules, to “Mulan”. Some would argue that in comparison, the rest of the Disney classics almost seem minute (though of course they’re all great). On top of that, Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora gained three new princess in the Disney Princess lineup with less traditional princesses in Ariel, Belle and Jasmine. Pocahontas and Mulan were also technically added to the lineup, but aren’t widely as accepted since neither is really a princess.

Leading up and into the 90s, Disney began incorporating more and more CG into the 2D masterpieces. From the Cave of Wonders in “Aladdin” to the avalanche in “Mulan”, Disney began to rely on 3D animation for some of the bigger events. This became very apparent in the movie “Tarzan”. Tarzan marked a change in the Disney lineup, not only relying so much on CG, but moreso by eliminating all muisical elements entirely. Gone were the days of ‘Hellfire’, ‘Reflection’ and ‘Colors of the Wind’. Instead the entire soundtrack for “Tarzan” was created by Phil Collins. No one in the movie had a solo, no one in the movie sang a song (with the exception of a quick, unofficial spurt via the younger gorillas) This decision was not well received by many, and Tarzan’s popularity suffered as a result. But that was only the first step.

While few would say any of the movies Disney has produced in the past ten years were “bad”, they just weren’t the same. Musical became straight shows and all flamboyancy was essentially erased. The character development wasn’t strong and the movies were rendered as ‘cute’ instead of ‘magical’. Worst of all, Disney created “Lilo & Stitch”, “Brother Bear”, and “Home on the Range”, and called it quits in terms of traditional 2D animation. They still pumped out around one title each year, but each title was now in full CG instead of the widely beloved 2D. Fact is, CG was on the rise, and Disney had to keep up with the times. It was a sad, sad, time for Disney.

Then, around March of 2009, be it from wishing on a star or true love’s kiss, what seemed like a miracle occurred, and Disney was working on another 2D masterpiece. Their newest film, titled “Princess and the Frog”, promised to bring back the old Disney essentials, and they certainly delivered. We got a charistmatic villain in Dr. Facilier, a new princess in Tiana, a charming new tale of a re-imagined classic, and a fully voiced score of musical numbers. Disney sent out ads that they were opening back up the 2D studios and hiring artists to fill them. And that’s where we left off until this year.

What seemed like a bright future, I’m not entirely certain of now. Tangled was released only a few days ago and I went to see it. While it was charming in its own right, it wasn’t without its problems. First, it was in CG, which disappointed me. It was a visual masterpiece and honestly one of the best CG films I’ve seen, but I still just seem to prefer 2D because there just seems to be something more personable about it. What I didn’t like about the film however was its music. While Disney usually provides a fantastic sing-a-long score, this movie just fell short. I found myself enjoying it until the next time they opened their mouths. One last thing is that Disney tends to take one of two routes in their miracle endings. Either they outline a guideline for a miracle early on so it can be realized later on, or they come through with a loophole in order to make the miracle work. Tangled did neither. It was one of those miracle tears endings if you know what I mean.

While Tangled was a disappointment, I’m more nervous for Disney’s future. “The Princess and the Frog” gave me so much hope for a return to 90s Disney, but after Tangled, Disney already has their next three projects lined up. In 2011, Winnie the Pooh will be released. While it looks cute, and is in fact 3D, this is nothing new. Winnie the Pooh has been around for years at this point so I’m afraid Disney won’t be offering much to the table. In 2012, a project titled “Reboot Ralph” is scheduled for release. I believe I read that this film will be 2D, but the premise doesn’t sound very promising in that it’s about a boy who gets sucked into a video game. After that, in 2013, Anima the Jungle Cell is slated for release. This one will be 2D, and feature a new Disney Princess in Anima, but all that’s been released about it is that its about blood cells. While we’ve no idea what they may be able to do with this, it sounds like it may just be an Osmosis Jones knock-off, which wasn’t a very good film to be knocked off in the first place.

I don’t know what the future of Disney is going to hold, but frankly I’m a little nervous for it. Disney has always had its hand in creating epic masterpieces for people of all ages to enjoy, but lately they just haven’t been on their game. Maybe “Reboot Ralph” and “Anima the Jungle Cell” will end up surprising me, but it makes me sad to think that 90s Disney may just be a thing of the past. I guess we should all start wishin’ on stars if we want the good old days to ever come back. 

The Book Was Better

How many times have we both heard and employed the phrase, “The book was better”? Well, of course it was. No one is disputing that fact. I mean, let’s be honest, it’s a pretty accurate statement at least 99.9% of the time. However, although I do agree that reading is important, and more people should actively read (I’ve only just recently started forcing myself to), I do believe that many people overuse this phrase and treat movie adaptations a little unfairly.

