For those of you who remember previous iterations of The Axe Factor, things are going to be different now...for better or for worse. I've chosen a few of my favorite posts from the old days to keep and wiped out the rest. From now on there will be all kinds of tidbits on here. You'll find everything from class work to published news that I've done, and I might go old school every once in a while and do reviews/previews and the like. Post about 392W have 392W as a label
Every year it’s the same. On the Friday after Thanksgiving I begin an internal battle. Part of me is thrilled December is a week away, and that means, that Christmas is just around the corner. The holidays mean that I get to go home, see the people I love, enjoy their company, exchange gifts, and celebrate how much we care about each other. The other part of me sulks. It’s the part of me that spends too much time getting a liberal arts education. That part believes that Christmas is a sham. That it’s a holiday cooked up by Coca Cola and Macy’s to milk every last dollar out of the American people before the new year starts. I hate that part, because I know that it has just as valid a point as the happy, family reunion part.
Somehow I always manage to side with the optimist in me, but not without the bitter aftertaste left by all the consumption of stuff. Well I’m tired of that aftertaste. I wanted to know one way or another if Christmas really has wholesome meaning, or if it truly has been lost in the torrent of commercials and jingles that we are drowned in during the last two months of every year.
So I went to the one place where I thought the dark side of Christmas would be strongest: the Yankee Candle, in South Deerfield, MA. I thought the self-proclaimed “World’s Best Christmas Shop” would be the ultimate test of Christmas’ meaning. If it could survive there, where you can’t turn your head without some bright packaging or enticing scent to befuddle your senses, then it had to be alive everywhere else. Here’s what I found.
Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised. To be engulfed by throngs of people all being herded through an endless stream of products, and yet have them articulate that Christmas means more than that, tells me that the advertisers and corporations haven’t won, and that I can put aside my fears about a dying Christmas.
I’m not a religious person, so when I asked people what Christmas meant, I actually wasn’t expecting to hear people tell me that it’s about the birth of Jesus. Looking back, I’m a bit surprised that no one made that kind of comment, but I think it says something else about Christmas. In this day and age, the meaning of Christmas has not only not been lost, but it’s evolved to mean something more than was ever intended.
I think Christmas is a holiday for everybody. I don’t care what your religion is. I don’t even care if you want to call it Christmas. It’s the season of giving, of caring, and of enjoying each other’s company. If you’re like me, it’s easy to lose sight of that, and find yourself distraught at the seemingly unstoppable bombardment of consumption. Just remember that beneath that ugly layer of stuff, stuff, and even more stuff, the true meaning of Christmas is not lost, after all, if it can survive here, it ought to be alive and kicking everywhere else.
I really hate it when Daylight Savings Time ends -- now it will get dark around here at 5:30 PM. I wish they would just leave it on year round. Any reason for us to still do this? Is there any "savings" in an economic view?
-Steven McCauley on byrnerobotics.com forums
This kind of confusion surrounds the issue of Daylight Savings Time. Those who don't like it seem to just simply not get it, while those fighting for it aren't getting the message to those fighting against it. Check out some of these stories which dig up the dirt on DST and Put the arguments for and against it into perspective.
I'm on to bigger and much better things now (Fallout: New Vegas) but before it's too late i wanted to give credit where credit is due. Before starting Vegas, and after completing a most disappointing Force Unleashed 2, I was lucky enough to get my hands on an unexpected little gem called Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions.
I remember the first time I played a Spidey game and thought, "man, this is pretty cool." That was the video game adaptation for the first Spidey movie. So imagine my surprise however many years later when I realized that game was pitiful compared to the new Shattered Dimensions. Now I know what a Spidey video game can really be.
This game departs from the traditional Spider-Man open-world style, which, looking back, really only had the effect of slowing down gameplay. In SM:SD, we find ourselves in extremely linear levels with very obvious goals. But fear not, true believers, this design is a very nice improvement, and it is supplemented with the "Web of Destiny" which adds a nice dimension of pseudo-quests to each level. There are a series of tasks one can complete for points which you can then spend on combat and character upgrades, like increased health and new combos. The more tasks you complete on the web, the more are unlocked. Some of these are completed by simply doing the things you need to do to beat the level, while others require you to use certain moves in combat, complete tasks within a certain time limit, or hit a certain number of enemies with the same attack. While these don't add any new physical dimension to the levels, they make a nice addition for those of us who want a little more out of our game play. There are also a huge amount of collectible spider emblems in the game which restore health and give you more points.
Back to level design. It's a mixed bag. Some of the levels are ingenious and very fun to play, like the lauded Sandman level, or the horrifying Carnage level, while others seem like a very irritating trek through hordes of D-bags to get to the boss. In the end, the levels all come down to how well the boss fight is designed. Again this is a mixed bag. They range from Some of the most excellent battles I've ever played, again like the battle with Sandman, in which he turns into a massive sand vortex and you must defeat him from the inside, to hugely disappointing, like the Deadpool fight, which I found to be less than impressive. The fights and levels entertainment value depends on how each different Spidey (there are 4 of them) uses their special abilities. In Noir we see a lot of stealth, which I actually enjoyed, though many have complained about. In Ultimate we get to use the Black Suits rage mode which is very cool and lets you effortlessly slice through swaths of enemies. In 2099 we have the acceleration mode which slows down time to let you dodge missiles and objects during the supremely well done free fall sequences. In amazing we just see Spidey doing what Spidey can, and it works out well.\
Check out this gameplay footage from the Sandman Level:
As far as the nitty gritty goes, the graphics aren't amazing, but they do a good job making each universe feel unique. The sound is a major downside. While traditional thwacks and pows might get some nerds hearts beating, they get very repetitive, as does the in game dialogue between Spidey and his nemeses. And Stan Lee, I love you, but your bit is getting very tiring. As the rightchief narrator for the games cut-scenes, Stan's voice work is just not that compelling, though some of the other voice talent including Neil Patrick Harris, is pretty good.
Lastly there is plenty of replay value here. With the web of destiny alone, there is a reason to go back and try and beat the game again, not to mention three different difficulty levels, and ranking systems on the levels so you can strive for the coveted gold medal. There are plenty of trophies/achievements to go around for those of you who like that sort of thing.
SM:SD was a short fun experience which should make Spidey fans happy while they wait for the Spidey reboot and inevitable game that comes with it. If you want to play a game you can beat in a week and have some fun with, check it out. Don't expect a great story, but do expect some fun gameplay.
Do you know what it means when 200,000 people care enough about an issue to get out of their homes at the same time from around the world and all go support something? Not to mention 200,000 Americans, who, in general, are so used to having access to so many things within the comfort of their own homes that it seems unnecessary to go out.
