E3: Who Won?

Gamers, that's who. There were so many huge announcements, awesome games, and really intriguing news ideas at this year's E3 it's hard to keep track. But, in the time honored tradition, I'm just gonna list the big 3 in order of how great their E3 was. Cause, you know. I'm lazy.

Microsoft

I think, without a doubt, M$ (har har) won the show. While the games lineup is robust, the most talked about 360 announcement was Natal, a motion sensing technology that seems far more advanced than anything Nintendo or Sony offer. Anyone who has ever heard me rant on the subject knows that I'm not what anyone would call a fan of motion sensing in games. To me, most games that employ motion sensing on Wii or PS3 (with some exceptions) just feel gimmicky and out of place. Natal, however, seems to take it to a new level. While all of it looks cool, just being able to navigate the dashboard with your hands Minority Report style is, to me, really cool. Since it won't be released until at least next year there is plenty of time to see Natal in action, but there is great reason to be optimistic.

Even without Natal, though, the Xbox game lineup would still give MS the edge. Mass Effect 2, Halo ODST and Halo Reach, Alan Wake, Metal Gear Solid: Rising, and many others show that the 360 is still the place for the "hardcore". I suppose the only real issue I have with the 360's lineup is the relative lack of innovation. Sure, the games all seem awesome, but they aren't much different than games the 360 has offered in the past. I think if Microsoft really wants to continue its upward momentum, new and varied gameplay is necessary. If Natal can live up to its promise, suddenly Shane Kim saying that the 360 has a 10 year lifespan seems pretty realistic.

Sony

After Sony's disastrous show last year and lagging behind both Microsoft and Nintendo, Playstation needed a big boost from E3, and that is exactly what they got. From motion control that looks better implemented than the Wii's current offerings to a diverse showing of games, Sony seems to be on the upswing. That is, of course, if anyone could afford to buy a PS3. One of the biggest reasons that Sony doesn't lead this list is the lack of a price cut. With Wii and 360 selling for significantly less than the PS3 and with much greater install bases, it seems really odd that Sony wouldn't finally cave and announce a significant price cut.

If you could afford to buy a PS3, though, you are going to get some pretty great games. Exclusives like God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 were expected and look outastanding, but the big announcement for me was The Last Guardian. Made by the team that created Ico and Shadow of the Colossus (one of the top 5 games of the last generation), there isn't a lot of information out about the game yet, but the footage I've seen is absolutely incredible. It's games like this that really seperate Sony from the competition.

The other interesting announcement was the PSP Go!, a new version of the PSP without a UMD drive and a different interface. Looks cool...until you see the price tag. $250 is simply insane for a portable device. You can buy a Wii with that. Not that you'd have anything to do with it...

Nintendo

Oh, right, speaking of. Nintendo looked like they were heading off a cliff during the early part of E3, completely abandoning the core fan base in favor of 12 year old girls, soccer moms, and grandma and grandpa. The Wii Vitality Sensor (maybe the stupidest fucking peripheral I've ever seen) was looking like the climactic moment of Nintendo's press conference. That is, until Mario Galaxy 2 and Metroid: Other M were announced, saving Nintendo the ire of jilted fanboys everywhere (unless you wanted a new Zelda game).

In all honesty, the Wii as a platform really has eschewed traditional gamers. The formula seems to be throw out a bunch of stuff we don't really care about while providing 2 or 3 huge titles per year. Galaxy 2 looks almost identical to Galaxy 1 (which is actually a good thing) and Metroid: Other M actually looks really great. I'm not as sold on New Super Mario Bros Wii, but hey, it could be fun. The best thing about E3 for Nintendo was Shigeru Miyamoto confirming that a new Zelda game is actually in the works. Of course, it probably won't be out for 3 years.

What really does seem at least somewhat problematic for Nintendo is the zealous push from Sony and Microsoft on motion capabilities. Natal looks like a whole new experience, while the Sony project seems to be a refinement of what has made Wii so successful. Nintendo's price point and focus on family driven gameplay likely means that Wii will still own this generation, but MS and Sony seem ready to take the reins of motion control and lash them to their own stallions, creatures no doubt made out of solid gold.

E3

I haven't blogged much lately, but don't worry. You're about to get all you can handle. E3, the big video game expo, returned to its former glory after a few years in the wilderness. Since I began closely following gaming news, I can't remember a bigger amount of significant games and potentially groundbreaking innovations announced at one time. I'll get into things more deeply, but I wanted to do a quick series of lists of things that intrigue me about E3.

Biggest Surprises
1. Mario Galaxy 2 announced
2, Metal Gear Solid: Rising announced for 360 as well as PS3
3. Final Fantasy 14 announced before 13 even comes out

Biggest Disappointments
1. No new Zelda game for Wii
2. PSP Go! is 250 god damn dollars
3. God of War 3 pushed back to March 2010

Most Intriguing Games
1. Alan Wake
2. Borderlands
3. Star Wars: The Old Republic

What the Fuck?
1. Nintendo announced Wii Vitality add-on
2. Sony not announcing a price drop for PS3 or PS3 slim
3. Square announcing Final Fantasy 14 before 13 comes out

Boldly Go

Before Saturday, I have never seen anything related to Star Trek. Never seen an entire episode of any of the show's many iterations and not one minute of any of the movies. It's not that I'm opposed to the concept, I have just never really cared. Sure, Trekkies seem a bit out there, but who I am to critique someone else's nerdiness?

So, with this firmly in mind, I ventured into the world of the USS Enterprise, to boldly go where I have never gone before. And I'd do it again. Star Trek is the most entertaining blockbuster I have seen in years. While it doesn't quite have the dramatic weight of The Dark Knight or Robert Downey Jr.'s star power in Iron Man, Trek strikes a perfect balance between popcorn entertainment and legitimate emotion that is rarely seen in summer movie fare (see Wolverine for more details).

Director JJ Abrams (Lost, MI:3) is the perfect man for the job, letting his penchant for character driven action to move the plot while also delivering some amazing action scenes. I think the only criticism I have of Abrams as a big screen director is his weakness at filming close quarter combat scenes. It's not the shaky cam, quick cut nonsense of the Bourne movies, but Abrams brings the camera in too close, making it difficult to see the entire fight. This is only an issue briefly in Star Trek, but it is worth mentioning. In general, though, Abrams creates a believable and compelling world, one that I hope he continues with. The person I feel the worst for here is George Lucas. Star Trek blows away all of the Star Wars prequels, mainly because Abrams is able to seperate good special effects from the plot. If you are going to reboot (not an entirely accurate word) a classic sci fi series, Lucas would have done well to ask Abrams his opinion.

As for the movie, there's not a lot I can say without giving away spoilers. It is an origin story, but not necessarily in the way you'd think. The movie opens with Kirk being born at the same moment his father is killed by a massive Romulan ship. As the young Kirk (Chris Pine) gets older, his wild tendencies and off the charts aptitude tests catch the eye of Captain Pike (the always outstanding Bruce Greenwood) who offers him a place in Starfleet Academy. Simultaneously, a young Spock (Zach Quinto) decides to leave Vulcan to join Star Fleet, where he quickly becomes the (ahem) star of the fleet. Much of the action revolves around Spock and Kirk's dichotomous personalities and the question of how to go about combating the Romulan threat.

The film rests on Pike and Quinto pulling off their roles, and they do so brilliantly. When I first saw the trailer for Star Trek, it looked like Trek 90210. Thankfully, the young actors throughout the cast are very good, especially Simon Pegg as Scotty (hopefully this will be the franchise that finally launches him into mainstream stardom). Eric Bana is appopriately cruel and scary as the Romulan Nero, and Karl Urban is surprisingly funny and good as McCoy. Really, the cast is the strongest point in a film that has a lot of them.

