Magazine writer fired after dustup with Rockstar PR and Capcom Milking Street Fighter IV even MORE!

Magazine writer fired after dustup with Rockstar PR

Leaked email details Rockstar's extreme sensitivity to negative coverage

http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/grand-theft-auto-iv/news/magazine-writer-fired-after-dustup-with-rockstar-pr/a-20100407113454149016/g-2008080416222952067

So, Rockstar is pressuring writers to be very positive, even if they feel otherwise? They are trying to tell the journalists what and how to write?

According to a news.com.au story, a deputy editor for Austrailian publication Zoo Weekly has been fired after publishing an allegedly internal email from Rockstar regarding Zoo's coverage of the upcoming Red Dead Redemption. The alleged email from Rockstar, which former deputy entertainment editor Toby McCasker posted on his Facebook, contained the following:


This is the biggest game we've done since GTA IV, and is already receiving Game of the Year 2010 nominations from specialists all around the world, it read.


Can you please ensure Toby's article reflects this — he needs to respect the huge achievement he's writing about here.

What's the implication here? What are they saying, if you read between the lines? You better play ball, if you know what's good for you.

If Red Dead Redemption is so damn good, why do they need to do this? Are they lying about how good Red Dead Redemption really is?

I think so.

And what's with GOTY nominations already?

What the fuck really goes on behind the scenes in this industry?

Another thing:

Super Street Fighter IV, which already doesn't need to exist, apparently isn't enough milking for Capcom, as there is DLC for the game. Really? Like people buying your game twice isn't enough? You can't at least be somewhat decent and make sure that the gamers whom you have already manipulated and taken advatntage of at least get everything there is to offer from your now $110 game? You still have to sell them more shit?

We've got this shit, DLC releases on day one, DLC being announced well before a game ships, different pre-order bonuses for different stores, further fragmenting a game, Ubisoft holding back 2 levels from Assassin's Creed 2 for sale as DLC, Capcom removing content from Dead Rising 2 to repackage as a prequel (if you believe that they are legitimately developing this content and selling it separately you are a sucker, I'm sorry), and Capcom (again) selling fucking costumes for SFIV at a couple of bucks a pop, which, while already ridiculous, is made 100 times worse when you realize that these costumes were already developed, as they were in the arcade version of the game.

I don't like where this industry is headed.

I could go go on and on and on and on. In fact, I will! In another blog.

Ohhhhhh.

I promise it will be worth the wait. I will do a well thought out list of things that I feel are wrong with gaming. It won't be an off the cuff blog like this, so it will be of a higher quality.

Promise.

If I Was God....

Note: This one is pretty much directly aimed at this Yaweh character (and his followers)

Note 2: There is a video on this very subject located at the bottom of this post.

If I was god......

If I was god, I'd have done things a bit differently. Here's a list of some of the things I would do. Of course, this is not an exhaustive list. It's just to exemplify the type of things I'd be doing.

I'd make inanimate, non sentient meat grow on trees. so no species have to endure being eaten alive to provide sustenance for something else.

I'd make it so that the life I created is suitably built to withstand the environment I put them in. And if I did not (although I cannot foresee a reason why), I'd at least give them stuff to meet the environmental demands. I mean, what? The dude couldn't throw us a winter jacket? Do you send your kids out into the cold without a jacket? Make them hunt dangerous animals to make their own until they become smart enough to make coats in factories?

I'd design a world that doesn't have natural disasters, ever.

I would never have created things like cancer, polio, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, crohn's and ulcerative Colitis (things with which I am intimately familiar), ulcers, huntington's, asthma, angina, stroke, bursitis (have this as well), parkinson's, muscular dystrophy, fibromyalgia (yes it's real), narcolepsy, depression, bipolar disorder, social anxiety disorder, birth defects like craniosynostosis (which I had) and probably one of the most horrible ones in existence, anencephaly (babies born without all or most of their brain, skull and scalp), which is pictured here:

(what the hell kind of perfect god allows THAT sort of shit to exist?)

I'd switch out pain for something else that warns you of danger but doesn't make you suffer. Or I'd make it so that pain shut off when it was no longer needed. Burn victims do not need to suffer for months on end. They are well aware of their injury and what not to do. Why do they need to suffer so?

I'd create people who adhere to the golden rule. Of course, this wouldn't apply to masochists. Actually that reminds me....

No masochists. And no sociopaths or psychopaths. Human brains wouldn't be such fickle things if they were of my creation. Yes, people would have freedom to develop as they will, but I would set some basic fucking parameters.

I wouldn't give two shits for what consenting adults do with their bodies.

I would not give people pervasive desires and then make it a no no to act on them.

I wouldn't expect to be worshipped. If I deserve it, respect me. Even love me, if you wish. No worship please. Maybe a few hugs from some pretty ladies, but that's it.

