Bugs

Pixar Week Wednesday: A Bug's Life

(Note that the following article includes plot spoilers. You have been warned.)

A Bug's Life is the sophomore film effort by Pixar. Having had plenty of success with Toy Story, the computer animation studio was more than happy to make another film. Unfortunately, what they came up with was a movie about bugs that wasn't as strong as the first story.

I'm not alone in believing A Bug's Life is the weakest movie in the Pixar library, but I am aware there are those who disagree. I should note that I don't think it's a bad movie, just that their other work is stronger. They would follow up with a sequel to Toy Story that restored faith in the studio for strong and unique storytelling, and go on to other great movies.

So why wasn't it as good? Well, at the time, I'm sure the release conditions had something to do with it. Toy Story was almost universally loved (despite some rather disturbing elements in Sid's house), and was easy to relate to - nearly every kid has toys of some kind that they pretended were alive to some degree, and the adults who took them to the theater had fond memories of the same. The new movie was about the crawling things you try to whack with a shoe. Your pre-existing condition influenced the expectation of the movie. It also suffered from a bit of the Second Movie Syndrome. People will generally forgive the first movie of little quirks if the overall movie is good. That forgiveness disappears for subsequent movies, and in fact, tends to lead to overcritical responses for a second movie.

And in a supreme bout of poor planning, they released the movie in the same year as Antz, a competitor's movie with the same general setting. I personally haven't gotten around to seeing Antz, but it engendered a sort of "didn't we already see this" feeling in moviegoers. And oddly, that's really one of my problems with the movie, too.

I have two main dislikes of the film. One of them is sort of trivial, but you'd be amazed how it affects a movie. I really didn't like Dave Foley's voice as Flik. The funny part is that I was a huge Kid's In The Hall fan, so I really don't have a problem with Foley himself. It's not so much that you can identify the main character from the voice (that's always been an issue with every Pixar movie), but rather, I think his voice is somewhat grating without the context of his physical presence. As a minor character, that's not a big deal. But on the main character who appears in most of the scenes - it can get annoying whenever I notice it.

The biggest problem, though, is that there isn't really anything significantly new brought to the plot of the movie. This is essentially The Seven Samurai or The Dirty Dozen redone in animated insect form. While other Pixar films fit into certain storytelling categories, the story itself is typically unique. Not so much in A Bug's Life - since this style of story has been adapted to other settings, it feels like we've already seen this before and know where it's going. Even though we know Hopper cannot possibly win the day by the end of the movie, there is no point where we are surprised by what happens. If anything, it's almost a disappointment that the villain is defeated by Deus Ex Machina (the appearance of the real bird), not the direct actions of the heroes themselves. In both Toy Story films, the toys rescue themselves, in Monsters, Inc. Sully and Mike defeat Randall and Waternoose, and in The Incredibles, it's the actions of the Parrs and Frozone that defeat the robot and Syndrome. In A Bug's Life, though, we are left wondering what would have happened if the bird hadn't shown up to save the day.

I've spent a lot of time the last two days discussing messages in the Pixar films. It would be remiss of me not to at least cover the ones in A Bug's Life. The most obvious message is a suggestion to be yourself and not be afraid to try something new. It's a good message for kids as they enter the world of peer pressure and conformity. There's nothing wrong with marching to your own drummer, or thinking outside the box when you get to the 'adult world'.

There's another strong message in the film - namely, to stand up for yourself and your family/friends. I've never been the target of a bully (in itself, that's pretty weird - an overweight kid who never got picked on?), but I did have a friend who was constantly picked on in elementary school. At one point, I had had about enough of it, and exploded in rage on the playground at the bully. I didn't lay a hand on him, but I don't think he (or anyone else in the radius of the school, to be honest) was confused as to my meaning. He left my friend alone from that point on. I think it's an important message for kids - we constantly tell our kids to stand up for themselves. But we generally tell our kids to not get involved in the squabbles of others. There is a certain train of thought that suggests this is a good directive, but I think we end up fostering a sort of isolationism and selfish behavior. Now, that isn't to say we want our kids to be vigilantes - but we do want them to value their friends and to speak up when something isn't right.

(Humorous aside - the bully I screamed at later talked to me and pretty much told me that if I ever needed something taken care of, to just let him know. I never did take him up on the offer, but it was a nice trump card to have up my sleeve.)

