North Korea - They Found Our Unicorns!

Okay, you guys laughed at the lottery ticket thing, but now North Korea is saying they found a Unicorn Lair. Honestly. Now, hold on, how do they know, you ask? Well, there was a big stone sign. Sign said “Unicorn Lair” in big, engraved letters. So of course, it had to be true, even if the location was unimaginatively named. I mean, their former president was a self-proclaimed Demi-God who single-handedly wrote about 40,000 books in his lifetime, it makes sense, THIS is where the unicorns would be found, and they’d live in a place called “Unicorn Lair.” For those of you still looking for Jimmy Hoffa, all you need to do is find a sign that says, “Jimmy Hoffa Grave.” Foolproof.

This makes future discoveries much easier for science, anthropology, archaeology, et. al. – just look for an engraved stone tablet propped up in unusual locations. Since the Unicorn discovery, science has benefitted with the discovery of places called “Bigfoot Cave,” “Loch Ness Monster Bay,” and “World’s Greatest Doughnut Hole.” Though, this last discovery was called into question by being located in the same building as signs for the “World’s Greatest Coffee,” the “World’s Biggest T-Bone,” the “Best Stuff on Earth,” (which clearly has already been claimed by Snapple, though refuted almost immediately after tasting) and directly across the street from a “Speediest Parcel Service” and a “Jiffy Lube.”

Of course, there are drawbacks to such pioneering breakthroughs. Medical researchers on the lookout for so-called “DNA Signposts” – which indicate things such as genetic predisposition toward illnesses, hereditary immunity to certain allergens, or even things like hair and eye color – have discovered a number of indications that microbiotic pranksters have wasted no time in picking up on North Korea’s discovery. Cedars-Sinai has already discovered suspicious DNA markers which say, “Cytosine was here,” and “Telomeres do it on repeat,” while Johns-Hopkins researcher Elliot Bethpage was alarmed for another reason. On the end of every DNA strand currently undergoing chemical separation, he found a sort of genetic-level bathroom graffiti bragging “Helicase will unzip anything.”

“It’s funny because it’s true,” commented Bethpage.

No one is quite certain whether our DNA is announcing its own self-awareness, or if somehow the UT college students behind the “Zombie Attack” construction signs may be at it again, but one thing is clear – we’ll all remember where we were the day that unicorns were unequivocally proven to exist. By North Korea… who, I’m being told, has just claimed responsibility for every double-rainbow ever seen….

2012 Summer Movies, A.K.A. "What the Hell happened?"

It's summer again. Despite what the calendar would have you believe, it didn't start on June 20 this year - according to the B-52s outside my sliding door, it began in late April. And no, I don't have an eccentric group of 70's rockers hanging around my yard singing about Love Shacks and Rock Lobsters; I'm referring to the mosquitoes.

Like most people, I always look forward to the things summer brings - beach weather, crisp air conditioning, and summer movie season. Except, something happened this year. In the midst of slathering on suntan lotion and swatting vampiric insects, I noticed that there just aren't that many summer movies to see. I mean, sure, there are big films out there like The Avengers, Battleship, and Prometheus, but not on pace with what we've seen in recent years. Just last year, in one summer, we saw Thor, Captain America, Pirates 4, Scream 4, Mission Impossible 4, Transformers 3, Green Lantern, and while not all of those were on my must-see list, they were huge draws, and that's just to name the big popcorn flicks. Count in movies like Hangover 2, Bridesmaids, Cars 2, and Kung Fu Panda, and I'm sure there were some people that actually camped at the theaters all summer. This summer, we have only a few. Let's take a look at some of the hits and misses. Trust me, there are enough misses here to barely make a good batting average.

Dark Shadows: In an unprecedented move, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter work with Tim Burton for a change, where they are both able to explore fully the weirdness that makes them who they are. That hasn't happened since, y'know, the last time.

The Dictator: Sacha Baron Cohen plays a foreign guy who seems to be as clueless as he is unlikable. I'm beginning to see this as the summer of typecasting and nostalgia.

Men in Black III: Okay, now, this goes in the other column. We're revisiting one of the biggest summer blockbusters in history, and if any franchise needs a shot in the arm after the lackluster MIB2, this is it. Wait a minute, who's that guy playing Tommy Lee Jones? I want the real Agent K back, he was only in it for about 2 minutes?? And... this is set in the past? So, I'm watching a futuristic movie about the past? So, I'm watching a movie about... now? Where's the manager, there's a fly in my movie....

Snow White and the Huntsman: I'm not sure what to think here. On one hand, you have Chris Hemsworth doing his action thing. On the other hand, you have Kristen Stewart... attempting to do the same thing Hemsworth is doing. Doesn't she know her talents are best put to use when she's looking half-stoned at the camera and, y'know, not saying any lines? By the way, on a third, completely unexpected hand, you have Charlize Theron looking insane and pronouncing simple words such as "blood" as though they have four syllables in them. So, there's that. Hopefully you were as confused as I was by this.

