Merry Xmas everyone! Hope you got all the geeky stuff you wanted, and spent time with loved ones.

More content to come in the new year.

Have a happy rest of 2012. The world didn’t end, so make the most of it.

I own every Offspring album. There is only a few bands I can say that about. And I’ve always been very honest about the bad—not every album is great. It can be frustrating to spend ten dollars on a band you love, and only like two songs of the bunch.

With their last album—Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace—the band hooked up with famed producer Bob Rock, otherwise known as the man who ruined Metallica (an opinion I don’t share) and I was excited by the possibilities (because I know what Bob Rock’s strengths and weaknesses are.) That album did not disappoint me. It successfully broadened their sound and the song writing took a couple chances I wasn’t used to them taking. It broke the stale mold that I felt the band had gotten themselves set in. The album wasn’t perfect, but I liked far more songs on it than previous albums.

Offspring tends to run in two album cycles. One album sets up some ideas, and the second album expands on that. Then the next album starts a new(ish) feel. Not counting their first album, it goes Ignition to Smash, Ixnay on the Hombre to Americana, Conspiracy of One to Splinter. So I expected their follow up to R&F, R&G to be made with Rock, and to continue ideas from that album. Days Go By fulfills that notion, but also breaks from it.

This album is odd. It provides the kind of songs we expect from the band, but also has some experimental tracks. It has songs that feel new and fresh, but also has some that feel utterly familiar, and finally it has an old classic completely re-recorded for the modern era. If their last album showed that they’d grown as song writers, then this album demonstrates that they’ve grown UP as a band. Lets go through it track by track:

1. “The Future Is Now”
The opening track sets the tone for a crunchy fast paced album. It’s an awesome track, and in some ways it’s surprising that it wasn’t the first single. The song is the first to demonstrate the band working with some slightly different rhythms and beats than we’re used to. It feels like a small step forward for the band.

2. “Secrets from the Underground”
This song continues the buzz left by the first song, and continues to explore new rhythms and song structure. Another great step forward, this song demonstrates stronger and varied vocal harmonies.

3. “Days Go By”
The title track is the song that shows the band has grown up. As they get older a lot of punk bands will try to make hard, gross or angry songs to prove they’re still punk. This song contrasts that. In this song, Offspring writes a positive, upbeat song and it isn’t about society crumbling or corruption. There isn’t an ounce of cynicism. It’s about letting go of the past and moving on with your life. As much as I like the album, I wish more songs reflected this mindset. I love this song because it’s such a departure for them. The cover art to the album is odd, as it’s a dark dreary picture totally at odds with the tone of this song.

4. “Turning Into You”
5. “Hurting as One”
These next two songs return to the tone of the first two, but feel more like standard Offspring songs. Nothing spectacular, but solid.

6. “Cruising California (Bumpin’ In My Trunk)”
Starting with Americana, the Offspring started including songs that poked fun at pop culture. Cruising California is that track but it is a direct shot aimed at Katy Perry and California Gurls, practically lifting the melody from that song and skewering it with a whine. The song is so great, and the lyrics just punch a hole through the vibe of those party songs—but the song itself does NOT fit into the album. In fact, it might be best to consider this song the start of the albums B side.

7. “All I Have Left Is You”
I swear I’ve heard this song before. They’ve written this song multiple times, and this one doesn’t add anything to the sentiment or idea.

8. “OC Guns”
This is by far the most experimental song on the album, and like Cruising California it doesn’t necessarily fit the rest of the album. The nearest thing I can compare it to is a Gorillaz song. It honestly feels like an homage to everyone’s favorite animated band, but still has Dexter Hollands signature lyrics involving drugs and gangs.

9. “Dirty Magic”
This is a remake of one of the bands earliest and most enduring songs. Originally from Ignition, this song has been a favorite of concert goers and clearly is a favorite of the band, and it’s obvious they wanted to give the song the production they felt it deserves. Unfortunately it fails. Young men often write songs about relationships, some cheesy and romantic, some sad, but these songs are usually simple. The original Dirty Magic is a simple, dark love song dealing with being in love with someone self-destructive, but unable to break away from them. Written and recorded by young men, the sparseness of the original production enhances the feeling of the song. It truly feels like his soul is being stretched too thin by this poisonous relationship. By contrast the new version features production so heavy handed that it makes the song slow and plodding. The true modern version of Dirty Magic is on the previous album; A Lot Like Me. That song expresses the same sentiment, but is written and recorded by more experienced and complex song writers, and it reflects that. Dirty Magic 2.0 fails horribly by comparison, and while I understand the band wanting to make a definitive version, they lost sight of what made the song so unique in the first place.

10. “I Wanna Secret Family (With You)”
11. “Dividing By Zero”
12. “Slim Pickens Does the Right Thing and Rides the Bomb to Hell”
The final three songs of the album are typical fun, rocking Offspring fair. These songs close out the album with a mix of the experimentation of the first two tracks, and good old fashioned Offspring sense of humor. Each of these could have been a single on past albums and are prime examples of what the band does so well. From the humor of the chorus of Secret Family, to the societal commentary on Slim Pickens you get pure Offspring songs.

Overall the album is great. It’s more uneven than Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace. But what it lacks in cohesion it more than makes up for in great, experimental and fun songs. Honestly I’d love for the band to break their cycle and make one more with Bob Rock. Keep growing, keep experimenting. Continue making more complex, upbeat songs.

A few weeks ago I posted about Mad Men, and in it I noted that the vast majority of characters were total jerks. No good at all. I told them not to give me black and try to pass it off as gray. Enter Game of Thrones. That show is ALL gray.

Insert a thousand “brace yourselves” jokes.

This show is fantastic. I watched the first season last year On Demand, watching two or three episodes the first night, a few more the next morning, and finishing it off that night. With ten, hour long episodes that wasn’t difficult but the point is I couldn’t stop watching. I only stopped to sleep and hang out with friends.

I missed the second season, and just got caught up through HBO Go. I couldn’t do it within the course of 24 hours, but it took me no more than three days. This show is crack cocaine for me.

I love a good struggle between good and evil. I also love it when the waters are murkier, when it isn’t all just good and bad. When allegiances shift, when good people do bad things, and bad people do good things. It’s why I love X-Men so much, because a major theme often explored is redemption. Bad men trying to be better, to atone for mistakes.

And heavens, Game of Thrones just pipes that directly into my veins! Who is the bad guy in this show? Who is the villain? Oh, and BTW, SPOILERS!