So, while A Bug's Life isn't really a bad movie, it's more that Pixar has made better movies before and since. Interestingly, the previews before Cars has a short advertisement for their next film, Ratatouille. I have some reservations on this one, but I'll give it a chance. Cars exceeded my expectations. I wonder, though, if Pixar movies about animals just don't work as well?

If it wasn't already obvious, I rate A Bug's Life as my least favorite Pixar film.

---

Link of the moment: Wanna kill some bug-like aliens in a side scrolling action game? Then maybe you should click here.

Nemo

Pixar Week Tuesday: Finding Nemo

(Note that the following article includes plot spoilers. You have been warned.)

Finding Nemo is a beautiful film, any way you look at it. If you'd like to just settle down and zone out to all the pretty colors, you'll get that. If you'd like to watch a moving story about a man and his missing son, and their ultimate reunion, you'll get that. And if you want to indulge in a little introspective as either a child or a parent, you'll... well, you get the idea.

Nemo is in the tradition of Great Quest stories that have been told since the dawn of time. Interestingly, it's also the only Pixar film so far to follow the odd Disney tradition of killing off at least one parent of a major character either before or during the film. (Did Walt have some kind of grudge, or what?) Additionally, it's also one of only a few children's films that has a main child character who has an actual physical disability - and the main point of the story isn't about them trying to fit in with the 'regular folks'.

In fact, this is probably the best film I have ever seen featuring a physically challenged character that doesn't coddle anyone on either side of the equation. Even the one character who does have an issue - his father, Marlin - is not so much concerned about Nemo's disability, but more concerned that the ocean is a mean and nasty place for any fish. I would posit that Marlin's personality would have found some other reason to keep Nemo close to home, and the 'lucky fin' is simply an excuse.

With Finding Nemo, Pixar nearly overloaded the movie with meaning. And yet, none of it feels shoved down your throat. There is a narrative similarity to Toy Story 2 in the plot - namely, someone is stolen away by someone who doesn't realize they are actually participating in a kidnapping. The difference between them is that while Buzz knows where to find Woody (the conflict is not how to rescue him but rather whether he wants to be rescued at all), Marlin must discover the location of Nemo before planning any sort of rescue. Marlin's conflict is the hopelessness of the situation. Obviously, since this is technically a movie for children, we know it's all going to work out in the end - Marlin will somehow reunite with Nemo. The journey itself is the story, and that is the strength of the narrative.

Now, while Marlin's journey is the bulk of the story, the titular Nemo has his own journey to travel. Not only must he somehow overcome the loss of his father and home, but he needs to overcome his own feelings of inadequacy brought on by the way his well-meaning father has protected him. Obviously, Gil's plan to escape is an attractive one, but what Nemo needed to do was to show he could do a job only he was suited to do. It's tempting to tie it back to his fin, but Gil clearly demonstrates that it's irrelevant - you can do anything you think you can do. By the time Nemo finds a way to escape, he has found the confidence he has been searching for, which serves him well in the next hurdle.

Back to Marlin. I found it rather easy to relate to Marlin as a father. Many of the lessons that get passed along through this movie are through Marlin's experiences with the various sea life he encounters, especially Dory. Dory is an interesting foil - while mostly there as comic relief to offset the surly and depressed Marlin, she has some insights into life that are all the more keen thanks to the source.

So what lessons do we have here? Perhaps the most blatant and important one is to let go and trust other people. Dory clearly states the lesson while in the mouth of the whale, but it is communicated throughout the movie. Marlin is constantly trying to part ways with Dory because he doesn't realize the help she is providing, but he finally learns that he can't make this journey alone. It is not coincidence that as soon as he "gets" the message, his physical journey to Australia has nearly completed.

We also clearly have a message of perseverance - again, clearly stated by Dory in her impromptu song, "Just Keep Swimming". Throughout the story, it is clear that giving up is not an option. Even if it looks hard or impossible, you can muscle through - whether it's a sea of jellyfish or escaping the tank.

Beyond that, there are lessons of peer pressure ("I'm gonna touch the butt!"), racism (the sharks), teaching your children to survive the real world, and the responsibilities of leadership (Gil and stop-the-filter plan).

But all in all, this is a fun movie. I've seen it a number of times, and each time there is something new I take away from it. Sometimes it's a lesson, sometimes it's a laugh. And sometimes, I just like watching the pretty fishies.

I rate Finding Nemo as my second favorite Pixar film.

