Not Giving a Shit About Virtual Reality

Video games are changing.

E3 happed not too long ago, where it appeared that more games were going to begin following the path of VR (specifically the new "Resident Evil" game) and even current consoles are going to be receiving upgraded forms that can handle doing virtual reality shit. I have no clue how this shit works, nor do I care too much.

Now I've said before on here many times, that I'm sitting this console cycle out for the most part. I bought myself a Wii-U because I got it on a super cheap deal (and now I'm one of eight Wii-U owners across the planet, yayyyyyy) and I don't regret that purchase because I've had a shit load of fun with the console believe it or not. PS4 and Xbox One though I've decided to stay away from. I honestly haven't seen too much that's turned my crank as of yet, and part of me thinks I'm not going to either (granted there's a new "King of Fighters" game coming out that I would love to get my hands on, but I digress). VR accessibility doesn't make things any more appealing for me either.

Yeah, I know I sound like an old man here, and I don't care either. I remember when the Wii came out and everyone shit all over the motion controls gimmick; most saying it was just a fad and didn't really add much to the gameplay experience. Well, those people turned out to be right for the most part, and I think VR is more or less in the same vein. The technology itself is amazing, don't get me wrong. Video games have come a long fucking way since the Atari 2600 and all, and it really does seem like the future has arrived.

But ya know what? Fuck the future.

Maybe I've gotten to that age finally where I want to be left in the past as far as video games are concerned. Maybe the more technologically advanced they become, the more alienated I feel. When games started getting all about DLC and microtransactions and milking the fuck out of gamers for every cent that they can get, I started to feel out of touch. Now I feel even more out of touch than ever before. It happens to us all eventually though I guess, so there's that. Maybe I can hook up with other jaded gamers that have no interest in this shit huh?

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.

AVGN and the Bullshit Over GHOSTBUSTERS

About a month or so ago, James Rolfe, AKA the Angry Video Game Nerd, had posted a video explaining why he won't be seeing or reviewing the upcoming "Ghostbusters" remake. Almost immediately, there were a ton of attacks, articles, etc., targeting Rolfe as an anti-feminist and misogynistic pig...which is weird because if anyone would have actually taken the time to watch the video, they'd have seen and heard that the reason Rolfe isn't bothering with the film isn't because of its female-led cast, but because he sees the film for what it really is: a no-imagination reboot that panders to the lowest form of an audience and seeks to cash-in due to brand recognition.

There's been a ton of backlash against the new "Ghostbusters", so much so that its original trailer is the most disliked in the history of YouTube for fuck's sake, but here we are with AVGN getting unjustly shit on by feminazis and feminazi sympathizers. James has been doing his AVGN shtick for over ten years now if you can believe that, in addition to all the other stuff he does on his Cinemassacre site, like movie reviews, let's plays, etc. While his act definitely isn't for everybody, he's always been a lightning rod for views and hits, and he's pretty much the one that started the whole retro video game explosion on YouTube. Pointing the finger at him is the easy thing to do, mostly because he's so well known and revered and that labeling him as an anti-feminist in some shitty blog article is guaranteed to get you at least a few hundred hits.

But hey, that's the world we live in. Throw labels and shit on people and try to start enough hubbub on the internet over it to get support, and there's always going to be at least a handful of brainless morons that will follow you no matter what. I know I sound like an old man here and get the fuck off my lawn and shit, but it's true, and you all know it is too.

James doesn't deserve this, anyone with an opinion doesn't deserve this, and fans of Ghostbusters don't deserve this.

That's right, remember one thing folks: the biggest victims here are fans of Ghostbusters, as they get to see their favorite property get dragged through the mud in the name of making some quick cash.

People Hate "X-Men: Apocalypse" For No Real Reason

"X-Men: Apocalypse" came out last weekend, to a surprising amount of middling reviews from critics and audiences alike. Some of it isn't much of a surprise in all honesty (the X-Men movies have usually wavered in quality ranging from "pretty good" to "pure shit"), but I didn't think "X-Men: Apocalypse" was all that bad. Actually, I thought it was pretty good. It wasn't anything too special, and it wasn't better than the preceding "X-Men: Days of Future Past", but it was pretty good regardless.

