10 Years of "Batman Begins"

It’s really hard to believe that it’s been a decade since Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins” hit theaters. The first big-screen take on Batman since 1997’s cinematic abortion “Batman & Robin” had a lot to fulfill for fanboys and regular moviegoers alike, especially considering what all had come before it. Tim Burton’s 1989 “Batman” is still considered the definitive take on the character, and while it still is for me to a degree, there’s something about “Batman Begins” that ever so slightly edges it out.

Gone was the gothic atmosphere and art deco set design. In its place was a sense of realism that a Batman movie had never had before. Looking back, this was for the best, especially considering the ridiculousness of “Batman Forever” and “Batman & Robin”. We were given a suit and gadgets that were based on military technology, adding to the realistic tone, and it worked. Nearly everything in the film worked…except for the twist of the real Ra’s Al Ghul (I saw that coming a mile away when I first laid eyes on Liam Neeson, it’s the beard man). That aside, this was the best modern take on Batman that we could have hoped for thus far.

Speaking of Ra’s, the other thing that “Batman Begins” did really well was present us two iconic villains that had never been on film before with him and The Scarecrow, and it did it in a realistic and believable way. Granted that Scarecrow’s exit from the film is abrupt and Batman’s final showdown with Ra’s I always found to be a bit underwhelming, but that’s beside the point. For a majority of the film’s two and a half hour running time, it doesn’t relent much, and that’s a good thing.

The casting is mostly good. Say what you will about Christian Bale overdoing the voice, because he does, but he’s a believable Batman in terms of sheer physicality. Katie Holmes sucks; we all already knew that, but Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Neeson, and Cillian Murphy are pitch perfect as Alfred, Gordon, Ra’s, and Scarecrow respectively. We couldn’t have asked for better casting choices for any of them.

Now granted, I do tend to enjoy “The Dark Knight” more than “Batman Begins”, mainly because of Heath Ledger’s timeless take as Joker, but looking back on it; “Batman Begins” is the superior film, only by a hair. It’s the perfect superhero origin story on film, and it hits all the main points without it being overblown or missing the mark. “Iron Man” comes close as being a perfect take on a cinematic origin, but “Batman Begins” tops it with its villains and overall sense of realism.

I could keep singing its praises, but most of you already know how great “Batman Begins” is already. Nolan’s trilogy is a whole is still the best live-action representation of Batman to this day, even if “The Dark Knight Rises” falters to the point of close to mediocrity. If you’ve never seen it for some reason, you need to. “Batman Begins” is the best pure origin story of a superhero on film, and remains one of the greatest comic book film adaptations of all time.

My Thoughts on BatFleck

Oh that Affleck.

I've wrestled around in my head quite a bit the idea of Ben fucking Affleck playing Batman in the upcoming sequel to "Man of Steel", something that the denizens of the internet have been going apeshit over quite a bit. In all actuality I was going to post something about this earlier (but more important things have since come up), so now that the dust has settled, let's take a look at just what Affleck being Batman could entail.

For starters, and I'm not necessarily old enough to remember this, but the backlash to Affleck playing Batman is apparently nowhere near as bad to the backlash Michael Keaton faced when Tim Burton first announced him as his choice to be Batman...and we all know how that worked out. When I first heard about the casting, I did think it was a joke. In fact, when I was reading the breaking article online, I kept looking around the page to see if it was from The Onion, but no, it is indeed a fact. I wasn't crazy about the idea at first, but now I'm at that stage where I've just stopped caring. Why? Because really folks, just how bad could he be?

Could he be any worse than George Clooney or Val Kilmer? I doubt it. And for the love of fuck, it's not like the last guy (Christian Bale) was truly a show-stopper in the role. If anything, Affleck has redeemed himself after a string of horrifyingly bad starring roles with his directorial efforts, and his acting hasn't been too bad either, so why not give the man a legitimate chance before we all take turns shitting all over him. Remember how Christopher Nolan was called an idiot over casting Heath Ledger as The Joker in "The Dark Knight"? How'd that work out exactly again?

To close things out, I wouldn't say I'm excited to see Affleck in the role necessarily, but come the fuck on, he isn't gonna be that bad, so everybody please stop crying.