The most interesting and important cast member, though, is a blast from the past. Leanord Nimoy makes an extended appearance as Spock, and it is his appearance that makes the whole thing work. The big twist is both clever and a simple way to allow this new Trek continuity to exist without destroying decades of storylines. Nimoy is the film's emotional center and is given the most poignant scenes. It is a great nod to his past work, but also provides for an outstanding climax that cements this Trek as one of the best sci fi movies in recent memory.

Short version? It's awesome, and you have to see it. I know less than nothing about Star Trek, but I felt completely at home with this new version. It is perfectly cast, the effects are jaw dropping (even for jaded movie cynics) and Abrams gives the film a real pathos that most summer movies lack. I can't wait to see where this franchise goes, and hope that Abrams is at the center of it. Since he just made the best fantasy epic since Lord of the Rings, I think he's earned it. I'm gushing now, so I think I'll stop. It's just fantastic when a summer movie is both bad ass and doesn't insult your intelligence. This Trek really does go where no one has gone before.

Snikt!

Let's be clear: Wolverine should be in an R-rated movie. There should be blood, flying limbs, and expletives. He shouldn't have feelings. Alas, that's not what we got with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. That, however, is not necessarily an indictment of this X-Men prequel, which is actually pretty good at what it does, though certainly not the best (har har).

The movie opens confusingly, with a young Logan realizing he, in fact, has bone claws that he can use to gouge people with. There's some thing about a guy not being his father, or whatever, but it is never really mentioned again. What it does serve to do is establish that Wolvie and Sabertooth (played by Liv Schrieber) are brothers. It then moves into a particularly cool montage of the mutant siblings fighting in every American war since 1860 up to Vietnam. After some gruesome displays by Victor (Sabertooth), they are sentenced to be executed by firing squad. And when that doesn't work (you know, the mutant healing factor thing), they are put on a mutant special forces team, led by Colonel Stryker who is sadly not played by Bryan Cox.

If this sounds like a lot of plot, it is. There's a bunch more, but it is all crammed into the first 20 minutes. The rest is your basic revenge story. Once Logan is unwilling to participate in the questionable morals Stryker demands, he leaves the team and becomes a logger in the Canadian Rockies where he, obviously, falls in love. And, just as obviously, Victor ends up killing her, thrusting Logan back into the action.

The best part of the movie is when the adamantium is grafted into Logan's skeleton. It is really only here that he displays the raw, animalistic side of Wolverine. The rest is basically a mish mash of the X-Men movies, complete with detaining mutants and attempting to rob them of their powers. It's been done before, and better. My big issue with the movie was that it didn't feel any different than X-Men 2. Sure, the other X-Men are (mostly) absent, but the tone and style is almost identical.

This may have to do with Hugh Jackman. I like Jackman. Loved The Prestige, he was outstanding in The Fountain. I'm down with Hugh. I just don't think he's the right actor for Wolverine. First, he is not savage or aggressive enough. The man is a Tony Award winning actor who can ballroom dance for God's sake. There are brief moments in the movie when that side comes out, but those are few and far between. The second is, let's face it, Jackman is a Greek god. The man is ripped eight ways to Sunday. They find excuses to have him take his shirt off. That ain't Wolverine. Wolverine is short, scrappy, and stocky. He's supposed to be like an actual wolverine. I can't really think of a big name actor who could play this role, but Jackman just isn't quite right. Really, if this wasn't "Wolverine", I might have enjoyed it even more. Jackman makes Logan his own, which is what you are supposed to do as an actor, but it just doesn't evoke the comic book version of the character.

Two other big problems: Gambit and the special effects. Gambit has always been my favorite X-Man. Cool Cajun accent, awesome powers, wanted to bang Rogue in the tv show. In this, good Lord. The actor is so forgettable I don't even care about going to IMDB to find out his name. He doesn't even have an accent. It's just bad. Worse, though, are some of the special effects. The qaulity varies widely from looking absolutely amazing to not fit for a Sci Fi movie of the week. It is amazing that a blockbuster movie could have such shoddy effects. In a movie like this, that kind of thing really hurts.

If all of this makes it seem like I hated the movie, I'm probably just a bad writer. I really enjoyed it. I would put it second in the X-Men franchise behind X2. It certainly won't win any awards, and there are some serious issues, but overall it's a fun night at the movies. The helicopter chase scene is the best piece of action cinema I have seen since Dark Knight. If Marvel had been willing to break with the X-Men franchise and really do this thing right, I think there was enough here to be amazing. But when you have to make $250 million, it doesn't pay to make Wolvie into a whirlwind of blood and guts. However, If you like comic book movies, it's a must see Bub.

State of Play

The decline of newspapers is an indelible fact of modern American culture. The internet and cable news has essentially forced out the erstwhile ink-stained wretch desperately pecking away at his typewriter trying to make the first edition. You know, someone should make a movie about this. Russell Crowe, you say? Sign me up!

State of Play had the opportunity to be something special. With a great cast at its disposal, it could have been the anti-All the President’s Men, depicting the fall of American newspaper journalism. What we got instead was a relatively interesting political thriller with tantalizing bits of prescience tucked in. The story involves the death of a Congressman’s (Ben Affleck’s) aide and the conspiracy surrounding it. Crowe plays Affleck’s friend and “Washington Globe” reporter assigned to the story. Along with hot blogger Rachel McAdams, the intrepid duo try to hunt down the truth…before it’s too late.

It’s pretty ho hum stuff, but some of it has style and the acting is great. The only problem is, I still don’t know what the hell happened. The ending made no sense, and there was a bunch of plot that didn’t really seem to go anywhere or matter. The film also tugged at intriguing threads, especially concerning the importance of selling papers. Helen Mirren, who plays the news editor, continually screams at Crowe for his unwillingness to run with sensational and titillating stories in favor of “real” news. Which, of course, is what newspaper journalism has essentially become. In its losing war against real time cable news and blogging, newspapers are attempting to become the very things that are making them irrelevant.

This, I think, could make a great movie, and would not be unlike Season 5 of The Wire. Unfortunately, State of Play was content to be a decent political thriller. And, in this era of Hollywood taking the easy way out, that should be news to no one.

Riddles in the Dark

This cartoon always freaked me out.

The Hobbit has been a film somewhat shrouded in mystery, with talk of a "bridge" film between it and the LOTR trilogy. This was a prospect that always made me wary, as the idea of making a non-Tolkien work canonical seemed, at best, a dicey proposition. Luckily, director Guillermo del Toro and producer Peter Jackson have decided against that route, instead splitting up The Hobbit into two films. The article says that the White Council and the wanderings of Gandalf (which are not discussed in the book) were originally meant to form the second film, but will now be weaved throughout the story.

I couldn't be happier with this development. I always felt as though The Hobbit was more than what one movie could provide, but also somewhat less than two, if that makes any sense. I think interspersing the concurrent Gandalf storyline will work far better as part of a greater work and will necessarily have to take fewer literary chances than a stand alone film. Not that my excitement level could really be any higher for films coming out in 2011 and 2012, but this is great news.

Valued Customers

What should be a moment of great joy in my life has become one of despair. Despair in knowing that Peter Jackson will eventually make, like, 10 grand off me. The Lord of the Rings is being released on Blu-Ray sometime this year, but the release will be (wait for it) the theatrical cut! Not that I have some sort of hatred towards the movies I saw in the theater, but the extended editions are far superior. This is, of course, all rumor at this point, as no official announcement has been made to that end, but it's obviously true. Why release what everyone wants when you can release it at a later date, and after us HD-starved LOTR fanboys have already bought the theatrical cut? It's just good business.

Snark aside, it is good business. They know their customer. Does anyone really think that I won't go out and buy this the day it comes out, and then buy the extended editions the day they come out? Of course not. Then, I'll have four different copies of the same movie! Who wouldn't want that?

