Saturday, August 20, 2011

The Death of the Comic Book



Remember when you were a kid and stuck with your parents at the grocery store or the drug store or the whatever the fuck store that you didn’t want to really be at, but you made the most of it because you always managed to find the section where they had comic books? Those were the days, and that was pretty much partly my introduction to comic books too come to think of it, since there wasn’t an actual comic book shop around where I grew up. Still, I made the most of it regardless (in case you haven’t been able to tell for whatever reason).

Those days are long and gone now though…and even more dreadfully, the days of the comic book as we know it may not be far behind. Digital reading hasn’t just taken off for the typical print and prose crowd, but now it appears that the realm of digital comics may have some life to it as well. It’s something that hasn’t always worked so well in the past couple years, but more recently, digital comics seem like they’re slowly taking off…which may in fact spell doom for the traditional print comics we all know and love.

Let’s face facts here, comic book sales are in the toilet. Despite the frequent superhero movies and comic adaptations that seem to now forever be part of Hollywood movie-making, the amount of people that actually lay down the 3 or 4 bucks for a comic book or more for a collected edition or trade (or “graphic novel” as they’re more frequently called, fucking hipster cocksuckers) are the lowest they’ve been in the long time. Generating big sales now is what the big two comic publishers, Marvel and DC, are scrambling to do…and fanboys are having a shit-fit at the methods of which they’re doing.

Marvel, frequently known for killing off major and minor characters at the drop of a hat to generate sales and then resurrecting them months down the line, is now doing just that at a record rate. Captain America, the Human Torch, the Ultimate version of Spider-Man, Bucky, and now it appears Thor as well, have all either been killed and/or resurrected as a means to draw in readers and sales. No superhero comic experiences better sales when a character is either killed or brought back from the dead, and Marvel is taking that notion to an unbelievable degree these days, so much so that they’ve managed to alienate the shit out of their audience.

DC is taking things to an even more extreme, by cancelling just about all of their titles and re-launching them all with new issue numberings and rebooting practically all of their characters. Flagship characters like Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Aquaman (yes Aquaman), Swamp Thing, and even John Constantine are all getting rebooted (to a degree) origins, backstories, and histories in a real last ditch effort to draw in new readers. Marvel leads them in sales (even though DC features finer writing and artistic talent with its various books), and has for a while now, making DC’s attempt to draw in new readership all the more desperate. It worked in 1985 when they used “Crisis on Infinite Earths” to effectively reboot their whole universe, but what they’re doing now is way more beyond that.

Other comic book publishers, namely Image, IDW, Dark Horse, Avatar, and more besides continue to soldier on and weather the storm (granted Hellboy did just get killed off, but that’s another story for another time) and are doing just that…but if Marvel and/or DC fell apart, there’s little chance that any other comic company would be around to pick up the pieces. The aforementioned comic publishers also have little, if any, digital publishing domain as well, which is pretty much the nail in the coffin for them if the printed comic book would ever go the way of a dinosaur. Keep in mind that Marvel and DC are also owned by mega-conglomerate corporations (Marvel by Disney and DC by Warner Bros.) so the likelihood of them legitimately tanking is fairly unlikely, but hey, you never know.

Legendary writer Alan Moore, who penned such celebrated works like “Watchmen”, “V For Vendetta”, “Batman: The Killing Joke”, and “Saga of the Swamp Thing” among others, had stated in an interview that he personally hopes the comic book medium does swallow itself into oblivion (he’s plenty bitter, but who could really blame him?) as he predicted it would some years ago, and that the digital reader realm wouldn’t be of any help to it at all either. I can see his point, because quite frankly, if someone doesn’t want to lay down the cash for a comic they have to hold in their hands to read, then why would they want to download it to their hard drive to keep dragging and clicking to magnify and turn pages?

While there’s been plenty of doom-saying about the future of comic books, one thing I can say is that there is still a ways to go before things get as bad as they did in the mid-90s. Marvel was this close to bankruptcy and permanently closing their doors due to some ungodly bad marketing decisions and ultra-oversaturation of product and their characters (namely anything featuring the X-Men). They managed to pull through (barely) as did DC who didn’t have quite as big a financial crisis, before flourishing in the late 90s and the turn of the century when we experienced a comic book renaissance in terms of product and sales.

