TGLC: Gotham review

In the past few years DC Comics has proven that they rule the small screen, with little serious competition from Marvel. This is, once again, evident in DC's Batman prequel, Gotham. The show, which premiered Monday on Fox, stars Ben Mckenzie as Detective Gordon, a greenhorn in the Gotham City Police Department. His first case: the double homicide of the parents of Bruce Wayne.

This fall, we will have reached season three of Arrow, the highly successful superhero action show, as well as the dawn of it's spin-off, Flash, both of which contain action packed, super heroic crime fighters. Gotham, on the other hand, teased an "Agents of SHIELD"-esque style of story-telling that focused on the B-list characters, rather than capes and tights. That said, how does it stack up?

In short, to answer the first burning question, it's good, and is worth your time. Since the premise is centered on the police department, and not Batman, be prepared for quite a bit of NYPD Blue and CSI-type interrogations, following leads, etc. but set within an environment we're already familiar with, while highlighting characters who will become future heroes/villains in the comics, and hopefully in later seasons.

Corey Michael Smith as Edward Nygma

Robin Lord Taylor as Oswald Cobblepot

Without spoiling the entire pilot episode, it centers on Detective James Gordon and his partner Harvey Bullock, a semi-crooked, battle hardened GCPD detective. Their back-and-forth is definitely engaging, but it often comes too close to the typical, "you've got a lot to learn, kid" and "I'm too old for this" cliches. That said, Ben MckKenzie's take on Gordon is fantastic, they stress that he's a rookie, like a blank slate to be decimated throughout the coming episodes. The pilot also introduces several likely season antagonists, including crime bosses Fish Mooney and Carmine Falcone, as well as potential future villains, including Edward Nygma, Oswald Cobblepot, and even a brief cameo from the future Poison Ivy. Young Bruce Wayne even seems like he'll be showing up fairly often, and David Mazouz does an amazing job as the young future caped crusader. Batman fans will no doubt have a field day with the amount of cameos and easter eggs that this show will pack in future episodes.

As strong as the lead cast is, however, the supporting cast can be pretty weak. I don't know what it is about DC Comics TV shows, but they have a tendency to pick comparatively weak supporting actresses. All scenes featuring Gordon's fiancee Barbara, played by Erin Richards, feel like watching a cardboard cut-out. She shares a scene with Gordon's rival detective Montoya, played by Victoria Cartagena, wherein they discuss a game changing plot point, but I couldn't get the full effect of the news, due to their incredibly bland "acting." This is, however, a nit-pick as the rest of the cast does a fantastic job in their roles.

Just as Agents of SHIELD is set in the Avengers universe and therefore lends a similar atmosphere, this show gives off an energy nearly identical to that of Batman Begins, apart from the new cast. This tends to bounce back and forth between a help and a hindrance. For example, there is a montage of Gordon and Bullock interrogating a series of shady individuals that takes place under the dim, yellow light of a swinging lamp. This seemed incredibly cheesy, and didn't fit very well, given the quick pace, and drastic changes in atmosphere. As mentioned earlier though, it is also done very well in later scenes, one such being the first time we're introduced to Oswald Cobblepot, as he and several goons beat someone up in a dirty, rain-soaked alley. Given that this is a pilot episode, it seems likely that these quick bounces in atmosphere will be resolved in time. There's a delicate balance that needs to be struck between a CSI-esque crime drama, and an Arrow-type comic book show.

The short answer is: Yes, you should give this show a chance. While it does have several wrinkles that need to be worked out, it does what a pilot episode should, it sets the tone for a good show with a strong cast of interesting characters within a familiar setting, but from an angle we haven't seen before. 

Here's the best part, if you didn't get the chance to watch it on TV, Fox has the episode available to watch online for free:
http://www.fox.com/watch/331992131936

That Guy Defends Movies: Episode 1 - Speed Racer

The internet is....a thing. Its a thing that can be wonderful, and seconds later make you want to dig your fingers into someone's throat to shut them up. No matter what the topic is, people will always disagree on it. But what I hate more than anything on the internet is when people say things like:

"That movie SUCKED."

......Are...are you going to go into further detail? Are you just going along with the bandwagon because you heard a famous critic say he didn't like it? Did you have a friend who saw it that wasn't a fan, so you just take his word? Do you simply not like one of the actors?

Opinions are a wonderful thing, but people need to learn that saying things like "Its a fact" does NOT make it fact! And having an opinion means that it is YOUR belief, NOT a statistically proven reality simply because you SAY IT IS!!!

Now this applies to everything, (most notably politics, religion, etc.) but here and now, it has led to a new segment of TGLM, titled: That Guy Defends Movies. This is where I'll be defending  movies that I feel have garnered an undeserved reputation over the years, and explain why you should give them a second (or maybe even a first) chance, or at least get you thinking about why you don't like them in more detail, other than just saying "it sucked". These won't so much be reviews of movies, more along the lines of editorials, so expect POSSIBLE SPOILERS.

On that note, let's get rolling!

Kicking things off is one of my top favorite movies of all time, no joke. I saw this movie in theaters at least five times, bought it on DVD on day one of release, and since then, I haven't been sick of it for one second. So let's take a look at...

Speed Racer (2008)

I mentioned that I saw this movie in theaters at least five times, and in all of those viewings, I remember seeing other patrons in the theater maybe once. From opening week until the final viewing, this movie was a box office disaster. Rotten Tomatoes reviews averaged out to a 5/10, and critics demolished the movie's "headache-inducing special effects" (Rotten Tomatoes), stating that it "...proudly denies entry into its ultra-bright world to all but gamers, fanboys and anime enthusiasts." (The Hollywood Reporter). Others mocked its story, or lack thereof, in some opinions. For others, it was the cheesy, over-the-top acting. There are plenty of topics of discussion, so let's just dive in.

