Ranking the Marvel Movies - With Brief Critical Analysis

1. CAPTAIN AMERICA: FIRST AVENGER (2011)

Captain America as a character can in some ways be tougher than any other character. He's as "pure good" as you get, which can easily be boring to watch. The first act of the film well establishes where Steve Rogers gets the chip on his shoulder, and that is more of a driving factor than simply being genuinely good. They also do a good job establishing that while the super soldier serum is what gave him power, it's not what made him great.

Admittedly, I'm a sucker for the alternate history stuff, so the retro-futuristic style is more appealing than most of these movies. It's also filled with clever little nods and easter eggs, from skinny Steve picking up a trash can lid as a shield to Professor Zola's introduction being his face blown up on a little screen as he looks into some device. There are even some moments of neat film making, with Captain American and the Red Skull standing on the platforms, explosions in between them. They are opposite sides of the same coin, yet given the war, it's as if to show that while they face off, the world burns between them.

It also sets the ground work for the the Stark/Rogers divide. Both characters spend their time in the public spotlight, facing down cheers and celebrity status. Stark comes from that and loves it, plus no one really ever calls him on it. Rogers doesn't love the spotlight, plus comes to realize that his talents aren't being used properly, which further adds to the chip always on his shoulder, making him the man he is.

The final act is set up fairly well, following a similar structure to its predecessors. Steve's plan to infiltrate the Hydra base is built around the fact that he can take a punch, something we saw early in the film. He displays cleverness that we saw while he was in training. Colonel Philips's grenade test in training camp highlighted Steve's selfless heroics, which foreshadows his ultimate end, apparently sacrificing himself to save the world. There's even a somewhat humorous moment where a Hydra soldier pulls a knife on Cap, which is a callback to Howard Stark showing Cap some armor and saying that Hydra won't be coming at him with blades, instead opting for high tech weapons.

And my favorite moment is after he sees Agent Carter in the Hydra base, where she encourages him to continue the mission and he regains focus. They have a relationship, but both understand the stakes and maintain focus. Steve grabs his shield - which was propping the door open - and moves on with the mission. And we see Agent Carter standing in the background as the doors close behind him and hints at the tragedy that his role as Captain America will cost him many thing. He must keep moving forward with the mission, leaving his own desires behind him.

The ultimate conclusion is one of the weaknesses, however. After a promising start to the final Cap/Skull battle, it ends in a rather anti-climactic fashion. Skull grabs the tesseract, then just, vanishes. And that's that. It's a very Indiana Jones type of moment, but leaves a lot to be desired. Cap's sacrifice though is well executed. While Tony Stark has had several moments in Marvel movies showing his willingness to sacrifice himself to save the day, Cap actually does have to. The last thing he says to Carter is about dancing, saying, "I'd hate to step on you..." before being cut off by the crash. This too is echoing earlier, when a tiny Steve was talking about how he could never find women to dance with, because they're "afraid of stepping on him." He finally finds a dance partner, and the role is reversed, and it's over.  It's also easily the most bittersweet of the endings, as he has survived in the end, but wakes up in modern New York. "I had a date..." is a really sad and tragic line to end the film on.

It's just a shame nothing more ever came of Dum Dum Dugan and the Howling Commandos.


2. IRON MAN  (2008)

The one that started it all, the first Iron Man was not quite the charming, quick-witted, pithy one-liner-filled fun fest we expect from Marvel today. In fact, it actually gets a bit dark throughout. It also has a good balance of action entertainment as well as thematic substance. Tony Stark will never be more interesting than he was as the spoiled man-child suddenly forced to confront the reality of his family business. It's perhaps the only time in any of these movies that he actually takes responsibility for anything, really. Many bemoan the weak villain and generic conclusion as a problem, but Iron Man does more to firmly establish the conclusion than any other Iron Man films.

There's a sort of tragic cycle enforced at the end. In the first half, Stark decides he no longer wants to build things that destroy. So he focuses on the arc reactor and the Iron Man suit. Yet at the end, another person took his suit design and turned it into a weapon. And they defeat Stane by essentially dropping him into the reactor, which then explodes. Basically, everything Stark worked on for peace is inevitably used to destroy, making it one of the most potent finales in Marvel's resume. All of this is only successful because of the ground work laid in the first half of the film.



3. CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER  (2014)

Let's just get this out of the way: people make more out of this movie than they should. There's a tendency to over-promote the whole "privacy vs. security" element of the film, or Cap's growing concern about the behavior of the government body whose team he plays for, or the whole thing involving the soldiers from wars "returning to the world" - a clear parallel between real life soldiers and Captain America both trying to figure out how to fit back in to a world that is now completely foreign to them. While all of these are aspects of the film or exist within the film, they ultimately aren't really major elements of it. There's a tendency to make this movie seem smarter and more layered than it is.

Which is really the only major problem with it. There's a layer of depth that seems like it could exist if Marvel Studios would ever let substance return to the post-Avengers cinematic universe instead of overly focusing on world building, film and show connections, and working things from the comics into the movies. In the end, the Winter Soldier never gets the kind of attention he deserves for a film subtitled after him, and similarly, Black Widow and Falcon only get slices of back story that make them both interesting enough to merit being part of the team while also not getting enough to really be satisfying. Additionally, any political metaphors that could have been perceived in the first act of the film get completely undermined by the revelation that SHIELD is not actually so much corrupt as much as its been hijacked by the group of literally pure evil neo-Nazis that is Hydra. The plot element of Cap vs. the government/authority is also undermined by this fact, since this is a contrivance rather than an organic development within the film. We are never meant to question whether Cap is right or not because we are shown he's right. And the big twist that Pierce is Hydra doesn't hold much weight given they specifically tell us this at the start of the second act, meaning we spend the majority of the film already knowing exactly what's going on. And of course, the film suffers many of the same trappings of modern Hollywood action films in that they overuse quick cuts and shaky camera work to increase the feeling of action without actually letting the audience really see said action.

All that said, the action is really awesome. Both Captain America movies have hands down the best action sequences of any of the Marvel films, including the big cross-over Avengers films. A lot of this is because Cap fights hand-to-hand. He doesn't just blow stuff up with lasers and missiles like Iron Man. He doesn't just fly around and hit stuff with a hammer like Thor. He gets down and dirty, fighting in martial arts-driven combat sequences. Plus the stuff with the shield really is some of the coolest, most visually interesting and unique things all comic book movies have to offer.

Where the first Captain America was a sort of revisionist history war adventure film, this sequel both increases the scope while decreasing the focus. The stakes aren't that much different than before, with the whole world at risk of being destroyed by Hydra, but this time, they're more secretive about it. Instead of openly fighting everyone, they're trying to orchestrate this through infiltration of their enemies. The result here is that it's much more of an espionage thriller instead of the epic war film of before. And it's refreshing. Black Widow gets more to do, which is always great, and the fact that the Winter Soldier connects to both her and Cap gives him a little bit more weight than past Marvel villains, even despite the fact he doesn't ultimately get to do that much. And, while more is made of it than it should be, those elements of the scarred soldiers finding their place in the world after returning from war and the whole "can you trust the authorities?" do give it a little bit more of a punch than other installments in Marvel's resume. Although admittedly, even here the "spy thriller" is maybe slightly less interesting than it's made out to be because the film never hides anything from the audience. It's pretty clear on who we can trust, who is lying, and who the good guys are. It never loses sight of these things, so we're basically watching Cap and his team figure out a mystery that we already know the answer to.

