The Big Picture: Junk Drawer Rises
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Aside from the original SMB 1 and 2 (aka lost levels) and Super Mario Land... where is he NOT throwing stuff?MB202 said:
Just kidding, I get what you mean. Something that makes it feel fresh again. I was horribly disappointed from NSMB for the DS back then. No challenge and the Wall jump didn't make the levels as sprawly and exploration-worthy as expected :C
Will check this one out but I doubt I'll actually buy it.
Did you see his twitter and blog posts? He just said he was happy about them and people said he has no right playing games since its Mario. I really don't blame him or anyone lashing out at CoD or Madden fans because the CoD or Madden fans are throwing a tantrum over what is esensally "Stop liking what I don't like." Plus both sides are the pot calling the kettle black over innovation. Just play your games and stop attacking each other over this stuff.hermes200 said:
Man, Bob puts so much work into these videos....
Too bad I don't give a shit about his opinion since he told me that I'm an entitled little shit because I'm actually saying "Hey, if you don't fix this, I'm going to take my money elsewhere." Like you can do in a capitalist society.
Though I will say that I am looking forwards to Wreck-it Ralph.
Too bad I don't give a shit about his opinion since he told me that I'm an entitled little shit because I'm actually saying "Hey, if you don't fix this, I'm going to take my money elsewhere." Like you can do in a capitalist society.
Though I will say that I am looking forwards to Wreck-it Ralph.
NO! THERE CAN NEVER BE ENOUGH MARIO!!!!!!!! [small]Or Tanooki for that matter.[/small]Sis said:
I'm with Bob in this one, and it's something I noticed for a long while, people whine and complain about "having too much Mario" while we keep seeing annual releases of Madden (or Fifa if you live in Mexico or the UK) and Call of Duty without any single innovation and they still sell like crazy (read: millions), while Mario is probably the only videogame property to have as many awesome games in as many genres possible, with the possible exception of a first person shooter (if you exclude Yoshi's Safari for the SNES).
Maybe I did. Don't get me wrong, I still like first person shooters, despite their stagnant status and I don't critizise anyone for liking them, I just crtitizise those same people for critizising something that certainly tries to innovate, while they still keep buying franchises that rarely do.RaikuFA said:
I don´t understand the hype for Wreck it Ralph. Think it looks pretty standard with the usual jokes and a plot seemingly similar to monsters inc. Would probably help if i could understand the hype behind most Pixar films, but alas i cannot.
![Fr]anc[is](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/93/93202.jpg?1620797781){kind=avatar}
I'm not all that impressed about the Brave trailer. Oh my, a girl who is not...GIRLY?! And so contrary to societal pressures too! I can't say I've ever before seen corsets and dresses used as a metaphor for female servitude.
I understand it is a kid's film, but I expected something a little smarter from Pixar. The best tomboy movie of all time came out more than 60 years ago: the 1953 musical, Calamity Jane. It bothers me that even with the benefit of a more enlightened, accommodating society, we still haven't been able to out do that movie in terms of depth and gender politics.
I understand it is a kid's film, but I expected something a little smarter from Pixar. The best tomboy movie of all time came out more than 60 years ago: the 1953 musical, Calamity Jane. It bothers me that even with the benefit of a more enlightened, accommodating society, we still haven't been able to out do that movie in terms of depth and gender politics.
Well... in all seriousness... "You mean I get to kill white people and get paid for it? What's not to like?"... they aren't exactly going for subtlety.DVS BSTrD said:
If you replaced "white people" in the preceding sentence with any other ethnic group the movie wouldn't just be boycotted; it wouldn't even get a green light in the first place (at least not by any major studio). Southerners are pretty much the only people you can bash with impunity. Even "The Dictator" had a bunch of Arab-Americans decrying it.
People have a right to make whatever movies they want, but you're kidding yourself if you think this movie is going to help race-relations in America.
