This scene didn’t make it, but foreshadowed a lot of awesome

It’s still January, so I can still post lists right?  In that vein I’m posting my list of my favorite scenes from TV in the past year.  I’m limiting myself to one per series (so this entire list doesn’t become full of Archer and Game of Thrones)…so here goes….oh and SPOILERS (duh)

5. Pillows vs. Blankets (Community)

Community is a show that’s still very unappreciated in the mainstream.  It’s the smartest sitcom on TV, and yet when it comes to “nerd shows” more people identify with “The Big Bang Theory” (which disgusts me to no end).  For people who watch and know how great Community is, it was hard picking a scene from a strong third season.  I went with this one from my favorite episode of Community in 2012 (“Remedial Chaos Theory”, which was the best episode of the season, aired in 2011) which told the story of Abed and Troy’s Pillowfort vs. Blanketfort in Ken Burns documentary style.  Leading to this…

Brad likes this. A lot.

Community Honorable Mention:

Abed and Troy Play Good Cop/Bad Cop

Another theme episode of Community (this time going after Law and Order) gives us this fantastic scene

WATCH THIS SHOW DAMNIT!

4. Michonne vs. The Governor (The Walking Dead)

The Walking Dead’s third season got off to a solid first half, introducing Michonne and The Governor and having their half season arc end in a bloody confrontation that left a permanent mark both emotionally and physically on The Governor.  It was scene that provided a great payoff to the dynamic that they built over the 8 episodes with Michonne and The Governor, and hopefully they can continue this momentum in the 2nd half of the third season. Plus glass meeting an eye is always awesome.

The Walking Dead Honorable Mention

Rick’s Prison Rampage

So Lori’s dead and Rick does what any sane man would do…he fucking loses it and goes on a zombie rampage in the prison.  Not only does he decapitate a great deal of zombies (using an ax no less), he also crazily attacks Glen as he tries to stop Rick’s blood soaked carnage.  To end it all he finds where Lori’s body was, finds the zombie who ate her, shoots him in the face and then stabs him repeatedly in the stomach with a knife.  This was just awesome.  And also an excuse to post this…

Which leads nicely into #3….

3. Archer and Burt Ride the Elevator (Archer)

For some reason this video doesn’t exist on the internet, but I feel like this scene pretty much describes what makes Archer so awesome.  Archer and his hero, Burt Reynolds, are on the way to help the other member’s of ISIS outrun a Cuban hit squad, but first have a fantastic conversation in Archer’s slow moving apartment elevator.  Here’s the transcript:

Burt:  You’re kidding me…
Archer: I know… drives me nuts… like the world’s slowest elevator.
Burt:  You should get a bat-pole.
Archer: Nine thousand bucks.
Burt: What?
Archer: Lowest quote I got.
Burt: Well that’s ridiculous.
Archer: Basically just putting a pole where the garbage chute already is, but the co-op board was like “but what do we do with the garbage?”
Burt: Yeah but you could still throw it down the… whatever… the same shaft.
Archer: I know!
Burt: And then you’ll have some garbage to land on.
Archer: If you’re coming in hot, I know. It’s a win-win.
Burt: And you were gonna pay for it yourself…
Archer: Yep.
Burt: No assessment or anything.
Archer: Yep.
Burt: Ridiculous.
Archer: Preaching to the choir buddy.

If you’ve never seen this episode, do yourself a favor and snag Season 3 on Blu-Ray.  Such a great show.

Archer Honorable Mention

Archer and Babou

Archer converses with, then berates, Babou the Ocelot.  Enjoy.

I could pick all day from Archer.  The show is just that good.

2. Down by the River (Breaking Bad)

Again…SPOILERS…

In an epic first half to Season 5, Breaking Bad continues to show why it’s one of the best dramas on television.  This scene fully encapsulates the relationship between Walter and Mike and while the pay off itself isn’t really that shocking, the scene provides a lot of emotion, which has been a hallmark of the series so far.  As we head towards the end of an amazing series, it’s scenes like this that I’ll always remember.

Breaking Bad Honorable Mention

Jesse Comes to Dinner

Right after Walt gave Jesse the speech with the famous line, “I’m in the empire business,” Skylar walks into the house and Walt decides to invite Jesse to an impromptu dinner party at the White house.  What follows is hilariously awkward and also quite telling scene between three of Breaking Bad’s central characters.  Those are some great green beans apparently…

1. Tyrion’s Speech During the Battle of Blackwater (Game of Thrones)

And I saved the best for last…this is easily the best scene from the best episode of any show on TV this season.  Not only does it show the cowardice of King Joffrey (easily the best villain on TV) but it’s also the point where Tyrion takes the mantle knowing that if he doesn’t do something King’s Landing will fall and he and his family will be killed.  It’s a fantastically done moment and watching it again still gives me chills

Game of Thrones Honorable Mention: 

Joffrey & The Whores

You know why he’s such a good villain?  Scenes like this…

For over a decade, the undisputed bad-boy-bear has been Pedobear, a jolly looking creature who has an uncontrollable fetish for children.  But Pedobear’s reign has since become threatened when cartoon producer Seth MacFarlane decided to manufacture a bad teddy bear of his own named, Ted, to challenge Pedobear for pop-culture dominance.  The world is certainly only large enough for one bear, so let’s pit these two teddy-titans together in a Deadliest Warrior-style combat simulation to see who will reign supreme.

             VS     

Winner:  Pedobear!
Out of a simulated 100 battles, Pedobear came out victorious 62% of the time.  Sorry MacFarlane, but it looks like Pedobear will be holding onto his championship belt for quite some time.

got my good eye on you.

11:00am – 12:00pm @ Room 25ABC
X-Play

2:00pm – 3:00pm @ Room 7AB
Before and After: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Star Trek: The Next Generation’s Journey into High Definition

3:45pm – 4:45pm @ Room 6A
Image: The Walking Dead

4:45pm – 5:45pm @ Hall H
The Expendables 2-Real American Heroes

6:00pm – 7:00pm @ Indigo Ballroom, Hilton San Diego Bayfront
RiffTrax Live

Day 1 of Comic-Con may not contain some of the high-profile events Day 2 is slated for, but it’s not without a few standouts.  I obviously won’t be able to do all of this, but if I can get up early enough to sneak into the X-Play panel, walk the floor for a bit then make it through the sure to be horde-sized Walking Dead comic book panel line, I’ll be stoked. And any night that includes either the MST3K guys or Stallone, Lundgren, Arnold and Van Damme can be considered a successful one.