According to reviews/critiques, the main issues that critics had boiled down to these categories:

-Visuals

-Story

-Characters/Acting

VISUALS:

Directed by the Wachowski brothers (um...siblings now I guess. One of them had a sex change a few years back), famed directors of the incredibly popular Matrix trilogy, Speed Racer is based on the 1970's anime of the same name, following the high-speed exploits of Speed, and the rest of the Racer family. The show has had a lasting impact on anime, and pop culture in general, and even a few new iterations on TV around the same time as the movie. 

The TV show had a very distinct style: packed full of color, fast-moving backgrounds, and camera cuts. After all, the title of the show starts with SPEED. On that note, to betray the show's heritage of style and explosions would be an absolute insult to fans, and would betray the idea of what made the original so fascinating for newcomers. The visuals of this movie are the biggest reason I adore it so much. Every color glows, whether it be the breathtaking sunsets, racetrack crowds, or even just the driveway of the Racer home. You don't see these visuals in even the most special effect-packed movies year after year, and for me, this was a welcome change.

I really want to address that comment I pulled earlier, saying:

"[Speed Racer] proudly denies entry into its ultra-bright world to all but gamers, fanboys and anime enthusiasts."

Ehem...NO SHIT!!! That's like saying Seventeen Magazine proudly denies entry to it's all-pink periodical to all but SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD GIRLS! The movie was clearly marketing itself to Hot Wheels and video game-loving pre-teen kids, and if you ask me it does it flawlessly! How or why anyone could chastise a movie for appealing to it's target audience and seriously call themselves a movie critic makes my soul hurt. Just because it wasn't the type of movie that these critics would go home and watch to relax does NOT justify the movie being bad.

I don't like Wizard of Oz very much, but I can still admit that it was visually unique, especially for it's time. I don't listen to The Beatles, but I acknowledge the impact they had on music as a whole, even on some of my favorite bands. Personal dislike does NOT warrant a bad rating.

To be fair, I'll admit that the very end of the final race does give me a headache:



But at the same time, it still to this day gets me out of my seat with excitement.


STORY:
If you haven't seen the movie or TV show, here's a basic backstory (potential SPOILERS):
Speed Racer's older brother Rex Racer used to be one of the best. But in order to fight the growing mafia control and corruption over racing (which in this world is about 1000x bigger than football in America), he faked his own death, and became the crime fighting Racer X. The movie follows this, but puts a larger focus on the trauma and changes that Rex's death caused the Racer family, and how Speed plans to finish what his brother started by taking on the Mafia controlled racers in several high intensity races.

Maybe its just me...but what about that is so hard to believe or follow, given the already present visual style? Why is it so easy for people to believe a guy dressed as a bat can take down a purple-suited clown, and yet THIS seems far-fetched? Granted there is quite a bit of dialogue, but none of it is anything that a child wouldn't be able to follow.

My one and only complaint with the story is that when the Mach 5 is given all of it's powerful new counter-weapons, there are a few explained that are never used. That is literally my only complaint with the story. It's simple enough that kids can follow, but gets into a complex economic/political/mafia-esque scandal that's just as entertaining for adults.



CHARACTERS/ACTING:
Critics bashed the movie's hammy acting and over-the-top characters, but again, take a look at the source material:

If you've never seen it, I'd suggest taking a look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsICZNn1SOM

Given that, what could anyone honestly expect to be any different? The casting of each character was perfect, combining incredibly well known actors like John Goodman and Susan Sarandon, with newcomers including Speed himself, Emile Hirsch.

There are plenty of scenes where the acting is ridiculous and over-the-top, but guess what? That's what they were going for! (see my previous rant about overpaid movie critics clearly judging based on what their personal likes/dislikes are, not the quality of the movie)














All in all, the movie is NOT for everyone. If you look at this and get a headache, you're probably not going to want to see it. But for any kid who has ever played with Hot Wheels, and in terms of pushing special effects to their pique, this movie is, in my opinion, solid gold, and absolutely worth at least one view from any action/racing fan!

Sexism In Comics: Let's get something straight...

Have you ever noticed how people, since the dawn of comics, movies, television, etc. have always felt that there’s such thing as a line between “too much” and “acceptable”? Whether it regards violence, nudity, language, or even religion, there has always been a line. If you’ve taken a look at any news site in the past few weeks, you’ve probably seen the questionable alternate cover of Spider-Woman that has the Internet all abuzz. If you’re unfamiliar, here’s how it looked:

The cover is by famous Italian comic book artist Milo Manara, and reflects his personal style, which has won countless awards. Tonight, I signed into Facebook, and was greeted with a link portraying the cover of a new comic book based on the pop culture character Vampirella. Here’s what it looked like:

 BREASTS. Bare naked, no excuses, breasts.

Now, if you, at gunpoint, HAD to choose one that you thought would cause more controversy than the other, what would you choose?

Here’s my point: Over the past two (or so) weeks, the Web has been buzzing with imbalanced beliefs about sexuality in comic books, because of the Spider-Woman “controversy.” Some viewers said that it appeared as though she was “presenting herself”, or that her costume wouldn’t cling to her in such an unrealistic way, saying that men have never been portrayed in such a way, and that the comic book industry is sexist. (This is a load of garbage, but not my point at this particular time...)