The Lannisters? Cersei? She’s the closest to pure evil, but she has shown moments of trying to protect Sansa Stark. Jamie? He’s done many bad things, but does he really come off as a bad guy (you know, incest aside)? Tywin? The way he treated Arya, thinking she was just a regular girl…he isn’t a terrible man. Tyrion is not even a candidate, because he is so much awesome poured into a small container he practically glows.

My brain will kick your ass so hard.

Stannis Baratheon? He did kill his brother, and keeps company with a crazy witch who clearly has her own agenda, but to hear Davos speak of him he clearly has good qualities about him. And he is trying to overthrow Joffrey.

Oh Joffrey… The only real, true, clear villain. Except that he’s so useless and ineffectual at anything but violence against women that it’s only a matter of time before he gets his.

Is it the Greyjoys? Perhaps, but like Joffrey their motivations and actual power don’t seem like it’s going to translate into being a true threat. Theon is a major tool and deserves to have his balls cut off with the way he went from being a good friend and trusted advisor to Robb, only to turn his back just so his daddy would accept him.

Is it Daenerys? She is the last living member of the exiled royal family who clearly weren’t great people. Her brother deserved his horrible death. But she is so strong, and cares about her subjects. And you know, dragons.

I suppose the real question isn’t who the villain is, because there really isn’t one. The real question is of all these characters, who will win out? Who even deserves to?

Will Robb continue to win his battles, ultimately taking the Iron Throne? He may have caused himself a major problem with his impromptu marriage.

Will ANY of the Stark children survive their way to the end? Who will end up ruling the land? One king, or multiple kings as Robbs current goal is? And WHAT is going on in the north?

I’ve probably made this clear but I have not read the books. I don’t think I will until the show ends. This isn’t like Hunger Games where I saw the movie, was blown away, but knew all of the books had been released. That made it easy to pick up the books and blow through them. But the series this show comes from isn’t finished yet. I can’t find out how the whole thing ends, and then just enjoy the TV adaptation. The show is so good that I think I have to wait for it to end before touching the books. But that could take another five years! What do I do?

Peter Moore; soothsayer

The IGN article is actually referencing an interview he did with Kotaku. As I read this and got more context, I realized that I couldn’t just post a scathing indictment of Moore and his ridiculous attempts at being a prophet when really he’s just trying to profit. I’m a capitalist, so I’m pro-profit but I believe there is a right way and a wrong way, and EA doesn’t exactly have a reputation for doing things the right way. Instead, my response would require deep thought and an examination of where I see gaming headed in the next 5 to 10 years. He does make some good and interesting points, but he also makes some ridiculous ones. I recommend reading the article. So here we go.

Peter Moore is not the executive that he is in my head. He did not as I said earlier ruin Sega. It’s foolish to place such blame on one man anyway. Let me just get that right out of the way. Clearly he is a successful business man. The Dreamcast had an amazing launch, and might have succeeded longer in the face of the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox because there were some great things happening there. The Dreamcast was too little too late for Sega. Their fall began with the unprecedented cluster-fuck that was the Sega Saturn. But make no mistake, part of that can be laid at Moore’s feet.

Peter Moore had success launching the Dreamcast, success helping the original Xbox and it’s successor, and eventually went over to EA. It would be difficult for anyone to screw up EA enough to make it fail—but the average hardcore gamer seems to have the opinion that they’re trying like hell to ruin it anyway by fleecing their customers.

The point of his comments in the Kotaku article is that he believes the gaming industry is going through tremendous upheaval. In years past consoles would come out, live their lifespan and then there would be a period of transition to the next generation of consoles. He contends that this cycle doesn’t seem to be shifting that way this time. He suggests that confidence in the next generation is lower than previous generations, because there are so many variables now with Facebook and iOS/Android and so on. In this he is not wrong. He questions the relevancy of the $60 major game business model, and believes that in the future, all games will be Free-to-Play, supported by micro-transactions. He gives off a benevolent tone, suggesting that millions of people would play a game and the majority would not ever pay them a dime. That there would be a dedicated hardcore set whose multiple micro-payments would ultimately support the game. I question the benevolence here because if EA can sell the next Madden game for $60 AND have micro-transactions, that is what they will do. They would see themselves as leaving money on the table otherwise. And EA does have a reputation not for just trying to profit, but from trying to wring every last dollar out of their consumers as possible. That is what is wrong with his vision of the future. It starts with questioning the business model of $60 dollar games. Because this is where I believe most executives are shitting their collective pants.

For as long as I can remember (the NES days) console games have been $40 to $60 dollars. However during those days through the 16-bit generation the reason for that was in large part the cost of the cartridges. Those were not cheap. That combined with packaging costs and licensing fees to the Nintendo’s, NEC’s and Sega’s of the world meant a game kind of had to be a hit to make money. This changed with the advent of CD’s, because suddenly the manufacturing process was ridiculously cheap—but game prices didn’t really come down. Maybe $5 or $10. Maybe there were more $40 dollar games than $50 dollar, but the profit margin on these games was so much higher that you didn’t need to sell nearly as many copies to be profitable. This more than anything is why Nintendo struggled with the more powerful N64 versus the weaker Playstation. For developers and publishers there was less financial risk, and all the big boys went over to the Playstation, and the consumer followed them to keep buying their favorite franchises. And at that, N64 games were $60 dollars vs. the $40 and $50 dollar game because the cartridge was still so expensive. The N64 survived solely on the strength of Nintendo’s own games.

But all would not be well. A higher profit margin combined with the ability to include full motion video, voice and multimedia, combined with 3D dynamic camera angles inevitably gave birth to the AAA game. The budget went up, and profit margins went down. The popularity at the time of RPG’s bled into other genres ultimately increasing the complexity of games. Games weren’t being made to be fun, they were made to tell blockbuster Hollywood type stories and to provide unprecedented realism. And now here we are today.

The modern generation of game consoles was defined by two things. The PS3 and Xbox 360 were sold as and defined by their ability to deliver High Definition graphics of such stunning realism that for a game to be considered good it had to be realistic, graphically gory, and utterly complex to play. To this day the so-called AAA games are the Call of Duties or the Uncharted’s of the world. And a glimpse at titles shown at this years E3 are more of the same. The Nintendo Wii was defined by going in the exact opposite direction. A less powerful system fueled by motion controlled games that focused on being fun rather than being an interactive version of Black Hawk Down. But third party publishers were never able to make these two notions work together. They felt like the Wii was simply for dumbed down family or kiddie oriented things like mini-game compilations. Meanwhile, the high-budget, high-production value games that all feel the same are still being released, and if they don’t sell a million copies they’re considered failures. Peter Moore is right in believing that business model isn’t sustainable, but then again EA never really gave the Wii a fair shake. The versions of Madden released for Wii featured cartoony graphics. Obviously EA felt like it was more important to spend their money on unprecedented realism in the PS3 and Xbox versions of Madden, and to just wrap the Wii version up in their notion of family friendly gameplay. Not intuitive gameplay that felt right, mind you—but in the kiddie packaging. Tiger Woods golf games are the lone example of attempting great games, but lacked other key features included in the big boy versions.