My night will capped off with some zombie-related antics at Petco (http://www.thewalkingdeadescape.com/). Bound to be more exciting than when the Padres play there. Though likely with the same number of people meandering around glassy-eyed with a bad case of the munchies.

The second season of HBO’s Game of Thrones has come to a close, leaving us with an unfortunate nine or so months bereft of epic medieval battles, scheming dwarves, fire-breathing dragons and near constant nudity. In the meantime, we can relive the glory that was the second season, with this special look at which characters reigned supreme this year. So here is my take on which characters were the best of the past season. It should be noted this is my opinion, and my opinion alone – I know for a fact that not all of the Culture Wedge staff will agree with. But to hell with them…I’m right!

Oh, and since we’re discussing a season that is now over, this might go without saying, but SPOILERS AHEAD.

SEASON TWO’S BEST CHARACTERS

12. Renly Baratheon

Alas, poor Renly, we hardly knew ye. Whereas Stannis Baratheon ended up being something of a bore this season, Renly, in the short time he had, was a fascinating and complex character. Truly loved by his men, but hiding a HUGE secret, you couldn’t help but root for the guy. Or at least I couldn’t – for what it’s worth, I think if I lived in the fictional world of Westoros, Renly would have been who I was rooting for to win the Iron Throne. Of those who actually wanted the crown (sorry, Robb), he seemed like he would have been the most decent and fair king.

11. Tywin Lannister

I can pretty much sum this one up with two words – “Charles Dance.” One of the best “evil bastard” actors out there, Dance brought a sinister nobility to the elder Lannister. Though I suppose it’s tempting to label him a “bad guy,” you still also always understood and even maybe slightly sympathized with his motivations. Although he was a fairly “behind the scenes” character for most of the season, his scenes were always captivating.

10. Jaime Lannister

Sure, the Kingslayer was a simple prisoner for most of the season, and as a result sadly did not enjoy as much screen-time as he did in the first season. But you can tell how important the producers realized he was to the show – from what I understand, a lot of his scenes were added in to the show, in order to make up for his overall absence from the second book. Good thing, too – Jaime’s cocky arrogance still shined through even tied up in a dirty cage, and his final scenes with Brienne were excellent, promising a much more active season three for the king’s uncle/father.

9. Sandor Clegane

I really didn’t expect much from “The Hound” when he was first introduced last season – I predicted just a simple brute character, there just to act as simplemuscle. But his gentle attitude towards Sansa Stark at the end of the season hinted at something deeper, and this season it came full circle, finally culminating in “Blackwater” with his encounter with Bronn, total ass-kicking in the battle, and finally his condemnation of both the war, the city and the king. Damn, Sansa, you really should have gone with him.

8. Bronn

Tyrion’s loyal right-hand man, and probably the only character even comes close to Tyrion in the “quotable” department. Bronn’s no-nonsense attitude about his lack of morals but love of money makes him oddly honorable, in a weird way. Plus, “there’s no cure for being a cunt” might just be the line of the season.

7. Arya Stark

Or, as I like to call her, “the only tolerable Stark.” I was actually pretty concerned about this character in the first season – I could see where they were going with her (the little tomboy girl who wants to be a fierce warrior), but was worried that actress Maisie Williams didn’t really have it in her to pull it off. She proved me wrong this year – not so much in the “warrior” department (they didn’t do a whole lot with Arya’s sword-fighting skills this year), but she definitely brought a lot to the table in her scenes with Tywin, which were created specifically for the show. Smart move – they were a great showcase for both characters.

6. Jaqen H’ghar

Alright, alright, I know “Jaqen H’ghar” wasn’t even his real name. I don’t care. All I care about is how completely bad-ass he was. Although his odd third-person speech struck me as silly at first, I soon came to relish his interactions with Arya. And even though it might have been down for budgetary reasons or something like that, I still love that we never even witnessed any of his assassinations, but instead only saw the bloody aftermaths. Judging by his final scene, it looks like we’ve seen the last of this character, at least in this form (so long to actor Tom Walaschiha), which is too bad.

5. Cersei Lannister

Cersei was perhaps less active in events this season, but was no less compelling. Her grief over losing Jaime, her mental duels with Tyrion, her silent but obvious inner turmoil over realizing her son is even crazier and more out-of-control than she thought – Cersei had one hell of a rough year. This helps explain her resignation to kill herself and her youngest son during the battle of Blackwater. Her drunken conversations with Sansa beforehand are probably her characters strongest moments yet.

4. Petyr Baelish

I read one article that argued it was pretty unrealistic for Baelish to travel all over the kingdom so much and so quickly throughout the season, and I guess I can see some truth to that. But no matter, Littlefinger is still awesome. In a show full of schemers and manipulators, Baelish is the only one who is pretty darn upfront about what an untrustworthy prick he is. And yet people still keep making deals with him! I guess it pays to own a whorehouse.

3. Theon Greyjoy

The most improved character since the first season, by far. I didn’t care about Theon at all during that first year – the whole “he’s kind of a Stark but not really” thing didn’t seem to go anywhere except for occasional insults at his expense. But Theon’s inner-anguish over accepting his family destiny and betraying his friends this year was one of the season’s best storylines, and his brutal but eventually ill-fated siege of Winterfell displayed a whole new side of the character.

2. Tyrion Lannister

Indeed. With the departure of Ned Stark, Tyrion essentially became the show’s primary character this season. Peter Dinklage easily rose to the challenge (no pun intended). Watching Tyrion outwit his opponents, and verbally dress them down, is one of the great TV pleasures of the moment. It doesn’t really seem in the cards, but is there any way we get Tyrion some time on the Iron Throne?

