MCU Films to Watch Before Avengers: Infinity War

Short answer: All of them. The payoff at the close of Infinity War will be greatly enhanced by having seen all the movies released to date in the shared Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).

However, if time is of the essence, or you just want the bare essentials, here are the movies you should have seen, watch in preparation, or at least be familiar with before you see Infinity War:

• Captain America, Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Thor (for character origins; as listed = chronological order; Hulk could probably be skipped if you know even a little about Bruce Banner/Hulk)
• Marvel's The Avengers (2012)
• Avengers: Age of Ultron
• Guardians of the Galaxy (Vol. 2 is mentioned briefly, but not terribly relevant)
• Captain America: Civil War
• Doctor Strange
• Black Panther (the story of this movie is not really relevant, but the setting and characters introduced are front & center in the climax of Infinity War)
• Thor: Ragnarok (Infinity War essentially picks up right where it left off)

That comes out to about a full day worth of Marvel films (21 hours, more or less), but the investment is well worth it in the end.

Star Wars Battlefront II is a Disgrace

Where do I even begin? (I will only touch on a few issues in detail here considering this blog post would be extremely lengthy to cover everything that has come out about the game in the past few weeks.)

Star Wars is my favorite franchise. Star Wars games make up a large portion of my video game collection. The future of Star Wars games no longer seems promising. I hope Disney will seriously consider pulling EA's license for the Star Wars franchise. This is the problem with monopolies. They have too much power and can get away with absurd business practices because they have no competition. (If you also support the idea that Disney should cut ties with EA, consider signing this petition.)

Battlefront II (EA, 2017) is full of a lot of empty promises and greedy business practices to accompany its beautiful facade. I have been following the development of the game for a long time now and it seems that for every promise that has been kept there are 2-3 promises that were empty or led to underwhelming results.

Who is to blame, EA or Dice? A little of both? EA pushes for all the micro-transactions and disgusting business model, while Dice gives in and plays ball? Dice has done an incredible job with the aesthetics of this franchise, hands down. I don't think many people would argue that point. However, they really missed the bar with content.

I don't play online multiplayer for multiple reasons. I don't have a subscription to Xbox Live or Playstation Plus, internet speed and connection are unreliable, etc. My preference has always been (and probably always will be) offline, single-player content. EA/Dice have been talking up the single player content for a long time now, promising it would be an improvement over Battlefront (EA, 2015). To their credit, we are getting a single player campaign that does seem very intriguing. Yet many reports this week are indicating the campaign is rather predictable and lackluster overall. A one-and-done experience? Perhaps. Hard to say until I play it or hear more from someone who has finished it.

Skirmish mode was added as an update to Battlefront (EA, 2015) several months after launch. This mode was reportedly a pet project put together by just two developers at Dice in their spare time. Skirmish was what I was looking for along. Only disappointment was that you could only play Walker Assault or Fighter Squadron on a handful of maps. Battlefront II (EA, 2017) has been in development for at least 2 years (since the last game was released) and "Arcade" mode is more bare bones than Skirmish mode in Battlefront (EA, 2015). When the developers were asked about this mode in today's Reddit AMA their response was as follows:

As for more Arcade, just like every mode in our game, we want to look for ways to expand it going forward. Unfortunately at this point we don't have anything to share right now, but know that we care about Offline modes.

(To see the original comment and full response, click here. Another related non-answer here.)

Yeah, right. Bottom-line is EA's bottom-line. Offline players likely make them little to no money beyond the initial sale of the game so it gets pushed off to the side.

Quick history to know before reading on: Battlefront 2 (released in 2005) was developed by Pandemic Studios. They were later acquired by EA and shut down in 2009. EA has a history of doing this and its latest victim was Visceral Games who was working on a single player Star Wars game that had a lot of potential and promise. Rumors are they were shut down when EA was displeased with the lack of micro-transactions and related money-making features currently included in the game. Greed really does seem to be the modus operandi of that company.

The gaming community (and more specifically the community interested in single player content) have essentially been asking for Skirmish mode as currently found in Battlefront (EA, 2015) to carry over into Battlefront II (EA, 2017) and then get updated to make use of the new locations and game modes designed for the new game. Is that really too much to ask?