I wouldn't sit idly by and watch my children destroy one another and the environment I gave them to live in. We don't allow human parents to act in this manner, and I wouldn't expect you to allow me to do so either. Not that I would. A parent should guide their children and help them along the path of life, not remain hidden and silent with the only message being ''read my book.''

And, lastly, if I ever did get angry (a curiously human attribute), I wouldn't act out in a childlike way and throw tantrums involving hurricanes and earthquakes. I'd calm down and then approach my creation in a constructive manner, and broach the subject that ailed me. At most, I might raise my voice a few times a millenia. And for that I do apologize.

NOTE TO "GOD":

And if this stuff was caused by the so called fall of man, as you and your followers often say, well, you know what buddy? Perhaps you need to do what women have done for centuries: Lower your expectations. We didn't live up to your vision for us? Your creation failed you? Well, ignoring the fact that you are supposedly omniscient and would have seen this coming, you should lower your damn expectations and reduce your requirements. Lowering your standards makes a lot more sense than creating loopholes that include blood sacrifices, does it not? Especially given the fact that your loophole shenanigans still failed.

Sorry folks, but I think I would make a better god than this supposed god character. And no, I don't view myself as some sort of deity, demigod, or anything other than a fallible human being.

AutoSave Saved Over Your Work? Recover Data Lost By Blogger AutoSave

The fact that Blogger autosaves your draft on a supremely regular schedule is incredibly reassuring. However, it's also a potential disaster waiting to happen, as I recently discovered. I accidentally deleted a huge chunk of my draft, and then watched in horror as the autosaver did its thing, thereby cementing my newfound problem, losing my work forever in the annals of internet ghostdom. You see, there's no way to revert to a previous draft (why, I do not know, but I assume this will be added in at some future date). Nor is there a way to decrease the autosave frequency from obsessive-compulsive to anything ranging from still too often but at least somewhat more reasonable to every five or ten minutes.

And so, one wonders if it is possible to disable the autosave. Well, unless some computing genius discovers some seemingly unintuitive workaround, the answer, for now, is no. So, no draft recovery, no decreasing the autosave frequency to something less....manic, and no disabling the damn thing altogether. Once you get in a relationship with the blogger autosave feature, you're not getting out. Funny thing is though, I don't recall taking any oath.

So what is a blogger to do?

Well, I have a solution for you. Unfortunately, I did not possess this knowledge at the time of my great loss. Which really sucked, as I lost some pretty damn salient points, and my ad hoc replacements for them were.....not as fulfilling or poignant.

Anyways, enough of my troubles. Let's get on with the damn solution already, shall we? Well, fear not, humble reader. Here it is:

Ctrl + Z.

Yes, that's it. Ctrl + Z is an all purpose Undo command, which works in quite a wide range of programs. I thought to give it a try a few minutes ago, after purposely deleting some text and then pondering my unfortunate recent loss of (salient) points. I was considering how easy it was to delete things, and lamenting the fact that it was impossible to undo such a disastrous event (I'm not over dramatic in the least, I know) when it dawned on me. UNDO!!! That's it!

Try the Undo command! And I did, and the rest is history. Well, of sorts.....kind of.....? Okay, fine, the rest is.....a blip on the pimple of history. Better? 

Anyways,  the idea behind the undo command is that you undo any recent mistakes at the push of a but-well, two but-, er, keys. Say you type a sentence and then decide that you do not like it. Or you add a number to a figure and then realize you did so erroneously. Well, you could hit that undo button at the top of your program toolbar, or you could hit Ctrl+ Z. The beauty of undo is that it works for any recently transpired event. Even deleting something. So, in some weird double negative faux pas je ne ce quais sort of way (what the hell did I just say?) you can undo a deletion. You're basically undoing your undo, or redoing your do. It's like a sneaky misuse of the undo command that can't get you in trouble with anyone, but probably won't get you a job or get you laid, either.

So, in a stroke of pure geniu-ah, okay, even I recognize that I'm going too far here.....in a stroke of ordinary but useful thought, I stumbled upon the idea of undoing your undo, and it worked!

I hope this is helpful to anyone who loses a part of (or their whole) blog. I know what that feels like, and it's not fun.

Bye, and happy blogging!

(and may you get more comments on your blog than I do on mine)

My Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street Remake and The ANOES Series

NOTE: I don't get many comments on this blog, but I am going to come right out and request that anyone reading who has anything to add, either positive or negative, please, feel free to leave me a comment. You can choose anonymous if you so desire, I do not block anonymous comments on this blog. I put quite a lot of time and effort into this one, so any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. Help me feel as though I can't hear the echo of my own voice in here for once :)

Alright, so, on to the Nightmare on Elm Street Series!


