Settle in for this one because there is a lot to talk about here. The new Superman movie, Superman Returns, is certainly getting a lot of hype and is the first whole-hearted attempt at a Superman film since 1980. As a life long fan of the original Superman films (at least the first two), this new movie does a lot of things right and lot of things wrong – and some inbetween. Proceed with caution, however, as there are movie spoilers. Sorry…spoilers are required to discuss the concerns within the Superman film universe.

I did have some reservations about Superman Returns. Messing with a film that is engrained in all of us is like holding a candle in a fireworks factory; one bad move and it all goes up in smoke, and fast.

The movie starts off the best way possible, with classic Superman credits. I was smiling ear-to-ear as the open credit style matches the original film style really well. It instantly puts the first two films in your head – which is good, because you’ll be having to do a lot of film remembering throughout the two hours.

Thanks to an opening preface, we learn Superman left Earth to find remains of Krypton, this being shortly after he stopped General Zod and his goons (the end of Superman II). This little trip took Supe five years before he comes back to Earth. Conveniently, Lex Luthor is out of jail and just “inherited” millions of dollars, putting him back in a position to wreak havoc on humanity once again.

Out of all the characters, Kevin Spacey seems to do best as Lex Luthor. He does very well at keeping up with the character laid down by Gene Hackman 20 years prior. There are differences, obviously, but the twisted humor of Luthor comes through as good as ever, even with a new sidekick – apparently Otis didn’t manage to get out of jail.

Much to my delight, many of the scenes in the Superman Returns commercials and trailers, that show a flashback to young Clark, all happens within the first 20 minutes of the film. I was extremely worried the movie was going to be flashbacks to stuff we’ve already seen and really don’t care about. I wanted Superman to go further, not just rehash the same old stuff. They rehash characters, which is good, but they come up with some good new plotlines mixed in with some old safties, like rescuing cats from a tree.

I feel sorry for Brandon Routh, the new Superman, because he can’t win regardless how good he does. Christopher Reeve is so much Superman that we have a hard time separating the two. Frankly, this isn’t fair, so I ask you to give this newbie a chance – he does a good a job as any. I do give the studio credit for picking an unknown, because any established celebrity would just be dressing up for Halloween in a Superman costume. You can’t turn an actor into Superman, you have to find an actor that looks like Superman.

However, I feel cheated when it comese to Lois Lane. Kate Bosworths portrayal is not very good at all. As important as Lois Lane is to Superman (and Clark Kent), she doesn’t doesn’t pull it off well. She comes off very one-dimensional and not very pleasing to listen to or watch.

All the acting accounted for (for the most part), lets talk story.

The first big confusion you will have when watching the film is time period. Since the last Superman movie was in 1980 and its now 2006, how can Superman only be gone for five years? Wasn’t he gone for 25? Apparently, the movie assumes that Superman II took place five years ago, so Zod and Company was in 2001. This then also accounts for why Lois Lane hasn’t aged – actually, she’s gotten younger. This also accounts for why Lois Lane’s son is only six years old.

Lois has hooked up with Perry White’s nephew, Richard. The son, Jason, is their child…or is it? We find out that it is, in fact, Superman’s child. This starts bringing up questions of timeline and questions of events.

First…when did Supe and Lane get it on? Well, that happened in Superman II when Supe took Lois back the Fortress and “relaxed” in his shiny silver pillow bed. Shortly after this, Supe beat the bad guys and then returned to work as Clark the next day. If you recall, Lois had found out that Clark and Superman were the same person after Niagra Falls. But at the end, Clark gives Lois the Magical Kiss that instantly erases her memory of the Clark-Superman connection. But what else does it erase?

Superman II doesn’t answer that question directly, but with connections to this movie, we have to assume the Magical Kiss only erased her knowledge of the Clark-Supe connection, not of her night of passion with Superman.

And since Lois thinks the child is Richard’s (to start), this also means that she met Richard and slept with him very shortly after Superman left Earth. This way the timing was close enough that Lois would assume it is Richard’s and not Superman’s.