And besides, it's a more inspired choice than Bradley Cooper being the voice of Rocket Raccoon.

"THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" Review!!!! (SPOILERS!)

Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy has come to an end. Four years after the release of the monumental “The Dark Knight” comes “The Dark Knight Rises”, which is a more than fitting end to his trilogy. This is my review for the film, and I am going to tell you right now that beware, spoilers aplenty are ahead, so enter at your own risk folks. With that out of the way, let’s begin…



SPOILERS AHEAD! ABANDON ALL HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE!!!!!!!!!!!









From the beginning with “Batman Begins”, we’ve seen a Batman universe that is all about the realism. From his technology to his wonderful toys to even the villains he’s faced, everything about this new cinematic take on the Batman world is grounded in reality, and it’s made for some great entertainment. As great as “Batman Begins” was though, it was “The Dark Knight” that took things to a new level. With the late Heath Ledger’s brilliant performance as The Joker to a thought provoking script that perfectly displayed the kind of repercussions that would happen in the real world if someone decided to put on a costume and take a serious fight to crime in a crooked and corrupt world, “The Dark Knight” was brilliant despite its small flaws, and to me remains the absolute best comic book-based film to ever see the light of day. With “The Dark Knight Rises”, we see the aftermath that such repercussions have created, escalating even further into an environment of full-blown anarchy and chaos, and the one man that can rise above it all to save the day.

With its much publicized filming taking place, a good chunk of the surprises that the film was set to deliver were already known to the public. From Bane’s connection to Ra’s Al Ghul, to Miranda Tate really being Talia Al Ghul, there weren’t that many twists that the public didn’t kind of already know were going to happen. That aside, we were treated to seeing a world where Batman did indeed “live long enough to see himself become the villain” like Harvey Dent had said in the previous film, as he is a broken and hollow man living a life of seclusion. He comes out of his self-imposed exile as Bane makes his presence felt; eventually re-creating the famous scene from the “Knightfall” comics as he breaks Batman’s back and takes over the city. The day is saved in the end of course, culminating with Batman faking his own death and leaving Gotham City cop John “Robin” Blake to take the reins.

In praise of the film, it was wonderful to see all the seeds planted in “Batman Begins” come to fruition. It was twice as wonderful to see this realistic take on Batman culminate in such a thrilling spectacle. While “The Avengers” was an amazing superhero blockbuster, “The Dark Knight Rises” is more of a thinking-man’s blockbuster, drawing you in with believable characters and motivations, along with some surprisingly brutal action set-pieces to boot. Christian Bale, despite what you may think of him, gives his best performance as Batman here. His portrayal of a broken man that can’t stay away from his duty as the Caped Crusader is a sight to behold. Michael Keaton may always be my favorite Batman, but Bale definitely comes in right behind him. Just about the rest of the cast was great as well. I really enjoyed Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, and Tom Hardy was menacing as all hell as Bane. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was great as well in a surprisingly meaty role. I should also note that Bane’s voice was thankfully re-dubbed during post-production. When the film’s prologue was released alongside “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol” last year, I’ll be damned if I could understand anything that he fucking said, but here, it’s fixed for the most part. Granted he does kind of sound like Sean Connery in need of a Halls, but hey, it could have been a lot worse.

As for the flaws of the film, the one thing that got me was that Gordon sadly wasn’t featured as prominently as he was the last time around. One of the things that made “The Dark Knight” so great was just how much they featured Gordon and how important a role he played in the proceedings. Here, he doesn’t so much, while Alfred and Lucius Fox seem to spend more time on the backburner as well. Still, the final half hour of the film is so masterfully done and orchestrated that you’ll literally be chewing on your fingernails in anticipation to see how it all comes to an end.

Also in retrospect, when you go to see the film if you haven’t already, thoughts about those in Colorado that were senselessly slaughtered at the film’s premiere will weigh heavy on your head. It’s only a matter of time before we get a handful of idiots that blame the actions of one diseased mind on this film, which is a crying shame in itself. Its times like this that we all wish people like Batman were real.

Do yourself a favor: go see the best, most electrifying conclusion to a superhero trilogy in the history of fucking ever. You’ll be glad that you did.