So, A Nightmare on Elm Street has been remade. Like many of the fans of the original series, I'm not entirely thrilled. I wasn't particularly thrilled when I heard about it, and then when I saw who was involved (and who was not) well.....let's get to that later. First, I want to talk about the series as a whole, and then I will get into the remake and my thoughts on it. Be prepared, this is a lengthy blog, but I think.....well....hope, that it will prove to be a pleasant read to anyone interested in the subject matter.

I LOVE the Nightmare on Elm Street Series. I love them all, from the suspense filled, serious in tone, scary original, to the silly and humour driven, campy (but somewhat stupid, granted) later iterations. And that's one of the great things about the series. It wasn't your typical slasher. The original, A Nightmare on Elm Street (ANOES for short) was great because it had a fantastic antagonist in Freddy Krueger, suspense, intrigue, an amazing musical score, some really great effects for the day (which were pulled off with a slim budget), a very unique concept, and, perhaps most importantly (maybe not most, but quite), the characters had depth and were very likeable, ensuring that you cared about the protagonists, which is very important if you want the murders in a slasher movie to be horrifying as opposed to entertaining.

When the teens died in the first Nightmare, I wasn't cheering (and still do not). In the typical slasher film, I, and almost everyone else watching, does just that. We can't wait for the bodies to start dropping, and we cheer it when it happens. We revel in it. The "villain" is the frigging good guy! But not in ANOES, oh no. When the teens die you're horrified. You don't want anything unfortunate to befall them. None of what was happening was their fault, and they weren't acting in ways that made you desire for them to be killed.

Now, the later sequels (especially 5 and 6) were really silly, and quite campy, but even then, they were not your typical slasher films. And why was that, you ask? Well, they still had the unique concept. The villain, while he started to become the hero after part 4 ( a typical slasher feature), was very unique in that he talked, and made jokes. His few, evil one liners early on turned into full on zany comedy later on (riding a skateboard, anyone?) which, while it changed the tone of the series, and made it very campy, still differentiated it from may other slasher movies/series in that the killers in those weren't cracking jokes. Also, again, the concept was really very unique. A demonic entity possessed human, killing teenagers in their dreams from beyond the grave? Does that sound like a typical slasher to you?

Didn't think so ;)

The series started out incredibly strong. And then Bob Shaye, the executive producer and genius (sarcasm) responsible for the stupid rule breaking ending of the original ANOES (Wes Craven fought him tooth and nail on that but ultimately lost.....the money prevailed I guess, since Shaye was the one who was coughing up and taking the chance on Craven and co.) got his mitts on the sequel (which by all accounts, Craven did NOT want to happen, and was ultimately not involved in) and delivered to us his ideas in the form of A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge.

This was a shitty (comparatively) sequel. It's probably my least favourite of the series (although A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child is also up there) because, while Freddy was an evil, sadistic, demonic, scary fuck in this one (even darker than in the original) there were some signs of things to come contained within, and there was also the problem of a shitty and annoying protagonist, and cast of characters, some really insipid scenes, and of course, the biggest problem of all: Mr. Bob Shaye, rule breaker, continued to break the rules! Big time. Now, all of a sudden, Freddy could operate outside of the dream world?

Huh? What the....? What the fuck?

What a damn travesty! He SHIT all over Craven's work. Now, despite all this, I still do like the film. For one, it's a Nightmare movie, and I love Nightmare movies. Freddy is beyond awesome, and that alone is enough to at least get me in front of the screen. And by the way, before I continue on, as an aside, I just want to say that

ROBERT ENGLUND IS FREDDY DAMN IT!!

Okay, I got that off my chest and now I feel a bit better.

Anyways, as I was saying, besides Freddy being in it, it did feature some great moments, some awesome lines from Freddy, and a really, dark, sinister iteration of Krueger is something we fans can all appreciate. One particularly memorable scene is when Freddy is standing outside after fucking up the pool party (during, I might add, absolutely no one's dream, Mr. Shaye, you moron) and he waves his arms over his head, in front of a light source, casting this brilliant shadow in the light, razor glove and all, as he says the chilling line

you are all my children now

(emphasis on all)

So awesome. Such a great visual, and I loved when they replicated this many years later in Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

So, what are my favourite entries in the Nightmare on Elm Street series?

A Nightmare on Elm Street , A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, and Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

Things were getting a bit silly by the time the A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: Dream Master rolled around, but it retained some aspects of the better ones, and I still enjoy it greatly. Some pretty ridiculous, but awesome scenes contained within this one. I won't spoil anything, but bench pressing, anyone?