Six Days in Fallujah

War is as fundamental to video games as plumbers who can jump really high. Without war, what the hell would we play? Space marines, Roman centurions, and American GI's are featured prominently in the vast majority of games that are released. Movies and television also make good and profitable use of war. I'd be willing to bet that World War II has won more Oscars than any three other events combined. We sure do love us some war. In most cases, I actually think this is OK. What real harm can come from winning an inter stellar war in Halo or leading your legions against Carthaginian barbarians? I think that changes a bit, though, when the recent past is portrayed, particularly in video games. While playing through D-Day is thrilling, it's also a real event that our grandfathers took part in. For them, there was no save point, no reset button, and watching digital representations of American soldiers gunned down on a virtual Normandy beach is always a little chilling and off-putting.

This phenomenon is even more apparent when talking about a war that is currently underway. Konami is planning to release a game called Six Days in Fallujah, which follows American troops through the worst days of the Iraq war. The company is attempting to make a sort of game documentary, but at the same time says they want to show "the horrors of war in a game that is also entertaining." This, to me, is completely incongruous. I don't think anyone would argue that war is in any way entertaining. Certainly not Iraq, where American soldiers are still dying.

Iraq is, in many ways, our generation's Vietnam. While it does not have the same impact on our daily lives and we aren't getting drafted, it has shown us that America's mere presence in a war does not automatically mean victory. It is a war with unclear objectives and no definitive end in sight. Years after we supposedly "won", American soldiers and Iraqi civilians die regularly. To make Iraq "entertainment", especially while we are still there, is immediately distasteful to me. While there are games about Vietnam, I've never played one and have no desire to, and I think I would always feel the same way about Iraq.

I do, however, play games and enjoy films about World War II. It certainly has something to do with WWII being further in the past, but it also seems like America's last "pure" war. We were attacked, we knew our enemy, and the forces of evil were advancing throughout Europe. It is almost mythic in its stark good guy/bad guy lines. Iraq simply is not. The murky morality and frankly unjust nature of pre-emptive war against a country that had not attacked us does not make for "entertainment." It is simply a tragedy.

Final Predictions

Sorry, NL. Better luck next year.

NL East
Phillies
Braves
Mets
Marlins
Nationals

NL Central
Cubs
Cardinals
Reds
Brewers
Astros
Pirates

NL West
Dodgers
Diamonbacks
Giants
Rockies

AL MVP: Grady Sizemore, Indians
AL Rookie of the Year: Matt Wieters, Orioles
AL Cy Young: Francisco Liriano, Twins

NL MVP: Manny Ramirez, Dodgers
NL Rookie of the Year: Cameron Maybin, Marlins
NL Cy Young: Tim Lincecum, Giants

AL Wild Card: Yankees
NL Wild Card: Cardinals

NLCS: Dodgers over Cubs
ALCS: Yankees over Red Sox

World Series: Dodgers over Yankees in 6 games

American League Preview

You asked for it. You demanded it. Here it is. The rest of the American League preview. Due to the lateness of said preview, it has been completed at the last minute and at great expense.

AL Central

The Indians get back to the top of the division, barely edging out the hard charging Twins. This division is very deep should be even more competitive than the East.

1. Indians
2. Twins
3. White Sox
4. Tigers
5. Royals

Best Player: Grady Sizemore, CF, Indians. It feels like Sizemore has been around forever, but only has four complete seasons under his belt. At 26, he is already one of the 10 best players in the American League, but this is really the year he makes the leap. The only thing keeping him from truly taking off is a fairly low BA/OBP, but going 30/30 kind of makes up for that.

Honorable mention: Miguel Cabrera, 1B, Tigers

Biggest Comeback: The Indians. After going to the ALCS in 2007 and losing in 7 games, the Indians seemed like a team on the rise. Last year, the bottom fell out, with injuries and awful performances causing them to finish right at .500. Even if guys like Cliff Lee take a small step back, with Victor Martinez and Travis Hafner healthy again, the offense should be dynamic enough to win the division.

Honorable mention: Justin Verlander, SP, Tigers

Biggest Disapointment: Alexei Ramirez, 2B/SS, White Sox. Ramirez had a very nice rookie campaign, drawing comparisons to Alfonso Soriano. The natural assumption, then, is that he will continue on an upward trend this season. However, some of his underlying numbers show cause for concern. He only walked 18 times in 138 games, which does not bode well for his stolen base numbers. He's got good upside, but don't expect a ton of improvement.

Dishonorable mention: Cliff Lee, SP, Indians.

Bold Prediction: Alex Gordon will make the All Star team. Gordon was one of the most highly touted prospects, well, ever when he was drafted in 2005 by the Royals. In two big league seasons, though, he has been mediocre at best, and almost all the hype that surrounded him has disappeared. He's still only 25 though, and the skills are still there. I think he will hit 25 homers and bat .290 and will show the absurdity of judging players after only a couple of years in the bigs.

Honorable mention: Francisco Liriano will win the AL Cy Young.


AL West

The West is once again the Angels' division to lose, but they will come back to the pack this year a bit. The rest of the division simply doesn't have enough pitching, but watch out for the Rangers in a year or two.

1. Angels
2. A's
3. Rangers
4. Mariners

Best Player: Josh Hamilton, CF, Rangers. Count me among those on the Hamilton bandwagon. He has one of the best stories in sports and as much talent as anyone in baseball. His numbers declined in the second half last year, but 2008 was really his first full big league season. I think he will figure out how to maintain production over the long haul and hit around 40 homers with 130-140 RBI's.

Honorable Mention: Matt Holiday, LF, A's

Biggest Comeback: Ichiro, CF, Mariners. Seattle was bad last year, both in the standings and in the clubhouse. Rumors surfaced that Ichrio was basically an asshole that no one liked. While it's not clear that this specifically impacted his play, he had the worst year of his MLB career. I think this was an aberation, and he will get back to his career numbers.

Honorable mention: Erik Bedard, SP, Mariners

Biggest Disapointment: Chris Davis, 1B, Rangers. Davis came out of nowhere to hit 17 homers in less than 300 at bats last year, and everyone seems to think he is a 35 homer lock. While the power may be legitimate, he is another who strikes out a lot and doesn't walk. While he could be a big time player down the road, I think a sophomore slump is fairly likely.

Dishonorable mention: Vladimir Guerrero, RF, Angels (getting old, not running, etc.)

Bold Prediction: Vlad will hit under .300 for the first time in his career. I hate bagging on Vlad, but it looks to me like his decline is coming mighty quick. Last season was his first year of playing more than 140 games in which he hit fewer than 30 homers and did not drive in 100 runs. He was only 5-8 in stolen base attempts, and his walks declined and strikeouts rose dramatically. Vlad used to be the most interesting player in the game, but I think he is about to become just slightly above average.

Honorable mention: Jason Giambi returns to Oakland and hits 35 homers.

MLB Preview: American League East

With baseball season right around the corner and the Orioles lacking any sort of hope for the 12th straight Opening Day, I figured a good way to depress myself would be to take a look at some teams who actually, you know, have a shot to make the playoff, which pretty much extends to the entire American League East except for my beloved O's. This year's AL East may be the best division in baseball history. By my estimation, 3 of the best 5 teams in the league reside in this division, which is going to make August at Camden Yards tons of fun.

I'll be doing this for each division, and then ending up with playoff and award predictions. Please, keep the applause to a dull roar.

1. Boston Red Sox

This pains me, so so deeply, but I have to admit that the Red Sox look to to be the class of the American League. A deep pitching staff and a well balanced offense should be enough even in the brutality of the East.

Biggest strength: Starting pitching. The trifecta of Beckett, Matsuzaka and Lester give Boston arguably the best top 3 in baseball. If Brad Penny can rebound from a few years of injury and John Smoltz actually comes back and is effective in July or August, no one else can match up with them.

Biggest Weakness: Catcher. Jason Varitek, while always insanenly overrated, was at one time an important cog in a championship team. Now, however, he is in steep decline both offensively and defensively. Not that this will make or break Boston, but Varitek could turn into quite the albatross late in the year.

Player to Watch: David Ortiz. After his first injury plagued year in Boston, Ortiz needs to rebound to give the Red Sox a legitimate power threat other than Jason Bay. I don't think we'll ever see the days of .320 and 40 homers again, but if he can hit 35 the Boston offense could be dynamic.

