Category: Entertainment

Amazon Dot Com has some peculiar pricing practices. My son has wanted to play Diablo III with his dad. Please understand that you need the full game of Diablo III before you can install the expansion pack so at list price this is $39.99 twice or basically $80.

Back in September I bought the expansion pack “Diablo III: Reaper of Souls” for $19.99. This price only lasted a few days. Typically each part of the game sells for between 29 and 32 dollars on Amazon. Blizzard has only dropped off their $39.99 suggested retail price once and that was only on “Black Friday” where each was $19.99. I have been waiting since December for a price drop so I can get my son a copy. Well, on Friday February 6, the original game dropped to $19.99 for one day. I placed my order. The expansion pack price did not drop at the same time. However, Diablo III went back up and then the expansion pack dropped to $19.99 on Sunday. So guess what I bought yesterday?

I have played several popular smart phone games over the last three or four years that use a client/server model. Typically, in exchange for some vaguely defined reason, if you log in with Facebook they will sync your saved game somewhere “in the cloud”. Every one of these games has eventually crashed and I have permanently lost all progress in the game.

This model of saving the game somewhere other than my phone is stupid. I want the game saved on my device and I want control over where to save a backup or whether it should be backed up. I also want more than one game save. I want my son to have a saved game that he plays so he can leave daddy’s game alone and vice versa. I also would rather have the backup saved on my One Drive than have to give somebody access to my Facebook account. Also, I want different saves on each of my devices. I don’t want my Windows Phone game to overwrite the one on my Surface tablet—which has happened recently with Tiny Death Star.

Today I woke up to find my last four months of effort on Star Wars Commander gone. I turned on the game today and ended up in the tutorial. I know I can play thru the tutorial and then try logging into Facebook but I know that I will either lose my Surface game or the phone game because both are not going to be backed up. This programming model is too stupid to let me have both saves.

This happened on Tiny Death Star and Ice Age Village. Push an upgrade and break the game. So, I’m done with any games from Game Loft or Disney or anybody else that requires a Facebook login to play.

For any programmers that might read this, this is also why I won’t do any in game purchases. When I can lose the entire game save with no reliable back up, why should I buy the weapon upgrade or game currency? Talk about Vaporware.

So far, only Blizzard has been able to make the client/server model work and they needs huge amounts of hard drive storage on my desktop computer to make it work. I don’t mind a few bugs in a phone or tablet application but when they result in lost games then I won’t be investing time and money in that product.

I grew-up with Superman as a part of my youth. I remember George Reeves stopping bad guys with guns and Christopher Reeves stopping Gene Hackman with nukes. Both versions of the iconic comic book hero were likeable and campy. This summer we were treated to a new version of Superman. In this film, director Zack Snyder went out of his was to keep away from the tradition of “fighting for Truth, justice, and the American way” which has been the bedrock of classic Superman lore. Instead, the new incarnation of Superman has Henry Cavill doing something heretofore unspeakable; Superman kills General Zod.

As a follow-up, the next movie is supposed to be Superman fighting Batman. I have a lot of problems envisioning how two heroes of my childhood are suppose to beat the crap out of each other as a way to get us to a Justice League movie. I’m thinking Adam West v Christopher Reeves—not possible; they’re both nice guys. First how does Batman cripple Superman enough to land a punch that hurts? He can’t use Kryptonite because in the new Superman, he does not have a weakness to the rocks from his home planet.

“I’ll be honest with you, there’s no Kryptonite in the movie,” Snyder said. Man of Steel hopes to humanize Superman, but by giving him new flaws and vulnerabilities. Superman actor Henry Cavill said, “Although he is not susceptible to the frailties of mankind, he is definitely susceptible to the emotional frailties.”
Zack Snyder says there’s no Kryptonite in man of steel

So how does this revelation square with the graphic novel by Frank Miller that is supposed to be the basis of the next movie? Miller has an older Bruce Wayne give Superman the beating of his life because Supes is too tight with the military. How can anybody beat-up Superman more than General Zod did in Man of Steel? Again, I ask how an old Bruce Wayne will lead us to the Justice League? Doesn’t sound like “Super Friends” to me. This all seems overly complicated.