---

As an aside, I forgot to mention the weight loss progress yesterday. I dropped another pound and a half, bringing the total to 11.5 pounds lost. We're planning on changing the weigh-in day to Friday, and I think that will work better. Under the Weight Watchers plan, you get a fixed set of points you can use at your discretion each week. They don't roll over, so as you get to the end of the week, you sort of feel entitled to the extra points and burn them on the day before weigh-in. This is a little tougher to avoid when the last day is a weekend - the opportunity for some guiltless spending is higher. By switching it to Friday, we can still have a nice meal or a special event (like movie popcorn) by using the bonus points, but we aren't bulking up for the weigh-in.

---

Link of the moment: Take your own journey through the skies with the Fly Guy.

Nemo

Pixar Week Tuesday: Finding Nemo

(Note that the following article includes plot spoilers. You have been warned.)

Finding Nemo is a beautiful film, any way you look at it. If you'd like to just settle down and zone out to all the pretty colors, you'll get that. If you'd like to watch a moving story about a man and his missing son, and their ultimate reunion, you'll get that. And if you want to indulge in a little introspective as either a child or a parent, you'll... well, you get the idea.

Nemo is in the tradition of Great Quest stories that have been told since the dawn of time. Interestingly, it's also the only Pixar film so far to follow the odd Disney tradition of killing off at least one parent of a major character either before or during the film. (Did Walt have some kind of grudge, or what?) Additionally, it's also one of only a few children's films that has a main child character who has an actual physical disability - and the main point of the story isn't about them trying to fit in with the 'regular folks'.

In fact, this is probably the best film I have ever seen featuring a physically challenged character that doesn't coddle anyone on either side of the equation. Even the one character who does have an issue - his father, Marlin - is not so much concerned about Nemo's disability, but more concerned that the ocean is a mean and nasty place for any fish. I would posit that Marlin's personality would have found some other reason to keep Nemo close to home, and the 'lucky fin' is simply an excuse.

With Finding Nemo, Pixar nearly overloaded the movie with meaning. And yet, none of it feels shoved down your throat. There is a narrative similarity to Toy Story 2 in the plot - namely, someone is stolen away by someone who doesn't realize they are actually participating in a kidnapping. The difference between them is that while Buzz knows where to find Woody (the conflict is not how to rescue him but rather whether he wants to be rescued at all), Marlin must discover the location of Nemo before planning any sort of rescue. Marlin's conflict is the hopelessness of the situation. Obviously, since this is technically a movie for children, we know it's all going to work out in the end - Marlin will somehow reunite with Nemo. The journey itself is the story, and that is the strength of the narrative.

Now, while Marlin's journey is the bulk of the story, the titular Nemo has his own journey to travel. Not only must he somehow overcome the loss of his father and home, but he needs to overcome his own feelings of inadequacy brought on by the way his well-meaning father has protected him. Obviously, Gil's plan to escape is an attractive one, but what Nemo needed to do was to show he could do a job only he was suited to do. It's tempting to tie it back to his fin, but Gil clearly demonstrates that it's irrelevant - you can do anything you think you can do. By the time Nemo finds a way to escape, he has found the confidence he has been searching for, which serves him well in the next hurdle.

Back to Marlin. I found it rather easy to relate to Marlin as a father. Many of the lessons that get passed along through this movie are through Marlin's experiences with the various sea life he encounters, especially Dory. Dory is an interesting foil - while mostly there as comic relief to offset the surly and depressed Marlin, she has some insights into life that are all the more keen thanks to the source.

So what lessons do we have here? Perhaps the most blatant and important one is to let go and trust other people. Dory clearly states the lesson while in the mouth of the whale, but it is communicated throughout the movie. Marlin is constantly trying to part ways with Dory because he doesn't realize the help she is providing, but he finally learns that he can't make this journey alone. It is not coincidence that as soon as he "gets" the message, his physical journey to Australia has nearly completed.

We also clearly have a message of perseverance - again, clearly stated by Dory in her impromptu song, "Just Keep Swimming". Throughout the story, it is clear that giving up is not an option. Even if it looks hard or impossible, you can muscle through - whether it's a sea of jellyfish or escaping the tank.

Beyond that, there are lessons of peer pressure ("I'm gonna touch the butt!"), racism (the sharks), teaching your children to survive the real world, and the responsibilities of leadership (Gil and stop-the-filter plan).

But all in all, this is a fun movie. I've seen it a number of times, and each time there is something new I take away from it. Sometimes it's a lesson, sometimes it's a laugh. And sometimes, I just like watching the pretty fishies.

I rate Finding Nemo as my second favorite Pixar film.