Even if print is truly dead and digital reading becomes the norm, I think that that may be pretty much it for me. I don’t own a Kindle or whatever other reading devices are out there, nor do I ever desire to, because to me a book isn’t a book unless I’m actually fucking holding it. The same goes for comic books for me, so in essence, digital reading can suck my balls. As for the death of the comic book as we know it…well, I’ve already been alienated enough from Marvel and DC as it is and primarily stick to indie comics and stuff from DC’s mature-themed Vertigo imprint, so maybe seeing them falter would be a bit enjoyable…but at the end of the day, anything that hurts my beloved medium is just plain bad for business for everyone involved, myself included.

See y’all in the funnybooks folks…somehow maybe…


Thursday, August 11, 2011

Bert & Ernie: My Big Fat Gay Puppet Wedding (Maybe)



Just recently it was announced that there is a petition going around to have legendary Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie get married on an episode of the show.

Yes, you read that right.

The long running PBS program, responsible for generations of young children getting their first true taste of education via the idiot box known as television, is being petitioned to have the seemingly longtime lifemates stop living in sin and make it official by having a big fat puppet wedding. Naturally, there’s ruckus from both sides of pro and anti-gay marriage having hissy fits over the whole damn thing…which if you really try to think about it is pretty fucking stupid to begin with. Even though I doubt that PBS would actually go through with such a thing happening (they did have a shitfit about Katy Perry’s cleavage after all) the idea in itself is a wholeheartedly interesting one.

First off, let me say one thing about the idea of gay marriage itself before my head explodes talking in detail about the possibility of male puppets getting hitched. I am a big supporter of gay marriage for a lot of different reasons, but I can’t really outline them in nearly as much great detail as already done by comedian Chris Rock in one of his HBO stand-up acts. To paraphrase Rock in a nutshell, gays should have every right that straight people do in terms of getting married and being miserable for the rest of their lives. Not to mention the fact that the supposed “sacred institution” of marriage is complete bullshit, at least here in America that is. What is so goddamn sacred about marriage if the idea of it is frequently exploited on bullshit reality TV shows like “The Bachelor”, “The Bachelorette”, “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?” or one of the countless other clones of the like. What’s so sacred about marriage in America when it’s used to draw in mindless viewers, ratings, and money? Bringing God and religion into the equation only causes my head to yearn to explode more, mostly due to the fact if two people, regardless of if they are the same sex or not, love each other enough to want to take that kind of plunge, they absolutely should regardless of who deems it right or wrong. If two people generally love each other and are of the same sex, then rightfully no one should give a shit. God-heads and uber-religious douche bags will cry about this, but that’s a story for another day…

Anyway, back to Bert and fucking Ernie. When I was very young, I watched a lot of Sesame Street, and learned a lot to boot, which is what the fucking show is about after all. I understand the concept of having Bert and Ernie tie the knot, in an effort to teach children from a young age tolerance and understanding of same-sex relationships, to teach them that there really is nothing wrong with such relationships, as well as to teach them that everyone is wired different in some way, shape, or form; and that above all else, to never be afraid to admit who they are or want to hide who they are. Personally, growing up I always thought Bert and Ernie were brothers, but you learn something new every day it seems.

The flipside to this whole idea however is the fact remains: these are fucking puppets we’re talking about here. Do puppets even have a sexual orientation to begin with? Should they even have a sexual orientation? Granted that Miss Piggy has been yearning to suck in Kermit’s green frog balls since the dawn of time, but how many other instances of puppet on puppet action can you think of? (And don’t you dare say “Team America” either). Remember that Sesame Street is an educational children’s program, and perhaps introducing these ideals of sexual orientation is a bit too early in the lives of the age-bracket of the kids that watch the show. No matter the case this is a slippery road of debate to traverse upon, but there is one thing that we can all agree on here…

…they’re fucking puppets.

