Sidney Blaylock Jr.'s Blog, page 58
July 13, 2017
Writing Without Sleep
[image error]
I don’t know about you, but when I don’t get enough sleep, my writing (& thinking) tends to suffer. I feel as if there is a “blanket” (sorry for the stretched metaphor) between my brain and my fingers. I can write, but it is much harder to think, to find the perfect word, to extend my vocabulary, or to make connections in a meaningful way. This was brought home to me this morning as I tried to write a “response” to the reading for my class today. I did not sleep well last night, so I got up early to finish my reading and to write my response.
I might as well have been a zombie for all the effectiveness that I had. I finished my “response,” but I do not feel proud of it. It seems like the connections that I would have made simply would not come. I have a study that I cut from my local newspaper that showed that research has shown that sleep is essential for creative thinking.
But what happens when circumstances do not allow you to get the sleep you need? Life isn’t always going to cooperate with your need for sleep to enhance your creativity (or to keep you creative if you’re already creative). I did the only thing that I could, I plowed through the best that I could, but I don’t really feel satisfied with the results. This is a question that I’m going to have to work through as a writer, how to do my best work when life won’t allow me to be at my best? I didn’t waste time and I scheduled my time as best I could, but even now, as I write this, I’m wondering (in the back of my mind) is there a better way of expressing this, am I being too pedantic, does this blog entry even make any sense at all?
Unfortunately, I won’t know until after I’ve rested and looked over it. And what will I find when I do?
July 12, 2017
Black Panther vs. Spider-Man: Learning How to Navigate Social Interactions through Comic Book Trading
Image Source: Heroic Universe
So, in high school, I developed a passion for comics (heroic, mostly). This was just before the time of Graphic Novels exploded in popularity where individual comic book issues were still the dominant form of comic book collecting/reading. In my freshman year, I found several acquaintances who shared my passion and I watched as they traded issues amongst themselves.
Eventually, I joined their group and began to become involved in reading and trading comics. As noted before, Spider-Man was my favorite hero at the time and I traded whenever possible for Spider-Man comics. However, one of my friends bought and read a four-issue mini-series of Black Panther. He traded it to me and I read it and enjoyed it, but again, wanted as many issues of Spider-Man as possible, so then I traded it for four Spider-Man comics. My friend found out about it and confronted me and said that if I wanted to trade them to “X” person, I would have done so, but I traded them to you. Luckily, our friendship survived that “rocky” incident, and flourished during our junior and senior years (but unfortunately, we lost touch during college), but I’ve always regretted trading away those comics.
[image error]
Image Source: Comic Vine (GameSpot)
Black Panther is such a “unique” character in that he (along with Storm) represent a non-traditional representation of a character of African descent. While I like Cyborg (yes, I know, different publisher than Black Panther and Storm), I’ve always found that his characterization (like most African-American, African-descendent characters) relied on too much stereotype (esp. in the late 80s/early 90s). Cyborg (and other characters of color) during that time period would often drop endings on words (such as I’m goin’, I’m goin’). In the late 90s, early 2000s, this morphed to “cool” catchphrases such as “Booyah!” Black Panther and Storm are both articulate and well-spoken, highly moral (often surpassing Captain America in terms of “Goodness”), and highly educated. They are often aspirational and represent the “best” of the culture of African/African Americans/Those of Color.
[image error]
Image Source: Pinterest
With the upcoming Black Panther movie, I really wish that I’d kept that particular mini-series. While I’m familiar with the Black Panther, I’d love a “refresher course” on the character to see what changes Marvel has made. I’d also love to be able to compare comic and movie changes to Black Panther in the same way that I could do a comparison with Spider-Man’s movies and comics. I will try to find out if that storyline was adapted/reprinted in a Graphic Novel, but somehow it won’t be the same. To have the actual issues in hand to refer back to as well as the nostalgia of the issues and the trade and the friendship–that is something older me would tell younger me is far more important than the ephemeral satisfaction of “making the trade.”
July 11, 2017
Back in Class
Image Source: Eastern Michigan University (people.emich.edu)
So this is a super-short blog entry today as today is the first day of my Summer class “Digital Rhetoric in Writing.” There’s a lot of reading that has to be done before class today and while I’ve finished most of it, I still have some to go.
The class is exploration of what we do when we compose/investigate using the “screen.” The screen can be television or digital (computers), but we compose differently and we interact differently and most importantly we think differently when we’re using a digital platform rather than a print platform.