As I said, I love them all, even Freddy's Dead: The Final (lol) Nightmare and A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, despite the fact that they sort of....suck. Seriously, that staircase scene near the end of A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child.......what the fuck. And again, like in Freddy's Revenge, they really fucked with the canon in that one. I mean, as the series went on, the rules were bent and changed seemingly at will, arbitrarily and for no reason, but 5 took it to a whole new level. Sure, they were in uncharted waters with the whole pregnancy thing, but it still didn't fit. They might objectively suck but I still love them. It's hard work, though :)

Actually, come to think of it, part six, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, doesn't suc- ah, ya, I guess it does, but I'm actually very partial to that one, compared to 2 and 5 (the other 2 iterations of the nightmare saga which are in my ya, they basically suck but I still like them camp). Freddy's Dead s really, really fun, and it's got some absolutely hilarious moments. One in particular that sticks out is Freddy toying with the deaf kid, removing his hearing aid, creeping around behind him making faces at him....lol. And then, he takes the hearing aid and....modifies it, turning improved hearing into improved hearing, which he then has some fun with, in typical late series Freddy fashion. Let's just say he puts a whole new spin on the phrase "like nails on a chalkboard."

To those of you reading this you have not done so, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors is one you have to see. I suggest, if you have not seen it, watching the original A Nightmare on Elm Street before you do. Heather Langenkamp, who played Nancy in part one, returns, and the moment when Freddy and Nancy encounter eachother for the first time since the events in A Nightmare on Elm Street is AWESOME, and Freddy's in an.....interesting form. I won't say what, but he does some very interesting things to himself in that one. I highly suggest watching it. Not only for those reasons of course.

Again, like the original A Nightmare on Elm Street, this movie had a great cast of teenagers. The movie took place in a mental health facility, full of teenagers with sleeping and psychiatric (supposedly) disorders. Of course, we know what's really going on, and we watch it wondering if the kids will die before any incompetent adult figures out that they aren't delusional and they aren't making up this burned man with a razor filled glove on his hand stalking them in their sleep.

*whew* Try saying that five times fast!

Anyways.......

Of course, many of the teenagers aren't very fortunate, and they meet an early demise at the hand of this burned dream demon.

This sequel introduces a few new concepts while sticking to the rules established in the first, the return of (an older) Nancy is very much appreciated, and you once again sympathize with the kids trying to reach the adults around them as they endure being stalked by some dream stalking psychopath who's slowly killing their peers in horribly gruesome ways. Now, this sequel did have Freddy getting a bit more liberal with the jokes, and the silliness started to show, but the balance was still reasonable between the serious tone/horror
and the humour, and the humour was steeped in that horror as opposed to at the expense of it, as it was in later sequels.

Oh, to quickly speak to one of the things I mentioned earlier, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 introduced some new concepts, one of them being Freddy's ability to take on entirely new forms. They had played with the notion of him altering his form in the previous movies, but not like this. He does some pretty awesome and interesting this in this one, really showcasing the power afforded him by the fact that he exists only in dreams.

My second favourite entry into the A Nightmare on Elm Street series is Wes Craven's New Nightmare....what a movie. If there was one way to perfectly describe the reaction/reception this movie received, at least as I see it, it would be Loved by a few, hated by a few, misunderstood by most.

I personally LOVE it. Wes Craven's New Nightmare and the original A Nightmare on Elm Street are the two best in the series in my opinion. Speaking of Wes Craven, Wes Craven's New Nightmare was a risky move for Craven. I don't want to say much about this one, as it needs to be seen, and I feel the less one knows going in the better. I will say that the originality I spoke of boils down to the fact that it's a movie within a movie. This meta-movie idea (a meta-movie, or a metafilm), is a film which is a metaphor for the production of said film. Essentially, the events of the film are the events of the film within the film actually happening).

This was off putting to many but I personally thought it to be brilliant and very fitting. Basically, to surmise it really quickly, in the movie, Freddy Krueger is a movie icon, and fans are clamouring for more. Wes Craven is secretly writing a new Nightmare script, spurred on by some nightmares that he has been having. As he writes, ominous things start happening in real life, mostly centred on Heather Langenkamp, the actress who portrayed Nancy Thompson in the first and third Nightmare on Elm Street films.

In his script, he writes that evil, if it is captured in art, can be defeated, but if it is not captured in art, is is free to accumulate power in the real world. Freddy was kept out of the real world by being written about in films, but now, with no fiction binding the evil behind Krueger to that world, is roaming free and trying desperately to gain entrance into the real world. As time passes, and the writing continues, this malevolent force grows stronger, and tries to get in by gaining access through the gatekeeper, who it believes to be Heather, since he believes she gave Nancy her power, the power she used to defeat Freddy. And so, there is a struggle between Heather Langenkamp and the evil force behind the fictional villain Freddy Krueger, as he battles to enter her realm, and she must decide if she has the courage to enter his, and defeat him, once and for all.