---

As an aside, I forgot to mention the weight loss progress yesterday. I dropped another pound and a half, bringing the total to 11.5 pounds lost. We're planning on changing the weigh-in day to Friday, and I think that will work better. Under the Weight Watchers plan, you get a fixed set of points you can use at your discretion each week. They don't roll over, so as you get to the end of the week, you sort of feel entitled to the extra points and burn them on the day before weigh-in. This is a little tougher to avoid when the last day is a weekend - the opportunity for some guiltless spending is higher. By switching it to Friday, we can still have a nice meal or a special event (like movie popcorn) by using the bonus points, but we aren't bulking up for the weigh-in.

---

Link of the moment: Take your own journey through the skies with the Fly Guy.

Monsters

Pixar Week Monday: Monsters, Inc.

(Note that the following article includes plot spoilers. You have been warned.)

Kind of an odd movie to start with, eh? Monsters, Inc. is one of the middle releases for the Pixar group, and in general tends to not be as prevalent as some of the bigger titles like Toy Story. However, I consider this movie to be part of the cream in Pixar's milk, and an excellent example of their storytelling craft.

Oddly enough, Monsters is the only true feature-length buddy movie Pixar has made. Toy Story and its sequel don't really count - in the first film, it's more about opposites finding common ground, and in the second, the buddies are rarely in the same scenes. Nemo is more of the Great Quest. But in Mike and Sully, you have two buddies who are friends at the beginning and the end of the movie. Sure, there is some conflict in the middle (a staple of the buddy genre), but ultimately, they stand together.

The surface story of the film - finding Boo in the monster world and the ramifications of that discovery - is interesting on its own. There is a very clear villain, a big twist in the midstory with Mr. Waternoose, and a secondary twist with Roz and the CDA in the dénouement. The characters are well defined and deep. Despite being just relegated to the comic relief, Mike has a fierce loyal streak, a deep love for Celia, and an amazing lack of jealousy - he's really the backbone of the relationship with Sully. Sully, while being the muscle and the star scarer of the factory, also has a huge heart and deep sense of what's right. Even the secondary characters are textured - Randall isn't just a bully, he's actually found a way to solve the energy crisis (the methods are questionable, but not so unthinkable from their point of few); Mr. Waternoose isn't necessarily a bad guy, he's just a stubborn and prideful leader in a loosing position who took one wrong step and can't see how to turn it around.

What I find fascinating, though, is the story beneath the surface. Namely, the whole concept of using scream as a power source. There are plenty of evidence to suggest that the monsters have always been able to visit the human world - check your local library under 'folklore'. The question is, though, how did they determine screams generate power? Is there some other less efficient power source native to the monster world, or have they completely exhausted whatever native resources were available? It seems unlikely that a monster scientist discovered the energy characteristics of scream independent of an industrial society, but I suppose it's possible that whatever method was used to travel between the worlds allowed a human through and happenstance caused the discovery.

So we then turn energy management heads towards creating an industry in harvesting scream from the human world using controlled entry points and scheduled screams. For an outside observer, it seems rather exploitative. But for a world in an energy crisis, this was probably an attractive option.

Which begs the question - why hasn't Randall's invention been invented before this (assuming scream isn't a recent discovery - the implications are that it has been going on long enough to have comments like "kids aren't afraid like they used to be" from a veteran scarer)? And secondary to that, why is there an entire framework built around the erroneous concept that humans are too dangerous to even touch? Why the conspiracy?

Scream is technically a renewable resource with diminishing returns - why not abduct children and use them up before sending them back to breed?

There's a couple of theories I can envision:

Theory 1: War. Not necessarily a full blown war between the worlds (that tends to show up in history books), but rather a violent confrontation in the past. If this theory is true, either the monsters got too greedy, didn't spread the scaring around, or chose the wrong child at the wrong time. Something happened where the humans fought back and refused to allow the monsters to scare their children - likely through violence. At some point, the gains are outweighed by the costs, and abduction is deemed to be not worth the effort. So there is a sort of dark period where scream collection is limited and eventually codified and regulated. At some point, all that remains is the societal norm and a 'truth' that humans are dangerous.

Theory 2: Activism. Instead of human resistance, there is instead a 'humanitarian' movement in the early days of scream collection. This seems most likely for a kid's movie, since it doesn't involve a lot of violence. Essentially, the monsters in charge decide that while they need the power, they cannot condone the exploitation of human children. It might be driven by a sense of honor, or they simply couldn't stomach it. Knowing that not everyone will necessarily feel the way they do, they concoct a story about the deadly nature of the human race and erect the precursor to the CDA - contain and cover up any contact. And hoo-boy, you sure were lucky you didn't die when that kid touched you - sorry about the shaving.

