TF Views

Holy tits. Well, that sounds good and all, but my skills at videogames would rank at just about on par with...

...hmmm...

...you know that kid from "Life Goes On"? Yeah, it'd be right about there. Plus, I don't have a Playstation yet, so it might be awhile before I can check 'em out.

That stuff does sound awesome, though.

MGS1 and 3 are really works of game art. In their own way. And it's written well enough that you can take it entirely serious...or not. Especially if you just imagine Snake repeating literally everything he hears.

"You need the keycard!"
"Keycard?"
"Yes, to open the door!"
"Door?"

EDIT: Also there's not really a lot of skill needed. A shitty player can clear the game, watching all cutscenes, in a week or two, tops. A good player can clear it in a few hours, skipping everything you can skip. (And I know, I've done it. Got Big Boss ranking with some savestates! Yay emulation.)

This was actually a pretty big week for comics. While I catch up on reading the current haul, and some more of the FCBD haul, read these....



City of Bone/Stuff of Legends (Th3rd World Studios):
2 more or less complete stories for the title series. "City of Bone" looks to be a "monsters in modern time" series, with some elements of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". "Stuff of Legends" focuses on toys looking for their lost boy. "City of Bone" is a first issue/opening chapter story, while "Stuff of Legends" is a flash-back/origin story. There are also some web comics excerpts that lend themselves to short-subject format. Grade: A/B


Mouse Guard/Fraggle Rock (Archaia):
2 short, though more or less complete, stories. The biggest obstacle to either of these titles might be iffy distribution. But, that just makes the FCBD special all the more necessary. Neither is a series I would pick up. But, thanks to FCBD, I can make that determination after having read a legitimate sample. And, "Mouse Guard" has a cult following, so somebody likes it.
Grade: A


DC Kids Sampler (DC):
One of my pet peeves with FCBD is sampler issues. These are generally bits and pieces of various, often dissimilar, comics. In this case, the sampler has a unified them. But, the theme is "inane crap" that is pitched as whimsical, but still assume knowledge and interest from the reader. "Tiny Titans" has inexplicable popularity despite being written and illustrated with absolutely no discernable skill or sophistication. That is the only reason I am being as generous as I am with the grade. Grade: C/D




Either I am getting more forgiving, or this year's FCBD offerings are better than usual. In any case, I am finding more than a few flip-books, which shows an aggregate learning curve among the companies in terms of economizing their efforts.

Dom
-likely seeing "Iron Man 2" this weekend.

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/05/1 ... minimates/

Look!

I'm buying the hell outta the one with Lockjaw in it. I don't give even half a crap about Betsy Braddock, but I'm not gonna not buy Lockjaw.

I dunno. I would rather have nothing instead of Minimates. (Wow, they made a Silver Centurion that I will not be buying.)


Any way, I saw "Iron Man 2" last night.

Iron Man 2:
In respects, this movie was better than I thought it would be. Despite using an inexplicable bastardization of Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo as a the main villain, the movie avoids forgetting that the Cold War ended 20+ years ago. (Of course, plenty of adults seem to forget this, so the larger problem still remains. But, no need to blame the movie for that.) One of my complaints about Rourke, namely that he does not look Russian, was mitigated by a line of dialogue. It could be argued that he was from one of the remote regions of the USSR, near the "stans", which would explain his appearance. Granted, this assumption requires the viewer to have some background and interest on the subject. On the other hand, people without that background or interest would be unlikely to notive how un-Russian Rourke looks.

There were more than a few good moments. And, most of the one-liners manage to avoid being obnoxious because they work for the characters and situations. There is set-up potential for the movies to adapt both "Demon in a Bottle" and "Armor Wars". Of course, given that they push seems to be towards bringing the Avengers to the movie house, I have no idea how likely Marvel is to bother adapting specific stories. I cannot say this upsets me too much, as seeing "Armor Wars" bastardized in any way would be very offensive to my sensibilities. (And, I would be happy to see "Demon in a Bottle" ignored completely.)

One of my main reasons for seeing this movie was the inclusion of Justin Hammer. When the character first appeared in the 70s, he was ahead of his time by at least a decade or so. Venture captialism had not taken it place in the public imagination. Applying that idea to comics, in the form of a venture capitalist who funded super-criminals, demonstrated the writing talent of David Michelinie for rationally applying real world concepts to comic books. While Hammer was more faithfully adapted than Iron Monger was in the first movie, the execution was a bit off. The producers made him come across as a bit too much like Steve Jobs or Tom Anderson and not enough like Bill Gates. I "got" what they were going for, but that may be partially because I knew what they were doing before seeing the movie.

Of course, like most summer movies, there are plenty of contrivances and "oh, really" moments where characters just happen to think of, or neglect to consider, things as convenient to the plot or for the sake of single scenes. And, there is a skirmish at the end with marksmanship bad enough to evoke 80s cartoons. (Apparently, trained operators of super sophisticated weapon systems have all the ballistic skill of a drunken red-neck.)

All told, "Iron Man 2" is worth seeing, if not going too far out of the way for.
Grade: C/D


Iron Man 2 (Public Identity) #3:
The third and final issue does it job of wrapping up the bridge story between the movies. I get the feeling that the writers were either not given a movie script to reference, or were told to avoid specific elements of the movie. It reads like a self-contained Iron Man story that could be placed with minimal difficulty in context with the comic, the movies or even the old cartoon. Reading this series alongside somre more or less contemporary "Iron Man" comics makes it apparent just how consistently portrayed Tony Stark is across various media and in different contexts.
Grade: B/C


Dom
-wanted to make an "Iron Dreams" pun here......