1. Joffrey Baratheon

No, seriously. Joffrey is not just the best villain on television right now, he is fast on his way to being one of the best television villains of all time. The problem with most villains is that they are played so “cool” that they often end up becoming even more popular than the heroes, which in turn can hurt the impact of the story (wrestling fans will know exactly what I’m talking about). Well, it’s never been cool to like Joffrey. Can you think of a more hated character? A great deal of the interest in the “game of thrones” is not only seeing which potential king finally sits on the throne, but also a desire to see Joffrey finally get his. I’m sure that will happen sooner or later, but when it does, the show – and its fans – might just miss Joffrey more than many of his haters will probably want to admit. But hey, haters gonna hate…

All hail the king.

If you’re one of the ten or eleven people that still haven’t seen The Avengers yet, but do intend to, do yourself a favor and skip this column, cause we’re getting into heavy spoiler territory. If, however, you’ve already seen the film like a normal, decent person, allow me to share with you something that’s been bugging me about the whole thing…

Now, don’t get me wrong. I liked The Avengers. Liked it quite a bit (in fact, here’s my review). Maybe I didn’t think it was the end-all-be-all of action and/or comic-book movies that a lot of other people did, but I still dug it a lot. And pretty much almost everything that is right with the film I chalk up to writer/director Joss Whedon. I mean, yeah, the cast is great and all, but this thing could have been a disaster with the wrong guy at the helm. Whedon’s not the wrong guy. Nerds like me practically creamed our pants when Marvel first confirmed he had the gig. Now, here we are a year later, and we stand vindicated (but still out a nice pair of pants).

There are a lot of Whedon-esque moments you can point to in The Avengers, but I think one sticks out more than any other. I’m talking…and like I said, SPOILERS…about the sudden, shocking death of SHIELD Agent Phil Coulson. You know, Coulson, that relatively minor character from the first Iron Man movie that turned into one of the luckiest breaks ever for actor Clark Gregg, as he surprisingly became one of the main connective tissues between all these interweaving Marvel films. He was given his own little short-films on the blu-rays of Thor and Captain America, and the character became so popular with fans that he was added to the Ultimate Spider-Man animated series and was even recently added to the main Marvel Comic Universe continuity.

So, yeah, Whedon killed that sucker.

Although it’s a shocking moment in the film, it’s really not that surprising if you’re familiar with Whedon’s work. Think back to Buffy, Angel, Serenity…heck, even Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog – Whedon has never been afraid to unexpectedly kill off a beloved character to create a powerful moment that raises the stakes dramatically. And, really, sorry, but if he wanted to do that in The Avengers, Coulson had to be the guy. I mean, maybe Whedon first pitched killing off Thor…but I doubt it.

So even though I enjoyed the Coulson character, I have no problem with his death, which is a striking moment in the movie. But what I took issue with were Coulson’s final dying words to SHIELD Director Nick Fury. And I’m paraphrasing here, because I’ve only seen the thing once and there was way too much other cool stuff to try to remember, but I think Coulson’s final words go a little something like:

“It’s OK, it’s better this way. If this was going to work, they needed something to…”

Well, somebody sure has a high opinion of themselves, huh?? I mean, c’mon, we all know what that fucker was about to say. “They needed something to AVENGE.” That’s right, in this guys mind, from this point on The Avengers are called The Avengers because they are avenging Phil Coulson. Sort of makes you look at the name of the movie in a whole new light, doesn’t it?

Now, on one hand, this seems like an incredibly egotistical thing to say. We’ve all had moments where we think we’re the center of attention, are convinced everyone is talking about us, etc. But I have never taken it as far as believing an entire team of superheroes is going to finally set aside their differences and bond together as a team simply because of little old me. But Coulson does. Can you believe the balls on this guy?

But what’s even crazier about the movie is this simple fact:

He’s right.

The way it comes across, it IS Coulson’s death that causes these great heroes to finally get their shit together and get their heads in the game in the battle against Loki. They all sit around moping like Loki killed their mother or best friend or something. I mean, I get Black Widow and Hawkeye being bothered – they’ve probably worked with the guy for years, probably got drunk together and holiday parties and were in office Super Bowl and Oscar pools. But Captain America? He’s known the guy for like a day or two, and quite frankly, Coulson was sort of creepy around him. Tony Stark always seemed annoyed by Coulson. I know he uses his snarky cynicism as a defense mechanism, but still. And then there’s Thor, who has met the man before, but only briefly, and not always in the best circumstances (remember when Coulson had him handcuffed and was interrogating him?).

It’s not that I’m saying they shouldn’t be saddened by his death. He is a comrade, and from everything we’ve seen a pretty darn good agent. But it seems odd to so heavily insinuate that his death is any more meaningful to these heroes than the deaths of the hundreds of other agents that certainly died in the same attack (do you think any of them died thinking they were the one that The Avengers would really mourn?). Coulson’s death should mean more to us, the audience, but I don’t know what to think of superheroes who can’t work together against a potentially world-conquering threat unless they can pick out one particular victim to care about. What about SHIELD Agent Dereck Taylor, who worked on level one and was killed in one of the initial explosions? Or, hell, what about janitor Toby Peterson, who was sucked out of the side of the helicarier during the attack and plunged to his death, leaving behind a wife and three children? Granted, I just made both those guys up, but still, there were a lot of people like them, and you’d hope someone like Captain America would care just as much about them (maybe not Hulk, though…that guy doesn’t care about shit).

Before I wrap this up, I should also probably bring up one last possibility – what if Coulson isn’t even dead? I mean, he probably is, but you obviously can’t put it past Nick Fury to just lie to the team and tell him he’s dead even though he’s not. He lied about those bloody trading cards, after all (does that mean Fury went and grabbed the cards and then rubbed them all over Coulson’s bloody body?). Maybe Coulson just slipped into a coma but Fury took his last words to heart and told the team he perished, so as to ensure they would actually stop the earth from dying and all. Or maybe they saved Coulson’s brain and they’re gonna put it in a robot body and make him The Vision. Wouldn’t that be something? An emotionless android that is still somehow always gloating, “hey guys, remember when you all avenged me? I knew you loved me, guys.”

That probably won’t happen. Dude’s dead. And thank heavens for that, I suppose…otherwise these so-called Avengers might have just let Loki kill all our asses.