The blending of the worlds is just fantastic. It starts to happen so seamlessly that Heather finds herself, unbeknownst to herself, becoming Nancy Thompson, and the people around her, who played in the Nightmare films, are becoming the characters they portrayed. And in this film, Freddy is the ultimate depiction of what Craven envisioned. Dark, menacing, evil. Freddy is pure fucking evil in this one. He's probably the scariest he's ever been, and he's certainly the meanest. His look has changed. His glove is now organic, indicative of the transition and blending taking place. He wears a black trenchcoat, his face has changed somewhat, and his voice, while basically the same, has taken on even more menace. And this time, he's not limited to teenage victims....

The movie is very suspenseful, very well crafted, and very entertaining. There are a myriad of great scenes within. It's somewhat plagued by problems of consistency though, as the concept, I'm sure my readers can surmise, does lend itself to some vagueries and opportunities for inconsistency, and you do get some of that. There are a few things within that will make you wonder aren't they breaking their own rules? even though the rules aren't necessarily crystal clear to anyone, including those in the film. Come to think of it, perhaps that's the point. Or maybe I'm just being too forgiving now. Either way, it's amazing, and it's a fantastic end to the series. Brings it right back to the quality for the first, and justifies its existence both in that fact, and in the fact that it's definitely not a rehash.

Of course, however, as we all know, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, the fantastic and fitting end to a great series, did not end up being the end at all. As is the case with horror movies, especially slasher films, they just keep going and going and going......Just like a certain drum beating bunny.....

It keeps going and going and going......

Years later, we got Freddy vs Jason. And now, we have the dreaded REMAKE. Duhn duhn duhn...

And now, My Thoughts on the A Nightmare on Elm Street Remake.

I grew up with ANOES. When I heard about this remake I did what all nostalgia fuelled fans do: I decried it.

Then when I realized who was involved, I felt completely justified in my feelings. These guys churn out drivel, and drivel is what this remake is based upon the large number of reviews and tons of viewer feedback that I have read online (and also inference based upon previous works of theirs and the current state of American horror).

Here are my issues with this remake (although, keep in mind, I have not yet seen it):

1) Freddy's look. I know that's more realistic, but he lost the demonic look that I loved. However, I am willing to admit a part of this is likely nostalgia.

Ugh.......

2) HIS VOICE!! Freddy sounded demonic. Now he sounds like a breathless Rocky Balboa. Not scary in the least and this alone is a huge dealbreaker for me.

3) Based upon several reviews and viewer feedback it seems as though the ''scares'' were pretty much the loud BAM sound followed by a sudden appearance of Freddy. I HATE  the overuse of jump scares. It's cheap, cheesy, manipulative and indicative of the fact that these guys are creatively bankrupt and don't understand shit about horror or what Craven did with ANOES.

4) I read that the nightmare scenes are always telegraphed via musical and aesthetic changes. Part of what I loved with the original series is you often weren't immediately aware that you were in 'dream world' if you will. There were some surprises. Some.....unknown. Some...suspense.

5) The footage I have seen features a very wooden Nancy. Langenkamp might not win any awards but at least she had expression and depth.

6) The people involved do it solely for money, and they are hacks. They didn't even care to try and involve any of the original people. No Craven, no Saxon, no Lagenkamp and no Englund.

Now, this is a 'reboot' so this makes some sense. Well, Englund could have played Krueger but the rest make sense. Except for one: Craven. They didn't bother to get input from the one man who truly understood Krueger, and the one man who had vision. Idiots.

7) I don't want to support this remake bullshit. They fucked up FF13, they destroyed Halloween, the are fucking up Krueger (although I can't fully say this until I see it, which of course I'll end up doing at some point, let's be real, but hopefully for free after my brother buys the DVD) and they have completely destroyed so many others. Black Christmas, Prom Night, Psycho (not that I'm a huge fan of the original), Dawn of the Dead, etc etc etc

8) WHERE THE FUCK IS THE ORIGINAL SCORE?? It's the best damn horror score EVER.

9) CGI. Jesus. The clip of Freddy coming out the wall looks so fucking fake now, whereas the budget shot with no CGI still looks better today.

10) They all know what's going on way too early, and they come to know it way too easily. The original had a slow, suspenseful buildup where Nancy and co. tried to piece together what was happening.

Maybe I'll end up liking it, but I doubt it. The guys behind the project just don't see horror the way I do, and I don't think I'll enjoy what they did to ANOES.

Still, I admit I may be wrong. There's .000003% chance of it :)

And of course, some nostalgia is involved. I freely admit that.