You can joke about white people being scared into voting one way or the other, but it isn't all about people being alarmist and thinking a race war is coming. The fact of the matter is that you have all sorts of people in the media basically insinuating that white Southerners are evil trash, and then people are surprised when Southern political views become radicalized. Maybe it's because they feel like a large portion of society hates them for something that happened before they were born and wants to destroy their way of life... wonder where they would get that idea...
And no, I'm not saying that slavery is off limits as artistic subject matter. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be surprised when the portion of society they enjoy demonizing starts to become vindictive.
Ugh... here I go again. Let me start off by saying that people have a right to make whatever movies they want and that the following is just a general response to historical inaccuracy, partially as a means of venting and partially in the vain hopes that I might actually encourage someone to think for themselves and reexamine what they've been told about American history.MovieBob said:
Now with those preliminary remarks out of the way...
WARNING, INCOMING HISTORICAL RANT
What popular movies always fail to mention is the fact that only the wealthiest 10% of southerners owned slaves, and that the slavery-based plantation system was essentially a huge economic hegemony that prevented less wealthy landowners from becoming successful. Take a wild guess who were the officers and who were the (most likely drafted) enlisted men in the Civil War. Saying that most of the Southerners who fought and died for the Confederacy did it because they loved slavery and wanted to own slaves one day is pretty much the same as saying that all the Americans who fought in Vietnam did it because they loved capitalism and wanted to become CEOs one day.
Add to this the fact that the South was economically devastated by the war and never recovered (Reconstruction, although a genuine good in its intention to integrate and acclimate the former slaves into Southern society, did little-to-nothing to repair the overall damage to the Southern infrastructure after the Civil War), and you can start to see why the constant berating of Southerners as evil uneducated hicks might be considered a bit unfair. It's pretty easy to make fun of someone for being uneducated after you've burnt down their schools.
The media loves to make fun of the South for being backward and rural because they seem to think this was some sort of conscious choice on the part of southerners. In fact it was mostly due to the deliberate economic sanctions placed upon the South by the federal government, in which the more highly populated Northern states controlled the House of Representatives. The Northern economy was predominantly industrial because its land wasn't productive for farming. The reason it had a higher population density was due to this fact: industrial jobs can support more people than farming. The South, on the other hand, had much better land for farming cash crops.
However, this is not the end of the story. One must realize that this was still in the very early stages of the industrial era, before cars and electronics. Before the Civil War the Northern economy was centered around the textile mills in New England, who refined cotton and sold it to Europe (and to a lesser degree iron founding). Of course, in order for your textile mills to make money you need cotton. Here's where the Northern political hegemony comes in. The North needed the cotton produced by the South. It doesn't take a genius to see how the South developing textile mills of its own would be extremely detrimental to the Northern economy, as the North was essentially acting as a middle man between the South and Europe.
Successful Southern harbors were also a direct threat to the Northern economy. One fact that people like to conveniently leave out of the history of slavery is that the slave trade operated through the ports of New England, not through Southern harbors. Someone who is predisposed to cynicism might be tempted to point out how anti-slavery sentiments in New England only seemed to gain traction once the slave trade was made obsolete by the existing population of African-Americans in the South. Many of the Ivy League colleges directly benefited from the slave trade, especially Brown: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/mar/23/highereducation.internationaleducationnews
The result of all this was the North imposing crippling tariffs on the South to prevent it from developing harbors and industry, starting with the "Tariff of Abominations" of 1828 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations Tariffs such as this essentially trapped Southerners into buying and selling almost exclusively with the North by raising the taxes on international trade to prohibitive levels. While the South was able to counteract some of these tariffs, it was fighting a losing battle due to the strong majority that the Northern states held in the House of Representatives.
The idea that the Civil War was either about state's rights or about slavery as two mutually exclusive options is completely idiotic. While slavery is clearly immoral, only the most white-washed and simplistic view of history would lead one to think that Southerners were purely evil and solely concerned with upholding slavery while Northerners were utterly morally righteous and purely concerned with abolition. Unfortunately, that is almost always how it is portrayed in the media.