A Culture Wedge exlcusive…

Katniss and Peeta both survive at the end, they are the final 2 survivors and threaten to commit suicide each but then they are both awarded victory. BAM! I just spoiled the ending of the Hunger Games

If there’s one thing nerds love, it’s a good old fashioned nerd-debate. And for the past couple months, one debate in particular has dominated nerd circles – Battle Royale vs. The Hunger Games. We certainly couldn’t let this go unnoticed here, so join us as Culture Wedge contributors Ping (Team Battle Royale) and Trev (Team Hunger Games) step into the arena and fight to the death…or at least just have a civilized debate about two popular novels.

*This post contain spoilers

Ping:  With the recent success and media attention of the young adult series, “The Hunger Games”, much speculation has arisen regarding the originality of Suzanne Collins’s work. Many skeptics believe Collins plagiarized from a lesser known Japanese novel called “Battle Royale”, due to the similarities between two novels’ central theme: a government forced game of death among teenagers. Although Collins denies ever having read Koushun Takami’s book, it is still possible that her current best-selling trilogy was at least influenced by it, perhaps informally. Whether or not Collins actually stole the foundational theme, “The Hungers Games” as a whole is different enough from “Battle Royale” to discharge many of these criticisms.

“The Hunger Games” is a great book. There is a reason why it has sold nearly a million copies worldwide. Collins did a phenomenal job crafting her novel to appeal to nearly all demographics. There is plenty of violence to satisfy males, soft romances that swoons women and totalitarian politics for adults. However, despite the novel’s qualities, it ultimately pales in comparison to its foreign predecessor.

“Battle Royale” is a superior novel for a manifold of reasons. The most relevant of which has to do with its interchanging third-person point-of-view. In contrast to HG’s first-person perspective centered on the protagonist, Katniss Everdeen, BR’s perspective shifts continually among the 42 contestants, with emphasis on a select few. BR’s approach is more effective because it provides readers with the historical and emotional backgrounds of nearly every character. HG’s biggest flaw is its inability to connect readers to the contestants of the games other than Katniss and Peeta. Many characters are killed off without ever being named. Even some of the more important characters to the story, such as Cato, Rue, and Thresh, were never analyzed outside of their actions. Who is Thresh? Why does he care about Rue? What was his job? Is he educated? Outside of the fact he is from District 11, not much is known about him. The same goes for Cato, who is arguably considered the main antagonist in the first book. Outside of the fact that he is a “Career Tribute”, what more do we really know about him? Providing background is important because it emotionally bridges the reader to the characters. Most of the deaths in HGs were hollow, since you didn’t know or care who just died, while in BR, deaths carry greater significance because the reader got to know the characters. In addition, due to HG’s single POV, many scenarios manifest without clarity, thus creating an array of unanswered questions. For example, how did Thresh die, exactly? Did Peeta really kill that injured girl who made the camp fire? How did he do it? How was Peeta able to escape his fight with Cato after getting cut? How did the Careers manage to evade the swarm of Tracker Jackers? Etc. Unlike in HGs, every death is explained and accounted for in BR. Takami’s execution of his story is definitely superior to Collin’s.

* * * *

Trev:  First of all, even though Ping has already said as much, let me just confirm –choosing between “Battle Royale” and “The Hunger Games” is sort of like having to choose between a night making love to Natalie Portman or a night bar hopping with Bill Murray. Both are awesome for totally different reasons. Still, as made perfectly clear in BOTH stories our culture loves, and often NEEDS, to have a winner. And so, if pressed, I give the slight edge to Collins’ tale.

Now in the interest of full disclosure, I admit that I have NOT in fact read the original “Battle Royale” novel by Koushun Takami, so Ping sort of has me as a disadvantage here. I have, however, read the entire 15 volume manga adaptation (also written by Takami), as well as seen Kinji Fukasaku’s excellent movie version on numerous occasions (for “The Hunger Games,” I have both read the novel and seen the film). So, apart from this admittedly unfortunate gap in my “Battle Royale” knowledge, I feel at least partly qualified to debate the two.

One thing I think Ping would agree with me on is that the whole similarity between the two stories has been completely overblown in the first place – cries of “Hunger Games” just being a rip-off of “Battle Royale” are predictable and boring, as well as dismissive of the fact that “Battle Royale” was itself not exactly the most original story ever told. Both books share the same obvious influences – “The Most Dangerous Game,” “The Lottery,” “The Running Man” and “Lord of the Flies” all immediately come to mind, and really all of these go back to mythology and even actual historical events like the gladiatorial games. At the end of the day, it shouldn’t matter that the two are similar – there are only a handful of original stories anyway, right? What matters are the stylistic differences between the two, and that’s where I believe “The Hunger Games” comes out on top.

Ping argues that “Battle Royale’s” inter-changing perspective makes it a more satisfying tale, but I’m not sure that’s the case. While I’ll admit there were times I found Katniss to be a frustrating narrator, I still think being in her head the entire time gives you a more emotional connection with her than you have with any of the “Battle Royale” characters. Sure, maybe you do get the back-stories of all the BR kids, and maybe each one of their deaths is fully explained, but how important is that, really? It’s just two different stylistic approaches, and I would argue that “Hunger Games” is actually a bit more intense, as it sells the chaos of this horrible event. Since we are seeing things solely through the eyes of Katniss, there is no reason to stop the narrative to fill us in on character details she would neither realistically know nor probably even care to learn (would you really want to know all the intimate life details of somebody you might be forced to soon kill? Wouldn’t that just make it harder?). Likewise, Katniss would never be aware of everything that is going on in the game – she only knows what happens to her, and therefore we do, too. There’s a great moment in the “Hunger Games” movie that really captures this – the opening slaughter at the “cornucopia,” which we see in quick chaotic flashes as Katniss runs for a bag and tries to make sense of the madness around her. Look, if you’re in a war, you’re not gonna know the life-story of everyone dying around you in battle. An omniscient narrator that gives the reader this sort of info might make for a more encompassing story, but Collins’ purposely limited approach is much more effective in selling you on what it might actually feel like to be involved in an event like this.

* * * *

Ping:  Trevor certainly brings credibility to this debate, as the 15 volume manga adaptation of “Battle Royale” follows the original novel fairly well, with the exception of some added magic.  In fact, the characters in the manga were depicted almost exactly as how I pictured them from the novel.  Judged independently, the manga is also a quality read and I recommend it for anyone needing to fill the space between the two “Hunger Game” films.