Granted, it may not have been the most realistic, or even the most decent cover in the world. But suffice it to say that there are definitely more unrealistic things in the world of comics than a character’s costume clinging to their skin.

But I digress. Now COMMENCE F***ING SUPER PISSED OFF HOLY S***T RANT OF DOOM:

I love comics. No, I LOVE comics. I don’t see them as sexist, racist, religion…ist…whatever. If you have half a brain, and can see that they quite obviously take place in a fictional realm wherein people have super powers and have, for damn near a century, donned skin-tight costumes in the process, then you will be as un-offended as I am. But this Vampirella garbage? This is where the “exploitation” that so many have been complaining about becomes a real, serious issue.

Now, I don’t have kids. I plan/hope to someday, and at such time as I do have them, I’d LOVE to take them to a comic book store. So if you can, please join me in this future situation: You and your six – to – twelve year old child (male or female, it really doesn’t matter) walk into the comic store together, and you see this cover, featuring a woman, TOTALLY bare-breast. Heck, for the sake of argument, let’s say the Spider-Woman cover is right next to it. Chances are, you AND your kid will notice the Vampirella cover first, and be FAR more shocked by it. Now as a parent, who loves and cares for your child, are you going to be okay with exposing your child to this at such a young age?! I’m not talking about anything religious or not, what I’m talking about is plain DECENCY.

But TGWLComics, the human body is art! You're an artist, you're just being immature.

Okay, you're right. I went to school for art, and I learned that the body is a beautiful thing, and inherently is not a sexual thing, until sex is added into the equation.

That said, I pose a new situation to you: 

You and your child are walking down the street. Suddenly, a completely topless woman walks past you. Men can't help but stare at her and cat-call her, purely because of her body. Not because of anything she's ever done to prove that she's anything but a pair of breasts. Do you want your son to learn that this is okay, or your daughter to learn that this is how she should act?!

This comic book cover is the first and ONLY time I've EVER been this furious about female exploitation.

If you have any brains at all, you won't support this...this SMUT! If I had any disposable income, I'd buy and BURN this crap, and I hope you'd do the same. Personally, I have nothing at all against the Spider-Woman cover, and if that shocks you, take a look at this video, and I hope you'll agree with me. But this Vampirella crap does NOTHING to end the media's attack on comic books/video games/movies and sexuality, and I pray that you join me in fighting this garbage.

 

TGLComics: Marvel vs DC, who rules the big screen?

As far back as the dawn of comic books themselves, we've had comic book movies and TV shows. Even before Adam West donned the cowl, one could watch the Dark Knight's adventures portrayed by Lewis Wilson and Robert Lowrey in the 1940's. Before Chris Evans even knew what a shield was, Dick Purcell had already battled evil as Captain America in 1944. And before Samuel L. Jackson had even been considered to play the famed director of S.H.I.E.L.D., the role had already been tackled in 1998 by David Hasselhoff in....you know what, let's actually forget I mentioned that last one.

Marvel and DC have both seen vast success in the realms of movies and television, but there's definitely a pattern of success that both companies should note: Marvel has claimed a clear victory at the movies, but DC has an undeniable lead on television. 

The Avengers (2012)

How Marvel conquered the Big Screen:

Comic book movies have been around for decades, but in 2008, Marvel changed the game. They finally stopped licensing their characters, and took a crack at making movies themselves. Iron Man blasted into theaters, and saw a good amount of box office success while he was at it. The movie was good, but it was what came after the movie that changed comic book cinema as we know it. A figure enshrouded by shadows emerged towards Tony Stark and spoke those wonderful words: "I'm here to talk to you about the Avengers Initiative." Comic book fans were stunned. Marvel was taking things in a whole new direction, and the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" was born. Marvel had it's best foot forward and later that year saw the release of The Incredible Hulk, and another saliva-inducing after credits teaser. Two years later, Iron Man 2. The next year, Thor and Captain America. And finally, the shining jewel that is The Avengers. We're a little over halfway through Marvel's "Phase 2" of movies, and as it stands, Marvel Studio's Kevin Feige admitted earlier this year that Marvel has movies planned as far ahead as 2028. If that isn't overkill, I don't know what is, but still, they know what they're doing. Even with different directors, writers, etc. there is obvious consistency throughout their movies. The various directors and writers work together to guarantee continuity, with Joss Whedon confidently (and rightfully) ruling the Marvel movie throne. Marvel did it right in that they chose a fantastic set of directors, locked them in the world's most comfortable prison, and catered to their every whim until they walked out with pure solid gold, as opposed to rushing them all for a quick buck. My former mistrust that comic book movies should still even continue being made has been quelled after Iron Man 3, Thor 2, and Cap 2's shining examples that skillful repetition is actually possible.

Plus y'know, Disney can give them more money than God to make their movies...so there's that.

Avengers: Disk Wars...*sigh*

How Marvel botched the small screen:

Imagine if tomorrow MGM announced a weekly James Bond television show, but it didn't follow 007, instead it followed Moneypenny. Sure, people would watch because they know that Bond is going to show up for an episode or two, but after a few weeks when 007 doesn't show up, you're just stuck with the receptionist. This is the problem with Marvel's biggest TV show, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Casual viewers assumed they'd be seeing Thor, Cap, Iron Man, at the very least Hawkeye or Black Widow once every few episodes but all they got for the entire season was the back-ups, with a thirty second cameo by Nick Fury. There's only so many times the viewer can say "Oh! They mentioned (insert character)! Cool!" without actually seeing anyone, before it gets old. This was painfully obvious, as Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s ratings plummeted, losing one third of its viewership in one week. You'd think that this would be a strong indicator that they need more big names, but we'll have to wait and see with season two.