I will, hopefully, have caught up with the readings tomorrow, so expect a more traditional blog entry then, but know that if you are reading this, then you too are part of the digital rhetorics that we will be talking about in class today.
You (digitally) rock!
July 10, 2017
Star Trek Enterprise Redux
Image Source: Memory Alpha
On Friday, I finished the entire 4 season run on Netflix of Star Trek Enterprise. I have to say that once I got into it, I really enjoyed it. My overall impression is that it is a good Sci-Fi show that probably ended too soon, Here are some general impressions of the show (with as few spoilers as possible as I will not be discussing specific plot developments, but rather general impressions).
Seasons 1 and Season 2: “Exploration” was the theme of the first two seasons and I seem to be in the minority as I actually liked season 1 and season 2. Most of the critical reception notes season 1 and 2 as “uneven.” Yes, there were several episodes that I didn’t like (they tended to be the ones that focused on social issues) in the first two seasons, but they considered themselves as “explorers” and there was an enthusiasm for the “wonder” of it all. Time travel and time manipulation was a key ingredient in these two seasons.
Season 3: “Conflict” was the theme of season 3. Apparently ratings, which had started strong from the pilot episode, dropped steadily as the episodes of the first two seasons ran their course. The writers.producers tried to course-correct and this leads to a season long conflict. To go into anymore detail is to approach spoiler territory, but season 3 is much more action focused. While I generally liked the action episodes more in seasons 1 and 2, here I found it made the crew (the captain, in particular) as one note. They are all driven by the ideals of war and conflict and that leaves little time for wonder. I liked this season about the same as season 1 and 2. There was more action, so it was always tense, but the loss of the shows wonder balanced out the increased tension.
Season 4: “Alternate History” was the theme for season 4. While not the primary focus of the whole season, 4 of the episodes were given over to alternate history tales with both of the plots being two-part episodes. I did notice some new names as writers in this season, but after that season long “epic” of the Enterprise’s crew searching the Expanse in Season 3, I don’t think that devoting such a large number of Alternate History stories back into the series was a wise move and towards the end, we also see real-world parallels with the rise of an “Earth-First” movement. It seemed a little to convenient a set-up to try to get to the idea of the “Federation.” The Season Finale (which turned out to also be the Series Finale) was also not great. I like the idea of it (in theory), but for this episode to have worked, the show would have had to have continued. To end the way it did, seemed forced and anti-climatic. I know the producers knew that the show had been cancelled and wanted to give resolution, but it was done in such a way that it seemed to demphasize the hard work of the crew of the Enterprise. I liked this season least of all.
Final Grade for the Series: B- (Good acting, special effects, and characterization let down by questionable story and plot choices, especially in the last season). While Enterprise may not have had a seven year run like the other major ST series did except the first (to my knowledge), had ratings not declined and/or had the network had more faith, I think we could have gotten to see the Federation “born” more concretely in this series and ST fans would have been the better for it.
July 8, 2017
Not Happy with AMC at the Moment
Image Source: Rental Car Momma
So, this blog catches me on “travel” day, so it will be a bit shorter than normal. Right now, I’m not to pleased with the local AMC Imax theater in my area. Blog readers will know that I did a post earlier this summer that talks about AMC buying out my local Carmike theater, raising prices, and eliminating size options at the concession stand.
This last night, while looking at the movie showtimes for Spider-Man Homecoming (SP:H), I discovered that the AMC 18 (in my area) is NOT offering Imax 3D showings for Matinee times. Starting today, through the rest of the week, you can only see SP:H at the 7:15pm and 10:15pm showings. If you want to see the movie during a matinee showing, you only have the option (at my local AMC 18 theater) to see it either in Real 3D or Imax 2D.
What are they thinking? While this seems like a local management move (probably to improve revenue as theaters generally charge more for evening showings) rather than a corporate move, this is still a move that handcuffs those of us who are not interested in seeing the movie during the evening by limiting us to less than optimal showings of the movie. Real 3D tends to be much darker than the brighter Imax and while 3D is sometimes not worth the extra money, for a special effects driven movie like Spider-Man, this time I feel 3D will be worth extra money, but thanks again to short-sided choices, that is something that is out of my hands.
I do have options, however. Thanks to a comment from a reader on the blog (thanks libraryladydella!), I do know of a cheaper alternative that I will investigate later this summer. For now, I’ve decided to probably try the Majestic (formerly, the Bijou).