It means that whatever is going on is important.
It means that people are fed up enough with the state of American government that they feel each and every one of their presences at this event will make a difference. And if that many people think this is an important issue, why are the only people who are listening two comedians?
McKenzie seems to think that it’s a good thing that Stewart and Colbert managed to pull this together, but she and many others are missing what’s written in between the lines here. Stewart and Colbert were the ones who did this, because no political figure could, or cared enough to. Nobody in politics is in touch enough with the American people to realize that the insanity and confusion needs to end. That it’s driving people crazy.
What does it say about America when the only people who can get people to turn out for an event, or who care enough to try, are two stand up comedians, who are going to see their ratings skyrocket for this stunt? It says the American people afford more respect to their entertainers than to their politicians, and it says that our politicians are not aware of what America is feeling.
Imagine what might have happened if, rather than Colbert or Stewart, two politicians had gotten behind this rally. Imagine if Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid had realized how America felt, and reached across party lines to rally behind sanity and what is best for the American people.
Stewart’s and Colbert’s rally has already begun to affect some small amount of change among journalists. According to Politico.com, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC has removed the “Worst Person in the World” segment of his show, after it was criticized at the Rally. Imagine what kinds of changes might be affected if two politicians rallied together and started naming names, and criticizing bad policies.
Cheer for the Rally to Restore Sanity if you want, but don’t forget to weep for what it truly represents at the same time.
This year almost every political race has some intriguing element. Whether it's vicious biting attack ads and wildly untrue accusations or the potential to drastically change the political landscape, these mid-term elections have become a truly tumultuous affair.
While the eye of the nation seems to be focused on some of the more deciding or outrageous examples, I think we are having a very interesting race right here in Massachusetts.
Nobody has forgotten the impressive upset victory of Senator Scott Brown, who replaced the late senator Edward Kennedy, and the question on my mind, and I would imagine the minds of many others, is will this happen again? Unfortunately I can't get out to vote today. I'm registered in NY and have already cast my absentee ballot, but I am following this race very closely.
Massachusetts is not usually one of the states that people focus on because it tends to be staunchly blue. However Scott Brown's win signals a potential shift in voting patterns, and shows us that discontented Republicans and Independents may once again flock to the polls in order to topple the norm.
The Boston globe today said that Democrats are going as far as to adopt a risky campaign strategy in order to increase turnout. They are campaigning in typically republican areas in order to bring out more voters, which they think, in the end will work in their favor. This move has the possibility to bring out both more Republican voters, and also voters who favor a local democrat, but not the party standard bearer, governor Deval Patrick. A risky play like this says that democrats are feeling pressed to take action outside their comfort zone of Urban areas, and may make for some very interesting campaign results. I'll be keeping my eye on it.
I really desperately want to break the trend of bad reviews this game has been getting, because after all, I did enjoy it. My love for Star Wars gives me the ability to enjoy even the worst content Lucasfilm/Arts/Books/etc. puts out, and this is by no means the worst, but my point is that if you don't love Star Wars there is little reason to buy game.
Because I love Star Wars, and want to give the game credit where it deserves it, I'll start with the good. The visuals in SW:TFU2 are truly stunning. Lucas once again proves that he has created easily the prettiest, shiniest, and highest definition science fiction universe ever. The animations are smooth, and the worlds are very real. Every particle effect is brilliant and the force looks cooler and more powerful than ever in the hands of our hero, Starkiller. Facial expressions look very human, and the detail put in to making Starkiller and Kota come alive is astounding. Other reviewers have said it, and I agree, that this is one of the best looking games I've played.
Also worthy of note is that, in typical Star Wars fashion, the audio work is spectacular. From our favorite familiar tunes and some new ones, to the sounds of battle, your ears will always be in the game. The voice acting, combined with the aforementioned attention to detail in facial expressions and character designs really makes it a true Star Wars experience. See the video below:
Unfortunately, no matter how glossy the coat of paint, the remainder of the experience falls somewhat short. I bought the game last night, and started playing it at 9:00PM. I was finished by 1:30AM. For those of you who have trouble with math, that's a 4 hour 30 minute run time. Granted I played it through on easy so I could get the story, but even so, thats a disturbingly short game.
During most of that time I found myself endlessly cutting through swaths of enemies with very little variety in order to get to the next cutscene, boss fight, free fall, or button mash sequence, which, in all fairness, are pretty cool when you get to them. The problem is, those sequences make up less than a quarter of the playtime, so most of the time it's just hack and slash. The levels feel needlessly drawn out for the sole purpose of extending playtime, though at least they look good enough to keep you hypnotized by the environment while you cut through the ranks. The Boss fights (all 3 of them) are neat, and epic, but overall pretty simple and repetetive. You fight the big Gorog from the trailer, a big droid, and (SPOILER) Darth Vader...Raise your hand if you're shocked. The free fall sequences are a nice touch, though I'm glad they only had three of them, as they, like much of the rest of the game, are fairly repetetive.
Combat is nearly identical to the original game, with the interesting new power mind trick, which is rarely useful, though rather amusing. The enemies are all very simple to kill. You either hack/force them to bits or only hack them to bits, or only force them to bits.
And now we come to it. The story. Even with all the bad parts, you'd still expect the story to hold up, right? Well, it's a mixed bag. I liked it overall. I'll give you a rundown.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
Darth Vader is trying to clone Starkiller on Kamino. He tells you that you are the latest attempt, but that the process is imperfect. You have a vision of Vader killing the original, freak out and run away. You go get Kota because you've had visions of him and you think he can lead you to Juno (your sweety from game 1) who you've also had visions of. You get Kota who tells you Jedi can't be cloned and that you must in fact be the real Starkiller. Meanwhile Vader sends Boba Fett to capture Juno. You go to Dagobah and do some crap in the Dark Side Cave where you have more visions of yourself and Juno. Yoda is there. Just as you are about to reunite with her, the rebel fleet is attacked and Juno is captured by Fett. Jerk. You and Kota and the rebel fleet chase Fett and the Imperials to Kamino where there's a space fight and you crash a ship into a Kamino city. Kota tries to get you to stay with the army and help destroy the Imperials on Kamino, but you say you only care about Juno, so you chase her down. You kill a bunch of dudes then have some visions, then confront Vader, who runs away from you while simultaneously releasing clone versions of you for you to fight. Wimp. He escapes, sort of. You chase him into a room where he has Juno, and he tells you he'll kill her if you don't submit to him. You do so, he lets her go, and she tries to kill him. He force throws her through a window. That pisses you off so you pummel him and then have the option to either be good or evil, which comes down to a single button press, unlike in the first game where this choice determined who you fought for the final boss. If your good, the alliance captures Vader, Juno is alive, you kiss, and the game ends with you still being unsure of whether or not you're a clone, and Fett following you into space. If your bad, another clone of you comes up behind you, kills you, kills the Rebel alliance, and Juno is dead.