I've always felt that comic books are best represented on TV in the form of cartoons, which Marvel hasn't been terribly successful with either. In 2010, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes premiered on the Disney channel, sporting two seasons based heavily on existing comic book plots, including "Secret Invasion." But the animation was lackluster, and the tone couldn't decide whether it was a kids show, or aimed more at a young adult audience. Then in 2013, it was replaced by Avengers Assemble! which, while still running today, has met with worse reviews, and fans wishing the previous show would return. Marvel's small screen failings seem to come from their lack of dedication. Spider-Man alone has had no less than 8 different television shows of his own, the X-Men have had at least 4, and the Avengers at least 3. Unfortunately, now that Disney has it's cold clammy hands on Marvel's rights, we can expect to see plenty of cash-in ideas. One such idea is Japanese Pokemon/Digimon ripoff, Avengers: Disk Wars in which kids collect disks infused with the powers of members of Marvel comics, and summon them a la Pokemon. There really are no words for that one...

How DC's movies have gone wrong:

Now please do not misunderstand. Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy was phenomenal, and the box office numbers will attest to that. But since the release of Batman Begins, there was never any lasting hope for a Justice League movie, or even any tie-ins at all with other DC properties throughout the trilogy.

Fast forward to 2013, which saw the release of Man of Steel, and at Comic Con 2013, DC blew the roof off when the Batman/Superman logos appeared together on screen. Finally in April 2014, Justice League was confirmed as a movie with a 2016 release date. But is it too little too late? Marvel did something fantastic with it's movies: It told individual stories in such a way that even non-comic readers were able to learn about the characters, and a universe was established over five years. On the opposite end, let's take a look at the confirmed character roster for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice: Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Cyborg, Lex Luthor, Aquaman, Green Lantern, along with rumors of Martian Manhunter, Doomsday, Joker, Catwoman, Green Arrow, Amanda Woller, and on and on... It's pretty obvious that if you want to break records in the box office, you'll need more than just comic book readers to come to your movies, so for a 2 to 2.5 hour long movie, isn't this a bit of information and character overload?! DC is jumping into a race that Marvel won six years ago.

In this case, Marvel is Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps: we all know that whatever they do will be successful, and make us proud to be fans, whereas DC is a fresh high school grad who chugged one too many energy drinks and suddenly thinks he can swim the English channel just to get our attention.

The Flash (premiering this fall on CW)

How DC has dominated television:

DC has ruled over television for well over a decade. In 2001, the live action adaptation of Superman demolished ratings with Smallville. Meanwhile that same year, the Justice League cartoon was scoring big on Cartoon Network, with a clear political/super hero tone that knew it's intended young adult audience and struck big, along with fantastic animation, and engaging plots. Both of these ran their time with huge success, but it seemed like DC started to slip. That is until 2012 saw the release of Arrow, a show not about a grunt, or a c-list character, but a card carrying comic book Justice League member. Between the first two seasons, ratings have gone nowhere but up. Clearly aware of the success, DC is taking full advantage and rolling out three more live action TV shows with a similar action/drama/peppered with comedy tone. This fall will see the rise of The Flash, Gotham, and Constantine. With this, it seems that DC has the chance to sweep Marvel's momentum right out from under them. They have the chance to build and sustain a cinematic universe on a weekly basis, whereas Marvel's movies can take years to make, market, and release, television shows work at a quicker pace, and keep viewers engaged for longer. If DC played their cards right, they could build a Justice League TV series that crushes Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. into the dirt.

What happens next:

Due to the entertainment industry as a whole becoming a cash-in, money making machine, what I'm about to suggest will probably never come anywhere near happening, but I can dream. That said, here is my recipe for success for both of these companies: 

Marvel, stop making TV shows. That ship is sinking. Actually, it has never really been afloat. On the other hand, your movie yacht is cruising just fine. Focus solely on movies, and not only could you make more faster, but with better quality. Oh and by the way, whose idea was it that the Punisher would transfer well into anime?!

DC, you lost in the movies. Trying to amass every character you can into one or two behemoth movies could backfire in one of a thousand different ways. That said, you clearly have some aptitude with television shows, so take a page from Marvel's playbook and build a consistent universe on TV, but you need to walk away from movies. You are years too late.

TGLVideo Games: Top 10 Local 4-Player Games

In the grand scheme of things, the ability to play video games online with friends (or anyone really) is a pretty new concept, first coming into popularity with the release of the original Xbox, and hitting its prime with Xbox 360 and Playstation 3.

But in my eyes, nothing beats the joy of sharing a cramped couch with three of your closest friends for some local 4-player hysterics. On that note, let's take a look at my top 10 best local 4-player games.

10. Pokemon Stadium (N64)

The strange thing about Pokemon Stadium, a game made to provide all of the turn-based battle fun of the original Gameboy games with 3D graphics, is that hands down the most fun feature of the game was the 1-4 player minigame mode, titled "Kids' Club".


This mode provided nine completely different, often reaction or timing based minigames, each lasting no longer than a minute or two at a time. But what made them so addicting and gave them such replayability was more based on the fact that because they were so varied, each person playing would likely be better at one of them than everybody else, ramping up the competitive nature of all players. Personally I am unstoppable at the Simon Says clone, "Clefairy Says". Others included a carnival hoop toss-style game called "Ekans Hoop Hurl", or probably the most audibly entertaining of the bunch, "Sushi-Go-Round" starring Lickitung. If you played this when you were younger, or if you're cool enough to still be playing it now, chances are you also remember the catchy beats that go along with each mini game.