Theory 3: Capitalism. This is a strictly economic theory. Scream power is a resource. Selling scream power is an industry. Providing that power drives profits (note that Waternoose references a board of directors - energy is big business even in the monster world). But you don't want just any old monster hopping into the human world to collect some home-grown scream. So you cultivate an image of danger, and create a buy-in barrier by implementing regulations and laws. You monopolize the creation or discovery of transit doors. So the common group-think lines right up, and nobody has any interest in dealing with humans as long as there is a company doing all of the hard work for you.

There's even further twists to the puzzle as we consider the banishment angle. Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman are well-known expatriates - we never meet Bigfoot (though we are led to believe he is of questionable sanity), but Abominable seems pretty amicable. In fact, Abominable isn't really his name, according to his comments to Mike and Sully - it's a label given by others. So why were they banished to such a "dangerous" locale? It doesn't appear to be a common punishment - Waternoose is incarcerated, not banished, as far as we know. (Randall was banished by Mike and Sully, not by way of civil punishment.) The most likely answer is that the banished monsters probably found out about something they shouldn't - namely, that humans aren't particularly dangerous without cause. And if you don't want someone to talk and you can't just kill them, you put them somewhere where nobody can hear them. Which suggests the conspiracy was active to some degree, whether the conspirators know the origins of the conspiracy or not.

With the advent of laugh energy, it would seem the conspiracy serves no purpose in the future of the monster world. There will still be a social stigma, but eventually that will fade. With a government agency (the CDA) that has nothing to protect against, one would hope that instead turns into a CPA - protecting the resource from the populace instead of protecting the populace from the resource.

Is this a lesson on managing limited resources and seeking less exploitive sources of energy? Probably. Nearly every Pixar movie has at least one secondary message in the plot. It's a positive message too - instead of lambasting the existing structure, it instead shows that we can find new resources that do not harm and still turn a profit.

All in all, it's a great film. If you haven't seen it, do so (though I fear that I have likely ruined some of the surprises). If you have seen it, watch it again when you get the chance.

I rate Monsters, Inc. as my third favorite Pixar film.

---

Link of the moment: Sing along with some other monsters!

Pixar

Today we took the kids to go see Cars. My biggest concern was that this was going to be the Pixar movie where they finally misstep and actually make a subpar movie. Without going into too much detail, there isn't anything to worry about. Now, while the story was pretty predicatable (there is one twist that I didn't quite expect, but nowhere on the scale of say, the twist in Monsters, Inc.). There isn't nearly the amount of NASCAR as I expected, either.

The animation was crisp and detailed, much like the characters themselves. The message is your typical fare of 'family/friends is more important than fame/fortune', but that's not a bad message to repeat. There's also a secondary message encouraging a return to the family vacation of crossing the country on the pre-interstate highway system. If you stay for the credits - and if you don't stay for the credits of a Pixar movie, you're dead to me - you'll see a significant list of source material from the real Route 66.

Is it the best movie ever, or even the best Pixar movie? Not in my opinion - The Incredibles still holds that position. However, it certainly isn't the worst, either. Definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

So, in celebration of the new movie, this special Sunday edition of the blog is kicking off Pixar week. Each day, I'm going to look at a different Pixar movie and jot down a few ideas that pop into my head for each title.

---

Link of the moment: Do you ever wonder how some cartoons could ever be considered children's entertainment? Maybe what you've seen was censored before being released - it could have been worse!

Eloquence

I've been making a conscious effort to blog every weekday for the past two weeks. So far, it hasn't been all that difficult to come up with things to talk about. I just imagine it's not all that interesting to read.

One of the secondary goals of this renewed effort is to force myself to write more. My job tends to deal more in numbers and technical descriptions. I haven't really written anything 'normal' in quite a while - probably not since the days of text-based online RPGs. What most writers will tell you when you ask for advice on improving your writing skills is to just keep writing. So here I am.

I'm not looking to publish anything, nor do I expect this blog to suddenly gain a rabid following hanging on my every turn of phrase and clever wit. (Although, I've never had a rabid following. Maybe I need to get one.) I'm just generally dissatisfied with my writing skills. I read other blogs of people whose tongues contain more than the trace elements of silver that mine does, and while I am not jealous, I feel stirrings of inadequacy. So I'll write and I'll write, and perhaps improve my style.