END SPOILER
The story is decent. Not good, and not bad. It's very disappointing that we don't get clarification on the main mystery of the game. But at least it wraps up the the Juno thing pretty well, and reunites us with favorites like PROXY and Kota from TFU1. It's a cool adventure over all, and definitely intriguing, but unlike the original, it does very little to affect how we perceive the events of the original or prequel trilogies unlike the first game which dropped a very well done bomb on the Universe, and explained how the alliance was formed. For the most part it serves in a similar manner to the Empire Strikes Back, in that it is mostly just a connector between part one and the inevitable part three. That's OK with me, because now I know what the intent of these games are. They're not supposed to just be Episode 3.5, but rather a whole new stand alone trilogy within the 6 episodes. My other big disappointment was that characters like Yoda and Boba Fett, which were made out to be important in the trailers, served only as cameos, though I would bet money that we get to fight Fett in the third game.
Overall I enjoyed the experience, though only because I am a Star Wars fan. If I wasn't, this would have been a real waste of money. For those of you interested in the game I have two pieces of advice:
1) Make sure you played the original first, as you will be lost otherwise, and
2) Rent it rather than buy it if you can.
You can literally beat this game in an afternoon, and it's simply not worth $50. The story is OK, but not OK enough to excuse the other bad aspects of the game. Honestly, with all the work they put into sound, acting, and visuals, this would have made an awesome feature length CGI movie.
Today I was sitting in my room reading the latest issue of GameInformer, and something in the issue really hit home for me.
It was intended to be a humorous article, as the lovely folks at GI often publish, but much of it actually rings true. It's essentially a flow chart of what they refer to as "every RPG ever." I would title it more accurately "every JRPG ever."
Though much of the flow chart is supposed to be funny, the unfortunate fact is that most of it is true, and most of it applies to every JRPG I've ever played.
It's always Amnesia followed by a ritual, followed by some sort of devastating reason to set out on a journey, followed by a Boss you will probably encounter again later, followed by many hours of grinding and acquiring new crap, followed by massive plot twist, followed by more grinding and finishing up sidequests, followed by a seemingly endless final boss sequence.
Seeing this all laid out in front of me brought me to the epiphany that I actually hate JRPGs. I started thinking about the countless hours I've spent in front of them over the years, and I realized that the only JRPG I ever finished was the Final Fantasy III remake for NDS. And that took me a year. I really forced myself to finish that game.
Then I thought about the JRPGs I never finished:
Final Fantasy 1&2 - GBA
Final Fantasy 4 - NDS
Rogue Galaxy - PS2
DQM: Joker - NDS
Final Fantasy 10 - PS2
Final Fantasy 7 - PS
Tales of Symphonia - GCN
and most recently Final Fantasy 13 - PS3.
Then I thought about my overall RPG experience over the years, and all the games I've loved and completed.
Icewind Dale 2 - PC
Diablo - PS
Diablo 2 - PC
Baldur's Gate + Expansions - PC
Baldur's Gate - PS2
X-Men Legends 2 - PS2
Marvel Ultimate Alliance - PS2
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 - PS3
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 1 & 2 - PC
The Elder Scrolls 4 Oblivion - PC
Mass Effect - PC
and my absolute favorite RPG of all time: Neverwinter Nights, which I just started a new game on after almost 10 years of playing it.
Notice anything? NO JRPGs on my completed list. It's not manufactured. It's the truth. I always go buy these "critically acclaimed," or classic JRPGs because I feel like I should like them. And I'll admit that they can be temporarily entertaining, but in retrospect, the sheer unoriginality of them makes me realize that there is very little fresh gaming to be done in JRPGs. The RPGs I've completed and love strive to break from the norms of JRPGs by providing deeper plots, more meaningful choices, and more colorful characters. JRPGs are just rehashed content and the same plot over and over again with a new coat of paint. Well I say f*** 'em. I'm going in tomorrow and trading in my copy of DQ IX, and I don't think I will ever get another JRPG again.
These types of stories are always interesting to me. It’s the type of writing I most enjoy doing, because it essentially boils down to storytelling, and since the story being told is one that centers around the tellers experience, the demand for certain journalistic norms like objectivity, neutrality, and specific formula are nearly non-existent. You can really write whatever you want to say about the topic, and you don’t even have to necessarily worry about staying within the confines of common decency, as can be seen in Scott Brodeur’s piece about Joe Lieberman, which is essentially a story about two men peeing.
What I think is important to note is that the newsworthiness of these types of stories often varies a lot from the majority of hard news. For example in the Lieberman story the newsworthiness essentially comes from the novelty of seeing a famous politician in a rest area bathroom, and the fact that it’s a famous politician. In the “Sucking Up” article, the newsworthiness seems to come almost strictly from the emotional proximity the author’s scenario might have to other people. One commonality here is that the newsworthiness for these articles is more about what is newsworthy for the author than what is newsworthy for the reader.
Yet somehow I still find myself interested in reading them. Like I said, I really enjoy first person journalism, but on another level, I’m glad the majority of professional journalism isn’t written in the first person, because I think it has the affect of really detracting from important issues, and discussions of societal trends in favor of gossipy sort of pseudoinformation.
I know he represents the Springfield area in the United States Congress. I know he has been a grade school teacher in the past, and is a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. And I know his history of supporting his constituents, their city, and their various causes, has made him well liked as a politician.
But I don’t think I really know who he is.
Last year I took a class with him: the Journalist and the Politician. Great class. I highly recommend it to anyone looking to go into either field. It gives Journalists an idea of what to expect when dealing with politicians, as well as giving people looking to go into politics an idea of how to handle us pesky journalists.
If there’s one thing I took away from that class, it’s that if you want to make it in either politics or journalism, you have to learn how to, in Neal’s own words, “play the game.”
Neal is a real master of this. To him, playing the game is really about putting on the politician mask, and never taking it off until you absolutely know you’re away from prying eyes. You can see this in both his teaching style, and how he handles himself during an interview.
A couple weeks ago I got to do an interview with Neal over the phone. We talked about Springfield’s Magnet Schools Assistance Program. He and Senator Kerry had worked to get this money to support Springfield’s minority students. This is what he said when I asked him why the investment was personally important to him:
“I think it augments 21st century global communication skills, and I think it emphasizes heavily what the new economy looks like. As a former teacher I think assisting these children … is just a good idea and it should be treated as an investment.”
If that’s not a cookie cutter response taken right out of some speech or press release I don’t know what is. I didn’t ask him for that; I asked him why it was personally important.
