My Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street Remake and The ANOES Series

NOTE: I don't get many comments on this blog, but I am going to come right out and request that anyone reading who has anything to add, either positive or negative, please, feel free to leave me a comment. You can choose anonymous if you so desire, I do not block anonymous comments on this blog. I put quite a lot of time and effort into this one, so any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. Help me feel as though I can't hear the echo of my own voice in here for once :)

Alright, so, on to the Nightmare on Elm Street Series!


So, A Nightmare on Elm Street has been remade. Like many of the fans of the original series, I'm not entirely thrilled. I wasn't particularly thrilled when I heard about it, and then when I saw who was involved (and who was not) well.....let's get to that later. First, I want to talk about the series as a whole, and then I will get into the remake and my thoughts on it. Be prepared, this is a lengthy blog, but I think.....well....hope, that it will prove to be a pleasant read to anyone interested in the subject matter.

I LOVE the Nightmare on Elm Street Series. I love them all, from the suspense filled, serious in tone, scary original, to the silly and humour driven, campy (but somewhat stupid, granted) later iterations. And that's one of the great things about the series. It wasn't your typical slasher. The original, A Nightmare on Elm Street (ANOES for short) was great because it had a fantastic antagonist in Freddy Krueger, suspense, intrigue, an amazing musical score, some really great effects for the day (which were pulled off with a slim budget), a very unique concept, and, perhaps most importantly (maybe not most, but quite), the characters had depth and were very likeable, ensuring that you cared about the protagonists, which is very important if you want the murders in a slasher movie to be horrifying as opposed to entertaining.

When the teens died in the first Nightmare, I wasn't cheering (and still do not). In the typical slasher film, I, and almost everyone else watching, does just that. We can't wait for the bodies to start dropping, and we cheer it when it happens. We revel in it. The "villain" is the frigging good guy! But not in ANOES, oh no. When the teens die you're horrified. You don't want anything unfortunate to befall them. None of what was happening was their fault, and they weren't acting in ways that made you desire for them to be killed.

Now, the later sequels (especially 5 and 6) were really silly, and quite campy, but even then, they were not your typical slasher films. And why was that, you ask? Well, they still had the unique concept. The villain, while he started to become the hero after part 4 ( a typical slasher feature), was very unique in that he talked, and made jokes. His few, evil one liners early on turned into full on zany comedy later on (riding a skateboard, anyone?) which, while it changed the tone of the series, and made it very campy, still differentiated it from may other slasher movies/series in that the killers in those weren't cracking jokes. Also, again, the concept was really very unique. A demonic entity possessed human, killing teenagers in their dreams from beyond the grave? Does that sound like a typical slasher to you?

Didn't think so ;)

The series started out incredibly strong. And then Bob Shaye, the executive producer and genius (sarcasm) responsible for the stupid rule breaking ending of the original ANOES (Wes Craven fought him tooth and nail on that but ultimately lost.....the money prevailed I guess, since Shaye was the one who was coughing up and taking the chance on Craven and co.) got his mitts on the sequel (which by all accounts, Craven did NOT want to happen, and was ultimately not involved in) and delivered to us his ideas in the form of A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge.

This was a shitty (comparatively) sequel. It's probably my least favourite of the series (although A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child is also up there) because, while Freddy was an evil, sadistic, demonic, scary fuck in this one (even darker than in the original) there were some signs of things to come contained within, and there was also the problem of a shitty and annoying protagonist, and cast of characters, some really insipid scenes, and of course, the biggest problem of all: Mr. Bob Shaye, rule breaker, continued to break the rules! Big time. Now, all of a sudden, Freddy could operate outside of the dream world?

Huh? What the....? What the fuck?

What a damn travesty! He SHIT all over Craven's work. Now, despite all this, I still do like the film. For one, it's a Nightmare movie, and I love Nightmare movies. Freddy is beyond awesome, and that alone is enough to at least get me in front of the screen. And by the way, before I continue on, as an aside, I just want to say that

ROBERT ENGLUND IS FREDDY DAMN IT!!

Okay, I got that off my chest and now I feel a bit better.

Anyways, as I was saying, besides Freddy being in it, it did feature some great moments, some awesome lines from Freddy, and a really, dark, sinister iteration of Krueger is something we fans can all appreciate. One particularly memorable scene is when Freddy is standing outside after fucking up the pool party (during, I might add, absolutely no one's dream, Mr. Shaye, you moron) and he waves his arms over his head, in front of a light source, casting this brilliant shadow in the light, razor glove and all, as he says the chilling line

you are all my children now

(emphasis on all)

So awesome. Such a great visual, and I loved when they replicated this many years later in Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

So, what are my favourite entries in the Nightmare on Elm Street series?

A Nightmare on Elm Street , A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, and Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

Things were getting a bit silly by the time the A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: Dream Master rolled around, but it retained some aspects of the better ones, and I still enjoy it greatly. Some pretty ridiculous, but awesome scenes contained within this one. I won't spoil anything, but bench pressing, anyone?

As I said, I love them all, even Freddy's Dead: The Final (lol) Nightmare and A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, despite the fact that they sort of....suck. Seriously, that staircase scene near the end of A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child.......what the fuck. And again, like in Freddy's Revenge, they really fucked with the canon in that one. I mean, as the series went on, the rules were bent and changed seemingly at will, arbitrarily and for no reason, but 5 took it to a whole new level. Sure, they were in uncharted waters with the whole pregnancy thing, but it still didn't fit. They might objectively suck but I still love them. It's hard work, though :)

Actually, come to think of it, part six, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, doesn't suc- ah, ya, I guess it does, but I'm actually very partial to that one, compared to 2 and 5 (the other 2 iterations of the nightmare saga which are in my ya, they basically suck but I still like them camp). Freddy's Dead s really, really fun, and it's got some absolutely hilarious moments. One in particular that sticks out is Freddy toying with the deaf kid, removing his hearing aid, creeping around behind him making faces at him....lol. And then, he takes the hearing aid and....modifies it, turning improved hearing into improved hearing, which he then has some fun with, in typical late series Freddy fashion. Let's just say he puts a whole new spin on the phrase "like nails on a chalkboard."