Frankly, it is all very convenient, but even then, the storyline is great. I mean, c’mon, Superboy!! I’m willig to excuse a questionable timeline of events to allow for a great addition to Superman lore – cinematically speaking only, however.

This new development still up for some debate, everything else that makes Superman Returns great is just the fact that it’s Superman. We’ve missed Superman. We missed the ridiculous disasters and impossible scenarios of which only The Man of Steel can overcome. We love it. We want it. We need it. And this new film fills that void nicely.

The always-popular montage of Superman good-deeds gets mixed in nicely with a great evil idea from Lex Luthor. Lex, recalling from his last visit to the Fortress of Solitude, that the crystals are key to Superman’s house and his knowledge. So Lex goes back and robs Superman’s home of the crystals.

…however, I remind you that at the end of Superman II the police actually show up at Superman’s front door to take away Lex Luthor. So the cops know Superman’s address too…

Luthor finds that if he throws the crystal into water it grows to form a Fortress of Solitude-like structure. So his idea…take all the crystals and toss them into the Atlantic to grow a new, Luthor-controlled continent. Good idea! But, always thinking ahead, he finds a way to stop Superman from ever setting foot onto his new land mass.

As you might expect, everything turns out happy at the end. And the last scene of the movie goes back to the basics and shows Superman rounding planet Earth with a quick look and smile at the camera (the audience) before he flies away. Just perfect. The film makers knew exactly when to copy the old Superman and when not to. When originals are copied too often within a film, you get bored. Not enough and you feel alienated. This time it was a perfect mix. If you know your Superman films you’ll be smiling at the references throughout the film. If you don’t, that’s OK because you’re not left out in the cold.

The film looks good too, in terms of special effects and digitalization. The leap between 1980 and 2006 in Hollywood is immense. We’ve gone from strings and props to blue screens and fake actors. Superman Returns, for the most part, does well at keeping the digitalness looking and acting real. But they don’t go over the top, which keeps Superman Returns still inline with the first two films.

Superman Returns does not kill the Superman franchise, say in the way the Batman franchise was killed (until just recently). I really, really liked Superman Returns, which is saying a lot because I can play the first Superman films in my head from start to finish without missing many verses.

Superman Returns does not replace the first two films. It skillfully adds to the story in a way that respects what has been done in the past without ruining the future.

The film looks good, sounds good, acts good (mostly), and with exception to a few forgivable continuity errors and timeline hiccups, it fires on all cylinders.

I was as ready as anyone to rip up the film as blasphemy. But when I came out I really couldn’t. It’s not perfect, but there were very few things that distracted me while I was watching the film, which is great. The last thing you want is to be trying to figure things out while you’re watching and miss something important. You’ll find yourself worrying about storyline match-ups AFTER you see the film – as this article certainly shows.

TRAILER BONUS: A quick look at Spider-man 3. Spidey gets his black suit?! Gwen Stacy?! That’s all good, but that’s a ton of storyline to put in one movie.

When I saw a preview for Nacho Libre, I thought it would have the goods. Those goods being a Napolean Dyanmite-esque movie thanks to the same director, wrestling, and much hilarity thanks to Jack Black’s acting and the writing. And although they each deliver something, it’s not exactly what I had hoped.

The story is actually not a bad idea. A monk (Jack Black) wants to be a pro wrestler, but God forbids it. But he does it anyway so he can get money to get better food for the orphans at the church. Nice and cute, plus, how often do we get a monk-turned-wrestler plotline? It’s always kung-fu monks. I’m tired of kung-fu monks – it’s about time we got a wrestling monk!

In order to succeed at the wrestling, Jack picks up a tag partner and their battle their way to fame and utlimate glory…all for the kids.

A thought on the title, as King Tom wrote, “nacho libre” translates into “free chips” – which is actually the case. You see, the church runs out of nachos for the kids, so Jack wrestles to get money to buy the nachos so he can give them to the kids – thus, free chips. I’ll admit, without that plot point, it is really nothing more than just a catchy name.

Unfortunately, despite an almost original story, the movie doesn’t deliver as you would hope – at least if you’re a Napolean or Jack Black fan. It seems Jack is a hit-or-miss type of guy; there doesn’t seem to be a lot of grey area with him. To his credit, however, he always seems to put his best foot forward at whatever part he has. Even the best actor can’t turn a weak part into an Oscar part.