2. New York Yankees

Who says you can't buy a championship? Well, actually, the last 8 years sort of shows that, as the Yankees haven't won the World Series since 2000 and missed the playoffs last year for the first time since the time of Christ. The championship teams of the late '90's were built on home grown talent and shrewd free agent signings and trades. So, how do the Yankees try to get back to the top? By spending almost $500 million on free agents! Despite my general disgust at how they do things, the sheer amount of talent on this team should be enough to grab the wild card.

Biggest Strength: Power. The Yankees ripped every Baltimoreans heart out when they signed The Traitor (whose real name will not be uttered) and banking that he will hit 40 homers. Probably a decent bet, especially in that lineup. If A-Rod is really gonna be back by Mid-May, this offense is loaded.

Biggest Weakness: Age. While the trend in MLB has been to go younger, the Yankees have decided that age is real path to victory. Including A-Rod when he gets back, New York has 6 players over 30 in the every day lineup and at least 2 in the rotation. Also, CC Sabbathia (one of the big signings) is only 28 but has logged over 500 innings the last two years combined.

Player to Watch: AJ Burnett. For a guy who has made 30 starts just 3 times and won more than 12 games only once in his 10 year career, you probably wouldn't pick him to get an $80 million contract. Then again, you aren't the Yankee front office. Burnett is very talented, but extremely risky. Him living up to his billing might be the difference for this team.

3. Tampa Bay Rays

Last year's shocking World Series team is back and might actually be better. Unfortunately, it might take 95 wins to get into the playoffs again. They can certainly do it, as they may have the most talented roster in baseball, but can they keep it together for another full season?

Biggest Strength: Young talent. The Rays are loaded with young talent up and down the lineup. Longoria, Upton, Crawford, Pena, Shields, Kazmir, and so on and so forth. If the Rays can keep the core together, they will compete for the next 10 years.

Biggest Weakness: Pitching depth. With an uncertain closer spot and question marks at the back end of the rotation, this may be the only thing that keeps the Rays out of the AL East hunt. If Andy Sonnanstine can reproduce last year's numbers and David Price gets an early call-up, all bets are off.

Player to Watch: David Price. One of the most talented young pitchers in baseball, Price burst onto the scene in the playoffs last year. He will start the year in the minors, but if he gets called up quickly and pitches to his capability, he may be the most important player in the East.

4. Toronto Blue Jays

It looked for a while there like the Blue Jays would become what the Rays were last year. A young team with good arms, the Jays were poised to make their move. Unfortunately, injuries and performance issues have hampered their progress, and it seems unlikely they will be truly competitve in the division. Of course, they could probably win the NL West...

Biggest Strength: Roy Halladay. What else is there to say? Doc Halladay looked to be on a bit of a decline, but came back strong last year, posting one of the best strikeout ratios of his career. There isn't much after him in the rotation, but he's the kind of pitcher that ends losing streaks.

Biggest Weakness: The rest of the rotation. Jesse Litsch is a nice pitcher who won 13 games last year, but you can't rely on him to be a number 2 in this division. With a bunch of journeymen and rookies after him, it could be a long year in Toronto.

Player to Watch: Alex Rios. Rios is one of the most talented players in baseball but has yet to have that transcendant year. He is a guy with 30-30 ability, but only hit 15 home runs last year, down from 24 the year before. At 28, it's time to stop talking about potential and actually go out and put it all together.

5. Baltimore Orioles

Jesus. Christ. After a decade of futility (to put it mildly) this year might end up as one of the worst in terms of win-loss record. However, the team finally seems to have a long term plan and the necessary pieces to implement it. At the major league level in 09 though, this team is in for what looks like another 100 loss season. There are definite building blocks in Markakis, Adam Jones, and Matt Wieters, with Matusz, Tillman, and Arrieta waiting in the wings. The biggest question: will enough fans care when they finally do get good?

Biggest Strength: Defense. The Orioles, despite my negativity, really do have one of the best defenses in baseball. They are strong all over the diamond (especially in the outfield) and that should ease some of the pressure off the pitching.

Biggest Weakness: Starting pitching. The O's have had some bad pitching staffs over the last decade, but man. The only established major league starter currently penciled into the rotation is Jeremy Guthrie, and he has looked absolutely terrible this Spring. Maybe Koji Uehara will be productive, but it is really a horror show after him. We might be seeing the young guys sooner than we hoped...

Player to Watch: Adam Jones. While Matt Wieters has gotten most of the attention so far, and justifiably so, Adam Jones is a guy who seems primed for a breakout. He was playing very well before he got hurt last year and has looked great so far this season. A 20-20 season really isn't out of the question, along with Gold Glove caliber defense.

Where are the parents at?

Thank God for sanity in...Utah? Governor John Huntsman vetoed a bill that would have imposed stiff fines on stores and movie theaters that allowed minors access to violent games/films. Huntsman said that, since the rating systems for both are voluntary, the industries would simply drop their warning system altogether to avoid being liable under this statute.

Now, let me first say that I don't think it's good for young children to be exposed to graphic violence or sexual content, whether it be in games or movies. This bill, though, is just more bullshit from lunatic (disbarred) lawyer Jack Thompson, whose hatred for video games is practically legend. The rating system that is currently in place is already effective. Hell, I get carded at theaters and in Best Buy when my five o'clock shadow looks more like midnight. There are already laws in place that prevent this type of behavior, so why do we need more legislation? Oh, right, because Jack Thompson is a preening asshole who needs to have his face on tv.

This is just one battle in the greater war against the video game industry by so-called "activists", whose moral indignation doesn't seem to extend past Grand Theft Auto or Doom. These people are more concerned that a minor might buy Halo at WalMart than about that same minor buying a gun at WalMart. The disconnect is truly staggering. Let's not forget, of course, that there are no legitimate studies that show direct and causal links between violent video games/movies and violent real life behavior. The fact that games in particular are used as scapegoats when mass murders are committed is both disgusting and disingenuous, with the "moral majority" playing on tragedy to further their own political ends.

I have always felt that the rating systems for both games and movies are both effective. Much of my childhood was spent trying to sneak in to R-Rated movies and convincing my parents that Doom was an educational exercise on the killing of hell demons. Of course, my parents also understood my maturity level and screened the games and movies I watched. And, let's be honest, that is where the impetus for change truly lies. Kids are going to get around laws designed to keep them from having fun. In the end, it is up to parents and guardians to determine what is best for their children and to play an active role in their lives. And, if they can't, do we really expect that stiffer fines for retailers are gonna do the trick?

What this really is, of course, is an assault on the entertainment industry. Now, let's be clear, an assault may be necessary. Much of what Hollywood and EA produces is complete crap that shouldn't be viewed by anyone, much less impressionable children. But to demonize video games as entertainment and an art form is the ultimate goal of Jack Thompson and his ilk. He is using children as an avenue for deciding what adults can and cannot do in their spare time and utilizing bullshit (at best) research to claim that video games are "murder simulators". So, bravo Utah. You showed Jack Thompson what's what (not that it's that hard to do). Mormonism has never looked so good.

Memory Lane

Final Fantasy VII is the GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME. I am not going out on a limb when I say this. It is so great that now all the cool kids say it's "overrated" and "I played a much more obscure, much cooler game" and "I'm a huge douche bag". Ok, maybe they aren't saying the last part. But they are douche bags. Totally.

Those of us who spend a great deal of time thinking about and playing video games have a desperate need to seem hip (paradox, thy name is gamer). "True gamerz" think they are above games like Halo because people outside of the fraternity also enjoy them. Of course, this also applies to me, as I look at most of the *ahem* "games" on the Wii and laugh derisively. But sometimes, shit goes too far.