Now, in case you haven't noticed by now, it seems any comic book movie not directly from Marvel Studios (yes I know, X-Men is Marvel, but Fox owns the film rights, as they do with Fantastic Four) gets destroyed by critics. How well it does box office-wise is a different story, but critically these movies get savaged. Don't believe me? Look at Rotten Tomatoes; and while you're there, look at the scores for recent Marvel flicks like "Civil War" and "Ant-Man". There's a damn huge difference.

Saying that there's not some kind of bias with critics for anything non-Marvel is saying it lightly. It exists, and we all know it. I watch Marvel movies, and I watch the non-Marvel Studios-produced flicks as well (except Fantastic Four, because I have no desire to whatsoever and never really have). One thing I can tell you is that with "X-Men: Apocalypse", I never felt bored. The stakes legitimately felt high in terms of its story, even if there are plot holes aplenty and non-sensical leaps in logic abound. "Civil War" had some fun moments, but given the gravity of the situation presented in the film's story, the stakes never felt high to me. That however is usually how I feel with all the Marvel movies: there are some genuine shattering events happening, and the stakes just never feel high. Because of that, more often than not, I just get bored to tears. You can shit all over films like "Man of Steel" and "Batman V Superman", but at least the stakes feel high in those films, and one thing they're definitely not is boring.

In terms of the "X-Men" movies though, "Apocalypse" is far from perfect, but it's far from being the piece of shit that everyone is labeling it. I saw some fanboy online saying it "sets superhero movies back 20 years". How do you figure? It does pretty much what every superhero movie does, and it's damn sure better than "X-Men: The Last Stand" or the first Wolverine movie. If X-Men's film rights were owned by Marvel Studios instead of Fox and this movie came out the way it did, everyone would be somehow praising it instead.

In the meantime for you Marvel fanboys that keep your assholes greased up nice for that big fat Marvel cock y'all can't keep off of, try giving something a chance, even if it isn't directly from the studio you all worship.

JOHN CARPENTER RETURNS TO HALLOWEEN?!?!?!?!

Well, this was unexpected.

A few days ago it was announced that the "Halloween" franchise had found a new home between Miramax (well, technically they were an old home too, but I digress) and Blumhouse (who have been behind a shitload of mainstream and micro-budgeted horror dirges of varying quality). What's even more surprising though is that John Carpenter is going to be serving as a producer on the next installment of the franchise. That's right, John fucking Carpenter is returning to the franchise he helped birth.

Now what does this mean exactly?

Well, in all honesty, probably nothing much. The "Halloween" franchise has had its share of ups and downs (mostly downs) and suffered through mid-series reboots, ignored chapters, and a remake (with a sequel) from Rob Zombie that should have never seen the light of day. Other than "Hellraiser" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", the "Halloween" series has gotten fucked over more times than Zack Ryder in WWE (get that? No? Don't watch wrestling? Fuck you!).

Bringing Carpenter into the fold as a producer is probably for the sake of his name if nothing else. Saying the franchise needs a shot in the arm is saying it lightly, and having Carpenter's name at the marquee would do just that. Thing is though, don't expect him to really have much of an impact on the film itself. Carpenter was a "producer" on that abortion of a remake of "The Fog". From out of his own mouth he claimed his job was to occasionally show up on set and say hello. That's not something that really bodes too well is it?

Now, who knows how this new "Halloween" will turn out with an attachment from Carpenter. Apparently it's going to be a sequel to the first two films and completely ignore everything that came after? Who knows? All I know for sure is that it can't be any fucking worse than either of the Rob Zombie movies right?

Why THE WITCH is Wonderful

Spoilers afoot:

I had said some time ago that mainstream hype can kind of kill a horror movie upon release, citing recent horror flicks "The Babadook" and "It Follows" as examples. "The Babadook" was overrated anal waste, while "It Follows" wasn't bad. Now I've finally gotten around to seeing "The Witch", which had quite a bit of more than favorable critical reviews, but for some reason, audiences seemed to hate. Keep in mind that when I say audiences, I mean mainstream audiences.