But a funny thing happened along the way. While the Wii has all but burned out, it’s lessons are being demonstrated elsewhere. Apple created a brand new business model, and a mass market device with the iPhone, and iTunes/App Store. All of a sudden games are only a few dollars, but they’re fun, accessible, and can be played on your phone. Maybe while on the toilet, maybe while waiting at the doctors office or while your car is in the shop. And the great ones are profitable. You all know the ones i’m talking about. And this business model doesn’t just apply to games either, but productivity and other forms of entertainment. Now if I’m on a road trip, if I have my phone or iPad I can watch a movie, or listen to music, read a book or a comic, or play a game. It is not coincidence that this has become so popular. It’s entertainment a la carte. It’s personal. Whatever someone wants, they have. Games via Facebook or in the Browser have examples just as profitable, and provide great distractions say while you are on a break at work. I spent hours playing the original Sim City when they made it playable in-broswer for free. Peter Moore is right to acknowledge those new business models. It would appear that many gaming executives consider these models to be devaluing games, because they’re being sold for only a few dollars. They believe gaming on these devices does not provide a true gaming experience, because nobody has yet been able to provide that AAA experience in this form—yet. This is why executives are afraid of the future, because they believe the AAA model is no longer viable, and they can’t quite figure out how to make DLC or smaller portable games work without pissing off the consumers. As if they can only profit from one or the other.

The fact of the matter is that games should not be shoved into a single business model. Angry Birds shouldn’t be $60 dollars, and Call of Duty shouldn’t be $5 dollars. Each game that is released should not have to have a way to leverage DLC and social networking. And graphics are so good today, that the AAA game does not necessarily need to have a huge budget—just a talented developer. Game publishers should be supporting multiple kinds of games through multiple business models and should be very savvy as to which game should go into which model before it’s green lit for development. But this is the problem with executives.

They can’t see the future even though the answers are in front of them or in their pockets. They lack vision and can only see potential as far as it means guaranteed dollar signs. Ultimately, Moore’s comments smack of an executive who wants total control over the way his form of entertainment reaches consumers. He wants to entertain you his way, and define how you give him your dollars. Companies that do that never last. Consumers spend their dollars in ways that make sense to them, not how companies define. IBM used to be the largest company in the world. They aren’t anymore because they couldn’t adapt. They wanted to do things their way, the way they always had because it was all they knew. Meanwhile the consumer dollar went to other companies that provided things that made more sense. I believe I know exactly where things are going, and the companies that survive are going to be the ones that can see this vision and proactively adapt to it. Massive change is coming and it’s not just for the video game industry. The way we get our entertainment is permanently changing.

So far only the only company to show it’s hand for the next generation is Nintendo with the Wii U. This is largely because the Wii is underpowered. No matter how much fun it is, it can’t provide High Definition entertainment that has now become standard and expected by consumers. Not just for games but other forms of entertainment. Wii, Xbox 360 and PS3 all have a Netflix, Hulu and the Amazon video store app. But your content won’t be in HD on the Wii. So the Wii U is Nintendo’s attempt at three things:

1. Modern HD entertainment in gaming and television.
2. Attract the top publishers and developers to make their AAA titles for Nintendo again.
3. An acknowledgement that gamers are also playing things on smaller personal devices.

All while piggybacking on the Wii brand.

But Nintendo executives have also voiced displeasure for the cheaper, Angry Birds style business model. It’s not the first time Nintendo has bucked trends, but I fear this one will be just as devastating as ignoring CD’s. Indeed, this is the first time I truly think Nintendo won’t succeed. At least not to the level of the Wii. And not because I believe other systems will come from Microsoft and Sony that will be more powerful. They only showed evolutionary steps to the future utilizing the consoles they’ve already sold. Indeed, I believe the time of the dedicated console is coming to an end.

This is Nintendo’s vision of the future:

Wii U

;

This is Microsoft’s vision of the future:

Xbox 360 with Kinect and Smartglass

;

This is Sony’s vision of the future:

PS3 with PS Vita Crossplay

;

And this is mine:

The Future.

You’ll note similarities, but notice what is missing? Each one features a TV, each one features a controller, and each one features a secondary screen either built into the controller, or a tablet by your side. Each one features some form of motion sensing. My vision does not feature a console.

Have you noticed that the specs for these upcoming Smart TV’s sure do resemble modern PC’s? Have you noticed that they’re beginning to incorporate motion control (not unlike Kinect) voice control (not unlike Siri) and apps (not unlike EVERYTHING.) Apple is rumored to be working on a TV that is supposedly Steve Jobs last truly visionary product. Something beyond what Smart TV’s are starting to give us.

What do you think will happen when Apple releases a TV that leverages iOS and all of it’s existing apps and games? Imagine being able to watch a movie on your phone during a lunch break. You don’t finish, so when you get home you push it to your TV screen. However, there is something your wife or kid wants to watch—so you push the movie from the TV to your tablet. Oh—you can already do that? Yeah, as long as you have the right hardware hooked up to your TV. However, you can’t do that with a game. You can’t play that game at lunch on your phone, then push it to your TV, or to your tablet. That is the failing of the Wii U, you can move the game to the screen on the controller, but you can’t take the controller anywhere. I recently played Silent Hill: Downpour. It was a fun but flawed game. I don’t have a lot of time in my week to play games, but I would have loved to pause it and resume on my phone or PSP. Sony will let you do that with with PS3 and the new PS Vita—but a developer has to develop the game for each system, and release two copies, and you must but two copies. Oh, and a Vita, which if you’ve already bought a phone and an iPad might feel like a waste of money. That is going to fail. Microsoft introduced the SmartGlass app at E3 that will work on the phone or tablet you already own, which is indeed smart but it doesn’t go far enough.

The Apple TV will be the first step. After that all TV manufacturers will try to keep step.