Returning to the debate, Trevor made some strong points.  The POV centered on Katniss certainly has its merits.  Majority of the time, I find the first-person POV to be more effective method of storytelling, as it creates the sense of embodiment, rather than projection.  Being able to cognitively feel what Katniss felt certainly is a plus for HGs.  With that said, I still believe it is important to receive background on minor characters, even if their death is knowingly imminent.  In “Battle Royale”, readers are introduced with many ambitious individuals who have goals that might or might not correspond with the competition.  The character Hiroki spends the majority of the story looking for his love, Shinji exhausts every minute trying to find a way to beat the system, and Kazuo goes on a mission to annihilate everyone.  Characters with goals bring value to the story because they provide something to cheer for.  We can expect minor characters like Hiroki to die, but as we wait for that scene, we cling to the hope that he can at least accomplish his goal, first.  It is also true that getting to know the characters would only make their deaths harder, but I believe the best books are those that make you feel something.

When it comes to characters, I also feel “Battle Royale” has the better selection.  Although I enjoyed seeing Katniss evolve as an individual, I still feel her and Peeta have rather bland personalities.  The villain Cato was pretty straight-forward (here to kill people and win the game) Rue had her innocence, and everyone else didn’t get much attention (as I have previously complained).  In contrast, BR had characters like Mitsuko, a sickle wielding vixen who seduces people into death; Kazuo, a talented silent killer who feels absolutely no emotion; Shogo, a battle-scarred champion of a previous competition that is also a shotgun trotting badass; Shiniji, a genius who uses his witt as a weapon; and the list goes on.  Due to the array of personalities, it also made the psychology of the story more interesting.  You never know who is playing the game and who is trying to escape or beat it.  Who you can trust and who you can’t.  Seeing Mistsuko coddle a trusting schoolmate right before she slices her throat open was awesome, to say the least.  And the moment when Kazuo flips his coin to determine his course in the competition created nothing but joyous anticipation for me.

* * * *

Trev:  Well, I’m not gonna lie, I’m happy Ping was so eager to lavish praise on the “Battle Royale” manga, as it allows me to take something of a cheap shot. Because while we’re debating these two haunting stories, all I’m suddenly reminded of are the copious panty-shots and unnecessary graphic sex scenes that permeate the “Battle Royale” manga. All of it just comes across as if it’s trying too hard to be adult and edgy (even though it’s already about kids slaughtering each other), but in fact is just laughable and ridiculous – the teacher character, in particular, is such a cartoonish and perverted figure in the manga that it is impossible to take him seriously as a real threat. Now I understand this fixation on sexuality is a common thread in many manga’s, and maybe the novel wasn’t like that, but if we were just gonna compare “Hunger Games,” the novel with “Battle Royale,” the manga, I’d say the former’s immature approach to sex would almost certainly render it the loser.

Sticking to the stories themselves, I’ll agree with Ping that there are more varied characters in “Battle Royale”, and it can be sort of interesting to see their different motivations. But, to what point, ultimately? Ping himself says that many of their goals don’t correspond with the competition, and that we expect most of them to die (like many stories of the kind, it’s fairly obvious who the REAL main characters are). With that in mind, it almost feels a bit more emotionally manipulative to trick us into caring about all these characters that, at the end of the day, are really nothing more than cannon fodder. But I don’t know, maybe that’s just the slasher film fan in me talking, as I’m used to little character development for those that are simply on hand to increase the body count.

The truth is, Takami had more time to build up the characters within the game because he spent more time in the game, period. And here is where we come to what I believe is “Hunger Game’s” biggest advantage over” Battle Royale.” Pretty much the entirety of “Battle Royale” is in the game itself. This means we never really get a sense of the society outside that has created such a sick and demented program. Heck, it’s not even adequately explained how the government intends for this program to benefit them. There is some lip-service about how it is intended to terrorize the population in order to discourage organized insurgency, but how the hell does that work? “Battle Royale” is NOT a televised event (only the American translation of the manga changes this, and in turn creates plenty of plot-holes). How exactly does sending one group of 42 kids to an island each year to fight to the death, and then just telling people about it, prevent rebellion? Don’t you think a large part of the population would wonder if the program was even real, or just a myth the government cooked up? We never know the answers to this question, because we never really know anything about the world outside the game.

In “Hunger Games”, on the other hand, Collins spends the entire first half of the book creating her world. We are given the history of the nation of Panem, and how its 13 districts once rebelled against the Capitol. We are told how, after the rebellion was crushed, the Hunger Games were created by the Capitol in order to both remind the districts of its power, and create a false sense of hope amongst the districts, who can at least root for two of their own every year. More importantly, we see how the Hunger Games IS a televised event – everyone watches these kids fight and die, everyone is aware of its horrors. And on the other side, we see how the rich fat-cats in the Capitol treat it as nothing more than entertainment, seemingly oblivious to the real-life pain it creates for the friends and families of those chosen. All of this not only gives the reader an easy to understand historical perspective of the games within this world, but it also allows for a level of sly social commentary that, quite frankly, is actually pretty absent from “Battle Royale,” despite all its posturing otherwise (sure, it’s entertaining, but let’s not pretend it’s not 80% or more pure exploitative thrills regarding watching kids murder each other). “Battle Royale” might have created a slightly more interesting batch of competitors, but “Hunger Games” created an entire world.

* * * *

Ping:  Trevor got me on the manga bit.  Being a former avid manga reader, I have become practically desensitized to the Japanese habit of objectifying women and have completely forgotten about the unnecessary sexual themes in the manga adaptation.  The novel is definitely not as perverted, and I agree that the adult themes of the manga damages its veneer.  But I suppose if you are into that sort of thing, then well, definitely consider reading the manga instead of the novel.

In regards to design, I wouldn’t say “Hunger Games” is superior because it paints a more vivid world/Panem (though I would argue that it’s more like a county consisting of a central city and its suburbs, rather than a world) in comparison to “Battle Royale.”  As Trevor himself have mentioned, Takami spent more time on character development, while Collins focused on background development.  Essentially it comes down to what a particular reader wants.  I picked up HGs and BR for the same reason: to see a death match.  “Battle Royale” gave me exactly what I wanted, while “Hunger Games” sort of did.  To me, BR is like the UFC, you tune in to a see a fight and not much else- oh except maybe the ring girls.  I wasn’t as impressed with Collin’s execution of the Panem Hunger Games because it didn’t showcase as much conflict and interaction as BR.  In HGs, there are only 24 contestants, and a batch of them perishes almost immediately without vivid clarity.  In BR, only two characters are removed early and their deaths carry weight in the story.  The remaining 40 are then presented to the readers in a multitude of scenarios and death sequences.

