Iron Man 3 Review (Spoiler Alert)

I finally got around to seeing "Iron Man 3" this weekend, and I have mixed feelings about the movie.

While I laughed a lot my biggest overall complaint is the usage of Mandarin. They turned him, literally, into a joke. As I tried to explain to my friend when leaving the theater, Mandarin should have rings of power made from alien technology. In this movie, he was an actor, a ruse for Killian's plan to monopolize the war on terror. Admittedly, I laughed during his scenes; Kingsley was hysterical, yet deep inside my inner nerd cried a bit.

The door for alien technology in Marvel movies was knocked off its hinges during "Avengers," so why was it decided that Mandarin would not be how he was in the comics? Better yet, couldn't they have improved on him? And couldn't he have developed his rings from a crashed spaceship or junk from the battle in New York? Why was he a drunken British actor named Trevor? Normally, I can overlook changes, but this one just has me confused. Aldrich Killian claiming he's Mandarin just isn't the same...

Robert Downey Jr. carried another installment on his back, yet I was left with a few questions as well. One of the major holes was this: we're led to believe Stark has no backup suits (I guess geniuses don't think to have a stash of spares close by), and that's the reason he improvises to assault Mandarin's hideout, yet for the final fight, he calls on the Iron Legion and suit hops. There were literally dozens of different types of suits he could have had sent to him by Jarvis prior to that scene. Also, why didn't he call Rhodey/Iron Patriot sooner when he was on Mandarin's trail? Instead, he let Rhodey fly all over Pakistan, which resulted in him losing his suit too.

Another scene that made me cringe was when, in an effort to prove to Pepper he was over the events of New York and would no longer be consumed by his work, he gave the command to destroy the Iron Legion. Why? Now if he ever needs the Hulk Buster it's not there. Couldn't he have stored them, just in case?

In another blog (I think my "Avengers" review), I mentioned how I wanted Pepper Potts to be more than a damsel in distress, and the third movie of the franchise did not fail me in the slightest in that regard.

Majority of the film we see Tony Stark rather than Iron Man. The movie is essentially about the turmoil and bravery of the man inside the suit, akin to "The Dark Knight Rises." I'm not displeased with this decision. If anything, this movie is proof I can watch two hours of Stark chatting and not be bored. I was surprised, however, they didn't touch on Stark's alcoholism. I guess that's not ever going to be in the movies.

All in all, I did like the movie, yet I feel the first "Iron Man" is still the best. I expected a lot more action and a deeper story and Iron Man going toe to toe with a supervillain, Stark's technology verses Mandarin's. It didn't play out that way. In a sense, I would say parts of the movie were spoiled by my own expectations, not what was displayed on the screen. In time, maybe it'll grow on me. Right now, having seen it a mere half an hour ago, I am somewhat disappointed.

Imagining My Perfect ARPG

Recently, I've been playing a lot of Action Role-Playing Games (ARPG), and it got me thinking about the strengths and weaknesses for each of the games I currently have on my computer. With that in mind, I thought if I could fuse all the best parts of those games into one game, it'd be the perfect ARPG...at least for me. Here's what I would want from each:

Diablo 3 - From this Blizzard Entertainment title, I would definitely nab the combat system. It's sleek and smooth. What I really enjoy is the hit-box on monsters. Rather than relying on "Shift" (or whatever your hold is set to) constantly, which keeps a ranged character stationary (I favor ranged classes), Diablo 3's hit-box is large enough to allow me to be fluent in my movements, stay out of bad, and still deliver a lot of damage. A hit-box sounds trivial, but in playing other titles in this genre I find they have very tiny hit-boxes, which means if I click slightly off my target and I'm not holding down "Shift," my character will walk where it's not supposed to instead of attacking and, consequently, take serious damage or die--it can get frustrating.

I'd snatch a feature Blizzard added in October called Monster Power, too. Aside from there being levels of difficulty preset in the game, Monster Power creates a player-controlled difficulty setting. You can ramp up the monster's health and damage for a challenge, which also compensates for the difficulty with boosts to experience and gold and a greater chance of bonus drops. If it was my game, I'd have a system where a player could increase the number of monsters on the screen along with increasing their power. More kills and chaos = more fun for me.

Diablo 3's cinemas are like no other ARPG. They're stunning. I wish there was more of them...and more fighting in them.

Gold as currency and the gold auction house can join, but the real money auction house would have to be left behind. I don't know why, but the sound effect from picking up coins in Diablo 3 makes me happy. I like seeing my funds increase and grow vast over the hours played, though it's definitely ruined when I realize I can purchase millions of gold for a dollar...