It is fair to say that Final Fantasy VII, in many ways, created modern gaming. The developer's decision to go with the Playstation rather than Nintendo sent shockwaves throughout the industry and legitimized Sony as a video game giant. Additionally, the amazing full motion video made for great television ads, pushing what had once been an obscure genre (Japanese role playing games) into mainstream American conciousness. The game itself wasn't necessarily groundbreaking (though it did a lot of interesting things), but the presentation and cinematic genius made it ahead of its time and started a gaming revolution that hasn't stopped since.

Why am I telling you all this? Because it's my blog, that's why. Also, because I recently started playing it again. Unsurprisingly, it remains my favorite game of all time. While there are some fairly silly story bits as well as some crappy dialogue, it is epic in ways that other games only pretend to be. The combat system is fairly simple but fun, and despite the dated graphics the artistry is still apparent and beautiful. It also has the most unexpected death in the history of gaming. This is a game I sunk 150 hours into during my youth, and I'm currently 30 hours in with no end in sight.

One of the reasons I have been playing this again is to feel some nostalgia for my childhood, but also because it represents the apex of the medium that I love more than any other. There have only been a few games since that have filled me with the same wonder and joy of FF7. In these troubled times, what's wrong with wanting to save the world again?

Goodnight, sweet prince

God dammit.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

We all do. Except Alan Moore.

Watchmen has a lot to recommend as a film. In many ways the logical culmination of what started with Batman Begins, the Watchmen film is at its core a deconstruction of the super hero genre. Of course, the book came out two decades ago to rave reviews and instant cult status, but we are talking about the movie. For now. Zack Snyder's follow up to the visually stunning but ultimately pointless 300 is dense, dark, and beautiful in all the ways 300 was not. A relatively compelling whodunit that is ultimately eclipsed by the specter of nuclear war, the plot almost exactly mirrors that of Alan Moore's book. In fact, save for the costumes and an ending that actually makes some sense, the film is almost a shot for shot remake of the book. This, however, isn't necessarily a good thing.

I say that not because, as other reviewers have opined, the film feels stifled by its fidelity to the source material. Rather, I'd submit that the plot of the original just ain't all that good. In fact, the plot isn't even close to the point of the book. The subtleties in Moore's writing are difficult, if not impossible, to translate on screen, making the plot ever more important. And while there are some great bits in both book and film, there is a certain lack of narrative cohesion.

Snyder, to his credit dodges this by making Watchmen look simply amazing. Ever a fan of slow motion fight scenes, Snyder has found his niche in comic book films. And, if this whole thing doesn't work out, porn. Sex scenes, rape scenes, Dr. Manhattan's penis in every other shot, it's all there (lest you doubt, Leonidas has an 8 pack and some deformed lesbians he'd like to show you). The look is far different from the comic, and you rarely get the sense of impending doom that Moore was striving for in the 80's. So, while the story is the same, the feel is not.

What really holds the film back though is its choice of focus. While focus is placed appropriately on Rorschach (perhaps the best comic book character ever) and Dr. Manhattan, the lack thereof on Veidt/Ozymandias was a terrible, terrible choice. Spending a great deal of time on Nite Owl, Laurie, and their naked bodies seems far less important than advancing Veidt's character. In the end, the Nite Owl storyline does almost nothing to advance the plot, and while Patrick Wilson still does a good job as Nite Owl, Maline Ackerman makes Laurie even more dull and annoying than in the book. Matthew Goode was no great shakes as Veidt either, but Veidt as a character plays a far more important role in the storyline.

On the other hand, Jackie Earl Haley as Rorschach is a sight to behold. Rivaling Heath Ledger's Joker, Haley's demented, sociopathic, and tragic Rorshach is the (weird) moral center of the film. Uncompromising and brutal, he embodies all that people fear and love about the "heroes" of Watchmen. At the same time, his psychosis is always at the ready, while the rest are intent on burying it in "normal life". Snyder pulls Rorschach off perfectly, and he is reason enough to go see the film.

So, the question is: Is Watchmen good? Short answer is yes. There are great action scenes, the opening credits set to Dylan's "The Times They Are A'Changing" is fucking awesome, and the new ending is far superior to the book. The film's biggest problem, and the one that it grapples with for most of its long running time, is how to get across the nihilism and philosophical underpinnings of the comic while at the same time being entertaining as a movie. The weirdness of the comic, i.e. when Dr. Manhattan leaves Earth for Mars, doesn't really work on screen, whereas in the comic it feels right at home. Alan Moore once said Watchmen is unfilmable. While he is wrong in the strictest sense, I think his sentiment is correct. The comic book medium is perfectly suited to his vigilante super hero opus, while a film is not. On the other hand, Watchmen the film is much more entertaining and could stand alone without the book. I think if Snyder had taken a few more artistic liberties and allowed his adapatation to breathe a little, Watchmen could rival The Dark Knight and Spiderman 2. As it is, still a worthy addition to the comic book film genre.

Kikouken!

See, this is what I'm talking about. This is what we don't need.

Street Fighter has never been something I was all that interested in. I was more of a Mortal Kombat guy (I even liked the movie). The games were fun enough, but I only played 2 briefly. So when the new Street Fighter movie featuring Chun-Li (along with Street Fighter 4, which actually looks good) came out, I paid it no mind. As most video game movies are, I assumed it would be bad. And, bad it is, racking up a 0% favorable rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Considering the movie also wasn't screened for critics, I doubt the studio expected anything less.

Now, I'd argue that a fighting tournament game is probably not the best genre to make a movie out of. While most video game narratives aren't exactly robust, fighting games are even less likely to have a story anyone cares about. Unfortunately, that seems to be true for the rest of the video game world as well. I can't think of any video game movies that are even halfway decent, and most are absolutely terrible. It's a shame, too, because I think there are a bunch of games that would make great movies.

The problem, as I see it, is three fold. First and foremost, game narratives are not set up like movies or books. Often, the story only takes place in between bouts of action. One of the newest narrative forms is to scatter story "material" throughout levels, in the form of audio recordings, notes, etc. I assume this is to make the story feel more organic, as well as to let players who just want to play skip the story entirely. The problem, though, is that it certainly relegates the story to the background of the game. If you can choose to skip it, why make it all that compelling to begin with? It is the rare movie that depends on something other than plot, yet video games can exist entirely outside of plot (with a few exceptions). When the game experience is memorable mostly for instances of action, does story really stand a chance?

Second, the games with great stories often don't need movie adaptations. Unlike the static images of a comic book, when story is an important part of the game, it is played out on screen. For a game like Metal Gear Solid, why bother with a movie since the game already essentially is one? GTA has an amazing, movie-like presentation and storyline, so why bother adapting it/ Role playing games with sprawling worlds and intricate dialogue options face the same issue, but on a different level. Those stories are designed around player choice and actions, and often would not have the same resonance if the choice was removed from the equation.

Finally, many main characters in games don't really speak. They are supposed to be your avatar, a virtual representation of the player. Through almost a dozen Legend of Zelda games, Link hasn't spoken. How could you make a movie where your main charactern doesn't speak? And if a Zelda movie was made, and Link started talking, the fan boy outrage would threaten existence as we know it. In many ways, the main character of a game, though the most important part of the action, if often ancilary to the story being told. You are merely a conduit through which the story reveals itself, and that doesn't make for a particularly engaging film.

The challenge, then, is to create films around games with a good story that is not entirely fleshed out. Forget the Resident Evil bullshit, and focus on games where a movie would add to the mythos rather than slap a recognizable name on and go in a completely different direction than the game. At the same time, don't be a slave to the game. Make a Half Life movie that doesn't feature Gordan Freeman. Use the rich world that Bungie created with Halo, but have Master Chief play a supporting role. Make the movie a seperate part of the same franchise, one that is as important as the games but not merely a hackneyed re-hash of what we've already played. If you make a movie based on a first person shooter, don't have first person sequences in the movie (Doom, I'm looking at you). And, above all, choose the right games. Oh, and don't let Uwe Boll out of his cage. Ever.