Vocabulary is not an issue, really. I'm a bit of a voracious reader. Compulsive, even - I have trouble not reading words when I see them. There's one bit of folklore that says vampires have a sort of OCD - if you are being chased by one, toss a large number of something in their path and they will stop to count it before continuing the pursuit.* I'm kind of that way with words. Toss a full-page treatise in my way, and you'll probably escape easily.

Oh, and this isn't a blog to garner sympathy or encouragement - it's appreciated but not necessary. It's just what I wanted to write about today.

---

* Neither this site nor its representatives are responsible if you are eaten by the undead due to the failure of this theory.

---

Link of the moment: Enough about me, what about you? Specifically, go see what your IP Address says about you, and how interesting it is compared to other addresses.

Invincible

Recently, my county decided to revamp every library to make it more open-air and less bookstackish. Yes, I just made that word up. If you're familiar with the old configuration, the first thing you think when you walk into a redesigned library is "what the heck happened to all the books?" As far as I can tell, though, they haven't really reduced inventory beyond a typical spring cleaning of unrepairable or unborrowed titles. Honestly, I'm rather happy with the whole redesign. There is a sort of entrance island that highlights new releases and acquisitions, and rotates theme titles. The children's area has been completely redone to include some kind of wacky floor recliners instead of stoic tables and chairs - an encouragement to sit and read for a while. They've also expanded their computer section, letting more people have the opportunity to freely use broadband-connected PCs that perhaps might not have that opportunity otherwise.

All this, and they don't charge late fees, either. Good to know my tax dollars are going towards something worthwhile!

Last time I stopped by, I swung by the teen section of the library. (It's where they keep the graphic novels, you perv.) They had recently restocked with some new titles, and I picked up three. Star Wars Tales was decent, but not all that overwhelming. The Peter David story was fairly amusing. Flash: Crossfire was sorta 'eh'. Since I'm not exactly a Flash aficionado, there wasn't much meat for me here. It pretty much expected you to already be well-knowledgeable of Wally West, because there was very little going on with the Flash - most of the panel time focused on the supporting characters and villains.

The gem of the lot, though, was the first volume of Invincible. I have no idea if they still put out issues (I'm too lazy to look right now), but I know there were other volumes on the shelf. This is modern superhero done right. It's a light read, in general, but not necessarily a speed read. I'm looking forward to picking up the next volume when I go back.

It sums up the first couple of issues of the series, detailing the acquisition of the titular character's powers, his family life, an already existing teen team of super heroes, an extra-dimensional invasion, and kids getting blown to smithereens in the middle of malls. Good times!

---

Link of the moment: Don't have Edna Mode on your payroll? Then head over to the Hero Machine to create your costume!

Loyalty

I theoretically subscribe to the epitome of video game journalism, Electronics Gaming Monthly (EGM). I don't actually pay for the subscription (there are enough free subscription sites out there, I rarely pay for any of the magazines I get), so I don't really have any sort of investment in the content. However, while I was reading the most recent issue with Link and the pre-Wii Revolution on the cover, I could help but notice a bias in the coverage. Obviously, they would deny it vehemently - it's a common response for gaming news sources to label themselves as universal and objective observers. I can understand the pro-Playstation bias - whether you like the system/company or not, there is no denying that there is an audience of readers who would like to have their single console choice vindicated. That audience outnumbers the ranks of those committed to the other platforms, so it makes editorial sense to prefer that platform.

(Although, I continue to be confused by the constant digs at the cost of Xbox Live. Do these people not have other bills like cable, cell phones, or broadband? $50 a year isn't such a bad deal to pay for a unified online infrastructure. Just because Sony and Nintendo don't plan to charge doesn't mean you won't get dinged some other way, nor does it say anything about how robust it will be. The Microsoft camp has problems to deal with, but the cost of Live isn't one of them.)

What always amazes me, though, is the outright devotion to whatever Nintendo does. It isn't even unique to the news sources - pick a typical gaming community and you will find slaves to the Nintendo brand name. I'm not knocking the Nintendo fans out there - everyone has different tastes, and your palate prefers their brand of delicacies. The amazing part is the almost rabid brand loyalty people will show to a Nintendo product, simply based on the name or the franchise.