I remember getting responses like this in his class. Somebody would ask about how he felt about something, or how he would have reacted in a situation, and the response we would get was always like reading out of a textbook. You couldn’t get the guy to tell how he really felt about anything. Any anecdotes he gave were always about times when he won or did something exemplary as a politician.
Later in the interview I tried to get him to open up again. I asked him how he would like to see the money spent. That’s not even a very prying question. He said:
“I really refrain from that. I think the partnership is based upon the priorities that are determined by local officials, with the understanding that having children that excel is something good for America.”
How patriotic, and how very political.
It’s stuff like this that makes it very difficult for me to figure out who he is. He’s a great politician, and a very informative and interesting professor. But I wish I understood him a little better. I guess it all comes back to playing the game though. He’s better at it than most I think. Certainly better than me.
Here's a link to the audio from my interview with Neal:
I think my favorite part of this project so far was the article about the anti-bullying task force by Heikkinen. It was the first one in the series that showed me that something real is being done to affect change in South Hadley Schools. That's something I had not seen before. Most of the coverage up until now has been highly critical of every aspect of the school leading up to and immediately following the case.
Because of that I also think that this project serves a community service purpose. Rather than focus on the conflict and try to determine who was wrong and how to punish everyone, Steve Fox' class is framing this story on a civic level. They are focusing on the community and on the steps being taken to rebuild and restructure. On top of that, they are taking their coverage of the situation and putting in context. They have other articles citing other suicides and what they have been related too. They talk about bullying related to everything from homosexuality to food allergies. I think it's an important part of processing something like this to have it placed within the context of a larger national or global trend.
Having said all of this, I should say that I am a bit concerned that some of the articles are rather shallow. While they have covered many issues, they have rarely been able to dig into them. I would imagine that has a lot to do with being inexperienced or being a college student, but as the project progresses I would like to see more thorough investigation.
CNN’s political ticker may be my favorite news entity to follow on twitter. One thing I like about it is that it really enables me to make rash judgments about beat style news without considering implications or delving into the issue at all.
I’m actually being serious. For example today the political ticker tweeted “Gingrich advice to GOP: Hammer foodstamps.” Instantly I was furious. I thought, that goddam Newt Gingrch always making life harder for those who already have it tough. Somebody oughta…etc. That was all before I even clicked on the article link, which I won’t get into.
My point is that twitter serves as an excellent outlet for me to sit down and stop being so academic all the time. Look, in a journalism class we all boast about how we like a good in depth story that really delves into an issue. If that’s true, that’s great, but honestly I can’t think of a single time I’ve picked up the Times and read more than two articles (unless I’m really trying). I spend so much time analyzing the hell out of everything in class all day that it can be really refreshing for me to sit down in front of twitter and experience knee jerk reactions to incomplete stories. If you don’t know what I’m talking about try it sometime. I think you’ll agree.
Well week two of Dancing with the Stars is over, and another contestant has been voted off the stage. To anyone who watched, it was really no surprise at all.
Michael Bolton delivered quite possibly the worst performance the show has ever seen. In fact the shows most flamboyant, and typically most enthusiastic, judge Bruno Tonioli said it was “probably the worst” in the shows 11 seasons, according to this Hollywood Reporter article.
While Bruno’s criticism was a bit harsh, he hit the nail on the head. The routine was barely passable, and completely unwatchable. That should be evident from the four seconds of it seen in this clip, in which we see extremely poor footwork, and dancing that only your weird uncle who’s drunk at your wedding could get away with…and everybody would talk about what a fool he made out of himself afterwards…
Bolton only got 12 out of the 30 possible points. He followed the elimination last week of David Hasselhoff, who performed almost as badly. Hasselhoff was able to secure 15 points.
This was a very entertaining series of assignments for me, mostly because this is the kind of stuff I already love to do anyway, so I got to just have fun with my hobby and hand it in for course credit. Hard to argue with that. My absolute favorite type of interview has always been face to face. Unfortunately I didn’t get to do that for any of these assignments, but it was still a good experience.
One thing I liked about these Q & As was that they illustrate very well something we were told about in Journalism 300, but were never really given a good chance to experience. I’m referring to the idea that the face to face interview is the best way to conduct an interview, followed by video chat (like Skype), then by phone, then by back and forth email, and finally by a one shot email. In 300, most of our assignments came in the form of pre-constructed scenarios in which we were given data, facts, and quotes, and told to turn it into a story. Then towards the end we were given two big assignments: the feature and the court feature, and we were simply instructed to do them. Most people did face to face interviews. But never during the semester were we given sequential assignments like this which offer the opportunity to compare different styles and really get a feel for the difference.
Having said that, I think the most challenging style for me was the back and forth email. I can see how it has obvious benefits over the one shot email as it allows you to ask follow up questions, but it was made harder by the fact that I was working on deadline (as we so often are in journalism). See with the one shot email it was simple. I called up my friend, asked her if it would be alright if I sent her some questions to answer, she agreed, and sent them back the next day. I did that two days before the assignment was due. But in the back and forth email, I had to make sure my friend Scott would reply to me in time meaning I couldn’t wait to a day before deadline, because what if he didn’t respond fast enough. Furthermore with the ability to follow up, it becomes easier to get sidetracked, and often becomes a much longer interview than initially intended. Those two factors signify a much greater time commitment, and make for a more stressful situation overall.
As for editing, I was lucky enough not to have to do very much. Richard Neal is a fairly eloquent human being, and I felt that whatever grammatical errors he made did more to add a human element to the interview than detract from it.
Richard Neal is the congressional representative from Springfield, Massachusetts. He and Senator John Kerry recently succeeded in securing nearly 12 million dollars in federal money from the Magnet Schools Assistance Program to go towards Springfield Public Schools. I was able to reach the congressman by phone just as he was landing from a flight to Springfield from D.C. He agreed to do a brief Q & A about the grant.
Q: Can you tell me a little bit about the program first just so I can get some background on it?
A: Well, it's under the magnet schools assistance program, and Springfield's had a long and successful history of effectively utilizing these investments. The department of education at the United States level has worked on this for more than fifteen years, so I think that there's substantial evidence here that this improves opportunities for many of the children that are in the Springfield School system.
Q: And can you tell me why this investment is important to you personally?
A: Because I think it augments 21st century global communication skills, and I think that it emphasizes heavily what the new economy looks like. As a former teacher I think assisting these children in Springfield's public schools is just a good idea and it should be treated as an investment, and that's precisely what we're suggesting.
Q: Why do you think Springfield is the right school district for this kind of investment?