To those of you reading this you have not done so, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors is one you have to see. I suggest, if you have not seen it, watching the original A Nightmare on Elm Street before you do. Heather Langenkamp, who played Nancy in part one, returns, and the moment when Freddy and Nancy encounter eachother for the first time since the events in A Nightmare on Elm Street is AWESOME, and Freddy's in an.....interesting form. I won't say what, but he does some very interesting things to himself in that one. I highly suggest watching it. Not only for those reasons of course.

Again, like the original A Nightmare on Elm Street, this movie had a great cast of teenagers. The movie took place in a mental health facility, full of teenagers with sleeping and psychiatric (supposedly) disorders. Of course, we know what's really going on, and we watch it wondering if the kids will die before any incompetent adult figures out that they aren't delusional and they aren't making up this burned man with a razor filled glove on his hand stalking them in their sleep.

*whew* Try saying that five times fast!

Anyways.......

Of course, many of the teenagers aren't very fortunate, and they meet an early demise at the hand of this burned dream demon.

This sequel introduces a few new concepts while sticking to the rules established in the first, the return of (an older) Nancy is very much appreciated, and you once again sympathize with the kids trying to reach the adults around them as they endure being stalked by some dream stalking psychopath who's slowly killing their peers in horribly gruesome ways. Now, this sequel did have Freddy getting a bit more liberal with the jokes, and the silliness started to show, but the balance was still reasonable between the serious tone/horror
and the humour, and the humour was steeped in that horror as opposed to at the expense of it, as it was in later sequels.

Oh, to quickly speak to one of the things I mentioned earlier, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 introduced some new concepts, one of them being Freddy's ability to take on entirely new forms. They had played with the notion of him altering his form in the previous movies, but not like this. He does some pretty awesome and interesting this in this one, really showcasing the power afforded him by the fact that he exists only in dreams.

My second favourite entry into the A Nightmare on Elm Street series is Wes Craven's New Nightmare....what a movie. If there was one way to perfectly describe the reaction/reception this movie received, at least as I see it, it would be Loved by a few, hated by a few, misunderstood by most.

I personally LOVE it. Wes Craven's New Nightmare and the original A Nightmare on Elm Street are the two best in the series in my opinion. Speaking of Wes Craven, Wes Craven's New Nightmare was a risky move for Craven. I don't want to say much about this one, as it needs to be seen, and I feel the less one knows going in the better. I will say that the originality I spoke of boils down to the fact that it's a movie within a movie. This meta-movie idea (a meta-movie, or a metafilm), is a film which is a metaphor for the production of said film. Essentially, the events of the film are the events of the film within the film actually happening).

This was off putting to many but I personally thought it to be brilliant and very fitting. Basically, to surmise it really quickly, in the movie, Freddy Krueger is a movie icon, and fans are clamouring for more. Wes Craven is secretly writing a new Nightmare script, spurred on by some nightmares that he has been having. As he writes, ominous things start happening in real life, mostly centred on Heather Langenkamp, the actress who portrayed Nancy Thompson in the first and third Nightmare on Elm Street films.

In his script, he writes that evil, if it is captured in art, can be defeated, but if it is not captured in art, is is free to accumulate power in the real world. Freddy was kept out of the real world by being written about in films, but now, with no fiction binding the evil behind Krueger to that world, is roaming free and trying desperately to gain entrance into the real world. As time passes, and the writing continues, this malevolent force grows stronger, and tries to get in by gaining access through the gatekeeper, who it believes to be Heather, since he believes she gave Nancy her power, the power she used to defeat Freddy. And so, there is a struggle between Heather Langenkamp and the evil force behind the fictional villain Freddy Krueger, as he battles to enter her realm, and she must decide if she has the courage to enter his, and defeat him, once and for all.

The blending of the worlds is just fantastic. It starts to happen so seamlessly that Heather finds herself, unbeknownst to herself, becoming Nancy Thompson, and the people around her, who played in the Nightmare films, are becoming the characters they portrayed. And in this film, Freddy is the ultimate depiction of what Craven envisioned. Dark, menacing, evil. Freddy is pure fucking evil in this one. He's probably the scariest he's ever been, and he's certainly the meanest. His look has changed. His glove is now organic, indicative of the transition and blending taking place. He wears a black trenchcoat, his face has changed somewhat, and his voice, while basically the same, has taken on even more menace. And this time, he's not limited to teenage victims....

The movie is very suspenseful, very well crafted, and very entertaining. There are a myriad of great scenes within. It's somewhat plagued by problems of consistency though, as the concept, I'm sure my readers can surmise, does lend itself to some vagueries and opportunities for inconsistency, and you do get some of that. There are a few things within that will make you wonder aren't they breaking their own rules? even though the rules aren't necessarily crystal clear to anyone, including those in the film. Come to think of it, perhaps that's the point. Or maybe I'm just being too forgiving now. Either way, it's amazing, and it's a fantastic end to the series. Brings it right back to the quality for the first, and justifies its existence both in that fact, and in the fact that it's definitely not a rehash.

Of course, however, as we all know, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, the fantastic and fitting end to a great series, did not end up being the end at all. As is the case with horror movies, especially slasher films, they just keep going and going and going......Just like a certain drum beating bunny.....

It keeps going and going and going......

Years later, we got Freddy vs Jason. And now, we have the dreaded REMAKE. Duhn duhn duhn...

And now, My Thoughts on the A Nightmare on Elm Street Remake.

I grew up with ANOES. When I heard about this remake I did what all nostalgia fuelled fans do: I decried it.

Then when I realized who was involved, I felt completely justified in my feelings. These guys churn out drivel, and drivel is what this remake is based upon the large number of reviews and tons of viewer feedback that I have read online (and also inference based upon previous works of theirs and the current state of American horror).