Take a step back for a moment. Let's say Sega decided to get back into the hardware market, and they are the ones who came up with the whole idea for the Wii. Remote, nunchaku, backwards compatibility at a per-title premium, and even the silly name. They'd get laughed all the way out of E3. But because the Nintendo brand is attached to the project, and it's the only hardware that plays Mario, Zelda and Pokémon, it's heralded as amazing and innovative.

Why? Sure, Nintendo was pretty much synonymous with video game in the 80s, has done some really great things in the handheld market, and has juggernaut first-party franchises. But like any other mortal company, they have made some equally amazing blunders - Virtual Boy, the snubbing of Sony that lead to the Playstation, and almost the entire implementation of the Gamecube (except for a few stand-out exclusive games and the price, it's a bust as a console compared to the other two options). Heck, they even misstep with their franchises - everyone can name a Zelda game they didn't like, and the Gamecube never really got a good Mario platform game (I'm sure someone liked Sunshine, but I don't know who they are).

I was reading the articles on Zelda and the Wiimote, and bemusement befell me. So, um, Link can travel to another world and do things there. Didn't we already cover this in Metroid and a number of other games? Why is this amazing? I'm sure it will be done well, but getting to play part of the game in a washed-out mirror world as a different type of character isn't exactly heaven-sent innovation. How long has this game been delayed? Why isn't anyone crying for bloody decapitation like every other company that delays a game release?

And seriously, the guy showing off how you could use the Wiimote nunchaku like a bow and arrow just looked uncomfortable. Having actually earned the Archery merit badge, what that guy was doing was only slightly similar to using an actual bow. Not to mention, the cord looks too short for derring-do. The speaker-in-the-controller bit is a neat way to emulate three-dimensional sounds, but most of the people showing what you can do with this thing just look kind of silly to me. Then again, people like spazzing out in front of the Eye Toy, so what do I know?

Does Nintendo stay afloat as a company simply based on the fanaticism of their loyal fan base? I doubt there would be a way to accurately report the data, but I think you could easily measure this by comparing the user bases between iterations of their handheld devices. The DS Lite launches this month. How many of the people purchasing a Lite in the first thirty days already own a perfectly functional first-generation DS? I would hazard to guess that the percentage is not trivial.

I'm not anti-Nintendo. Heck, we have a Super Nintendo, a Nintendo 64 and a Gamecube in the house, with a decent library for each. I'd probably buy a DS this month if I had a reason to own one (I don't use public transportation, and my gaming time is usually at home, the place where I can play full-blown console games on an HDTV).

The mystery to me is the Nintendo mindshare - a sales and marketing wet dream made real. I just don't understand how they manage to keep an image of infallibility.

---

Link of the moment: In celebration of devotion, why not vote for your favorite deity? (Not for those intolerant of good-natured deity ribbing.)

Found

A while back, I managed to lose my iPod. Since I mostly use it to listen to podcasts, and I didn't actually pay any money to acquire it, I wasn't exactly tearing up the house to find it. (It did, however, get me to do a deep cleaning of my car.) I knew it had to be in the house somewhere - the day I lost it was a day I had off from work to watch my youngest son while my father was in Virginia. Barring falling out of the car somewhere, I figured it would eventually show up in the house. At the very least, when we eventually move I'd have a "how did it get there" moment to cherish.

Well, apparently the little lady is concerned that I need some kind of gift for Father's Day, and she keeps looking at prices for a Nano. Which probably meant she was looking to replace my iPod for a hefty chunk of change. (I know it wasn't for her - she has a full-blown iPod Video. Our major Christmas gifts to each other was to allow usage of the Best Buy credit card to buy ourselves something we wanted. She got the Video, I got an LCD HDTV.) So, I felt inspired to look again around the house.

I found it. Annoyingly, it was somewhere I knew I had looked - in the cushions of my gaming couch. I have no idea why I didn't find it the last time I looked there. Barring the origin of an iPod AI attempting to win its freedom, I suspect it was somewhere else during my initial search. Some other force (such as my children or the machinations of gravity) caused it to get into the couch, where I found it.

I think I'm now qualified to be a bounty hunter, assuming there isn't a written portion of the licensing process.

(And yes, I realize that turning down a technology upgrade is worth at least two demerits on my permanent tech record.)

Oh, and I finished King Kong last night. Once you get to New York, the game pretty much plays itself. Got kind of boring, but it went fast. Cheap 1000 points for your gamerscore if that matters to you. Definitely don't buy it, though, stick to renting.

