Should Nintendo NOT Make Anymore Movies?

     It was revealed a while ago that head of Nintendo's creative design and king of your childhood Shigeru Miyamoto in an interview with Fortune has stated that Nintendo is considering to making movie deals again. What does this mean? It could very well mean that we could be seeing full feature movies based on your favorite Nintendo games and characters on the big screen again *cough*Legend of Zelda*cough*.

“As we look more broadly at what is Nintendo’s role as an entertainment company, we’re starting to think more and more about how movies can fit in with that—and we’ll potentially be looking at things like movies in the future,”

     This is not really a big surprise. There have been rumors circulating about Nintendo expanding past video games and opening up to other form of entertainment. There was the rumor that was later confirmed to be untrue of a Legend of Zelda series being made for Netflix. There was also news of another possible Super Mario Bros. movie in the works with Sony, due to the recent Sony hack. This should be cause of a celebration, right?

     Some people might not see it that way. Of course we haven't forgot Nintendo's first venture into Hollywood, the 90s live action Super Mario Bros. The Super Mario Bros. movie is herald as one of the ultimate bad video game movies ever, almost as bad as anything Uwe Boll can do. At the time of its release it was a box office bomb and met with terrible reviews. The cast weren't too thrilled with being attached to the movie as well. Actors John Leguizamo and Bob Hoskins have publicly talked badly about it and the directors. Dennis Hopper hasn't had kind words to say about it either considering it was his Mommie Dearest. Nintendo however has been a good sport about it, even going further to say on the official Mario website that Mario can do anything except make movies. But even with a blunder like Super Mario Bros., should Nintendo make movies again.

     Surprisingly they have. A few years ago an animated full feature movie based upon the popular Animal Crossing movie was released in Japan. Recently there was an animated short movies based off of the Pikmin franchise. Even though there were movies being made, Nintendo has been very cautious of how these movies were distributed. The Pikmin movies were only exclusive on Nintendo's eShop and The Animal Crossing movie has only been shown in Japan.

     Bottom line, Nintendo has been careful with how they've done things outside of games and it seems that they have learned their lesson since the Super Mario Bros. movie. Also, they know that despite how bad it was fans still want movie adaptations of their other franchises like Metroid and The Legend if Zelda. It's nothing wrong with learn in from your mistakes and trying again. That's what exactly what Nintendo has done and that's what they're going to do. There us still a bit they will have to learn and hopefully one of the things is that they learn to work with the right team of people. A movie is just as good as the people who made it. Now let's hope Square Enix comes around to making movies again.

What are your thoughts? 

Six Things That Should Be Added in Super Mario Maker 2 (Or DLC)

     Super Mario Maker is almost here. For those who have been living under a rock, Super Mario Maker is a custom create your own Mario level. Over the past few weeks we've been getting more and more glimpses of what we will be in store for until the game comes out. It features a ton of stuff that you can use to make the ultimate Mario level, or troll people and make the hardest levels ever. Super Mushrooms, ? Block that you can put anything in, and Bowsers oh my. You can even customize enemies and objects however you want by making a giant totem pole of Goombas or any other enemies or have enemies like Lakitu and Bullet Bill cannons shoot out power-ups and coins and have ? Blocks sprout enemies. You can even add wings to objects and enemies to spice things up. With so much to customize you can never get bored designing levels, or can you? Here's a list of things that could make the next installment, if there will be one, better or make the current game better by hopefully adding these things as DLC later on.

New Level Templates

For Super Mario Maker, we've gotten the basic level templates of any basic Mario game. An overworld, A castle, and an Airship level template (because how would you include a Super Mario Bros 3 game design and not design an Airship level). What was missing was ice, desert, sky, and fire level templates. These would be interesting to add to a sequel or later as DLC as it could make the World dynamic and make this feel a lot more Mario. Also if we get a desert level template we can get everyone's favorite enemy, Angry Sun.

Super Mario Bros 2(USA & JP) Styles

Super Mario Maker pretty much featured most of the stuff from the Mario games that everyone loves from the series. Sadly, Super Mario Bros 2, the American and the Japanese versions are missing. I know that there was not that much of a difference between Super Mario Bros 1 and 2 other than difficulty, but there were stuff from it that could be beneficial. The wind mechanic and the poison mushroom would've been great add ons for the game, as they would also be even better ways to challenge people to get through their levels, or to really troll them. Super Mario Bros 2 mechanics would've been fun to put in as the game was fun. Adding Subcon spaces and stuff like vegetables to pick up and hurl at enemies could bring something fresh to the gameplay of non-SMB 2 game styles. It would've been nice to see a New Super Mario Bros version of Birdo.

GameBoy Era Games

This is more of an extension of number 2. Again, I know that even with the inclusion of Super Mario Bros 2, not including Super Mario Land or Super Mario Land 2 would be a bad thing as they are releasing Maker as a part of Mario's 30 Anniversary and these games, though not as influential as SMB3 or SMW, are a part of that history. Some of the levels were tweaks of already basic Mario levels and if included it would put of bit of style and flair to the already available levels cave and underwater. It would be nice to recreate something like the Moon Zone and Mario Zone levels. Also, the Sky and Water Pop levels were fun and you could have a bit of fun with that with the moving screen features in the Mario games available. Plus think about the power ups. Wouldn't it be nice to see the return of Bunny Mario?

More Bosses and Mini Bosses

In a way, Super Mario Maker does feature bosses in the form of Bowser and Bowser Jr. In the next installment Nintendo can up the ante by giving us more bosses or minibosses. Adding minibosses could give gameplay a bit more variety and make things more interesting as they served as a mini challenge between actual boss fights. Besides you could get tired of having Bower and Bowser Jr. be the boss of the level everytime. Also, if you want to be creative, you can practically make the first Mario game in the series to have a Boss Rush mode. There are a lot of minibosses and bosses to choose from in the series, even in the 2D games. Boom-Boom and Pom-Pom, Big Boo, Kamek, and Birdo. If they decide to add the Gameboy era games or Super Mario Bros 2 (USA) we could very well see the return of obscure bosses like Tatanga or Wart.

Koopalings!!

Bowser Jr. Isn't enough. We need the Koopalings to be DLC or in Super Mario Maker 2 pronto. The Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World parts of the game feel empty without them, especially with the Airship level editor.


Luigi, Toad, Peach Mechanics

I know that we can play as Luigi and Peach (and eventually Toad?) through the Amiibo function, but wouldn't it be great to play as them as you would in Super Mario Bros 2? Even with Mario, it would be cool to be able to have Luigi's traction and jump, be able to float around like Peach, or do whatever Toad does in the game. These mechanics, in some form haves existed in not just Super Mario Bros 2. Almost any game that featured Luigi (Ex. New Super Mario Bros series) have used a different gameplay mechanic to set himself apart from how the player plays as Mario. These mechanics could bring something interesting when designing levels as you can get really technical designing levels as can really play around with difficulty. You can make a level that could be easy of difficult depending on what character mechanic you use. You can also see what dynamics that goes into making a Mario game.

What do you think should be added in a Super Mario Maker 2 or at least should be DLC? 

Does eSports Need ESPN?

Even though it has been here for years, eSports is starting to get its recognition and is starting to come into the mainstream. With million dollar prizes that seem to grow and grow each year and tournaments getting almost as big coverage to match. It is even being covered on sports channels like ESPN. You can say thing are good, but they are not.
     Ever since eSports tournaments have been broadcast on channels like ESPN, there have been some form of backlash against it. There have been backlash again sports fans asking why are they watching people playing video games. Even one of the former commentator, Colin Cowherd, has gotten headlines for bashing the channel's decision to show tournaments.

"Here's what's going to get me off the air. If I am ever forced to cover guys playing video games, I will retire and move to a rural fishing village and sell bait. You want me out? Demand video game tournaments on ESPN because that's what appeared on ESPN2 yesterday."

     Sadly even the president of the channel, John Skipper, has some not really positive remakes about it. The president has publicly commented on eSports by saying that it is not a sport.
     It's one thing for fans to be against it and probably another when you some of the commentators have something negative to say about it, but it's the worst when you have the head of the network bashing it. I can talk about how, just like any sport, eSports can be just as demanding and its participants train just as much as athletes in sports, but that's another story. So, the question is that should these tournaments pack up their things and go somewhere else? Do they need to stop airing on ESPN?
      eSports have been getting quite the number of hits online on Twitch and other streaming sites. Just last year, Dota 2's international tournament pulled in almost 20 million viewers, along with League of Legends and its 32 viewers online. With these numbers, and them growing each year as last year Dota only had one million. It is obvious that these tournaments are not going to be losing any sleep if they don't air on TV. Also, considering the fact that people prefer to watch things online than on TV, It would be wise not to pass up a deal with Twitch, or any other streaming service to solely broadcast tournaments online.
      I do understand that these eSport tournaments need a network like ESPN to get spread awareness and get a bigger and broader audience, but the respect is clearly not there. It's one thing to bash, it's another to do so blatantly and try to make money off of it. It's hypocritical that the president sees eSports this way but doesn't see a problem collecting all of the money it makes for the company. Maybe eSports does need to stay after all. To make a point that Skipper and the channel's fans that criticized the airings are out of touch and eSports is here to stay and that it's not just a sport. It's something more.
   

Sony, YouTubers, and Digital Media Part 2: Do YouTubers Belong Outside of YouTube?

Last week I talked about a video YouTuber Joshua Ovenshire, Jovenshire, made about concerning Cable, Digital Media. To recap, Ovenshire made a case that due to PlayStation Vue, we might see the final nail in the coffin for cable as its service can offer channels you want for a cheaper service. What I had to say about is that the service Vue, will not be the cable killer. Cable still has its hooks in everything that even with the popularity of the Netflixes and Hulus it won't be going away. We have a service similar service compared to Vue, Sling TV and that did nothing to Comcast. Vue could be the potential to something, but we won't see the death of Cable anytime soon.

     In the second half in the video Ovenshire made an opinion that as Digital Media is growing and TV is dying, channel executives will start needing YouTubers, Vine stars, and other internet celebrities in order to create content for their shows online. I know considering that Ovenshire being a YouTuber himself he would think this way. 

      I'm not going to deny that YouTubers and YouTube are done and are doing things with networks. Grace Helbig has a talk show on E! Timothydelaghetto has been on the comedy improv show Wild N Out and Epic Meal Time have a show on FYI . It has always been like this since Fred had his deal with Nickelodeon to do a series and a few movies. However I don't know how he came to the conclusion that as channels make the transition online equals a high demand for YouTubers and Vine stars to work for these channels.

      There is still a big stigma with how networks and Hollywood is willing to work with internet celebrities as they still see them as regular people that just film themselves on camera doing whatever and upload it to YouTube. And there is a valid reason why. There hasn't been a YouTuber or a Vine star who has found any success outside of YouTube. Epic Meal Time haven't had good luck with shows outside of YouTube as they had a couple with G4 and Revision3. Both fell through. Hopefully Epic Meal Empire won't? Helbig's show is on thin ice as it is being proven time and time again on E! unless you are a Kardashian, or if your talk show doesn't have the words Chelsea Handler on it nobody will be willing to watch it. Also Lucas Cruikshank, Fred, after all the deals he's done as Fred is right back to where he started, on YouTube. Not acting as Fred, just doing vlogs. These people have millions of people watching their content on YouTube but are simply failing to get these fans and viewers to follow them outside of YouTube or enough for them to transition into something beyond YouTube.
     Again there is no connection that as content is migrating to digital formats that these companies are going to rely on YouTubers and Viners. There is the fact as there have been deals where we've been getting shows premiering on Hulu and Netflix, due to the audience that use these formats, these networks and people who have been doing online content have been doing the same things they have always done by hiring talent, overlooking internet celebrities all together. There might be deals in the future, but not in the way or not as many as Ovenshire thinks there will be.

What are your thoughts?

        

Sony, YouTubers, and Digital Media Part 1: Is Cable Truly Done For?

     YouTuber Joshua Ovenshire A.K.A The Jovenshire, from Smosh Games, made a video concerning the recent announcement Sony made at E3 this year. Starting soon, Sony announced that it would be expanding its service, PlayStation Vue to more cities, Los Angeles and San Francisco. PlayStation Vue is a service allowing its users to purchase single cable channels and stream on the PlayStation 4. In the video, he states that PlayStation Vue will be a big deal as, what he claims it will change media forever. Ovenshire is acknowledging the current trend with digital media. It is popular with the younger demographic as this generation is starting to prefer watch content online compared to watching shows on TV. There are less and less young people watching TV. But the question is will this move on Sony be or will it be the beginning of the end of cable?
     First of all, cable isn't going anywhere. It is true that people are preferring to watch shows online, companies like Time Warner and Comcast have their hands in things have they have in so deep that not even Superman can loosen their grip. Cable stations are, slowly but surely, adapting to digital formats and have been doing so in order to compete with the Netflix and the Hulus. Ironically, cable companies are working with these services like Hulu in order to get people who prefer watching things online to watch their channels. Also, the offer Sony is making to its customers isn't new. It is very similar to Sling TV. Sling TV, like what Sony is hoping to do, is an online TV service the offers channels for $20 a month, cutting out cable. Sling has barely made a dent competing with Comcast's second quarter earnings. Sony may have a harder time as not that many people are buying PS4s for TV.
     Ovenshire might be on to something. Eventually we might see cable go, but it's going anywhere soon. Vue service offers more channels than Sling, yet Sling is cheaper with its $20 compared to Vue's $50, but I highly doubt that PlaySation Vue will be the cable slayer, especially considering how Sling has fared and the number of people who buy PlayStation 4s to do things other than playing games. For something to make people who really jump from its gonna have to be a much better service provider.

Hating Pewdiepie

     Recently we have heard that famous YouTuber Felix Kjellberg, or who you may know as Pewdiepie, earned $7 million dollars last year. That is $3 million more than what he has earned the previous year. Pewdiepie is the most popular YouTuber uploading content daily with millions of people watching it and have over 37 million subscribers. Pewdiepie has earned this not only through ads, but through sponsorship with companies. Not everyone is happy about this. He has gotten a ton of backlash and outrage over the recent news of his earning. The outrage was loud enough for Pewdiepie to make a video addressing this. In the video Pewdiepie said the following:

“Money is a topic that I have purposefully tried to avoid for the five years that I’ve been making videos, because I just feel like it’s not important to anyone.”

"Whenever it comes out how much I made a certain year, people just get so shocked. A lot of people were also very, very angry. They thought it was unfair. They thought I just sit on my ass all day and I just yell at the screen."

"To see so many people upset about this whole thing is sad."

     It is understandable to see why people are upset about hearing this. You have some people who slave away at their 9 to 5 jobs and make nowhere near 7 million dollars, some don't even barely make enough. You slave away at your job and you hear this person not only makes videos of him playing Minecraft and making goofy noises while doing so, but people are willing to throw a boat load of cash at him. It's enough to send you up the wall in a fit of rage.
     I know it is easy to write these people off as haters, but should we? No. Again, you can easily understand why people are mad, but I don't think people understand what goes behind what he does. Yes Pewdiepie does make weird noises while playing video games, even he has said that was true, but surprisingly there is a lot that goes in to doing what he does. There's more to his videos other than him playing games and making funny noises. There is a ton of research and looking into the demographic of a particular game he has to look into instead of saying I'm just gonna play Game X. There is a lot of time going into knowing what people want to watch. Not only that, but to keep them entertained. Pewdiepie is suppose be a very entertaining personality on YouTube and that is what people like about him and is what keeps his views and his bank account in the millions.
     I'm not going to tell these people who are upset about this to just shut up and get over it as in some ways they can be outraged. However what I can do is ask people to try to understand why he is making as much as he can. I'm sure if they do, they probably wouldn't be as mad as they are.

What are your thoughts on this? What are your thoughts on people who are upset about how much Pewdiepie makes?

Terminator Genisys: Does It Suck?

     This week the new installment in the Terminator series, Terminator Genisys, has come out. To recap, Genysis is the fifth installment in the series. The first movie, directed by James Cameron, was a hit. The second one T-2: Judgement Day became a bigger hit. The series kinda fell short with the third film and Salvation which was suppose to be the reboot of the series. Now we have Genisys, but will it live up to the standards of the previous films or will it be just as bad as the other two? Will it suck?