Batman v Superman director Zach Snyder will have talks in the next few days with the man who first pitched the two superheroes against each other in an iconic comic book tale 30 years ago.

Writer and artist Frank Miller cast an ageing Bruce Wayne against Clark Kent in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, a series later compiled into a graphic novel, just under 30 years ago.
Batman v Superman

I think Warner Brothers is betting a lot on this movie and this plot line. Batman v Superman will either rid the DC universe of more mega budget movies or the franchise will go the way of Star Trek; same names, different reality. How both characters—Batman & Superman—could become lifelong friends after this film will require more good writing and directing than Hollywood has displayed so far this summer. Then again they are copying Miller’s tome not producing an original script.

I would like to dwell a few minutes on the climax of Snyder’s Man of Steel where Superman kills General Zod. Before I make my comments, I want to insert portions of this story from http://www.blastr.com

Comic guru Grant Morrison has been cranking out acclaimed funny books for decades, so what does the DC alum (and accomplished Superman comic writer) think of Man of Steel? Turns out, he has some qualms…

Morrison saw the good and the bad (“kinda liked it and kinda didn’t”), but said that controversial ending that saw Superman snap Zod’s neck definitely rubbed him the wrong way.

His reasoning is actually pretty great:

  “It’s a credible Superman for now. But I’m not sure about the killing thing. I don’t want to sound like some fuddy-duddy Silver Age apologist but I’ve noticed a lot recently of people saying Batman should kill the Joker and, yeah, Superman should kill, he should make the tough moral decisions we all have to make every day. I don’t know about you, but the last moral decision I made didn’t have anything to do with killing people. And I don’t think many of us ever have to make the decision whether or not to kill. In fact, the more you think about it, unless you’re in one of the Armed Forces, killing is illegal and immoral. Why would we want our superheroes to do that?

  There is a certain demand for it, but I just keep wondering why people insist that this is the sort of thing we’d all do if we were in Superman’s place and had to make the tough decision and we’d kill Zod. Would we? Very few of us have ever killed anything. What is this weird bloodlust in watching our superheroes kill the villains?”

As much as Snyder tried to make a grounded, relatable version of the character, Morrison makes some good counterpoints. What do you think? Was the ending brave, or controversy just for the sake of it?
legendary comic writer grant morrison bashes man steel ending

I understand that it is not in the comic book “cannon” for Superman and Batman to kill; however, if they had the powers exercised in the comics and did those things in the real world, most certainly people would die. You can’t keep knocking over skyscrapers like Supes and Zod did in Man of Steel and not have them land on top of innocent bystanders.

The key quote in the article above is, “… unless you’re in one of the Armed Forces, killing is illegal and immoral. Why would we want our superheroes to do that?”

Morrison clearly does not believe that we have a right to self defense. This reasoning is the basis that explains why nobody understands the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is the right to defend yourself, your family and property from invaders whether they are criminals, foreign invaders, or government agents. The Second Amendment is predicated upon the right of private ownership of property. Limited government requires citizens to be responsible for themselves and their communities. Both State and Federal governments were intended to be distant from the daily lives of average citizens.

In Man of Steel, Superman was placed in a situation that innocent people would be murdered by General Zod unless he took drastic and immediate action. Superman was protecting lives so killing Zod was justified. However, what we know in our hearts is that the makers of this movie were manipulating us purposely by killing a piece of innocence. Killing Zod moved Superman from a comic book world of black and white, good and evil into the modern realm of moral relativism.

This tearing down of cultural pillars evokes a reaction in us that we often can’t quite quantify or even identify. We know the net result is that we are further from what God wants us to be. Our hearts of flesh are turned a little more into stone each time the forces of humanism tear-down the old order.

Superman may be the embodiment of Nietzsche wrapped in red, white and blue or a totally separate creation, but despite his origin as a defender of Roosevelt’s New Deal, Superman came to represent many of the ideals of Tom Brokaw’s “Greatest Generation”. His killing of Zod is symbolic of a repudiation of the values of our parents and grandparents. Flawed as his worldview is, I think Grant Morrison senses this substitution of values when Snyder’s Man of Steel takes a life, ever when fully justified.