So much of the success of these films though are on Chris Evans' portrayal of Steve Rogers. Despite being the Marvel equivalent of Superman in many ways, he makes Cap one of the most real characters in the movies. He is serious when he needs to be, but he never loses his sense of humor either. He isn't disrupting the tone of the film to make inappropriately timed jokes, but he will crack wise in situations that make sense for him to do so. And despite being put on a pedestal by the public, he sort of is a reluctant hero. He is completely aware of the toll this job has on him as an individual. What's strange is that going into these films, it would be easy to suspect he'd be the most boring character, being too "goody" of a character to really be interesting. Yet it's that fact that makes him so compelling. He's the most "good" person in this universe, so we want to see him overcome. Plus here, while he is annoyed with Fury's secrets, he also still does trust him in the end. His faith in Fury keeps him grounded on the right path, ultimately leading him to victory. We get to see him show his perhaps outdated - yet very much needed - idealism, which inspires the best in others as well. And this is why he works on screen. In a world where we as the audience are obsessed with Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and Nolan Batman movies, Captain America gives us a little bit of that pure goodness that we sometimes need to see. He isn't a cocky asshole like Stark, or the hot-headed king of Thor. He's just a good guy doing the right thing according to his code in a world that's become increasingly cynical and corrupt. That's what makes him so compelling and these movies so good.

Plus again, the action really is that good, and that final fight with Winter Soldier and Cap is one of the most emotionally charged fights.

4. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY  (2014)

Ok, so this might be blasphemy to put this "so low" on the list given that Guardians of the Galaxy was something of a revelation to many people. Admittedly, while the movie is really fun and entertaining, I didn't personally have the same experience given that I've been a fan of the comic since I started reading comics a decade ago. So for me, while I never imagined a movie, never mind one that other people would also enjoy and love, more or less I got something I was not as blown away overall due to my familiarity with the source material. Fair? Probably not, but it is the reality for me.

What's really refreshing about the film is the fact that for most of it, they are careful to keep makeup, costumes, and sets a major part of the experience. A film like this could easily be 99% CGI, yet that's not what they do. The make up is great and the sets are gorgeous. Yes, there are a couple of totally CG characters, as is sort of required when you have a moving tree creature and a genetically engineered super raccoon. But the inclusion of such great practical elements makes viewing the film so much more of a pleasurable experience.

As is the cast, by and large. Zoe Saldana is relatively ok as Gamora, though they make her more traditionally feminine than she is in the comics. Dave Batista is ok as the hulking Drax the Destroyer, though they make him sillier. And Vin Diesel is surprisingly good at Groot, a role which has a lot of heart despite having only one repetitive line of dialogue. The real core of this film though is Chris Pratt as Peter Quill and Bradley Cooper as Rocket, both of whom make the silliness of the film completely enjoyable. You never really think much of the fact that Rocket is a raccoon (but don't call him that to his face) because Cooper does an excellent job giving him personality. Casting Pratt was perhaps the smartest move any casting director has done, given his charm - while occasionally a bit out of place given the specifics of the story - is just so damn infectious that you can't help but love watching him.

Ronan the Accuser is a weak villain - something Marvel continues to struggle with for whatever reason. Here, he fits neatly into your typical "vengeance" motivation. In some ways, the film also gets bogged down my the Iron Man 2 syndrome of spending a little too much time and attention on world building. It's important to have Guardians of the Galaxy to start really connecting the dots between Thanos and the Avengers, and there are times where it feels like that's the main reason the film exists, but otherwise, it does a solid job being its own thing.

It's weird and silly and funny and irreverent. It's like nothing else. The ending might be stupid or brilliant depending on how you take it. (They basically beat Ronan by dancing to distract him, then just holding hands. Personally, I'm torn between thinking this is really stupid, but also appreciating that they defeat the villain in a way that has not been done before.)

And of course, it has a killer soundtrack.


5. THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008)

Yes, yes, I know how ridiculous it sounds to put The Incredible Hulk above The Avengers, but this is called an opinion piece for a reason! It's a pretty safe bet that you'll fundamentally disagree, which is fine! You're entitled to your opinion too! At least hear me out on mine first.

The apparent black sheep of the Marvel cinematic family, The Incredible Hulk starts off wisely by introducing the origin story within the confines of the opening credits sequence. Banner and Hulk get moments of complexity. Hulk both is and isn't a monster. Bruce loses control to turn into Hulk, but Hulk also loses control to harm and damage things and people around him. Even more, General Ross isn't inherently evil. Not even Blonsky is, really. He just enjoys the thrill of a fight (like a screwed up Goku), all while trying to remain relevant as an aging soldier. Filled with Easter eggs, but not in a distracting way, it also makes a lot of fun nods to the comics and show. Plus, there's a good mixture of the loneliness that comes with the Hulk with the CGI punch-fest and destruction people hope for. The more serious, melodramatic tone (along with whispery Liv Tyler) can seem out of place given Marvel's turn to make things super light hearted, but the change of pace is great. The Hulk isn't a funny character, so the film shouldn't be super light hearted one either.

It continues some of the themes from Iron Man before it. The best part is that yet again, the finale is set up. All movie long, General Ross is hunting down Hulk. He finally gets him and has to reluctantly give him up to stop yet another problem he created in the process. The early Phase 1 Marvel movies really did a solid job of setting up the final act. It is a shame though that Marvel seems content to just ignore the movie ever happened, leaving several loose ends.


6. IRON MAN 2  (2010)

*Gasp!* More blasphemy! Again, I know that this is one of the Marvel movies that almost universally gets ridiculed and used as a shining example of what not to do, but again, here's where I'm coming from on this.

Though it gets a bad rap, Iron Man 2 might be filled with some silly moments, but it isn't actually all that bad. Ivan Vanko and Justin Hammer are actually among the better Marvel villains for their thematic significance. Both characters are alternate versions of Tony Stark. Ivan has the brains of Stark, but never had the means. Meanwhile, Hammer has the means of Stark, but not quite the brains. Both want revenge, but neither can accomplish it alone. Being a product of a capitalistic, western society, Hammer puts stock into the old expression, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." So he hires Vanko. Yet Vanko isn't out to get rich. Hammer cannot understand this, as evident when he tries to exert power over him by taking his bird and pillows and boots. Vanko is out to destroy Stark. Before he kills him though, he wants to destroy his legacy.

See, the inherent story of Iron Man is one of redemption: a man who made money off of creating tools of destruction, and since creating Iron Man, has tried to right all the wrongs, especially with death looming. The public even loves him now, but Vanko - whose family has been hurt by the Starks - doesn't believe he is worthy of the second chance. Of course, this plot is made a little thin when it's revealed that Anton Vanko - his father - was deported by Howard Stark when he saw Anton using their technology to get rich (this revelation contradicts the apparent thematic significance of Ivan Vanko, which is unfortunate). The film does more to set up the greater Marvel Cinematic Universe, which can bog the film down. The daddy issues come up briefly, and gets resolved equally quickly, all of which should be considered weaknesses of the film.

Though the action is more shallow and "entertainment" focused than in the first film. Favreau still does a good job setting it up. The Iron Man/War Machine action returns - even providing the winning solution, as does the Happy/Black Widow joke as well. Plus, the Hammer ex-wife set up pays off. It's easy to look at the finale as generic, it's worth noting that we hadn't had the whole "fighting off an army of robots" trope seemingly countless times prior. Iron Man 2 set that standard, and in many ways, set up everything seen in The Avengers.

7. THE AVENGERS (2012)

A film so popular and successful, it completely changed the nature of the Hollywood blockbuster franchise overnight, The Avengers breaks new ground in a lot of ways, but also comes up short in many others. While not the first "cross over" film, it is the most successful at integrating different franchises into one world.

At its core though, it's a pretty typical sports movie. Nick Fury is the coach, putting together a ragtag group of misfits that few people believe in. The recruitment phase is executed well, effectively establishing the individual characters. The now-classic "heroes misunderstanding" fight among Cap, Iron Man, and Thor even establishes some of the realities of the world. Thor is stronger than Iron Man's suit, but his hammer can't dent Cap's shield. There are even some great shots, including Black Widow's interrogation of Loki, when he's trying to get into her mind, we see his face reflected off the glass, appearing right next to Widow's head. He thinks he's playing her, but Widow is stronger than that and he remains on the outside, unable to really get into her mind. Shortly after, all the heroes are gathered together, bickering. It's effective use of dutch angles and some subtly shaky camera work.

The film starts to fall apart shortly thereafter though, meandering unevenly from action set piece to action set piece. One of the big problems with the film is the dialogue once everyone is together. It goes back and forth between solid, multi-character writing and cheesy, out of character one-liners. On the most part, it is fine. Every once in a while though, they write lines for characters for the sake of injecting a joke. It can be distracting. The humor in previous films was practically seamless. Jokes came up organically within the character interactions. Here, it often feels less like a character is making a joke and more like Joss Whedon is making a joke. Additionally, there are plot elements that basically ignore the first four films. Cap calls out Stark for his unwillingness to make the sacrifice play, but we saw Stark do that in the very first Iron Man movie. They also conveniently ignore the conclusion of both Thor and The Incredible Hulk. It doesn't really help that Loki's plan makes no sense, and the goal is pretty unclear.

The meta-narrative and commentary is perhaps the most fun and interesting element. At times, the film references the innovative nature of itself. The mysterious heads of state talking to Fury early on can be viewed as studio executives shooting down the idea of an Avengers movie and mixing properties. Later, Stark figures out what Loki's play is, describing the Hulk ploy as "previews." Plus, there's all the mentioning of "Phase 2." These sorts of comments are Whedon at his best.

The final act is the big game. The team has already suffered an ugly loss at the hands of their rivals. It took a moment for them to get their act together and come closer as a team, which would be needed to win the championship/battle. For real, it's just a more fun sports movie, really, hitting all the same beats. It all culminates into that one big moment that you knew was coming the whole time, but still feels very satisfying.

Of course, it also requires a silly deus ex machina plot device to save the day, which is a bit lackluster. Still, it's effective in its structure. But like all sports movies, the second half is rarely as interesting as the first.


8.  THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON  (2015)

These team up movies are rarely more than just a giant CGI spectacle, but Age of Ultron at least attempts to add a little more character to some of those who don't have their own solo features. But it's ultimately short on substance and just sort of re-hashes some of the same things as the first: the Hulk versus another Avenger fight, the psychological hit that puts the team at odds, the rallying pep talk from Nick Fury, the future heroes being manipulated by the villain, the giant army of robotic-looking creatures. It kind of is just the first film, just with more everything. Any thematic significance to the film had also already been touched upon, from Banner's reluctance to Hulk out to Stark's overzealous attitude and self-assurance causing problems for the world.  The one new element - the implications of AI - gets such little attention that there's nothing interesting about it.

Not really much more to say on it than that.


9. THOR: THE DARK WORLD  (2013)

Thor films always had a knack for getting the character close, but not quite. Thor: The Dark World surprisingly gets it closer than any other Marvel film, but it doesn't get anything else quite right. On the most part, everything on Asgard is solid. It even features a strong opening with Thor and his band of merry warriors fighting a solid fantasy battle on one of the other realms. It shortly after brings the audience back to Earth to follow Jane Foster and her band of merry comic relief sidekicks. Pretty much everything that happens on Earth is terrible where it can't go more than two lines without going out of its way to present yet another dumb joke. It couldn't clash more with the tone of the rest of the film, which is actually rather grave, featuring perhaps the most emotional actual death of a character in a Marvel movie (at least, until they reset everything with Ragnarok). There's also a strange conflict in visual styles, with Asgard having a fantasy look while the Dark Elves come in with a total sci-fi style.

Though comic relief is necessary, they go far beyond what is needed to the detriment of the film. It also isn't necessary to use the humans for it when you've got Loki prominently featured. Still, it actually does many things really well. The first of which is really upping the ante with Loki. As sharp and untrustworthy as ever, we finally see a more "human" side to him. His conversation with his mother, plus his reaction to the news of her death are among the best scenes in any of these films, in large part because of Tom Hiddleston's perfection as an actor. Indeed, the main reason this gets the nod above the first Thor is the increased role they give to him - which is easily the smartest thing any writer has done.  The film hits its pinnacle when Thor must recruit the help of Loki. The prison break, followed by their team up, is actually some of the best stuff in these things.

Once again though, things fall apart in the third act. Rather than trying to set up something of relevance, it devolves into a mere, typical, gigantic and destructive action sequence. Loki's near-perfect character arc gets immediately reset and made irrelevant, ruining his plot completely. It also features one of the most forgettable villains in the movie-verse in whatever the name of the Dark Elf king is. The tone is all over the place, rotating between stupid joke and "the world is in grave peril" action.

Only other thing worth praising though is it's special "Avengers" cameo. Chris Evan's showing up as Loki making himself appear like Captain America was great, and Evans does a great job playing Loki playing Cap.


10.  THOR  (2011)

There are plenty of problems plaguing Thor. It's filled to the brim with CGI that can often clash with the great sets and makeup. The costumes look mostly ok, but occasionally come off as plastic toys. All of the human characters are under written, especially Jane Foster - who goes from leading physicist to clumsy bimbo the moment she sees a ripped dude without a shirt. There are often many out-of-place jokes (although there are some really well executed jokes as well). At times, it suffers from distracting world building references. And of course, the dutch angles. There are lots of them, though most often, it's used during scenes with SHIELD, to further add to the uncertainty to their role in each of the Marvel movies or when Thor is confronted with battling his brother Loki, basically highlighting that everything he used to know is about to change.