A: Well, I think Springfield represents a great laboratory with which to experiment and I think that this is an opportunity for that experiment; taking these students with advanced skills into the new decade. There is here, I think, an understanding that many of the children who might find themselves disadvantaged, none the less, have ample opportunity based upon the assistance that this magnet school proposal is offering t give them the sort of skills they're going to need down the road.
Q: And do other school districts in Mass. have this sort of funding?
A: I believe that Boston would have the same sort of opportunity, as they've had in the past, but we have done very well here over the last few years, based upon this suggestion that there is a partnership with the federal government that allows our students to learn and to grow.
Q: How do you go about securing this money?
A: Well, there are a variety of ways. We're generally called upon to do a little bit of lobbying behind the scenes including through the grant application. We assist the respective school department officials as they raise questions or have questions, and in the past we've helped them get right to the deadline in making sure that it was packaged and applied for at the right time. Now it's done electronically so that we assist them even at this stage.
Q: Can you comment on any of the initiatives? Do you know about how the schools are going to be using the money?
A: Well there's great flexibility that's built in and I think there are going to be an array of choices for students and their parents according to Dr. Ingram [NOTE: the Superintendent] who has been a terrific and, I think, effective advocate on behalf of these children.
Q: Have you thought about how you personally would like to see the money spent?
A: I mean, I really refrain from that. I think the partnership is based upon the priorities that are determined by local officials, with the understanding that having children that excel is something good for America.
EDITORS NOTE: A magnet school is type of education system which sets up different schools which target different types of learning and have highly specialized courses. For example in Springfield they have one school oriented towards fine arts, and one oriented towards science and technology, among others. Also, the Magnet Schools Assistance Program is designed to help draw minority students into this type of educational environment.
Finally, this interview was part of a spot I wrote for WFCR about the MSAP on Friday the 24th. for the full piece, featuring a clip from the interview, click here
What a well done show. I think DWTS is my guiltiest pleasure when it comes to TV watching. From the opening performance featuring Santana, a favorite of mine, I was instantly hooked.
I don't know what it is, but the show is somehow able to keep me hooked. I don’t even really like dance so much, but I think it’s a combination of the completely star-studded nature of the whole affair and the biting and flamboyant commentary on the part of the judges. I love to hate them when they bash people I like, and love them when they bash people I hate.
Anybody who didn’t see the show, I would highly recommend looking up the clip of Santana and India Arie doing “While My Guitar Gently Weeps.” I think this was my favorite part of tonight’s show. This is such an excellent classic rock ballad, and oh God, Santana is just so spectacular at it. India Arie has an amazing voice as well and with the exception of the rendition performed at the concert for George Harrison, I think this is the best this song has been.
This is a picture from a New York Times article out today called “Afghan Boys Are Prized, So Girls Live the Part.” I read it in this morning’s Times and I found this picture to be a very interesting symbol of the both the story’s message, and the issue at hand.
The piece is about a phenomenon, which occurs in Afghanistan in which families who bear no sons will often choose one of their daughters to dress up and raise as a boy. It was an extremely well written feature, which I felt was prize winning material. Among other things the story details the social and cultural pressure on these families and young girls, the varying degrees of success these attempts at transformation achieve, and the frequent emotional stress inflicted upon these “bacha posh,” an Afghan expression meaning “dressed as boy,” when they are told it is time to go back to being a girl, typically around the age of puberty.
The reason I was drawn to this picture is because it illustrates the reality of the culture surrounding Afghan children. It shows three girls, all sisters. On the right the two girls are sitting, dressed in matching “girly” outfits. On the left the girl, Mehran, wears a decidedly male outfit, and stands separate from the other girls. Her hair is cropped short, and while she definitely looks like a boy, something in her face, perhaps the positioning of her hand so similar to the other girls, shows that she is still one of them. I see the standing and separation as signs of the males’ superiority in the culture.
I highly recommend the article. I found it compelling and it made me want to reach out to those who do not experience the same degrees of equality we do in America.
This is the first of my past work I'm putting up here. I did this piece over the summer in August (2010). It's a feature story with Leonard Nimoy about his most recent photography exhibit at MassMOCA. I interviewed him at a gallery in Northampton, MA. Wish I could get the player to work. Anyway, here's the link!
Scott Maxson is a Junior at UMass Amherst and a Resident Assistant in Washington Tower. I knew Scott was involved in something called Parkour, but I didn't know much about it, so I asked him if he would be willing to answer some questions. It proved to be an enlightening and at times hilarious (as I think you'll find) conversation. Here's what he told me.
Q: Tell me a little bit about what Parkour is?
A: Parkour is the art of getting from point A to point B as efficiently as possible given only the human body. So if I had to get from one side of a wall to another side of a wall, rather than walk all the way around the wall, I would just climb up the wall and go over it. It has evolved into a discipline almost like a martial art, in that by training you can make your mind and body capable of more effective ways of overcoming obstacles.
Q: Are you part of a group that does Parkour? If so tell me a bit about them.
A: I am a member and the treasurer of UMass Parkour. The club meets twice a week. We don’t just do Parkour. There’s this other similar art called free running which is less about efficiency, and more about flashy things like flips. We have about 60 members.
Q: Before, you compared Parkour to a martial art. In many martial arts there are symbols like belts which signify your skill level. How, if at all, is skill level measured or signified in Parkour?
A: It’s nearly impossible to measure Parkour level quantitatively. In martial arts you can do it because knowledge of specific moves or katas signifies your rank. For Parkour what you learn is much less concrete. It’s more about figuring out your body. There are certain techniques that we teach, but in the end what it comes down is how capable you are of moving your body to adapt to the situation. It’s pretty much a qualitative judgment. It’s also different for each person because our own bodies and physical conditions vary so strongly. What is an impressive feat for one person might be more or less so for someone else given different strengths, weaknesses, or handicaps.
Q: Is it dangerous?
A: It depends. Anything can be dangerous. If you push yourself too far, and start doing things like jumps that are very far outside your development, sure it can be dangerous. But with enough training what may have been dangerous once, will become less dangerous.
Q: How would you qualify your own Parkour skill level?
A: I would say I’m an experienced practitioner, but I still have a long way to go. There’s no end point to the journey unless you can somehow manage to reach some level of mental and physical enlightenment that gives you perfect form no matter what the situation is. That would be cool. I guess that’s the goal. Personally I think I’m capable, and certainly better than I was at first.
Q: Think of the most epic awesome Parkour experience you’ve ever had personally. Now try describing it for me in detail.