But hey, they’re happy puppets, and maybe that’s the lesson we should all learn from this: no matter whom you are, no matter your sexual orientation, no matter your race, or creed, or whatever the hell else you may be; the most important thing is that to truly be happy in life, you need to truly be yourself.

See? Even after all these years, Sesame Street is still taking us to school and teaching us shit. You’ve gotta love it.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Uncensored "WWF Wrestlemania: The Arcade Game" Review for Sega-16



That's right folks, Sega-16 is back and better than ever...which makes me quite happy for a lot of reasons. In celebration, I finally got to play a good game for once (fuck you "Wrestle War") with "WWF Wrestlemania: The Arcade Game", and I damn sure enjoyed it too. Check out the original review here:

http://www.sega-16.com/2011/08/wrestlemania-the-arcade-game/

With all that being said, here's the complete uncut and uncensored review for the game, so enjoy bitches, we're back!



WWF Wrestlemania: The Arcade Game (1995)

Published by Acclaim Developed by Midway/Sculptured Software



When one thinks of the Genesis and wrestling video games, the first thought that pops up is the Acclaim WWF trilogy. Super Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, and Raw; all of which have their share of flaws, but remain fun regardless. In the mid-90s, Midway decided to release a badass WWF-based arcade game, using the same sort of digitized character model graphics engine which they managed to find massive success with using in the Mortal Kombat games. The end result is WWF Wrestlemania, which wound up being a hit and spawning numerous console ports. Even though the days of the Genesis were coming to an end, Sega’s 16-bit system got their own version (as did the abominably shitty abortion of hardware known as the 32X attachment, which isn’t all that different from this version), and amazingly enough, it wound up being the best cartridge-based port of the game.

WWF Wrestlemania: The Arcade Game features a handful of the wrestling organization’s top wrestlers at the time: Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, The Undertaker, Razor Ramon, Lex Luger, Bam Bam Bigelow, Yokozuna, and Doink the Clown; all of whom are nicely rendered and animated here on the Genesis. Unlike the Acclaim trilogy mentioned before however, instead of focusing on typical wrestling grapples and such, Wrestlemania instead opts for a super-over-the-top/Mortal Kombat style of fighting action. What’s even more surprising here is that somehow, it manages to work out very well. Between the Undertaker firing spirits and demons like fucking creepy-ass fireballs to Bam Bam Bigelow’s flaming head butts, the game is a welcome change of pace instead of following the same archetype of wrestling games in the past. The action that Wrestlemania offers is fast and frantic, and the totally over-the-top nature of it just makes it that much more enjoyable.

Voice clips from announcers Vince McMahon and Jerry “The King” Lawler are included as well, and while they are relatively sparse compared to the arcade counterpart, their funny quips and dialogue are a nice touch. The game’s sound and music clips as a whole are pretty nicely done as a matter of fact, and combined with the graphics engine, round out a very nice presentation package. The character models themselves aren’t as large or detailed as the arcade game, which is to be expected of course, but for what it’s worth, the end result here is pretty admirable.

One thing I often noticed growing up and being a Genesis owner is that if a game was released on both the Genesis and Super NES, nine times out of ten the Super NES version was the better one in terms of presentation and overall quality, just because of the fact that the Super NES had better internal hardware to work with (“blast processing” my ass Sega). With Wrestlemania, not so much. The Super NES version notoriously left Bam Bam Bigelow and Yokozuna off the character roster, and also only allowed up to three characters on the screen at once. With this Genesis port, not only do we get all the characters, but it also allows four of them on screen at once. This may all sound trivial now (and it kind of is but I don’t really give a shit, I’m 27 years old and playing a Genesis so what dignity I had left is long fucking gone here, let’s be honest), but back then for me, this was a huge deal. Not since the first Mortal Kombat game (which featured a code to unlock all the blood and fatalities of the arcade game, unlike the Super NES which didn’t) could I say that my Genesis got the better port, so this being the way it was then with Wrestlemania warmed my little pre-teen Genesis-loving gamer heart so much that it may have caused my first ever erection (maybe).