If you couple the above discussion with the pre-publicity that Man of Steel was purposely using many symbols to equate Superman with Jesus then the ending is even more clearly a rebuke to the faith of our fathers. man steel filled with jesus christianity references Snyder, like J.J. Abrams and Star Trek, is trying to convince us that we live in a world of varying shades of gray, one that is devoid of any moral absolutes. Snyder, like Nietzsche, is trying to declare that “God is dead”. The logical result is that there are no absolutes just choices.

I disagree. As I heard R.C. Sproul Jr say recently, “God didn’t come to make bad people good; he came to give dead people life.” God believes in absolutes and the devil thrives in shades of gray. Culturally, we are moving away from God and slinking into the shadows. It often seems like the 99 sheep went astray and only the one stayed with the Sheppard.

In half a year we have lost marriage, privacy, Boy Scouts, and now Superman. At this rate I think our proverbial goose is cooked.

As a kid I used to watch The Lone Ranger TV show starring Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels. The show originally aired from 1949 to 1957. (Yes, I watched it in re-runs.) Prior to that, the program had a very long run as a radio program—1933 to 1954. Wikipedia has a good article on the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Ranger

Last weekend I went to see the new Disney version with Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp in the title roles. I had read that Despicable Me 2 was creaming it at the box office. I was shocked to read that the film cost over 250 million. I mean, it’s a movie about two guys that ride horses not X-Wing Fighters.

Between the information that I had read and the fact that Depp is almost as odd as Tim Burton, I was not sure what I was going to see. The team that had made Disney’s Pirates films was behind this version of The Lone Ranger. Was this group the right ones to take on the iconic Ranger?

There is a claim that movies often tell you more about who made them and what their views are than what the movie is about; even if it is set in another time period. This film is another such example. John Reid (a.k.a. The Lone Ranger) is portrayed as metrosexual that is afraid of using force or fighting for what is right. Only the coaxing of Tonto (played by Depp) and circumstances force the Ranger to slowly embrace his destiny. The writers of this movie should have read at least one book by Louis L’Amour and watched a few episodes of the old TV show.

Johnny Depp was given latitude to improvise and try to be funny, but his back-story was a repudiation of the portrayal given by Jay Silverheels. Basically the only reason that he hung-out with the Ranger was that the Indians would not have him because he was mentally unbalanced. In Ranger lore, Tonto was saved by the Ranger when both were kids and later Tonto was able to save the Ranger. They had a bond based on the virtues of honor and self sacrifice. Both men represented what was best and operated from a code of ethics that guided their conduct.

The Lone Ranger also suffered from another flaw. This is yet another offering from a large media conglomerate that portrayed all other for profit corporations as evil. Why does Hollywood portray corporations as evil but people are all just various shades of gray? The Ranger lived in a world of black and white; right and wrong. Railroad bashing seemed like a lazy foe from writers that were unwilling to have bad guys be the villains instead of pawns for evil corporate interests.

Also, the army as allies of the bad guys is not consistent with the universe where the Ranger lived. The Army can be delayed or even deceived but for them to willingly be allied with bad guys seems a violation of the established cannon of the golden age of westerns.

This movie reminded me of the Green Hornet movie a few years ago. It was a bad attempt to introduce an iconic hero to the 21st century moviegoer. Ironically, the creators of The Lone Ranger also created the Green Hornet. Per the Wikipedia article above, the Ranger was actually an Uncle of the Hornet.

Lastly, I doubt that few people under forty have ever seen the Clayton Moore/Jay Silverheels portrayal of the Ranger. Disney wrongly assumed that everyone knew who the Ranger was and had a favorable image of him.

The reality was that this movie was not a salute to the Ranger but a parody. The writing was weak and formulaic. I really wanted to like this movie; however, my advice, save your money and catch it on Netflix.

This week-end marks the season three finally of The Walking Dead. The war with Woodberry appears about to explode. In the previews, you can see a guard tower at the prison explode so it looks like the Governor and company will attack.