Trevor’s criticism of BR government’s lack of political and social motive is valid, but again, BR is primarily focused on the games itself.  To Takami, everything outside of that island is rather irrelevant.  In contrast, Collins’s story is built on the foundation of politics, especially moving into her next two books.  But while we’re on the topic of things not making sense, I want to rant about a few observations I had while reading HGs.  First, it doesn’t make sense to me as to why the Careers would even need or want to team up with Peeta in the first place.  They claim he will help “find Katniss”, but they should know that sooner or later, she would be delivered to them via the Capitol’s intervention, anyway.  Plus, would they really trust him after he told the world he loved her?  Oh and who the hell lets their entire party sleep without a guard when you are waiting on an enemy in a tree?  Forget the Tracker Jacker hive, Peeta could’ve just stabbed them all in their sleep!  Also, did anybody else find it ridiculous and silly that they decide to create a pack of super dogs from the corpses of fallen tributes?  And lastly, why even bother with the sponsors?  They put so much effort into making her a crowd favorite and what did she get out of it?  Some burn medicine and a can of soup….Why didn’t anyone send her a flipping bow?

To conclude my end of the debate, it really just comes down to what you are looking for.  “The Hunger Games” does a wonderful job at providing a well-balanced story with politics, history, and drama.   “Battle Royale” on the other hand is crafted for those who enjoy reading about physical and psychological destruction.  They are both tremendous novels, and whether you prefer one or the other, you have great taste, either way.

* * * *

Trev:  C’mon, Ping, I was speaking FIGURATIVELY, not LITERALLY, when I said that Collins created a “world!”

Anyway, Ping is right in once again pointing out that these two different takes on how to tell the story are both valid – I just think giving the whole ordeal a bit more context in “The Hunger Games” allowed me to connect to its awfulness in a way that I can’t with “Battle Royale” – because, frankly, I feel like “Battle Royale” celebrates the violence a lot more. Like I said, this is primarily a story built on shock value, and Takami’s version is much more content to try to entertain you with scenes of young people brutally murdered. It can still be emotional, sure, but at the same time I think it’s hard to deny there’s not some level of pure sensationalism here. Collins, on the other hand, doesn’t shy away from the violence, but nor does she linger on it. She is much more interested in the bigger picture, and not just how cool it is when a kid’s head blows up.

As for Ping’s specific complaints about “Hunger Games” story points, I can’t argue with all of them. I absolutely HATED the bit about turning the dead kids into genetically modified dogs (and was very happy the movie abandoned the idea), and I agree that going to sleep while your enemy sleeps in a tree above is pretty damn stupid. But I think some of his complaints can be rationalized. There’s no reason to believe the Careers would know that Katniss would eventually be delivered to them, as they are not fully aware of the motivations of the game makers. I think their trusting of Peeta just goes to show their cocky arrogance, and the fact that for them, it’s all just a sick game. The idea of pitting these two supposed lovers against each other is probably a sort of sick thrill for them. As for the sponsors, well, maybe there is a limit on what can be sent into the game. Although I think more COULD have been done with the sponsors, I still like the idea of it, as it once again enforces the idea of being a TV show, and the sick pleasure the rich get out of it not only watching it, but even participating in it.

If we’re really gonna go after things that don’t make any sense, by the way, allow me to point to how “Battle Royale” ends – and I have to get into spoiler territory here, so skip this paragraph if you don’t want to know. But does anyone else find it pretty corny that Shogo is able to trick the people overseeing the game into thinking he killed Shuya and Noriko simply by firing in the air twice? I mean, that’s it? I get that there are microphones attached to the collars they wear, but isn’t it earlier insinuated that there is also some sort of pulse detection attached to them, as well? I mean, if all it takes is being quiet, wouldn’t the people in charge just assume any kid who has been silent for awhile is dead? This whole misdirect is glossed right over, and you might not even notice it, but it’s always bothered me.

We could go back and forth on this all day, and I doubt either Ping or I will change each other’s minds. The fact is, these are two awesome and incredibly well-done stories, and whether you prefer one or the other will depend on whether you are looking for a more expansive and satirical examination of society, or a crushing, visceral action piece. Each has its merits, and each is worth exploring. At the end of the day, maybe we shouldn’t be arguing about whether “Battle Royale” or “The Hunger Games” is better. Maybe, instead, we should just be agreeing on one simple fact:

They’re both a hell of a lot better than “Twilight.”

]]> http://culturewedge.com/2012/04/10/hunger-games-vs-battle-royale/feed/ 0 superpinger HG_BR_Cover 11. Battle Royale hunger-games-trailer 21 Battle_Royale_manga Panem2 BR Logo br-thg http://culturewedge.com/2012/04/09/all-male-review-the-dorito-taco/ http://culturewedge.com/2012/04/09/all-male-review-the-dorito-taco/#comments Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:12:51 +0000 musclesmahoney http://culturewedge.com/2012/04/09/all-male-review-the-dorito-taco/ Continue reading →]]>

I am no fan of tacos. Never have been, and don’t get me started on the foul smelling Fish Taco. Since I was a young boy I have always found myself more satisfied by wrapping my lips around a nice warm, plump hot dog. Sure there was a time in college when I tried a taco here and there after a night of long night of drinking, but it just isn’t for me…. until I met the Dorito Taco from Taco Bell.

 I am a fanatic of Doritos and instantly became intrigued by this new taco concoction. I recently purchased said taco from a local Taco Bell in my village. The taco was wrapped in an adorable Dorito advertisement and I couldn’t wait to try it. It has been so long since I ate a taco I honestly forgot the proper technique. I have heard stories from some cute frat boys in town that they got sore necks from eating tacos so long, so I remembered that I had to tilt my head and neck vertically to properly eat it. Needless to say the great taco crunch brought a smile to my face. As I shoved deeper into my vertical smile I noticed I had Dorito residue on my fingers, just as if I was eating straight out of a Dorito bag! When you are finished eating the taco you will have to lick your fingers dry of the taco residue or else you could embarrass yourself by accidently getting the residue on your clothes.