5 Reasons Why We Love Batman

“The Dark Knight Rises” is well on its way, so over the next couple months it’s safe to assume that we’re all going to be bombarded with anything and everything Batman-related. With that in mind, it’s time to take a look at just why we love Batman as much as we do. A character so iconic and who has meant so much to so many, trying to pinpoint exactly why we love Batman isn’t an easy thing to do…but goddamnit, I’m going to try. So here we are to count down the top 5 reasons why we fucking love the goddamn Batman.

5: No superhero has more monumental stories than Batman.

“The Dark Knight Returns”. “Year One”. “The Killing Joke”. “The Long Halloween”. “Dark Victory”. “A Death in the Family”. “Birth of the Demon”. “Hush”. And many, many more. No other comic book character has had as many monumental storyarcs as Batman. Not to mention the fact that no other superhero character has had such a bevy of talent work on him over the years like Batman has. Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Brian Bolland, Jeph Loeb, Tim Sale, Jim Starlin, Marv Wolfman, Jim Lee, Grant Morrison, Brian Azzarello, Denny O’Neil, Scott Snyder, Greg Rucka, Jock, Chuck Dixon, Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, James Robinson, and countless others have all lent their talents to various Batman titles and helped craft their share of brilliant stories in the process. There is no other comic book character in existence that has had this many iconic stories presented to us by so many talented individuals that it only means one thing: they’re all as drawn into Batman as the rest of us are.



4. He has no superpowers.

How the hell does someone manage to dress up in tights and beat criminals to a pulp without super strength or any other superpowers? Batman isn’t invulnerable, have X-ray vision, or can run at superspeed. Instead, he must rely on his ultra-keen wits, his sheer athleticism, and an unprecedented determination that NO ONE in comics could ever hope to match. He doesn’t do what he does because he feels he has to; he does it because he believes that he is needed to do so. Combine that with the fact that he’s such a brilliant detective that it makes Sherlock Holmes look retarded, and you have a superhero that puts his peers to shame.



3. He’s the ultimate anti-hero.

Batman doesn’t take shit from anyone, hero or villain. He does his own thing with little regard over how he is perceived by others, and folks, that’s just plain fucking badass in itself. His only real rule, to not kill, is what separates him from other popular anti-heroes like Wolverine, The Punisher, or Spawn. The fact that he walks that fine line between being a true super hero and a costumed killer is also what makes us so drawn to him. That dark side that Batman embodies is what we all desire to unleash in the real world, and seeing him do just that while ensuring that the right thing gets done in the process is what helps make Batman such an awesome character.


2. Where does he get those wonderful toys?

Being a billionaire industrialist has its perks. Namely having a superhero alter-ego that you have the cash to bankroll numerous inventions and gizmos needed to take down your enemies. The Batmobile, the Batwing, the batarang, the classic grappling hook, and tons, tons more; all these gadgets are nearly as iconic as Batman himself. I mean Christ, where the hell would he be without that damn grappling hook in the first fucking place? That, and wouldn’t you love to drive around your neighborhood in an ultra-sleek, flames-shooting-out-the-back-end Batmobile? I know I fucking would…



1. The villains.

Part of what has made Batman such an iconic superhero character is the fact that no one has as much iconic villains as he does. In fact, there is literally no other superhero that has as rich a rogue’s gallery as Batman does. Superman, Spider-Man, the X-Men, and The Flash come close to having their own assortment of iconic villains, but they can’t come close to topping Batman. We know them all almost by heart: Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Bane, Ra’s Al Ghul, The Scarecrow, Killer Croc, Solomon Grundy, The Mad Hatter, Man-Bat, Hush, Clayface, Victor Zsasz, Harley Quinn, Firefly, and many, many more. These villains help make Batman as iconic a character as he is because no other superhero has the sheer amount of villains that help push their counterpart to the limit like Batman’s do. And for all the evil that Batman’s rogues manage to do, he still won’t give in to them and kill; he’ll never become anything like them. It’s that sheer will, the determination, the never say die attitude that these villains bring out in our hero that make him so damned endearing, and nearly no other villain can say the same for their hero counterpart.



That’s all for now folks, see y’all in the funnybooks.

What the fuck is Bane saying?!