All in all, Kids' Club provided endless hours upon release, and still bears revisiting for those who either haven't played it, or who just want to relive the glory days of the Nintendo 64.

9. Bomberman series (NES/SNES/N64)

Even if you're a gamer who has never played a Bomberman game, chances are you'd recognize it. The multiplayer-centered game takes place on a static, top-down screen, with each player starting in their own corner, blocked off from all other players. By blowing up obstacles and gathering power-ups, the goal is to trap or blow up all other players. It is a very simple premise, but executed beautifully in most iterations of the game. Bomberman has made his way to almost every single video game system, but there are some notably standout titles.


For my money, it doesn't get any better than Bomberman 64 on, you guessed it, the Nintendo 64. The gameplay doesn't vary, but the 3D graphics make it a much more visually engaging choice than the Nintendo or Super Nintendo versions. Not to mention the N64 already has four controller ports, eliminating the need for a multitap.

Again, they're almost all wonderful, but I would take note of two things: Bomberman Hero (N64) changes the multiplayer formula to more of a 3D arena combat style, ditching the classic formula, and Bomberman: Act Zero (Xbox 360) should be AVOIDED LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!

8. WCW/NWO Revenge (N64)

Serving as the inspiration for this list, I recently re-purchased this game for only $3. The reason I mention the price I paid is because while this late 1990's wrestling game may not retain any long term resale value, it provides far more than $3 worth of entertainment nearly 15 years after its release, and wow do I feel old now. Even as a single player game, Revenge is widely regarded as one of the finest wrestling games of the N64/PS1 era.

The premise is simple: Pick a game mode, pick a wrestler, fight. But the fun comes in the form of playing with friends, particularly in the Battle Royale game mode, in which any number of wrestlers from 4 to 40 rush into the ring one at a time as his predecessor falls. In this mode, even if a player is eliminated, he takes control of the very next wrestler to enter, guaranteeing not only variety between wrestlers, but bloody revenge between players who eliminate each other. To top it all off, the controls are easy to pick up after one or two matches, and learning how to pull off special/finishing moves is incredibly rewarding, and extremely nostalgic for fans of the WCW.

Besides Battle Royale, the game also includes tag team matches which can be played in a variety of ways, such as 2 player vs 2 player, 1 player vs 1 player, or even 2 players vs 2 computer wrestlers. Forming rivalries and betraying each other becomes immensely fun as the game goes on, and the massive amount of wrestlers and costumes guarantees you'll never play the same way twice!

7. Gauntlet Legends/Dark Legacy (N64/PS2/Arcade)

Are you a Dungeons & Dragons fan? Maybe you've wanted to try it, but don't have the patience? Are you a fantasy fan who thinks D&D is too slow-paced and boring? Or do you just enjoy teaming up with friends in order to help/hinder each other in a chaotic rumble of nonstop goblin/orc/dragon mayhem?! Then Gauntlet Legends (or it's PS2 remake, Dark Legacy, pictured above) is for you!

The game plays from a top down perspective, and beings with each player choosing their class, and colors. These include typical fantasy fare, including Warrior, Wizard, Archer, and even some less standard entries such as Valkyrie, Knight, or Minotaur. Each class controls the exact same, except for a noticeable difference in statistics, and appearance. For example, Warrior will always have much higher health than Wizard, but Wizard may use magic potions more powerfully than Warrior.

The game becomes incredibly hectic as more players participate, fighting over treasures, food, and magic spells to use against the enemy. The difficulty, however, brings everyone together whether you like it or not, guaranteeing plenty of death and laughs along the way.

6. TMNT / X-Men / The Simpsons (Genesis/SNES/Arcade)

Four Player side-scrolling beat 'em ups could fill up an entire list by themselves, and all follow a very similar, if not identical formula. So for the purposes of this list, I've narrowed down to my three favorites.

Much like Gauntlet, these games require a balance of cooperation, and competition that guarantees constant banter between all players. Need health? Make sure your teammates know, or you'll suffer for it. The best of these games even include combo special moves, such as The Simpsons arcade game. There really isn't much to say about these games that you can't experience for yourself. When played in an arcade, they are built to suck as many quarters out of your pocket as possible, so prepare for a lot of death.

Or better yet, buy the console versions.

5. Super Smash Bros (N64/GC/Wii)

Wait...Let me say it for you: "What?! Smash Bros isn't #1?! (insert chain of expletives telling me how much I suck)" Yeah yeah, I know. But that's the fun thing about this being MY list. Don't like it? Make your own!

For those of you unfamiliar, the Smash Bros series pits Nintendo's most famous characters against each other in a competitive arena fighting game. Your objective is to beat up your opponents, raise their damage percentage, and knock them off the stage. With each character being extremely varied (in the original game anyways), battles were always hard fought, hectic and exciting. The tide could turn in an instant with the appearance of an item on the battlefield.

So why so "low" on the list? Well, as amazing as the Smash Bros series as a whole is, I've always thought the series piqued with the original entry. The game only had twelve characters, and nine stages when everything is unlocked. At the time, this was astounding, but after a few hours, you've played them all, and the game can get a bit repetitive. What I valued so much as a kid playing 4-player games with my friends was the ability to continue playing a game for hours, days, weeks, and beyond while still getting a fresh experience each time.

