I had seen Ironman 1 and i didn't like it. But since everyone seemed to disagree with me, i sort've convinced myself i might be wrong and that a sequel wouldn't be an awful idea.
What a mistake that was! Whatever redeeming qualities Ironman 1 had, Ironman 2 makes a point of dispensing with all of them.
Everything about this movie reaks of stupidity. The plot is an incoherent mess, the humour's contrived and the characters are unendearing morons who never shut the hell up. I don't think there was a single moment in this movie i wasn't wishing i could actively influence the plot by strangling one or another of the characters to death.
There are an inordinate amount of sideline plots all running along at the same time: one involving the villain, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), one involving the other villain, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), one involving Stark's black best friend, Colonel James Rhodes (Terrence Howard in the first Ironman, but Don Cheadle in this one), one involving an undercover agent Natalie (Scarlette Johansson), a minor one for the wooden Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and, of course, one involving Tony Stark, the Ironman, himself (Robert Downey Jr). While a skilled writer would have a very difficult time trying to give appropriate blance to any three of these plot lines, the writers of Ironman 2 have absolutely no chance and what results is a half-assed story that doesn't seem to know what's important and what's not.
In order to accommodate the plethora of needless side-stories and characters, the writers opt to have all the characters have the same annoying personality quirk of talking over each other all the time. This saves the writers from a measured development of plot elements by having them just thrown into the viewers face as fast as possible so the film can get on with more important things (though, i'll be damned if i know what those are).
Probably the most annoying character in the entire movie is Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). It's as if the director simply told Rockwell to act as annoying as humanly possible - you know, the way Rockwell usually acts in all his movies. Rockwell's every bit of dialogue is delivered in a whiny voice that's so aggravating it makes the audience want to jump out of their seats and strangle him to death. That's not to say the other characters didn't have me fervently wishing them all dead; just Sam Rockwell's better at it.
Probably the only redeeming part of this film was watching Scarlette Johansson jump around in tight clothing - but not by enough. Her character is still bland and uninteresting, doing little more than beat people up. A sort of "stereotypical action girl" character - flaws and characterization are for the male folk! She's also the character who gets the most "superpowers as the plot demands" (though she's hardly the only one). How, exactly, was she able to hack Ivan Vanko's (Mickey Rourke) control over the second Ironman suit? She's never hinted to be a genius level hacker who can best Stark, Hammer and Vanko (who is presented as being a genius level hacker). Nor should she have any knowledge of how the ironman suits even work! So how is she able to hack in in less than 30 seconds? Pointless story, right? Who cares how it's done so long as it gets done. Well, at least that's the writer's view on the matter.
Overall i'd say this movie is a waste of time. But don't worry, they're making an Ironman 3 and an Avengers movie. So i'm sure you'll have lots of chance to waste time seeing those if you so choose.
Since i gave Ironman 1, 1 out of 5, it seems only pertinent that i give Ironman 2 zero out of 5. God awful.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Kick-Ass
Kick-Ass is a movie i expected not to like. Not because of the way the "omg, an 11 year old killing people!" crowd portrayed the film, but because of how everyone else was portraying the film. It seems we live in an age where shallow, uninteresting characters are considered "cooler" the less human they come off - and nothing's less human than an 11-year-old, cold-blooded killer, regardless of altruistic motives.
Also, it stars Nicolas Cage and nothing with Nicolas Cage is ever "good".
First of all, let's get this elephant out of the room - the issue of HitGirl. Whether they love her or hate her, it's the only thing anyone who's seen this fucking movie ever talks about: an 11-year-old girl who kills people. Because the only exposure i had to this movie before seeing it was the media hype, i had the unfortunate position of being between two conflicting and equally stupifying opinions.
From the way the moral guardians talked about it, you might expect some over the top gory blood fest for the sake of shock value. "An 11 year old girl is killing people!? Think of the children!" The way the media presented it, it sounded like HitGirl was going to be engaging in some Tarintino-esque over-the-top fights. Blood everywhere, bodies littering the floor, gory gory scenes that serve no other purpose than to shock audiences. You know, the kind of thing many move goers seem to want to see - but not i. I like violence, but it has to have a point; and, sadly, many of those who try and follow in Tarintino's footsteps fail in this regard.
But more worrying (for me, at least) was the way the fanboys were talking about HitGirl. "An 11-year-old girl who can and does kick so much ass she's ass-kicking incarnate! Lulz!" You would almost expect some kind of personality-less, non-human character in the shell of a body of a little girl who merely roams hallways and kills things, as sadly many of these types of characters end up being.
Fortunately, neither of these sides are right. What HitGirl is is something in the middle of the outrageously cliched and despicable stereotypes (ass kicking incarnate vs corrupting moral force). HitGirl's character is no more shocking than it is unrelatable and bland. She very much is a comic book superheroine who is also just a little girl. She does what she does because it's what her father has trained her to do and she'd do anything her father would ask of her. She's even shown to make mistakes and have human connections with those around her. She just happens to also be a vigilante who kills criminals.
I also expected Hitgirl's fucking swearing to be over the fucking top and gratuitous as all hell in every motherfucking way. But, shit, if it's actually not all that fucking bad. Sure, she swears more than all the other cocksucking characters put together, but not to the goddamn extremes of, say, South Park, which seems to take the fucking stance that swearing in and of itself is "shocking" and a fucking laugh riot (it's not - get over it). Measured use of curse words can add character to otherwise mundane dialogue, while gratuitous swearing just comes off as piss-ass-shitty-cunt silly. HitGirl's swearing is definitely the former.
But enough about HitGirl, let's talk about the other characters:
Aaron Johnson plays the titular hero of Kick-Ass. But even though his name's in the title, it seems a mystery why he's the main character. He's not particularly interesting or inspiring and, despite picking up a few superpowers after losing a fight, his only important ability seems to be to move the plot forward through narration. He spends a lot of time losing fights and getting his ass saved by everyone else. His only real "main character" moment comes at the end of the movie when he predictably delivers the final blow to the villain (and nothing else) before opting out of the superhero lifestyle and settling down with his shallow love interest.
Lyndsy Fonseca plays Katie, the shallow love interest. Really, there's not much to say about her since her character is entirely generic. She's there to get with the main character at the end of the movie. Nothing else.
Nicolas Cage plays the batman-esque superhero "Big Daddy" and true to form, his character is bland and uninteresting. His lines are dry and his personality stilted. You, as the audience, never get a chance to really identify with him because he's completely unidentifiable with. His backstory is unimportant and he's barely on camera enough for it to matter. In other words, another standard Nicolas Cage performance.