Here are my issues with this remake (although, keep in mind, I have not yet seen it):

1) Freddy's look. I know that's more realistic, but he lost the demonic look that I loved. However, I am willing to admit a part of this is likely nostalgia.

Ugh.......

2) HIS VOICE!! Freddy sounded demonic. Now he sounds like a breathless Rocky Balboa. Not scary in the least and this alone is a huge dealbreaker for me.

3) Based upon several reviews and viewer feedback it seems as though the ''scares'' were pretty much the loud BAM sound followed by a sudden appearance of Freddy. I HATE  the overuse of jump scares. It's cheap, cheesy, manipulative and indicative of the fact that these guys are creatively bankrupt and don't understand shit about horror or what Craven did with ANOES.

4) I read that the nightmare scenes are always telegraphed via musical and aesthetic changes. Part of what I loved with the original series is you often weren't immediately aware that you were in 'dream world' if you will. There were some surprises. Some.....unknown. Some...suspense.

5) The footage I have seen features a very wooden Nancy. Langenkamp might not win any awards but at least she had expression and depth.

6) The people involved do it solely for money, and they are hacks. They didn't even care to try and involve any of the original people. No Craven, no Saxon, no Lagenkamp and no Englund.

Now, this is a 'reboot' so this makes some sense. Well, Englund could have played Krueger but the rest make sense. Except for one: Craven. They didn't bother to get input from the one man who truly understood Krueger, and the one man who had vision. Idiots.

7) I don't want to support this remake bullshit. They fucked up FF13, they destroyed Halloween, the are fucking up Krueger (although I can't fully say this until I see it, which of course I'll end up doing at some point, let's be real, but hopefully for free after my brother buys the DVD) and they have completely destroyed so many others. Black Christmas, Prom Night, Psycho (not that I'm a huge fan of the original), Dawn of the Dead, etc etc etc

8) WHERE THE FUCK IS THE ORIGINAL SCORE?? It's the best damn horror score EVER.

9) CGI. Jesus. The clip of Freddy coming out the wall looks so fucking fake now, whereas the budget shot with no CGI still looks better today.

10) They all know what's going on way too early, and they come to know it way too easily. The original had a slow, suspenseful buildup where Nancy and co. tried to piece together what was happening.

Maybe I'll end up liking it, but I doubt it. The guys behind the project just don't see horror the way I do, and I don't think I'll enjoy what they did to ANOES.

Still, I admit I may be wrong. There's .000003% chance of it :)

And of course, some nostalgia is involved. I freely admit that.

So, as it stands, I don't expect to like this one. I don't anticipate feeling any real emotion while watching it. Like most modern horror, I figure it will be like going through a fast food drive thru. I'll get something that resembles the thing I am looking for, it will go down easy, and it will be forgotten almost instantly......well, it will be forgottent, but it will leave me a nice goign away present, namely, heartburn and digestive issues.

So, ya, as of now, the Platium Dunes assholes can take their overprocessed, unemotive, wooden mass produced, money grab, b.s. 'film' and shove it up their asses. Assuming of course it will fit in there, since we all know there's a lot of shit up their ass to begin with. Namely, the hopes, dreams, and childhoods of 1980's horror fans. Poeple like me, good, honest, hard working, god feari-well, okay, good, honest, hard working people, just trying to get by in life, and hoping to be entertained here and there on the way through this roller coaster of a life. They farted out my childhood when they made this movie, and now it stinks. It stinks to high heav- well, it stinks to high something. It stinks of hollywood, coporatized, assembly line horsehsit that passes for horror these days. They seem to average $1, 400 000 per shitty jump scare, and I am sure they made about $35, 000, 000 thus far off of this travesty. This affront to 1980's, plaid wearing, big haired, MC Hammer liking sensibilities.

Note to Platinum Dunes: I want my fucking childhood back, you assholes. I don't recall putting it on the market, so I have no idea how you fuckers bought and sold it, but I want it back. Now, give it back, or I'll......I'll......kil- no, no, that's not it......I'll, I'll, beat- no, no, that's not it either.....I'll I'll.....su-no, no that's not it.....Ah, Hell. I'll keep blogging about you!!! And you don't want that, trust me. I have a HUGE audience and immeasurable influence. I can get people to boycott your ass, and let me tell you, you'd lose at least $23.00. You want to test me? You want to test me motherfuckers? Go ahead, oif you think it's worth $23.00, go right the fuck ahead, you childhood stompin fart brains.

OH GREAT!! I have just been informed, as I write this, that Paltinum Dune already have 2 MORE NOES movies in the works. Jesus H Christ on a stick, talk about milking.

They took a series that has already been milked to the point of well.....no more milk...ness? I don't know. Point of being barren. Milk dry? Milkless? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!!!!!!!!

RAWR!!!

Anyways, the took this already milked series, and decided, "Hey!! Let's redo it all! Let's milk it some more! And we'll do it with less talent, worse leads, and a shitty sounding Freddy! Awesome, we're going to make sooooooo much money! High fives all around!!!"

*sounds of childhoods being shat out, crapped on, farted on, and farted out*

/Cut to scene of magx01 crying in a corner, rhythmically chanting "It's not real, it's not real."

Ha, interesting little aside here. Those last few words called to mind (with no effort on my part) a line from Stephen King's IT (the miniseries, based on the tremendously awesome novel). The line is:

"You're not real!!! You're not real!!!"  

It's delivered by the actress playing Beverly Marsh, and it's delivered in a very convincing voice, fraught with several emotions at once; a woman on the edge, desperately trying to keep it together while she tries to grasp the enormity of the situation in which she finds herself after thrusting herself blindly back into her past, at the whim of a childhood friend whom she hadn't heard from in 28 years.