The movie certainly has its funny parts, lines, and scenes. Jack Black acts with this awkward accent throughout the film that I think really holds him back. He does so well on his own with inflection and expressions that some of that was lost in the filim.

I won’t say the film drags, but it feels a little underdeveloped. I wanted more to happen with all the characters – in that X3-ish type of way.
Honestly, I was hoping for some more wrestling in the film. I love the Mexican wrestling for the visual and style only. Sure, the high-flying is cool, but there is a style that good ol’ American wrestling (entertainment) does not – and will never – have. But the movie is jam packed with actual luche libre wrestlers, even if in cameo-esque parts. Of course, most luchadors wear masks, so you wouldn’t recognize them anyway…

A good point to the film is really the soundtrack. The theme song, “Religious Man” (which was a bitch to find) is a great little tune, albeit extremely obscure. Apparently, however, the music for the movie was a complete mess due to various artists coming and going on the project. Namely Beck and Danny Elfman.

So, if you liked Napolean Dynamite, you won’t be impressed. If you like Jack Black, you’ll feel a little jipped, but happy and entertained all the same. Certainly don’t go for the wrestling…but go for the fat kid, he’s great.

I’m not sure if I had heard about a new Transformers movie and had just forgot, or if I never and this is totally new. I certainly haven’t seen any commercials or press about it. Eitherway, a new Transformers movie is due out in July. This July. OK, I’m an idiot. I will write it off as being too excited to hear about a Transformers movie. The movie is for 2007, not 2006.

Reading through my regular nerd news I came across a report at GameSpot that links to a report about a leaked early script of the movie.

I read it through and albeit hearsay and an early version – if true – it sounds like the movie promises to disappoint in several areas…at least to Transformers fans.

One point inparticular that the inside review discusses is that Megatron is not going to be a gun, but a spaceship. If this is the path along which a lot of the movie will take, then I fear the movie’s attempt at cashing in on the current 80s retro-nostalgia rage will fail.

I remember seeing the first Transformers movie with my dad. I ate it up. Of course, I was like 6 or 7 at the time, but it was awesome nonetheless. I can only imagine how lost my dad was trying to understand what was going on.

I had such fond memories of the movie I asked for it for Christmas several years ago and Santa managed to deliver. Big mistake. I’m not saying it was a bad gift because I asked for it…but that movie is one that should stay as a memory because it is much better that way.

The movie is totally thrown together, even for a cartoon, and could/did only work when the Transformers cartoon was still on TV regularly. Only within that context would the movie make sense. Even with my knowledge of Transformers, I can only make about half of the movie connect to what I know. Maybe that’s just my memory failing or that the movie really didn’t do a good job of relating the TV series. I don’t know. The GI Joe “movie” was much better in keeping true to TV, although it was never released in theatres and instead was turned into a 4-episode special.
But that first film aside, I hope this new film at least draws on the original series and not the endless variations that were spawned over the past 10 years. From Beast Wars to Armada, none of the new ones compare to the old ones. But I am a tad bias.

But, the search continues now that this candle has been lit. To the internet I go in search of Transformers truth!

In a recent meeting at work I had a real “self-worth” moment when talking about web sites, web software, and the making of said things. One person in the meeting was explaining their displeasure with a web site they had made by the internal web site department (not me). Their complaint: ads.

Web advertising is the root of all evil in design. I know I will always lose the Battle of the Philosophy of Money in Business, but there is a point when you cannot let dollars outweigh the benefit of the site (or tool) to the people that will be using it. This goes along with the age old, “it doesn’t matter how nice it looks if no one can use it.”

Although I’m (thankfully) in a position where I don’t have to worry about generating revenue with what I create, if I were, my strategy would be to make a good product first and then figure out how to make money with it.

For example (and in the case of this meeting), an employment web site where people go to find jobs. The first thing the site should do well is help people find jobs. Period. Once that goal is met, then you can worry about figuring out how to squeeze money out of it. But when you add advertising you cannot undo the first goal. Kind of like the Laws of Robotics.

It really amazed me that the internal web department managing and creating the sites for our company were managing to make both public customers and internal customers unhappy. But they are generating money with click-through banner ads and other methods, so ultimately it ends up being OK in the eyes of the company. If there’s a web page, they make sure it has an ad — funny — so are they the web department or the sales department?

Out of all this I realized that I really enjoy and take pride in making what people want. And I don’t just mean making it do what they want, that’s easy, but making it work how they want to do what they want. Figuring out how to make it work technically is easy and getting easier all the time, it’s figuring out how to make it work for the people using it that is the challenge.

The problem is a lot of people know that it’s hard and thus rely on the novelty of their program just “doing it” and taking advantage of the apologetic crowd. As the baker of the bread, you know when you’re dealing with the apologists. Don’t take advantage of them. Sure, they’ll be thankful that your product does what it needs to do, but they’ll be happy when the product is easy to use.

If you gave me a truck full of money to start my own store or business, a large part of me would like to open up an arcade. Yes, an arcade, the place where people once went to play videogames and socialize. The keyword here is socialize.

I’ve spoken out against the social software movement before because I don’t understand why people seek out others like themselves. I admit it is fun and exciting to talk to someone that shares an enthusiasm about something, but there is a big difference in questing for your ilk and happening across them by chance or environment.

There was a time when an arcade was the only place you could go to play videogames. Games like Pong, Asteroids, and Donkey Kong were stand-up arcade games that cost you 25 cents to play. As the videogame craze developed and gained some speed, home systems like Atari and eventually Nintendo essentially spelled the end of arcades. After all, why travel to play games for a quarter when you can play them at home for “free”?

For some reason or another, arcades also got a bad rap as a hang out for the “bad kids”. These were the schoolyard bullies in their black jackets that were supposidly on a mission to corrupt other kids and convince them to start smoking. I admit, there were some big scary kids at the arcade, but I never felt threatened. But I’m sure my mom thought otherwise.

And with that, arcades faded into the sunset without much mourning.

Despite the ability to play games at home for “less”, I will contend that arcades offer more than just wasteful time pressing buttons and dropping loose change. Arcades offered a social breeding ground. In they hey day of arcades, they were filled with kids. Kids of all types would gather to share in a single activity, playing games. Frankly, it wasn’t much different than playing after-school sports, just less organized.

You didn’t have to seek out your kind to find someone to talk to, it happened automatically. You went to the arcade to play games, socializing was a side effect. In the midst of an arcade you made friends and met new people. Not to mention, you were in a “safe” place instead of running in the streets.

A similar parallel can be drawn to record stores. There was a time when you had to go to the store to buy music. It was physical. You could spend hours at a music store fingering through the stacks of tapes, CDs, LPs…whatever your era. You would see the same people everytime you went and you could go with your friends and discover new stuff and old stuff. Once again, socializing was a side effect of your mission. You went for music, you networked without really having to try.

I think this automated socializing is missing today. We have the internet that provides us with the largest group of people ever assembled at any given time, but you have to work hard at finding people you get along with, not to mention, everyone online is faceless. Socializing with anonymity is farse. Plus, chances are that the people you become friends with online are no where near where you live. Above all else, you don’t “meet” anybody online. Everyone boils down to a bunch of text and words. There’s no handshake, no legitimate reaction to anything you do. The amount of effort you put into finding, meeting, and making friends online is absurd.

But I digress…because my point here is not people’s desire to find and make more friends. My point is that you shouldn’t have to worry about meeting new people. With specialized gathering spots, like an arcade or record store, people will come for a purpose and not have to mess with socializing. I think this scenario also results in more natural socializing between people, since you’re in an environment where your primary objective is NOT to meet people but to do something, like play videogames.

I wouldn’t want to start an arcade because I want to meet people. I would want to open an arcade because I love videogames. Everyone wants to share what they love with everyone else, it’s just natural. But in the act of having an arcade, people would a) have a place to go to have fun, b) find a place where each of them have a chance to be “someone”, and c) socialize.

Online socializing is not good nor fun, but that will obviously never stop. There is no advantage to having online friends. People you “meet” and talk with online are resources, not feathers in your social cap.

[By the way, for those that don't remember, Aladdin's Castle was a chain of arcades. There was one in my local mall that I always went to. Unfortunately for me, by the time I was old enough to go to the arcade on my own (even if dropped off), the arcade culture was pretty much dead.]

The electronics expo is over. The expo, E3, is an annual event that debuts many of the newest videogames and videogame consoles. This year, the Playstation 3 and new Nintendo Wii console were top draws. However, the even bigger draw is the price of the new systems that we all want.

When the new Xbox 360 came out, everyone was taken aback by the price. A hefty $400+ for the “good” version of the system that included all the bells and whistles everyone wants. Despite that, they flew off shelves. Apparently, the hardcore gamers make more money than I expected. Of course, you must also factor in the Stupid Parent factor – those parents that will shell out insane amounts of cash to get anything for their kid.

The 360 has been on its own in the “next generation” category for quite a while. At E3, however, the new Playstation and Nintendo was shown and talked about.

Much to my dismay, the Playstation 3 has a reported starting price of $500!!! And that’s for the low-end version. Want the goods, you’ll be dropping $600.

If there’s a way to lose a large part of your base, and audience in general, it’s price. Playstation is not BMW. You can’t rely on your name and history to sell your product at any price.

I have been a Playstation loyalist since the time I was able to mod my PS1. It was great. I remember I paid $125 for my PS1. Then when the PS2 came out, I waited until its first drop to $200. And I was happy. Happy to enjoy my (then) next-generation games.

As a long time gamer and eternal videogame fan, it is truly saddening to find that videogame system are costing so much. Apparently neither Sony nor Microsoft are interested in entry-level gamers.

There are always new gamers out there and they are not going to pay $600 for a system on which they will probably only play 2 or 3 games – which alone will cost them $70 each.

I’m not an entry-level gamer. But I am a gamer that has lost all optimism in videogaming and am looking for something to revive my passion in gaming. A $600 system is not a way to get me back into gaming.

Enter Nintendo, who has hinted that their new console will start at less that $250. Which means its first price drop (when I always buy a system) it will probably be close to $200.

The current state of videogames is sad. We’re getting better looks, faster speeds, and higher prices, but we’re not getting better games.

Regardless of hype, price is the ultimate decider. I know what console will end up in my living room.

Last July after we took our first honeymoon, we got back and we just so happened to get a dog. This year, after taking our second honeymoon, that same dog managed to find us yet another pet. A turtle.

What started off as a normal Saturday ended up increasing our family by one. We took Colby out to a dog trail at a metro park and in mid-hike he went up to sniff what looked like a rock. Upon closer inspection it was a turtle, and a pretty big one at that.

A dog park seemed like the last place a turtle would want to be. We picked up the turtle to take a look and found it’s back left leg was gimpy. It had no toes or claws on that foot, so it had obviously met up with something. On top of that, she had a good share of leeches all over her. We cleaned off what leeches we could find and took it upon ourselves to take her home and help her out.

We stopped at the local aquarium pet store to get a setup kit and asked them about the turtle. The explained that it is a Western Painted Turtle and is female. They also think that she was someone’s pet because her coloring is a mix of yellow and red which, according to them, is quite uncommon for turtles in nature.

I like turtles. I always wanted a turtle or fish. Fish are prettier but a turtle still gives me that aquarium feature with water while providing me with more to watch than if we had fish. Neither of us has had a turtle before, so this will be an interesting adventure as we explore the world of turtles.

However, we have yet to come up with a good name for her. So please post your ideas for a name for our new turtle!

I had never been further West of Ohio than Chicago prior to this summer. Our first venture West of the Mississippi was Las Vegas. Why Vegas? Why not? You hear about it, you read about, you see it in the movies – it’s fun, right? It’s exciting and crazy…Sin City, afterall.

Having never been West before, my first reactions to Las Vegas were:

Look, mountains!
Where’s the grass?!
Damn. It’s hot.

After a long direct flight from Ohio to Las Vegas, we were starving and tired. In need of food as soon as possible, we searched for something quick and familiar that we could just down without much thought. Great, a Subway!

It was at Subway when we realized that Las Vegas – at least The Strip of Las Vegas – was not home of the legendary cheap food as we expected. For as we gazed up at the menu board, a mere 6-inch sub was $7.00 – that’s a Lincoln and two Washingtons. And that was just the sub – your typically chip and drink combo was a straight $10.00.

As we quickly found out, dining in Vegas is never cheap. Frankly, nothing in Vegas is cheap. We really weren’t expecting a dollar store on every corner, but $40 each per meal is far from affordable. But if you must eat, the casino buffets are by far the best bet. The Bellagio buffet, called The Buffet, is a little more than other casino buffets, but the selection is great as is the taste. The other good option to take is the Walgreens route. Just go to Walgreens and by your food, drinks, and snacks and take them back to your hotel. You can get two days worth of meals for $7.00 if you play your cards right.

I then realized that restaurants and other retail stores on The Strip are under the assumption that you won in Vegas. The problem is, you never win in Vegas. You may “win” money, but you don’t “make” money.

The difference here should be obvious. “Winning” money means you won the game, whether it be slots or tables. “Making” money means you gained cash. Because if you drop $20 and win $10, then you didn’t “make” $10, you “won” $10 – and you still lost $10. All in all, we actually broke even when it came to the games.

Playing mostly the penny slots – yes, they exist – I actually won probably about $80 or so. However, I just kept playing with those $20 wins and eventually lost them as well. The key, however, being that I turned maybe $2.00 into $25.00. I would have made $20, but, like a good gambler, I didn’t know when to quit and just kept playing.

When playing in Vegas, especially the slots, it’s best to treat them like your common videogame. At the arcade, you put in your quarter and play the game trying to last as long as possible – trying to get the most out of your one quarter. The slots are no different. You put in your dollar and you see how long you can go on that one dollar. It’s fun like a videogame is fun. You have to enjoy the entertainment and interaction and the environment of the casino. You can’t get made when you lose.

But, all the gambling aside, Vegas was a lot of fun. We stayed at The Bellagio for three nights and it was awesome. Albeit a little on the expensive side, what you get out of your room at the Bellagio is entirely worth the drop. The Bellagio is the hotel/casino with the least amount of gimmick. The Bellagio’s gimmick is class. Out of the other hotels we walked through, the Bellagio was the least tricked out with a theme. I liked that.

The Bellagio is right next door to Caesar’s Palace on the north. South of the Bellagio was an empty lot where a new resort is going up. Frankly, The Strip south of the Bellagio was quite trashy. Actually, all of Vegas is trashy, but the south end seems to have gotten the worst while the north is a little more tolerable.

In Vegas the streets are paved with porn, quite literally. People line the sidewalks handing out hooker flyers and nudey cards. No one takes them, so they just get tossed to the ground and on near by hedges and bushes. The only place you can look and not see trash is straight up, where you’ll find blue skies sans clouds.

Of course, you can avoid the sidewalks and thus the porn and the heat by travelling via resorts. The catch is, however, that the only straight line between point A and point B is the sidewalk along the street. You can make it from one end to the other just walking from casino to casino, but it will take you four times longer than taking the sidewalk because you’ll have to walk four times as far. Every casino is a maze of slot machines and shops. You can get to where you want to go, just don’t expect to get there in a straight line.

And when you go to Vegas you have to see a show, right? Right. So we did. We saw Blue Man Group and it was great. It was a really entertaining show that delivered on the cost of tickets. If you mix Stomp with Gallagher you’ll get some form of BMG. A lot of music, a lot of comedy, and a lot of fun.

We were in Vegas for three full days and it was just long enough. It was just long enough to browse through most of the casinos, see a show, shop a little, and gamble. Any longer and you really run out of things to do – unless of course you have money to burn or love to drink, of which we had neither. It was hot and we walked more in 48-hours than we had in 6-months combined. Despite the heat, the walking, and the price of goods, Vegas was a lot of fun.

Will we go back? Not for a long while if we do – or until we win the lottery.

Stop by the Gallery for photos from Las Vegas