There's also the main villain, D'Amico (Mark Strong) and his son, Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), but they have very little personality outside of being "the bad guys". The son comes close, but he's so flippant in his characterization, it's hard to be sure if he's acting the way he is out of some adherence to a grandeur plot or just because the writers require him to. There's also some random cop friend of Cage's that shows up for exactly one speaking role before dropping out of importance.
When it comes right down to it, this movie should've more properly been called HitGirl. She's the one the movie focuses on and she's the one who does the fighting and she's the one that interesting things happen to and she's the one the writers clearly wanted to make this movie about. Even the reviewers (critics and fanboys alike) talk about her... and nothing else.
In the end, Kick-Ass is a just another superhero movie, plain and simple. Sure, it tries to distinguish itself from the genre by claiming the protagonists don't have any superpowers and subverting the occassional superhero trope, but it is still a superhero movie and the heroes are exactly what they claim they are not: super powered. Inhuman ability to feel no pain, bullet dodging, superscience... it's all there in some way, shape or form, but don't expect the movie to acknowledge it, even ironically.
Over all i give this movie, i dunno, a C, C+. The plots entertaining, but the characters do it no real justice. There'll probably be a sequel, but i can't imagine it would add anything.
Also, it stars Nicolas Cage and nothing with Nicolas Cage is ever "good".
First of all, let's get this elephant out of the room - the issue of HitGirl. Whether they love her or hate her, it's the only thing anyone who's seen this fucking movie ever talks about: an 11-year-old girl who kills people. Because the only exposure i had to this movie before seeing it was the media hype, i had the unfortunate position of being between two conflicting and equally stupifying opinions.
From the way the moral guardians talked about it, you might expect some over the top gory blood fest for the sake of shock value. "An 11 year old girl is killing people!? Think of the children!" The way the media presented it, it sounded like HitGirl was going to be engaging in some Tarintino-esque over-the-top fights. Blood everywhere, bodies littering the floor, gory gory scenes that serve no other purpose than to shock audiences. You know, the kind of thing many move goers seem to want to see - but not i. I like violence, but it has to have a point; and, sadly, many of those who try and follow in Tarintino's footsteps fail in this regard.
But more worrying (for me, at least) was the way the fanboys were talking about HitGirl. "An 11-year-old girl who can and does kick so much ass she's ass-kicking incarnate! Lulz!" You would almost expect some kind of personality-less, non-human character in the shell of a body of a little girl who merely roams hallways and kills things, as sadly many of these types of characters end up being.
Fortunately, neither of these sides are right. What HitGirl is is something in the middle of the outrageously cliched and despicable stereotypes (ass kicking incarnate vs corrupting moral force). HitGirl's character is no more shocking than it is unrelatable and bland. She very much is a comic book superheroine who is also just a little girl. She does what she does because it's what her father has trained her to do and she'd do anything her father would ask of her. She's even shown to make mistakes and have human connections with those around her. She just happens to also be a vigilante who kills criminals.
I also expected Hitgirl's fucking swearing to be over the fucking top and gratuitous as all hell in every motherfucking way. But, shit, if it's actually not all that fucking bad. Sure, she swears more than all the other cocksucking characters put together, but not to the goddamn extremes of, say, South Park, which seems to take the fucking stance that swearing in and of itself is "shocking" and a fucking laugh riot (it's not - get over it). Measured use of curse words can add character to otherwise mundane dialogue, while gratuitous swearing just comes off as piss-ass-shitty-cunt silly. HitGirl's swearing is definitely the former.
But enough about HitGirl, let's talk about the other characters:
Aaron Johnson plays the titular hero of Kick-Ass. But even though his name's in the title, it seems a mystery why he's the main character. He's not particularly interesting or inspiring and, despite picking up a few superpowers after losing a fight, his only important ability seems to be to move the plot forward through narration. He spends a lot of time losing fights and getting his ass saved by everyone else. His only real "main character" moment comes at the end of the movie when he predictably delivers the final blow to the villain (and nothing else) before opting out of the superhero lifestyle and settling down with his shallow love interest.
Lyndsy Fonseca plays Katie, the shallow love interest. Really, there's not much to say about her since her character is entirely generic. She's there to get with the main character at the end of the movie. Nothing else.
Nicolas Cage plays the batman-esque superhero "Big Daddy" and true to form, his character is bland and uninteresting. His lines are dry and his personality stilted. You, as the audience, never get a chance to really identify with him because he's completely unidentifiable with. His backstory is unimportant and he's barely on camera enough for it to matter. In other words, another standard Nicolas Cage performance.
There's also the main villain, D'Amico (Mark Strong) and his son, Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), but they have very little personality outside of being "the bad guys". The son comes close, but he's so flippant in his characterization, it's hard to be sure if he's acting the way he is out of some adherence to a grandeur plot or just because the writers require him to. There's also some random cop friend of Cage's that shows up for exactly one speaking role before dropping out of importance.
When it comes right down to it, this movie should've more properly been called HitGirl. She's the one the movie focuses on and she's the one who does the fighting and she's the one that interesting things happen to and she's the one the writers clearly wanted to make this movie about. Even the reviewers (critics and fanboys alike) talk about her... and nothing else.
In the end, Kick-Ass is a just another superhero movie, plain and simple. Sure, it tries to distinguish itself from the genre by claiming the protagonists don't have any superpowers and subverting the occassional superhero trope, but it is still a superhero movie and the heroes are exactly what they claim they are not: super powered. Inhuman ability to feel no pain, bullet dodging, superscience... it's all there in some way, shape or form, but don't expect the movie to acknowledge it, even ironically.
Over all i give this movie, i dunno, a C, C+. The plots entertaining, but the characters do it no real justice. There'll probably be a sequel, but i can't imagine it would add anything.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Hurt Locker
The so-called best picture of 2009. But is it really? I can say with an unequivocal, resounding... NO!
This is one of those films that boggles the mind. Not because it has a deep story or depth of character or because it raises questions and challenges for the viewer, but simply because it won an Oscar in spite of what it really is.
The movie's as remarkably straight forward as a movie can get. The opening sentence of the film sums up not just the main points of, but the entirety of the points of Hurt Locker: "war is a drug" - and it affects everyone differently. While war is certainly hell, there are those who willingly and repeatedly put themselves in harms way, not (just) for the purpose of defence or patriotism or what have you, but because of the rush.