Over the past few days there’s been a shit ton of internet chatter and theories regarding “The Dark Knight Rises”. After the unveiling of the slam-bang six-minute prologue that premiered before the new “Mission: Impossible” flick, a second trailer was released that showed more footage, including the massive destruction of a football field and Batman (Christian Bale) getting his ass handed to him by Bane (Tom Hardy).

One thing that’s gotten a shit-ton of smack slapped on it is the fact that understanding any of Bane’s dialogue is ass-fuckingly hard. I’m not sure whether it’s the voice Hardy is using, or if he’s just muffled by the mask, or a combination of both. Either way, director Christopher Nolan has heard the complaints of the masses…and is probably going to do nothing about it. He’s gone so far to say that he likes Bane’s voice the way it is, and will more than likely not make any post-production alterations or re-dub Hardy either.

So basically we’ll have to wait until “The Dark Knight Rises” comes out on DVD and turn on the closed captioning option so we know what the fuck Bane is saying.

But hey, considering the fact that Bale’s Batman voice is pretty over-the-top in itself, well…what the hell. As a side note, back when I was bartending, “The Dark Knight” was on HBO on one of the TV’s with the closed captioning turned on. During the interrogation scene as Batman walks out and Gordon asks him if he’s going after Dent or Rachel, Batman growls “Rachel”, and the caption came up *inaudible*.

In other words, that was only a taste of things to come apparently.

Though I’m poking fun and pointing out early flaws, all that bullshit aside I can’t fucking wait for this movie. It looks to be every bit as epic (and possibly even more so) than “The Dark Knight” was, and appears to truly be an epic conclusion to Nolan’s Batman films. People are psyched for “The Avengers”, and rightfully so (I am too), but “The Dark Knight Rises” takes precedent over it for me personally, and I’m dying to see how it all winds up coming to an end…

…even if I can’t understand half the shit that the film’s main villain is saying.

"The Dark Knight Rises" First Impressions

It started in 2005 with “Batman Begins”, and now six years later, Christopher Nolan’s Batman films have achieved an almost legendary status. “Batman Begins” was the Batman film that Bat-fans had craved for years: an honest-to-God origin story set in a realistic tone. In 2008 with “The Dark Knight”, we got a sequel that took Nolan’s realistic approach to the iconic character to new heights…but that’s something that we all know.

Now, here we are in 2011, and we’ve had our first official glimpse at “The Dark Knight Rises”, the third and final Batman film to be directed by Nolan, and if the tagline of the teaser trailer promises anything, it’s that this is indeed the end (hell, I swear that “The End” by The Doors played in my head throughout the teaser, but I digress). After seeing the teaser trailer, there are plenty of questions that have risen (no pun intended) so let’s just make a rundown here of what we know from seeing the trailer so far…

We catch scenes from both “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” as we hear a voiceover from Ra’s Al Ghul (Liam Neeson) from the first film, followed by a shots of Gordon (Gary Oldman) lying on a hospital bed having a conversation with Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) about how bad Gotham needs Batman back. This is followed by glimpses of Bane (Tom Hardy), the roided-up super villain that broke Batman’s back in the comics…all of which concluding with a quick glimpse of Bane getting ready to take on what appears to be an injured or winded Batman (and just who the hell is that standing in the background?) There are no glimpses of Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) to be found, or of any of the new characters and additions to the cast (Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard). With all that being said, it’s time to make some half-assed (possibly) predictions about what “The Dark Knight Rises” has to offer…

First off, like I said before, Bane breaks Batman’s back like a twig in the comics. His comic book form is that of a hulking brute that uses a drug called “venom” to get enhance his size and strength, along with the fact that he’s also a criminal genius. In his introductory storyarc in the comics, Bane figured out that Batman is Bruce Wayne, and proceeded to tire him out and wear him down by breaking the inmates out of Arkham Asylum, and then putting the Bat-bitch-slap on Batman when he was at his weakest. Could that be what happens in the film? There have already been reports that this is going to sort of be what happens, and that in Batman’s absence Catwoman and others attempt to take up the reigns of saving Gotham City, leading to Batman’s return, as he rises above and saves the day (maybe that why it’s titled “The Dark Knight Rises” perhaps)