4. Towerfall Ascension (Ouya/Steam/PS4)

Similar to the original Bomberman, Towerfall pits four players against each other, all on the same static screen. It follows the old school 8-bit visual style of the original Nintendo, but with game mechanics and variety that can only be found in recent games. Each player starts in their own corner, and the objective is to take out all other players by either jumping on their heads, or shooting them with arrows. When a player leaves the screen, they come back through the other side, a la Pacman, and arrow power-ups and shields are available throughout each round which spices up the gameplay significantly.

The rounds are short and fast, but one play can still last anywhere from 10 minutes to several hours. Players choose a score to compete up to, and must accrue that number of kills in order to win. Accidental suicides result in loss of points, and happen frequently, leading to some drastic swings in leadership.

The Playstation 4 version does include a 2-player co-op mode, but this game is meant to be played 4 player, and loses a lot if you don't have three willing friends.

3. Super Mario (Kart/Tennis/Soccer/Party/Bros Wii/etc.) (SNES/N64/Wii/Wii U)

To be honest, I feel dirty even having Super Mario ANYTHING on the list. It feels cheap, since anybody who has ever played a multiplayer Mario game knows that it is going to be good. So in the interest of fairness both to Mario games, and to every other game in existence, they're all being lumped together.

Super Mario Party combined the best parts of board games like Monopoly with the short, frantic mini-games of Pokemon Stadium or Wario Ware, resulting in long lasting games, and plenty of Luigi death stares between friends.

Mario Kart/Tennis/Soccer are what you expect. Racing, and sports. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of these, in fact they're all superb, but there's not much to say that those who have played it don't already know, and those who don't wouldn't expect.

New Super Mario Bros Wii, however, I wanted to make special mention of. The premise is the exact same as every Mario game going back to his very beginning: Princess Peach is captured, go free her. But this time, up to four players can travel through the classic side-scrolling levels together, jumping off each other's heads, saving each other from certain doom, or even accidentally (or not...) guaranteeing each other's demise. If I wasn't lumping these game together, I'd put this game at the #1 spot. It is the reason I purchased a Wii, and almost the only reason I still play Wii at all.

2. Perfect Dark (N64/360)

*sigh* Again, let me say it for you: "WHAT?! Why not Goldeneye??? It was way better! Blar blar blar!!!" To which I say with full confidence, Perfect Dark makes Goldeneye look like a pile of Goldenpoop.

Perfect Dark was released a few years after Goldeneye by Rare, the same company that made Goldeneye, and basically every other SNES and N64 game you've ever loved. It is considered the spiritual sequel to Goldeneye, even though it adds a plethora of new features that it's predecessor didn't have. Most notable among this were the varied multiplayer options, such as co-op, and counter-op.

Perfect Dark provided the same fast paced shooter gameplay as Goldeneye, but with a twist: Even with four human controlled players, up to 10 computer controlled players could be added into the fray. Included in this mode was an incredible variety of different tactics for those computer players to use (examples include VengeSim, who would only attack whoever killed him last, and FistSim, who tried to steal everyone's weapons), and the ability to have team fights with anything from 6 vs 6 to something as crazy as 2 vs 2 vs 3 vs 5 vs 1.

Maps and weapons were brought over from Goldeneye, players could name each team, player and computer characters could be customized, players could save their preferences to their own profiles for future use (even on separate memory cards, oh what a glorious age that was), the game was beyond fantastic, and it still holds up to this day.

And now for the cherry on top: A few years ago, the game was remade, exactly as it was on N64, onto the Xbox 360, but with better graphics and performance, which fixed the only flaw that the original had. The game no longer slows down when too many characters are on screen. If you have a 360 or N64, you absolutely must own this game!

1. Castle Crashers (PS3/360/PC)

This game is the pinnacle of 4 player couch co-op fun. At first glance, Castle Crashers looks similar to TMNT, X-Men, and The Simpsons arcade games, but this game is so much more.

Up to four players can join in, and battle the forces of evil in order to rescue four kidnapped princesses. The unique draw of this game is that while it is a side scrolling beat 'em up just like the previously mentioned games, it includes a surprisingly heavy RPG system. Each time a player levels up, they can put points into strength, magic, or agility, which unlocks more combos, or higher health. Items and animal partners add to the hectic fun, and every single enemy you fight can be unlocked as a playable character. (TIP: If you want to win, claim the ram as your animal friend. I named him Rammy, and together we were unstoppable!)

The most chaotic 4 player fun, however, comes from rescuing the princesses. After defeating certain bosses throughout the game, any players who survived the boss fight earn the opportunity to fight to the death for the love of the princess. After this brief fight, the game returns to business as normal, but the sudden shift from co-op to versus gives you an entertaining "Uh oh" moment when you glance at each player's health, and pray for your own survival.

If you're worried about length versus price, the game has a story campaign that, on first playthrough, can take up to 12+ hours to complete, and a hardcore difficulty/new game+ mode after completion. This game is still available through download on Xbox Live and Playstation Network, and is well worth every penny.


HONORABLE MENTIONS:

It really is difficult narrowing down so many great games, so I wanted to include some honorable mentions that are still fantastic and worthy of your attention.

Rock Band 


If you've ever played Rock Band, even if you don't like it, anyone can see the appeal. Just as Madden gives you the opportunity to be a football star, Rock Band gave you and your friends the chance to start that band you had always talked about starring. Now you just have to pick a name...and MouseRat is already taken.