This is the kind of propaganda that made Orwell crap his pants.
The deification of Lincoln is the worst of all. There has been more scholarship published recently that has shown the many moral failings (which is an understatement) of Lincoln.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
Though some of it is a bit overblown, the real picture of Lincoln presented through many of his own recorded statements is pretty undeniable.
Just for starters, people like to skip over the fact that Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and then proceeded to throw dissenting journalists in jail without trials as well as a significant portion of the population of Maryland, which he feared would try to secede due to its ties to slavery.
While (contrary to what some critics have argued) Lincoln clearly opposed slavery, it is clear that he was more concerned with preserving the union. The much lauded Emancipation Proclamation was largely a wartime ploy; not only did it not apply to Northern slave-holding states, but it even had a clause that offered slavery to any states that ceased hostilities and rejoined the union before January 1st, 1863. One of his famous quotes was "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)
It is also clear that Lincoln considered white people to be superior to black people. For instance, in his debate with Douglass in 1858 he made the following remark:
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone."
Whether or not this and many of his other quotes were sincere or made merely for political gain is a matter of some controversy. It is clear that Lincoln abhorred slavery and thought that black people had a right to pursue happiness. However, it also seems evident that he considered whites to be superior to blacks, and it is probable, given the evidence, that he was at the very least skeptical whether the two could coexist in one society. His position seemed to be in favor of the colonization of Africa and to settle the freedmen there once slavery was eliminated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery#Colonization
Were this not enough, there is also ample evidence of his genocidal intentions towards Native Americans. He ordered the largest mass execution in US history against the Sioux: http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html His anti-Native American attitude was one of the primary reasons why the Cherokee Nation joined the Confederacy: http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/issues/lincoln.html
He also was clearly in favor of total war against the South and the deliberate targeting of the civilian population. He fully supported General Sherman's "March to the Sea", and when General Sheridan wrote to Lincoln that he had pillaged the Shenandoah valley to the point where "a crow could not fly over it without bringing its own food" he applauded his efforts. He even refused to provide medicine and food to Union prisoners at Andersonville when the Southern officials extended the offer (due to their own lack of resources) because he thought it would be more of a burden to the South. (While there was no doubt abuse at Andersonville, the orthodox versions of history often fail to point out that much of the suffering was due to a crippling lack of resources on the part of the Southern overseers.)
The fact that we blindly revere such a figure and ignore his faults is highly disturbing. I believe the most fitting expression of this is the Lincoln monument itself:
Notice that he is sitting on a throne and his arms rest on Roman fasces, symbols of power and authority; the Roman notion of imperium. The meaning of the imagery is clear: it directly compares Lincoln to Augustus (Octavian) Caesar, the man who ended the Roman Republic and established the Roman Empire.
More than not technically a bad guy, he was also technically a real guy!
Victor Zangief was the real life inspiration for the Street Fighter Zangief!
Victor Zangief was the real life inspiration for the Street Fighter Zangief!
The problem is that it doesn't use the cameos as anything more than cameos. Its like "hey remember these guys? You played their games right? Well its not about those guys its about a new made up character and his made up companions." It just feels like nothing more than a shallow tease. Also the scene in the trailer where he goes to a generic sci fi fps....it just left a bad taste in my mouth. It lacks a game reference so is it just making a joke about all fps games being the same? I dunno, just rambling. Just another "misguided hero trying to find himself" movie. And I don't think John C Reily is capable of being funny, especially in the lead role of a Disney movie. Sarah Silverman reading a PG script is also the exact opposite of what I would be interested in as well.MrBaskerville said:
Yea I don't see why Bob is so amazed about another princess movie about sticking it to authority and gender roles. At this point it just feels like beating a dead horse. Ok, we GET IT. We we're male dominant once, can we PLEASE make another movie about something else? As a guy I just feel like rolling my eyes. But any negative criticism might be overlooked as sexism.....because the internet is the internet. Sigh :/maninahat said: