Belated Retort of Modern Significance and Cultural Reference
To sum up Stephen Spielberg's creation, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, "Rosebud must have fallen off the wall."
To sum up Stephen Spielberg's creation, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, "Rosebud must have fallen off the wall."

Though I've not yet played Fallout 3 all the way through (due to a combination of generally disliking the completely open-world style, family visiting, and faffing about in said open world), I can say from what I've seen thus far that it's certainly an entertaining little chip. Now, while I have been overly critical about it in the past, saying that the graphics are downright bad, in hindsight, I think that's a bit too harsh. Sure, some textures look like pixelated, blurry messes when you get up close, some walls/ceilings have odd texture mapping errors where a grain of metal, wood, or rust suddenly stops and continues on in a completely different direction, and the characters look about as lifeless and unrealistic as they can be in this video game generation, but overall, it's not bad. Hell, I have to admit that the wasteland looks amazing, and some of the effects (spoiler: like the destruction of Megaton) just make my mouth water.
On the other hand, thus far the game has mostly been about battles upon battles upon battles, which I suppose is the point. However, if I recall, most every battle in Fallout and Fallout 2 could be avoided if you said the right thing, had the right skills, or just ran fast enough, but here, combat is inevitable. At the best, your skills will help you activate a robot to assist you in clearing an area, but the robot can't handle it all on its own, it's just a weak assistant (in particular, I'm thinking of a certain Super-Mart level). Additionally, I was very disappointed with how little a lot of characters had to say, and, for those who did speak, how little of what they said was interesting or important. In Fallout 1 and 2, the world was populated by NPCs who would say little, if anything, with a few scattered important NPCs who had a lot of say, and usually a reason to say it (as in, it related to some quest or another). In Fallout 3, everyone has a few lines to jabber, but barely anyone has anything important to say, at least not directly.
Something that I'm not sure if I like or not would be the way that skills often don't guarantee success, like they seemed to in Fallout 1 and 2. For instance, if you have speech skill, it will give you a percentile roll. Even if you've got insane speech skill, unless your opponent is extremely weak-willed, it's not guaranteed to work. I guess this adds the same sense of urgency as, say, rolling 1 in Dungeons and Dragons, except that skill checks don't have auto-failures in D&D. I believe that, in Fallout 1 and 2, if you didn't have the necessary percent chance of success from a high enough skill, the option simply didn't show (though I could be wrong, and it could have been working with the percentile thing behind the scenes all along). What it amounts to is me saving before talking to an NPC, then reloading and reloading until I get the roll. Basically, it makes it pointless to crank up the skill, unless maybe it "unlocks" some options.
Which brings me nicely to my second point: skill ranks that just "unlock" minigames. In Fallout 3, your skill rank in things such as science and lockpicking simply determines whether or not you'll get a chance to pick a lock. In Fallout 1 and 2, your skill was represented as a percent chance of success, modified by the difficulty of the lock. Here, having one of the necessary tiers (25, 50, 85, etc.) will unlock your ability to play a minigame. In the case of lockpicking, you try to jimmy the lock with a bobby pin and screwdriver. At least that takes some concentration and can be done easily if you figure it out--if you start to jimmy and it doesn't look like it's working, stop right away and try another spot before the pin breaks off. It teaches you to use a light touch, which is nice.
However, when hacking a terminal, you have to guess what word is the password. Well, that's actually not correct, as none of the words are the REAL password, it's just a word randomly chosen when you enter the terminal. When you select a word, the terminal will tell you how many of the letters in that word are in the correct sequence. For instance, if the correct password is "boar" and I pick "four", it will tell me that 2 of 4 letters are correct. However, often the correct letters are something shared by most, if not all, of the words (like an "ing" ending), and you save time merely by guessing randomly. There's no real skill involved in this one, it's just blind luck, and it's annoying. Fortunately, you can exit out of the terminal before all four attempts are used, and it will give you another four chances, but with a whole new randomly generated series of words. Therefore, you never actually guess the real password (which would be helpful and fun, as you could do some guessing based on location, who own the terminal, etc.), but rather some word that may or may not be actually relevant.
Maybe it's a bit ironic that I like random chance rolls with skills, but not with persuasion, and, honestly, I don't mind the speech percent chance so badly. It's that damn hacking screen that really annoys me. And, on top of that, more often than not, most of the options on the terminal are useless (you get some error from the terminal, which I suppose is meant to make things seem realistically broken down, but it's just disappointing after all that work hacking it).
Another problem with the open-ended world is, like Oblivion, there are a lot of places which are essentially useless. Sure, there's usually something of some interest, but I feel like I'd rather have less areas with more detail and worth, rather than more areas that are basically good for nothing. Granted, it's not nearly as bad as Oblivion.
Speaking of not being as bad as Oblivion, I'm SO HAPPY that Bethesda finally removed that crappy stealing system from the engine! In Oblivion, if you steal something, anyone in the vicinity knows you've stolen, regardless of whether or not they saw you, and the generic item is tagged as stolen, so you can only sell it to special fences. Not in Fallout 3. Here, you can rob a store owner blind when they have their back turned, then sell the entire stock back. That is, until they run out of their limited supply of bottle caps (which apparently take forever to come back). You can do this without sneaking at all, as long as they didn't see you, and no one's the wiser. Maybe that's scaling their thief-awareness back a bit TOO far.
If I had to sum up my complaints with Fallout 3, I'd say that the game feels unfinished. There are a lot of loose ends, pointless crap, and boring bumbling about. At least there's a fast-travel system, but, like Oblivion, you have to find the place on foot first. What was wrong with a map system like Fallout 1 and 2, where, when told where someplace is, you'll get a pip on your map, which you travel to on the map screen, but there's a chance you'll hit some resistance along the way, or find a special area? I admire Bethesda's efforts in emulating the authentic "Fallout" feel, and in some ways they succeeded (in the same way that the newest Star Wars trilogy "kind of" feels like the classic one), but, overall, I'd say the game is overhyped and deserving of a 75 to 80% at most.
Don't get me wrong. Neither Fallout 1 nor Fallout 2 were perfect, but they had great atmosphere and fantastic interaction. Fallout 3, however, while it has some atmosphere, tries to make up for its lack of interaction with a lot of plain action. Sorry, Bethesda, but there's a limit to how sweet a death animation can be, particularly when all that happens is the limbs and head separate from the body. Besides, it's totally been done before. Look at The Suffering, to name just one.
Okay, so Max Payne may have deserved its score. Granted, it stayed fairly close to the game's plot, and the film has an interesting grungy atmosphere to it. However, the movie falters in its execution. For instance, I like the portrayal of the effects of Valkyr, the drug, as demons, though apparently many people didn't get that insinuation (one particular moviegoer asked me, when I mentioned that the movie was based off a game, if there were demons in the game).
Basically, the movie is slow-paced and doesn't cater to its audience. I guess I admire that it doesn't dumb itself down, but many of the audience was simply lost as to what was going on. It's only thanks to my experience with the game that I could follow, though I seriously considered walking out of the theater at one point, I was so dreadfully bored. That's rare.
So, well, it is rather bad, but not in the same way that most movies are. It's simply too vague and has some seriously bad editing. Overall, though, it's not horrible in the sense that most movies are (that is, poorly-written and stupid). If you like really intense, non-catering movies, give it a try.
The general consensus is that City of Ember was a fairly poor film, scoring only 48% on Rotten Tomatoes. Of course, then again, Quarantine did far better, and, from what I hear, that's been rather overrated (according to The Spoony One's opinion, which I respect).
Personally, I thought that City of Ember was very good. The complaints are that it goes too slowly, there isn't enough action/adventure, etc., but it introduces the characters and opens the story in about the same way as the book, and, through it all, stays pretty close to the source material. If anything, it adds action/adventure that's not in the book to begin with. I'm a big fan of trying to keep movies as close to their sources as is possible, particularly avoiding reinterpretations of the source material. As someone said, "if you know you can't make it better, don't try."
On the other side of the coin, I'm planning to go see Max Payne tonight. It's been a long time since I played the game, but I recall very good things. The game was action-packed, had an interesting story, and did some fun and fascinating mindplay with psychological scenes like running down a hallway that stretches out longer and longer before you. From what I hear, the movie doesn't stick to the game at all, and that's an easy way to earn my criticism, but let's see how it actually turns out.
If you don't mind spoilers, go ahead and watch the game. It's pretty entertaining, and I love the comic book style of the cutscenes.
I'm hoping that City of Ember doesn't suck. The book was pretty neat, and the trailer looks fairly sweet. We'll see.
NOTE: This article contains satire and is not to be taken seriously.
WARNING: This article contains EXTREME SPOILERS.
Please read part 1 and part 2 before continuing.
It's at this point that the audience has to endure an extremely stupid sequence where Abe is looking for the proper love song for the Princess, then Hellboy comes with beer and the two get smashed and chat in slurring voices about women. They even sing along with the song! It's painful.
Meanwhile, the Prince finally arrives at the Bureau, and his sister, aware of this, throws the map and cylinder into the fire and hides the crown piece in the poetry book she'd been reading. As Hellboy and Abe continue to act like douches, the Prince finds his twin and caresses her in a rather incestuous way while sighing loving words to her in a breathy voice. He knows that she'd hidden the crown piece in a book, but apparently, although he was able to pinpoint the building she was in from miles away, he's not able to pinpoint the book she put it in while they're in the same room together, even when she foolishly glances at the book she hid it in on the shelf. Yeah, that's relay smart, you dumb broad. It's a good thing he wasn't watching your eyes. The Prince does, however, manage to get the the map by taking the red-hot metal cylinder out of the fire, bare-handed, and rolling it out onto a piece of... parchment, I guess. Anyway, it leaves burn marks in the shape of the map. Apparently the cylinder not only contained the map, but had it engraved as well. Why? If this is supposed to be a super-secret place that you don't want anyone to find who shouldn't, why put the map on a metal cylinder? Wouldn't that mean that the map couldn't easily be destroyed, thus making the place you're trying to hide easier to find, as is the case here? Ugh!
Anyway, the Princess manages to sound an alarm that draws everyone to the correct room (how? I don't know--maybe they share the twins' psychic link or something), where, but for a moment's stumbling, Hellboy and Abe completely forget that they're drunk. The slurring and everything is completely gone, though Hellboy DOES lose to the Prince (well, he is trying not to hurt the Prince, since Abe informs him that hurting the Prince would also hurt the Princess, just before the elf does a sneak-attack; he's not very honorable for a prince of elves, is he?), who stabs him with his growing magical spear and breaks off the tip inside of his chest. In the Princess' credit, she doesn't buckle to giving away the location of the piece, even as the Prince is totally kicking Hellboy's ass. A lesser man (*cough* Abe, Liz *cough*) would have given in.










NOTE: This article contains satire and is not to be taken seriously.
WARNING: This article contains EXTREME SPOILERS.
Please read part 1 before continuing.








NOTE: This article contains satire and is not to be taken seriously.
WARNING: This article contains EXTREME SPOILERS.
In order to avoid pretentiousness, I feel I should point out that I don't consider myself in any way to be a witty critic, so if this article gets a "well, DUH" attitude about it, please disregard said attitude.
During my enjoyment of WALL-E, I couldn't help but notice posters for a "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army", a movie I had never heard of. I made it my business to see the original before the sequel came out, if for no other reason than the poster art looked so damn cool. The first certainly wasn't a disappointment. Sure, there were some odd bits here and there, but by and large, I really liked it. I thought it was fun and interesting, which is really all I can ask of a movie.
In light of that, I will be reviewing the movie step by step, so if you haven't seen it and don't wish to have it spoiled for you, please wait until after you've seen the film to form your own opinions.
The films opens with a brief explanation about who Hellboy is, how he came to be, etc. That's fine, but then suddenly we're transported to a trailer where Hellboy and his "father" live during Christmas eve in '55. We see the inside of the trailer, with Hellboy watching Howdy Doody (which is kind of funny, since Christmas Eve was a Saturday in '55, and Howdy Doody aired on Monday to Friday at 5:30 to 6:00 PM from '48 to '56). Then, we get our first view of Hellboy as a child, and holy shit, is he one ugly summabitch. His father demands he go to bed, he demands a story, blah blah. This whole boring sequence is really just an excuse for the father to tell a story that (gasp!) is the premise for what the movie is about.
What is that story, you ask?
It is said, that at the dawn of time, man, beast, and all magical beings lived together under *blah*, the father tree, but man had been created with a hole in his heart. A hole that no possession, power, or knowledge could fill, and in his infinite greed, man dreamt of expanding his dominion over the entire earth. The blood of many an elf, ogre, and goblin spilled in their *garbled*, and king Balor, the one-armed king of elf-land, watched the slaughter in dread and despair, but, one day, the master of the goblin blacksmiths offered to build the king a golden, mechanical army, seventy times seventy soldiers, that would not know hunger and could not be stopped. Prince Nu-something begged his father to agree. "Build me this army," the king said. So, a magical crown was forged that would allow those of royal blood to command the golden army if unchallenged. "I am king Balor, leader of the golden army. Is there anyone who disputes my right?" and in his throne room, no one challenged his word.