But there are a number of well executed elements to the film too. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is not only the best "villain" of any Marvel movie to date; he also gives perhaps the best acting performance in any Marvel movie as well. On the surface, he seems simple - jealous of his brother Thor's spot as heir to the throne. Yet there's more beneath that. He doesn't know his place in Asgard, or in his family. He also seems to truly believe that the hot-headed Thor might not be best for Asgard. Actually, Loki's plan ultimately works. He brings about the final defeat of Lafi, the Frost Giant King. There's also an almost sort of Shakespearean element to the film at times. Nothing is inherently good nor evil. There are subtle complexities and duality to almost everything. Pitting brothers against brother is one of the more tragic-feeling and bittersweet conclusions in one of these movies.


11. IRON MAN 3  (2013)

Iron Man 3 seems to be one of the most polarizing entries in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. A lot of people love it; a lot of people hate it. It does some things really, really well. It's borderline insulting in how stupidly it handles other elements. People go back and forth on whether it's good or bad because it spends a lot of time with Tony Stark out of the Iron Man suit. Depowering a character can be a really effective plot device though for some interesting character arcs. It worked very well for The Wolverine. On the most part, it works well here too. It functions in a similar way in that while we know Logan and Stark aren't ever really going to bite the big one, it does heighten a sense of concern for the character.

One of the things that makes the film interesting is that it actually gives some weight to the events of The Avengers on the small scale. Stark seems to be dealing with a lot of anxiety, and maybe even some post traumatic stress from the alien invasion of New York. It's cool to see a solo flick that has a character actually dealing with something from his or her experiences in the past films.  The first two acts might actually be the strongest entry into the Iron Man series of films. The crippling anxiety attacks and self-destructive tendencies in dealing with them are some of the more profound elements a character has had to deal with in a Marvel movie. It just completely falls apart by the third act.

It also suffers one of the weaker villains of the franchise. Where Justin Hammer and Ivan Vanko are basically alternate sides of the Tony Stark coin, Aldrich Killian is a petulant child. His revenge motif comes from a grudge because Stark skipped an impromptu meeting at a New Year's Eve party. Weak. Even more, the Mandarin starts off badass and intimidating, but serves no function in the structure of the film or in the story as anything other than a distraction (and a really, really bad joke - it's telling that shortly after the film, Marvel started backtracking on the Mandarin, hinting that the "real" Mandarin is still out there in a special short film for a blu-ray release).

And of course, all it takes for Stark to overcome his anxieties and PTSD symptoms is for that kid to tell him to build something. And he literally just goes, "Ok." Remembers he's Tony Stark. And BAM! Cured. Plot element dropped entirely. It's a little bit strange that for the character to grow, he needs to remember who he was. His arc is completed by going back to the start. (Or rather, back to the Stark.)  The finale winds up being a pretty generic action sequence with tons of robots, cheesy villain dialogue, fake deaths, and going out of its way to make sure you know no innocent people got actually injured. All culminating in a lot of "resets" to bring the film back to where we were at the end of Iron Man 2. 

Plus there's the whole thing that the point of the movie is to show that Tony Stark realizes he's more than just the suit. It isn't the armor that makes him a hero. And yet at the final battle, he's only actually able to save the day because he gains all the suits.  In fact, it isn't even Stark that saves the day. It's a newly powered Pepper Potts in one of the dumbest fake-out deaths in these movies who defeats the villain. It runs counter-productive to the point of the film, marking the first time that the third act gets away from and has almost no relevant thematic connections to the first two.





I know, I know. It's almost a given that no one has the same list as I do. Most would put Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Guardians of the Galaxy or certainly The Avengers as the top three. Surely, no one else would put The Incredible Hulk or Iron Man 2 on the top half, when conventional wisdom is that those are among the worst.

Still, I can't help but feel a bit like "conventional wisdom" is a bit too built around the "cool" factor and less about actually quality film making or anything of substance. I've also got to admit that while I've genuinely enjoyed pretty much all of these films, it's hard to imagine many of them standing the test of time. The films that laid the ground work - the pre-Avengers films - have a better chance though given they crafted decent films built on a solid framework. There is a part of me that thinks that everything post-Avengers will eventually just be forgotten, inevitably function as dust collectors as part of every nerd's growing blu-ray collection. The movies, like many of the comics, will ultimately become valueless pieces of shallow entertainment meant to be consumed in the now, rarely to be revisited after the next piece of "now entertainment" hits theaters.

The trouble with a movie franchise functioning like the comics is that it's only a matter of time before it becomes too big and too complicated and too convoluted, and eventually, it will be rebooted. When that happens, we'll collectively forget everything that came before and focus again on whatever piece of shiny CGI-slathered, studio-driven movie comes out in the now. And we'll leave our blu-rays on the shelf, just like we leave the old comics in their boxes. These have been fun, but do seem to lack a bit of that "something special" that made other blockbusters like Jaws, Indiana Jones, or Die Hard such all-time classic action/adventure blockbusters. They're also losing their unique qualities by their own volition, given that Marvel is going to just keep pumping out three movies a year, all while rival studios will try to keep pace. The CGI-driven superhero punching fest will inevitably stagnate just the way the natural disaster film craze of the '90s did. Not that it will ever lose a place in the market (natural disaster flicks clearly didn't lose a spot either) but it's not something every studio is trying to do now.

For now, we can just enjoy the ride and see what happens, which is half the fun anyway.



What is your list?

All The Dumb Things - The Stupidity of Jurassic World

It's been almost a week since I watched Jurassic World. Time has not been so generous for the film though. It was enjoyable to some extent because of the meta-commentary about Hollywood and the nature of blockbuster franchises. Still, the longer it's rattled around my brain, the less sense it actually makes. By and large, it really doesn't deserve the slack it gets, especially when it's every bit as stupid as the much maligned Green Lantern. 

Just a warning though: SPOILERS! The following piece will bring up a number of specific plot points to highlight how the script seems like the least important part of the film's production, and how it feels like they just made stuff up as they went (which is fine when you're making a movie with your friends, but less so when making a film with a $150 million budget for mass consumption).

Training velociraptors. 

A lot has been made of this singular plot element since the beginning. Each version of the trailer made it more and more clear that Chris Pratt's character would be a raptor trainer, and fans were pretty split on it. On the surface, it sounds really, really, really dumb. And in the film, it...is also really, really dumb, but not for that reason.

See, apart from the fact that Owen (Pratt) clearly has no idea how to clicker train an animal, the introduction to this plot thread is actually kind of cool and interesting. It's a new idea that doesn't actually stand out as idiotic. Sure, you have to suspend your disbelief. The argument was always that we train bears and tigers, so why not raptors? This is obviously a stupid sentiment if you know anything about how different these animals' brains are, but Jurassic Park was never about scientific accuracy.

However, this plot thread becomes ridiculous with the way it unfolds. When we're introduced to Owen and the Raptors (band name! called it!), we see how precarious this situation is. The trainers are able to get some desired behavior out of the creatures, but it is a tight rope act. When Owen runs into the pit to save the young guy who fell in, we see him able to calm the raptors - barely, for about ninety seconds. The moment Owen turns his back to run out of the pen, the raptors jump to try and eat him.

This sequence is actually fairly well done, but it establishes a set of rules that the film blatantly ignores later on because it needs to. Not only does this sequence establish the "badassery" of Owen; it also establishes that the raptors are still deadly creatures not to be trifled with. They're only trainable to a certain extent. It is established that Owen can just barely keep them settled and focused for a moment. Basically, it establishes that they're not anywhere near where Vincent D'Onofrio's character seems to think they are.

Then Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) shows up and removes him from the raptors. We don't see Owen interact with them at all for about an hour, maybe even longer. By the time Hoskins (D'Onofrio) forces his hand by forcing him to let the raptors loose, they are suddenly totally obedient to Owen. Nothing happens between these two points with this plot thread. They literally just go from barely controllable to obedient police dogs like that. Owen describes himself as "the alpha" before they're let loose, which I guess makes it so that we're suddenly cool with the fact that these creatures that tried to eat him an hour earlier are now running along side him without even checking him out like he's a possible meal.

The final sequence fairs even worse when the raptors seem like they're going to attack, but really just want him to remove the equipment placed on their faces. I get that the raptors are supposed to trust Owen more than other humans, but this is really idiotic and forced. Even more is the absolute conclusion when after the fight, the remaining raptor looks longingly at Owen, wherein its trainer gives it a "you can't stay here, but you done good, boy!" look, and it takes off. Totally skimping out on an easy meal because... uh... I guess he's really a dog?

It's a pretty glaring issue with the script, and just one of many incredibly contrived plot "developments." Granted, you can't really call anything in the film a "development." It's more like "plot switches," because that's how it works. They establish one set of rules in the first act, then change them completely whenever they need to establish the next big action set piece.

Training raptors could have been a cool plot element - indeed it started as one! - but only if they gave it actual time and focus, and actually allowed it to develop. Instead, they simply go from high risk, barely controllable creatures that tried to eat Chris Pratt to suddenly being Chips the War Dog because they suddenly need them to. (Also, am I really the only person who remembers Chips the War Dog?)


Weaponized Raptors.

If the way they handled the raptor training wasn't enough, the entire plot thread of Hoskins wanting to weaponize the raptors is not even a B-movie plot line. It's the bottom of the barrel, at home on the SyFy channel. I get that this guy was excited at the prospect of weaponizing velociraptors and all, but how stupid was he that he saw what happened in the pen and still thought, "No, this seems good enough!'

I'm also not at all sure why his default plan to stop the indominus rex was to unleash four velociraptors with cameras on their heads. What exactly were they going to do? The indominus rex was bigger, stronger, and faster than a tyrannosaurus rex. There's so much build up to that confrontation that when they finally get to it - after a really stupid psych out - it's over in a flash because, well, it was a really stupid plan. This guy was supposed to be security forces, right? In a world with bombs and machine guns and flame throwers and drones, he honestly felt that a handful of barely trained velociraptors was going to stop a creature that was way bigger and deadlier and smarter?

I know dinosaurs are always presented as bulletproof in the movies, but even the indominus rex didn't seem impervious to bombs or mines. If the goal is to kill the thing, there are many, many, many simpler ways to do it.  The entire concept of engineering the disaster to highlight the capabilities of raptors in a battlefield is stupid, and is maybe just one level above Sharknado. 

Bottom line here: this plot thread is idiotic and ridiculous. It's over the top. These are the kinds of things that people complain about in The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III. If people can't handle a girl knocking out a raptor using gymnastics, people shouldn't tolerate this plot thread. This kind of nonsense is exactly what the Jurassic Park franchise doesn't need. (Unless we're willing to concede we're in the 1970s Godzilla portion of the franchise's history, in which case, the more idiotic ideas, the better!)


Talking raptors.

Oh yeah, and one final thing about the raptors: the way that they communicate with each other like they're speaking a foreign language is never going to not be stupid. It was a big reason why Jurassic Park III was terrible. It isn't any better here.

To be clear: yes, I understand that animals have means to communicate with each other. Yes, I'm totally ok with the idea of raptors communicating with each other. No, they shouldn't be able to basically "speak" to each other though. One of the big, contrived twists is that the indominus rex is part raptor, so when the humans unleash the raptors on it, the giant monster dino basically tells them to hold on and to attack the humans. And sure enough, they do.

Apart from being super forced to begin with, it also just doesn't make sense. I know I just said at the start that these movies aren't about scientific accuracy and all, but have some god damn respect for your audience and their intelligence. Does anyone really buy the idea that just because this thing has a little raptor DNA in it, they'll suddenly be friends? They can communicate with each other? The indominus rex might have some raptor DNA in it, but it isn't a raptor. (Actually, the entire movie makes me wonder what exactly they think DNA is or does, now that I think about it.)

Problem here is similar to the one with the training: it's not the general idea that is stupid. It's the execution. They go right back to the Stupid Well of raptors that basically "talk to each other" that was stupid in the last movie. And somehow, people now seem fine with it. What?


Everything Indominus Rex can do.

Speaking of contrived plot elements, how about the indominus rex? Yes, its very existence is inherently contrived - after all, it was specifically created to be a bigger, badder, cooler version of the t-rex. But how about the fact that they clearly didn't know what made up the creature until the script needed a new "power." I imagine the conversation went a bit like this:

Trevorrow: So they keep this thing in a pen and they keep track of it with thermals.

Producers: Ok...So how does he get out?

Trevorrow: Well, he disappears and tricks them into thinking it got out.

Producers: How does it trick them if they can track its body heat?

Trevorrow: Well it, uh...it lowers its body temperature!

Producers: What? How?

Trevorrow: They spliced some tree frog in it. Some frogs can lower their body temperature.

Producers:  Ok... so then it gets out and people presumably hunt it?

Trevorrow: Yes. They track it and it tricks them too so it can eat the hunters.

Producers: Wait. If it's basically a bigger t-rex, wouldn't it just, ya know, eat them head on?

Trevorrow: Nah, see, this guy is smart. So it lures them to a location and then camouflages itself so the hunters can't see him.

Producers; What? How?

Trevorrow: Well it, uh...it uh...they spliced in some cuttlefish DNA. And cuttlefish can change colors practically on a whim!

Producers: ...ok... So you said something about the raptors hunting him?

Trevorrow: Yeah, see, they track him and are about to attack him, but then turn on the humans instead.

Producers: Why?

Trevorrow:  Well, uh.. ummm.... the indominus rex can communicate with them.

Producers: What?

Trevorrow: Yeah! See, it, uh...they spliced some raptor DNA into it, so it's basically like a raptor too.

Producers: (whispering to each other) Wait...is this at all how DNA works, like, at all?



Role playing over. Imagine pitching that at a creative meeting? Point here being: everything they decide the indominus rex can do is merely because they need it to be able to do that thing for some reason, but only in that moment. None of those powers - from the camouflage to the body temperature to the communicating with raptors - comes up at all ever again. They only occur once, when they need it to be able to do something, then a few moments later cut to a conversation with Dr. Wu who explains which animal they randomly spliced DNA from to give it these random powers.