Hurt Locker is the very definition of a "PC movie". The themes are so unbelievably tepid that no one dare criticise them for fear of drawing ire. It's the type of war movie reviewers seem to be afraid to give a negative score to (you know the type!). They look at the troops as people and the conflict as more than challenging and believe that is enough to win Oscars and praise (i guess they're right...). But in doing this, story tellers fail to challenge the viewer to anything beyond the obvious. There is nothing here beyond what you should already know and it's certainly not dressed up in anything more aesthetically pleasing than the cheap veneer of its bland cinematography.
Well, let me be the reviewer to say this movie is all kinds of boring. The plot is non-existent, the action uninteresting, the special effects bland, the characters flat and uninteresting and the themes obvious and unnecessary. How some people found something deep in this puddle of nothing, i'll never know. Perhaps if you live in your own delusions and you've never thought about things before; perhaps if you're a knee-jerk reactionary who simply buys mantras and believes "Support our troops" actually means what it says; perhaps if your view of the world around is defined strictly by stereotypes and simplistic models of human beings as organic robots with a static set of wants and needs identical throughout. Perhaps then you would find something in this movie's pseudo-depths. But not me.
Overall this is definitely not best picture material and anyone who says otherwise is wrong - that includes every dipshit in the academy who voted for it. I don't think Avatar deserved best picture, but i certainly can't see how this or that beat out Precious. A good movie should a) entertain and b) challenge the viewer on some level; a decent movie should at least entertain. Hurt Locker is an abject failure on both accounts. No matter what anyone says, this did not, NOT deserve best picture.
Edit (April 16, 2010): When i reviewed this movie it was based on how boring i found the plot and characters to be coupled with (what i thought was) an oh-so-subtle subtext of propaganda for the US military. I thought this was a picture made to showcase how difficult the US troops have it over in Iraq and why everyone (left and right) should just shut up and tow the line, even if they disagree with the war. And, to a degree, i still maintain this. I think it was intended to be a subtle propaganda pic (and it's certainly boring).
But you know what's funny? You know who else hates this film for the same reasons i outlined above and then some? US military men and women. At least according to the user reviews i've seen online at places like metacritic.
Not only is The Hurt Locker boring, it's completely unrealistic - offensively so! I could've guessed at it's unrealistic portrayal, but it's so much more gratifying to know that that's what the pros are saying, too (which is why i've included this edit update here).
It seems the only thing The Hurt Locker is capable of demonstrating is how far Hollywood has fallen and how painfully out of touch they've become with their perception of what constitutes realism and entertainment.
I also sort of realized i didn't put a "grade" on this one before. But that's pretty easily rectified now: 0 detonated bombs out of a thousand: F minus minus. Well, at least it's better than 88 Minutes (but not by enough).
This is one of those films that boggles the mind. Not because it has a deep story or depth of character or because it raises questions and challenges for the viewer, but simply because it won an Oscar in spite of what it really is.
The movie's as remarkably straight forward as a movie can get. The opening sentence of the film sums up not just the main points of, but the entirety of the points of Hurt Locker: "war is a drug" - and it affects everyone differently. While war is certainly hell, there are those who willingly and repeatedly put themselves in harms way, not (just) for the purpose of defence or patriotism or what have you, but because of the rush.
Hurt Locker is the very definition of a "PC movie". The themes are so unbelievably tepid that no one dare criticise them for fear of drawing ire. It's the type of war movie reviewers seem to be afraid to give a negative score to (you know the type!). They look at the troops as people and the conflict as more than challenging and believe that is enough to win Oscars and praise (i guess they're right...). But in doing this, story tellers fail to challenge the viewer to anything beyond the obvious. There is nothing here beyond what you should already know and it's certainly not dressed up in anything more aesthetically pleasing than the cheap veneer of its bland cinematography.
Well, let me be the reviewer to say this movie is all kinds of boring. The plot is non-existent, the action uninteresting, the special effects bland, the characters flat and uninteresting and the themes obvious and unnecessary. How some people found something deep in this puddle of nothing, i'll never know. Perhaps if you live in your own delusions and you've never thought about things before; perhaps if you're a knee-jerk reactionary who simply buys mantras and believes "Support our troops" actually means what it says; perhaps if your view of the world around is defined strictly by stereotypes and simplistic models of human beings as organic robots with a static set of wants and needs identical throughout. Perhaps then you would find something in this movie's pseudo-depths. But not me.
Overall this is definitely not best picture material and anyone who says otherwise is wrong - that includes every dipshit in the academy who voted for it. I don't think Avatar deserved best picture, but i certainly can't see how this or that beat out Precious. A good movie should a) entertain and b) challenge the viewer on some level; a decent movie should at least entertain. Hurt Locker is an abject failure on both accounts. No matter what anyone says, this did not, NOT deserve best picture.
Edit (April 16, 2010): When i reviewed this movie it was based on how boring i found the plot and characters to be coupled with (what i thought was) an oh-so-subtle subtext of propaganda for the US military. I thought this was a picture made to showcase how difficult the US troops have it over in Iraq and why everyone (left and right) should just shut up and tow the line, even if they disagree with the war. And, to a degree, i still maintain this. I think it was intended to be a subtle propaganda pic (and it's certainly boring).
But you know what's funny? You know who else hates this film for the same reasons i outlined above and then some? US military men and women. At least according to the user reviews i've seen online at places like metacritic.
Not only is The Hurt Locker boring, it's completely unrealistic - offensively so! I could've guessed at it's unrealistic portrayal, but it's so much more gratifying to know that that's what the pros are saying, too (which is why i've included this edit update here).
It seems the only thing The Hurt Locker is capable of demonstrating is how far Hollywood has fallen and how painfully out of touch they've become with their perception of what constitutes realism and entertainment.
I also sort of realized i didn't put a "grade" on this one before. But that's pretty easily rectified now: 0 detonated bombs out of a thousand: F minus minus. Well, at least it's better than 88 Minutes (but not by enough).
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Kingdom Hearts 358/2 days
Kingdom Hearts 358/2 days
Let me start by saying that this is not a game for people who know nothing about the Kingdom Hearts franchise. Despite its release, 358 days over 2 is a bridging game, meant to connect the events of Chain of Memories to the events of Kingdom Hearts 2. If you've not played one of these, or worse, neither of these, you will be confused by the story. I hadn't played Chain of Memories, but i was able to keep up to the story, thanks to having played Kingdom Hearts 2 and having watched some online cutscenes for Re: Chain of Memories to fill in the gaps.
You can really feel the love that went into the game, and not just in the homo-erotic way that made the game franchise a success among a certain breed of female fans - though there's certainly enough of that, too.
But enough mindless pre-amble. Let's talk about the gameplay.
Gameplay and Control
Control is solid. The touch screen is pretty much unused, but if it was used, it would only feel unnecessary.
The biggest flaw in control is the flying controls. While B jumps, it's Y that raises you into the air with B, confusingly, lowering you. It's really quite frustrating, especially in the heat of battle. It would seem that such "unintuitive" logic as "jump button increases altitude always" has completely eluded the programmers of Squarenix.
The overall gameplay's largely fun, though the mission-mode system seems like a considerable restriction over the open-world exploration of the Play Station variants. Of course, it's probably just the limitations of the system, so it's largely forgiveable.
Leveling up, abilities, etc are all handled with a "panel" system that you attach to Roxas to give him abilities. At first i was horrified that this might be a menu-hell gimmick, but thankfully most gear of a similar nature (weapons, for instance) are all sort of shaped the same, so you don't have to waste that much time reconfiguring panels after you upgrade. The downside is that individual magic spell casts, potions and ethers are all taken up by an entire panel, severely limiting how many you get per mission. It ends up working detrimentally and forcing you to limit your magic to those "emergency" cases.
My biggest qualm, in general, not just in gameplay, is that killing stuff just isn't any fun. It's more of a needless chore required to level up or gain valuable drops. Everything has stupid amounts of health and defence, so battles boil down to taking advantage of the same attack patterns for every single enemy. Typically it's nothing more difficult than "attack combo" followed by "avoid enemy/dodge attacks". Repeat until enemy dies. And you do this for every. Single. Fucking. Random. Weak-ass. Enemy. There's never a change! Enemy attacks always have priority over yours, so you can't simply wail on them until they die, and many enemies are simply invulnerable to any kind of attack when they are in their "attack combo", so you just have to block or dodge or stay out of the way until they finish up and go back to harmlessly wandering around or standing still.
What's worse is it's not until considerably late into the game when you get strong enough weapons to kill even weak enemies with a single combo. So even the weakest random foe in the level will be handled exactly the same as a boss, for the most part. After a while, i just started to run past any enemy i wasn't required to kill simply because i couldn't be bothered.
Graphics and Music
Awesome graphics and music. I can't complain here. They do what they can with the system. Squarenix has always had awesome music selection and the Kingdom Hearts series is no exception.
Others have complained that the music is just recycled from the other Kingdom Hearts games, and this is true, but it's not actually as bad as it could've been. Ace Attorney: Investigations recycled less music, but still annoyed me with how over-used what music they did have was. At the very least, 358 days over 2 recycled enough music that you never feel annoyed at hearing the themes.
Story
The story crawls and makes it clear it feels no degree of urgency in getting to the point. The first half of the game's story is essentially "Roxas and Axel are friends". Expect countless scenes of Axel and Roxas alone togethersensually enjoying a popsickle of salty cream - iced cream.
Anyway, by the time the real story starts to kick in, you'll likely already have logged 10 or so hours of gameplay.
The story, as i said earlier, is definitely aiming to bridge the gap between games. How well it bridges the games is questionable at times. By the time i got to the end, it certainly felt like Squarenix was simply beating a path to the ending they wanted whether it was done coherently or not. As a result there are many in-story threads that never resolve and are sort of left hanging for the "future" game of Kingdom Hearts 2.
Still, the story's definitely worth it for Kingdom Hearts fans, but expect a lot of draggy mundanities of "life in the Organization" from Roxas' perspective.
Characters
The characters are well developed. You do get to know the Organization members better and they become more than just a bunch of named nameless enemies. In fact, at times you almost feel like you like them. I liked Axel's portrayal, particularly - overt homosexuality and all. But Roxas did come off as little more than an "emo bitch".
There's also a new character that i found particularly unlikeable. She's sort of central to the story, so i can't say much about her. But suffice it to say, not once did i understand Roxas' deep, personal connection to her dull-as-dishwater personality.
The one problem with all the characters is that in missions where you have an ally, they are almost always in your way. They block you from attacking, they stand in your way, they warp into your path in the middle of long distance jumps, etc. It's really quite frustrating at times. I'm told that you can change some setting to fix this, but i never got around to looking through the settings that much.
Final Comments
While 358 days over 2 is not an awful game, i wouldn't say it's the best of the series. I definitely had a lot of fun with the game, but i have trouble pinning down exactly why. I think it is because i started to appreciate the characters of the game a little more. I used to think Axel was little more than a needy sex-starved individual with a crush on his best male friend, Roxas, but now i think he's sort of an interesting character in his own right.
It was also nice to get some background into Kingdom Hearts 2 which had previously felt like a very disconnected game to me.
All in all, if you like the series, i'd recommend this game. You may not find it is your favourite, but it'll definitely add to the experience of the series as a whole.
Let me start by saying that this is not a game for people who know nothing about the Kingdom Hearts franchise. Despite its release, 358 days over 2 is a bridging game, meant to connect the events of Chain of Memories to the events of Kingdom Hearts 2. If you've not played one of these, or worse, neither of these, you will be confused by the story. I hadn't played Chain of Memories, but i was able to keep up to the story, thanks to having played Kingdom Hearts 2 and having watched some online cutscenes for Re: Chain of Memories to fill in the gaps.
You can really feel the love that went into the game, and not just in the homo-erotic way that made the game franchise a success among a certain breed of female fans - though there's certainly enough of that, too.
But enough mindless pre-amble. Let's talk about the gameplay.
Gameplay and Control
Control is solid. The touch screen is pretty much unused, but if it was used, it would only feel unnecessary.
The biggest flaw in control is the flying controls. While B jumps, it's Y that raises you into the air with B, confusingly, lowering you. It's really quite frustrating, especially in the heat of battle. It would seem that such "unintuitive" logic as "jump button increases altitude always" has completely eluded the programmers of Squarenix.
The overall gameplay's largely fun, though the mission-mode system seems like a considerable restriction over the open-world exploration of the Play Station variants. Of course, it's probably just the limitations of the system, so it's largely forgiveable.
Leveling up, abilities, etc are all handled with a "panel" system that you attach to Roxas to give him abilities. At first i was horrified that this might be a menu-hell gimmick, but thankfully most gear of a similar nature (weapons, for instance) are all sort of shaped the same, so you don't have to waste that much time reconfiguring panels after you upgrade. The downside is that individual magic spell casts, potions and ethers are all taken up by an entire panel, severely limiting how many you get per mission. It ends up working detrimentally and forcing you to limit your magic to those "emergency" cases.