So, as it stands, I don't expect to like this one. I don't anticipate feeling any real emotion while watching it. Like most modern horror, I figure it will be like going through a fast food drive thru. I'll get something that resembles the thing I am looking for, it will go down easy, and it will be forgotten almost instantly......well, it will be forgottent, but it will leave me a nice goign away present, namely, heartburn and digestive issues.

So, ya, as of now, the Platium Dunes assholes can take their overprocessed, unemotive, wooden mass produced, money grab, b.s. 'film' and shove it up their asses. Assuming of course it will fit in there, since we all know there's a lot of shit up their ass to begin with. Namely, the hopes, dreams, and childhoods of 1980's horror fans. Poeple like me, good, honest, hard working, god feari-well, okay, good, honest, hard working people, just trying to get by in life, and hoping to be entertained here and there on the way through this roller coaster of a life. They farted out my childhood when they made this movie, and now it stinks. It stinks to high heav- well, it stinks to high something. It stinks of hollywood, coporatized, assembly line horsehsit that passes for horror these days. They seem to average $1, 400 000 per shitty jump scare, and I am sure they made about $35, 000, 000 thus far off of this travesty. This affront to 1980's, plaid wearing, big haired, MC Hammer liking sensibilities.

Note to Platinum Dunes: I want my fucking childhood back, you assholes. I don't recall putting it on the market, so I have no idea how you fuckers bought and sold it, but I want it back. Now, give it back, or I'll......I'll......kil- no, no, that's not it......I'll, I'll, beat- no, no, that's not it either.....I'll I'll.....su-no, no that's not it.....Ah, Hell. I'll keep blogging about you!!! And you don't want that, trust me. I have a HUGE audience and immeasurable influence. I can get people to boycott your ass, and let me tell you, you'd lose at least $23.00. You want to test me? You want to test me motherfuckers? Go ahead, oif you think it's worth $23.00, go right the fuck ahead, you childhood stompin fart brains.

OH GREAT!! I have just been informed, as I write this, that Paltinum Dune already have 2 MORE NOES movies in the works. Jesus H Christ on a stick, talk about milking.

They took a series that has already been milked to the point of well.....no more milk...ness? I don't know. Point of being barren. Milk dry? Milkless? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!!!!!!!!

RAWR!!!

Anyways, the took this already milked series, and decided, "Hey!! Let's redo it all! Let's milk it some more! And we'll do it with less talent, worse leads, and a shitty sounding Freddy! Awesome, we're going to make sooooooo much money! High fives all around!!!"

*sounds of childhoods being shat out, crapped on, farted on, and farted out*

/Cut to scene of magx01 crying in a corner, rhythmically chanting "It's not real, it's not real."

Ha, interesting little aside here. Those last few words called to mind (with no effort on my part) a line from Stephen King's IT (the miniseries, based on the tremendously awesome novel). The line is:

"You're not real!!! You're not real!!!"  

It's delivered by the actress playing Beverly Marsh, and it's delivered in a very convincing voice, fraught with several emotions at once; a woman on the edge, desperately trying to keep it together while she tries to grasp the enormity of the situation in which she finds herself after thrusting herself blindly back into her past, at the whim of a childhood friend whom she hadn't heard from in 28 years.

I heard that line in my head as I typed that line, and I heard it exactly as it's delivered in the movie. And upon recalling the line, I felt a small, but real chill. A momentary shudder, as I recalled the situation this woman found herself in, and the terror I felt as a ten year old boy watching this unfold on my tv (thanks mom, and ABC, primetime tv. As Freddy would say, "Welcome to prime time, bitch!"

Why mention this? Well, simple. This demomstrates the power of film. Sure, horror movies aren't high art, but they do have the fantastic capability to really resonate with you. To burrow into the psyche and lay dormant for years, only to spring forth at opportune moments and elicit the same fear they did when you first experienced them. People say the boogeyman isn't real, but I say he is, in the form of the latent emotion, leftover in my subconscious a result of watching a shitload of horror movies as I grew up. And that, friends, is the power of horror.

And do you know what scenes result in this occurrence? The psychologically weighty ones. Not the stupid LOUD NOISES BOO!!!! nonsense. Too bad Platinum Douche doesnt understand that.

Thanks for fucking up my childhood, assholes.

Last little note: To those who will read this and find themselves wondering how one can be so certain about a movie which one has not even seen, well friends, I fully acknowledge that I may be blogging a nice apology to Platinum Dunes and you, the reader, sometime soon. However, in the interest in full disclosure, I can honestly say, with as little hubris as possible, that, in all my experience, I'm more often right when it comes to preconceived notions on films. That does not mean I am right this time, and I am not saying I am ever wrong, I'm not. I've been wrong many times, some of them for really notable films. I went into the Dark Knight thinking it would suck. WRONG. I went into Iron Man expecting to hate it, and ended up liking it. NOT loving it, but liking it. I went into Spiderman thinking it would suck. Liked it. I went into X-Men thinking it would be shit. Loved it. (Hated origins though. Ugh). I thought I would hate The Matrix. Wow, wrong.