Tell Us How You Really Feel

The Oscars. Sure was something. I guess. Sean Penn seemed pretty pissed. So that was new? Bill Maher doesn't like religion and needs to beg people to watch his movies. Definitely not new. Hugh Jackman is Australian. Oh, and Slumdog Millionaire won some awards.

I don't know how this happens, but the Oscars are, quite simply, fucking boring. Are the movies boring? Is that the problem? There were maybe 3 moments last night that were at all interesting: the tribute to those who died in the past year (always good), Heath Ledger winning Best Supporting Actor, and...well maybe there were only two. Oh, when the guy from the Academy decided not to give a speech. That was pretty great. I guess I also enjoyed the narrative of the show, as though they were making a movie. That was clever.

It's also nice to know that the Academy feels that Slumdog is one of the greatest movies ever made. Only 15 films in history have ever gotten eight or more Oscars, and now Slumdog is one of them. Awesome? Don't get me wrong, I really liked Slumdog. I think it is arguably the best movie of the year (even though I would probably put it third). But, man. Every time I looked up it was winning another award. I was surprised it didn't get an Oscar for winning the most Oscars.

The biggest surprise of the night was Sean Penn winning Best Actor over Mickey Rourke. I didn't see either Milk or The Wrestler, but it sure seemed like Rourke's year. Penn could, I think, win in any year for any film. He is almost certainly the best actor in Hollywood, but since he has already won Best Actor, I thought Rourke was a shoe-in.

As for the rest, good God. I think Shirley Maclane is still gushing over Anne Hathaway (that's what she said). Has there ever been a worse Oscar "innovation" than previous winners praising current nominees for ten minutes? Yes, we know they are good. They are nominated for an Oscar. It's definitional for Christ's sake. The songs were terrible. Jackman put me to sleep, though I doubt even Wolverine could have truly interested me. The presenters were incredibly mediocre. It was long. Extremely long. Ended at midnight. What was this, a World Series game? Tina Fey looked pretty hot. So that was good.

So, how do you fix the Oscars? Well, better movies would probably help. Also, can't we find a host? Is there no one on the planet who could facilitate this thing while being funny and interesting at the same time? Didn't Billy Crystal do it at one time? That seems like it would work again. I think Steve Carrell would actually be perfect for this. The one thing the Oscars does do very well is the montage. I love those. More of those, please. Most importantly, though, trim this shit down. There is absolutely no reason the Oscars should be three and half hours long. None. Earth to Hollywood: you guys really aren't as interesting as you think you are. Outside of yourselves, people don't really give a shit what you think. They are watching because you are pretty. That's all we need from you. I know you are thankful to your publicist's assistant, but we aren't. Keep it short, look hot, and get the hell off stage. If you can do that while accepting awards for good movies, all the better. Oh, and next year, can we give Slumdog a few more awards?

And the Oscar goes to...

Regardless of my unoriginal post title, there's no denying it: The Oscars are here. I'll wait for the excitement to die down. That didn't take long...

Seriously, though, the Oscars just ain't what they used to be. I've already opined that Hollywood is out of touch with most movie goers, and in many ways the Oscar selections this year prove it. The Best Picture nominees have only garnered about $190 million total at the box office, with Frost/Nixon and The Reader each making under $10 mil. For perspective, that is about half of what Indiana Jones made, and everyone (except me) hated it. I'm not saying that art has to sell to be great, but come on. No one cares about most of these films, with the exceptions of Slumdog (which I think is getting more media attention than popular support) and Benjamin Button. Not that these are bad films by any stretch (though Frost/Nixon is terribly overrated), but they just don't have the cachet that used to define the Oscars.

More disturbing, I think, is the recent trend of movies being made solely to win Oscars or at least get nominated. Last year avoided this trap, possibly because No Country for Old Men was such a fucking masterpiece, but we fell back in this year. By far the best example of this phenomenon in recent years is Crash. As a movie, Crash is good. If it were on Lifetime. During the day. And was made by students. In grade school. As a social statement, it ranges somewhere between white middle class kids wearing Che t-shirts and the media explaining black culture through the lens of Jeremiah Wright. It really is just an awful, awful movie. But it had a BIG THEME. RACISM IS BAD. AND WE SHOW THIS BY OVERACTING. DID YOU KNOW THAT SOME LA COPS DON'T LIKE BLACK PEOPLE? AND THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE FROM ONE CULTURE DON'T UNDERSTAND PEOPLE FROM ANOTHER CULTURE? AND THAT IT'S ALL CONNECTED? Jesus, Crash sucks. But it hit all the Oscar g-spots: "hot" current events hook, oppression of some kind, big name stars in so-called unusual roles, and insider buzz (if it was a biopic, the entertainment media would have proclaimed it as the greatest movie ever made, and perhaps the greatest artistic triumph in Western civilization). I know that a stellar movie could be made about the themes that Crash butchers, but it probably couldn't be Hollywood'ized enough to get real attention. So, filmmakers go the easy route, tick off their Oscar checklist, and voila. "I'd like to thank the Academy..."

This year's crop is really no different, even if all the films nominated are far superior to Crash. Each one hits on at least two of the Oscar must-have's, except Slumdog, which actually falls into the Little Miss Sunshine and Juno "quirky outsider" category. What makes this year more interesting that most, though, is that the quirky outsider is the favorite for the first time. And while it was at best a very good film, it is decidedly un-Hollywood, and that's a damn good thing.

In the end, though, someone has to win that androgynous golden trophy. And since that is the case, it means I have to pick who I think will win. Bated breath, here we come:

Best Original Screenplay
What will win: Milk
What should win: Wall-E

Best Adapted Screenplay
What will win: Slumdog
What should win: Slumdog

Best Supporting Actress
Who will win: Taraji P Henson, Benjamin Button
Who should win: Taraji P Henson, Benjamin Button

Best Supporting Actor
Who will win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
Who should win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

Best Actress
Who will win: Kate Winslet, The Reader
Who should win: Meryl Streep, Doubt

Best Actor
Who will win: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
Who should win: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

Best Director
Who will win: Danny Boyle, Slumdog
Who should win: Danny Boyle, Slumdog

Best Picture
What will win: Slumdog Millionaire
What should win: The Dark Knight. Kidding, Benjamin Button

God of What Now?

Ho. Lee. Shit.

Up in the sky!

Please, God, no.

Superman in tight, black leather? It could happen, as Ain't It Cool News is reporting that the Wachowski brothers (of The Matrix fame) are rumored to be rebooting the Superman franchise. Bryan Singer, who directed Superman Returns, apparently has no interest in a reboot.

I liked the first couple of Superman movies, and even thought Superman Returns wasn't absolutely horrible, but the character has never really resonated with me. I like my superheroes flawed, dammit. Superman is just too...well, super. If the Wachowskis were involved, though, I think I'd give this a shot. For all the problems with the Matrix trilogy (especially the last one), it was a brilliantly inventive idea that changed action cinema. While their influence may have been for ill (I think Wanted would be a good example) there's no denying that the original Matrix is one of the best action movies ever made. And let's face it, they are already experienced with having their main character fly around. Just get rid of the sunglasses and slap on a cape instead of a trenchcoat, and you've got yourself a movie. As long as they don't just rip off Dark Knight, this seems like pretty good news.

Who Ya Got?

With Killzone 2 nearly upon us and the internet alight with threads dedicated to both its ascendancy and the obvious superiority of the PS3, I got to wondering: if you could only afford one, which system should you get? The Xbox 360 and the PS3 are largely comparable with the Wii being something of a different animal, and each have features to recommend. What I'm interested in here are the games. Specifically, exclusive games that "teh hardcorez" cares about. While most of the best games of this generation have been multi-platform affairs, each console offers something unique. So, I have taken it upon myself to compare and contrast. Halo, Helghast, or Hyrule? Let's get it on.