Something else that is known thus far is that actor Josh Pence is playing a younger version of Ra’s Al Ghul, and has some sort of tie to Bane in the film. At the end of “Batman Begins”, Ra’s was burned up into a crispy critter, but it was also reported that Liam Neeson filmed some sort of role for the new film. Is it a flashback then perhaps? More than likely, even though Ra’s Al Ghul is an immortal villain in the comics, Nolan’s films have steered far away from supernatural elements and only focused on making things as realistic and believable as possible, so the Liam Neeson take on Ra’s is probably a flashback, unless Nolan is playing some kind of big time trump card. Speaking of trump cards, Marion Cotillard is playing a woman named Miranda Tate, with all rumors saying that the name is really an alias for Talia Al Ghul, the vengeful daughter of Ra’s. Maybe this is going to end up tying everything together somehow? I have no idea honestly, but it’s fun to theorize nevertheless.

With all this in mind, I haven’t even really gotten around to talking about what role Catwoman is going to play in all this. Will she be an out and out villain, or an unlikely ally? Or maybe a little of both? Since “Batman Begins”, Nolan has made a habit of only revealing as little or as much as he wants to in terms of making the audience want more, and with the film a year away from hitting the big screen, there’s still plenty more to be revealed and dissected over. Hell, it doesn’t even finish filming until later this year, but I for one am dying to see what gets revealed next, leading up to what’s going to be the last Batman film to feature Nolan, Bale, and the rest of the principle cast and crew.

Next summer can’t fucking come soon enough.

Superman Returns....again...

Only a couple weeks ago it was announced that British actor Henry Cavill (if you watched “The Tudors” on Showtime, he played Charles Brandon, and starred in an assortment of shitty direct to DVD horror movies as well) would be the next man to don the red and blue tights of Superman in the upcoming mega-budget reboot of the “Superman” film franchise. Yes folks, we’re getting another “Superman” reboot whether we want it or not, and it’s being brought to us by none other than director Zack Snyder, whose comic book adaptation credits include “300” and “Watchmen”. Do we really need another “Superman” movie? Well, believe it or not, maybe we do…

It was five years ago now (and it sure doesn’t feel like it was that long) that Warner Bros. had spent a quarter of a BILLION dollars on Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns”, which for all intents and purposes, flopped in comparison to the studio’s hopes and projections. Reception was mixed at best, with some enjoying it and others pretty much slamming Singer for being two steps away from practically plagiarizing Richard Donner’s original “Superman” film. Though Singer intended to pay wondrous amounts of homage to Donner and the original film, the end result was a 2 ½ hour long snooze-fest which had almost zero action sequences and portrayed Superman as being a “super-stalker”, always seeing what Lois Lane is up to in her new life apart from him…and it actually got to be kind of fucking creepy! Not to mention the fact that evil genius Lex Luthor still can’t come up with a better scheme than land control and Supes and Lois have a super-powered son, and well…well, that was “Superman Returns” in a nutshell. I just saved you 2 ½ hours, so you’re welcome.

Anyway, fast forward to 2008. Christopher Nolan scores a massive hit with “The Dark Knight”, and was eventually appointed supervising producer of a new “Superman” movie by Warner Bros. and DC. Singer’s proposed sequel was scrapped, as well as the former cast and crew, in favor of what was then promised to be a “darker” take on the Man of Steel. That statement in itself kind of sets up a bit of a conundrum though: Superman isn’t a “dark” kind of character. He’s the big blue Boy Scout, and aside from being loved by kids, most comic fans look at him as being an uber-lame character with universe-shattering power. But that’s the problem with being the most recognizable and most celebrated comic book character of all time: he hasn’t changed. I’m not saying he should, but we as a society no longer identify with Superman. We’ve become more accustomed and comfortable with celebrating the anti-hero, that’s why Batman has always managed to stay so relevant for decades. Combine that with the popularity of “dark” comic book movie heroes like Wolverine, The Punisher, Blade, and the like; and it becomes incredibly hard to appreciate a character that is just concentrated awesome good.