Yes, adaptation accuracy is important. It’s important to get the look of the characters and the sequence of events as close to what was originally written as possible. I mean, Superman wasn’t blonde, Frodo doesn’t die and Hermione Granger never had a quickie with Cedric Diggory in the broom closet; so it only makes sense that these details never surface in the movie adaptations of these stories. But an audience should understand when to treat a movie and a book differently.

Now, again, it’s incredibly unlikely that a film will be able to match the amount of detail that a book offers. This is because unlike books and video games, films have a time limit. There’s only so long that they can make it before the audience gets bored. Generally a two-hour film is a good length. Out of sheer popularity, two-and-a-half hours will work as well, but three hours is pushing it. Even at three hours, however, there will have to be things that are cut in film. You simply cannot fit a 600-page book (or a 40-hour game for that matter) into a 2-3 hour timeslot. You’re better off converting it into a TV show, but then of course the production value isn’t as high.

The audience has to understand that there will be cuts. As long as the most important events and characters are in there, then that is ultimately what’ matters most. But sometimes there are scenes cut for other reasons too. There may be aspects that go unexplained because there just wasn’t enough time to show them coming to said conclusion. There probably could have been enough time throw in a quick explanation but it may also have ended up coming off as random. There will also be times when, let’s face it, it’s Hollywood, and they’re going to exploit Hollywood ideals, like romance. That’s a problem, yes, but most people are comforted by the concept of love, so it’s only an issue if it takes time away from what could have otherwise been used to further the plot.

Other cuts may include moments lacking relevance to the plot. There are plenty of wonderful situations that occur in books, but not all are directly relevant to the overall conflict, and would thus take up time that could have been spent on more important moments. Or perhaps there are situations that only the true fans that had read the book would appreciate anyway. The filmmakers are tasked with the job of making a film not only for the fans who already read the book, but also for Mary Jane and Jimmy John who haven’t yet read the book and are seeing this movie because they thought the trailer looked cool. And then there’s the issue of censorship, in which some scenes may be omitted because they were to graphic, macabre, adult, or unnecessary in some other fashion for the marketed audience. Although I’m a personal advocate against extreme censorship, some censorship can be understandable considering the target audience.

All I’m saying is that most of the time the book is in fact better. But no one should enter the theatre hoping that the film will in any way mirror the book. Instead, one should merely hope that they grasp the feel of the book, as well as the overall look of the characters and environments, and that it at least resembles the events as closely as it can. Altogether the film experience and the book experience are going to be two separate things, and they should be enjoyed as such. This is in no way to imply that all movie adaptations are equal. Some don’t even deserve the grace of holding whatever title they bare. Making a couple of necessary changes and bastardizing the book altogether are two very different things. In the end, as long as we don’t change the ending of Percy Jackson or give the Green Lantern the same dorky persona as Peter Parker, the overall movie experience shouldn’t be encumbered by fan outcry simply because a few details were overlooked.

Don't Recycle Garbage

Sometimes people hit it big. Sometimes they do this through hard work. Sometimes they do this because they follow a controversial viewpoint. Sometimes they're just trashy and don't in any way deserve to be popular, yet they are. Why does this happen? Why do we love to hate? Is it because these trashy celebs keep things interesting? Or because we secretly love the way they act? I've gathered just a few celebrities who are famous for more than just a few of all the wrong reasons.

Paris Hilton

I know, real creative choice right? We all know that Paris Hilton might show to have more talent if she wasn't constantly flaunting the fact that she doesn't have any. She sings, she acts, she's a diva on the red carpet, and she's fabulously wealthy. So what does she have that Beyonce doesn't? Well, absolutely nothing except a miniature chihuahua packed in a tiny pink purse. Ok, so she can't help it that she's the daughter of a billionaire. Who's blaming her? I sympathize with her plight. But if she took her star career seriously, instead of patenting a two word phrase so she can technically sue anyone that says "That's hot", and staring in offensively ignorant films like "The Hottie and the Nottie", then people might want to see House of Wax for reasons other than to watch her get what's coming. Also, be sure to check out her book, "Confessions of an Heiress", to find out just how spoiled her childhood was. Poor thing.