Based on what I think I know, this is what I will look for on Sunday night:
• The contract with the small town where AMC is filming the Woodberry portion of the series was a two year deal, thus I think the Woodberry story line will not wrap-up until next season.
• Daryl will be out for payback after last week’s episode. Will he act like a berserker and shoot everything that he sees (most likely) or be like a sniper, waiting for a kill shot?
• The actor that play Rick reportedly said 27 will perish in the finally.
• The “Rick is crazy” story needs to fade away.
• Baby—reportedly, the baby did not live in the comic so I think she will stay with someone in Woodberry once the Governor is dispatched. Even in this show, I don’t think they will kill an infant. Typically babies are written out of story when not needed on a television show.
• One of the following will perish—Hershel, Maggie or Glen. Glen proposed to Maggie and her dad approved. They would not show this if it did not matter.
• Andrea will meet her end.
• The Governor’s helper will betray him and then perish.
• Rick’s son will kill someone in a cold and ruthless way.

How the Governor should be killed-off:
My idea is that he will lose his other eye and then be surrounded by walkers. The camera will pan back for a wider shot and fade to back as he screams.

Update 04-02-2013
I made ten comments/predictions on the finally of The Walking Dead Season 3. So how did I do?
• Correct I said that the Governor & company would attack the prison.
• Wrong I said the town of Woodberry would continue into next season—not known but I’m thinking I was wrong on this one.
• Wrong Daryl did almost nothing in the episode so I was wrong about him.
• Correct Rick rumor of 27 dead was right-why was a surprise twist.
• Correct It looks like “Rick is Crazy” was put to rest.
• Wrong Baby not living happily ever after in Woodberry
• Wrong Hershel, Maggie and Glen live into next season?
• Correct Andrea is gone-right big-time
• Correct Governor’s helper is gone
• Correct Rick’s son kills someone in cold and ruthless way

6 Correct
4 Wrong

Six correct is not bad for 46 minutes of television.

I wonder if the Governor will be back… New season, new show runner in October

My wife insisted that we see 2016: Obama’s America. Earlier today we hopped into the car and headed to the local theater. After buying a lunch of soda and popcorn, we marched into the theater and grabbed a seat.

I was familiar with Dinesh D’Souza’s thesis about Obama, his father and colonialism so I had some idea what the movie would cover.  The movie begins with a compare and contrast of D’Souza and Obama. This simultaneously lets viewers meet both men and also lets you know the perspective of the man who brought his book to your local Cineplex.

The movie introduces a few actions taken by Obama during his first term in office. These events are ones which many viewers will be familiar and had wondered why? Then it moves to the story of both Obama and his father. Much of the narrative in the film is audio from Obama’s two books. Obama did us the favor of recording both books in his own voice. D’Souza interviews Obama’s family and many that knew him earlier in life or had known his father.

The film weaves a more complete picture of the President’s life history than most people have ever heard from their televisions or talk radio. Granted, this movie presents only a thumbnail sketch of these events but the framework is logical and objective. I never got the feeling that I was being manipulated by the filmmakers. Yes, I was seeing what they felt was significant but in most cases I think they exercised good judgment in preparing their story.

The highlight of the movie to me was finally getting to see Obama’s brother, George. George was intelligent and very different from his more famous half-brother. Obama Sr. had five wives and died when George was six months old. George lives in a ghetto in a tiny 10 x 10 hut in Nigeria. It was great to see him on the big screen.

The movie then tries to explain actions taken by President Obama within the framework of D’Souza’s thesis. It finally circles back to the events at the beginning of the movie. You can almost hear Paul Harvey’s words “and now you know the rest of the story” echoing in your ears.

The last few minutes of the film are spent in extrapolating what a second Obama term would be like based on the first term and D’Souza’s thesis. This is interesting especially since Obama has never said what he plans to do if re-elected.

I don’t think everyone will agree with D’Souza’s analysis but if you don’t then what explanation do you have that fits the facts better? On this point those across the political spectrum have been silent. Obama’s actions as President defy traditional flavors of Liberalism in American politics. 2016 is the best window into Obama’s life that has been produced thus far.