The thing is, would it really have been so much worse if they just had it climb out? Would it have been so much worse if it had just attacked the hunters? They tried so hard to make the thing seem unreasonably intelligent that they made all of these stupid contrivances to accomplish that goal. The indominus rex was basically smarter than the screen writers. It was unnecessary.

If that's not problematic, I don't know what is.


The Indominus Rex is a psychopath. 

Owen, in his self-righteous, know-it-all manner, chides Claire and company about the way they've raised the indominus rex. In one weak attempt to make the creature seem like something even remotely different than just an evil movie monster, he explains that these animals can't just be raised in isolation. They learn "social skills" by being around other animals. He tells them that by raising it alone, separated from other animals, they turned it into a psychopath. (His words, not mine!)

There are some major issues here though. Again, I know I said (twice now) that these movies aren't about scientific accuracy, but the beauty of the original film was how it made up bullshit science that was never so blatantly bullshit that it stunk up the entire film. Yes, the whole idea of cloning 65 million year old DNA is silly, but that's about it as far as stretching the science. All the specific inaccuracies about dinosaurs are for visual reasons, not plot ones. It doesn't jump out nearly as much as a result.  The cloning thing is a concession they have to make to get the plot. Apart from the whole way raptors communicate and the idea that DNA basically function like Espers from Final Fantasy VI in that you can just equip it and you suddenly have all the powers of that animal, this psychology of animals lesson is equally ridiculous.

Not all animals are social creatures. A Jurassic movie should know that better than anyone. Yes, it makes sense why Owen would think this to an extent, given he trains raptors and they're social animals, but surely this guy is not stupid enough to believe that all dinosaurs function like velociraptors? The t-rex in the first film was raised in isolation, and she was fine! Because t-rexes generally weren't social creatures. For example, lions live in prides. They are social creatures. Tigers tend to take care of themselves and live on their own.

But ok, let's get away from the mind blowingly idiotic, and terribly immersion-breaking science. This also makes no sense from a basic plot perspective as well. The film literally opens with two of these creatures hatching from eggs. These two indominus rexes are born and raised together. We learned earlier on that they weren't trying to raise it in isolation. There was another dinosaur from which it could learn "social skills." We learned, however, that this one ate the other.

Meaning, it was already a psychopath! Isolation had nothing to do with it. Sure, maybe captivity did, but the isolation is a ridiculous excuse. Like everything else, it was a forced line of dialogue to pull contrived meanings and messages from their asses.



UPDATE: Not to mention, for a creature Owen tells us is a psychopath because it never learned social skills living in isolation, the indominus rex sure does seem to have some pretty solid dino social skills once it runs into the velociraptors.



The conclusion to the t-shirt fight.

What I mean by the "t-shirt fight" is that the final action sequence feels more appropriate to a silly internet-purchased shirt than on a movie screen. But ok, it is so ridiculous that it actually is weirdly entertaining. What starts as four raptors quickly turns into no raptors, but then the t-rex shows up. And then another raptor shows up. And then you've got a t-rex and a raptor fighting the indominus rex. It's looking like a good back-and-forth battle when they force the indominus rex to the edge of the pool.

And then the mosasaur leaps out of the water and grabs the villain by the neck, dragging it into the pool for its next meal. Maybe it's just me, but apart from feeling totally abrupt and anti-climactic, I'm also not sure why no one ever considered that as a possibility. The indominus rex wasn't exactly standing somewhere people wouldn't be.

But mostly, the problem here is that it's just a ridiculous and totally forced conclusion, presumably because they couldn't think of something else like, I don't know, the t-rex and raptor just winning on their own? This might just be me, but I would have found it far more satisfying to see the t-rex win the fight than to see it basically about to lose only to have this random other creature come out of the water and kill the indominus rex instead. I wanted to see the king of the dinosaurs win! Don't know if Trevorrow was channeling his inner George R.R. Martin, but as a viewer, I definitely felt robbed of a satisfying moment.



The human relationships.

If everything involving the raptors and indominus rex weren't enough, the humans don't fair much better. In fact, they're pretty much only there for contrived character beats and emotional cues. The best part might be when Gray - the younger brother - starts crying on the tram completely randomly because he suddenly realizes their parents are getting a divorce. Sure, they hint at trouble in paradise at the beginning with just a moment of bickering from their parents, but it's not really much of a plot thread in the film. Why include it at all?

Further, the entire thing that the older brother is "too mean" is silly too. It barely even comes up. Sure, he's kind of a jerk, but he isn't outright about being mean to his younger brother. I don't even really know where this fits into the movie at all. It is barely existent to begin with, and all it does is build to one brief moment where the two brothers bond in yet another contrived scene (because it doesn't get proper build up or attention).

Even more is the romantic relationship between Claire and Owen, which seems like it's there because it's Hollywood and you need a love story. I talked in my previous article about why this plot is actually pretty terrible (the TL;DR version - Owen doesn't have to change, but in order for Claire to "get him," she must learn to stop prioritizing her career and instead focus on family). Apart from that, there's no reason to care about this relationship either. Other than the opening scene between them, there is practically no chemistry at all between them. They also don't really have any bonding moments at all, other than that they happen to be in peril. Otherwise, their relationship is strictly functional. They're working together to secure the park. In essence, they're both doing their job. It would be a bit like if two doctors worked together to figure out what was wrong with you, figure it out, then start making out.

The entire thing is a contrived "opposites attract" plot, that has no real impact on the story, or really any place within it except that virtually everything in the film is forced.




Nothing about the movie makes any real sense. Everything about it is extremely contrived. It just feels like the ultimate "made it up as we go" movie. A lot of these are reasons the other two sequels get a bad rap. It's true that there are contrived plot elements to the other two - and even the original - but it wasn't this bad. It wasn't this obvious.

And it sure as hell wasn't this damn stupid.

If Jurassic World retains its 71% on Rotten Tomatoes, then there's a real argument to be made that Green Lantern is basically a modern Citizen Kane. 

We deserve a better kind of Hollywood blockbuster, one that doesn't need to be entirely idiotic and dumb just so it can sort of resemble "fun." The original film didn't sacrifice that much intellect for "fun." It didn't create a script after they came up with action set pieces. I never thought I'd say it, but Jurassic World makes me miss Jurassic Park III. 

E3 Round Up: The Games We're Excited About

There has been some really interesting news to come out of this year's E3. The biggest takeaway for us involve the XBox One slowly becoming backwards compatible. Granted, it sounds like it will be a while before enough 360 games become available that it won't really be worth it for a while, but eventually it should be. We're also pretty excited by all the virtual reality news, with Oculus Rift for Microsoft and Morpheus for Sony. The Windows HoloLens demo was actually super, super cool and exciting. And admittedly, we were also curious with Playstation Vue news (although some of the details trickling in make us less so).

But E3 is ultimately about the games.  So here are sixteen of the games we took notice of.