Kanye West

Kanye West has talent. At least I think he does. I don't care for his music, but a lot of people do. I'm not disputing that. And I stand higher than everyone else in wanting us all to move on past the Taylor Swift fiasco from VMAs 2009. However, VMAs 2010 is a different story. Firstly, recapping '09, what he did on that stage was extremely unprofessional. Putting myself in Swift's shoes, I don't think I could have ever been more humiliated in my entire life. She beats out some of the toughest competition around in Beyonce and Lady Gaga, only to have her trophy snatched away, and loudly exclaimed that she didn't deserve by an animal like Kanye West. In my line of work, an act like that would have you blacklisted forever. Kanye's extremely lucky that his line of work allows bad press to be just as good as good press. Regardless, Taylor rocked out on stage regardless, Beyonce was very classy in giving up her speech for Taylor, and the VMAs ended. And I for one was getting annoyed that people wouldn't stop talking about it, and were expecting a sequel at VMAs 2010.

Well they got just that. And I shed a little blame on Taylor Swift for this too. Taylor Swift gave another performance, but started it with a video recap of Kanye's ignorance during the previous show. Then she just went on singing. I listened close to the lyrics to see if they had anything to do with him, be it an acceptance or rejection of apology, but nay. Nothing in that song had to do with the whole event. The video recap was just for show, likely a plea of continued sympathy. But this article is about Kanye. Everyone was expecting him to come out and perform an apology song, written specifically for her, especially considering he was going to be closing the show. But what we got was the opposite of an apology. He came out with his own recap, only to follow with singing "Let's give it up for the douchebags. Let's give it up for the assholes". I'm sorry, you publicly humiliated this girl in the most exciting moment of her life, and you want me to toast to your douchebaggery? What kills me most is that people loved the performance, like he was a saint. I'm sorry, I don't care how great his music is. Kanye West is garbage. He's a despicable human being, and should be left in a dumpster where he belongs.

Omarosa

Omarosa is the Queen B of celebrities. That is, if the "B" stands for Bitch. For a little recap on Omarosa, she originally starred on the first season of Donald Trump's "The Apprentice". She was known as a tyrant, with venom stronger than a viper. She was a good player because she never lost her confidence, she knew when and where to point the blame, and she was a survivor. Ultimately she ended up getting fired, but she left a lasting impression on the viewers. Six seasons later, Omarosa returned for the Celebrity Apprentice. She wasn't really a celebrity at the time, but she was the most memorable contestant thus far. This was the biggest mistake Donald Trump ever made, because he kept her on that show as long as he could. And because she knew she was famous for being a bitch, she flaunted that fact, and was a complete hazard to everyone else playing. Now, she's more famous than ever.

Omarosa picks fights everywhere she goes. She doesn't care who she's talking to, she's not afraid to let the fangs show. She is classless. She is insecure. She is a complete and utter tyrant. She makes egregious statements with no base or evidence, for no reason other than to belittle her competitor. She gets invited onto other people's talk shows, and badmouths them in front of their audience. And she might be mildly entertaining if she was at least good at insulting people. But watching her arguments, I've noticed that someone else will attack her with a good insult, and she just takes the insult, crosses out their name, writes her own, and sends it back. Piers Morgan says "I know you're famous, I've just never heard of you". She retorts with "Oh, and I know you're on that British show, whatever it's called". Wendy Williams says "I think you'd do well with a facelift. I think that would really get rid of those lines and you'd look great". Omarosa responds with "and I think you'd look great if you wore a wig that actually fits". She's not clever. She's not witty. She's pathetic. And now, more than ever, she's more concerned with being a bitchy celebrity and showing off her ever-growing tits than being the "strong, black, female businesswoman" she oh so often claims to be.

On Par With Aerosmith

With the recent release of Rock Band 3, I felt it appropriate to write my music games post. I would have posted it sooner, but then my four-part Halloween list crept up on me. Either way, up to the release of Rock Band 3, I’d heard the same negative criticisms everywhere I went. From hardcore fans of the original Guitar Hero, to casual fans who hardly even play the series and thus can’t afford their own opinion so instead borrow others’.

This particular criticism is that Music Games are getting too “realistic”, and you can only upgrade them “so many times”, and that you “might as well learn real guitar”. I’m here to defend Rock Band as a series, as well as music games in general. Firstly, music games are not getting too “realistic”. You’re still playing plastic instruments for a virtual audience with some of your closest friends in your parents’ basement because none of you actually have any musical prowess or stage presence. Even with Rock Band 3’s ‘professional’ instruments, you may be acquiring the talent; but playing a video game and performing the real thing are still quite different. Or do you think you’re ready to take on travel the world on tour, perform next to Aerosmith and take on Carnegie Hall?