Taco Bell offers standard Dorito Tacos or a Supreme, I highly recommend the standard. To me the Supreme has too much stuff on it and it becomes a sloppy mess, and there is nothing worse than sticking your face into a sloppy taco. At the end of the day I may still be going back for my hot Italian Sausage, but I can now respect and understand why so many young men like eating tacos. I give the Dorito Taco a more than desirable rating of an 8 and a half!

As a strange hybrid of a movie geek AND a sports nerd (we do exist in the wild folks), sports movies have a special place in my heart.  Some of my favorite movies of all-time are ones centered around sports.  Rocky, Caddyshack, Major League…the list goes on and on.

There are, however, a lot of BAD sports movies (everyone involved with Caddyshack 2 should be forced to permanently sit in a room and endure that movie 24/7).  The eternal question whenever a new sports movie comes out is whether or not it will make the list of great ones, or we add it to Rocky V on the list of films we’d like to somehow unsee (NO ONE WANTED TO SEE ROCKY LOSE ALL HIS MONEY!!!  WHO WROTE THIS?!?!)

This brings us to the upcoming movie “Goon,” starring Stifler from the American Pie movies.  I say upcoming because the release date for this movie has changed quite a lot.  Fandango says it came out last week, but it’s showing in about one theater near me.  SOUNDS LIKE A WINNER! Could it be good?  Let’s breakdown the trailer.  (SPOILER: It probably won’t be good)

So we open up with not only Stifler from American Pie looking awesome with a beard, but also that guy from “Knocked Up” and “Tropic Thunder” apparently with another stupid haircut.  I’m already feeling good about this!

Alright, now we’re on to something. Stifler is seen here committing felony battery on some fan dressed up as a hockey player.  Either that or we have another Palace Brawl on our hands with players in the seats.  Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson are just lucky Stifler isn’t a Pistons fan.

It seems as though this beating is so vicious that the hockey players who are comically fighting on the ice stop and take notice.

OHHH HEADBUTT!!! Now you’d think, based on the normal rules of how the world works that Stifler is going to be hurting pretty bad from this considering the other dude is wearing a helmet…

BUT YOU’D BE WRONG STUPID!  Not only does he seem unfazed, but he BREAKS THE OTHER DUDES HELMET!!  Stifler is so much more metal than you, real world laws of Physics.

So apparently this horrible beating has earned our hero a spot on a hockey call in show hosted by our friend with the crazy hair, and NOT a 1 year stint in jail.  Go figure.

Yeah I’m shocked you let a felon on your set too.

This is his “thinking” face.  SOMEBODY CALL THE ACADEMY!

Back to the plot…so Stifler’s merciless beating of that poor fan has earned him a one way ticket to the exciting world of what appears to be minor league hockey!  So what are the odds that he doesn’t know how to skate and will comically fall down?

So far so good…still standing….

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  HE CAN’T SKATE!!! OMG NO WAY!!! *Sigh*

Now it’s time to meet the teammates!  I’ll bet they are exceedingly happy to have Stifler on the team even though he has no real hockey skill aside from the ability to smash someone’s head in and not care about it.

As you can see here…the meeting didn’t go well.  That gentleman to the right does not look like he’s having a good time, and that other chap in white looks like his weekend is going to be ruined as well.

“DIS IS MY SERIOUS MAD FACE U GUYS!”

So I guess beating the crap out of your teammates isn’t enough to get our friend kicked off the team, so now he’s asked what number he’d like.  Knowing where we’ve gone so far what number do YOU think he’s going to have?  I’ll give you one guess (the answer is coming a little later…I know, SUSPENSE!!)

I get it!  You’re referring to Wayne Gretzky!

Alright…who guessed his number would be 69?  HILARIOUS right?

Needless to say his first foray into the civilized world of professional hockey is going quite well….at least for him.  Can’t say much for that dude who’s getting pummeled.

Ok, we get it.  Wayne Gretkzy was “The Great One” and this guy comically can’t really play hockey.  This joke wasn’t really funny the first time, I was just giving you a pity laugh.

Wait, wasn’t he wearing a blue jersey a second ago?  What kind of whacked out color-scheme does this hockey team have?

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE STOP WITH THE GRETKZY JOKES!  YOU’RE SUCKING MY SOUL AWAY!!

Wait…is that…is that Liev Schreiber?

IT IS!  And he has a biker mustache!!!  Apparently Liev is the villain in this film and another notorious goon.  I feel like that mustache can win fights on its own.

It looks even more awesome in a hockey uniform!!  I think he should have to keep this mustache for all his roles.  It’s the least he can do for appearing in “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.”  I may never forgive him for that.

Now that the villain has been revealed, Stifler needs to take things to another level.  So he does what everyone does in a movie like this…go to a bar.

LOVE INTEREST!  Hopefully she’s of the “Alli in the original Karate Kid encouraging,” type and not the “Jo from Rounders try to destroy your dreams type,” and yes “Rounders” is a sports movie.

This is one of Stifler’s teammates.  Why is it that the only person who looks like a hockey player in this movie is the villain?

Great…Eugene Levy’s in this movie.  Is this just a side project to keep people busy until the new American Pie movie?  And yes that DID actually come out this weekend (Tara Reid needs the money).

Yep…it’s here everyone.  RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

Anyway…Eugene tells Stifler that they call him a “thug,” which is about right given what’s gone on in this trailer so far.  I have a bad feeling this is going to be a “goon somehow develops skills that would take decades to develop but he does in about two months” kind of movie.  Does he at least turn into a werewolf like in “Teen Wolf?”

LOOK LADIES!  SOMETHING FOR YOU!

Help us Liev….you’re our only hope….#StarWars

What happened to you man? You were in “Dude, Where’s My Car.”

I don’t know if you know this, but every Canadian hockey announcer looks like this.  Fun Fact: Randy Hahn shaves his goatee off every day, and it regrows overnight like Tim Allen’s beard in, “The Santa Clause.”

It takes…um…an amazing player with transcendent skills? Did I get it?