Xbox 360 Top 5 Exclusives

Halo 3
Gears of War franchise
Mass Effect
Left 4 Dead
Braid

Honorable mentions: Fable 2, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (first one), Castle Crashers, Dead Rising

While many of these games are available on the PC, the 360 is the only console that can combine the austere intellectualism of Braid with the bloodletting fragfest of Gears of War and Halo. Oh, and zombies. 360 owners love killing them some zombies.

PS3 Top 5 Exclusives

Killzone 2 (hopefully)
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
Little Big Planet

Honorable mentions: Resistance: Fall of Man franchise, Motorstorm franchise, Warhawk

Robust and diverse, PS3's got some damn fine exclusive games. Less heavy on shooters (maybe because the controller isn't well suited for them) but great third person action and racing games make up for it. If Killzone 2 can really live up to the hype this list is pretty impressive.

Wii Top 5 Exclusives

Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Super Mario Galaxy
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Wii Sports

Honorable Mentions: The Virtual Console (so many amazing games), Super Paper Mario, No More Heroes, Zak and Wiki

While the Wii's content for, you know, gamers can't be considered deep, it's pretty hard to argue with the cream of the crop. Twilight Princess is, to me, the best game of this generation, and Galaxy isn't far behind. Also, while the VC games can't truly be considered exclusive since they have been released on other systems, the variety and quality of those games can't be denied, and the Wii is the only place you can get them without plugging in the old SNES.

So, it turns out this is harder than it seems. There's really no objective standard by which to judge the systems, because each is going in a different direction for their exclusive content. If you want the really hardcore, you almost have to go 360. Even the cute and cuddly platformer, well, isn't. The PS3 probably achieves the best balance of fun and hardcore, though I think the individual games are a bit weaker overall than the 360's. The Wii makes no secret of its alleigance with fun, but Zelda and Metroid are clearly not the same as Wii Fit.

Were it me, I'd have to choose the 360. It would kill me to miss out on Mario and Zelda, but there just isn't much else there on the Wii. I LOVED Ratchet and Clank, but I could honestly live without MGS and Uncharted (difficult as that would be). I don't think I could go without playing any of the 360 top 5. Luckily for me, I don't have to make that choice, as I am fiscally irresponsible and have been able to play almost all these games (as well as the myriad multi-platformers)! If you are reading this and give a shit, what do you think?

A-Roid

Robert DeNiro, while portraying Al Capone in the film The Untouchables, gave a speech about the duality of baseball. While at bat, a player is out for individual achievement. But, he says, you get nowhere "unless the team wins." Then he proceeded to bash one of his lieutenants repeatedly with a baseball bat, so as to make his point more forcefully. I'm not sure why I kept thinking about that scene today after learning that Alex Rodriquez tested positive for using anabolic steroids in 2003. Maybe it's because everyone in baseball forgot that it's about the team. Forgot that individual achievement at any cost is antithetical to the point of baseball.

This story is, in many ways, more fascinating than the Barry Bonds saga. Its easy to villify Bonds, a selfish, surly malcontent who never connected with fans even when he was breaking every record in the book. A-Rod, though, was supposed to be different. Sure, he seemed a little too clean cut, a little too perfect, but he was the guy who would restore order to the baseball galaxy. He'd ride in on his white horse and smash Bonds' record, and he'd do it without a siringe hanging off his ass cheek. Even with the recent bullshit with Madonna, and cheating on his wife, and being called out as "A-Fraud" and "Single White Female" in Joe Torre's book, at least he was clean. He was someone that kids could look up to for "doing it the right way". So what if he was insecure, or had a weird personal life? When he was on the field, you could look at him and see what a baseball player is supposed to be.

Now, all of that is gone. And, with it, the thin veneer that baseball from 1990-2003 was even remotely on the level. We all hung on, hoping that it wasn't really as bad as all that, and that while a few big stars were taking steroids the rest were clean. With A-Rod falling (and, I'd bet, many more to come if the entire list was leaked) we can't delude ourselves anymore. Baseball for most of my childhood was completely fraudulent. In a lot of ways, I feel like my childhood is being taken away. I don't say that lightly, because baseball really was the most important thing in my life from the time I was 8 until I was about 15 or 16. It's tough to look back on the 1996 and 1997 Orioles fondly any more, because it seems likely that many of the players on those teams were juicing.

Rather than look at this as devastating news, however, I'm inclined to see it as the light at the end of the tunnel. Lies don't end until the truth comes out. I have been suspicious of A-Rod for a while now, and while I'm not happy to find out that he used steroids it is a hell of a lot better than not knowing for sure. I want to kick the dust of that era off my feet and move into a new day for baseball. That probably won't truly happen until guys like A-Rod retire, but I think the sea change is in full effect. Now that baseball has a strong drug testing policy, it's no longer a game of Russian roulette to root for younger players. I don't have to really worry that I'll see Nick Markakis' name on ESPN for being linked to steroids. I can look at guys like David Wright, Ryan Braun, and (I grit my teeth as I write this) Dustin Pedroia and be excited about the game's new direction. Yeah, there will always be those who try to skirt the rules and do whatever they can to get an edge, but I think we are past the time when steroid use is a raging epidemic. It is becoming the exception, not the rule.

Baseball is no longer a game for individual achievement. If nothing else, hopefully the steroid era will finally end the obsession with numbers. Maybe we can get to a point where hitting 40 home runs is a monumental achievement like it used to be. Maybe we won't have to have cartoon figures hitting massive bombs, but instead enjoy the 6-4-3 a little more. Maybe kids being born today won't have to look back at their childhood memories and shake their heads. Maybe A-Rod can do more for the game than breaking Bonds' record ever could.

Classy

Oh no, drunken frat boy assholes! No outside beer at the Preakness infield! Now the Preakness can't look like the red headed stepchild of horse racing. Thank fucking God.

Way Down in the Hole

When I tell people I'm from the Baltimore area, one of the first questions they ask is "Do you watch The Wire"? I had always been ashamed to admit that, no, I didn't. Not that I had no interest, but I didn't have HBO for much of the time the show was on, and also didn't find out it existed until too late to really get into it. Since TV shows on DVD are stupidly expensive I thought it would be a while before I watched it, if ever. However, I got to borrow the first season from a friend, and I was instantly hooked. Obviously, I had to buy the rest.

The Wire is without question one of the greatest television shows of all time. That doesn't mean, however, that it is one of the most enjoyable shows I have ever seen. In fact, it is unique in that it doesn't really seek to entertain. The show always had poor ratings, which can be attributed to the complicated plots and relatively slow moving action. Its gritty and realistic look at the Baltimore drug trade is both fascinating and depressing, but I can understand why many people couldn't get into it. If you stick with it, though, The Wire is incredibly rewarding, if not always in the ways you'd expect.

While watching the show, I'd find myself comparing it to HBO's other giant drama, The Sopranos. While The Sopranos is definitely more entertaining, it is a shame that its popularity far eclipsed that of The Wire, because the gap in quality is pretty large. While I really like the Sopranos, its overwrought drama and often pointlessly "psychoanalytic" nature left me cold. I suppose one could think of The Sopranos as more of an elaborate joke on the audience, tricking us into wanting someone like Tony to succeed. The Wire has none of that. Characters are presented as a part of their own worlds with no editorial comment, leaving the viewer to decide how they feel about individual people. It isn't fair to say that the line between good and evil is blurry, because I think the Wire argues that there is no such line. Baltimore is (I think accurately) portrayed as a city that America left behind and both the criminals and police have to deal with that reality. Police futilely make arrests on drug corners to simply create an impression that "something is being done", while drug murders are a part of everyday life in the city.

Baltimore itself is the main character in the show. Being from the area, I am surprised at the lengths the show takes to analyze Baltimorean attitudes and customs. While most big cities have their own identity, I think it is fair to say that Baltimore is more uniquely idiosyncratic than most. The sense of abandonment, provinciality, and tradition all merge together to form the Balimore identity, and The Wire captures this perfectly. The show always feels like Baltimore, an impressive feat for any show to pull off.