My biggest qualm, in general, not just in gameplay, is that killing stuff just isn't any fun. It's more of a needless chore required to level up or gain valuable drops. Everything has stupid amounts of health and defence, so battles boil down to taking advantage of the same attack patterns for every single enemy. Typically it's nothing more difficult than "attack combo" followed by "avoid enemy/dodge attacks". Repeat until enemy dies. And you do this for every. Single. Fucking. Random. Weak-ass. Enemy. There's never a change! Enemy attacks always have priority over yours, so you can't simply wail on them until they die, and many enemies are simply invulnerable to any kind of attack when they are in their "attack combo", so you just have to block or dodge or stay out of the way until they finish up and go back to harmlessly wandering around or standing still.
What's worse is it's not until considerably late into the game when you get strong enough weapons to kill even weak enemies with a single combo. So even the weakest random foe in the level will be handled exactly the same as a boss, for the most part. After a while, i just started to run past any enemy i wasn't required to kill simply because i couldn't be bothered.
Graphics and Music
Awesome graphics and music. I can't complain here. They do what they can with the system. Squarenix has always had awesome music selection and the Kingdom Hearts series is no exception.
Others have complained that the music is just recycled from the other Kingdom Hearts games, and this is true, but it's not actually as bad as it could've been. Ace Attorney: Investigations recycled less music, but still annoyed me with how over-used what music they did have was. At the very least, 358 days over 2 recycled enough music that you never feel annoyed at hearing the themes.
Story
The story crawls and makes it clear it feels no degree of urgency in getting to the point. The first half of the game's story is essentially "Roxas and Axel are friends". Expect countless scenes of Axel and Roxas alone together
Anyway, by the time the real story starts to kick in, you'll likely already have logged 10 or so hours of gameplay.
The story, as i said earlier, is definitely aiming to bridge the gap between games. How well it bridges the games is questionable at times. By the time i got to the end, it certainly felt like Squarenix was simply beating a path to the ending they wanted whether it was done coherently or not. As a result there are many in-story threads that never resolve and are sort of left hanging for the "future" game of Kingdom Hearts 2.
Still, the story's definitely worth it for Kingdom Hearts fans, but expect a lot of draggy mundanities of "life in the Organization" from Roxas' perspective.
Characters
The characters are well developed. You do get to know the Organization members better and they become more than just a bunch of named nameless enemies. In fact, at times you almost feel like you like them. I liked Axel's portrayal, particularly - overt homosexuality and all. But Roxas did come off as little more than an "emo bitch".
There's also a new character that i found particularly unlikeable. She's sort of central to the story, so i can't say much about her. But suffice it to say, not once did i understand Roxas' deep, personal connection to her dull-as-dishwater personality.
The one problem with all the characters is that in missions where you have an ally, they are almost always in your way. They block you from attacking, they stand in your way, they warp into your path in the middle of long distance jumps, etc. It's really quite frustrating at times. I'm told that you can change some setting to fix this, but i never got around to looking through the settings that much.
Final Comments
While 358 days over 2 is not an awful game, i wouldn't say it's the best of the series. I definitely had a lot of fun with the game, but i have trouble pinning down exactly why. I think it is because i started to appreciate the characters of the game a little more. I used to think Axel was little more than a needy sex-starved individual with a crush on his best male friend, Roxas, but now i think he's sort of an interesting character in his own right.
It was also nice to get some background into Kingdom Hearts 2 which had previously felt like a very disconnected game to me.
All in all, if you like the series, i'd recommend this game. You may not find it is your favourite, but it'll definitely add to the experience of the series as a whole.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Alice In Wonderland (2010)
Or as it should have been called: Alice in Wonderland 2.
Before watching this movie i was sure of two things: death and taxes. After watching it, i am now sure of three things: death, taxes and that there never should've been a sequel to the Disney film, Alice in Wonderland.
I saw this movie in 3D, but i felt the 3d was, much like the film as a whole, an unnecessary addition. It pops up here and there, but really isn't utilized to any meaningful degree beyond having the credits swirl out at you. Curse you, Disney, and your new anti-piracy measure that costs $3 more, but doesn't deliver anything in terms of entertainment value!
One thing to note is that while i did find the movie to be dull and unnecesasry, it did raise a couple of questions. Namely, why is Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter a main character? Also, WHY IS JOHNNY DEPP'S MAD HATTER A MAIN CHARACTER!? It's a completely unnecessary character promotion. Worse still, he ends up overshadowing Alice (you know, the girl from the title?). But not because of a powerful performance on Depp's part, just because the damned Mad Hatter is made far more important to the story for no obvious reason.
Of course Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is still there, she's just reduced to secondary character status. Sure, she's in virtually every scene from start to finish, but her dialogue is largely purposeless and her actions unimportant (for the most part). When she does speak or do anything she adds nothing to the story and it almost feels like the only reason she's there is because it is, in fact, Alice In Wonderland; though Johnny Depp In Wonderland would've been a more appropriate title.
The movie itself rehashes a lot of the original movie's scenes (but in 3d): Alice falling down the rabbit hole, Alice eating cake to grow and drinking tonic to shrink, the tea party, etc - but none of it feels like it's needed. It's just Alice going through the actions, doing everything exactly as before. All because, as we're told later, she thinks it's just a dream she's had many times. In fact, the entire pre-wonderland section of the film is nothing but a not-so-thinly-veiled excuse to get Alice into that rabbit hole as quickly as possible so we can be shown these re-done scenes all in the name of, let's just say, "entertainment".
Overall, the film is just dull and unendearing with the only redeeming part being when Alice fights the Jabberwocky (don't worry, it makes just as much sense in context as out). Of course, it's still preceeded by 1 and a half hours worth of Alice saying she's not going to do it, feverishly stupid scenes that are confusing (but not in the charming "Lewis Carroll" way) and Johnny Depp... i still don't know why he was made a main character. Alice certainly pulls off the "in a suit of armor" look well, thanks to the feminine cut of the armor (where do they get those?).
Though i used to like Tim Burton, he's becoming something of a tired act to follow. His movies have spectacular visuals and (more often than not) Johnny Depp, but there really isn't anything else to them anymore. They all have a creepy nightmarish feel, but that's just not good enough to be called "art" anymore.
I'm desparately waiting for the day when 3D special effects and Johnny Depp are not enough to sell out a theatre. Here's a sobering nightmare for your, hollywood: one day the appeal of these things is going to run out. What's more, you'll be out of remakes and sequels and reinvisionings and everything else you've been living off of for the past decade or so. Then what will you do? Will you gracelessly drift into obscurity and irrelevance clinging to what power elites you still have and rely on viral marketing to save your perpetual flops? Or will you foresee this as a coming problem and break your inbreeding cycle well ahead of time and take a chance on some new blood: fresh artists, actors, writers and directors?