As much as I love Wrestlemania though, the game isn’t without its flaws. Even though the Genesis version allows four wrestlers on the screen at once, there is a noticeable degree of slowdown that occurs. It’s not much of a surprise that this is the case, considering these were the waning days of the Genesis’ lifecycle, and developers were really pushing what the aging console could do at this point. Also, considering that this was a game originally created by Midway, the same crew behind the secrets and Easter egg-laden Mortal Kombat and NBA Jam franchises, there aren’t really any extras to be found here. There were long rumors that Adam Bomb was a hidden character within the game, but I’ve never been able to find him, nor have I ever heard of anyone finding him in either the arcade version or any of the home console ports. It’s really a personal minor complaint from me however, so it doesn’t take away any of the game’s overall fun factor.

All in all, WWF Wrestlemania: The Arcade Game was a blast to play back in the mid-90s, and it’s still a blast to play even today. If you’re a 16-bit wrestling game purist and have trouble getting over anything that isn’t quite like the Acclaim trilogy of WWF games, you may have some trouble getting the most enjoyment out of Wrestlemania. That being said though, it’s kind of hard to say no to what basically amounts to being a nigh-Mortal Kombat game starring the best pro wrestlers the WWF had to offer of the 90s era. It’s easy to track down and won’t cost you an arm and a leg on eBay, so do yourself a favor and check it out.

8/10

Saturday, July 30, 2011

What the fuck happened to "True Blood"?



Oh “True Blood”, what the fuck has happened to you? Here you are in your fourth season of existence, and you’re just sucking (no pun intended) so goddamn much these days that I can’t even put it into words anymore. Blasphemy you may say, as the show’s ratings are doing better than ever and the series has achieved a beloved fanbase that rivals another HBO smash hit show that went off the deep end towards the end, “The Sopranos”. Then again, it isn’t all that hard to love a show that features supernatural elements, blood, and Anna Paquin’s tits. That all being said, let’s take a look at what the fuck has happened to “True Blood”…

The first two seasons of the show, the second one in particular, I absolutely loved. For so long I looked at “True Blood” as something along the likes of being something along the sort of a “Twilight”-esque affair, but with balls, blood, tits, and no douche bag metrosexual sparkly vampires. Well…things changed quite heavily in the third season. Werewolves were introduced, which wasn’t so bad (and something I actually looked forward to), but now here we are with fairies, trolls, witches, and other assorted elements of the paranormal fantasy-esque ideas that just drain all the fun out of the show.

That in itself is my biggest pet peeve with “True Blood” today; it just isn’t fun anymore. There was never an assortment of great writing or acting to be featured on the show before, but it had its own brand of charm to it that made it devilishly enjoyable. Now, it’s just ridiculous. What’s next? Are we going to have zombies, giants, and fucking Keebler elves coming out of the woodwork to take on the vamps? Is the whole Eric losing his memory bullshit ever going to be anything but boring? Is Tara ever going to fuck off and die, or what else is she going to become besides a butch lesbian MMA fighter? Seriously, where the fuck else is “True Blood” going to go before it finally completely goes off the deep end?

Now, keep in mind that for a show about vampires existing in the modern world, I don’t expect any brand of realism, but I expect it to be at least fun. As for the books that the show is based upon, I’ve never read a single one, but from what I’ve heard from people that have, they tend to get progressively worse as they go on. With the way that “True Blood” has been going thus far, I think that it’s safe to say that this is a sign of things to come for the show…

…and there’s only so much that blood and Anna Paquin’s tits can do to make up for a progressively shitty TV show.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

What I Thought of "Captain America: The First Avenger"



WARNING: There are some small spoilers ahead, so be careful upon reading if you haven’t seen “Captain America” yet.



The last time I saw a movie based on Captain America, it was the early 1990s and there was a direct-to-video adaptation starring the son of J.D. Salinger in the title role. His mask had rubber ears (for real) and his Nazi arch nemesis the Red Skull was transformed into an Italian douche bag. Needless to say, it was pretty fucking awful.

Now fast forward to 2011, and here we are with “Captain America: The First Avenger”; a big budget adaptation of the classic Marvel icon that serves as a precursor to the eagerly anticipated take on “The Avengers”, which finds Cap uniting with fellow Marvel icons Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johanson), Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) to take on an assortment of baddies. Did this new take on Cap do the character justice? Fucking eh right it did!