Of course, the only way to make a place feel realistic is to have actors that can pull it off. While some (Dominic West for example) have received a modicum of more mainstream success, most of the actors in the show are complete unknowns. A shame, too, because The Wire is without a doubt the best acted show I have ever seen. The majority of the cast consists of young, black actors, many of whom have only appeared on the show. What makes this incredibly impressive is that every actor, every single one, is completely believable and perfect for their role. People with only 5 minutes of screen time come alive like nothing I have ever seen. The ensemble nature and changing cast always keeps the story fresh, and the fragility of life in Baltimore means you can never get too attached. This isn't handled like it is in shows like 24, Lost, or the Sopranos, though. Murders are never committed for shock value, but rather are just the logical culmination of a character's path. I can honestly say I was never surprised to see a character get killed, even if I wasn't at all expecting it.

Now, I won't lie and say that every episode is an exercise in brilliance. In fact, I'd argue that the only way to fully appreciate The Wire is to see the whole thing. It is a shining example of something that is far greater than the sum of its parts. While the seasons are not connected in one storyline, each one serves a crucial role in understanding the city and the characters' motivations. Viewed on their own merits, most episodes don't have a particularly standout "Oh my God!" moment. The mundanity of the police procedure and drug corner lifestyle, however, makes those moments feel more real and more important. As I mentioned, things don't just "happen" in The Wire. Everything is part of the tapestry the show weaved for five seasons that culminates in perhaps the most satisfying series finale ever, even if much is left unresolved. Because that is the point. In Baltimore, nothing ever changes.

Last year was better.

I hate the Steelers. One thing I hate almost as much as the Steelers is over-emotional sports-writing that gets caught up in the moment. Super Bowl XLIII was a close game in the end. It certainly should have been closer (why no official review on the "fumble" at the end of the game?). There were a lot of weird situations and weird calls, and I'm willing to admit that they went both ways.

But there is no way it was more exciting than the 5th-seed New York Giants upsetting the undefeated New England Patriots, largely on a phenomenal play by Eli Manning and David Tyree. Ten years from now, we'll remember Super Bowl XLII for its greatness. Let's not forget it today- it was only a year ago.

Caution: The link above may take you to a page that includes a video of Hines Ward.

Caution

Awesome.

On the Big Screen

The Senator Theater in Baltimore is by far my favorite movie theater (though the AFI in Silver Spring isn't too shabby either). I have seen a couple dozen movies there, and I have loved it each time. Seeing Return of the King was a religious experience. The huge screen, the old timey feel, the delicious popcorn all make going to the movies an event. So, sad new that it is in financial trouble again. This time, though, the city and the owner are coming together on a creative solution: make it into a nonprofit. While this would necessitate that the theater be used for things other than movies by providing "educational and cultural opportunities", I think this is a great move. The Senator is an institution in North Baltimore and is worth saving whatever the cost. Really, making it into a nonprofit might actually make the Senator even more important to its neighborhood. So, good times all around.

This does, however, shine a light on the continuing financial problems the theater has had over the years. It has been bailed out several times, and can just not seem to stay in the black. I have to believe that at least some of this is attributable to poor management decisions (though I have no evidence to back that up) but it is much more about the marginalization of single screen theaters in this country. The Senator simply hasn't kept up with the times, which is laudable to me but devastating to it as a business. No stadium seating, no commercials before the movie starts, no three course meal available at the concession stand. Just popcorn, candy, and a movie. And even though you have to get somewhat lucky and hope someone really tall isn't sitting in the row ahead of you, watching a movie on the big screen just can't be matched by other places. I guess the Senator just isn't for everyone. But, you know what I say to those people? We don't want you here anyway.

Be Afraid

January is a pretty dead time for new releases. This is good, because it gives me a chance to catch up on the games I didn't play over the holidays. Or, you know, sink 50 more hours of my life into a game I played and beat last year. But, whatever, January is also the time for demos. Grabbed two off of Live today: FEAR 2 and Resident Evil 5. Both sequels to two of my favorite games from a few years ago, needless to say I was pretty excited for both. That'll learn me.

FEAR is one of the best first person shooters I have ever played. While the interior office environments did get repetitive after a while, the awesome game play and pretty intense storyline made me forget all about it. FEAR 2 (a game with a long litany of legal issues) picks up right after the first left off, but unfortunately seems to have taken a step backwards. The real draw of FEAR was the ability to slow down combat, resulting in visceral and bloody firefights that also looked fucking awesome, as well as the outstanding AI. The sequel uses the same mechanic, but not nearly to the same effect. Now, this is just a demo, so maybe things will get tightened up in the final release, but the firefights simply don't have the same resonance. While the graphics are top notch for the environments, guns, and atmosphere, the enemies look almost fake, and the blood may as well be Welch's grape jelly. The up close and personal combat of FEAR has been made, drumroll please, completely generic in the sequel! Just what we need, another pretty looking shooter that does nothing new (hope Gamestop has my Killzone 2 preorder...). So, yeah, pretty disappointed, though I guess my hopes weren't all that high.

I can't say the same for Resident Evil 5. One of the biggest games of 09, RE5 is a spiritual sequel to RE4, which is arguably the best game of the last generation of consoles. I played that bad boy for 25 hours and loved every minute. The combat was great, the mood was perfect, and I even got scared a few times. RE5 seems to want to keep the action game vibe, and gives us crazed African villagers instead of crazed Spanish villagers. Oh, and it also gives us a control scheme seemingly devised by those villagers. Two buttons to even be able to shoot (one of which is also used to locate your partner), two to run, a button to open your inventory, the d-pad to browse the inventory, another button to select your weapon/item, "quick time" events (used to great effect in RE4) that disappear after being on screen for about a second...and so on. What the fuck, Capcom? I don't even know if the game is any good, because I spent all my time trying to figure out how to reload my pistol. Another problem is the game's perspective. While the "over the shoulder" view from RE4 remains intact, your character takes up almost half the screen, making seeing anything pretty difficult. While the graphics are gorgeous, the slowwwwwww gameplay and degree of difficulty to do even simple things are really harshing my buzz for this game. What was once a solid "buy" might not even get rented. This might be a long year...

Left 4 Dead

Seeing as though I'm on a zombie kick (seriously, bring em on) I decided to download Left 4 Dead on my PC. The game is awesome. Well, awesome when Steam decides to work and actually let me play. Maybe I project some kind of field, because online games never work right for me. I get kicked off Call of Duty when I'm in someone's "party" on Xbox Live, I can't connect to EA's servers, and I'm pretty sure one of the original versions of Steam put a hex on me.

When I do get to play, good God. You wanna kill zombies, eh? I got your zombies. I got your fucking zombies right here. To say that there are a lot of zombies in Left 4 Dead wouldn't give you the proper perspective. So, let me put it this way. THERE ARE A LOT OF ZOMBIES. Thousands. They run. They scream. They claw. Sometimes they stand still. But, no matter what, there are a lot of zombies. Zombies that need killin'.

How do you kill the undead, you ask? With a shotgun. Or an assault rifle, they don't seem picky. Left 4 Dead is gloriously, unabashedly over the top. There is definitely strategy in terms of how you work with your teammates, but the game is really about pouring buckets of lead into your new undead friends. Through four separate campaigns presented as zombie movies, you and your team operate at a breakneck pace to get to a safe house and out of harms way. While the game can be played solo, it really just isn't the same. The "what the fuck?!?" moments are only possible with other human teammates and thus, the only real way to play the game.

There is also a VS mode, where players can actually be the zombies. I haven't tried that yet because, again, I've probably only played 7 or 8 matches, but the concept sounds awesome. Really, what I lack is the dogged persistence that is required of PC gamers. I mean, yeah, I could figure out how to host my own dedicated zombie fragging server, or fuck with the endless firewall options Vista offers, or reconfigure my router or some bullshit, but all I really want to do is play the game. I'm a console gamer at heart, even if I like the PC inputs better. So, I guess I'll struggle with my inner demons while waiting to find a game of Left 4 Dead. I got time.