A: Well there’s some stuff that means a lot to me, because I’ve worked up to it, but one of my favorite stories to tell is a little off color. It wasn’t part of any organized Parkour activity, but I was able to do what I did because of my Parkour training. What happened was, I was streaking through this town at night in the middle of winter. Don’t ask why. Anyway this cop car came up and the guy got out and told me to stop running and stay still. I figured I could probably outrun him, so I started booking it down this road. Turns out this cop was faster than I gave him credit for, and he was chasing me down. There was this fence up ahead that I knew would throw him off because there was a 15 foot drop on the other side. So I hopped it and rolled out on the other side. Rolling is big in Parkour. I remember he looked so dumbfounded up on top of the drop. He kept telling me to stop and I was like “nope!” I ran into the woods and hopped up in this tree. I’m not sure what happened but after a little while these lights started shining round the woods and the cops were searching for me. I remember I was sitting butt naked up in a tree in the middle of a winter night as these cops were passing right below me. Anyway I didn’t get caught, but it was pretty intense.
Since I already have a twitter, this was kind of interesting. I was already following most of the people or groups I thought would be fun, but I added a few more, so here it goes.
The first person I added was Simon Pegg. He popped up as a verified account on people to follow sidebar, and he's hilarious, so I went for it. For those of you who don't know, he's an actor who usually portrays some ridiculous or funny British man.
Next I realized I'm not following any sports teams, or personalities, and I thought that was a bit remiss so I added the Major League Soccer Insider, the NY Red Bulls, and the NY Mets. I tried to find a legit looking NY Giants page, but had no luck. If anybody wants to recommend one I'd appreciate it.
Then I found Wil Wheaton. I had to follow him. He was the actor who portrayed Wesley Crusher in Star Trek the Next Generation. I had heard he had sort of a cult following, and since I'm already following Brent Spiner (Data) and Leonard Nimoy (Spock from the original series) I figured I'd add him to that list.
After that I followed Twitter, because I figured that might come in handy if there are any major changes or additions to the site.
Lastly I added Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer. They're two of my favorite anchors, and I have a sort of CNN trend going now because I already subscribe to CNNBRK, which is there breaking news page.
Most of these are for entertainment purposes, with the exception of the sports ones and the last two. Those I'll use for news. Following celebrities can be a mixed bag. Some of them are twitter crazy, others never use it, and still others use it so sporadically that it can be really frustrating to follow them. Wil Wheaton and Simon Pegg look like that won't be an issue.
June Hart is a graduate student in the Environmental Conservation department here at UMass. We have known each other since high school and over the course of the last five years she has told me about her experiences growing up in a variety of places. One of her most memorable was Egypt where she lived from the ages of 8 to 10. She has also lived in Burundi, Brazil, and in a couple of different states. She agreed to tell me about some of her more memorable moments in Egypt.
BA: Tell me about some of your memories from Egypt.
JH: We did all sorts of things. Camel riding, visiting the great pyramids, snorkeling in the Red Sea. It was an incredibly unique place with an interesting culture and environment. I’ll always remember the sandstorms too. They can be really dangerous, but they were kind of fun to experience…from a safe place.
BA: Why were you in Egypt?
JH: My dad is an international business consultant, which basically means he’s an economist but he focuses on working with trade organizations. It was a U.S. government job. I was just along for the ride. I went to an American school there.
BA: What was daily life like in Egypt? How was it different from your life in the U.S?
JH: We never had school on Fridays, but we did on Sundays. That was because Friday is the Muslim Holy day. Several times a day you would hear prayers going on. It was part of their routine. The people would stop whatever they were doing, set up their prayer mats, face East, and do this prayer. I had a nanny who would do this named Aziza. Another unique thing was that there were armed guards everywhere. They were like our police, except they were with the military and carried loaded rifles.
BA: Did you do any sightseeing while you lived there and if so tell me a bit about it.
JH: We went to see the Pyramids. You could ride horses up to them or take guided tours inside. At that point you could get really close to them, but you couldn’t climb on them. You could go inside of a few of them. I’m not sure how close you can get to them anymore. But I remember going inside was kind of neat. It was really dark and creepy and there were mice scurrying around. I remember thinking “Why would they build all this just to rot in?” Some of the tombs were really interesting though. They had some artifacts like pottery and figurines in them, though most of the stuff had been removed to museums. The tour guide taught me how to read hieroglyphs.
BA: Was there anything else about your time in Egypt that stands out in your memories?
JH: There were really relaxing felucca tours. Those are Egyptian sailing boats that toured the Nile. They would go through some of the more commercial areas, but also through some really cool locations where we would sail through papyrus stalks. I remember the guide teaching us how to make paper, but I don’t remember the process. I still have this bejeweled regal black cat painting on papyrus.
NOTE: This interview was conducted via email on September 11th through September 13th.
Hi everyone. I hope you all had a great first week back. Mine was really busy. Anyway, I’m a Junior Journalism major, and I took this course because it seemed like a logical choice. At some point during every Journalism class I’ve taken the professor has made some comment about how the internet is the future of journalism. I’ve heard over and over again how print news will become obsolete and replaced by online news almost entirely. I figured it would be helpful to get a firm grounding in online news since there are probably more available jobs online than there are in print, radio, and TV combined. Furthermore, I would like to get an internship with a larger news group next summer (I’m currently working with WFCR), so I figure online experience can’t hurt.
Editors note: The following post was written by Dan Petrelli, a fellow nerd, good friend, and new contributor to the Axe Factor. Enjoy.
In case you hadn't heard, there's a Hobbit film due out for 2012.
This is old news, but still worth getting excited about. If I had a buddy who was in a coma for the past ten years and who upon waking wanted to know what the most important movies of the 2000s were, I'd show him the Lord of the Rings trilogy first. The LOTR films were, at least in my mind, the biggest movie event of the last decade. Then again, it doesn't hurt that I'm a huge fan of both the books and the films (they are two different entities, for those of you who haven't read 'em). But fans and non-fans alike loved these movies, because they were awesome. Great acting, great effects, great costumes, great sets.
So an incoming Hobbit film should be a source for excitment. After all, The Hobbit was the original story. Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings later, as a kind of greatly-expanding sequel. Characters like Gollum and Gandalf are still around. And for those confused by the elaborate and intricate scope of the other films, The Hobbit is simpler and should make for a much more straightforward, coherent watch. And hey...more Lord of the Rings! Should be good enough for anyone.
That said, not everything is looking rosy. The biggest issues of concern are that the original director, Peter Jackson, isn't directing. Wtf? He's producing, sure, but due to a number of legal squibbles surrounding the original trilogy, he didn't sign up to direct. Something about never directing for New Line again. And switching directors mid-franchise seldom works out (X-Men 3?).