I heard that line in my head as I typed that line, and I heard it exactly as it's delivered in the movie. And upon recalling the line, I felt a small, but real chill. A momentary shudder, as I recalled the situation this woman found herself in, and the terror I felt as a ten year old boy watching this unfold on my tv (thanks mom, and ABC, primetime tv. As Freddy would say, "Welcome to prime time, bitch!"

Why mention this? Well, simple. This demomstrates the power of film. Sure, horror movies aren't high art, but they do have the fantastic capability to really resonate with you. To burrow into the psyche and lay dormant for years, only to spring forth at opportune moments and elicit the same fear they did when you first experienced them. People say the boogeyman isn't real, but I say he is, in the form of the latent emotion, leftover in my subconscious a result of watching a shitload of horror movies as I grew up. And that, friends, is the power of horror.

And do you know what scenes result in this occurrence? The psychologically weighty ones. Not the stupid LOUD NOISES BOO!!!! nonsense. Too bad Platinum Douche doesnt understand that.

Thanks for fucking up my childhood, assholes.

Last little note: To those who will read this and find themselves wondering how one can be so certain about a movie which one has not even seen, well friends, I fully acknowledge that I may be blogging a nice apology to Platinum Dunes and you, the reader, sometime soon. However, in the interest in full disclosure, I can honestly say, with as little hubris as possible, that, in all my experience, I'm more often right when it comes to preconceived notions on films. That does not mean I am right this time, and I am not saying I am ever wrong, I'm not. I've been wrong many times, some of them for really notable films. I went into the Dark Knight thinking it would suck. WRONG. I went into Iron Man expecting to hate it, and ended up liking it. NOT loving it, but liking it. I went into Spiderman thinking it would suck. Liked it. I went into X-Men thinking it would be shit. Loved it. (Hated origins though. Ugh). I thought I would hate The Matrix. Wow, wrong.

That all being said, I honestly am more often right. I'm usually pretty good with making predictions about my feelings on a movie after just viewing trailers. However, in this case, I have done a LOT more than that, and I have been a horror fan for more than 20 years. I know what I like, I know my dislikes, and I know what I hate in horror. And based on the things I have seen, heard and read, the chances of me hating this movie are high. Almost as high as I'd have to be to love it :)

Thanks for reading!!! I hope you enjoyed it, I enjoyed writing it. And as I said in the beginning, please feel free to comment. This blog took quite a while, and so any feedback would help me feel like I am not totally wasting my time here :)

Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes

PREFACE: For anyone who came here expecting to find The Lost Commandment? on this page, I apologize, but I was inspired to write another blog post. You can easily find that blog by looking to the right and slightly down. It's right under blog archive. Or, you can just click this Link and get to it that way.

Okay, so the blog. Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes sent my way by people trying to insult/own/'pwn'/denigrate/disparage or otherwise hurt me for whatever reason.

you are a beginner and I dont expect you to understand more complex intricacys that you'll miss


now...who is the dumby?


Also, those video clips you have are blasphemous and you should really take them down and repent before it's too late.

P.S. Your a fucking hippie. Wanna be friends?

i am an extra terrestrial, i come to earth to save mankind, i am appalled at the state of mankind and i am asking, no i am DEMANDING that you denounce your ways, and watch my video (it is my featured channel video, broadcasted from my craft) and you devote your lives to God

Creationism is a widely believed theory along with evolution. Not allowing it in discussions is wrong especially since many kids at that point would already believe it to be true.

Sarah Palin? She's not too bad. Probably not President material but she could be a Senator. She too is a victim of rabid attacks by the left as well.

so you don't like Palin I take it.



That's called God of the Gaps: "We don't know what happened, so God must have done it."


But what I'm doing is this: "Scientists don't know what happened from a naturalistic point of view, so here's an explanation that completely works and makes sense
atheists are more irrational than devout religious believers

He asked God what he could do better to serve him, and God literally said "You can preach," out loud

The God of the Bible wasn't invented to explain any natural phenomenon.

In response to: What happens when cosmology has an excellent, viable model for the origins of the universe(s). Then what?: Outside of the Big Bang, I don't anticipate this occurring.

  positing a creator is not only the only reasonable option available, it is better than merely positing a non answer, or a wild conjecture about multiverses. Not taking a stand on an issue as important as this is sheer folly.

And the absolute best thus far:
Jesus Christ, was that last one an exercise in doublethink, or what?

Islam is a religion of peace. It is something of beauty and Truth, not ugliness like apostasy and your dirty Atheism. I don't appreciate the content of your video, and if you were in front of me in person, I would do as I am commanded and strike you down for Allah. No one gets to spit in the face of Allah and Muhammad (s.a.w.) without retribution. You are taking advantage of the fact that we cannot get to you in person. At least, not yet. Keep insulting my beautiful and peaceful religion, and you might face judgement sooner than you smugly think, you disgusting atheist.
 
Peace be upon you.

EDIT: Part Two now available

The Lost Commandment?

Note: Follow Up: 25 New Religious Commandments Is Available!! (read after this)

I started this blog with the intent of creating a new list of religious commandments, modeled after of course (but not specifically aimed at...per se) the Ten Commandments (capitals for emphasis!) but I hit upon something in the course of doing so, and decided to revamp the concept. I now offer but one commandment, and, the optimist in me (yes, there is one....somewhere) is hoping against all hope that this in fact is a real (but lost) commandment, that we will one day stumble upon. Before I reveal this commandment, let me explain how I hit upon it.

I was coming up with new religious commandments, such as:

Thou shalt not discriminate against anyone based upon their sexual orientation, race, age, etc.


Thou shalt not work towards limiting the happiness of those whose actions you disagree with, if those actions are not harmful to others.

Thou shalt not abuse, neglect, or otherwise treat poorly non human animals. Do not adopt a pet if you cannot and will not provide a loving, stable, fulfilling environment for them.

Thou shalt not have numerous amounts of children for whom thoust cannot provide, financially, emotionally, or otherwise.