I ask these questions, but they are entirely rhetorical. We all know which path hollywood's going to stick by; it's the one that's profitable in the extremely short term.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Zelda: Spirit Tracks
From the franchise that just won't die, here comes latest installment in the Zelda series: Spirit Tracks, or Stracks. If you've played video games before, chances are you've played a zelda game at least once in your life time. There are a dozen or so with the same basic premise. Now i'm not going to be the one to say "having the same basic premise" is a bad thing; what's so different in any other game franchise? Yet many escape that same criticism mostly because video game critiquing is dominated by fan-boys who are, by definition, morons. Yup, all of you.
I, however, am not a fanboy (one of the few, proud and elite!). But i am a fan. I like the zelda games and it's not because i've got strong emotional attachments to Nintendo, or whatever, but because the games are very consistently good. But this isn't a rant about why i like what. This is a review, so let's get to that.
Gameplay and Control
Ah, control. The controls are largely similar to Phantom Hourglass, but that's not a bad thing. It's still one of the best all-stylus controlled games i've played on the DS.
There's been some improvements over Phantom Hourglass, aswell. The roll attack used to be done by "drawing small circles" (which was difficult for the game to discern, especially in a pinch), but is now done by simply double-tapping the location where you want to roll. This makes it easier to perform the move, but oddly, there's less reason for you to ever need to use the move. This has the paradoxical problem of actually making this improvement of control a negative for control since not only will you never need to roll, but you'll find yourself rolling all over the place in the heat of battle as you tap vigourously all around your screen at the numerous enemies.
Gameplay in general is top notch. Puzzles are fun, killing stuff's fun - the great stuff about the Zelda franchise is all there. Gone, too, are the gimmicky tactics of Phantom Hourglass, like the temple you continuously return to over and over again and needless screaming into the mic at every other turn (and there was much rejoicing). The only downside is sometimes the 3D can screw up puzzle solving.
One example is an item that would raise sand. You use the sand to "roll" giant cubes into their appropriate spots. Thing is, in a small space, it's more likely you'll accidentally roll the wrong cube or the cube you want in the wrong direction since the place you have to point on the screen is actually hidden behind an object in the foreground. The immediate inclination of a player is to point at the visible spaces on the map, so it can become quite frustrating when doing so actually sets you back 2 or three steps in your solution. It's hard to explain, but it's certainly an issue.
The overall challenge level of the game has been increased from Phantom Hourglass. This was done by making the puzzles harder and combat a little more rigourous. I was pleased Nintendo didn't lean too heavily on lazy-programming tactics and fake difficulty, like limiting saves or cluttered gameplay requiring hours of practice to "master" for their challenge. This probably means the "hardcore" crowd will still not be pleased, but getting 2/3rds of the way through the word "fun" (by their definition) is exactly the sentiment they deserve.
The money equation has been fixed, but not to the point of being rebroken. No longer are you swimming in cash as in every Zelda game since Link to the Past, but neither are you starved for basic supplies as in the very first Zelda games.
There's still a number of frustratingly unfun minigames. The rabbit catching mini-game, particularly, is hare-pullingly frustrating! (ed: boo!)
My biggest qualm about Spirit Tracks, however, is the lack of mobility one has in the game. While "train" is certainly an improvement from "boat", i don't feel it's enough of one. It gets remarkably frustrating to ride the rails around the land when all you want to do is check which rare pieces of treasure each shop happens to be stocking today.
The warping is awful. Unlocking all the warp spots is of little value since they act like portals that always lead to the same places. Why can't i enter one portal and then select the portal i want to emerge from? Why do they always lead to the same bloody places?
The short answer might seem to be: "i dunno", but the actual answer is as a point of fake difficulty to increase the "challenge" as the game essentially rail-roads you along the routes the game wants you to take.
Graphics and Music
The music is disappointing. The selection of music is basically: opening screen, file select screen, town theme, temple theme, train theme. They're not even particularly imaginative songs and they quickly drift into the background to a degree so great you might as well mute your DS.
Graphics push the DS to the limits. I know this because there were times when the game would slow down in response to enemies spawning. With the exception of graphics whores everywhere, i can't imagine anyone complaining too much about this aspect. Prove me wrong, graphics whores. Prove me wrong.
Story
The story is slow to pick up, but once it's there it's just as solid as previous recent zelda titles. This is both a blessing and a curse. In one regard, that means it's essentially an excuse to go from temple to temple, but the plus side is for long-term fans of the franchise, the story does in fact seem to be making an effort to fill in some of the timeline holes that currently litter the Zelda universe.
Ultimately, though, if you're expecting Shakespear, look elsewhere. Of course, if you're expecting Shakespear, what the hell are you doing playing video games at all?
Characters
Zelda is fleshed out considerably well. Lots of people quote that she's no longer "just a damsel in distress"... which is sort of erroneous, since she's not been "just a damsel in distress" from about Ocarina of Time onward, having played important rolls in that game, Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass.
However, it is true that Zelda is much more involved in this game with the player gaining explicit control of her at times. The game frames this as "Link" being able to get Zelda to do whatever he wants with only a series of vocal commands. Yup, anything at all. Anything. The only real exception is when rats are involved, at which point Zelda becomes paralyzed with fear.
Most of the other characters get zero character development. The bad guy's not even mentioned by the main characters for most of the game. It's also, er, "surprising" (?) that the last boss is not Ganon, but another demon named Malladus. Not much is known about him, though, since the game goes out of its way to never mention what he's doing for most of the game. Fortunately, whatever he's doing, there's no degree of urgency to head off and stop him and you can spend as much time as you want between temples wandering around completing minigames, finding treasure and using your train to ferry the ungrateful masses between towns.
Final Comments
Spirit Tracks is definitely an improvement over Phantom Hourglass despite what Metacritic's composite rating system seems to think.
With three endings, train cars to collect (which are less annoying than boat components to collect) and 6 temples (including the Temple of Spirits) to go through, the quest is a good length. Increased challenge, better use of characters and a fixed money equation also add to the games list of admirable qualities.
Biggest qualm overall? Less random enemies. There's many more interesting and challenging puzzles in return, but i do miss killing the random enemies that used to litter temples and the over world. Part of this is because much of your travel is via train. But firing at things with a canon is just not as much fun as slashing it with the sword (which is what all the zelda fans want to do, anyway).
2.5 out of 3 triforces. Let's just say that's an A-.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Why i hate anime
Time for something a little more controversial. This post will either implode by blog with a torrent of angry comments... or pass by forever unnoticed into the obscurity of the internet. Either way, there will be no follow-ups. This is a one off thing. I hope it inspires more thought than anger in the readers.