Now it’s true that some games can only be upgraded so many times. This is why series end, but genres don’t. Shooters, RPGs and World War II simulations are a dime a dozen but they’re still around because the genre is enjoyable. Sometimes, you just can’t take a game any further without it being too much, and the series must unfortunately meet its end. This will likely be true for games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero (GH is struggling enough as is). However, was anyone else expecting a 107-button guitar in the next Rock Band? As well as an entirely new instrument? Because I sure as hell wasn’t, which goes to show that you never know what kind of tricks may show up next. How do we know Kinect won’t be incorporated in the next one somehow? They may have real people green-screened onto the stage, there may be ‘live concerts’ for others to watch and enjoy and rate. This is what makes the game industry so special. There’s really no limit to possibilities.

Now, it’s well known that many of these games are getting very realistic, and you ‘may as well learn a guitar’, but that’s exactly Harmonix’ point. Part of their marketing campaign is that with Rock Band 3, you can finally learn real guitar. Remember how before, people were criticizing that the Rock Band guitar is nothing like a real guitar? Well they’ve added that option now for the haters. However, not everyone has the finger coordination to learn an instrument with six strings and however many frets like a guitar. Rock Band 3 provides tutorials to help you learn the frets, so you can play the closest adaptation of an actual guitar to date. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea. It’s difficult, it requires a lot of dedication, and it’s more of a personal project than an option to try at a party. It’s not like every Sally Sue can pick it up at bachelorette party and rock out to Livin’ on a Prayer. For those who want to learn the instrument with a flashy, visual aid, this makes for a great, fun, alternative aid to a traditional class or teacher. For everyone else, there’s still the five-button alternative.

Ultimately, games like Rock Band 3 and the recently released Dance Central offer a more realistic experience because a) it’s the next step forward, b) it helps actual artists learn the craft in a fun, positive, lax environment, and c) too many people complain about the already unrealistic experience. But in reality, it’s all optional. This is why there are multiple difficulty levels to perform at whatever’s comfortable for the player. And really, even if Rock Band 3 does teach you how to be a professional guitar player, unless you want to dedicate years of private down time and practicing, these music games are the only realistic option where you and your friends can perform hundreds of number one hits together, one after the other, without having to stop and start over every couple of measures because Timmy’s third string needs tightened.

Halloween Top 20 (4/4)

Halloween is just around the corner. Actually it’s tomorrow, so let’s wrap this bad boy up with a few more games.

Silent Hill: Homecoming (2008)

I seem to be alone in loving this game. Most fans who played this said it was an abomination to the series, shouting that the game has little to no psychology in comparison to previous titles, and that the plot twist should disallow the character to be so skilled in combat. Well they’re not wrong in those aspects. However, while the majority of the monsters don’t have to do with the protagonist, Alex Shepherd’s nightmares, the bosses do, and they almost make up for that. The bosses in this game are some of the best, scariest, most challenging, and powerfully psychological the series has seen thus far. As for Alex’s abilities, no he probably shouldn’t possess his expert fighting prowess, but then Harry, James, Heather, and Henry all possessed decent fighting abilities when faced with mortal danger, so what makes Alex any different? But now I’m rambling. Silent Hill Homecoming has a really chilling story with a nice amount of twists, and a good mix of pop-up scares with terrifying ambience. As most Silent Hill games go, it makes you wonder what the hell is going on up until the final revelation, but the graphics of the 360/PS3 really make for some impressive visual effects the series wasn’t even capable of until this point.

Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly (2003)

Fatal Frame as a series is a fantastically terrifying set of games. In my personal experience, they make for the scariest games out there. Fatal Frame II specifically follows the events of twin sisters, Mio and Mayu, walking around the woods until they stumble upon a haunted village. All of the villagers are dead and the village is cursed. Their salvation? They need to perform a ritual concerning twin siblings, where one twin has to murder the other, but surely these two won’t succumb to the village magic, right? Fatal Frame is your typical Japanese ghost story, but what sets it apart is the fact that your only weapon against these ghouls is an enchanted camera. Silly as it may sound, Fatal Frame takes a spin on the old saying of how a picture captures a piece of your soul, and uses this ideology to actually harm the ghosts. The better the picture, the more damage. This makes for an interesting parallax because it forces you to get closer to the ghosts, further terrifying the senses, in order to expel the creepy spectres. There are also a number of ghosts that aren’t hostile, meaning they won’t attack you, but you may still need a change of trousers after encountering them as they are no less scream-inducing. This game is beautiful when you’re not being haunted, surrounded by gorgeous Japanese-style visuals that will include zen gardens, wind chimes, and deer scares, with sound effects and ambience to follow. But otherwise the experience is in general horrifying as every corner you round could put you in mortal danger. 