Torchlight II - Gear. Runic's gear is absurd; there are stats upon stats, so much so, they offer the ability to swap out sets for situational fights. One of the greatest joys of this game is the endless hunt for stat improvements via gear, and it starts early. By the first map I found myself comparing pieces of gear and thinking about where my character was weakest and how one piece would benefit me over another. Plus, I like the artwork on the gear.

Torchlight II's maps would have to come along. They're massive and randomly generated, two things I appreciate in a genre where grinding the same map dozens, maybe hundreds of times, is not only unheard of it's par for the course.

Mods. Another strength to Torchlight II is that players can modify the game and get as creative as they want. So far, players have added classes and pets and ways to start a character with all their skill points; there's even a mod called Synergies that I'm fond of that added all sorts of loot, higher difficulty, more bad guys, more areas and dungeons, another town, world bosses--it's unbelievable and gives longevity to a game that could have grown stale if players had solely relied on Runic for updates or changes.

Stat allocation interests me for whatever reason. I realize that most players are going to be the same stats in the same places for each class, yet it still gives me the sense of control over my character.

Offline mode. This morning I'm writing this blog instead of gaining the last two levels of my wizard in Diablo 3 because the servers are down for maintenance. I like the online aspect of ARPGs, but I like to play a game whenever I'm in the mood to play it even more, especially since I'm more of a solo player in this genre.

Path of Exile - Without question, Grinding Gear Games' passive skill tree is one of the best out right now. In a past review, I went into some detail about how its massive setup allows for amazing character uniqueness, and I would take its tree over other games.

Along with the passive tree, I'd take the gem system. Finding spells out in the world is a far more gratifying system than learning them with each level.

Another strength to Path of Exile I appreciate are the array of maps. There's no linear path to take while questing. A player can stray from the main story for adventures, explore additional areas, and doing so benefits them.

Game That Shall Not Be Named - *Having signed a nondisclosure, for now, I'll have to leave it up to the reader as to what title is in the works that I'm talking about. I will update this in a few weeks*

One of the features I found immensely fun to this upcoming title was an overworld where players ran around fighting and searching, passing each other even if they weren't grouped. In those areas, there were even dynamic events with boss fights and bonus quests. It was quite thrilling to see 20+ characters trying to take out the same boss as if it was a raid in World of Warcraft.

Another perk I discovered was the ability to unlock more characters while questing as random drops. If there was the potential to find a new class while hunting gear in Diablo 3, Path of Exile, or Torchlight II or even an item drop that started a lengthy quest to unlock an additional class, I'd be elated. Of course, these characters in the upcoming title can be bought, yet what's the fun in that?

What I'm Still Looking For

 

Crafting - Despite the fun I have in all the ARPGs I listed, I have not found a crafting system that's enthralling. Most of them feel tedious and boring. One day, I hope to see a system similar to Dark Cloud, where players could combine weapons, gear, or items to create new ones. Actually, I'd like to see a system that takes the Dark Cloud system a step further, where a player can build weapons from scratch, piece by piece, like a Steampunk inventor.

 

Story - The stories really aren't the main draw of ARPGs. In fact, they're just blurbs to explain why you're suddenly going from a desert to a snowfield. While Diablo 3 attempted to change this it ultimately failed. When not full of clichés, a lot of that story didn't make sense, and venturing through that story in every area became a nuisance. I want an engaging, interesting story, but I also want to free-roam after seeing that story without interruptions.

 

Followers/Pets - While I'm fond of pets and followers their gearing and leveling is always minimal. It'd be nice to see a game where building a companion was as intricate as building the main character.

 

Endgame - Wouldn't it be great to be in an ARPG where the endgame was as rich as in a MMO, where new areas and bosses, as well as fancy gear and such, opened at max level? New game+ and free-roam are fun, but nothing ever compares to patches or expansions that offer entirely new content and features.

Don't Cancel Hannibal

As of today, Hannibal has not been renewed by NBC, and its future is uncertain. If cancelled, it would be a mistake on par with Fox's decision to can Firefly, and I joined over 9,000 other fans in signing a petition to see this show return next season.

Last night's episode, "Sorbet," was the best I've ever seen on NBC, one of the best I have seen on network television. Without giving spoilers, it was loaded with Hannibal's sly humor, which the viewers, not the other characters, are in on, and there were times I felt as irritated or lonely as he did. As I said in my original blog, Mikkelsen's portrayal is amazing and somehow continues to improve each week. The musical choices were perfect, a mix of haunting, classical tunes that evoked emotion even while Hannibal prepared meat and dinner in his kitchen.