Dominic wrote:And, there is a skirmish at the end with marksmanship bad enough to evoke 80s cartoons. (Apparently, trained operators of super sophisticated weapon systems have all the ballistic skill of a drunken red-neck.)

You mean the battle with the Hammer Drones/War Machine? You do know they were controlled by A.I. rather than a trained operator right? Sure Vanko was pulling the strings but he was just telling them what to target, there is no way he could operate all of them and all their functions all at once by himself. He'd also told Hammer he could only make them salute, which obviously was a lie, but it is conceivable (and the impression I got), that Vanko didn't have the time he needed to make their A.I. programs the smartest or best marksmen. And it seems he anticipated the drones wouldn't kill Stark given he made his own armor to attack him with and rigged everything to explode.

I saw Iron Man 2 yesterday myself. I thought it was a great sequel . Really felt like a chapter 2 in continuing the story, especially with how they led in with Stark's "I am Iron Man" press conference from the first movie. The Iron Man movies I'd have to say are the best comic based movie franchise.

Couldn't help but notice you didn't mention anything about S.H.I.E.L.D.'s involvement in this movie Dom. Or the scene after the credits.

The SHIELD thing was not that big a deal. Wow. Tony Stark meets Nick Fury. Wowzers. I mentioned the ending when I pointed out that the movies are heading into an "Avengers" franchise. (I really have no desire to get into tedious detail beyond that.)

I do not care how rushed and half-assed Vanko's programming was. The friggin' drones were surrounding Stark and Rhodes. The heroes are going to be hit by *something*. (And, unlike that scene with the kid, the drones were not just standing there. Gah, that kid should have been splattered.) Flying debris and richochets are going to be an issue in that scenario.


Dom
-and why did the MKII armour have a power source ready to go?

Dominic wrote:The SHIELD thing was not that big a deal. Wow. Tony Stark meets Nick Fury. Wowzers.

How is it not that big a deal? Fury revealed Howard Stark was one of the founding members of S.H.I.E.L.D. Natasha of course we find out was an undercover agent to keep an eye on Stark when they find out he's dieing as a result of what's keeping him alive. They reveal the past about the Arc Reactor to Tony, and point him in the direction to invent something new to save him self. S.H.I.E.L.D. is all over this movie and is revealed to be a major force behind the scenes in Tony's life that is slowly becoming something he himself is a part of through the Avengers. And you think this isn't that important?

I mentioned the ending when I pointed out that the movies are heading into an "Avengers" franchise. (I really have no desire to get into tedious detail beyond that.)

That one line is supposed to allude to the scene after the credits? I don't see how. Besides, that scene is really more of a set up for another character's movie currently in production, not specifically the Avengers.

I do not care how rushed and half-assed Vanko's programming was. The friggin' drones were surrounding Stark and Rhodes. The heroes are going to be hit by *something*. (And, unlike that scene with the kid, the drones were not just standing there. Gah, that kid should have been splattered.) Flying debris and richochets are going to be an issue in that scenario.

You can't ignore the fact that these things were untested prototypes with a president that they probably weren't finished. Not to mention the running gag that Hammer technology is worthless. It makes sense those things wouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a barn, let alone a small moving target.

There is little difference between saying that the movie is leading into an "Avengers" franchise and describing a very short scene.

Stark and Rhodes were surrounded and out-numbered. If Hammer's tech cannot win under those circumstances, one would have to wonder how he stayed in business.

How is it not that big a deal? Fury revealed Howard Stark was one of the founding members of S.H.I.E.L.D. Natasha of course we find out was an undercover agent to keep an eye on Stark when they find out he's dieing as a result of what's keeping him alive. They reveal the past about the Arc Reactor to Tony, and point him in the direction to invent something new to save him self. S.H.I.E.L.D. is all over this movie and is revealed to be a major force behind the scenes in Tony's life that is slowly becoming something he himself is a part of through the Avengers. And you think this isn't that important?

It is not important for the purposes of reviewing a movie. It is important for fans of the movie or the franchise. But, much of the above could be summarized as "Tony Stark once again meets up with some super-spy guys. Wow." The more event based the description gets, the less inclinced I am to write it.

Dom

Dominic wrote:There is little difference between saying that the movie is leading into an "Avengers" franchise and describing a very short scene.

A short scene that has more to do with the upcoming Thor movie than it does the Avengers.

Stark and Rhodes were surrounded and out-numbered. If Hammer's tech cannot win under those circumstances, one would have to wonder how he stayed in business.

Hammer is a very good salesman and I assume he has a no refunds policy. Remember how he hyped that "ex-wife" bunker buster missile that the army ended up taking for the War Machine armor? Do you remember how harmless it turned out to be?

It is not important for the purposes of reviewing a movie. It is important for fans of the movie or the franchise. But, much of the above could be summarized as "Tony Stark once again meets up with some super-spy guys. Wow." The more event based the description gets, the less inclinced I am to write it.

I have to very much disagree. The S.H.I.E.L.D. involvement in this movie was an essential part of the plot, not just "meeting with some super spies again". In particular, they helped Tony get back on track after his self destructive Birthday, gave him new information about his father and thus a window into his own past and character we haven't seen in the movies before, and in general helped him save his own life once again with the information they give him. This is something that really needs to be mentioned in a review of the movie. It was the turning point for Stark's character to reconnect with the hero he's supposed to be.