The Majestic does seem to have SP:H in Imax 3D during matinee times, so this looks like the best option for right now. The irony is I stopped going there some years ago because they didn’t hold a movie in theaters long enough (Peter Jackson’s King Kong), while the Carmike theater (the one bought out by AMC) did have it and had a better projection system. It looks like with SP:H, I’ll be returning to see what the Majestic’s renovated theater looks like.
The local AMC theater in my area should be very worried as there is a chance they are going to lose me as a customer thanks to a incredibly poor choice of Imax 3D showtimes for such a high profile movie.
UPDATE: Looks like I was wrong about the Majestic theater having a Imax 3D screen. I seems that they do not; it looks like the only Imax 3D screen (outside of the Chattanooga Aquarium’s screen) in the local area is AMC East Ridge 18. So it looks like my only choice this weekend is: Imax 3D at 7:15pm and 10:15pm or Imax 2D at 4:15pm. Grrr. As it stands now, it looks like at the moment I won’t get to see Spider-Man: Homecoming this weekend. Now I’m really not happy with AMC.
Time to catch up on the Tour De France, do some yard work, and start reading for my summer class that starts on Tuesday.
Bleh, some companies, in pursuit of the all-mighty dollar–really know how to take all the fun out of summer.
July 7, 2017
True Story–Most People Don’t Finish Games
Image Source: Gaming.Wikia.com
Recently, I’ve talked about games growing in scale. Games are getting longer and longer, and games are becoming a “service” rather than a “product.” Game publishers feel that this is the way to combat ballooning development costs/budgets and maximize profits, but right not, games are mostly a cinematic, narrative-driven genre. Games, for the most, tell stories. There are exceptions (a notable one is one of the most popular games currently out there–Minecraft), but for the most part games tell stories. But there is a problem with this model.
Most people don’t FINISH the games that they buy.
Think that is an exaggeration? I’ve recently put a lot of time with Mass Effect Andromeda and looking at the Trophy data (Trophies/Achievements) on their respect platforms. As most games are narrative based, most games include data on the percentage (%) of people getting the trophies/achievements for the various story milestones and the data is more than surprising–it is almost shocking. As someone who tries diligently to finish (see the ending credits roll) for the games that I buy, I’m always surprised by the low completion of the story modes in games.
Except for the earliest trophies in the game, which are usually anywhere in the 90-80 percentile, as you get deeper and deeper into the game, the percentages fall, sometimes precipitously. For instance, ME:A has a trophy for completing what appears to be the middle of the game (Madera, the 4th major planet–the 3rd that you can put an outpost on). The world before has a trophy completion rate in the 70 percentile range. The trophy for Kadera is in the 30 percentile range. This is a drop of 50%. That means half of the people who bought the game stopped playing (for whatever reason) before the midway point.
Now here’s the problem, go to a Trophy Ranking site like PlaystationTrophies.org (or the X-Box equivalent) and you’ll find similar stats (maybe not as dramatic), but nearly every game that has a narrative, there is a decrease in the percentage of players earning trophies/achievements as the narrative progresses.
As games like Overwatch, Destiny 2, and now Anthem, embrace this game as “service” model, new narrative modes, or new ways of delivering narrative are going to have to devised in order to keep players attention and keep them invested in the game delivery platform.
July 6, 2017
Ranking the Spider-Man Movies
Image Source: Superhero Wikia (Art by John Romita)
I think I may have mentioned it on the blog before, but in case I haven’t, Spider-Man is my favorite superhero. I really gravitated towards him in high school and his athletic abilities and biting (no pun intended) humor really won me over as a character. I’ve seen several sites ranking the Spider-Man movies, so I thought I’d get in on the act myself. Following is a list of the current Spider-Man movies so far that I’ve ranked in order of my own personal preference as to the best (& worst) of the Spider-Man universe (regardless of studio, be it Sony or the MCU). I’ll be updating this post both when I see Spider-Man: Homecoming and when other movies are released with Spider-Man as the primary character. As with my Marvel post, I’m going to try to keep things spoiler-free, but (as always) I can’t guarantee that things that I mention won’t spoil things for knowledgeable Spider-Man fans.
[image error]
Image Source: Wikipedia
Spider-Man 2
This is by far my favorite Spider-Man film. This film had everything that I wanted in a Spider-Man film: the idea of personal responsibility, the idea of with great power comes great responsibility, great special effects, great villain, great internal character conflict, great external conflict and an ending that gets it (mostly) right. There are some things that this movie gets wrong, but is as accurate a depiction of Spider-Man as a character and as a comic (so far) that I’ve seen as a movie. Things were changed and manipulated in Spider-Man 2 that is different from the comic, but I can see the reasons for each change. To me, this stands as the (current) definitive Spider-Man movie.