Thou shalt not neglect to consider societal and environmental impacts when contemplating having children.

when I wrote a caveat about revisionism into the list. And that's when it hit me.
 
Revision.
 
Perhaps the most important of all of the things left out of religious commandments. The idea that these lists should be revised when both the means, and the societal imperative to do so, arise. If the state of societal health and individual liberty necessitates a change,
 
Thou shall make that change!!!!
 
There is NO reason why ALL religions should not have built in safeguards for the changing moral zeitgeist. Well, apart from that supernaturally provided, absolute morality nonsense. That pesky little thing, that. Probably the single greatest barrier to true, healthy morality that religion has given us (gee, thanks, religion!).
 
If these religious texts, which issued moral commandments, all acknowledged that things change over time, and we must change our morality to crest the tide of these contemporary shifts, we'd be a lot better off, as I see it. 
 
Then again, we've seen changes despite (and often in spite of) these texts and religions, so perhpas, while a nice idea, this isn't imperative. Then again, it certainly could not hurt.  
 
NOTE: If anyone is interested, I will be blogging on the original idea behind this. So, those 5 'new' commandments posted here will see the light of day once again, accompanied by some friends. If you are interested in seeing what else I have in mind, check back. And, if you have any of your own to add, please feel free to add some in the comment section, either on this post or in that future one. Also, feel free to criticize my choices.

Answering Creationist Q?s (answersingenesis + middletownbiblechurch)

These questions were derived from:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/scienc8.htm

and

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-humans

Questions in bold black, answers in bold red.

1) Lets say we did evolve from ape...why did we need to evolve? We have no fur, cant climb trees, aren't as fast and cant really survive in the jungle areas too long...It seems like we devolved in a bunch of ways?

First of all: COMMON ANCESTRY!!!!



All animals evolve, not just humans. As for needing to evolve, we don't need to. Evolution is a natural occurrence that must naturally occur in a system of genetic life that involves mutation and variance. Devolved? We're the most dominant species on the planet. Why do you assume things like speed, fur and climbing trees to be the endpoint(s) of evolution? Here's a hint, there is no goal of evolution. The traits that best enable the propagation of a species live on (natural selection). That's it.

2) why is it that humans can basically eat ANYTHING, including apes....and apes are strictly plant life?

Apes are omnivores.


3) Since a species is commonly defined as a group that can interbreed, it seems like fossils could never be identified to the species level because we can't observe how they interbreed. How do scientists determine what species a fossil is if it looks similar to another fossil but is a different size or slightly different shape? When scientists disagree with the classification of a fossil, who decides where it belongs?

What you described is called morphology. The answer to the question, at least in part, is DNA.


4) The human nose has a prominent bridge and an elongated tip which is lacking in the apes, and man's arms are very short in comparison to the arms of monkeys and apes. The arms of apes hang down to the ground and like its legs, are used for transportation...quick movement & climbing...another de-evolution?

See answer 1. Stop thinking of evolution as though it has an endpoint.


5) Human babies are far more helpless and dependent on their parents than any of the infants of apes and monkeys...What's up with that? Baby apes can move and climb very well only after a few weeks.



The fetal stage in humans is not complete at birth, that's why. Our brains/skulls get too large, so we are born earlier to compensate. Otherwise, we couldn't make it out of the birth canal.



6) If it is inaccurate to say that humans evolved from apes, but instead we should say all apes and humans have a common ancestor, what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape?



Okay, so if you know this, why did you phrase it differently in the beginning? Anyways, why do you equate looking like something with being that something, yet earlier you stated that fossil's can look similar to others fossils? Your question makes no sense. You say we descended from an ancestor that we have in common with apes, yet what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape? That's inconsistent. You're not actually saying what was it, but rather, what did it look like. You are making the vague implication that if it looked like an ape, it must have been an ape? Huh? Do you even know what you are asking here?

Anyways, isn't it quite obvious? You'd assume that they looked like a cross between humans and the other great apes to whom they gave rise.


7) Why is it that only apes evolved like we have? Why is it that we are the only ones that can split the atom, create gorgeous symphonies and 'I Have a Dream' Speeches, map & conquer the galaxy? It seems like only man is free to make real choices, and it's not like we are the only smart ones...Animals are free to do what they are instinctively programmed to do or what they have been trained to do. Men can make plans and decisions and choose a course of action....but how did we evolve to be THIS smart and THIS free?


Why is it that only cheetah evolved like they have? Why is it that they are the only ones that can run so fast? It seems like only cheetahs can run so fast. Cheetahs can run SOOO fast....but how did they evolve to be THIS fast?


Do you get my point? I hope so. Anyways, the answer is simple: prefrontal/frontal cortex.

8) Why is it that only men are able to train and tame other animals?

We're not. Ants can herd aphids, although, even if this were true, and I actually thought it was until I read this online, I don't see how that would be difficult to understand, or contrary to evolution. Presumably, it would boil down to intelligence, would it not? That's how I was going to answer it, until I read the ant thing. We have evolved to possess great (relatively) intelligence.

My Attempt To Return Vampires to Glory. Pt. 3

PLEASE NOTE: You should, before reading this, definitely read PART ONE  as well as PART TWO if you already have not. I strongly recommend doing so. It will only take you a few minutes, and will greatly enhance the 'experience,' if you will, of reading this one. Thanks, and enjoy!

(although I certainly recommend reading the first two parts, I will post a short summary of the events that have thus far transpired in the town of Hunter's Bluff (aka parts 1 and 2) below).

It's a sad time to be a fan of vampire lore. They started off so well. From Bram Stoker to Anne Rice, vampires have become entrenched in our consciousness, and for good reason. Terrifying yet alluring, these creatures who roam by night and sleep by day strike both fear and curiosity into those who encounter them.

But now......

Now Hollywood has taken vampires and comepletely ruined them. Vampires to not go to school. They do not engage in teen romaces. The certainly do not glitter in the sunlight!

Vampires should be nasty creatures who can put on a veneer of civility if it suits them. They are essentially undead psychopaths. There have been varying iterations of these creatures throughout the years, sarting with Bram Stoker's vision of a refined gentleman living in a gothic castle who harbored a......nasty little secret, and unfortunately culminating in the affront to the horror genre we see today:


Really, what the hell is that?

My personal idea of what vampires should be is a cross between Stoker's original vision and the nasty, viscious creatures seen in the movie 30 Days of Night:

Now THAT'S a Vampire!

And so, with this in mind, I bring you the third excerpt from my entry into last years' 3 Day Novel contest. The entry is a short novel, written in 3 days, as per the rules, so it's definitely a bit rough around the edges, but I believe it turned out rather well for a 3 day marathon effort. So, without further ado, I give you excerpt #3 from Hunter's Bluff, my attempt to return vampires to the state to which they rightfully belong, while at the same time hopefully injecting some new ideas.

(Enjoy, and feel free to offer any criticisms you may have.)


For those who can't be bothered checking over the other(s), I will give you a quick summation of what I have thus far posted:

The Summary of the Story Thus Far

Part 1:

-We met our group of vampires. Gideon, the leader, and the other two, Uriah, and Elijah.
-The vamps were exiled to a remote, small town after plotting against their leader
-The town is now abandoned
-The vampires live in a hierarchical social structure
-They prepare to head out for what could be another fruitless night of hunting, not realizing they have humans in their midst

Part 2:

-We met a few of the humans, but are not aware of their situation beyond the present
-Andrew, Sam, and Amanda are in a seemingly abandoned house
-Andrew and Sam are investigating upstairs, while Amanda sleeps listlessly on the couch downstairs
-They find the attic door open, and are greeted by the coppery, unmistakable smell of blood
-Sam begins to ascend the stairs.........
-Outside, Gideon hears a yell, and is filled with a triumphant sort of vindication as he realizes it's human
-Gideon heads towards the place from which the sound originated.....an abandoned house.....

And now, I give you part three of the saga:

Sam reached the top step and poked his head into the opening. He saw nothing at all. However, the smell of blood had grown stronger. Much stronger. He hoisted himself up into the attic and shined his light around. Nothing.

Andrew's voice rang out from below. “Sam!!” A second later, he called out again. “SAM!”

Turning around to the entrance, his flashlight beam caught something that made his heart stop and his breath catch in his throat. He gasped. There, in the small space behind the door, crammed into the corner, was what appeared to be a female in her early to mid thirties. She was either unconscious or dead, which of the two it was was not readily apparent. Sam tried to scream but couldn't muster the breath to do so. He was paralyzed by fear and disgust. This was the most pure, naked terror he had ever felt in his life.

Andrew materialized in the hole, his face fraught with fear. Seeing Sam standing there, frozen in place, a look of pure horror on his face, he started to climb up, while simultaneously asking what it was that Sam was seeing.

“What, what?” “What the fuck is it?? he asked, as he quickly climbed up the few steps. He stepped onto the floor and then turned around. When he saw the woman crumpled against the wall, head tilted to one side, dead, with a tourniquet over a half missing arm, another over a half gone leg, bite and claw marks covering her body, a gaping, poorly bandaged wound in her neck, and covered in blood, he screamed the scream that Sam had not been able to muster, and he screamed loud and long enough for the both of them.

---------------

Downstairs, Amanda woke up with a start.

---------------

Outside, Gideon smiled ruefully as he zeroed in on the location of what he planned to make the contents of his, and his fellow predators', next several meals. He quickened his pace to a near run. As he did so, he mentally channeled Uriah and sent him an order to round up Elijah and come to his location. He got the house in sight and charged at it full speed. He got within five feet of it and leapt.

---------------

In the house, Amanda was up and instantly alert. She screamed Andrew's name, and started to run, when she tripped and fell. She could not see much in front of her, so she turned back to the couch and groped around for her flashlight, located it,flipped it on, ran to the kitchen and grabbed one of the knives, and then ran for the stairs, taking them two at a time. She arrived upstairs and saw the ladder that led up to the attic. Without hesitation, she ran towards it and as she was climbing up, there came a terrible crash from the attic above her. The sound of breaking glass was enormous. She got high enough to see the backs of Sam and Andrew, and then from in front of them, came a voice that caused her entire body to run cold. It was the scariest sounding thing she had ever heard. It was deep and raspy, and it immediately conveyed to her that whatever possessed such a voice was evil, not human, and ancient.

“Gentlemen, pleased to make your acquaintance. My name is Gideon, and I will be your host for the foreseeable future.” This was punctuated with a laugh that matched the voice for bone chilling coldness.

The End

Hope you enjoyed it. Please feel free to comment, critisize, praise, admonish, etc etc etc.

Youtube Bulletins SUCK. They break links!! EDITED

Add this to the ever present (and growing!) list of youtube site issues. This one isn't major, but it's certainly annoying. When I link to my latest blog articles in my youtube bulletins, the link appears to be intact, but when I paste it into my browser window, it gets screwy for some inexplicable reason.


For example, this: http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/04/after-burner-climax-xbla-review.html

becomes: http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/04/after--burner-climax-xbla-review.html which does not work.

And this: http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/04/ameri­cans-for-prosperity-is-front-for.html

becomes http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/04/ameri-­cans-for-prosperity-is-front-for.html

And again, a broken link.

(changes to both links bolded and red for slightly easier viewing)

My subscribers cannot access my content if they links are frigging broken. What gives? Is this a known issue? Is there a work around? Thanks very much for any and all feedback.

EDIT: I started using tinyurl to shorten the links and it works like a charm.

Earth Defence Force 2017 Review

EDF! EDF! EDF!

Earth Defence Force 2017 is a low budget Japanese third-person shooter developed by Sandlot, and published by D3 Publisher, for the Xbox 360. The game is the sequel the to the game Global Defence Force. Earth Defence Force 2017, or EDF 2017, as it is commonly referred to (and will be for the remainder of this review) is the first game in the Defence Force series to be released to North America.

As stated, EDF2017 is a low budget game, released for a budget price. This is something that is imperative to keep in mind when both playing and reviewing this game, as to compare it to its high budget, large development team brethren, including such obvious comparisons as Lost Planet and Gears of War, is to do both the game, and the developers a disservice. Going forward, this is something that should be kept in mind. Also, due to both this fact, and how much fun this game really is, at least to the subset of gamers to which it appeals, I feel compelled to break one of my own self imposed rules and speak from in first person, at least during certain moments of this review.

I have reviewed from the first person a few times in the past, but generally try to avoid doing so, as I find it to be somewhat distasteful for a review, as I like reviews to maintain some semblance of professionalism, and this can quickly be lost if too much subjectivity and personal experience is injected into the review. However, for games that a reviewer truly holds dear, or for certain games for which the reviewer finds it imperative that he or she convey certain ideas, I believe it's often the only real recourse.

I truly believe that EDF2017 is a game that is easily misunderstood, or shrugged off due to either its premise, graphics, budget status, or some combination of the above. I also firmly believe that a strictly objective review would do this game a great disservice, as from an objective standpoint, this game is a complete and utter turd. The thing is though, the game is actually far from that, as a number of gamers will attest to, myself included. This game is so damn fun, and to review it categorically and with no other insight, would just be plain unfair, to both the game and its creators, and also any prospective players, who may miss out on dozens of hours of silly and somewhat inexplicable fun. All of this being said, let's turn to actually assessing the game's qualities.

Here's the premise of the game in a nutshell: Aliens are attacking Earth, and the Earth Defence Force is tasked with being a welcoming party of sorts. A welcoming party armed with 150 different weapons and a slew of vehicles to pilot. And the aliens that are attacking? Giant acid spitting ants, gigantic web slinging spiders, gigantic, several stories tall laser shooting robots, and cybernetic dinosaur mech....things. Think an organic/robotic hybrid that resembles Godzilla.

You are a part of the EDF, and as a member of this elite group, you are tasked with aiding your brothers and sisters in arms in taking on these giant monstrosities across 53 stages and several difficulties, ranging from as easy as could be to so hard you might be able to tackle it if you spend 50-80 hours levelling up enough (although the term levelling up is used loosely, as all that really denotes in this game is picking up enough health pickups, for some reason named armor, to increase your total hit points). Well, that, and attaining the proper firepower.

The gameplay structure is as follows: you choose your weapons (you can carry two) and head into battle. Then, all you do is shoot. The only objectives you have are to shoot.....and shoot some more. You are, for some inexplicable reason, gifted with infinite ammo, for every single weapon in your possession, whether it be a lowly shotgun or a fire-20-missiles-at-once missile launcher. You do most of your travelling on foot, but on occasion, you will encounter various other methods of transport (and attack) such as mechs, tanks and helicopters. All of which should be avoided like the plague, as they control so terribly it's not even worth bothering. I'll get to that later, however.

So, basically, you're on foot, you hold down the right trigger, and take on hundreds of gigantic enemies at once. The enemies, upon death, which has them explode into piles of green goo/blood, drop really cheesy looking 2D powerup icons by the dozen. These powerups come in the form of health boosts, the aforementioned armor tokens (which add to your hit point total, as you'll recall) and weapon icons which grant you a randomly selected weapon unlock (you don't even find out what you got until you complete the level). As you complete levels, you gain HP and weapon unlocks, so there's a tangible sense of progression which fuels the desire to carry on.

The game should last a good 15-20 hours on a first playthrough on the Normal difficulty. Less if you're playing co-op (the whole campaign can be played in 2 player splitscreen co-op). Once you complete Normal, you can, if you're so inclined, then start to tackle the higher difficulties, which require you to unlock more and better weapons, and to also add to your HP total. This of course means level grinding. Weapon unlocks, while random, do have some deterministic element as well, as there are differing possibilities for each level on each separate difficulty, which means it's somewhat random, but the weapons are tied to a few select levels and difficulties, so it's not entirely as random as it may seem.

This design encourages the player to attempt later levels at harder difficulties in order to unlock better weaponry, which will enable them to tackle the challenges that lie farther ahead. It's a system that encourages multiple playthroughs and, if the game grabs you, will keep you going and going and going.....It's the classic carrot on a string game design.

The weapons that you unlock, while incredibly numerous, do come in specific categories, which include things like shotguns, assault rifles, snipers, grenade launchers, missile launchers, rocket launchers, and special weapons, which include things like acid guns, flamethrowers, firecracker bombs, and some others that will not be spoiled here. If you manage to complete the game on Inferno, the highest difficulty, and unlock every single weapon in the game, you are granted the ultimate weapon. I will leave this for you to discover, but suffice it to say that if this game were more popular, it would go down in history as one of, if not the, craziest video game weapons of all time.

While newer weapon unlocks are generally just stronger versions of your current weapons, the weapons on display are still a huge standout, with such things as automatic rocket launchers that shoot several rockets in rapid succession and can level entire skyscrapers in one shot (note that the rubble disappears into the ground within seconds).

The bosses in this game are completely humongous and over the top, which fits right in with the rest of the game, seeing as how it's all humongous and over the top. The aforementioned dinosaur mech....things are one example of what types of bosses you will face in this game. Another boss type are skyscraper sized robots, and gigantic spaceships that are equipped with turrets and give birth to flying robots.

So, for those of you who happen to be so called old school gamers, you're probably recognizing the fact that the label of old school very much applies to this game. Completely over the top, B movie plot and elements, enemy drops, ridiculous weaponry, no objectives other than kill, gigantic enemies and humongous bosses. This game is completely old school, and makes no apologies for it. This would have fit right in in an early 1990's arcade, or on the Genesis or SNES. In 2D of course, but the game design would be exactly the same.