1. ARK: Survival Evolved  (PC/XB1/PS4)

Do we even really need to say anything about this? Living in a world with dinosaurs wherein you can ride them and call them into battle against bosses seems pretty self-explanatory as to why we're interested in this. Plus, you have to love the fact that it appears built to appeal to different kinds of gamers. If you want to play it to build things? Go for it. Want to just hunt dinosaurs? Go for it. Just explore and find what you can ride? Go for it. Doesn't appear to be just dinos either, as the video above features giant scorpions and a dragon. Seems like a fun co-op game.


2. Cuphead  (XB1)

Did you watch that trailer? It looks difficult and beautiful and fun. Described as game for "hardcore gamers who love cartoons," you can't help but marvel at the wonderful 1930s animated style. It isn't often that a smaller game like this can push a console, but this is honestly one of the few games that make us want an XBox One.


3. Uncharted 4: A Thief's End  (PS4)

Not a lot of focus was given on the upcoming remastered collection of the PS3 trilogy, but we did get quite the look at Uncharted 4: A Thief's End. Kind of hard for them to really pump people up overall, given it's such a beloved franchise that the mere announcement of a new game is going to get pre-orders up the wazoo. Still, the unveiled gameplay video shows why Neil Druckmann is a great game director. His Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is easily the best of the three games, and if this video is any indication, it looks like he'll continue to improve upon it. Most notable here is that the game looks more open than previous ones, giving you multiple ways to play a given level. Otherwise, it looks sufficiently like an Uncharted game, which itself is exciting.


4. The Last Guardian   (PS4)

Shadows of the Colossus and Ico are considered among the most beautiful and artful games ever produced. The company that brought them are back with The Last Guardian, and it isn't hard to tell it is the same guys. It looks gorgeous and wonderful, all while looking strangely tranquil as well. The gameplay might not look terribly exciting, but it definitely looks interesting.


5. Star Wars: Battlefront  (PC/XB1/ PS4)

Though the game had already been announced prior to E3, a lot of things were still up in the air. A lot of the news coming down the pipeline had people torn on what to think. The removal of space battles kind of stinks, plus no Galactic Conquest. Still, the strength of Battlefront was always about the multiplayer. They promised it would not just be a Battlefield clone, but the gameplay here kind of makes it look a lot like a Battlefield clone. Fortunately, the first taste of gameplay we got also makes it look incredible fun. You can color us excited.


6. ReCore   (XB1)

It's always hard to gauge what a game might be like from just a theatrical-style trailer, composed of entirely cutscenes, or trailer-specific videos and completely lacking gameplay. Still, these types of trailers are efficient in piquing interest. No gameplay was shown for ReCore, but the trailer looks neat. Too early to tell if this game is really something we're excited about, but for now, it's got our attention.


7. No Man's Sky  (PC/PS4)

No Man's Sky has really piqued a lot of interest last year with its basic trailer. This year, a little of the gameplay was revealed. It looks pretty much like one would expect. The big thing though is just how crazily huge the sandbox is. We're talking about an open-world game on the scale of a galaxy. (Seriously, check out the video to see how mind boggling big it seems to be.)  It looks fun and awesome, though if it really is as big as it is, it's easy to see how the game might become a bit boring after a while. For those of us who like to explore though, it should retain interest for a while. And for those of us who have an idiotic obsession to complete a game, it should keep us occupied for a long time.


8. Mirror's Edge Catalyst   (PC, XB1, PS4)

The first Mirror's Edge has generally been widely praised, but a mixed bag for players. It isn't everyone's cup of tea. We, however, loved it. We loved the style and the first person parkour gameplay that was precise, challenging, but rewarding. Mirror's Edge Catalyst appears to be a prequel, with a slightly tweaked look, but it still very much has a consistent look.


9.  Mass Effect: Andromeda  (XB1, PS4)

Not much to really get excited about from the trailer, and news was ultimately quite thin. We know you'll play as a human. We learned it will take place in another galaxy. And we found out it will take place after the events of the original trilogy. Other than that, the game still seems quite a way away. (It's release date in the teaser puts it holiday season of next year.)  Still, while it didn't give us much, getting anything for another Mass Effect game is inherently exciting. Here's hoping they do remaster - and maybe clean up - the original trilogy before then as well.


10. Beyond Eyes  (XB1)

A beautiful game about a young blind girl navigating this beautiful, colorful environment, the game just looks so stunning that we couldn't ignore it. Like Cuphead, it seems like another one of those smaller games that is so visually interesting, we kind of do want to get an XBox One just to check it out.


11. Kingdom Hearts 3   (XB1/PS4)

This game was a long time in the making. After two really well-received games on the PS2, Square Enix appeared to get sidetracked by spinoffs and side stories, specifically on mobile platforms. It also seemed like each new spinoff came on a totally different platform. Eventually, a few got collected for porting to the PS2 so you could play them all on one platform. All the while, fans really just wanted the next installment in the game rather than constant world-building side games. To be honest, it's been so long since we played Kingdom Hearts 2 when it came out, and we don't really play many mobile games, we kind of forgot this was even a series. This trailer is a great reminder. We might just have to dust off our PS2s and replay the games now.


12.  Horizon: Zero Dawn  (PS4)

Hard to really get the full sense of this game, and its gameplay maybe doesn't jump out as particularly unique, but the environment and style are both really cool, and it does look fun. That's what sells us on it so far. Probably worth noting that this is the fourth game on our list wherein the default character is female, with Mass Effect: Andromeda being a fifth given BioWare's fondness for letting players choose. There's still a lot of legitimate criticisms within gaming's gender representations - as there are with any medium - but I think this E3 is a pretty big indicator as to why gaming has been generally ahead of the curve compared to Hollywood or television. (But this isn't really relevant to this game. Just wanted to make that comment.)


13. Gears of War 4   (XB1)

Gears of War 3 ended so perfectly that we were a little concerned when word came down of a fourth game. Hard to tell exactly what the story is here, or where it might fit in or connect with the original trilogy, but the game does look pretty cool. Taking on more of the sci-fi element that Gears of War 2 incorporated a bit, the game does look to play like a Gears of War game, so you can't really ask for much more given that being loads of fun was always a big draw. There's still a lot of mystery around this demo though. Who are these characters? Do they connect with the previous games? What are those creatures? Et cetera. But we're pretty interested.


14. The Division   (PC/XB1/PS4)

There's a noticeable push for multiplayer experiences in gaming lately. Makes sense. A lot of people love it, plus it's a great way to push paid subscriptions like Playstation Plus or XBox Live. The Division actually looks like a pretty fun one though. While not really a newly discovered upcoming game, E3 did show us some more multiplayer clips further adding to it. (Even if that dialogue is clearly scripted.)


15. Firewatch   (PS4)

Wait. Is that Jason Sudeikis? Either way, the game looks interesting. It keeps a strong sense of mystery and it has a neat art style. Hard to tell much about what kind of game it is, but they've got our attention.

UPDATE: Well, it isn't Jason Sudeikis. It's Rich Sommer (the guy with big glasses on Mad Men.)