The next step will be Steam. All Steam has to do is work on a compiler that will allow existing PC games to be played on Smart TV’s via the Steam app. Then cross leverage phones and tablets. Game developers will be able to develop for Steam, or iOS, or Android, and their games will be available on thousands of devices, not just a couple of game consoles. Hook up a USB controller to your TV and go. Or maybe by then Nintendo no longer makes consoles, but instead make special controllers that hook up to the TV via bluetooth or USB, and there is a Nintendo App specifically for all the things we go to Nintendo for.

Not all game experiences function the same on varying devices, this is true. But Nintendo’s smartest push for the Wii U so far has been asymmetrical gameplay; two or more people playing a game, but each one has a unique experience. Imagine a multi-platform Call of Duty where the TV player uses a controller to control a soldier, and someone using a tablet to controls things like airstrikes using a touch-based strategic interface.

But this app based business model will spread. Cable TV will have to change to keep step with this as well. How long before HBO decides that it can let people subscribe to HBO Go directly and circumvent their cable company? Oh sure, Cable companies currently have contracts that keep this from happening, but contracts don’t last forever. The first time a cable company offers consumers the ability to subscribe only to the channels they want a la carte, rather than subscribing to progressively expensive tiers that include tons of channels they don’t want? That will change the game. Sooner or later Cable TV companies are going to just be Internet providers that have exclusive deals with certain channels, and you will watch your favorite channels via a dedicated app.*

And then, each person in your household will be able to watch or play whatever they want on a variety of devices in your home, and if you really wanted, you could play musical chairs with devices and trade, and each one resume what they were doing on the new device. Pure entertainment on demand. Don’t doubt me.

*I intended for this article to be published on Monday, 6/25. I began writing it on Sunday, and then my internet connection went down for two days. Then my wifi router died and had to be replaced. This was an ironic, stark reminder that everything I spoke of requires far more robust internet connections than we currently have, and there are people across the country that don’t yet have internet at all. To that end, it would be fair to say that this revolution may not come within five to ten years, perhaps longer. Maybe there is room for one more generation of game console. But each one is going to have to struggle with the evolution I have envisioned. It’s still coming.

Of course you have. Ridley Scott released Alien in 1979, the year I was born. From what I can tell not only did he launch a new sub-genre of horror film, but he launched a franchise. The franchise did not necessarily remain in that horror sub-genre, but the original Alien was a big deal. Ridley Scott did not make any of the sequels. He went on to make other movies, including some of the most critically acclaimed movies ever. He’s also made some crap.

But Scott not only returning to science fiction, but returning to the Alien universe that he created is a big deal.

There has been a lot of talk about whether Prometheus is actually a prequel to Alien. Scott and his production team have tried to distance the movie from this notion so that it could stand on it’s own, and not just be another cog in the Alien machine.

It’s an interesting thing. We’ve been getting some original attempts at movies lately. Prometheus attempts to be a movie set in the same universe as another movie, but only be minorly connected to that movie. Avengers takes the main characters from a bunch of separate movies, and places them into one action-fest. Things like this have never been done before. Is this a new trend we’re going to see in movies? After Lord of the Rings and the Matrix movies, the trend was to try to make trilogies out of everything, and so we get three Batman movies, three Transformers movies, Spider-man, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc… Will the new trend be separate movies in the same universe that have minor points of crossover, ultimately leading to a big one? Will we get a movie set in the same universe as Inception, but doesn’t deal with Cobb or dreams? Who knows. It’s an interesting notion though.

But back to Prometheus. It is a prequel to Alien. The movie would be a side story to Alien if not for one scene at the end which connects it directly to Alien in a sloppy, contradictory sort of way that it would require a sequel or two to unravel and properly connect it to the original movie. That scene could have been left out and everything would be fine because Prometheus is not about what happens previous to Alien. There are connections, and enough was implied that the two could have truly stood apart.

Remember how I said Ridley Scott has made some great movies, but also some crap movies? That is what Prometheus is. It has great elements, some crap elements and overall the movie is sloppy. If you like it, great. If you don’t, I understand. I was disappointed. And those disappointments don’t have anything to do with Alien, while a lot of people are disappointed probably because it isn’t Alien.

To clarify, for me this isn’t about comparing Prometheus to Alien. Nobody should see it expecting to be thrilled the way Alien thrilled you. They aren’t the same movie. At all. They are as different from each other as 2001: A Space Odyssey is from Night of the Living Dead. The problem is that sometimes it tries to be both.

Alien thematically is about rape. It is a sci-fi horror movie all about rape. Every bad thing that happens is meant to evoke the terror of that kind of situation. People involved with it have even said part of their goal was to make males feel that particular form of terror.

Prometheus thematically is about Parents vs. Children. Or is it about the questions of why we were created? Or is it about filicide?* Or is it about patricide? Is it about scientific responsibility?

That is the other problem. It tries to be about all of those things, and leaves it all confused.

SPOILERS BELOW!

The basic plot of the movie is that two archeologists find paintings around the world of giants pointing at the stars. Elizabeth Shaw (played by Noomi Rapace, the hipster version of the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo**) believes they are our creators, and they’re inviting us to find them.

Old Man Peter Weyland (played by Guy Pearce in shoddy old man make up) funds an expedition to space to find them.

The ship (of the same name as the movie) arrives at the planet.

They go to investigate.

They find the bodies of the giants (called Engineers,) and canisters filled with goo (a magic substance that…gives life to life?)

Bad things happen.

It’s revealed the Engineers are indeed our creators, but they apparently hate us and this group of them died developing weapons to destroy us (though it is unclear how they died.)

They find one asleep.

Weyland reveals that he’s alive and aboard the ship, and funded it so that he could ask our creators to cure him of old age and death.

They wake the sleeping Engineer and he kills everyone present, activates his spaceship with the intention of going to Earth and eradicating us.

The pilot of Prometheus crashes the ship into the Engineers ship causing it to crash, keeping the Engineer and his weaponized goo from oblitarting us.

The Engineer survives the crash, and tries to kill Shaw (who by this point is the only human left alive.) He gets killed by something accidentally created by the goo (more on that later.)

Shaw finds the disembodied head of android David (played brilliantly by Michael Fassbender, also known as young Magneto) who reveals there is another spaceship, that he knows how to pilot it, and Shaw decides not to go home to Earth but to the home world of the Engineers to ask them…”why? Why you hate us? Why you wanna kill us?”

And then the big twist ending—an early version of an Alien is birthed out of the corpse of the dead Engineer (again, more on that later.)

So it goes without saying that a synopsis of the plot doesn’t do the movie justice. Sadly, the movie doesn’t do the plot justice.