[image error]
Image Source: Wikipedia
Spider-Man
Okay, so I like this one, but not nearly as much as its sequel. I think my enjoyment for this one was muted because it is an “origin” story and I know Spider-Man’s origin like the back of my hand at this point. Seeing the character evolve (especially when you already know the story) isn’t nearly as impactful as seeing an original adventure featuring the character and I think that’s what hurts this one the most. Also, the changes the filmmakers made didn’t seem to be needed (unlike the sequel), so I didn’t really feel that the Spider-Man that I knew from the comics and games was presented on-screen faithfully.
[image error]
Image Source: Wikipedia
Amazing Spider-Man 2
Okay, this one is one that the critics and I disagree on. Critics hated this movie. I think it is okay. Not great, not horrible, but in the middle. I liked the fact that they tried to incorporate the “Gwen Stacey” storyline and that they had the guts to try to replicate it on-screen, even if it didn’t hit/work just right. I also like that Peter and Gwen were young adults, not high-schoolers and that eliminated one of my dislikes of the first Amazing Spider-Man movie, teen angst (see below). Too many villains and too much “convenience” really hampered the story and brought it down in my opinion.
[image error]
Image Source: Wikipedia
Amazing Spider-Man
In a word (or two), teen angst. This is what kept me from seeing it in the theaters and why (along with a modified retelling of the origin story) kept me from seeing it until much later when I was able to rent it cheaply. For me, I made the right choice. It wasn’t as bad as I feared it would be, mostly because of the actors’ performances, but Spider-Man/Peter Parker is better when he is put in the young adult role, not in the teenage role. Yes, I know he started/was bitten as a teenager, but the stories that helped grow the character and push him into mainstream consciousness are not his teenage years, but his young adult ones (as a photographer for the Daily Bugle, trying to make rent, trying to hold up his relationships with family and friends, while at the same time trying to be Spider-Man and live up to “Great Responsibility” creed).
[image error]
Image Source: Wikipedia
Spider-Man 3
Easily the worst of the Spider-Man movies. This is a prime example of filmmakers not trusting their source material and cherry-picking it for what they want without understanding why it works. Venom should have been awesome in this movie. The whole Peter/Mary Jane marriage sub-plot should have worked, the antagonist/ally sub-plot should have worked, but no one tried to understand the storylines from the comics. Venom works, not because he is a psychopath, but because the symbiote loves and hates Peter Parker. It doesn’t want to turn Peter into a “dancing fool” as the movie portrays, but it wants to join with Peter. When he rejects it, it hates him and wants to kill Peter and it knows everything about Peter Parker–it knows just what will affect him physically and psychologically–and it can disguise itself and be anyone at anytime. Now throw in Peter wanting to marry Mary Jane and there is the plot that the movie should have followed. Again, an almost horror take on the superhero genre similar to where Avengers: Age of Ultron should have gone. How can Peter protect himself and his future wife (i.e., when the movie opened she should have been his fiancé) from a psychopathic killer out for his blood when he can’t even tell where and when that killer is going to strike? I have the original Venom storyline and I know how that character can be used in stories based on the original writer’s (David Michelinie) interpretation and the original artist’s (Todd McFarlane) illustrations. What audiences got instead was a watered-down (way down) version of this story without very elements that evoke menace in the character/story. I could go on, but you get the picture–this one is bad, both because it is bad and because of so many missed opportunities.
July 5, 2017
Sportsmanship–The Lost Art
Image Source: emaze.com
So, I’ve recently become enamored with a video game that has a mostly online focus: Gwent Beta for the Playstation 4. The Witcher fans will recognize the game from Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt as it is a heavily reworked version of that game. Gwent is essentially a “card” game in the Magic: The Gathering sense, but the cards are often animated and the computer administers the effects of the cards and acts as scorekeeper and referee. The game, ostensibly a Free-to-Play game (meaning that it is free to play, but offers a store where players can purchase “kegs” of cards using in-game and real-world currency). Many gamers term this a “Pay-to-Win” in that those who are willing to pay real-world money often have a distinct advantage over those who just grind away for the (slower earned) in-game currency.
