My thoughts on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy

My thoughts on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy 

Intro: OK I will try to keep this short and sweet because I know I'm beating a dead horse. Plus, I wanted to wait for everyone to air out their grievances with this trilogy before I do. 

This year marks the tenth anniversary of Disney owning the rights to Star Wars. They made five movies they are one trilogy and two spin-offs. Sadly, fans are not happy with what this company has done with this franchise. They despise these movies so much that they want them retcon. You don't think that's a slap in the face to the kids who grew up with this trilogy and the people who worked on it? The fans find this trilogy so bad that it's not good enough to make parody videos out of these movies. (Heck, the merchandise is not selling.) This trilogy makes me want to give a backhanded compliment to the prequels. They were bad in a creative way. 

Plus, there are things around the prequels that I enjoy. 

That's saying a lot considering that this trilogy has some of the same problems as the Prequels which is bad writing and not explaining things. To be fair, we have novels to make up for the prequel's shortcomings. The sequel trilogy is bad in a lazy way. I'll elaborate on that later. The fact that people despise both trilogies tells me two things. Either Star Wars has lost its novelty, or fans are too afraid to admit that the original trilogy was also bad. I'm surprised that Disney didn't use George Lucas's outline of the sequel trilogy, considering that they had no plans for this trilogy.  

Speaking of Mr. Lucas, I was rolling on the floor laughing when the fans said they wanted him to come back and do this trilogy. Let me get this straight, you access this man of raping your childhood, made a documentary vilifying him, gave him so much crap over the prequels, the special editions, and you even said that you don't want him anywhere near this franchise that he created. Now you're going to give him a backhanded compliment by saying that the prequels are good. I'm sorry, but you can't burn a bridge and expect someone to save you. 

I have mixed feelings about Mr. Lucas. On one hand, I do feel bad for him because of how fans are giving him a hard time. In a Vanity Fair interview, he said he feels like he's being restricted from making movies a certain way because of the fan's backlash. Look, Mr. Lucas, being creative is not a problem; however, if you go against what was established, then it's an issue. On the other hand, he's not taking responsibility for why fans feel this way about him. He didn't acknowledge that the fans made some valid points, pointing out the mistakes he made with this franchise. Also, I'm tired of him hiding behind this franchise was made for kids excuse, because A that's no excuse for you to be lazy. B You can't make a movie for kids without the kids who grew up with Star Wars in mind. 

The fans can blame JJ Abrams, Rian Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy all they want for how these movies turned out but that doesn't change the fact that they play a role in this as well. I say that because they are acting like women as far as sending mixed messages. After the prequels, you said you want the movies to be more like the original. Disney did that with The Force Awakens and you complain that it's too similar to the original. Despite The Last Jedi being almost similar to the Empire Strikes Back, it was too different from Star Wars and that got fans upset. The Rise of Skywalker tried to do damage control, but the damage is done. Do you see what I mean? This makes me mad because the fans got a studio to listen to them and they ruined it for other fanbases. I'm not just saying that because the fans kept flip-flopping it's because of how they lashed out at everyone who worked on these movies. 

Even Mark Hamill is disgusted by our behavior. Fans should be ashamed of themselves because acting like this shows that this franchise had no impact on them. I mean this franchise tells us that fear and anger are bad things,

 

yet you let those emotions get the best of you to the point where you take it out on people who don't deserve it. 

Seriously don't you feel bad that you chase the actor or actress off of social media and them wanting to commit suicide because of you? It's a shame that Transformers is the most civilized fans we have. Granted! I do talk about wanting to hurt someone when I get mad or disappointed however it's directed at the writers, directors and producers. Plus, I'm sarcastic about it. I'm not a sadistic person, my threats don't go beyond wishing people had cancer or die the most harmful and painful death. 

My editor: The devil is a liar! (He's reading my journey.) When I see Zack Synder, I'm going to chop off his fingers, burn off half his face, crack his ribs with a sledgehammer, run over his legs and rip out his... 

Me: Hey! Are you trying to get me canceled?  

Look I'm not saying that you don't have the right to dislike these films however, you shouldn't go on about it in a way that makes you look toxic and entitled. As far as this trilogy goes, it didn't anger me as much as everyone else. Considering that Disney discontinued the Star Wars EU, Lucas Arts is disbanded and this trilogy has a female lead I saw this coming, I didn't think it was going to be this bad. As far as the spin-off movies goes I didn't watch them because I didn't care about them. Also, is it me or does Rouge One remind you of Halo Reach? 

With that said I enjoyed the first film out of all of them which isn't saying much. The Last Jedi had potential but it's wasted. Rise of Skywalker is the worst of the worst. The people who worked on the first movie should have taken notes from Jurassic World because that movie did a better job at doing something different with a familiar story. As far as The Last Jedi goes I understand making divisive movies is Rian Johnson's MO but that shouldn't come at the expense of an already-established franchise. Subverting our expectations is pointless if it hurts the story. If you want a good example of how to do that watch Million Dollar Baby. For the most part, this trilogy is the same as the original trilogy because the characters are different from the original trilogy the story won't have the same impact on them. 

One of the problems I have with this trilogy is the First Order. I mean we don't know where they came from or how much manpower they have. This is the same issue I have with Snoke, I mean he's just as old or maybe older than the empire so where has he been all of this time? Speaking of Snoke if you're OK with how he was killed off then you should have no problem with Emperor Palpatine being in the third movie. As far as Emperor Palpatine goes, I can't believe that Disney is going to adapt the worst part of the Star Wars EU to bring this character back. Cloning opens up so many cans of worms that I don't want to get into. Also, bringing this character back undermines the original trilogy and the sequel trilogy. Regardless of how you feel about Snoke, you can't deny that the creators wrote themselves in a corner with how he was killed off.  

I know thirty years have passed but this is a franchise with world-building you can't just throw in a new threat with no rhyme or reason. Whatever victory the rebels have over them means nothing because they come back bigger and better. It's hard for me as a viewer to take the first order seriously because of how it's run. I mean everyone is screaming at each other, this is something you expect in a domestic dispute, not in a military organization. I feel bad for Gen. Hucks (the General of the first order) because both Snoke and Kylo undermine and humiliate him in front of his subordinates. Doing that is the quickest way to start a coup that's what happened on the rebel's side but I'm getting ahead of myself. Doing that doesn't boost the General's morale to lead the first order and it doesn't boost the subordinate's morale to follow his orders. I wasn't surprised that Gen. Hunk's sold out the first order because I would have done the same thing.  

Having Rey as the main character was a mistake because of how protective society is of women we don't get to see female characters struggle, rough up, or get their comeuppance in the media. This is why she's portrayed as a Mary Sue for most of the trilogy. Portraying female characters like this has caused more harm than good because we have women who have no respect for men. I'm glad that we have men vs women sports because they need to be reminded that they are the weaker sex. 

My editor: Whoa! Saying that will get you canceled. 

Me: You can shoot the messenger all you want but the facts are the fact. 

Rey started off as interesting as far as being a scavenger learning how to fend for herself and she's waiting for someone. That goes down the toilet when she meets Fin and that's a shame because this trilogy had a chance to give her things, she could work on but the writers didn't do that. For example, the creators could have made her selfish and not trust anyone due to her being abandoned by her parents because that makes sense. She doesn't want to believe that her parents the people who suppose to love her abandoned her. The writers did that with The Last Jedi but it lacks the emotional weight that it could have had. Speaking of Ray's parents I didn't mind them being nobodies because it helps reinforce that the force is mystical and not biological. Which was a problem I had with the Prequels. Plus, this is a lot better than what we got in Rise of Skywalker. What bugs me about them is the movie makes a big deal about them. 

To be fair her being Palpatine's granddaughter; would have worked if she knew from day one.  I mean the reason why she stays on Jakku is that she knows no one will want anything to do with her if they found out who she's related to. Doing this will help her dynamic with Fin and parallel with Luke. Fin is trying to run away for the first order and Rey is trying to hide from the world. Luke wants to know about his father Rey doesn't. After she reluctantly joins Fin, she gains allies and friends. When she reveals that she's Palpatine's granddaughter it doesn't change how they see her because that shouldn't define who you are. Doing that would be Star Wars way of telling a nature vs nurture story. It's hard to go in that direction with Rey because this is the same plot from the first Ratchet and Clank game.  

As far as Rey having a romance with Kylo it would have been interesting to see Star Wars doing their own version of Romeo and Juliet. (Plus make up for Anakin and Padme's romance.) However, I don't see how the writers can pull that off without both parties losing credibility with their respected groups. Also, why would Rey want to be with someone she can map the floor with? Am I the only one insulted to see her train in the last film? We already know you're OP so what's the point of this? 

Kylo Ren is wasted in this trilogy. I say that because we don't know much about him. I like what was done with him in The Last Jedi but the writers ruined it. This character starts off as an emotionally unstable man who's trying to live up to Darth Vader. This characterization ruins this character. I mean the viewers can't take him seriously if he's throwing temper tantrums. Also, it's hard to appreciate how dangerous he is in Luke's eyes when we don't see him cause much death and destruction. In The Last Jedi, he's done with his Vader worship and tries to be more calm and collected. That gets thrown out the window in the third act because he reverts to what he was and to make this worse he's taking orders from Emperor Palpatine in the next movie. After sensing that his mother died he switches sides and this amounts to nothing. If Rey and Kylo had a better relationship it could have mattered.  

Luke Skywalker where do I begin? Look I don't mean that a character falls from grace or having a change of heart however those things have to make sense with the character. Also, that didn't happen here because this is not Luke Skywalker. Luke wouldn't turn his back on the Galaxy and his family especially if he played a role in why the Galaxy is in trouble in the first place. Even if the reason why Luke doesn't want to train Jedi anymore is because he reached the same conclusion as Bendu that doesn't change the fact that everyone else is vulnerable to the dark side. Really, I'm surprised Yoda didn't want the Jedi to end I mean it would make sense why he would feel this way considering everything that happened in the prequels. So, Luke saw visions of Kylo causing death and destruction but not the role he played in it. Does Leia know Luke was thinking about killing her son? What bugs about this character is his interaction with Kylo in the last act. I mean he didn't say I'm sorry or I failed you he treats him like he's beyond saving. What gives? 

Luke: What? Did you expect me to take out my laser sword and take on the entire first order? 

No! I expect you to do something useful. Plus, doing that would be as ridiculous as giving Yoda a lightsaber. I didn't mind him using the force projection to save the rebels, but I wish he didn't do it from a long distance. His death scene wasn't good because it was isolated, I mean the people who know him weren't by his side at the end. That's what bothers me about Han and Leia's death scenes.  

I don't have much to say about Poe Dameron all we know about him is that he's an ace pilot. I
wish he was with Fin and Rey in the first movie. I mean wasn't the point of having three new leads if we barely see them together? We learn that he wasn't always an upstanding guy in the last movie but that amounts to nothing. In the second film, the writers tried to give him an arc of knowing when to lead and when to follow. The problem with that arc is that it wasn't done well. Leia demotes Poe for going against her order then later on she lets him back in the field. After Leia is in the hospital Gen. Holdo takes her place and all we get is them bickering over her plan until Leia gets back. After their back and forth, she gives him a backhanded complaint saying she likes him What the fudge!?! 

This wouldn't have been pointless and a waste of time if Holdo told Poe about her plan. Her excuse for not telling him is that he's a hothead. What is she talking about he wasn't like that with you and how is keeping him in the dark going to put him in a better mood? If your response to this is he should respect the chain of command first of all, where was your respect for the chain of command when Mr. Trump was in office? Second, There's more to being in charge than giving orders you have to put your subordinate's minds at ease with things go wrong. If you don't do that and you're calm about things going wrong you get a coup which ends up happening here. 

I wish I could say that Fin is the best character in this trilogy but the writers ruined him in the
last two films. Even the actor who plays this character wasn't happy with what was done to this character. I would be outraged too because it seems like the marketing pulled a bait-and-switch on us with this character. Fin starts off as a stormtrooper who somehow breaks free from his condition. After that, he helps Poe escape the first order so that he can get as far away from them as he can. After meeting Rey and forming a bond with her he develops to courage to stand up to the first order. In The Last Jedi, the writers hit the reset button with this character. (I still can't get over how fast he was able to recover from getting hit in the spine with a Lightsaber.) The subplot of him and Rose is insulting because it serves as a PSA on how bad war is. Considering what's going on between Russia and Ukraine that part of the movie didn't age well. He's face-off with Capt. Phasma was a joke. In the rise of Skywalker, all he does is shout Rey! and try to tell her that he loves her. How this trilogy handled this character makes me sick because he could have worked as the main character. 

The other problems I have with this trilogy are the MCU style of humor, the force and the themes in The Last Jedi. How the force works in this movie makes me question if there are any limits to the force? If you can use the force to communicate and touch people from a long distance, then why can't they teleport? Don't get me started on force healing! I don't like it because it eliminates any tension in a dire situation. Really, having this ability undermines episode 3. Do I really have to comment on Leia's Mary Poppen moment? Why didn't Leia use The Force to move the rocks? The themes in The Last Jedi is learning from your mistakes and letting the past die. The issue I have with the first theme is that it doesn't work if characters don't admit to their screw-ups. That's what bugs me about Yoda being in this movie because he could have acknowledged that the Jedi failed because of him not following the well of the force and gotten soft since the Sith haven't been around in a long time. How does this theme apply to Rey? I mean she hasn't made any mistakes so why have a theme that doesn't affect the main character? As far as letting the past die, I find it insulting considering the writers are using the past to tell their story. This theme could have worked if it was used properly in the story. 

Overall, Disney has dropped the ball with this trilogy. It's sad that this franchise can't have any success outside of the original trilogy era for the most part. 

It would be a miracle if we get any more movies out of this franchise not just because Disney is going down the toilet it's because the fans are starting to make this a franchise that no one wants to touch.  

                    

My review of the legend of Korra

My review of the legend of Korra

Intro: Show of hands who thinks making a sequel series to Avatar the last airbender was a good idea?  

 

The legend of Korra: This series takes place a century after the events of Avatar the last airbender and a new Avatar name Korra appears. With the exception of airbending, she manages to master the elements and there are threats popping up around the nation. So, Korra has to learn airbending in order to fulfill her role as the Avatar. 

This was not a good follow-up to Avatar the last airbender! That's kind of a shame because despite me not being on board with this series I was course to see how the writers could expand on what was established in that series. The creators seem to be aware that trying to top its predecessor is a tall order, so the creators tried to do something different. For example, instead of getting us one simple story, we get four different stories for each season. I feel like I'm watching a graphic novel. To be fair this was suppose to be a short series. Seasons 2 and 4 can get ridiculous to the point where you feel like you're watching Godzilla or Mobile Suit Gundam. Speaking of season 2 that was the worst season out of the four because it started off as one thing and turns into something else. The problem with the conflict in seasons one and four is that we don't see it. 

This series is more character-driven than its predecessor. I wouldn't have minded that if the subplot were used to develop the characters instead of putting them in boxes. When the supporting characters have more development than the main characters you know you screwed up. It's hard to care about the new team Avatar because they spend more time apart. Most of the villains in this show are forgettable. They have fine motivation however they go about achieving their goals in a way that doesn't make them look bad. 

The world-building in this series opens up a can of worms. We get an explanation to the origins of bending and the avatar let's just say less is more. I'm having a hard time buying that society has become this advance in 100 years. For example, republic city looks like 1920's New York. When we see the other nations, they are not as advanced because their culture is based on the bender's ability. In republic city, bending is trivialized for the most part and reduced to sports. The show tried to bland the same animation from the previous series with CGI and it sticks out like a sore thumb. The clip note episode is wasted I mean it could have been better if it was a movie serial.  

Korra is hotheaded, bratty and determined. It's understandable why she likes this because she has gone through the same journey as the other Avatars before her. Plus, we get an explanation to why she's treated differently from the other avatars. Despite all of that, she does have a good heart. Those character traits are the reason why she's having trouble with airbending. What bugs me about her is that when she finally learns airbending it was odd. I mean it came out of the blue. I find it hard to swallow that she can master the other three elements with ease. I get why the creators did this to prevent this series from being a copy of the previous show, but you can pull it off without doing that. What's the point of being the Avatar if you're not one of the best or the best bender? That's what this series could have done with Korra. Don't you find it funny that this character got so much focus that she barely develops? Plus, the writers made her look bad in season 2. 

Tenzin (One of Aang's kids.) is Korra's mentor. He's calm, serious and has funny moments with his family. He still feels the effects of the 100-year wars because his family are the only airbenders.  

Bolin (Mako's brother.) Is fun-loving and laid-back. That's what annoys me about this character because he's the comic relief we don't get any serious scenes with him and it makes him look stupid.  

Mako is a stick in the mud. I don't like the love triangle he's in because he has no chemistry with either of the women and he it makes him look bad playing both of them. 

Asami is a kind and caring person who can take care of herself. I'm surprised she like this considering her upbringing. My gripe with her is that she's underused. It's hard to appreciate her dynamic with her father because the show didn't focus on it. The series drop hits that there's more to her relationship with Korra. I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I can buy where the writers are going with these two because females can be close to each other in a way that men can't. On the other hand, you can't have it both ways. I mean if the creators are afraid to expose their relationship, then it shouldn't have been in the show. 

Lin is the Chief of Police in Republic city and Toph's daughter. She's an uptight no-nonsense person. That makes sense considering who her mom is plus she has family issues. 

Varrick is a better comic relief character than Bolin. Don't ask why comedy is subjective. He's also a shady character. The only complaint I have with him is his assistant, I wish she express her feelings sooner than later.           

I like that this series continues to explore the ability to bend the elements. It's good to see some of the legacy characters. Each season tried to be about something. Season one was about equality, season two was about spirituality, season three was about freedom and season four was about control. I appreciate this series trying to address the issue of PTSD I just wish it didn't come at the expense of character development. This series addresses other serious issues like family trauma. The beginning of season three reflex our current situation.

Overall, this series is a mess that I wouldn't recommend checking out. 

My Sonic the Hedgehog 2 review

 My Sonic the Hedgehog 2 review 

 

Intro: The people who keep posting spoilers need to get slapped. Seriously, if it were up to me, I would ban people from social media for doing this. If Mr. Trump can get banned, why can't they?

Sonic the Hedgehog 2: This movie takes place 8 months after the events of the first film, and Sonic is using his powers to do good. One day, Dr. Robotnik returns to Earth with an ally, and together they are looking for a MacGuffin that will give him ultimate power for world domination. So, Sonic has to find it before Dr. Robotnik does.

I enjoyed this movie more than the last one, but that's not saying much. I like that this movie builds off the last films, for example, we learned why Sonic was chased out of his homeworld? This movie is more of an action-adventure film than the previous one. The movie focuses mostly on the Sonic characters rather than the human ones. The movie has a subtle message about acceptance. Of course, you can't have a movie like this without easter eggs, and I appreciate the writers trying to be creative with the Sonic lore.  