Story

     Based on the trailers and what you probably have read about the movie the plot of Genisys is that the story takes place when John Connor has won the battle in the future, but Skynet sents a Terminator back in time. Kyle Reese is sent back in time to 1984 in order to save Sarah Connor. The only difference is that while Kyle is sent back in time, the whole timeline somehow gets fucked up. How fucked up? Probably as bad as the reaction when we found out Genisys will be the name of this movie. Anyway, the timeline is all screwy. Sarah Connor is no longer the innocent and helpless woman she was in the original Terminator movie, and doesn't have the bad 80s hair either. She is accompanied with a Terminator buddy, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger a la her son in T-2. So now it's up t her and Kyle to set everything right and end Skynet. Oh and John Connor is the terminator out to kill them.
     The plot seems to be a love letter to the Terminator franchise, well the ones everyone loves. Since the whole timeline is messed up, you get to see certain events in the past Terminator films happen differently like Arnold fighting himself and among other things. It does make you want to go back and watch the old films and see how intuitive the director Alan Taylor and its writers Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier were writing and making these scenes.
     The story is almost reminiscent of the first Terminator movie as Genisys takes a look into our society and looks into how much we depend on technology to do practically everything. In the 80s it was Apple, Betamax, and video games. Today is smartphones, iCloud, and Oculus. Talking about this might be in a future post?
     I know that Taylor had major concerns about the trailer spoiling the movie, especially with the reveal that John Connor is the antagonist in the film. I wouldn't say it was a major spoiler. You did need to know who the antagonist would be in the film that Sarah and Reese would have to fight against in order to stop the threat of Skynet.

Action

     Let's get down to the nitty gritty. This is what we all look for in Terminator films. In almost Terminator films we always look forward to things getting wrecked and exploding. It is an action film after all. In Genisys we do get to see some cool and elaborate action scenes. Buses flipping over, helicopter dogfights, and you do get plenty of car chase scenes that are a staple of every movie. Seriously, intense car chase scenes are in every Terminator film. The action scenes are cool but they aren't as as cool as some of the previous Terminator movies. Even Rise of the Machines had to good ones where you asked how did they pull that off.

Performance

     Genisys featured a lot of newcomers, with only Arnold being the only big name (sorry Jai Courtney, not yet). I never seen Jai Courtney, who played Kyle Reese,  in other films but he did an ok job. Emilia Clark, of Game of Thrones fame, did a good job of playing Sarah Connor. I was surprised at how she did the role with knowing her playing Daenerys Targaryen. We got to see a different side of Sarah Connor that we usually see of her in other adaptations. We see her channel a bit of Linda Hamilton and a bit of what John Connor is usually like in the Terminator films, being tough yet asking why was she chosen to be the savior of humanity. If you haven't noticed, Arnold plays a different terminator in every movie. In this one you see him play a more quirky model often being used as comic relief in most scenes. It was almost like he was playing a T-800 version of Cameron from the Sarah Connor Chronicles series. There was another big name in the movie. Matt Smith, whom you may know from Dr. Who, was kept under wraps and there was a reason for this as his role was Skynet. This is almost a first in the franchise as we finally get Skynet personified. Helena Bonham Carter in Salvation doesn't count because that version's appearance was based off of people the protagonist has encountered in the movie.  I wasn't really impressed with his role. He played Skynet like a cold expressionist manner that almost like a parody of a Bond villian instead of being a cold impressionist AI bent on the destruction of humanity. Helena Bonham-Carter did a better job.

Effects

     The special effects in the movie were good. A lot of the action scenes required special effects, but it wasn't a let down or a hindrance to the action. It wasn't over the top. Kudos on them finally perfecting young Arnold. Take lessons Salvation.

Final Verdict

     So here's the part you've all waited for. Does Terminator: Genisys suck? Not so much. The movie has all of the generic stuff you get in a Terminator movie which is not a bad thing. Honestly, I was impressed about how the movie turned out. I was one of many that thought it would be absolutely horrible and it turned out not to be so. It's not in the range of the original and T-2, but it's a lot better than Salvation and Rise of the Machines. I'd give it a 3 out of 5. Hey, if you seen the movie like I did we will all know why the hell the movie is named Genisys...

Did you see it? What are your thoughts?