16. Final Fantasy VII: Remake (PS4)

It's hard to fully explain why this is a big deal. This is also the trailer that you watch reactions of fans and think, "Man, these nerds are insane!" And it's true, of course. Still, this is really exciting. Final Fantasy VII is one of the most popular and beloved games of all time. And it hasn't aged well. It was originally supposed to be an N-64 game that got moved to the original Playstation because it was too big, and it looks horrible. Fans have been asking for an updated remake of it for years now. All the while, Square Enix has toyed with them. They've said that it's not on their list of priorities for years, but they still remade the entire introduction cutscene years back when they were showing off the power of the PS3 and their game engine. Then, they made a feature film spin off, along with many other spinoffs. It seemed like they were just hellbent on making sure they never wasted resources on a remake of a game that was probably the safest bet to make money in all of gaming.

Until now. What's crazier though is that they managed to keep this completely under wraps. There weren't rumors that they'd release this news, because no one knew about it. When the trailer started and people started figuring out what it was, people became reluctantly hopeful. After all, Square Enix had done this before, promoting FFVII news, only to find out they were talking about a ported version of the original game. But it seems that they've finally decided that they actually like money, and they're giving the fans what they've wanted for almost a decade now.

We know it's silly to get excited about a remake of a game we've already played. And there are still a number of issues we need to find out about before getting fully excited. For example, will they completely alter the battle system? Final Fantasy games have done everything they can to get away from the old style of turn-based battles. Will the materia system be back? One imagines it has to be. Not only was it one of the best character-building systems; it also had a purpose in the plot. Will they add things or change story elements? People have generally imagined a remake as being the exact same game, just with updated graphics, but the nature of RPGs has changed a lot in the near 20 years FFVII released.

Either way though, this is hugely exciting. And we can't wait to find out more.



Yes, we know we've left a bunch off the list, like Dark Souls III or the new Zelda game, or The Rise of Tomb Raider. On that latter front, we're not disinterested in the new Tomb Raider, but the footage shown made it look exactly like the last game. We liked the last game, of course, but we were hoping to see some new element to it. We're keeping our eyes on it though. As for Dark Souls III, well, we just haven't gotten into that franchise yet. And Zelda? We understand it's a big deal, but it isn't exactly our favorite franchise.


What games have piqued your interest? What are the games you're most excited in, or have caught your attention?

Skydiving - An Experience

I'm going to take a moment to get away from anything related to nerd culture to talk a little about an experience I had recently. It's something that tends to make the majority of bucket lists, that is a little expensive, but also totally affordable. Skydiving.

Firstly, it was a lot different than I thought it would be. To be honest, I thought that I would be totally fine on the plane and at the door, and I thought I would freak out when the parachute deployed. My thinking was that when I fly, the height doesn't bother me at all. It almost seems so fake to see the ground miles below you. But at a smaller height - like say, that of a skyscraper - I do get anxious and freak a little bit. The ground seems so much more real, I guess, for a lack of a better phrase. So I figured dangling and slowly falling at 3,000 feet would freak me out.

Turns out, there's a pretty fundamental difference between looking at the ground 13,000 feet in the air from inside an airplane, and looking at the ground 13,000 feet in the air from hanging on OUTSIDE the airplane. And so yeah, I started to get really nervous as we approached the door. Weirdly though, I felt totally fine on the parachute. Which is kind of strange because at the door, you can still back out. But on the chute, you're literally just sort of hanging there.

The whole thing happens so fast. They said the freefall lasted 55 seconds and the parachute ride lasted about 7 minutes. Honestly? I'd call you crazy if you told me the whole thing lasted more than 90 seconds. Part of it must be the adrenaline rush, but I think some of it too is that if it's your first time, or one of your early times, it's such an alien experience that your brain can't really even register what's happening. I don't really even know how to properly explain it. We did a flip right out of the plane, and I know I saw the sky and then I saw the ground, but I don't think my brain really realized we just did a flip. I don't even think I really realized that I was even falling. It's crazy.

They tell you it feels like flying, but I don't know if that's accurate. Granted, I have no idea what "flying" would feel like, but really, it kind of doesn't feel like anything. It might be the adrenaline, or it might be that your brain can't figure out what exactly is happening, but I don't even think I felt like I was falling. I almost couldn't even really feel my body. All I could physically feel was the air resistance. It isn't like a roller coaster. You aren't being whipped around. You don't go down, then get yanked up, then get pulled back down, then get turned upside down, then get jolted to the sides and spun again. Your stomach doesn't rise up into your chest - except maybe when the parachute deploys.

But it's so surreal. I said it before, but it really is the most insane, foreign experience. The brain and human body are not meant to experience this stuff. I almost feel like I "missed it," because I just couldn't really register what exactly was going on. I was dangling several thousand feet in the air, merely hooked onto another person who had the parachute, and I weirdly never felt in danger. It almost did feel like being in an airplane. Except your brain knows you're not in an airplane. And it doesn't quite know how to process that information.

Even though I feel a bit like I missed it all, because it all went by so quickly, I'm strangely able to reflect on the experience and really process it after the fact. I experienced weightlessness for a full minute. I felt what it was like to be part of a Newtonian physics experiment. I survived a "fall" from 13,000 feet. I saw the curvature of the Earth from outside of a vehicle. I saw the skyline of Boston from about 81 miles away. I saw trees the size of thumb tacks. And though an obvious comment about my current running abilities, I literally plummeted to Earth at the same distance that my last jog was. (To be fair, I did have a major back injury that I've never fully recovered from a while ago.)

I also possibly experienced symptoms of what is called "space adaptation syndrome." As we returned home from the trip, I felt nauseated, lethargic, and had a headache. I was experience a little bit of vertigo. My legs were shaking. Some of this might have been because of all the adrenaline that was suddenly gone, but these are also symptoms of astronauts living in or training for free-fall conditions. (That's what the space station is, by the way. If you didn't already know, the sensation of "weightlessness" is not actually caused by a lack of gravity, but actually because of gravity. It's a constant condition of free-fall.)

My big takeaway is that I don't really even know what my takeaway is. You don't have to go far to find stories of people who just jumped once to cross it off their bucket list, only to become addicts. I don't think I'm addicted. I actually have no desire to do this stuff by myself. I don't trust me enough to do it completely on my own, to be responsible for packing the parachute and pulling the cord (incidentally, my instructor asked me if I wanted to pull the cord and even gave me the chance, but I just couldn't. I think there was just too much happening that my brain could not even really figure out how to pull it, as stupid as that might sound). My brain also doesn't possess the kind of internal clock that might be necessary (as I said, they claimed the free fall portion lasted 55 seconds, but if you asked me, I'd have told you it took 15, 20 seconds tops).

But I do want to do it again, because my brain is only just starting to really process everything it experienced. And it just gets more interesting and awesome the more I reflect. I definitely feel like another go would be great because I already know a little bit of what to expect and so maybe my brain will be more prepared, and maybe I can take everything in a bit more.

Long story short, I loved it and I highly recommend it.