Oh…

Yes ladies, that is a biker-stache AND a mullet.  Liev is just a tuxedo t-shirt away from being ready to party. What was the plot of this movie again?

Looks like the love interest is supportive.  Either that or she’s clapping because Stifler failed miserably.  Either way.

More fighting!  Movies always tell you what mainstream America thinks your sport entails.  Apparently most people think hockey is basically UFC on skates.  That whole, “clean up the NHL’s image,” campaign is going great!

Yeah…Gary Betteman is going to hate this movie. Well, at least until the part where Stifler realizes he doesn’t want to be a Goon and then turns into Wayne Gretzky after a 2 minute montage.  Then I’LL be the one smashing my face against a wall.

Yeah…my thoughts exactly

You’ve seen and heard it happen. Maybe you’ve even been part of it yourself. It’s that moment at the end of the trailer for G.I. Joe: Retaliation, when we get the big reveal of Bruce F’n Willis, and the whole audience goes absolutely ape-shit. And why not? It’s really freaking cool to see Bruce Willis, right? And in a G.I. Joe movie? This is awesome!

Except, today it finally occurred to me – is it really? For that matter, why are we still excited about Bruce Willis at all anymore?

I know, I’m treading on dangerous ground here, daring to speak ill of Willis on a nerd-based website. Willis has long been one of those untouchable nerd icons, thanks almost entirely on his iconic role as John McClane in the greatest action movie ever made, Die Hard. And hey, I’m not taking that away from him. Willis will always be McClane, and will always have some serious cool cred because of it.

But what has Willis done for us lately?

For instance, did you even see the last two Willis films?

and

No, of course you didn’t. Nobody did. But what’s really weird is that nobody seems to be talking about the sad truth behind these two films – that Willis, once one of our biggest action stars, has suddenly and unexpectedly slipped into that depressing area known as “straight-to-video-ville” (though to be fair, Catch 44 did have a theatrical release in Croatia according to IMDB). That’s right, the terrain dominated by guys like Dolph Lundgren and Steven Seagal has a new challenger…and it’s John McClane?!?

How did this happen? Well, when you actually stop and think about it, you realize it was perhaps inevitable. You see, I’m gonna take an educated guess and say Willis just stopped caring some time ago. And, because we all love Willis, most of us didn’t even notice. But go take a look at the man’s IMDB page, and ask yourself – when was the last time he did care? Go ahead, I’ll wait.

I mean, sure, he was sort of fun in his brief role in Planet Terror, and I’m enough of a Die Hard apologist that I’m admittedly overly-forgiving of Live Free or Die Hard. But, still, if you ask me, you have to go all the way back to Unbreakable for the last truly great performance from a motivated Bruce Willis. And that’s twelve years ago!!

Now I know many will point to the insanely popular RED as an argument against what I’m saying here, but take a moment and really ask yourself – did that movie do well because of our still existing good-will toward Willis, or because he was actually really good in it? Don’t get me wrong, I think RED is a fairly entertaining film, but that has more to do with the overall concept, John Malkovich’s performance, and the thrill of seeing Helen Mirren wield a machine gun than it does Willis’ work in the film, which isn’t much different than the sort of performance he has given in every movie for the last decade or so. You know the performance I’m talking about – squint, grin and barely emote.

Yeah, that's the one.

Seriously, go do a quick image search of Willis and count how many pictures don’t have that same expression. Don’t worry, you’ll only need the fingers on one hand. Has there ever  been another actor with such limited facial range? Well, I guess Paris Hilton, but then again, I did say “actor.”

Now, I know, this is all part of Willis’ cool, steely demeanor, and it’s a large part of what makes him such a badass. That’s true – but it’s also part of what can make him very boring. You see, it would be one thing if Willis was making a string of shitty movies and at least overacting in them. It’s the “Nicolas Cage factor.” Cage makes pretty much nothing but shitty movies at this point, but 9 times out of 10 he is still entertaining in them, because he’s just so damn nuts. Willis, on the other hand, approaches every role with the same sort of “I don’t really give a damn that I’m here and therefore I’m not really gonna try” attitude, which in turn makes stinkers like Surrogates, Perfect Stranger or Cop Out a real slog to sit through (though, for the record, I still take Willis’ side in the whole Willis vs Kevin Smith Cop Out ordeal – because, well, he’s still Bruce Willis and Kevin Smith is still Kevin Smith).

There was a time when Willis seemed to care. Compare his recent work to films like The Sixth Sense, Twelve Monkeys or Pulp Fiction. Check out the comic intensity he showed in movies like Blind Date or Death Becomes Her. Heck, even dumb action movies like Last Boy Scout and The Fifth Element showcase a more involved, motivated and charismatic Willis. The one word I would use to describe the majority of his recent work is “bored.” Willis looks bored with the films he is in, perhaps even bored with the whole “acting” thing in general. We’ve let it slide for a while because, like I said, he’s Bruce F’N Willis. But when it’s gotten so bad that he is now appearing in straight-to-video dreck that even the most die-hard Willis fan (see what I did there?) can hardly be bothered to check it out, you have to ask – how long until we finally admit that we might have lost Bruce Willis?

There is still hope. Rian Johnson’s upcoming time-travel film Looper, in which Willis will play an older Joseph Gordon-Levitt, trying to dodge assassination from his younger self, sounds crazy enough that it’s hard to believe Willis won’t be at least a little more motivated than usual. And, of course, there’s A Good Day to Die Hard - if nothing else, Willis always seems to love playing John McClane, which is great because I always love watching John McClane. But let’s hope these aren’t just a couple random examples lost amidst a sea of increasingly stupider and non-challenging projects (I’m tempted to say that maybe another collaboration with M. Night Shyamalan would be a good move, but that’s a real “tempting of the fates” sort of statement these days).

I’m still rooting for the man. “Straight-To-Video-Ville” doesn’t deserve Bruce Willis…at least not the Bruce Willis of ten years ago. If, however, he continues to barely try and just pick whatever script is tossed his way for a quick paycheck – well, it hurts me to say, but if that’s the case, I guess “Straight-To-Video-Ville” can have him.

]]> http://culturewedge.com/2012/04/06/we-need-to-talk-about-bruce-willis/feed/ 1 trev3k GI-Joe-2-196 catch_forty_four setup Bruce-Willis_4