Sonic is a cocky, confident, wisecracker who goes through a hero's journey. That's my problem with him his hero's journey has no pay-off. Also, I wish he was mature. I mean, the movie treats him like a kid, and that undermines him as a character. 

Tails is just like his video game counterpart as far as being smart. I'm glad that the movie got the voice actress who's voiced this character for over ten years. His dynamic with Sonic is just like in the games as far as having a big brother-little brother relationship. What bugs me about this character is that he serves no purpose in the movie beyond explaining things. 

Knuckles is a noble, naive, and fierce warrior of the Echidna tribe. This is refreshing considering how this character is turned into a joke in certain games. He also provides some of the humor in this movie by taking things literally. My only gripe with him is that the conflict between him and Sonic lacks the emotional weight that it could have had. 

Dr. Robotnik is more diabolical in this movie. Considering that this is Mr. Carry's last movie, I hope this won't be the last time we see this character. After seeing what this movie teased for the third movie, he needs to be in it. This complaint is about Agent Stone (Dr. Robotnik's right-hand man.) The way he misses him makes me question their relationship.

One of the problems with this movie is the climax; it wasn't bad, but something happened that came out of nowhere with no build-up. Plus, it eliminates the tension in the climax. Bringing Sonic characters into the human world was a mistake because giving the humans any screen time takes away the focus from Sonic and the others. There is a twist involving the human characters to get us to care about what's going on with them. It doesn't work because we don't know these people, and the lighthearted tone ruins it. Speaking of tone, you can't take certain things seriously because the tone doesn't match the scene. Some of the effects don't look good, the floss and meow joke still didn't work.   

Overall, this movie didn't break the curse, but it's a step in the right direction.  

Rating = Average       

My thoughts on the Halo series

 My thoughts on the Halo series

 

After nine years of waiting were finally getting a Halo series, it’s too bad that it doesn’t mean a darn thing! Also, do we really need a Halo movie? I mean Star Wars Rouge One is similar to Halo Reach. The more we learn about the show the less interested fans are going to watch it. We were told three things about this series first thing is the show is not based on canon, it takes place in a different timeline. Second, Master Chief will take off his helmet. Finally, the people who worked on the series didn’t play the games. You can tell that the creative team is not familiar with this franchise because the actor who's playing Master Chief doesn't sound like him and this franchise doesn’t deal with time paradox or multiverse. This franchise has gone downhill after 343 industries took over this franchise. (I wouldn't have minded Halo 4 telling a personal story if it didn't come at the expense of this franchise; that game felt like fan fiction.) How is alienating the fanbase going to help boost morale? Look, I’m not trying to discourage creativity however Hollywood didn’t earn the right to do that with this franchise. These adaptations are pushing thirty years old and Hollywood is not batting a thousand when it comes to them. 

I understand why writers would come up with an original story and attach it to a well-known franchise as a way to get people to watch it. 

However, it makes no sense to do that here I mean Sci-Fi is a popular genre. The creators have no reason not to play any of the games, how can you make a show about them if you don’t know anything about the games? You don’t think that would make you look stupid? The games and outside sources can work as movies or TV Shows. For example, the only Halo book I read was First Strike and that can work as a movie, so what’s the problem?

As far as Master Chief taking off his helmet, I can be fixable with this. I wouldn’t mind this if it’s done in a meaningful way and the scene was shot where the characters can see his face but the viewers can’t. I hope it’s not done too often because his armor doesn’t work without his helmet. We don’t need to see his face to know what he’s thinking or feeling, if Darth Vader can get away with it why can’t this character? I’m going to address some of the things that bothered me about the trailers. In this series Master Chief and the other Spartans are created to fight a war against the covenant I’m guessing. The Spartans were not created to fight a war they were created to protect the UNSC from rebels. I don’t know what’s more ridiculous Master Chief being able to fight off two Elites or Batman being able to fight two Predators. 

Also, how can the UNSC be at war with the covenant when they are at odds with the scientist? Speaking of scientists Dr. Halsey doesn’t look good the same thing goes for Cortana. We also see a human allying herself with the covenant how is that possible!?! We saw the Elite slander a bunch of humans in the trailer what’s going on here!?! The only explanation I can think of is that there is division among them, or the woman is not human. I hope she doesn't replace the Arbiter. Another thing there is a girl in this series that fans think the show will be centered on her. Considering how Hollywood throws men under the bus to make women look good this wouldn’t surprise me.

In closing, this show is doomed to fail. That’s a shame because it has good production value if only the budget when to the writers. This might appeal to the general public, but it will rub fans the wrong way.  

My thought on the difficulty in video games

My thought on the difficulty in video games 

For those of you who don’t play video games, there has been people and so-call gaming journalist complaining about video games being too hard lately. To be fair this has been going on for the past five or six years and I hope it would stop. First, it was Dark Souls then Metroid Dread and now Elden Rings. Of course, like most of the gaming community, I brush it off as them being lazy, entitled, afraid of fomo or they want to be a completionist. The gaming community even started a hashtag # get good and I respond to them by saying play a telltale game. 

Heck game developers pop fun at us for playing games on easy mode. 

I feel bad for jumping on people who complain about this without seeing if this is a topic worth talking about. Plus, there is something I didn’t consider and that’s player expression. Also, I’m just tired of people expecting everyone to include them in everything. There is a right way and a wrong way to do hard mode in video games. When hard mode is done right it causes you to think of ways to beat the boss or complete your objective. It encourages you to be familiar with the game’s mechanics and know when to use them. For example, there is a level in Crash Bandicoot where you have to reach the end of a broken bridge without falling. You can do this by timing your jumps or using the ropes. Another example is GM mode in the Smackdown vs Raw games. The goal in that mode is to win General Manager of the year award. In order to do that you have to keep the rating high and that's no simple task. 

When it’s done wrong, it feels like the game is testing your patients instead of having you think. (I'm not saying that a difficult game shouldn't test your patients but there should be a limit.) This is the problem I have with the Halo games whenever I play them on Legendary mode, I feel like I’m being handicapped. The enemy A.I. has increased health and can do more damage when they hit you. Because of that I barely got past the first wave of enemies because I use most of my ammo on one of them. Playing Halo involves strategy as far as you have to prioritize which alien are you going to kill first? By making them OP you took the fun away and now the game has become a chore. I heard when you play a certain mode in the Destiny games, your equipment is limited and you have to play the game a certain way. If that's true, then that's hurting the player expression. That's why I don't like trophies in games because they are telling me how to play the game instead of letting me play the game how I want to play it.    

Despite my enjoyment of Pac-Man, it's one of the hardest games to beat for me. The reason why is because whenever you beat a level the ghost move faster and the power Pac’s last shorter. Memorizing the ghost movement patterns doesn't mean anything if you don’t have the reflexes to match. I’m not saying that this hurt the game however I can understand why other people would feel differently. Another thing that annoys me about playing games on hard mode is that when you died you have to start all over again as far as regain your collectibles and stats. (Well, that depends on what you're playing.) This is why platform games like Mega Man and Crash Bandicoot don't need hard modes because they become difficult as you progress through the game and you become familiar with the controls. They do the same thing with racing games, once you're familiar with the controls the tracks become harder and the time limit is shorter. 

There are some games where hard mode is ridiculous. For example, the hard mode in NBA 2K2 is an invisible wall when the A.I. is playing defense. I’m not kidding about that why was this game popular at the time? Star Wars Bounty Hunter doesn’t have a hard mode, but that game has tasks that can be hard to achieve like collecting bounties. I mean it’s hard to get certain ones because the target is in the middle of a shootout, and you don’t have enough time to decide if you want the target dead or alive? When playing a wrestling game as a cruiserweight going up against a heavyweight, there isn't much you can do against him besides outmaneuvering your opponent. (Well, that depends on which game you're playing.) Don't get me started on the Xbox 360 version of Iron Man. 

Yes! Hard mode in games can make or break those games especially if the game is broken. When you beat a game on hard mode you should feel like you accomplish something by overcoming the challenge not rejoicing that you finally beat the game and hope you never play it again. Then again easy mode can hurt the game as well, I mean if the game is too easy you have no incentive to explore the game. When it comes to Dark Souls and Elden Rings I hear people complain that those games have no maps, no indicator that tells you when an enemy is going to hit you, the game doesn't drop hits and you can't tell if you're fighting the final boss. 

Where was this complaint when it comes to the Legend of Zelda games? I mean some of the Zelda games are like this. Also, Pokémon games don't have maps either. I can understand why those games bug you if you're bad at backtracking. Also, there's a difference between holding your hand and pointing you in the right direction. Going back to Legend of Zelda those games have maps that you have to find and drop hits on where you should go but you still have to do the work. Those games don't tell you where you can find all the easter eggs or collectibles. (Well, that depends on the NPC you talk to in the game.) I struggle with finding all the pieces of heart but that didn't ruin the game for me. That was my gripe with Skyward Sword, I mean you start with six hearts instead of three, but I digress.       

Just because a game is too hard for you it doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the game or you. All games are not the same and there not made for everyone. Also watching other people beat the game on twitch is not that helpful, I mean you can’t accomplish things in life just by watching others do it for the most part. People complaining about games being too difficult shouldn't be an issue as long as you can articular your points. When you don't you get videos like that girl on TikTok saying all games need easy mode. 

See what I mean? RPGs don't need an easy mode because you can raise your stats to make the game easier for you. Just because playing games is not a priority for you that doesn't mean game developers should make it easy for you. Just because most gamers are minors doesn't help your case. There are people who work and still make time to play games so what is she talking about? If you want to see a story play the last of us or a telltale game. That's all I have to say about this subject for now. 

P.S. This is something Frosk could have talked about.          

My review of the Batman

 My review of the Batman 

 

Intro: The Batman is an animated series from 2004. It centered on Bruce Wayne/Batman's early years as the cape crusader as he meets his allies and foes for the first time. This series is dull because... (My editor corrected me and told me that I'm reviewing the movie, not the cartoon.) OK, it's official, we have so many movies and TV shows that we can't come up with original titles.  

The Batman: This movie is centered on Bruce Wayne/Batman, who has been fighting crime for the past two years. One day, someone called the Riddler is trying to get his attention, he does this by leaving him clues that will expose a secret that will not only affect Gotham but Bruce Wayne as well. The Riddler has dropped bodies to expose this conspiracy. So, Batman has to figure out what the Riddler is trying to expose before he takes things too far. 

This is one of those movies that's solid but left more to be desired. (I hope the extended version of this movie will fix that.) I'm happy that we finally get a mystery where Batman's detective work is on full display. The action scenes are much better than the ones we got in the previous films because we can see them for the most part. You can tell that the director took inspiration from other films like this and incorporated elements from the source material into the movie. The movie pushes the boundaries of the PG-13 rating, but it didn't go far enough, if you ask me. Gotham City in this movie is the best-looking Gotham City we've had since the 89 movie. The city looks gothic and modern at the same time. 

I can see why people would compare this to The Dark Knight because this movie borrows scenes from that movie; the movie is realistic and deals with escalation. The movie has many themes, like trauma and masks. We see how trauma affects our three main characters, and the movie doesn't do anything new with the mask metaphor. I like the movie's soundtrack because it uses beats from the other Batman films and does its own thing with it. Heck, the movie even uses the 1966 Batman theme without ruining the tone of the movie. The movie is shot in a way where you're by the main character's side with point-of-view shots and close-up focus shots. I'm fond of the way this movie ended because it set up one of two Batman stories from the comics that the writers could do. 

Batman in this movie is the Batman that people know and love, as far as being a tortured character that's brutal and brooding. I don't know what the director meant when he said he's going to give us something different with this character. Besides focusing on the detective aspect of this character, the director didn't break any new ground here. I like that we get narration from him because that helps us get inside his head, plus, he barely speaks. I don't like that we don't get much of Bruce Wayne in this movie because he's putting himself at risk of being exposed as Batman. I get that being Bruce Wayne is not a priority for him; however, that doesn't change the fact that this could blow up in his face. Plus, this was handled better in the comics. 

My grievance with this character is that we don't see his compassionate side for the most part. This is a trait that defines the character, and there are scenes where he could have displayed it. Sadly, he's not that smart in this movie. I mean, he didn't figure everything out on his own. Someone has to point him in the right direction; he's at the right place at the right time, or things have to be spelled out for him, World's greatest detective, my butt. Look, I don't mind Batman getting help; however, the supporting characters shouldn't look like they are holding his hand. Do I really have to comment on his bulletproof suit? Also, it's hard to appreciate that Bruce Wayne is full of anger because the actor playing him comes off as emotionally stunted. Plus, Batman: Arkham Origins did a better job at this.   

I like this movie's take on Selina Kyle because she's more noble and fierce than the other version of the character we have so far. What bugs me about her is that the director could have done a better job of bringing her into the story. She could have worked as a love interest for Batman if the attraction between these two wasn't one-sided. Plus, it would make the ending better. Come on, this is the third time we get this character on screen, and you can't get that one simple aspect of their dynamic right. Her mask drives me nuts because it looks so cheap. I also can't stand her long, ghetto behind nails!  

Lt. Gordon is kind of the same character that we got in Mr. Nolan's Batman trilogy. He and Batman have a good working relationship, even when they're backed into a corner. This complaint is not about Gordon; it's about GCPD. I wish that they were conflicted about Batman working with them.    

The movie hasn't done anything new with Alfred. That's a shame because I thought that he was going to be like his Earth-One counterpart, doing that would give us something different with the character. Besides one tender scene between him and Bruce, they don't have a father-and-son relationship like they did in the past. Also, the movie should have given us more of him.   

Edward Nashton/The Riddler (the main villain) is the scariest version we've got of this character in live-action. He reminds me of the Zodiac Killer, Jigsaw, and Ghost Face from Scream. That's one of the many issues I have with this character; the writers tried to do so much with this character that it's not balanced out well. Will the marketing team behind this movie please explain to me why they try so hard to hide his face!?! 

I was let down that he didn't give Batman more of a challenge in solving his riddles. Really, I'm surprised that the words no more lies wasn't a clue because we see it on all of his victims. My gripe with him is that his backstory failed to make him sympathetic because we don't know his full story. Plus, he endangered others. He also needed more screen time because he almost felt like an afterthought. Also, his plan to expose this secret wouldn't have worked if he hadn't overlooked the details. 

I don't have much to say about OZ/ The Penguin because he's barely in the movie. When we do see him, he's entertaining. That's the problem; he shouldn't be in the movie because he only serves as a red herring. Sidenote, I hope this movie gets nominated for best makeup because I didn't recognize the actor who's playing the penguin.  

Carmine Falcone is disappointing in this movie. He may play a bigger role in the story, but he was more menacing in Batman Begins. On top of that, he put himself at risk of being exposed of wrongdoing.      

One of the things that bothers me about this movie is the secret that the Riddler is trying to expose. It wasn't bad, it just didn't tell us anything new about Gotham. Plus, that was a huge selling point of the movie. With that said, I'm not crazy about how this secret affects Bruce because it kind of undermines his crusade. Plus, the movie doesn't give the people of Gotham a chance to process the reveal. I have mixed feelings about this movie addressing class warfare. On one hand, the movie wasted it, and on the other hand, I'm glad that they did because this is something that the creators should have saved for Bane. 

There are plot points that don't get resolved and some scenes in the movie that comes off as either stupid or unintentionally funny. Speaking of funny, the movie could have benefited from some levity because this movie is too moody for my taste. I'm not saying the movie doesn't have jokes, but they are either subdued or overshadowed by the movie's tone. I was outraged to see that (censor) is in this movie because this character had his or her own film, not too long ago; it's too soon to bring this character back. A minor complaint is that the sound effects don't complement the fight scenes the way the trailers did.    

Overall, I don't consider this the best Batman movie, but it's a good one. I would recommend this if you like thrillers and Noir detective films.  

Rating = Worth Seeing             

My uncharted review

My uncharted review 

Intro: OK despite the fact that I wasn't crazy about the casting of this movie and the red flags I notice in the trailers. I was willing to give this movie a chance because I was expecting this movie to be OK. Plus, there is an audience for a movie like this. Let's see how this movie turned out. (After I saw the movie.) I wish we can sue studios for IP abuse. If only that was a real thing. 

uncharted: This movie is centered on a young man name Nathan Drake who works as a bartender but wants to go on adventures. One day he meets a man name Sully who knows his long-lost brother Name Sam. Sully tells him that he and Sam were looking for the world's greatest treasure and Sully tries to convince Nathan to join them. Finding the treasure becomes difficult because someone else is looking for it so, Sully and Nathan have to beat them to it.  

Sony should be ashamed of themselves for how this movie turned out. You have been working on this movie for fourteen years and this is the best you can come up with really? This wouldn't anger me so much if Sony wasn't involved with this movie, I mean this is their franchise how can you screw up making this movie!?! This movie is suppose to take place before the first game but it has elements for the third and fourth game. May I ask why? Doing that makes things awkward considering what was teased in this movie. The movie has humor, but it falls flat. If you didn't like the product placement in the Power Rangers movie, you're not going to like it in this movie. The movie has some pacing issues. Another thing that hurt this movie is the characters, most of them have little to no personality and they complain about not trusting each other. 

Nathan Drake is a wisecracker and knows a lot about history. There is a scene in the movie where Nathan suppose to have a strong emotional reaction but that didn't happen. 

Victor Sully is a seasoned treasure hunter who's sarcastic in his own right. What bugs me about him is that he's not like his video game counterpart. The only thing the movie got right about this character is that he isn't trustworthy. 

I don't have much to say about Chole Frazer because she doesn't have much of a personality in this movie. Plus, she failed to make a good first impression with her dumb line of Sully doesn't have any friends! I should know because I'm one of them. 

Santiago Moncada (the main villain) is a ruthless treasure hunter. This movie wasted him, I say that because we were told that the treasure, they are looking for is connected to his family. If that's true, then it's hard to see him as the bad guy. 

There isn't a lot to like about this movie beyond the treasure-finding aspects of the film. Plus, showing us how greedy people can be. All in all, this isn't a good adaptation of the video game series but it's a solid adventure film. If you want to see a good uncharted movie watch the fan film by Nathan Fillion. 

Rating = Rental   

My thoughts on Mr. Snyder's Batman

 My thoughts on Mr. Snyder's Batman 

 

Intro: Since I already reviewed all of the Batman movies (With the expectations of the 1966' movie) and no one is going to do Mr. Affleck's Batman film, it's time for me to talk about what Mr. Snyder has done with this character. I didn't plan on doing this because Mr. Snyder didn't do much with this character. However, judging by the trailers for the upcoming Batman movie, it looks like Batman could have the same ARC as this one, but I'm getting ahead of myself. 

I didn't like the Bruce Wayne/Batman we got in Dawn of Justice. Not because he turned into the Punisher, it's because he was stupid, I'll get into that later. Not only does this Batman kill, but he also brands criminals, and that branding is a death sentence in prison. There are four things we know about Batman they are he doesn't use guns, he doesn't kill, he's a stick in the mud, and he's resourceful. You can't change these traits with no rhyme or reason and expect fans not to respond. That's one of the things that made this character interesting and ridiculous; that is, his resolve not to kill. Mr. Snyder made Batman into a killer because he thinks it's cool, are you kidding me!?! Hollywood, please keep this man away from Batman because he has no respect for the character. Don't take my word for it he said it would be interesting to have the Joker rape Batman. Someone needs to call an exorcist because this man is sick!?! 

The movie did give us a reason why Batman is dropping bodies after 20 years, that is the death of Robin pushed him over the edge. First of all, I don't buy that the death of Robin caused him to kill because the Joker is still alive!?! You can't have it both ways; you can't turn Batman into a mass murderer and not have him kill the one person who causes him to go on this path. Second, the movie implied that he didn't start killing until he saw the death and destruction Superman caused. He stopped doing that after the death of Superman. Is this a Joke!?! What makes this worse is that Alfred doesn't call Bruce out on this; well, he does, but not in any meaningful way. He didn't even ask what would your parents say about this? Is this how you want to honor their memories? Also, we don't know how Gotham PD feels about Batman dropping bodies.   

Let me get this straight, Batman wants to kill Superman because he thinks he's dangerous. You plan on doing that by using kryptonite without knowing if it can hurt him or not. Do you see what I mean by Batman being stupid? Not only that, Bruce was watching footage of Superman fighting Zod. So, you're not going to investigate to see if Superman is an enemy or not? Why would Batman take it upon himself to stop Superman what he did doesn't affect Gotham so what gives? Even if someone close to Bruce died in Metropolis that's no excuse to make assumptions with no proof. To the people who think this is the best Batman, did you forget that he's suppose to be the world's greatest detective? Another thing this makes Batman look like a hypocrite, I mean, it's OK for him to kill criminals, but it's not OK for Superman to do it, despite the fact that he was slappy about it.      

It's time to address the elephant in the room, and that's the Martha scene. This scene is a disgrace to Batman’s character! Did people forget that Batman is the most paranoid and distrustful character in fiction? Instead of asking why did you say that name, he should be asking who? He's not going to believe that Martha is Superman’s mother at face value, unless he's willing to truth but verify. Also, fans should be embarrassed that they didn’t know Batman and Superman’s mothers have the same name. Mr. Snyder, why did you make Batman so stupid in this movie!?! This makes Batman look bad because you’re about to kill Superman; people will say anything to get you to spare them. How is this any different from saying Please don’t kill me, I have a wife and kids? How do you know Superman is lying to you to get you to drop your guard, which you did do in this scene. 

You've been Batman for twenty years, and you never came across someone like that? If your argument is that the purpose of this scene is to show Batman that he’s gone too far, I’m not buying it because he already went too far! Did he really think Superman was raised by animals? Batman mentions Superman’s parents beforehand. (When he brought up his parents, did he sound like a villain, or is it just me?) Would he still spare Superman if his mother had a different name? Also, what about all the other criminals that he killed? How does he know their mother’s names are not Martha? Martha is not an uncommon name. So, this is how you stop Batman say the name Martha. This scene deserves to be made fun of. I can't believe people are defending the Martha scene. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they shouldn't; however, the reasons people come up with defending this are a stretch. 

How often do people bond over parents having the same name? 

Would you have a problem with cops letting criminals go for that reason? After Superman died, Batman will honor his memory by putting a team together. Are you kidding me? You wanted to kill him one minute, and the next minute, you treat him like he's your best friend. You don't have a long and storied history with this character like you did in the comics. Because of everything I just said, I had no interest in watching Mr. Affleck's solo film unless it deals with the aftermath of all the people he killed, just like Arrow season 5 did. I don't have much to say about this character in the Justice League movie because he comes off as optimistic in this movie. Now I wouldn't have a problem with this if A this was the last time we see this character and B there was no build-up to this. 

Overall, this character is wasted due to bad writing, directing, and a lack of explanation. It looks like Mr. Snyder was trying to tell a story of a character who was fighting crime for years and lost his way. Or a character who is consumed by grief that he goes too far in fighting crime. It looks like the upcoming Batman film will do one of these two things, and that can be hard to pull off because he hasn't been Batman long enough to go in that direction. That's all I have to say about this Batman.       

My thoughts on G4TV relaunch

My thoughts on G4TV relaunch  

Intro: I didn't plan on talking about this relaunch because it has been around for over a month now, that's not enough time to comment on how it's doing. Plus, I already talked about this network so I don't have much to say about it now, but something happened last week that could hurt this network's second chance. 

When I learn that G4TV was going to be revived two years ago, I was indifferent to the news. I said that because it's tricky to bring this network back because it lost its novelty over time due to the internet. (Ironically, that's what I missed about the network; the novelty of it.) I mean, we have IGN, Twitch, Machinima at the time, E-Sports, video game communities on social media, and people on the internet who cover video game topics. Plus, people are not watching cable TV like they used to. Comcast (The company behind G4) seems to be aware of this, so instead of returning to cable, they're going to take this relaunch online. I understand why they would go in this direction; however, it's going to be an uphill battle for them because of the competition. Reviving G4TV could work if it returns to its former glory. Plus, I would prefer to have all this video game content under one roof. The relaunch happened on November 16, and it was disappointing because it gave us the same two shows they are X-Play and Attack of the Shows. What made this worse is that we only got half of the host for those shows. That's the problem with reviving this network is that it doesn't have enough content to justify itself.  

This is what last week's schedule looks like. 

 

That's another thing, it's trying to operate like it did when it was on TV, and it doesn't work. Seriously, what's the point of bringing this network back if you're going to do the same thing that got this network canceled in the first place? This wouldn't have angry me if G4 didn't do a montage of what this network used to be like and how it is today. What's stopping this network from bringing back the old shows like Players, Arena, Cheat, Icon, Filter, Code Monkey, etc? Well, I heard that they tried to bring back Screen Savers, but that didn't work. Not only that have people who talk about video game content on the internet host these shows. Doing that would also help make this network relevant and give these people recognition. The only thing they can do to compete with others is to talk about obscure games and review handheld games. I say that because a lot of people don't do that, plus handheld games are no longer a thing after the Nintendo Switch. If G4 encourages more people to play handheld games, then they could make a comeback.     

Now it's time to address the elephant in the room. Last week, one of the new hosts of X-Play, who goes by the name Frosk, went on a must-see rant, and it was a must-see just not for the right reason. Her rant was about addressing sexism in video games. Look, I don't mind her talking about this; however, it wasn't the time or the place for it. She starts off by saying she's happy to be a part of G4 because she grew up watching it. I don't buy that statement for two reasons. First of all, if she did grow up watching this network, she should be talking about how G4 fell from grace and what to do to make it better? Instead of doing that, she's trying to be the next Anita Sarkeesian. I'll get into the second reason later. Then she said she gets backlash about her not being as bangable as Oliva Munn and Morgan Webb, the previous host. Then she berates men for saying that they get happy off of seeing those two because it's dehumanizing and weird. She also said that those two women and women in general don't exist to be visually appealing to men. 

First of all, what does men telling you you're not eye candy as the previous host have to do with sexism!?! Second, it's hard for me to comment on the comments she gets because she didn't show us the comments. So, I can't tell if people are trolling you are not. The only comment I saw was Oliva is hot and they deleted it. Why? That wasn't offensive. Because people do get harassed online, and you don't look presentable, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Look, I'm not saying it's OK to be harassed online; however, you can't enter a mostly male-dominated space and not expect them to feel some way about it. Do you think a straight man is not going to get funny looks for working as a fashion designer? Plus, this happens to everyone. You should know this. Are you telling me that you do hear men and women giving each other a hard time for being bad at playing Red Dead Redemption online? 

There are two ways you can deal with it; you can either ignore them or change your image. I wouldn't do the last part because people will think you have an inferiority complex. Also, ignoring people has its limits. This is why I don't like playing games online, because I'm sick of people giving me a hard time for being terrible. Doing that is not helping. Putting your target demographic on blast is not a smart move because you're biting the hand that feeds you. Of course, you're going to be compared to Oliva Munn and Morgan Webb. That's what happens when you replace someone. You don't hear Robert Pattinson complaining about being compared to the other actors who played Bruce Wayne/Batman because that comes with the territory. I understand that talking about getting happy off of seeing an attractive woman can be a bit much; however, you can't throw a dog a bone and not expect the dog to bite. What do you mean by playing with yourself is dehumanizing and weird? That's what men do when they find women attractive. Guess what, women do it too! Her male co-host, especially Adam Sessler, must be Asexual because they also think playing with yourself is weird and encouraging her to say this stuff.  

I hate to burst your bubble, but women do exist to be visually appealing to men and vice versa. We have eyes for a reason. We wouldn't have sex, Hooters, Beauty Pageants, and the human population wouldn't exist if that wasn't the case. She made her rant worse by telling on herself. She admitted that what she's saying is scripted because she can't review video games by herself. Despite reading the same script as everyone else, she gets flak for it. Yes! It does happen to her male co-host, but it's sexist that it happens to her. This is why people don't like you, you're lazy! There are plenty of people on the internet who review video games by themselves. If reviewing games is too much for you, then you're in the wrong profession. Because you're reading someone else's review, it makes you look disingenuous. Really, we should be making a big deal about what she just admitted instead of her calling us sexist. Why are we not watching the person who wrote the review, instead of her? Plus, she gets information wrong. Receiving criticism is not sexist; that comes with being a public figure. How do you expect to get better at your job without feedback? Again, if you can't deal with that, you shouldn't be there. 

The next thing she said is there are people who hate any change that isn't Adam, and brings up that half of the staff are women. (Despite some of them having guy names.) Once again, she talks about fans thinking she ruined this relaunch because men can't sexually objectify her as they did with the previous host. Plus, we would prefer to watch Adam over her is ruining her day, and we are gatekeeping video games. Yeah! People don't like change, especially if those changes are making something worse. Do you mean to tell me that you are above being upset over change? We would rather watch Adam Sessler than you because he's the only face we're familiar with. This relaunch wouldn't stand a chance without him. Plus, we don't know you, and you ruined any chance of getting us to like you because of this rant. Don't get me wrong, Adam is not about criticism; he gets a lot of flak for what he said about Republicans. He despises them so much to the point where he wishes death on his family members who are Republicans. Now, don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way, but I respect his conviction. I mean, would you take his hate for Republicans seriously if he didn't include his family? 

If half of the staff has the same mindset as you, then I don't see this as a good thing. First of all, you don't get to complain about men not sexually objectifying you when there is a video of you trying to grab a man's butt. I doubt you ask his permission to do that. Second, this is the other reason why I don't think you grew up watching G4TV, because this is a network that caters to men. Of course, it will have attractive women on that network. Why do you think Oliva Munn plays off on how attractive she is when she was on Attack of the Show? If you were watching the WWE, do you want the wrestlers to be sexy? If the answer is yes, then what are you complaining about? This woman clearly doesn't love herself if she did nothing, anyone would say would bother her. If you don't want to be eye candy, that's fine, but you need to have a good personality to be likable. That's what we like about Oliva Munn and Morgan Webb, it's because they're familiar with video games, funny, and likable. Them being attractive is a bonus. Really, I think those two get too much credit for being eye candy. I mean, Diana Mizota (One of the hosts of Filter) is visually appealing, but I digress. 

Gatekeeping is not a bad thing because there are people who shouldn't talk about things if they're not knowledgeable about the subject. How can we gatekeep you when you work at a job that talks about video games? She finally ends this rant by saying we should be nicer and grateful that they provide free content for you. If you don't like G4, don't watch it. I'm sorry, but people are not obligated to be nice to you, especially when you haven't given us a reason to. Providing free content is your job; why should we be grateful that you're doing what's expected of you? It's a good thing I'm not her boss; if I was, I would give her a tongue-lashing. First of all, she didn't talk about Red Dead Redemption like she was suppose to. Second, her rant has nothing to do with sexism in gaming. Finally, she alienates the target demographic, and we lost viewers because of you. G4 has a lot of work to do to get back on the fan's good graces. 

This year marks the 20th anniversary of G4. Instead of reminding us why we love this network in the first place, you open an old wound and put salt on it. I'm sick of everything being ruined because of politics, because it has no place in the media, sports, and relationships. I would be surprised to see that G4 is still around a year from now. You can't always rely on upsetting the host to get a reaction out of them for views. Overall, bringing G4 back was a mistake because it had its time to shine, and it's hard to go back to what it was.