If the writers, actors, producers, etc. can maintain this level of quality for multiple seasons (should they be given the chance), I would pen Hannibal in as one of my favorite television shows of all-time. It might reach that list in a single season. I liked the movie adaptations of Thomas Harris' books; I love the show.

The most comparable series would be Showtime's Dexter, which will be ending this season. Hannibal would be the perfect show for people wanting to fill the void left behind, should they crave games of cat and mouse, serial killers, and smart writing. Unlike Hannibal's competition, Elementary, the crimes Will Graham and Jack Crawford solve week after week are overshadowed by the overall story arch. The plot moves forward with every scene, rarely straying. The characters evolve as well; in the beginning both Will and Hannibal were rigid, didn't open up, but with each episode their personalities spill out. Last night I had a moment where I thought to myself, "I'd be his friend." Then I realized being Hannibal's friend would mean being served people's organs unwittingly--it gave me chills.

While I'd like to hope NBC understands the jewel they have, I worry they'll pass on the show. I would be sickened if Grimm was renewed and Hannibal was not, and, being the angry nerd that I am, I would probably boycott NBC the way I did Syfy when they cancelled Farscape. When it comes to TV, especially good TV that's taken off the air too soon, I hold grudges.

Some Stand-Up I Enjoy

It's been a rough week for me, so here are some funny comedians with my favorite bits of theirs. I wanted to share laughs.

 

* Caution: Contains Strong Language and Sexual Themes*

Chris Tucker:

Denis Leary:

Lewis Black:

Sarah Silverman:

Chris Rock:

Jerry Seinfeld:

Bill Cosby:

Wait to Read A Song of Ice and Fire

On the Game of Thrones Facebook page this morning, I responded to someone who wanted to know if they should read the books. My response was short, but I implied they should not read the series.

George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series is brilliant, loaded with wonderful, rich characters. Its plots are dense, its stories interesting. The details he puts into his descriptions of armor and setting and food, the dialogue, and character histories are amazing. While some of the installments are much stronger than others, his worst is still better than most fantasy novels on the market.

So why, you might wonder, would I recommend not reading the books?

For starters, when I first learned the series was going to be adapted by HBO, I immediately started to wonder how they would portray certain scenes; I already had expectations. In my head, I had already decided how each character should look, how they would talk, and what I would see, and when they didn't match my vision, I got a little grumpy. I hated the choice of Carice van Houten as Melisandre up until her first appearance on the show. Despite not being fond of the Reeds, I wondered why they were left out of season 2, and I struggled to accept their absence.

A problem us readers have is the fusing of multiple characters or cuts from the show. This week I argued with a reader about the exclusion of Strong Belwas. His take was Belwas was absolutely essential to a particular scene, whereas I argued the scene and action Belwas performs could be fulfilled by any number of nameless characters. We are partial to Martin's creations, having spent hours upon hours living with them in our heads, and because of our fanhood, we tend to overreact to such situations. Even if we understand the changes, whether they are due to time or budget restraints or are altered to simplify the story (many nonreaders are already confused by the extensive cast), there's a voice inside the reader that screams, "These changes are a travesty!"

The changes aren't a travesty. In most cases, the changes aren't even a bump in the road, but many readers get hung up on them. Eventually, it becomes all they can think about, and those thoughts turn into complaints, which turn into public tirades. That same reader that couldn't accept Belwas' absence, also knocked Game of Thrones' spectacular writers for shifting the Reeds from season 2 to season 3; it's a decision I not only support, after my initial resistance, but think was done well and for good reason--there was a whole lot of character introductions season 2 and an added storyline might have made things cluttered more than it already was. Yes, what's happening with Brann and the Reeds should have happened sooner in a slightly different way, yet it's happening; the writers understood it needed to happen, and since it's a separate tale pushing back the "when" had no effect on the rest of the show.

And I'm not just writing about the changes in reference to what has been taken out or multiple characters fused into one character (The Bloody Mummers basically represented as Roose Bolton's Locke), I'm also writing about the added stuff: Dany's dragons being stolen, Loras' love life, Margaery's rise to power, Stannis' affair with Melisandre, Joffrey's twisted nature. Many of the things I listed were insinuated within the dialogue of the books, yet readers either didn't take note or felt the show should have spent its time elsewhere. As for Dany's missing dragons, Khaleesi Daenerys Targaryen is a fan favorite on and off the show, and in the second book, she does almost nothing. I was glad to have a new story which added a bit of flare to her character. It's not often HBO is going to surprise me as a reader, but when they do, I feel they've done so without taking away from what happened in the books. The chapters in the books follow a single character, whereas the show can follow multiple characters and explore tales that were merely hinted at secondhand.