[image error]
Image Source: PlayGwent
Now, I really don’t like this model and I was determined not to spend any additional money on this standalone game (I mean, I bought the Special Edition version of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt for double the cost of the base game. How much more does CD Project Red–the makers of both games–want me to do?) I was also resigned to the slow pace of earning in-game currency and losing multiple matches while my currency slowly accrued. It is also a beta and the current build on PS4 is buggy as all-get-out. It has crashed my PS4 more times and in many more different ways in the past 3 weeks than any other game that I have owned. And we’re not talking just random freezes, but hard crashes. It crashed so utterly, one time, that I had to pull the power cord from the PS4 and replug it in because nothing that I did would shut off the system. I even put up with that, but the thing that finally got to me and inspired this blog is the “taunt” system that the designers included with the game.
[image error]
Now, I realize that they didn’t want to open up players to the abuse of a regular voice chat, but “taunt” system is the “canned” version of verbal abuse because no one online understands the concept of sportsmanship–i.e., being gracious when you’re winning and not being salty when you’re losing. You just play the game to have fun. However, these days, playing the game is not enough, it seems, unless you can decimate your opponent and then “taunt” him or her about it. There have been matches where I’ve done the math and I’ve clearly won and declined to play the rest of the cards in my hand because what’s the point? I’ve won already–I don’t need to destroy your ego or use the taunt feature to make you feel bad about yourself. We were playing a game and I happened to win that round. I’ve been in the losing seat just today, knowing that I did not have the cards and rather than the opponent just ending it, he/she played their entire hand and and added with a pre-canned taunt for good measure. Needless to say, that person did NOT get a “Good Game” response from me. And this is increasing. Where it was rare, it has become something that happens 3 out of every 4 games–and there’s no mute button that I know of (except the mute button for the TV which blocks out all sound effects)
I see this in other online venues as well. If players can’t win/aren’t winning, you can be sure that some will choose to leave no matter how bad it hurts their stats or the team’s performance. “Backing out” is the term for it if you aren’t a gamer (i.e., “this sucks, let’s back out” and blip they are gone). Winning too has taken on this same level of destructive behavior, but instead of just taking a loss and learning from it, the winners are now narcissistic braggadocios. They are the greatest thing on God’s earth if you listen to them after a match. There are even people online–YouTubers and the like–who brag that they just want to get online and “crap talk” with their buddies. That’s what is fun to them.
Really? I thought it was about playing the games and having a good time while online. Why does the idea of sportsmanship (being a gracious winner or loser) have to die for you to feel like you’re having fun? When did just playing the game not become enough and it was decided that in order to have fun you have to belittle other players? And why are we okay with that?
July 4, 2017
Happy Fourth of July 2017 (aka Independence Day)!
[image error]
Today is the American holiday of Independence Day (aka The Fourth of July) which generally means fireworks, grilling and barbecue, and more fireworks. I’m taking a holiday from normal blogging today, but I will return on my normal (breakfast) schedule tomorrow.
For those celebrating the holiday, I hope it is a fun, restful, and safe holiday!
July 3, 2017
It’s about the books (or games), not the card
[image error]
I’m a bibliophile–I love books and I love to read. My first job was at a bookstore that is sadly no longer in business. Even though they were a bookstore, they lost their focus. Management got too involved in selling the store’s loyalty card rather than the books themselves. I only mention it because of the things that I’m hearing via social media that indicate GameStop may be following the same self-destructive path.
When I was a customer at Waldenbooks, their loyalty card seemed like an okay trade-off. Ten dollars per year and a percentage off your purchase (I believe it was 10%, but I could be misremembering). I think it only applied to books and not magazines which wasn’t ideal for me as I often bought books and magazines together. It didn’t give me a huge benefit, but it didn’t take away too much either.
Yet, when I got my first job there it seemed that the focus was less on selling books and more on selling the card. When the “Mystery Shopper” came and graded us, they were looking for whether or not we sold them the card–that was the “make or break” score and could push an above average encounter down to an average or below average and vice versa.
[image error]
Much the same is happening in GameStop today. I’ve found that I am pre-ordering games through Amazon.com these days for their discount and the fact that I don’t have to be sold on ThinkGeek merchandise or the GameStop loyalty card. I don’t enjoy Borders Bookstore because they cater less to bibliophiles than to people who like the communal nature of the “bistro”-type atmosphere. I’ve learned from hard experience that it is dangerous for stores to stray too far from their base products. I’m worried that GameStop (& to a lesser extent, Borders) haven’t learned that lesson.