Now why did mainstream audiences shit all over "The Witch"? Well, probably because it doesn't offer a jump scare every twenty seconds. One thing I've realized from going to see a few horror flicks in theaters (the original "Paranormal Activity" being chief among them) is that mainstream audiences base how they enjoy a horror movie from the number of jump scares they experience. "The Witch" doesn't offer anything of the sort. It's cerebral and doesn't spell anything out for the viewer, which is probably another reason audiences hated it. Audiences seemed to enjoy "The Forest" better, and that movie is a piece of shit for sure, but it offers jump scares and little to no intelligence...just like mainstream movie-going audiences. Yes I know that sounds mean, but y'all know it's true.

Now, I had said that "The Witch" doesn't spell anything out for the viewer, and it doesn't. It doesn't flat out spell on the screen that Black Philip is Satan himself, or that he's giving a contract out at the end of the film in an effort to get the surviving daughter to sell her soul to him, but if you had half a brain, you'd get that. Mainstream audiences need to have every rhyme and reason for anything that happens in a movie to be spelled out and explained to them, because that's what they expect. They don't want to think, they want to turn their brains off and be entertained. Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but when it comes to films that offer a more cerebral experience instead of eye-bleeding CGI effects and pure stupidity, most audiences will rather choose the latter.

Not to mention the fact that this film is surprisingly graphic in its depictions of child death/torment, which for someone like me is quite lovely. It's really nice to see a mainstream-released horror movie not hold back. In fact, I'm really surprised this film had a national run in theaters. Seriously, I'm really fucking surprised.

Now I know I sound like an elitist fuck here in this thing, but when it comes to things like this, I guess I kind of am. I'm also unapologetic about it, so there's that. Regardless, you should really see "The Witch". It's the best mainstream-released horror movie in recent memory, and it now holds a special place in my heart.

Rest in Peace Darwyn Cooke

We've lost Darwyn Cooke. If you're asking yourself who that is, prepare to be educated:

Darwyn Cooke was a comic book artist, known primarily for his work with DC Comics. He first came to my attention when "The New Frontier" series had originally launched. What attracted me to it was Cooke's distinct style: a pseudo-retro design for characters and panels that both at once combined elements of the Golden and Silver Ages of comics, as well as a modern take. His work was truly unique, and in all honesty, something that I was initially put off by. Over time though, Cooke's work grew on me quite a bit, and it wasn't long before I began tracking down as much of his work as I could.

He'd worked in animation (for the animated adaptations of Batman, Superman, and Batman Beyond) and did other comic work on series' and characters including Catwoman, The Spirit, Spider-Man, and more besides. Everything Cooke touched was a thing of beauty from a visual standpoint, and alas, he's been taken from us far, far too soon.

Rest in peace Darwyn Cooke. My thoughts and hopes go out to your family. Your work will live on forever though, of that there is no doubt.

Fuck cancer.

The BLADE RUNNER Sequel That No One Wanted is Coming

....sigh.....

Remember that sequel to "Blade Runner" you were hoping would one day become a reality? Yeah, I don't either.

Either way though, we're getting it, as Ridley Scott continues to mine his past work in a self-destructive/semi-masturbatory way to squeeze some more cash out of classic properties. Unlike with "Prometheus" and the upcoming "Alien: Covenant" (sweet baby Jesus I didn't realize how dumb that title sounds until I just said it out loud), Scott will only be serving as a producer on the "Blade Runner" sequel, which also sees the original film's co-screenwriter Hampton Fancher returning, as well as Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard. The film is set decades after the end of the original, and will apparently answer some questions the first film left unanswered...

...which sounds fucking horrible.

One of the things that always made "Blade Runner" stick out to me was its ambiguity. I like the fact that the film doesn't spell things out for you like nearly every film released for mainstream audiences has the need to do. So I guess we'll get flat out told if Deckard is a replicant or not? Or maybe they'll just have Ryan Gosling (who is starring in the film) do a shitty and needless voiceover narration to explain things that don't need explaining?

The original "Blade Runner" was a victim of studio interference. That's why there's half a dozen different versions/cuts of the film. Considering all that interference and the fact that the film's studio never had that much faith in it to begin with, does it really warrant a follow up? Can't it just be left alone for fuck's sake?

Oh well, at least it's not getting a remake...

...until the sequel bombs terribly and it's decided that it should be rebooted from the ground up because somebody somewhere still thinks they can squeeze some more cash out of it.