To an average anonymous anime fan,
I used to be a part of your fandom. I really was.
My favourite anime is probably Love Hina (but not the terrible sequel, Love Hina Again). I love Keitaro and the upbeat themesong. I also enjoyed Fullmetal Alchemist, though the ending left me underwhelmed. They, too, had some classic opening themes.
I liked the first arc of Bleach and watched up to the filler eps of Naruto (but not Naruto Shippuden). I didn't continue for the same reason i only watched until the end of the Cell saga for Dragonball Z. The pacing was a tad slow for me. But i liked the lead up stories enough.
I've seen all of Neon Genesis Evangleon, but i do think it's a tad overrated for what it is.
Akira was my introduction to anime, but Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke were significantly better films, the former being my favourite anime movie ever. My Neighbour Totoro, too, was a good little story that's underrated and not easily classified as any particular genre.
I like Ranma 1/2, but admittedly have never seen all of it (only sporadic episodes and movies) - but i liked what i saw and will continue to watch those sporadic episodes until i gradually fill in the whole series.
Death Note was good until Light first gave away the Death Note and i then lost interest. I've heard it gets better again and i do intend to go back and finish it, but i'm the kind of person who is lazy about things like this.
I watched all the Slayers OVA and Tenchi Muyo (actually Tenchi Universe, the 26 episode series). At the time i couldn't find the actual Slayers anime. I watched these in the time before torrents and streaming, when you needed to share more gigabytes than my computer even had in order to have access to the better anime caches.
Cowboy Bebop, Trigun and Ghost In The Shell are exceptional series that anyone who appreciates anime should see. The latter influenced The Matrix, for god's sake! THE FREAKIN' MATRIX!
I got through a large chunk of Rurouni Kenshin (~70 episodes), but in the end i felt the anime was going on longer than it needed to and gave up on it.
Now, this is just a quick list of only some of the animes i've indulged in over my life. I'm now currently watching Fruits Basket at the recommendation of a friend. I'm also at varying places in Ah My Goddess and Excel Saga, but i don't watch as much TV or anime in general anymore, so i've slowed down in my consumption. But the point is, i like the material.
So, why do i say i used to be an anime fan? Aren't i still? I mean, i do still watch anime. So why don't i consider myself an anime fan? Well, the short answer is: it's because of you.
Yes, you, dear anime fan. You have ruined the fandom for me. For a lot of people, actually.
Since the rise in popularity of anime, the fandom has largely transformed from a select group of nerds who simply enjoyed the stories and story telling tactics to a vast, swath of Japanophiles who pepper their speach with japanese words and honoriffics, hold the explicit view that "if it ain't japanese, it ain't any good", harbour an insideous persecution complex and cosntrue anyone who disagrees with their insanely cliquish views as being an "anime hater".
Now, there may be some out there who do "hate anime" for a number of ridiculous reasons, but the ones i've personally encountered are vanishingly rare. Most non-fans simply say "i don't like it" and that's it. Many have very good reasons for why they don't like it, especially considering it is just a form of entertainment and a matter for opinion.
But when i read your fandom forums, they are littered with stories that characterize anyone who simply doesn't like as "hating on anime". Hell, it's a regular topic in anime fora: "why do people hate anime". Often this is accompanied by other fans proclaiming that people "hate" anime because they are just dumber or don't understand or what have you, and that if the hater just gave in to the superiority of anime, they'd abandon their "hate" and become an enlightened anime fan. Some forums even have stories of "anime haters" that sound all but criminally abusive. Many of the posts are not so much "why do people hate anime" but "why do people hate anime FANS" (even though few are actually phrased this way).
Interestingly enough, i don't doubt that anime fans routinely encounter persons who treat them badly. By why is that, i wonder?
Anime fans, themselves, have a strong tendancy to talk down to fans of other media. They don't do it in ways so overt as to call them stupid.
...
No, wait, that's exactly what they do! They freely say things like "anime is the best form of entertainment, period" and "North American cartoons (or movies, or anything, really) are garbage". If you so much as have even passing interest in something not from japan, you're obviously an idiot... in the eyes of this fandom. People have even written "essays" that "prove" anime is "better" citing myopic views and cherry picked examples from whatever anime is supposedly better than and conveniently forgetting that much of their preferred entertainment medium exhibits the exact same flaws (whether they want to see them or not).
They even make categorical statements that cannot possibly be true. Because the world of art and story telling is an ever changing one, you certainly can't say anime is inherently or even fundamentally better than anything anyone else can possibly make - the next best thing can be around any corner in any corner of the world. And yet, this is exactly what they claim. Indeed, anything from Japan is considered innately better than anything from anywhere else, including the language and mannerisms (but conveniently ignoring the cultural sexism).
They've, in essence, detached their fandom from liking a specific set of stories and story telling tactics and attached it instead to an exclusionary "elitist" viewpoint, complete with all the condesention that goes along with it. It's no longer simply liking something, it's a vitriolic dislike of everything else. They even vocally attack the anime fans who do not tow this "party line" as being "Not a Real Anime Fan". I know! I've been called that a number of times!
Then, when another fan or fandom tries to point out why this is not a good position to hold (either by defending their own attacked fandom, or by explaining why they personally don't like anime), they bring out their persecution complex and label the individual as an anime hater. They do this even if their critic also enjoys anime.
These are not the actions of a rational individual who simply enjoys a medium; these are the actions of a reprehensible jerk.
Of course, these same actions can be found in literally any fandom. The problem is, it's become the heart and life-blood of the anime fandom on the internet. It's everywhere! These toxic views are on every anime forum, every anime fansite and every site that even passingly resembles an anime fan site. If the site discusses, or has links to discussing anime, it will have people holding these views in earnest and being championed up for it. I've never seen this attitude, to this extent, in any other fandom i've been a part of.
Of course, many others do not share these elitist douchebag views, including fans of the very same medium. So what's the inevitable outcome when the two sides meet? The time honoured internet tradition of a flame war.
We all know how flame wars turn out: hot-tempers and name calling and irrational arguments and all the good stuff that nobody likes on the internet. This, too, of course serves to cement in the minds of the anime fandom that they are just a persecuted lot, struggling to hold their own against torrents of unenlightened individuals who wipe their ass with manga, watch the stupidest of entertainment mediums and get together for the sole purpose of hating on the anime fans and everything they hold dear.
But, that's not really true, now is it?
No, dear anime fan. People do not hate you because you like anime. They just hate you. So until the fandom as a whole starts to ditch this toxic attitude, i will proudly be an "anime hater" who happens to love anime.