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted: Now, while I'm not indifferent to the idea of having animated flicks as big summer blockbusters, and despite the fact that I love Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, and the rest of the cast, the only thing this movie appears to have going for it is Rock singing the "Polka-dot, Afro, Circus" song. If it's just that and lasts for 90 minutes, it's box office gold despite the Advil you'll be looking for when it's over. If, on the other hand, they insist on shoehorning in some type of plot, well, I'm forced to ask a question that has been plaguing me: is this the first title that pops into your mind when you think about animated movies that need sequels?

Rock of Ages: This looks good, despite being largely a musical. Herein lies the problem, however, which is the essence of this post: when was the last time you needed to count a musical as a summer blockbuster? Anyway, huge ensemble cast, Constantine Maroulis not very visible, great music. Those are three things that should make it easier for you to see this movie.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: All I can say here is the same thing I said when this first came out in book form: What in the name of all that's holy??

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World: While this movie looks cute and funny, and while I love Steve Carell and Keira Knightley, I can't quite bring myself to put this in "summer blockbuster" territory. Even though it does revisit a summer movie staple, the end of all life as we know it. And if that doesn't scream comedy, well, you need to recalibrate your funny bone.

People Like Us: Again, while I am looking forward to seeing this, I don't see it as summer blockbuster fare. Mainly because I'm curious if Chris Pine has the big screen chops to respond to any direction other than "Be Captain Kirk."

Magic Mike: Okay, we're clearly back to typecasting now. I won't be seeing this movie for a vast variety of reasons, but let's just say if I wanted to see Channing Tatum grinding or Matthew McConaughey with no shirt on, I would go LITERALLY ANYWHERE ELSE. Seriously. It's the role they were both born to play. I can't even imagine the pitch meeting getting off the ground, but what happened when they were discussing casting? "Hmm, let's see, we need a guy to play a stripper, and a shirtless guy who wears a vest. Anybody?" "Call me crazy, but, what if we got a stripper and a shirtless guy who wears a vest to play those parts?" "You know, kid, it's so crazy it just might work!" Lastly, I've chosen not to insert the expected line of "Alright, alright, alright" here when talking about McConaughey, because I'd be bound to follow it up with, "enough already, we get it, your moobs are huge."

Ted: See my thoughts above on Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The only difference is, this wasn't a book first.

Tyler Perry's Madea's Witness Protection: First of all, the title. I don't think the English language allows 40% of any chunk of text to be possessive words. Don't get me wrong, I like Tyler Perry and have a great deal of respect for what he's done for Atlanta as well as his flair for self-promotion, I just am surprised this franchise has developed the following it has. First of all, doesn't Martin Lawrence get some sort of residual from the idea? Second, after Madea Goes To Jail I started to think he was just using the old "Ernest" movies as a template. And finally... Perry is going to be playing James Patterson's Alex Cross in an upcoming film. I don't know if I can wrap my mind around seeing him play a figure which was made so iconic by Morgan Freeman in films like Along Came a Spider and Kiss the Girls after I've seen him as Madea. Every time he walks onto a crime scene, I'm immediately going to picture him threatening to spoon Eugene Levy, and I just can't seem to overcome that....

Although July does have some big movies coming out (The Dark Knight Rises and a new Ice Age) along with August (Bourne Legacy, Expendables 2) which are sure to be big box office draws, I'm going to finish up with another that has me torn: The Amazing Spider-Man. Emma Stone: good. Andrew Garfield: who? The first time I heard this name, he was announced as being an upcoming guest on a late night show. Here is how my thought process unfolded: "Ah, is he the guy who started the restaurant chain? No? Oh, so, he must be the radio personality and tech expert? No, that's Michael. Well, he's definitely not the 20th President of the U.S. Is it the full name of an acerbic, fluffy, orange cartoon cat?" NOT ONCE did the thought "actor playing Spider-Man" pop into my head. That's a pretty outside choice for the lead character. I hope it does well, but here's another thought: why did Spider Man need a reboot, anyway? The last film just came out 5 years ago. I mean, I know they'll have needed a flashy reboot some time before they do a "New Avengers" movie, but don't they have to do about 12 films with the current Avengers before that happens? Why do we have to remake movies that aren't even that old? 80's movies are a stretch for me (I'm looking at you, Total Recall) let alone a franchise that just ended 5 years ago.

While I have plenty of films I'm looking forward to, when I compare it to last summer I'm just thankful I have my Netflix queue to send me things like Downton Abbey and indie flicks. Oh, and Mirror Mirror - I can't believe I missed that on the big screen....

Artistic Integrity in Video Games

I don't usually weigh in on debates like these, but as with most debates there are valid points on both sides, so I thought I'd join in.

"With a game, the final 'collaborator' is the player.  Thus, the player has a say in the artistic vision.  The game isn’t done until it is played."

This is a comment made by a recent acquaintance of mine, and fellow writer, Alan Dreher regarding this whole dust-up over Mass Effect 3. ("Why Claims Regarding “Artistic Integrity” Do Not Apply To Mass Effect 3 or Other Games.") Before I move on, you should definitely check out Alan's blog, he makes some good points and I look forward to reading more from him. Now, allow me a moment to reflect.