American McGee’s Alice (2000)

Alright, so this game isn’t technically a “horror” title per se, though the environments fit it well enough. American McGee’s cult classic, Alice, takes a new spin on Lewis Carroll’s timeless novels “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass”. The twist? Everything, as in the whole game is twisted. A young girl named Alice obsesses over the Alice in Wonderland stories. One night, however, a house fire causes her parents to burn to death while Alice herself barely manages to make it out alive. The event traumatizes her, and something in her fractures. She is sent to a mental hospital where they attempt to pick up the pieces and help her regain her sanity. That’s where you, the player come in. You play as Alice within her own deluded mind of what used to be a wonderland. In here, the Cheshire Cat bares a sinister grin, the Duchess is hungry for blood, and the Mad Hatter’s madder than ever. Murder is an everyday event for this new take on Wonderland, and the Red Queen’s tyranny must come to an end. This game has an incredibly interesting take on the various characters and locations of Wonderland, and the majority of your weapons, called “toys”, are just that. Demon Dice, Spiked Jacks, a Croquet Mallet, etc. After ten years, a sequel has been announced for the Xbox 360, so you’d better hurry up and play its predecessor l before this new one comes out.

Bioshock (2007)

This is the only title on my list that I haven’t actually finished. As such, I can’t say that I personally recommend it, but I’ve heard great things. Even though I don’t personally find first person shooters to have that same kind of scare that most survival-horror games possess. Plus the fact that it is a first person shooter by classification, and not a survival horror series specifically. In fact, I almost didn’t include this for those very reasons. But then I remembered the first time I played and pissed off a Big Daddy. He was really defensive over the Little Girl he walked around with, and I wasn’t sure how to progress any further, so I tossed a tin can at him. His yellow eyes turned blood red and he charged full speed towards me, drill at the ready, and I’ve never been more terrified in my life. I panicked trying to throw everything I could find at him, unleashing all the ammo I have into him, electrocuting him, anything I could think of but this guy was absolutely relentless. If the rest of the game is anything like that, I suppose it qualifies for recommendation. It was either this or another Silent Hill title (1 or 3), or Fatal Frame III, but I’m trying to keep it well rounded and not make the majority of the list split between three series.

Are You Afraid of the Dark: The Tale of Orpheo’s Curse (1994)

“Do you believe in magic? Is magic only an illusion created by a stage magician? Well, there’s an old saying, ‘seeing is believing’”. This is the opening line of one of my favorite childhood games. Based on the Nickelodeon show, the game centers around the midnight society inducting you as their newest member. But your test is to tell them a chilling ghost story. The story you tell involves a brother/sister pair entering an old abandoned theatre called “Orpheo’s Palace”. Rumored to have been shut down fifty years ago after it’s head magician, Orpheo, went mad and all of the staff, including himself, died during various magic acts, the theatre was shut down for good. Well it turns out those rumors are true, and you encounter Orpheo upon entering, and he’s still trying to get a magic act right, so he volunteers you for his next act. Tonight. The pair are separated, and you switch off playing as each, coming across the ghosts of the various assistants who perished long ago, including Felicia of the guillotine trick, Roberta who played the woman sawed in half, and the Amazing Aldo who escaped every trick but the water box. The music is chilling, and Orpheo occasionally stalks you or tells you how much he’s looking forward to your performance at midnight via the intercom. The environments are lush and there’s a ton of things to explore, though examining the wrong wax skeleton may initiate a chase scene, and you’d better know where to go if you want to live. There’s a huge amount of puzzles, a fair amount of chases (each with heart pounding music), and multiple endings depending on how much of the mystery you manage to solve. I doubt anyone reading this will actually have access to this game, and I realize it’s really old, but if you ever get the chance, please try it out. If for no reason other than to bring back nostalgia over the Are You Afraid of the Dark crew.

Making this list has really showed me something. Either I really haven’t played as many scary games as I thought I did, or maybe there just aren’t enough good scary titles that don’t already have day jobs of being a first-person shooter. But whichever the reason, this list was hard to make. But if you’re looking for a good, scary game experience, Resident Evil 3, Resident Evil 4, Eternal Darkness, Clock Tower 3, Haunting Ground, Silent Hill: Homecoming, Fatal Frame II, American McGee’s Alice, Bioshock, and Are You Afraid of the Dark: The Tale Of Orpheo’s Curse, all fit the cut. Happy Haunting!