If the previous few sentences appeal to you, or stir up some latent old school gamer feelings within you, then this game is probably for you. Of course, there are some (several, really) caveats to mention. As previously stated, on a technical level, this game fails miserably. If you you can look past this (being aware of the games budget status certainly helps) or that things like this take a backseat to fun for you, then the following statements likely won't dissuade you from playing this game, but I would suggest reading through the criticisms to try and be sure (or to try and approach whatever level of certainty reading a review affords you).

As mentioned earlier, the vehicle controls are horrid. They're so clunky, it seems as though the team ran out of time, and had to leave them unfinished. The animations are really bad. Your characters' run/walk animations are so incredibly strange, you really have to see it. It looks as though the characters' midsection is comprised of a Jenga tower that has sustained a massive blow to its' structural integrity.

The graphics are poor. The sound design is screwed up, in that the 5.1 mix doesn't work properly, and the crude music is mixed too far into the background (which isn't too much of a negative, in retrospect). The physics and collision detection are completely screwy. There are major framerate issues present. When things get really hectic, the slowdown is absolutely horrendous. The powerup icons look like Doom 1 quality sprites. Your dead allies still somehow speak, apparently not appraised of the fact that they are in fact dead. The gameplay basically defines repetitive.

And yet, despite all of that, the game actually rocks. The framerate issues somehow don't matter, and in some way, add to the fun, as you see 20 rockets flying towards a group of 50 or so ants climbing buildings, and running towards you, spitting acid as they do so, all in slow motion. Also, the framerate issues aren't infrequent, but they're also not constant.

The 2D sprite icons spur nostalgic feelings in the veteran gamer. As does, well, everything. I experience major nostalgic feelings when I play this game. The weapons you can toy around with are simply ridiculous, and very fun to both unlock and wield. The enemy designs are really fun, and reminiscent of cheesy B science fiction movies. The action is nonstop, and the infinite ammo means that o matter what weapons you choose to bring with you into a mission, you'll be able to use them from start to finish. No matter if it's an acid gun, a blockbusting claymore type bomb, or the Air Tortoise, which is an agonizingly slow missile that is incredibly fun to watch slowly fly towards its target, which it misses as often as it hits for devastating damage. The co-operative play with two like minded gamers approaches the level of sublime. One could say it's gaming nirvana.

Basically, if you're into mindless fun, love over the top enemies and weapons and B movie plots, and basically don't require every game you play to be a big budget, flashy effects laden so called AAA masterpiece, then this game may very well be the most refreshing thing you have played in a long time. You really have to be able to look past technical issues though. That's the key. I can, and do, and I have put over 60 hours into this game, and I don't plan on ever shelving it for good. I think this is going to be one of those games that I will play sporadically throughout the years. This may not be on anyone's best of lists, but damn it, it's on my most fun list.

I have thought long and hard about the score I assign to this game, and I am absolutely torn. Truly, absolutely torn. My brain wants to simultaneously award this game a 9, 7, and 3. The problem is, I am trying to review, and subsequently score, the game for several types of gamers. This is a game that will really divide gamers. If you only play the ''best'' games, if you don't like mindless fun, but rather, more coherent and at least somewhat cerebral gameplay; if you need a compelling narrative and/or if you didn't grow up with the 8 and 16 bit systems, it's quite likely, although certainly not necessarily a given, that you will think this game to be an absolute piece of junk, to be categorized with the likes of Superman 64 and Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. A 3 out of 10 would be a fitting score for you, perhaps even too generous on my part.

Ya, try rating me a 3!

On the other hand, if you are me, you really, really love this game, despite being absolutely cognizant of the fact that it's kind of a piece of crap. You know you probably sound like an EDF 2017 apologist, but you're really tempted to score the game a 9, because, damn it, games are about fun. Games are about entertainment. And this game entertained the hell out of you. It provided you with an amount of fun that's nearly unquantifiable (it is, in numbers of hours, but it's a really high number, damn it!). The technical issues really, honestly, and truly don't matter to you, at least not for this game. It's charms absolutely won you over.

However, this also puts you in the awkward position of scoring this game as highly, or very close to as highly, as something like a Gears of War or a Metal Gear Solid. And that can't be right, can it? I mean, okay, if gaming is about fun, then it makes sense that for you , at least, this was subjectively a ton of fun. But don't game designers deserve to be credited for their technical mastery, artistic vision, innovation, etc? If Kojima and co. really busted their asses to make MGS4 as fantastic as possible, do they deserve to be rated around the same as a technically horrendous game?

Then again, EDF2017 had an absolutely miniscule budget, and amount of other resources, like actual developers, so perhaps it's not fair to score them lower than these other games based on those particular variables. Especially since the game not only costs less to make, but is actually selling for less. Doesn't that mean the gamer should expect less? Or should games be judged solely on their merits, independent of such concerns? I mean, a 9 for a game with literally broken mechanics and such glaring technical flaws, plus the repetition.....

Okay, and so gamer number three pipes in and says that it all should be factored in. The game is fun, fun, fun, but also very, very flawed, and even has some broken mechanics. However, it's a budget title, selling for a budget price, and it really is quite fun, despite the issues. So, we factor it all together, and objectively, the game deserves that 3, but then you factor in the budget status, and the subjective assessment of its entertainment value, which is very positive, and you meet somewhere halfway. You can't give it a terrible score, as it really does rise above its problems (depending upon the type of gamer you are, of course) but you also can't give it a really high score, as you're then telling people, at least on the face of it, that the game is as good as those so called AAA games you so adamantly say it's not fair to compare it to.

And so, after a lengthy internal debate, and the several paragraph long, incredibly informal and non traditional section of this review, which not only breaks but demolishes my self imposed but cherished rule of keeping personal comment out of reviews, a decision has been reached, although not without mixed emotions. I hereby award Earth Defence Force 2017 a seven point five out of ten.

Overall Score: 7.5/10