An artistic message doesn't cease to exist simply because someone doesn't experience it, nor does it change based on the way it is experienced. While I take the meaning, this is a very fine line to walk, a very narrow distinction. The problem is that even though players can influence the outcome of ME3 based on the decisions they make while playing, there are still a finite number of outcomes which have already been programmed into the game. The player doesn't program anything or add any elements into the game, they merely use their decisions to open up the pathways that already exist as a result of the game creator's vision.

To say the player contributes to the art form by playing it and has a right to dictate or at least call for new endings would be like saying a TV or movie viewer contributes to the vision by pressing Play on their DVR, or that the Star Wars films are fair game because the end-product isn't realized until a viewer chooses whether to view it in traditional or 3D format (as in Spectator Theory, mentioned by Alan in his piece - the problem with Spec Theory is that it discounts the idea that the original artist has any intent or vision. Yes, spectators can view things with a different vision, but it doesn't change the intent or vision of the original artist.) Likewise, Dallas fans wouldn't have the right to say, "Hey, I thought JR would die after he got shot, I demand they film an alternate timeline!"

Yes, it's everyone's right to speak their mind, to form opinions, and to like or dislike anything on which they've laid down the cash. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have the right to demand that someone else change it to suit your wishes, especially when the company has gone to the effort of programming multiple different endings to experience into the game - as is the case with any of the previous installments of this series, and most RPGs today. (Another example, many DVDs and Blu-Rays come with alternate endings - that's a bonus for viewers and a great thing for producers and directors to include, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that it's within reason for viewers to say, "I didn't like ANY of the endings, film me a new one!" I would expect these sorts of demands to be followed up by statements like, "I demand satisfaction!" followed by the slap of a white glove, or perhaps a call for "More ale, wench!") After all, what's next? "I was wearing green-tinted sunglasses when I visited the Louvre recently and when I checked out the Mona Lisa, she looked great in a kelly green dress. Imagine my disappointment to see the 'real' painting online today and see that the dress is in fact equal parts gold and red trimmed with greyish blue. Somebody should really green that bitch up, yo." See what I'm saying?

Now, ultimately, it IS the choice of the artist whether or not they want to change their vision in order to appeal to the masses. George Lucas made Jar Jar the dupe who led to the ultimate downfall of the Republic in The Clone Wars largely because most everyone hated him in The Phantom Menace. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did resurrect Sherlock Holmes largely due to fan outcry. Charles Dickens halted publication of further chapters of Oliver Twist because Jewish readers (namely, Ms. Eliza Davis) found his references to Fagin offensive. (He also changed the ending of Great Expectations before publication, because a colleague urged him the original vision was too grim.) From these examples, you can see that even in these circumstances there are far ranging reasons (and far different interpretations of "reasonableness" with which to regard a demand for changes.) The "outrage" over killing off a beloved character isn't nearly as serious as concerns over antisemitism, but it's up to the artist how (or even if) they react to the backlash. Many times a change is to be applauded, as with Dickens' adjustment in Twist. Other times, though, the call for a change seems less substantive.


I'm not saying anything people haven't already argued, but if a customer doesn't like a product they've bought, they make that known, and then they don't buy more products by that company (be it a restaurant, clothing manufacturer, film producer, or game designer.) And if the issue is with the fact that they've already spent $60 and don't like the ending, well, at the time of this writing, they're still well within most stores' return window as long as they kept the receipt.

The thing is, we live in a society of entitlement now. Consumers feel entitled to insist on changes to everything from tire tread depth to the amount of red dye number 40 in their Life Savers. In some instances the complaints are valid, especially where safety or discrimination concerns come into play. Consumers have every right to expect that the products on which they spend money won't injure, kill, or otherwise cause illness to them. On the other hand, when the end product is not a safety concern, but rather the creative vision resulting from the collaboration of individuals, be it a group of 4, 40, 400, or 4,000, the consumers of that entertainment have no right to demand changes just because it didn't match what they expected.

On the contrary, that challenge to one's expectations is the very illustration of artistic intent, and sticking to that vision is the very definition of artistic integrity. Many artists - be they novelists, film makers, or game developers - thrive on the ability to surprise their consumers with plot twists or stunning endings. Even in the instances where those endings may be considered underwhelming, it is usually a calculated decision on the part of the artist - fans may expect a cut and dried ending, but the artist doesn't always want to answer all questions or wrap up all subplots because seldom is anything in real life that cut-and-dried. True artists ply their craft in an effort to make art imitate life in some way. If life is ambiguous, messy, and seldom completely resolved with all loose ends tied off, many artists want their works to reflect that. (As an example, comments by Ubisoft in a recent Game Informer interview which state exactly that - endings aren't meant to be perfect or 100% resolved because that's not how life works, and you never know if further installments might answer certain of those questions while introducing twice as many more.)

But you know what I think is the main thing they want to do with so called "imperfect" endings? Stimulate discussion. And that's exactly what EA and BioWare have done. After all, what have we all been talking about for almost a month now?