That all being said, I honestly am more often right. I'm usually pretty good with making predictions about my feelings on a movie after just viewing trailers. However, in this case, I have done a LOT more than that, and I have been a horror fan for more than 20 years. I know what I like, I know my dislikes, and I know what I hate in horror. And based on the things I have seen, heard and read, the chances of me hating this movie are high. Almost as high as I'd have to be to love it :)

Thanks for reading!!! I hope you enjoyed it, I enjoyed writing it. And as I said in the beginning, please feel free to comment. This blog took quite a while, and so any feedback would help me feel like I am not totally wasting my time here :)

Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes

PREFACE: For anyone who came here expecting to find The Lost Commandment? on this page, I apologize, but I was inspired to write another blog post. You can easily find that blog by looking to the right and slightly down. It's right under blog archive. Or, you can just click this Link and get to it that way.

Okay, so the blog. Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes sent my way by people trying to insult/own/'pwn'/denigrate/disparage or otherwise hurt me for whatever reason.

you are a beginner and I dont expect you to understand more complex intricacys that you'll miss


now...who is the dumby?


Also, those video clips you have are blasphemous and you should really take them down and repent before it's too late.

P.S. Your a fucking hippie. Wanna be friends?

i am an extra terrestrial, i come to earth to save mankind, i am appalled at the state of mankind and i am asking, no i am DEMANDING that you denounce your ways, and watch my video (it is my featured channel video, broadcasted from my craft) and you devote your lives to God

Creationism is a widely believed theory along with evolution. Not allowing it in discussions is wrong especially since many kids at that point would already believe it to be true.

Sarah Palin? She's not too bad. Probably not President material but she could be a Senator. She too is a victim of rabid attacks by the left as well.

so you don't like Palin I take it.



That's called God of the Gaps: "We don't know what happened, so God must have done it."


But what I'm doing is this: "Scientists don't know what happened from a naturalistic point of view, so here's an explanation that completely works and makes sense
atheists are more irrational than devout religious believers

He asked God what he could do better to serve him, and God literally said "You can preach," out loud

The God of the Bible wasn't invented to explain any natural phenomenon.

In response to: What happens when cosmology has an excellent, viable model for the origins of the universe(s). Then what?: Outside of the Big Bang, I don't anticipate this occurring.

  positing a creator is not only the only reasonable option available, it is better than merely positing a non answer, or a wild conjecture about multiverses. Not taking a stand on an issue as important as this is sheer folly.

And the absolute best thus far:
Jesus Christ, was that last one an exercise in doublethink, or what?

Islam is a religion of peace. It is something of beauty and Truth, not ugliness like apostasy and your dirty Atheism. I don't appreciate the content of your video, and if you were in front of me in person, I would do as I am commanded and strike you down for Allah. No one gets to spit in the face of Allah and Muhammad (s.a.w.) without retribution. You are taking advantage of the fact that we cannot get to you in person. At least, not yet. Keep insulting my beautiful and peaceful religion, and you might face judgement sooner than you smugly think, you disgusting atheist.
 
Peace be upon you.

EDIT: Part Two now available

The Lost Commandment?

Note: Follow Up: 25 New Religious Commandments Is Available!! (read after this)

I started this blog with the intent of creating a new list of religious commandments, modeled after of course (but not specifically aimed at...per se) the Ten Commandments (capitals for emphasis!) but I hit upon something in the course of doing so, and decided to revamp the concept. I now offer but one commandment, and, the optimist in me (yes, there is one....somewhere) is hoping against all hope that this in fact is a real (but lost) commandment, that we will one day stumble upon. Before I reveal this commandment, let me explain how I hit upon it.

I was coming up with new religious commandments, such as:

Thou shalt not discriminate against anyone based upon their sexual orientation, race, age, etc.


Thou shalt not work towards limiting the happiness of those whose actions you disagree with, if those actions are not harmful to others.

Thou shalt not abuse, neglect, or otherwise treat poorly non human animals. Do not adopt a pet if you cannot and will not provide a loving, stable, fulfilling environment for them.

Thou shalt not have numerous amounts of children for whom thoust cannot provide, financially, emotionally, or otherwise.


Thou shalt not neglect to consider societal and environmental impacts when contemplating having children.

when I wrote a caveat about revisionism into the list. And that's when it hit me.
 
Revision.
 
Perhaps the most important of all of the things left out of religious commandments. The idea that these lists should be revised when both the means, and the societal imperative to do so, arise. If the state of societal health and individual liberty necessitates a change,
 
Thou shall make that change!!!!
 