In a way many of the films questions about why we were created, and maybe even why they decided they wanted to destroy us are answered through metaphor and subtext. Weyland builds the android David to be his tool, his proxy. There is a creator/creation metaphor there, and a father/son type of relationship there as well. Engineers created man, man created androids. When David asks one of the humans why he was created, the human answers “because we could.” This is then might sub-textually serve as the answer to why the Engineers created us. When David infects a human with the goo, that might sub-textually be why the Engineers want to destroy us. David over-stepped the intention of his creators and caused one to be destroyed. At some unknown point in our past, we may have over stepped the Engineers intentions and accidentally destroyed one of them.

And if the movie had backed off some of the horror elements and told a slightly more self-contained story, this subtext might have been enough. People might not walk away from the movie with questions. When dealing with metaphor and subtext, the actual events of the plot don’t necessarily warrant specific answers. But the movie doesn’t do that.

It shows us past recordings Engineers running from something. We’re never shown ANY evidence of what that might be. We see tons of Engineer corpses, but not a shred of evidence of what killed them. It isn’t the goo. The goo is their tool to create life, as made clear in the opening scene. The goo does not become active until air is introduced into the chamber holding the canisters. It wasn’t the hammerpede that killed a human, that was created by the goo hitting worms in the ground. Oooooh…was it worms? One would think that would have been seen in the recordings.

Through another moment of subtext it’s made clear that this isn’t the Engineers home planet; it’s a weapons lab. The Engineers were making biological weapons there, and while never shown what killed them we’re left to assume one of their creations got the best of them (not unlike David.) But, why did all those cave paintings point there? Why were we being invited to a weapons installation? Why not invite us to the home world?

It’s made clear that prior to things going wrong the Engineers were planning on coming back to Earth to kill us all. Why invite us to the weapons installation where they’re making weapons to kill us when you are planning on going back to Earth anyway?

As previously noted, Alien was about rape. The horror elements reflected that. The design of the face-hugger. The way it impregnates you. The tongue/second jaw that the Alien has. Prometheus horror elements don’t share in the subtext the movie is presenting. The goo creates a big worm/snake thing called a Hammerpede that attacks a human, and dives down his throat…but that’s it. When they find his body, the Hammerpede jumps back out of his throat and slithers away never to be seen again. The goo infects a human and turns him into a monster to be killed later.

The closest the movie comes to Alien’s metaphorical horror is when it touches on the ability to create life. David uses a drop of the goo to infect Holloway, the other archeologist and Shaw’s lover (played by Logan Marshall-Green, also known as I-can’t-believe-it’s-not-Tom-Hardy.) His reasons for doing this are not clear, but it’s likely an experiment to see if the goo is the answer to Weylands wish for immortality. In a clever play of logic David is able to circumvent the directive that he not harm humans by basically getting Holloway’s permission to infect him. After being infected he and Shaw have sex (but not before we’re told that she can’t have kids—SUBTEXT PEOPLE.)

Over 12 hours Holloway mutates and has to be killed to keep from…well, we don’t know. He might have become the same thing the other infected guy did, but he might have become something else. He’s killed to prevent contagion. But—plot twist!—turns out while making infected love he impregnated Shaw with something. She uses a future medical pod to have the rapidly growing monster removed from her. It’s a horrible scene but it’s also like “damn, good thing that medi-pod was there and had those abilities.” Anyway, the thing that comes out of her looks like a funky octopus. She seals it inside the medi-pod and leaves it there. So, you know, subtext people. The goo allowed her to create life. Horrible, terrifying life but even so. I don’t draw comparison to Alien to illustrate why it’s not a good Alien movie, but to illustrate that Scott did not do as good a job at something that he once did fantastically.

Later, ironically that little monster saves her life. When the ships are crashed and everyone but Shaw is dead she tries to get inside a lifeboat that was jettisoned from the ship prior to crashing. It has enough power to get her home—or at least get her into stasis and on her way home with a distress signal. But the medi-pod is inside. Her offspring is shut away in the medi-pod room, but we get enough of a glimpse of the monster to see that it has grown enormous. A fine tentacled beast in the grandest tradition of Japanese demon-rape anime. Anyway, the Engineer has survived the crash and is on his way to kill her. It breaks in and as it’s about to strangle her, she opens the door to the medi-pod room and her offspring attacks the Engineer. It subdues him and shoves a huge tentacle down his throat, and as the Engineer loses consciousness it overtakes him and both go still. Shaw hears from David’s still operational severed head (in the grand tradition of other severed-headed androids in the Alien movies) and he tells her that there is another Engineer space ship, and he can help her pilot it. Rather than going home she decides she wants to go to the Engineers home planet to ask them why they want to kill us. She says that she deserves to know why.

Ridley Scott has said that for this movie he wanted to play with big ideas, big questions. For him it’s what separates Prometheus from Alien. Big ideas vs. a horrible rape metaphors. The problem is that as soon as Shaw states she’s going to the Engineer home world to ask them why, the big idea is ripped out of it’s comfy subtextual cloud and shoved specifically into the plot. Now we know that to get the real answers to these “big questions” we’re going to have to wait for the sequel. And that is a cheap shot. If this was meant to be a stand alone movie, then how come Shaw deserves to know the answers, but the audience doesn’t? I put most of this on Ridley Scott, but the shooting script was written by Damon Lindelof of Lost fame. The way it tries to pass off a plot device as a big question and put things off for the next episode is STRAIGHT out of Lost. It was frustrating there and it’s frustrating here. It’s disengenuous. It says “hey, we have big ideas and big questions here!” And then when you look for answers, all you get is “well, maybe that is the answer. If it works for you, then it’s the answer.  C’mon people, it’s art!  But wait for the sequel to find out for sure!”

And that is why for me this movie was disappointing. It tries to deal in subtext but when it tries to ratchet up the horror, the subtext becomes muddy and unconvincing. The horror does a poor job playing off the subtext.

Guy Pearce plays a role purely in old man makeup instead of casting an actual old man. The reason for this is that the role he played changed to an old man from the first script, to the draft that Lindelof wrote, and they started casting before Lindelof’s draft was complete. Pearce was locked in so they couldn’t recast.  Lindelof didn’t finish that draft until right before they started filming. That one fact encapsulates what is wrong. If they had waited for the second script before casting and filming, then maybe they would have realized some of these short comings and done a third, final draft. They could have backed off on the horror a tad and focused more on the so-called big ideas. They could have backed off on the metaphor a tad and really tightened up the sci-fi horror plot. But instead they were starting filming and went with what they had. And the results are sloppy.

Best. Android. Ever.

I didn’t hate the movie. It was just disappointing. I appreciate the attempts at big ideas. I have a feeling that this is going to be the reverse of Avatar for me. I really liked Avatar when I saw it, and over time I’ve come to find it uninteresting and flat. I think with a few more viewings and a chance to let my irritation subside that I’ll end up liking Prometheus just fine. It does do a lot of things really well. David is BRILLIANT and easily the best part of the movie. The visuals are spectacular, and don’t rely on CGI. The characters are mostly enjoyable (despite some really, really dumb actions.) While I didn’t find it particularly scary, the crowd in the theater I saw it in sure as hell jumped at a number of parts.

So, what connects it to Alien?
Well, the Engineers are right out of Alien. They are the beings that the crew in Alien finds dead, right before discovering the eggs that get the party started. The Engineers ship is the same type of ship that the Alien crew steps aboard and ultimately finds those eggs in. And given what we learn about the Engineers, it would be very easy to assume that our favorite acid-blooded monster is just a bio-weapon gone wrong. That would have been enough for me. Wouldn’t contradict any bit of so-called Alien continuity that multiple movies and fights with Predators have established. It would have truly separated the two movies, only sharing human involvement and the fact that humans and Aliens have the same creator. But that ain’t what happened.

Remember how Shaw’s offspring subdued the Engineer and shoved a tentacle down it’s throat to kill it? Turns out it was a giant early version of a face-hugger, and the tentacle’s purpose was to impregnate the Engineer. The final scene of the movie shows an early version of an Alien birth from the Engineer’s corpse. The creature isn’t exactly the same, but let me make one thing clear. The planet that Prometheus takes place on is NOT the same planet that Alien takes place on. So now even though Scott wanted to distance the movie from Alien we need a sequel to explain how we get from that point to the evolution of the creates we know and love. As much as that scene irritated me there is an interesting to consider. Engineers create life by drinking the goo which tears them down, creating the building blocks of life. An Alien was created by first infecting a human (an Engineer creation) with the goo. The altered human impregnates another human, and it’s offspring impregnates an Engineer. So it has Engineer DNA kind of tripled-folded onto itself. Then consider that the one discovered in Alien clearly burst forth from an Engineer, that means the DNA is at least quadruple folded onto itself.

It means the Alien is a true perversion of the Engineers ability to create life. And given the way it reproduces by subjugating living beings and subverting their DNA, not only is it a perversion of the Engineers work; it’s actually the Engineers dark mirror.

You know, just in considering that and typing it I’ve come to reconsider my opinion of Prometheus a bit. If the idea I just posited is expanded on in a sequel then I’ll be ready to forgive this movie of some of it’s failings. Perhaps the creation of the classic Alien happened thousands of years ago through man getting it’s hands on the goo. Maybe that is why the Engineers want to eradicate us. They’ve seen this before.  And as my friend Tomm pointed out, that would create a scientific cosmology.  Engineers being angels, and Alien’s being dark-angels—demons.  It may be that the answers we seek for the movies questions are indeed all right there.

Overall, my hope for people is this. If you see this movie and you are disappointed, be so for the movies own failings. Not because it isn’t Alien. It was never going to be just another Alien movie. Judge it on it’s own merits and failings.

We’re gonna go in a different direction today. My header doesn’t mention it, but I’m a pretty big sports fan. Football especially. I’ve long believed that a hardcore sports fan really is just a geek. It just so happens that the focus of their geekdom happens to be “socially acceptable.” I’ve heard sports broadcasters rail against and make fun of nerds and things like Star Wars and then geek out about a player, and I’ve reveled in the irony.

The stereotypical geek is not considered athletic and I am no exception to this notion, but I love sports.

GO BRONCOS!!!

My topic today is Tim Tebow. My topic is how I believe his haters do so because what he represents scares them, but it is also about how my opinion of him has fallen recently.

Tim Tebow is a polarizing individual, and someone whose popularity transcends sports in a way most aren’t accustomed to seeing. He creates in people such strong feelings of admiration, hope, and also hatred. Why?

Well, obviously because he is a christian. Not just a christian but a devout, outspoken christian. He represents things in an in-your-face way that hasn’t been seen in the mainstream in a generation.

I am not christian. I am not religious. I am not athiest. My beliefs are my own and personal, but I want to make one thing clear:

Despite my own beliefs I do not hate, disparage, or look down on those who are religious. I do not seek to prove them wrong, or to outlaw any mention of God in schools or in government. I am not offended when someone talks about God or Jesus or their spirituality or any of it. In fact I respect it. Belief of that kind does indeed require faith, especially in this day and age.

So all of last year when my Denver Broncos quarterback would begin and end the game by taking a knee and praying, and by starting damn near any interview by saying “first and foremost I want to thank my lord and savior Jesus Christ” not only was I not offended, I loved it. Why?

Because the man is true blue. He is the real deal. He knows what his beliefs are, he isn’t afraid to show it.  Nor does he apologize for it. He believes it and lives it. He is relentlessly positive, with a killer work ethic. Seeing him excited can make you excited. I loved every minute of it.

But I’m glad he’s gone.

The biggest stories during the last NFL season, and the current post-season were Tim Tebow and Peyton Manning. Tim Tebow because of what his sheer will seemed to be able to accomplish to turn the Denver Broncos season “around.” Peyton Manning because of what his absence meant to the Indianapolis Colts and their awful season. Absence caused by a neck injury that he had four surgeries to correct combined with slow, inconsistent healing keeping him from playing the entire season. They sucked. Bad. A perennial playoff team and super bowl winner only a couple of years ago, without Peyton Manning they went 2-14, earning the number one pick in the draft. They opted to fire their coaching and management staff and start fresh. For the first time in years the first two projected draft picks were quarterbacks, one of them being Andrew Luck who is considered to be the best quarterback to come out of college since, well, Peyton Manning. Maybe since Broncos Legend John Elway.

With unknowns about Manning’s ability to heal and return to the team in 2012, they released him from his contract and looked to the future.  They would eventually draft Andrew Luck.

Tim Tebow is known for being a huge winner in college, and for being outspokenly christian. He was drafted by the Broncos a couple years ago in a controversial move. Most analysits felt his style of quarterback play would not translate to the pro game without a few years of really working to build his skill set. The year he was drafted our head coach was fired in the last quarter of the season, and we finally got to see what Tebow could do. He only won one game, but the team was more competitive in all of those games than they’d been the whole season. Yet he didn’t get promoted to starting quarterback the next season. The new coaching staff decided to keep the existing starter. Things did not go well. We lost four of our first five games, and in the middle of that fifth game they put Tebow in. We didn’t win that game, but we were damn close.

After that, Tebow was the quarterback. We went from 1-4, to 8-8. For those counting, that means he won 7 games and lost 4. He proved his haters and his supporters right. He played the position with his unconvention style that mostly didn’t work, yet somehow we were winning games as if his will alone could do it. While only breaking even, being in a crappy conferance meant that the team won enough to get into the playoffs.

Bronco Nation BABY!

We played the Pittsburg Steelers on 1/8/2012, and I was there. We won, and it was the greatest game I’ve ever been to. Electric. Despite his problems as quarterback, he looked like he’d improved and was playing a more complete game. The team was dominant. And though we lost in the next round to the New England Patriots (in an absolute ass kicking, btw) I came away encouraged for the next season and eager to see how Tebow would develop in the off season.
And then the Colts released Peyton Manning.

Now here is the thing. I’m real about Tebow. He has problems playing the position, but he clearly has an IT factor to him, and he proved himself a winner. I wanted to see him develop. But John Elway—legendary championship Broncos quarterback from my childhood—is running the team and he was never comfortable with Tebow.

Once Manning was available it was clear that many teams would want to sign him. The Broncos ended up being the first team he met with.

Cut that meat! Cut that meat!

After weeks of meetings with various teams and tons of rumors, Denver emerged as the winner. The Colt wanted to be a Bronco. And unless your quarterbacks name is Drew Brees or Tom Brady, you’d be crazy not to want a healthy Peyton Manning as your quarterback. If he was recovering from his surgeries and could be the Manning of old, bringing him in is a win.

And we got him. And that meant Tebow would not be staying.

It’s a practical matter that Tebow would leave. Not because he couldn’t be a backup to Manning. Not because he couldn’t learn from Manning. I wanted him to stay, learn from the best and when Manning does retire Tebow could take over as a complete quarterback. But that was never going to happen. For one thing they have the same management company, and there was no way they would allow their top two money makers to be on the same team, one keeping the other in the shadow. So we traded him.

And this is where Tebow lost me.

As long as we were winning, and as long as he was improving I was happy. It was easy to believe that he would take us to a super bowl, and win one. But it has become alarmingly clear that Tim Tebow doesn’t actually care about winning a super bowl. For that matter, it doesn’t matter to him to be a starting quarterback. How do I know this?

Unlike most players when they are being traded, Tebow was offered a choice. The offers were similar. He could go to Jacksonville—Tim’s home town where he won college championships and he would be the most popular man EVER—and be assured a starting position, or go to New York to play for the Jets where he would be assured only a backup quarterback spot. Tebow chose New York. Why?

In Jacksonville he’d be a guaranteed starter, and that the team would be built around him and his style. He’d be given the chance to prove himself and try to take a team to the super bowl. In New York, they have a high profile starting quarterback. Not a perfect one, but a good young one who has to mature and improve his consistency. The Jets are not super bowl contenders yet. They are a team in disarray and going through some changes. If they go to a super bowl it won’t be because of Tebow. So why go there? What is it about this decision that loses me?

Because the decision wasn’t about football. It was about the platform. For him, for his beliefs, for his charities. New York City is the biggest city in the world, and now the Tebow brand is right there in the middle of it.

I can get behind my guy if he shows me the will to win that Tebow does, and it’s clear that winning is the most important thing. But if that isn’t your primary concern I want you to move on.

We Broncos fans are proud. We expect to win, and we want winners. Not just those with IT, but with the desire.

I wish Tim Tebow good luck. I still believe he is a true blue, genuine example of what a good man is. It’s fine that he went to New York for the platform. That’s his decision, and how he wants to live his life. And it’s great. While not being religious I would not hesitate to point to him as a role model for children. And Denver hasn’t lost a great role model as the top player of our team. Peyton Manning his also a devout christian. He is also a major philantropist. He is also a good, genuine man. He just isn’t nearly as outspoken about it. More importantly he’s here to win a super bowl.

Good luck Tim. God Bless.

Go Broncos.

PS. Except that little move of changing his dogs name from Bronco to Bronx. That was lame. C’mon man! What a way to pander.

My first experience with it was not unlike what Tomm said. A regular taco with a faint Doritos after taste. But I gave it another chance, and another, and another…and I’ve come to two theories.

1.  Taco Bell has fiddled with, and perfected the formula.
-or-
2.  I’ve simply convinced myself of this, because…

It tastes like god damn doritos now. And I LOVE IT. This thing is amazing. It’s what I want all my tacos to taste like from now on. If this item goes away, I will be genuinely sad.

I don’t always taste like doritos.
But when I do, I taste fucking awesome.

This idea sounds like a no-brainer on paper. Both Taco Bell and Doritos are owned by Pepsi. Why NOT try and get a little bit of cross pollination across brands.

But here is my question. Why a taco? Why aren’t they using regular doritos nacho cheese chips in a Nachos Supreme or Bell Grande?

Taco Bell. Make this happen.

I’m no stranger to novelty items. My first job as a teenager actually was at a local Taco Bell. Back during the days of $.59, $.79, $.99 cent menu’s. Those were the days—and that is when the double decker taco materialized. Recently I tried the KFC Double Down (KFC is also owned by Pepsi, FYI.) It did not live up to expectations. This may have been in part due to the fact that when I rolled through the drive through to order my first one, they wouldn’t let me. Why? Because they were out of chicken.

KFC. Out of chicken. Let that sink in. KFC out of chicken. Really? F’n Really? Chicken is what you DO!!!

What store manager is sleeping on the job so bad that your CHICKEN STORE runs out of CHICKEN?! So I drove to another KFC and got my Double Down on. It was alright. I enjoyed it less than simply having a regular KFC chicken breast. Why is that? Dunno. Point is these novelty items better deliver, or it’s lights out.

The locos taco delivers, and I need MORE…

C’mon Taco Bell. I won’t even take credit for the idea. I’ll EVEN forgive the fact that my paycheck was stolen while working there if you give me Doritos Locos Nachos.

Our HDTV’s have digital tuners. The condo we live at gets a digital antenna signal. So we get our local channels in HD for free. Everything we really care about watching can be watched on Netflix and Hulu, and almost everything else can be bought on iTunes of Amazon Video Store. We have a PS3 in the living room, a Roku 2 in the bedroom and a Wii in the spare room. Buying even 6 shows per year would only cost around $200, and that is only about two months worth of the cost of Cable TV. It’s been regret free thus far.

We cancelled after all our fav shows had season finales. The combination of no new episodes and no Cable has allowed us to try some new things. So far I’ve given Mad Men and Sherlock a shake.

Everyone MUST watch the BBC Sherlock. It. Is. Amazing.

This is about Mad Men though. This show has been on for five years now, and has critical and fan acclaim. I’ve honestly heard nothing but good things about it. So I gave it a shot, and about four episodes into the second season I’m done. Washing my hands of it. Why? Read on…

Mad Men is about an Ad Agency on Madison Avenue in New York during the 60′s. The main character is Don Draper; a hard drinking, hard smoking, mysterious womanizer who is the dynamic and mesmerizing head of creative at Sterling Cooper. The man could come up with an ad to sell ice to eskimos, and it’d work. He is surrounded by a supporting cast including his wife and kids, various colleagues, secretaries, clients and his two bosses.

Part of the shows acclaim involves how accurate to the time period the show is. Everyone smokes like a chimney, including pregnant women. Black people are only shown to hold jobs like nanny’s, elevator operators, waiters, etc… Women are possessions and treated like lesser beings. Most of the men cheat on their wives, secretaries are told to show off their legs or figure more. It was a different time.

In fact, the first episode deals with figuring out how to advertise cigarette’s after the government has regulated that they can’t cite health studies on the benefits of smoking. During the course of the season they deal with how the Nixon/Kennedy election was advertised. Don Draper starts the show in the bed of one woman, shows interest in a female client, and ends the episode going home to his wife.

As I watched the first few episodes the most I could say to anyone was that the show was slow, dry, but still interesting. The demonstration of the 60′s is extremely interesting. But that only lasts so long. The novelty of it wears off.

I stopped watching the show because once the tropes of the time stop being interesting, you are basically left with a bunch of characters that are fundamentally bad people. Horribly sexist. Everyone cheats on their wife, while also treating their wives like servants. Every single main character has done something reprehensible:

• Draper’s wife buys a swim suit she thinks he’ll like. He berates her and calls her desperate, and that night is having sex with another woman.
• His boss cheats on his wife, has a heart attack while doing so. Once back to work for a few months, he’s back at it.
• An account exec cheats on his fiance the night before their wedding, then again with the same woman months later. Then when his wife can’t get pregnant he berates her, then picks up a model after a casting call and sleeps with her.
• The girl he has sex with the first two times ends up pregnant. She doesn’t know it until she’s in labor, thinking that she was just getting fat. She gives it up for adoption and acts like it never happened, never telling the father. Then—even though she is kind of a repressed girl who doesn’t flaunt her self around—when she isn’t being included in copy meetings, she totally sluts herself up and joins the boys at a strip club where they are entertaining clients.
• An executive has a couple of professional setbacks, and starts to slide back into alcoholism. His ex-wife gives him back the dog she took during the divorce, and when the dog is looking at him while he’s picking up the bottle, he walks the dog down to the street and kicks it out.
• At the end of the first season Don Draper has an epiphany, and it appears as though he’s going to give up his womanizing ways and recommit to his wife and family. You think maybe he’ll try to be a good guy. In the next season it takes him about 2 minutes of being alone inside a car with another woman before they start a tryst. And while she is a bad person also, he does some pretty bad things to her.

From left to right: Cheater, Gold Digger, Douchebag, Don Draper (cheater and all around jerk,) Cheater (but felt bad about it,) Lets Men Determine who she is, Loser, Cheater

You can only look past their behavior as being “from a different time” for so long, and eventually it just becomes too much. I don’t want to watch a show about awful people. You are supposed to care about and relate to the characters in shows you watch. At least some of them. Even soap operas have SOME good characters who aren’t awful people. I suppose people who regularly and repeatedly cheat on their spouse can relate to these characters. But there isn’t anybody there to relate to that is a good person. Nobody seems to struggle or worry about their bad decisions. In the end it really just turned me off. And from what I’ve heard, that sort of things just continues through the series.

I’m not interested. Give me good and bad. Even give me gray.  Don’t just keep piling on the bad and trying to pass it off as being morally gray.

And here I am.

So what’s new?

I did indeed start buying comics on my iPad.  I buy some DC New 52 stuff, and I buy some Marvel comics, mostly X-Men.  I went against what I said, and I bought them at their high price.  Couldn’t help it.  I like my X-Men, and they’re telling stories I’m interested in.

I’ll post more about these things individually, but I am not buying all the same DC comics that I did when the New 52 started.  A fair number of books lost my interest.  At this point I’m only getting Justice League, Action Comics, Batman and Detective Comics.  I’m going to give Earth 2 a shot, but I’m buying these a month removed so that they’re a dollar cheaper.

I’ve completed Batman: Arkam Asylum, Silent Hill: Downpour, Zelda: Skyward Sword, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow and started Batman: Arkham City.  I waited 6 months for the Game of the Year Edition, so that I could get everything in one package instead of having to pay for DLC over months.  It may be one of the best games ever made.  The opening 20 minutes made a serious case for THE best game ever.

I saw The Hunger Games.  I never read the books, but when the movie came along, I heard so many good things about it that I wanted to know what all the fuss was about.  What did I think?
It might be one of the most important movies ever made.  It has something important to say.  It isn’t just entertainment.

So good that I immediately bought the trilogy on my Nook and read all three in the course of a week.  Granted, a lot of that reading was done while on a road trip, but still.  The series didn’t go where I thought it was going, and from that perspective I found it a little disappointing, but that is only disappointment of expectation.  What is actually there is important, and still an extremely important series.  I’ll try to touch on that at some point as well.

Saw Thor and Captain America on DVD, after seeing the Iron Man’s in the theater.  And then I saw Avengers.  Joss Whedon might have ascended to the level of diety.  It is well deserving of now being the third highest grossing movie worldwide, ever.  And now there are rumors of a 3 hour directors cut when it hits blu-ray?  How?  The film flows so well, and each character gets great moments to shine.

Last week was E3 2012.  Nintendo showed off the Wii U, Microsoft showed off Smart Glass, and Sony showed off…stuff?   Yesterday Apple had their keynote conference to kick off WWDC, throwing out a few announcements.  I’ll touch on those at some point.

Overall life ain’t bad for this geek.  More to come!

Marvel today announced that the upcoming X-Men relaunch involving Uncanny X-Men #1 and Wolverine and the X-Men #1 will both cost $3.99 instead of $4.99.

And it’s supposed to be big news cause now more people can afford it.  It’s a DOLLAR.  Now it costs 4 dollars instead of 5.  8 dollars for two books instead of 10.

Big F’n Deal.

Not good enough Marvel.  Come down to $2.99 and we’ll talk.