Things that don't look good
• New Director: Guillermo Del Toro
At first glance, Del Toro seems like a decent choice. He hasn't done much, but Pan's Labyrinth was good, and it was a fantasy movie, and his Hellboy movies incorporate some fantasy elements. But wait! The guy doesn't even like Lord of the Rings! Check this interview out from 2006:
Hey, what? Who the fuck hired this guy? Sure buddy, you hate Lord of the Rings...because Hellboy was better. Oh, come on. So I think having a director that doesn't actually like Tolkien qualifies as an area of concern. Of course, after he was attached, he changed his song quickly and started talking about how when he re-read the books, he really liked them, blah blah blah, bullshit bullshit. The internet doesn't forget, my friend.
• Two Movies
Actually, at first this looked sweet. When they originally announced The Hobbit, they mentioned a mysterious "second film" that would cover "other events" and lead into Fellowship. Later, Jackson leaked a little of what this second film was going to be...
Jackson, 2006: "There [are] a lot of sections [in The Hobbit] in which a character like Gandalf disappears for a while. From memory – I mean, I haven't read it for a while now – but I think he references going off to meet with the White Council, who are actually characters like Galadriel and Saruman and people who we see in Lord of the Rings. He mysteriously vanishes for a while and then comes back, but we don't really know what goes on."
I'll tell you what's going on. In the background of The Hobbit, The White Council (like he said, Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, Galadriel, Cirdan) launches an attack on a shadowy figure calling himself The Necromancer, who has set up shop in Mirkwood (the woods Legolas is from) and has been up to no good. In fact, directly prior to the events of The Hobbit, Gandalf is undercover in the dungeons of the Necromancer trying to find clues of who he really is. Instead of finding out, he discovers an old dwarf, Thrain II, who has a treasure map that shows the location of the lost Arkenstone. Gandalf puts together a party of dwarves to go recover their lost stone, and Bilbo Baggins (the uncle of Frodo Baggins, who gives him the ring in the beginning of Fellowship) gets brought reluctantly along. With one expedition set up, Gandalf reports his findings to the White Council, and they debate over what to do. They decide to attack, and in doing so discover that The Necromancer is actually SAURON, or some shadow of him. They expel him, but know that another war is coming. So basically, we get all the coolest characters (and some of the best acting talent) from LOTR together in a big council: Gandalf played by Ian McKellan, Elrond by Hugo Weaving, Saruman by Christopher Lee, Galadriel by Cate Blanchett, and Cirdan the Shipwright (that old guy at Grey Havens at the very very end of Return of the King) played by a total nobody.
And this council decides to wage wizard war on some mysterious wooded fortress inhabited by the Dark Lord Sauron, likely slaying large numbers of goblins and wolves in doing so, probably ended by a climactic boss battle. That sounds, well, awesome. I'd go see that. Unfortunately, more recent comments suggest that instead of making this awesome second movie, they're just going to split The Hobbit into two parts. What a downer. First of all, The Hobbit can fit into one movie. It's not that long. Second, I want to watch that other movie. Recent comments suggest that they just place these events alongside The Hobbit. I don't really know where a natural "split" in the Hobbit would be though. It's got one clear story arc. Let's hope they figure it out.
• Talking Animals
Not sure what to make of this, but Del Toro has made some odd comments about wanting more talking animals in the film. His rationale is reasonable: at the end, the dragon Smaug can talk, so why can't other animals talk? The same goes for the spiders that capture the dwarves in Mirkwood Forest; they chat pretty freely. So Del Toro reasons, why not have more animals talk? I guess the obvious answer is, because they don't talk in LOTR? Hopefully we don't get any George-Lucas-style retcon revisions with Sam's pony Bill replying "good-bye Sam" at the entrance to the Mines of Moria.
Inherent continuity troubles
These aren't specific to this production, but to anyone trying to make prequels to Jackon's trilogy.
• The Ring
We all know by now that the ring Bilbo finds in Gollum's cave is The One Ring, but when Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, it wasn't yet. Nope, for the purposes of this book, it's just a ring that grants invisibility. Tolkien decided later that he wanted to expand its importance. And the ring works a little differently. In LOTR, when Frodo puts the ring on, he sees the Spirit Realm (where there's a big evil red eye, and Nazgul look white), but in The Hobbit, Bilbo just goes invisible without any weird side effects. Needless to say, this is a shift in tone. If they decide to stay true to the book, they need to downplay the weirdness of the Ring to its original simple magic, but if they want to stay connected to the films, they will need to change its effects to match their portrayal in the trilogy. We'll see.
• Elves
Elves are good guys in LOTR, but they're bastards in The Hobbit. They trick and tie up the dwarves, leaving it to invisible-Bilbo to spring them out of their dungeons. And when they show up at the end, they're bastards again. It's not a problem or anything, but for folks who have only seen the film, having the pure and noble elves be total dicks is going to feel weird.
• Wolves
This is another tone piece, but Del Toro has already said that he's going to be revising the way the wolves looked in LOTR. Not a major point, but he said that Wargs need to be changed because "the classical incarnation of the demonic wolf in Nordic mythology is not a hyena-shaped creature." In other words, I don't like how you did it, Jackson. I'm kinda with you on that one, GDT, that whole Warg scene was written in to Two Towers and was pretty extraneous.
Things that look good
Ok, enough griping. There's still plenty to be excited about.
• Returning actors
The films have only three definite returners so far:
1. Gandalf (Ian McKellan) is back. Thank god. This is pretty much reason enough to go see it. 2. Gollum (Andy Serkis) is back. Awesome. They also stated that they will be using the same technology, which is fine because it looks fine. 3. Elrond (Hugo Weaving) is back. And if they show the Mirkwood siege, we could even see him fight.
There's room for some other returners though:
1. Since both The Hobbit and the other movie visit Mirkwood at a time when Legolas would be living there, there's no reason they couldn't invite Orlando Bloom back for a cameo. Note that Elves don't age, so that's not an issue. 2. Gimli isn't around yet, but he's the son of Gloin, who is one of the twelves dwarves, so casting John Rhys-Davies with different makeup isn't out of the question. 3. Ian Holm plays Bilbo in LOTR. That role is a relatively small one, whereas Bilbo's role in The Hobbit is central/title character, so my guess with Hollywood is that they wouldn't use the same guy. However, Del Toro said he wanted every actor to reprise their role, including Ian Holm, so maybe it'll happen. I would like that fine. Not only would it connect the two movies better, but honestly, Holm did a great job. Though I might spend half the movie in fear of Bilbo making that evil face again like in Fellowship. 4. Christopher Lee as Saruman. Might not happen. Not only does Saruman not appear in The Hobbit, but Lee has already stated that he didn't want to return to NZ again, due to health reasons. Which is too bad, because if they DO show the White Council side of the story, Saruman would have a complicated role. At that point, he's partly corrupted...but not all the way. This would be a great chance to show the corruption in process; a nice nuanced piece for a fantastic actor.