There is NO reason why ALL religions should not have built in safeguards for the changing moral zeitgeist. Well, apart from that supernaturally provided, absolute morality nonsense. That pesky little thing, that. Probably the single greatest barrier to true, healthy morality that religion has given us (gee, thanks, religion!).
 
If these religious texts, which issued moral commandments, all acknowledged that things change over time, and we must change our morality to crest the tide of these contemporary shifts, we'd be a lot better off, as I see it. 
 
Then again, we've seen changes despite (and often in spite of) these texts and religions, so perhpas, while a nice idea, this isn't imperative. Then again, it certainly could not hurt.  
 
NOTE: If anyone is interested, I will be blogging on the original idea behind this. So, those 5 'new' commandments posted here will see the light of day once again, accompanied by some friends. If you are interested in seeing what else I have in mind, check back. And, if you have any of your own to add, please feel free to add some in the comment section, either on this post or in that future one. Also, feel free to criticize my choices.

Answering Creationist Q?s (answersingenesis + middletownbiblechurch)

These questions were derived from:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/scienc8.htm

and

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-humans

Questions in bold black, answers in bold red.

1) Lets say we did evolve from ape...why did we need to evolve? We have no fur, cant climb trees, aren't as fast and cant really survive in the jungle areas too long...It seems like we devolved in a bunch of ways?

First of all: COMMON ANCESTRY!!!!



All animals evolve, not just humans. As for needing to evolve, we don't need to. Evolution is a natural occurrence that must naturally occur in a system of genetic life that involves mutation and variance. Devolved? We're the most dominant species on the planet. Why do you assume things like speed, fur and climbing trees to be the endpoint(s) of evolution? Here's a hint, there is no goal of evolution. The traits that best enable the propagation of a species live on (natural selection). That's it.

2) why is it that humans can basically eat ANYTHING, including apes....and apes are strictly plant life?

Apes are omnivores.


3) Since a species is commonly defined as a group that can interbreed, it seems like fossils could never be identified to the species level because we can't observe how they interbreed. How do scientists determine what species a fossil is if it looks similar to another fossil but is a different size or slightly different shape? When scientists disagree with the classification of a fossil, who decides where it belongs?

What you described is called morphology. The answer to the question, at least in part, is DNA.


4) The human nose has a prominent bridge and an elongated tip which is lacking in the apes, and man's arms are very short in comparison to the arms of monkeys and apes. The arms of apes hang down to the ground and like its legs, are used for transportation...quick movement & climbing...another de-evolution?

See answer 1. Stop thinking of evolution as though it has an endpoint.


5) Human babies are far more helpless and dependent on their parents than any of the infants of apes and monkeys...What's up with that? Baby apes can move and climb very well only after a few weeks.



The fetal stage in humans is not complete at birth, that's why. Our brains/skulls get too large, so we are born earlier to compensate. Otherwise, we couldn't make it out of the birth canal.



6) If it is inaccurate to say that humans evolved from apes, but instead we should say all apes and humans have a common ancestor, what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape?



Okay, so if you know this, why did you phrase it differently in the beginning? Anyways, why do you equate looking like something with being that something, yet earlier you stated that fossil's can look similar to others fossils? Your question makes no sense. You say we descended from an ancestor that we have in common with apes, yet what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape? That's inconsistent. You're not actually saying what was it, but rather, what did it look like. You are making the vague implication that if it looked like an ape, it must have been an ape? Huh? Do you even know what you are asking here?

Anyways, isn't it quite obvious? You'd assume that they looked like a cross between humans and the other great apes to whom they gave rise.


7) Why is it that only apes evolved like we have? Why is it that we are the only ones that can split the atom, create gorgeous symphonies and 'I Have a Dream' Speeches, map & conquer the galaxy? It seems like only man is free to make real choices, and it's not like we are the only smart ones...Animals are free to do what they are instinctively programmed to do or what they have been trained to do. Men can make plans and decisions and choose a course of action....but how did we evolve to be THIS smart and THIS free?


Why is it that only cheetah evolved like they have? Why is it that they are the only ones that can run so fast? It seems like only cheetahs can run so fast. Cheetahs can run SOOO fast....but how did they evolve to be THIS fast?


Do you get my point? I hope so. Anyways, the answer is simple: prefrontal/frontal cortex.

8) Why is it that only men are able to train and tame other animals?

We're not. Ants can herd aphids, although, even if this were true, and I actually thought it was until I read this online, I don't see how that would be difficult to understand, or contrary to evolution. Presumably, it would boil down to intelligence, would it not? That's how I was going to answer it, until I read the ant thing. We have evolved to possess great (relatively) intelligence.