Ultimately, the reason I would not recommend the books being read before viewing the show is my lack of surprise. I was jealous when I read about and saw the outrage after what happened to Ned Stark. There will be similar shock value by the end of season 3 as well, and in a way, I wish I didn't know what was coming, because it's epic and non-readers will never see it until it happens...unless, of course, they've had it spoiled. At least my having read the books makes me immune to spoilers. Then again, had I never read them, I would steer clear of all sites related to the show.

I feel if a person began reading A Storm of Swords now and finished before the big event that's looming it will end up being a spoiler. It will lessen the blow, take away the astonishment, and it will last unto season 4, when the show completes the third book. My suggestion would be to read each book after its correlating seasons are finished. Otherwise, you're spoiling your own fun.

Thor: The Dark World Trailer

Here's the first glimpse of the next Thor movie, and I'm a bit undecided about what I think. While I loved Anthony Hopkins as Odin and the scenes in Asgard during the first movie it didn't impress me when the action shifted to Earth/Midgar, and the trailer for The Dark World definitely appears to have several scenes in London, but I guess that's the only way to get Jane Foster, Natalie Portman's character and Thor's love interest, to other realms. Plus, I admit, Thor has a crush on Earth, and that's where he likes to hang out, so it's to be expected.

I have my fingers crossed, however, that majority of the film will take place in Asgard and Svartalfheim, one of the nine worlds of Asgard ruled by the Dark Elves. The major villain, as seen near the end of the trailer, is Malekith the Accursed, who is a sorcerer with faerie magic with the gift of changing the appearance of objects or people. One of his storylines was a partnership with Loki, and I wouldn't be surprised if the movie is based off that--after all, Loki is also in the trailer.

What worries me the most about this particular franchise is Jane Foster. It's easy for comic book movies to fall into the cliched damsel-in-distress pit and suddenly, not unlike Spider-Man or Superman, never be able to crawl out. The love triangles become the centerpiece, and there tends to be that yawn-moment when the villain kidnaps the damsel to lure the hero in for the kill...ultimately failing. I don't want to be bombarded with mush when paying to see Thor bash things with Mjolnir; I prefer not every superhero movie revolve around the hero saving his girlfriend.

In the trailer, Malekith is about to kill Jane. Despite liking Natalie Portman, I wouldn't be displeased if he went through with it. Though it would diverge from the source material, there's a much better story with Thor recovering from the inability to save his beloved, especially since bringing her to Asgard is what put her in jeopardy, than constantly swooping in to the rescue in predictable fashion.

Questions I hope the movie clears up are: how did Thor get back to Earth in the Avengers and why did he not see Jane while he was there? Did Odin forbid it? Has traveling between realms been outlawed? Has Jane been brought to Asgard to be a goddess?

I think it's time, even if it's brief, Thor puts on his helmet. Sif and he are the only ones without headgear in that battle, and it's silly.

It'll be a while until The Dark World hits theaters. There will probably be two or three more trailers, and maybe when I see more glimpses I can solidify my opinion, decide whether this installment will be worth viewing in a theater or if I'll wait for a rental, like I did with the first one.

A Missing Novel

I recently finished the fifth revision of my fantasy novel, and I have spent the past weeks trying to decide what to write next. There are several options: continue with the sequel, which I have written two hundred pages for, revise one of my other two novels, start on something new, or complete one of several novels I started years ago, yet my frustration does not come from indecision.

This morning I tried to locate the horror novel I began writing in 2005. Over the years, I intended to finish it--the horror novel was more than halfway done. I even went as far as completing a screenplay a few years ago to use as an outline, incorporating a lot of dialogue and all the major events and characters. I assured myself it was stowed away safely, waiting for me.

I back-up every story I write. I have a stack of CDs and flash drives in a desk drawer, and going through them this morning, reviewing everything I had written since the first computer I owned in college, I discovered my horror novel had not saved correctly; there were only 24 pages, when there should have been over three hundred.

After I cursed and double-checked my storage devices and triple-checked my storage devices, I berated myself for not opening the file after I thought to save it. Eight years ago, when I upgraded my failing computer, I should have made sure everything I saved was correct before I wiped the hard drive and disposed of the tower and monitor. Shamefully, my music compilations received more attention at the time, and my novel is gone with no hope of return.

Let my carelessness stand as an example to any writer that reads this. Back-up your work. Keep your files updated. Make sure your saves are proper. Keep every draft. Duplicate every line, even the ones you hate. Otherwise, years from now, you'll be like me and wish you had a time machine to punch the old version of yourself in the face until they understand to care for their stories like a newborn baby.