007 Goldeneye

Yes I chose Perfect Dark over Goldeneye, but in no way does this lessen the impact that Goldeneye had on gaming as we know it. Doom may have revolutionized the FPS, but Goldeneye forever changed split screen multiplayer. Sadly, I'm seeing more and more people on the internet whine about how the game doesn't hold up, and calling it overrated, but this isn't true. It may not be a great game by today's standards, but it had an incredible impact, and the classic maps, and most importantly "Slappers Only" mode, still provide entertainment even today.





Left 4 Dead


I really wish I could put this in my top 10, but sadly it violates the standard that I was going for: 4-player on ONE system. I've spent countless hours with my friends playing this game, which provides some of the most harrowing co-op I've ever played, but the sad truth is that in order to play 4-player, you need two consoles, and two TVs. *sigh*





Marvel Ultimate Alliance 

Think of it as Gauntlet with super heroes. This game was, and still is a great time, but there is still a reason it didn't make the list. The combat can tend to get fairly repetitive, and the levels can get a bit too overly long and empty, leading to some dull moments that made me yawn just one too many times.






Sonic & Sega All Stars Racing

This game is exactly what I needed in college: Mario Kart re-skinned, and available on non-Nintendo systems. Yes, it is an exact clone of Mario Kart, down to the items being colored (and often even shaped) the same as Mario Kart's items, and its slight lack of originality is why it didn't make the list. But even so, this game is still the best Kart racer I've ever played that doesn't have a fat mustachioed plumber in it. If you haven't, go buy this game. Just don't touch Big the Cat...he sucks.

TGLComics: Taking Chances - Why comic readers need to stop complaining about change

It's been a running joke for decades now that there are only three characters who have ever truly stayed dead in comic books: Bruce Wayne's parents, and Uncle Ben. Outside of those unlucky few, no comic book readers get too upset anymore about the "death" of a character because, as we all know, they'll be back next year, or when their next movie comes out in theaters. All the titans of comic books have fallen at some point or another, and made a glorious return. (Wolverine is about to get his, but don't worry, he'll be back for the next X-Men Origins movie)

There is one, however, that I really wish had stayed dead.

*SPOILER WARNING: If you haven't read issue 700 of Amazing Spider-Man (or any of Superior Spider-Man) skip past this!*

In December 2012, Marvel released the controversial finale of the Amazing Spider-Man series, "Dying Wish" (issue #700). In it, Spider-Man has one final climactic battle with Doctor Octopus, who is on the brink of death. In his final moments, Doc Oc uses a tiny drone of his own invention to swap his mind and memories into the body of Spider-Man, and Spidey's mind into his own body. Peter Parker, from the rapidly dying body of Doc Oc, beckons Spider-Oc to protect his family, and maintain the eternal Spider-mantra, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Thus began the year of the Superior Spider-Man, in which Doc Oc, now living out Peter's life, swears to uphold justice better than Peter ever did, to be Superior. He donned a new costume (my personal favorite), and used his super villain genius to finally be a force for good.

*END SPOILERS*

Reactions were understandably mixed. Many praised the extreme shift in gears (myself included), while others went so far as to threaten the life of story writer Dan Slott and his family.

Superior Spider-Man continued from January 2013 until the recent re-reboot of Amazing Spider-Man in April 2014, no doubt leading to the "I told you so" crowd getting heads so big they could make the Watcher jealous. But, as mentioned earlier, with the upcoming release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in theaters, it was no surprise to anyone with even the slightest lick of common sense that Peter Parker would make a glorious return to his own comic.

But if you ask me, it was the wrong move.

Allow me to explain: Spider-Man has been around since 1962, and for over 50 years now, we've watched him beat up the bad guy, save the girl (well, for the most part...sorry Gwen), and never ever break his personal code of minimal violence and no killing, even in the aforementioned death of Gwen Stacy. To be fair, its only natural that everyone freak out when something like that changes, because with Spider-Man, his unbreakable oath of responsibility is all we've ever known. But seeing the total opposite of that was so refreshing! Suddenly nobody had any idea what he'd do next. Every issue was groundbreaking for 52-year-old hero, doing something we'd never dreamed he'd go so far as doing. Each time I finished an issue, my mouth would hang wide, and I'd run to my wife, lips flapping like a little kid telling his parents about a car crash. But the point is, I kept reading. I HAD to know what came next!

And what made it even more powerful was that it wasn't some paltry 3 to 5 issue series, as far as Marvel wanted you to know, this was forever.

But, as we all suspected it would, the series ended. Peter returned, and order was restored. In this universe anyways...

I don't know what it is about Spider-Man, but it seems like of all the Marvel heroes, he always gets the shortest end of the stick. Aside from Earth-616, this is just as obvious in the Ultimates universe.

First appearing in 2011, Miles Morales burst on the scene, breaking grounds as the first biracial super hero. Once again, reviews were less than stellar. Some loved, most were pessimistic. But again, Marvel gave no choice as Peter Parker once again met his grizzly end. (Seriously, this guy needs to join a team full-time...)

But the barriers were broken, and Miles became the new guardian of New York in the Ultimate universe. After the media backlash cooled down however, Miles quickly rose to popularity.

So what makes readers so willing to accept the death of the same character in this universe, but not Earth-616?

Both Spider-Oc and Miles Morales can both be easily written off by the casual observer as publicity stunts, and to a degree I do believe that both were created in an effort to boost readership and promote interest in the characters before the movie releases. However to the weekly reader, they were brand new characters.