• Smaug
At the end of the story (spoilers), they encounter a dragon called Smaug who has the Arkenstone in his possession. After what this special effects team did with the Balrog, there's plenty of reason to be excited about their portrayal of a dragon. Not only that, Del Toro has a thing for dragons which makes me believe he's not going to screw it up. His favorite portrayal of dragons is apparently Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty, which is honestly pretty cool.
• Spectral Motion
Del Toro wants to put some animatronics in there, which is fine with me. The animatronics sequences in Hellboy were my favorite part of the films. (What to animate? Probably the trolls and the spiders.)
• Beorn
Beorn is one of my favorite Tolkien characters, and if you don't know who he is, I won't spoil it. I can't wait for a modern portrayal.
That's all I've got. If that's not enough, I recommend theonering.net for rabid, hyper-vigilant Hobbit news, including casting rumors both founded and unfounded. And for a fantastic FAQ Thanks to anyone who slogged through all of it, and thanks to Axe for letting me hijack his blog for a while. Petrelli out.
First of all this won't be a full review, as the game is long and I'm only on the Fourth Chapter. To start it off, here's the official trailer if you haven't seen it already.
The first thing I want to say is that, as expected, this is the most visually impressive Final Fantasy ever. Sometimes I have to double check to see if the cutscene I'm watching is pre-rendered or uses in game graphics. Most of them obviously use in game graphics, but that doesn't detract from the experience. Emotions and animations all look very realistic regardless of being in game graphics. The only visual complaint I have is that some of the textures are a little muddier than expected. Final Fantasy has always been known for its stunning graphics, so I sort of expected crystal clarity from everything. I guess thats my fault for having too high expectations, and for playing it on a 46 inch screen.
The chief criticism the game has been getting is that it's so different from past Final Fantasy entries in the gameplay mechanics that hardcore fans are not pleased. Well I say to hell with them. I will admit, as a huge fan of FFX, I hated the fact at first that combat resembled that traditional turn based style in no way at all. First of all, combat is real time, so like in many other FFs, you have a time guage that you have to keep track of. That's not what threw me off. In every other FF, you have control over every characters actions. You can say to your black mage "cast firaga," and she'll do it. In this, you have control over only one character, the party leader, during combat. The other party members perform predetermined actions based on their jobs, which are controlled via a new function called the "Paradigm Shift." It took a little warming up to, but after working with it for some time, I now enjoy the combat system quite a bit. Narrowing it down to one character keeps things a little more focused, and allows combat to be faster paced. It has a more action packed feel than turn based, though at its core it is still turn based. You still have to keep track of your parties HP and buffs/debuffs so that you know when to paradigm shift. Here's a look at what to expect from combat.
One of the nice things the game does is ease you in very gradually. There is so much new material here that it takes a while to get used to. I've been playing for about 4 or 5 hours already and I'm only just getting into upgrading items and whatnot. Two things that I think will shock veterans. You only have 3 stats: HP, Magic, and Strength. While this may seem overly simple, it actually works to the advantage of the player, keeping things more focused. It also helps you cope with debuffs easier, as it takes less time to select the right heal for them. The second shocker is that the game is completely linear. I don't mean like FFX linear, I mean like there is no revisiting old areas...ever. But the nice thing is that you don't ever need to. There are no towns, because all shopping is done via save points.
Bleh...I wish I had more time. I don't want to give away to many spoilers, so as far as characters go I'll say this. Hope looks like a chick, but is a dude with, as previously mentioned, an Oedipus complex. He's essentially a big sissy hellbent on revenge against a big tool (Snow). There is nothing cool about him, yet. Sazh is overall a walking stereotype, though having said that, he seems to be the only character who is somewhat grounded in reality, and his afro doubles as a birds nest, so I'm cool with him. Lightning's a bitch with attachment issues who throws punches like dude, so I like her. Vanille is super peppy with an annoyingly high voice. She's like santa...in a candy shop...on ecstasy...getting laid. She sucks. Snow looks like he should be cool...like Auron cool...but it turns out he's just a scene idiot who other scene idiots look up to. Having said that, the story, while a bit convoluted at first, seems to be pretty cool so far. K...I gotta go to class.
Well folks, here it is, your first of many Axe Factor reviews. I picked up the recent Planet Hulk release on Blu-Ray on Tuesday, and I've got to say, I liked it. The Hulk is my absolute favorite super-hero of all time, so I was wary of what this release would do to what I consider his best story arc to date on one hand, but eager to dive into this animated version of Planet Hulk on the other.
First of all, if you haven't read Planet Hulk yet, and are a fan of the Marvel Universe, definitely go pick up the book. It takes the Hulk out of his normal environment (Earth) and throws him headfirst into an even more hostile world, which he, of course, conquers. This animated version did a lot of things right. The voice acting was nothing outstanding, but did justice to the characters, and was solid throughout. The animation was quite impressive. While the artists do a reasonably good job of bringing the new planet to life, where they really shine is in their ability to bring the Hulk's all consuming rage and strength into sharp focus. Kudos! The plot is fairly close to the comic, however it's deviations are primarily what caused me to deduct a point an a half from my rating.
While the story overall is solid, there are several key omissions that hurt it pretty badly. They actually leave out the true ending to the story, which leads me to believe that there are no plans for the equally excellent WW:H sequel. They also swap out the silver surfer for Beta Ray Bill, due to licensing issues. Several large chunks of the original plot have been removed for the sake of time throughout, and while the story still stands, I feel that in the comic, those sections allowed you to explore and delve into this new world, so they should have been left in.
I won't say more, because I don't want to give away too much, but I'll leave you with this. As far as Marvel animated features go, this is the best. If you like them pick it up, but if your not a fan of the Hulk or Marvel, you may not find that this really drags you in. The Blu-Ray is chocked full of some excellent Bonus features as well, so if you have the option, go with Blu-Ray over DVD.
Somehow I always manage to side with the optimist in me, but not without the bitter aftertaste left by all the consumption of stuff. Well I’m tired of that aftertaste. I wanted to know one way or another if Christmas really has wholesome meaning, or if it truly has been lost in the torrent of commercials and jingles that we are drowned in during the last two months of every year.
Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised. To be engulfed by throngs of people all being herded through an endless stream of products, and yet have them articulate that Christmas means more than that, tells me that the advertisers and corporations haven’t won, and that I can put aside my fears about a dying Christmas.
rightchief narrator for the games cut-scenes, Stan's voice work is just not that compelling, though some of the other voice talent including Neil Patrick Harris, is pretty good.
That’s one of the higher 
end estimates, according to 