And so the world was changed, and the next time the humans marched, they felt the earth tremble beneath their feet, and saw the sky darken with monstrous shapes. The golden army had no remorse and felt no loyalty or pain, and King Balor's heart grew heavy with regret. So, he called a truce and divided the crown in three pieces, one for the humans, and two for himself. In exchange, man would keep to the cities, and the magical beings would own the forests. This truce would be honored by their sons and the sons of their sons until the end of time but Prince Nu-something did not believe in the promises of man, and it is said that he went into exile, vowing to return the day his people needed him most. So, the golden army lay dormant, locked inside the earth, waiting, and there it is to this day, awaiting the day the crown is made whole again, silent, still, and indestructible.After that mess of run-on sentences, I'm sure you're wondering, like I did, just what the hell is going on. For reference, all monsters in the original Hellboy were explained as either a paranormal anomaly (which apparently exist, by the way, and are held in the supah-sekret Bureau of Paranormal Research & Defense's gigantic, stone-slab headquarters building... shhhh) or brought from Hell. As the young Hellboy says, "come on, those things can't be real." That's just what I was thinking: "there's no way they're really combining Lord of the Rings with Hellboy." Well, they didn't. They combined Lord of the Rings, Men in Black, and Harry Potter with Hellboy. Hell, they even rip off They Live later on.



They're cute only as long as they don't chew on your teeth.

With The Dark Knight being the mega-blockbuster that it is, it shouldn't come as a surprise that everyone and their dog is writing a review for it.
I saw the movie on Saturday and, in light of how popular I knew it was, figured that I wouldn't comment on it, since anything that I had to say would surely have been stated before, and probably writter better, too. Then I remembered the old proverb of writing about a superfluous topic simply because it's of interest.
"It's my blog, and I'll write whatever the hell I want!"
With that tidbit of wisdom in mind, let's talk Batman.
Having grown up in the 90s, I can't say that I was particularly familiar with the comic book scene, nor (thankfully) with the campy classic Batman. That's one bit of 50s/60s culture that isn't my cup of tea, and if someone has a problem with that disregard of culture, have I got a cup for you.
My first introduction to Batman was the animated series, which I think helped to build my fondness of the film noir and 40s styles. Honestly, how could a kid not like a show like this? It's action-packed, full of atmosphere, and just downright cool. Ironically, I never actually saw the Tim Burton film that inspired the style until very recently, but that's okay. As much as I like Tim Burton (he was inspired by Jan Švankmajer, after all), I think I
prefer the villains from the cartoon.
Incidentally, the villains in The Dark Knight are absolutely nothing like the villains in the animated series, the Tim Burton films, or (for the best, I'd say) the Joel Schumacher films. No, while many of those previous projects portrayed the characters as gleefully nuts, none of them hold a candle to the absolute, bone-chilling insanity that is the Joker in The Dark Knight, as played by the (unfortunately recently deceased) Heath Ledger. Now, I don't really keep tabs on celebrity pop culture or which actor is which (I've better things to do, like write in an obscure blog), I and anyone who's watched this film has got to wholeheartedly admit that Heath Ledger pulled the roll off with such convincing genius, it had the old lady standing next to me wringing her hands and gasping annoyingly all through the movie. A truly insane bringer of chaos is something so alien, so unusual, it's nearly impossible to make seem realistic. In fact, I thought it was impossible, until I saw this film.
The movie is anything but a triumphant hero film, and I really, really liked that. Now, I may not have gotten all the philosophical points of it that guys who make furry porn did, but much like when watching WALL-E, I felt that, rather than simply watching a film, I was seeing a glimpse of a real, living world. Unlike when I was watching Batman Begins (which, although a good movie, held no special place in my heart), I felt like I was observing some great work of art, something that was beyond improvement (almost). It's no WALL-E, but then two works of perfection in one year are unlikely.
However you flip it, the Dark Knight is a superbly dark psychological thriller that is about as poppy-filled and happy as an elephant graveyard. If you are prone to deep depression and digging the angst out of your wrist with a strait razor, I would recommend that you go see something more jovial. For everyone else, see this dark masterpiece. It's very unsatisfying.
Its only real fault is stealing the limelight from WALL-E, which I would have liked to see christened as the best film of the year. Looks like The Dark Knight will be taking that trophy, if its gross revenue is any indication.
It was some years ago that I first came across the web series Red vs Blue. This was really my introduction into the world of machinima, and it was as gentle as being clubbed over the head with a lead pipe. This series was, for lack of a better phrase, FUCKIN' FANTASTIC! For those who are not aware, machinima is the practice of acting out a scene through a game and then superimposing sound, effects, etc. to make a film.
Titled the "Blood Gulch Chronicles", the first series of Red vs Blue takes place in a popular Halo map in which the players have two bases in a box canyon. Though the series started as mere comedy, it quickly grew to be an amazing masterpiece of storytelling, and the growing skill of the creators became more and more apparent. Basically, the videos were created by recording what a "camera character" saw while moving other characters around and later superimposing voices. Simple as it may sound, it takes a lot of effort and perseverance to keep a series like that going, and Red vs Blue made 100 full episodes in its first season, not including PSAs and specials.
I've just recently gone back to their website to see if anything is new, and indeed there is! A new season of Red vs Blue, titled Red vs Blue Reconstruction, has been made, and it absolutely blows my mind. Unlike the Blood Gulch Chronicles, this new series takes place in Halo 3, which means that it's only on the console. Yet, the guys at Rooster Teeth have somehow managed nearly cinematic-quality special effects.
Yeah, I'm gushing, but Jesus Christ, if you've not checked this stuff out, DO IT! Hell, buy the DVD Box Set if you have to in order to catch up--it's more than worth it. My only complaint is that Red vs Blue's creators have this prick notion that no one should be able to embed their videos. This is the Goddamn age of YouTube! Why the hell not? If someone embeds your videos, they're giving others a taste of what you've made, which only increases your own popularity! Quit that shit.
In addition, Rooster Teeth also created the machinima series "1-800-MAGIC" (based on Shadowrun), "The Strangerhood" (based on the Sims 2), "PANICS" (based on F.E.A.R.), and the Halo 3 mod, Grifball. They also run a regular webcomic about their team.
Another machinima series that I've really gotten into is Leet World, which is made using Counter Strike: Source. The series itself is presented like some kind of competition reality show between the terrorists and counter-terrorists, complete with hilarity and drama.
In Red vs Blue, nearly all the characters are either in SPARTAN suits or are awkwardly made to lip-sync (save in Reconstruction, where the lip-syncing is spot-on), so it never looks funny when you see someone talking (the characters just nod their heads to denote speech). In Leet World, however, a number of main characters' models weren't made with lip syncing in mind, so some of them with visible mouthes don't actually move them when talking (although the game show host, played by the G-man, is lip-synced quite superbly). It's interesting to compare and contrasts the different styles that Rooster Teeth Productions and Smooth Few Films use. I love it when everyday people don't let their inexperience hold them back from being creative.
With that said, I leave you with this amazing Half-Life 2 machinima music video of Breaking Benjamin's "So Cold" called "I'm Still Seeing Breen" by Paul Marino.
NOTE: This article contains satire and is not to be taken seriously.
I'm sure most everyone remembers how Antz and A Bug's Life came out at about the same time and everyone wondered "who got there first: Pixar, or Dreamworks?" Well, regardless of two got there first, Pixar grossed over twice as much with their production. Then, Dreamworks and Pixar again went neck-to-neck in 2001 with Shrek and Monsters, Inc as the big 3D cartoons that year. Who won? According to revenue, Pixar did. Then, in 2003, Finding Nemo shook the box office, easily dislodging Shark Tale from ever sinking in its roots and nearly tripled the latter's gross sales.
I think at that point, we all saw that it was going to be a Pixar vs Dreamworks race from here on out, and that so far, Pixar has been the clear winner. Hell, Shark Tale was the most pathetic of all of Dreamworks' previous Pixar retorts, and, year after year, Dreamworks has lost (with the exception of Shrek 2), but at least Dreamworks stopped blatantly ripping off Pixar's movie ideas. Or so we thought.
Note, I have enjoyed many of Dreamworks' films (with Madagascar being "okay", Over the Hedge being "not bad", and Kung Fu Panda being "pretty good"), I have to curl my lip at their latest feature. What is it, you may ask? Ugh. Just... just look and see.
Gee, I wonder what brought on the idea of a movie based in space. What brilliant burst of intuition could have inspired this film? Hmm...
Don't get me wrong, Space Chimps may turn out to be a pretty good movie (isn't this Dreamwork's second 3D animated film this year?), but I can guarantee you that, in the end, it won't hold a candle to WALL-E. Why? Well, mostly because WALL-E is so perfect, it transcends filmdom. It is true art, and there is no way that Dreamworks, a creator of above average 3D films at best, can compare. One has to ask, what's the difference between Pixar and Dreamworks? They both create (always for the former, usually for the latter) original 3D films that have a fairly sound concept, but Pixar manages, time and again, to come out ahead. For one thing, Dreamworks always gets PG ratings because they have to have some rude humor. You know, for adults, because nothing says "grown-up and mature" like sexual innuendo and allusions to bodily functions. In spite of this apparent golden rule ideals of Dreamworks', Pixar continues to appeal to all ages without having to resort to either rude humor (well, usually) or tired pop culture references. Well, if Pixar can avoid those things and yet still do better, why doesn't Dreamworks take a hint and try some of the same?
Now, I'm not one to be offended by foul language, crude humor, sexual innuendo, etc., but I think that it's pretty apparent by now that, if you want to catch a large audience, you have to be willing to do things differently. As of right now, "differently" means avoiding story cliches, rude humor, and pop culture references, because most films are a mix-match of two or three of the above (not that there aren't other problems, but these are the ones that separate movies that just fail from ones that almost made it). Just give it a try, Dreamworks. Maybe it will work for you, too. The bottom line is immersion. When you crack a joke that doesn't fit the world (i.e. Shrek), it breaks that immersion. When you create humor without reminding the moviegoer that they are actually watching a film (i.e. WALL-E), that deepens the immersion. Perhaps Dreamworks doesn't care about "creating worlds" the way that Pixar does, and only wants to "create films." If so, they do a decent job, but all I can say is, "too bad."
On the other hand, I must admit that Space Chimps doesn't look half bad, and I will probably go see it. Once, anyway. Now, I've seen WALL-E twice and have every intention of seeing it again in theaters, plus buying the DVD. Of course, Dreamworks has it unfairly hard in this case, because WALL-E hits so many of the things I adore, it is the closest thing to movie perfection in my mind (in spite of a few faults, but no movie is completely devoid of those). I don't anticipate any movie, even by Pixar, to top WALL-E as my favorite. Ever.
Well, I've done a good deal of ranting and rambling over Space Chimps, but let me tell you, that movie looks like gold compared to another preview I saw in the theaters while waiting for the main feature (WALL-E, of course) to begin.
Ohmygod. It's like a rip-off of a rip-off, with 90% of the awesome being lost in each translation. Granted, it was made in Belgium, and is (according to Wikiepdia) the first animated film to be made and released only in true-3D, but Fly Me to the Moon is, hands down, the worst-looking professional 3D film (with the possible exception of the horridly disappointing Tripping the Rift direct-to-DVD movie) I've ever seen. Seriously, I've seen amateurs do far better (see the embedded Plumiferos for another example). I've played games that look better. It's just flabbergastingly horrid.
What's so amazing is that Fly Me to the Moon (the trailer, anyway) isn't only ugly, its music is uninspired, its dialog is shoddy, its unfunny, and, overall, boring. It's the most boring trailer I've ever seen. It's even dumber than Beverly Hills Chihuahua (the trailer of which, by the way, isn't funny or cute--it's absolutely stupid, and I get the feeling that it beats around the bush the way it does to hide the horrid movie that is the full production).
Ouch... It makes me wince. What's worse, this was attached to WALL-E. Seriously, it's like ordering an expensive plate of caviar and getting a dog turd as a side dish.
Honestly, the only trailer I saw that looked like it may be pretty good was for Bolt.
Really, I think that all the animation studios should go to some kind of "Film as Art" seminar by Pixar. Why does it seem like, although most professional art, be it visual, musical, culinary, written, etc. are masterpieces, only a very, very small percentage of films (and games, for that matter) are truly magnificent? I realize that there is much to a movie (or game), as it needs to seamlessly combine multiple types of art, but why do people not try harder to find that perfect combination? Why are so many directors, writers, etc. satisfied with what, to any onlooker, is a work of absolute drivel? If you come up with the idea of making a "hilarious" movie about two lesbian lovers who spontaneously become male while simultaneously showing off how lackluster human creativity can be, don't. Just don't. Is it really that hard?