Weekly comic books have been around for almost 80 years now, with characters like Batman, Superman, Captain America and Spider-Man hitting milestone anniversaries. Introducing new characters nowadays understandably gets a quick shrug from most die hard readers, and those who don't know much about comics are more likely to gravitate to heroes they already know. But with these two series, Marvel did something that took a lot of guts: they took away the reader's choice. If you wanted a Spider-Man story, you had no Peter Parker option left. And this is what it all boils down to: the discomfort of the reader. Any hero can die, but how much more of a slap in the face is it to not only have them die, but have the villain ultimately triumph within the body of the hero?!

It hit me too! After an issue or two of Superior Spider-Man, I was uneasy because I had never seen the likes of this story before. But as I pushed myself further in to each issue, it quickly became my all-time favorite Spider-Man story arc, if not my favorite comic book story period.

What it all boils down to is this: TAKE A CHANCE. The majority of those who ripped these two changes to shreds hadn't even read a single issue of them. They just got angry and boycotted them without giving the new idea a chance.

TGLMovies: Guardians Of The Galaxy

Guardians Of The Galaxy

PG-13 (2014)

Okay, I've been known to show a bit of favoritism towards comic book related movies, so before I go into my (as best as I can) unbiased movie review, let me get my fanboying out of the way...

*deep breath*

THIS MOVIE KICKS SO MUCH ASS! AVENGERS 1.5 FOR SURE. I LOVE. THIS. MOVIE.

Okay. Got that out of my system, let's get this rolling.

Starring:
Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesle, Lee Pace


Plot:
Peter Quill, a.k.a. "Star Lord" (Chris Pratt) leads a group of former criminals and bounty hunters (Saldana, Cooper, Bautista, Diesel) to save the galaxy from the powerful Ronan (Lee Pace).

I could go further into the plot, but to do so would remove the magic of the story. It needs to be experienced rather than told.

"Something good...":
 Ever since the release of the first Iron Man (2008), I've seen every Marvel Cinematic Universe movie to date (Iron Man 1-3, Hulk, Thor 1-2, Captain America 1-2, The Avengers). I know all the ins and outs, characters, and over arching plot points. But what I loved the most about Guardians is that you don't need to know absolutely ANY of it in order to enjoy this movie. Granted it doesn't hurt, and there are one or two characters who have had minor roles in previous Marvel movies, but there is nothing that would hinder your full experience.

Guardians has, in more than a few cases, been referred to as the new Star Wars for a new generation of movie goers. I don't take this to mean that it is superior, rather that if you go into the movie assuming that you don't know a single character or alien race, the movie will guide you through all you need to know. There are a multitude of alien races, but you don't need to know all of their names/origins. None of the Guardians themselves have had their own movies, but their histories are all discussed in enough detail to flesh them out while still leaving plenty of time for action. Oooooh the action.

The sweet, sweet space adventure action. As previously mentioned, it is very hard to describe this movie while trying to leave enough room for your own viewing to be enjoyable and spoil free. That said, I haven't seen a movie with such incredible action and special effects for a long time. Guardians is not afraid to throw hundreds of combatants on screen at a time, leading to one of the most spectacular final fight scenes I've ever seen.

In terms of acting, this movie actually took quite a few risks, but every one of them paid off in a big way. The two most well known actors of the Guardians themselves (Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper) merely voice their characters, and don't actually appear on screen. As for my personal favorites (Chris Pratt and David Bautista), Pratt has had little to no exposure in movies, and is primarily known for his comedic role in television's Parks And Recreation. Bautista on the other hand, is first and foremost a professional wrestler, not an actor. That said, he absolutely stole the show for me. His character, Drax, is covered in muscle, and while I expected him to be the silent bruiser, he made me laugh the most.

Conversely, big name actors like Josh Brolin, Glen Close, John C Riley, and Benicio Del Toro, all have very little screen time, but with the time that they are on screen, they all shine.

The movie's soundtrack has garnered much attention by itself, as the entire playlist comes in the form of 1970's and 80's pop music, including the Jackson 5, Blue Swede, David Bowie, Marvin Gaye, and many more. Again, without spoiling, every song fits perfectly with the characters, and it is pretty fun to hear 80's pop music during several action scenes.

"...Something bad...":
As much as I hate to admit it, the movie is not flawless. The most glaring problem I had was with actress Zoe Saldana, who portrays Guardian member Gamora. As a character, Gamora is a rough and tough bruiser, but deceiving, given her appearance. As portrayed by Zoe Saldana, Gamora acts like a snooty princess, then flirts, then acts like an idiot, then gets angry at everyone for hardly any reason. If I had to pick a "least favorite" scene, it is a particular one with Saldana in it. She just isn't as engaging as the rest of the cast, and when you have nothing but bright shining stars, and one that shines just a bit less, the dimmer star will stick out like a sore thumb.

Other than Saldana's shaky acting, however, you'd be hard pressed to find anything to complain about.



"...A bit of both":
For the past year, Marvel has been pushing this as their "next big franchise" and rightly so. Guardians sets a strong base for a plethora of future movies and tie-ins with existing Marvel franchises. If you like comic book, action, sci-fi, or comedy movies, go see this as soon as you can.




I give Guardians Of The Galaxy an unsurprising yet totally deserved, perfect 10/10.


REGARDING THE AFTER CREDITS SCENE:
Yes, there is one. If you haven't seen the movie, STOP HERE, as spoilers are coming up.
If you have seen the movie, read on regarding the post credits scene.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A good amount of you, if not all, have no idea who that was sitting next to The Collector casually sipping his drink. In case you were curious, his name is Howard the Duck. He is in fact a Marvel Comics character, though he's never been overly popular. He did get his own failed movie in the late 80's, and Guardians director James Gunn has confirmed that this was just a joke, and not implying anything about Howard getting his own movie.