---

Link of the moment: Did you lose something - like, say, the map to where you buried Aunt Martha? Perhaps the Find A Grave website can help. If you don't have anyone in mind to look for, I've linked to a Real American Hero to get you started.

Ten

Well, according to the bathroom scale, after two weeks I have lost ten pounds. I'm good with that, especially since I haven't really been doing much in the way of extra activity. As long as the number decreases, this will be worth it.

Oddly, it isn't anything specific that I crave. Mostly, it affects eating at restaurants. It's amazing how many chain restaurants don't provide nutritional information through their websites or menus. For some reason they think the "everything is made to order, so we can't give you accurate information" isn't obviously a way of saying "we can't be bothered". I tend to want a restaurant more than a particular food - I could really go for a trip to CiCi's, but there is no way I'm going there just to eat three slices of pizza.

In other news: King Kong the movie was okay. I think I had trouble suspending my disbelief, so I didn't enjoy it as much as I probably would have. It wasn't the giant animal thing that got me, though. I mean, Ann's back should have been broken into about a billion pieces based on how Kong carried her. And it seriously suffered from Saving Private Ryan syndrome - how many people had to die to rescue one moderately attractive unsuccessful actress?

I had the King Kong game out on Gamefly, so anyone who bothers to look at my gamercard can see I've been playing it lately. I'll probably finish it tonight or tomorrow. It's... well, not a bad game, per se. It's just not a good game. I'd definitely prefer to spend more time as Kong and less time as Jack. It's funny, though, how the game is programmed. Everyone thinks you're the hero of the story, even the people who probably know more about combat than a screenwriter. Including Hayes, the man who apparently has supernatural vision - somehow he can see that there is a fire about a mile down the canyon through a herd of migrating brontosauri. But hey, don't have the guy who actually saw the fire go get it (you know, to burn yet another bush), send out the guy whose weapon of choice is a typewriter.

Maybe it's a conspiracy. I'm the Skull Island Mikey - give the quest to Jack, he'll do anything! And if he gets munched by a dinosaur, well, then I guess we'll know which way not to go.

In any case, I want to finish it up so I can send it back and get something else. (Especially since I can't seem to locate the other game I have out.)

---

Link of the moment: Speaking of the natives in King Kong (okay, we weren't, but does it really matter?), have fun tossing a spear.

Royalty

Not much to say today. I'm supposed to be on vacation, but I'm working from home while watching King Kong on DVD. I'm only about thirty minutes in. Not too bad, considering.

I think I'm going to go Target-hopping and see what I can find on the clearance racks. Some of the Voyager class Transformers are on clearance for 50% or more. Might even stop by Walmart to pick up some discount McFarlane dragons.

Like I need more toys.




Link of the Moment: Speaking of strange things on an island, head on over to Hawaii and learn how to cook with lava.

Complexity

Today is the busiest day of a normal month for me. It's full of month-end reporting and other assorted glee. Today should be even more exciting than ever before, because now I have to integrate another source of data in an incompatible format. Whee!

Previously, I was working with three sources of data, two of which were different instances of the same product. However, in the infinite wisdom of contract logic, one of those sites was moved to the corporate offices and placed on a different product altogether.

It gets interesting from there. Normally, I don't mind learning something new. Heck, the promise of learning tends to keep me occupied when I would have otherwise moved on. Typically, I mine data through direct connections to the databases in question, then use my own custom tools to blend that data together into something meaningful. If you aren't an IT sort of person, you may not realize that this opens the door to automation - the holy grail of periodic reporting.

Now, for this third data set, I have to run manual stock reports out of that system, then figure out a way to import it into something meaningful. And yes, as my narrative suggests, this removes all ability to automate this process. It becomes a manual and cumbersome procedure.

But it gets better - due to network protocols at my site, no VPN connections may traverse the firewall in an outbound vector originating from a network computer. Since the new site is now off the customer network, I can't even connect to the reporting tool! The only way to do it is by using an external internet solution to harvest the data, then switch network cables to import that data.

And the coup de grace - apparently the DSL connection that has been routed into my office is tenuous at best. Periodically, the router has to be reset to restore connection. The best part of this situation? It is located in a network room that nobody seems to have access to! Brilliant!

So sometime today, I have to go home and run some reports on my personal internet connection just so I can get this nonsense done with.

It's a good thing we're an IT company and know what we're doing.

---

Link of the Moment: Since I shared my drudgery, how about some imagination? Head on over to GE's Imagination At Work and draw some pictures by yourself or with some friends.