To an average anonymous anime fan,
I used to be a part of your fandom. I really was.
My favourite anime is probably Love Hina (but not the terrible sequel, Love Hina Again). I love Keitaro and the upbeat themesong. I also enjoyed Fullmetal Alchemist, though the ending left me underwhelmed. They, too, had some classic opening themes.
I liked the first arc of Bleach and watched up to the filler eps of Naruto (but not Naruto Shippuden). I didn't continue for the same reason i only watched until the end of the Cell saga for Dragonball Z. The pacing was a tad slow for me. But i liked the lead up stories enough.
I've seen all of Neon Genesis Evangleon, but i do think it's a tad overrated for what it is.
Akira was my introduction to anime, but Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke were significantly better films, the former being my favourite anime movie ever. My Neighbour Totoro, too, was a good little story that's underrated and not easily classified as any particular genre.
I like Ranma 1/2, but admittedly have never seen all of it (only sporadic episodes and movies) - but i liked what i saw and will continue to watch those sporadic episodes until i gradually fill in the whole series.
Death Note was good until Light first gave away the Death Note and i then lost interest. I've heard it gets better again and i do intend to go back and finish it, but i'm the kind of person who is lazy about things like this.
I watched all the Slayers OVA and Tenchi Muyo (actually Tenchi Universe, the 26 episode series). At the time i couldn't find the actual Slayers anime. I watched these in the time before torrents and streaming, when you needed to share more gigabytes than my computer even had in order to have access to the better anime caches.
Cowboy Bebop, Trigun and Ghost In The Shell are exceptional series that anyone who appreciates anime should see. The latter influenced The Matrix, for god's sake! THE FREAKIN' MATRIX!
I got through a large chunk of Rurouni Kenshin (~70 episodes), but in the end i felt the anime was going on longer than it needed to and gave up on it.
Now, this is just a quick list of only some of the animes i've indulged in over my life. I'm now currently watching Fruits Basket at the recommendation of a friend. I'm also at varying places in Ah My Goddess and Excel Saga, but i don't watch as much TV or anime in general anymore, so i've slowed down in my consumption. But the point is, i like the material.
So, why do i say i used to be an anime fan? Aren't i still? I mean, i do still watch anime. So why don't i consider myself an anime fan? Well, the short answer is: it's because of you.
Yes, you, dear anime fan. You have ruined the fandom for me. For a lot of people, actually.
Since the rise in popularity of anime, the fandom has largely transformed from a select group of nerds who simply enjoyed the stories and story telling tactics to a vast, swath of Japanophiles who pepper their speach with japanese words and honoriffics, hold the explicit view that "if it ain't japanese, it ain't any good", harbour an insideous persecution complex and cosntrue anyone who disagrees with their insanely cliquish views as being an "anime hater".
Now, there may be some out there who do "hate anime" for a number of ridiculous reasons, but the ones i've personally encountered are vanishingly rare. Most non-fans simply say "i don't like it" and that's it. Many have very good reasons for why they don't like it, especially considering it is just a form of entertainment and a matter for opinion.
But when i read your fandom forums, they are littered with stories that characterize anyone who simply doesn't like as "hating on anime". Hell, it's a regular topic in anime fora: "why do people hate anime". Often this is accompanied by other fans proclaiming that people "hate" anime because they are just dumber or don't understand or what have you, and that if the hater just gave in to the superiority of anime, they'd abandon their "hate" and become an enlightened anime fan. Some forums even have stories of "anime haters" that sound all but criminally abusive. Many of the posts are not so much "why do people hate anime" but "why do people hate anime FANS" (even though few are actually phrased this way).
Interestingly enough, i don't doubt that anime fans routinely encounter persons who treat them badly. By why is that, i wonder?
Anime fans, themselves, have a strong tendancy to talk down to fans of other media. They don't do it in ways so overt as to call them stupid.
...
No, wait, that's exactly what they do! They freely say things like "anime is the best form of entertainment, period" and "North American cartoons (or movies, or anything, really) are garbage". If you so much as have even passing interest in something not from japan, you're obviously an idiot... in the eyes of this fandom. People have even written "essays" that "prove" anime is "better" citing myopic views and cherry picked examples from whatever anime is supposedly better than and conveniently forgetting that much of their preferred entertainment medium exhibits the exact same flaws (whether they want to see them or not).
They even make categorical statements that cannot possibly be true. Because the world of art and story telling is an ever changing one, you certainly can't say anime is inherently or even fundamentally better than anything anyone else can possibly make - the next best thing can be around any corner in any corner of the world. And yet, this is exactly what they claim. Indeed, anything from Japan is considered innately better than anything from anywhere else, including the language and mannerisms (but conveniently ignoring the cultural sexism).
They've, in essence, detached their fandom from liking a specific set of stories and story telling tactics and attached it instead to an exclusionary "elitist" viewpoint, complete with all the condesention that goes along with it. It's no longer simply liking something, it's a vitriolic dislike of everything else. They even vocally attack the anime fans who do not tow this "party line" as being "Not a Real Anime Fan". I know! I've been called that a number of times!
Then, when another fan or fandom tries to point out why this is not a good position to hold (either by defending their own attacked fandom, or by explaining why they personally don't like anime), they bring out their persecution complex and label the individual as an anime hater. They do this even if their critic also enjoys anime.
These are not the actions of a rational individual who simply enjoys a medium; these are the actions of a reprehensible jerk.
Of course, these same actions can be found in literally any fandom. The problem is, it's become the heart and life-blood of the anime fandom on the internet. It's everywhere! These toxic views are on every anime forum, every anime fansite and every site that even passingly resembles an anime fan site. If the site discusses, or has links to discussing anime, it will have people holding these views in earnest and being championed up for it. I've never seen this attitude, to this extent, in any other fandom i've been a part of.
Of course, many others do not share these elitist douchebag views, including fans of the very same medium. So what's the inevitable outcome when the two sides meet? The time honoured internet tradition of a flame war.
We all know how flame wars turn out: hot-tempers and name calling and irrational arguments and all the good stuff that nobody likes on the internet. This, too, of course serves to cement in the minds of the anime fandom that they are just a persecuted lot, struggling to hold their own against torrents of unenlightened individuals who wipe their ass with manga, watch the stupidest of entertainment mediums and get together for the sole purpose of hating on the anime fans and everything they hold dear.
But, that's not really true, now is it?
No, dear anime fan. People do not hate you because you like anime. They just hate you. So until the fandom as a whole starts to ditch this toxic attitude, i will proudly be an "anime hater" who happens to love anime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)