First off, let it be known that Cap has for the most part been known as a fairly lame superhero. He’s pretty much Marvel’s version of Superman: a do-gooding boy scout of a superhero and an American propaganda tool at that. Still, despite all that, there was always something about Cap that really got to me even when I was a kid. There’s just something about him that always seemed some kind of badass to me despite his goody-good demeanor and presentation. Thankfully, this new “Captain America” fully illustrated all that and more.

Chris Evans, who has been in a shit ton of comic book movies over the past few years (the two abysmal “Fantastic Four” flicks, “Push”, “The Losers”, “Scott Pilgrim VS The World”) stars as the weakling turned super soldier, who is the very definition of the word hero. He has a never say die attitude and just wants to do the right thing. That in itself is what really puts the “hero” in superhero for Cap, and thankfully director Joe Johnston (“The Wolfman”, “The Rocketeer”) recognizes this in spades.

The film as a whole is a fairly breezy affair, but nevertheless it’s an enjoyable set-up for “The Avengers” and features a fairly good turn by villain extraordinaire Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith from “The Matrix” flicks) as the Red Skull. It isn’t perfect, and it isn’t the best Marvel movie you’ll ever see, but it does the character plenty of justice in the end, and really you can’t ask for much more than that. By the time it comes to an end, it’s the present day and the fateful meeting between Cap and Nick Fury perfectly sets up what’s to come next, which we get a very small dose of after the credits as we see a quick teaser of “The Avengers”. The fact that this film is being made with big-name actors makes me feel like a little kid again; which in itself is no small feat. I can safely say that my usual brand of rampant cynicism isn’t on overdrive here, and yes, next May can’t fucking come soon enough.

So no matter how you may have thought of Captain America as a character, if you’re a Marvel fan in the least you should definitely check out “Captain America: The First Avenger”; it’s a surprisingly fun trip, and it won’t make you gag on over-the-top American ideologies and clichés either.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Shit I've Learned in 27 Years




Just yesterday, July 22, I turned 27 years old. Yes sir, I’m pushing 30…and no one is more surprised that I’ve lived this long than me, thank you very fucking much. Anyway, in my 27 years of life on this Earth, there have been a number of things that I’ve realized over the years, most of which haven’t changed in that time, and probably won’t for the foreseeable future either. So here we are with a list of shit I’ve come to realize in my 27 years of hedonistic existence, so strap yourselves in folks and fucks.

Shit I’ve realized in 27 years:



Pulling out isn’t always the best option

The douche-y jock in high school is still a douche today; he just drives a pickup truck now

There is no better destination for scripted “reality” television and teenage exploitation than MTV, now more than ever

Chewing tobacco is, and always will be, the most trashy and disgusting shit in the history of mankind

It’s never a good idea to light up a sparkler in a meth lab

You can meet all kinds of interesting people in prison

“The Matrix” movies are fucking stupid, especially after you discover all the other films and media the Wachowski Brothers ripped off to create it

Poking holes in your friend’s condom stash with a thumbtack is an awesome prank

Performing “Jackass”-type stunts is always funny

Telling chicks you’re Batman will not get you laid

Telling chicks you know Batman will not get you laid

Calling your car the Batmobile will not get you laid

Using your first name followed by “mobile” (i.e., Nickmobile) to point your car out to a chick will not get you laid

Baby oil and candle wax are a recipe for fucking disaster

Hipsters are new-age beatniks but are nowhere near as cool and are twice as self-indulgent

Just because you’re able to knock stuff off your table with your schlong does not make you special, even if it is fun to do

Not everyone thinks “Beavis & Butt-Head” is funny

People who don’t like “Beavis & Butt-Head” have no sense of humor and take life too seriously

Just because a stripper happens to be a midget does not mean that you can throw quarters or 50-cent pieces at her instead of dollar bills

If it often burns when you pee you should see a doctor and frequent Baby Dolls in Douglassville all the less often

No one thinks I’m funny



Well, that’s all fucks! See y’all in the funnybooks…

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

"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.