With that in mind, Nolan brings in Snyder, whose last foray into comic book adaptations saw him make the unfilmable film that was “Watchmen”: the godfather of dark superhero comics. While that film’s reception was mixed as well, Nolan and the studio both hope that Snyder can put a bit of a darker turn on the Man of Steel, and I for one actually kind of want to see it. So far though, it has been revealed that General Zod will return as the main villain of the film. Zod was last played by the great Terrance Stamp in “Superman II” way back in the day, and was awesome as well. Do we really need to see Zod again? I can understand Luthor being a recurring villain, but Zod again? If they want to put a darker spin on Superman, why not used some his darkest villains? What about Brainiac, the villain who had the biggest impact on Superman’s mythology other than Luthor? Or Darkseid, who for all intents and purposes is a God of death? Hell, even Doomsday, the monster that killed Superman in the comics; why not any of them instead of doing Zod over again?

*Sigh*

Believe it or not, even though I’m spouting off all this Superman knowledge, I’m not even a real fan of the character. When I was a kid it was a different story of course, and even today, you can’t pick up a single DC comic and not somehow find him in it somewhere. But that’s okay regardless; he’s just that iconic a character. Everyone knows who Superman is, and everyone knows his backstory…and they know it all whether they want to or not!

He’s that iconic that he deserves another cinematic shot…but if it fails again well…

it may prove that box office busts are so strong that even Superman can’t beat ‘em.

Suck My Ass 3-D Part 1: Movies

It seems like every 30 years or so, 3-D seems to make some sort of comeback. Originally started in the 50s/60s era as a cheap gimmick for matinees and cheesy horror flicks, the 3-D format saw a resurgance of sorts in the 80s, once again being in assorted horror films. Whether it was "Friday the 13th: Part 3 (D)" or "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare", the technology remained the same: using cheap paper cut-out glasses that utilized the effects of light being bent in whatever fucking direction...nevermind I have no idea how it really works, and nor do I really care, but let me get back on track here...

Here we are in 2010, and once again 3-D has reared its ugly head. No longer exclusive to just the horror genre, but 3-D has integrated itself into children's films, science fiction flicks, and even action movies. James Cameron's "Avatar" found the director utilizing new 3-D technology that he himself had spent the past decade plus developing, with the end result being the film becoming the highest-grossing movie to ever see the light of day (don't forget that ticket prices for seeing a 3-D flick in an IMAX theater however will run you about 20 bucks or so depending on where you live, but that's another topic entirely).

The end result for me personally after seeing it in theaters in 3-D: I thought my eyes were going to bleed and eventually explode out my fucking head!

Anyway, sometimes 3-D isn't all that bad depending on how well it gets utilized. A key example would be last year's "My Bloody Valentine 3-D", which not only featured some great visual gags, but like "Avatar", featured the whole film in 3-D and not just certain segments. One film that definitely suffered for the worse thanks to 3-D was the recent "Clash of the Titans" remake, which was never filmed with the intention of 3-D effects, but was decided to be integrated during post-production in an effort to drive up ticket sales after the studio realized just how bad the film was in general. The end result was the film as a whole looked just plain awful in 3-D, and the 3-D effects were so poorly utilized that you'd be better off watching the original "Blob" with the shitty little green and red glasses on.

What I'm trying to get at here in general is that 3-D at its heart is no more than a gimmick, and it is quickly becoming an expensive gimmick at that. Is there really anyone clamoring to see more movies in 3-D? I can understand when something monumental, like say "Toy Story 3", is released to the masses and targeted not only for the appeal of children, but for the appeal of adults as well, utilizes it and ends up taking it to a greater effect. Then again, that's just Pixar for you, who so far has never been able to do any wrong in my book.

While Pixar can do no wrong to me, there sure are plenty more than probably can in the not too distant future. Just over the horizon, we have "The Dark Knight" director Christopher Nolan's "Inception", as well as "Saw VII", "Zombieland 2", the upcoming prequel to "Alien", and James Cameron's "Avatar" sequels as well as his stuck-in-development-hell adaptation of "Battle Angel". There are more 3-D planned movies as well, but for now, this is really all that I can mention without punching myself in the face in pure disgust.

3-D however isn't only limited to the movie realm anymore however. As technology continues to change and improve, we have now gotten to the point that 3-D needs to infringe upon the world of...video games!

Yes, video games in 3-D...but that's for next time folks...

Part 2 coming soon!