Battlefront 2 (Pandemic, 2005) is still beloved by fans and had this available day one, at launch. I have owned the game since it first came out and in that time I played maybe 2 matches online. Meanwhile I have spent hours and hours of time (more than I probably care to admit) playing that game by myself or with family and friends offline. The current state of Battlefront II's (EA, 2017) offline content hardly compares to what I can get out of a game I already own which is 12 years old.

Improved and more abundant offline content could still come out in the future as part of an update, I know. But I'm not holding my breath any more. If they really cared about "listening to feedback" and implementing what I'm seeing in dozens of posts and comments all over various parts of the Internet, I would expect them to have included a meatier offline experience at launch, or at the very least release some kind of statement saying something to the effect of, "Rest assured, we're working on it. It will be released in the near future once we have completed its development." That would appease my concerns and get me more excited about the future prospects of the game as a whole. So far it's just been non-answer after non-answer.

The loot box controversy is probably the biggest story surrounding the game right now. I think it is a terrible business practice that seeks to monetize the impatience and frustration of gamers. Some countries are reportedly investigating the situation to classify the concept of, and interaction with, loot boxes as gambling and I am fully on board with that position.

I really want to be able to praise this game and love it as much, if not more than Battlefront 2 (Pandemic, 2005). Sadly the stars are not aligning. I rarely buy video games at full price any more, but I was willing to make an exception for this game and have been setting money aside for the past few months in anticipation of its release. But enough is enough. EA's grubby fingerprints are all over this game and I want no part of it anymore. The fact they have the exclusive rights to making videos games for the Star Wars franchise is incredibly disappointing.

Unless improvements are made, I'll stick to playing Battlefront (and sadly, Star Wars games in general) when it was (they were) good, "before the dark times, before the [EA] empire".

A Letter to Congress

Dear Congress,

Please get your act together.

Sincerely,
America

America Reacts to the 2016 Election Results

Upon hearing the news that Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States, half of the country is reacting like this:



The other half:





(Here's the video I used to make the first GIF in this post. Worth your time to watch the full video. Enjoy!)

Come on YouTube, Time for an Update

Here is the letter I wrote for our class assignment:

April 6, 2016

YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave.
San Bruno, CA 94066

Dear Content Review Staff,

I am writing to request that a feature be added to your flagging tools.

A few months ago I was watching a video on YouTube with my family, including my 9 year-old brother and 8 year-old sister. That particular video used vulgar language which took us all by surprise. None of us had viewed the video before that time and there was no warning of any kind. My parents and I have admittedly become rather desensitized to profanity over the years, which I believe is partially a result of the way profanity is portrayed in popular media. However, that does not mean we condone its use.

In an effort to protect my younger siblings, I generally view any given form of media before sharing it with my family so I am fully aware of the content they might be exposed to. This gives me the ability to skip objectionable content or suggest a particular video not be viewed at all. I do not yet have children of my own, but when that time comes I am concerned about their potential exposure to profanity in the YouTube community as well. I know some YouTube channels go the effort of bleeping out profane language, but in my experience they are few in number.

“Vulgar language” is listed as a category taken into consideration when evaluating content as appropriate for all ages in the YouTube Help Center under “Policies, safety, and reporting” > “Reporting Center” > “Age-restricted content”. This page further states, “Some videos don't violate our policies, but may not be appropriate for all audiences. In these cases our review team may place an age restriction when we're notified of the content.” The section labeled “Flagging content” (also found under “Reporting Center”) says, “We rely on YouTube community members to flag content that they find inappropriate.”

As a member of the YouTube community, I would welcome the opportunity to flag vulgar language as inappropriate when I observe its use, but this option does not currently exist. Language is not listed as one of the options under the “Report” tool on any given video. No option for “Other” issues exists either, so I am unable to flag any videos for the use of profanity.

I hope you will seriously consider this issue and provide users such as myself with the ability to help contribute to making the YouTube community safer for viewers of all ages.

Sincerely,

Jason Eldredge

Batman v Superman: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I went to see Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice this week and I wish I could say "It was the best superhero movies of all-time!" but then I would have to add, "April Fools" at the end of that. This was unfortunately just another one of those movies where I say, "Seen it. Now time to move on with my life".

Over the weekend before I went to see it, I had read/watched a few reviews which lowered my expectations for the movie. With that being said, I went into it really wanting to find something to love about the movie, but I can't think of anything that really stands out as a positive highlight. I feel like a better title for the movie might have been "Batman sort of fights Superman: Bring on the Controversy". In my opinion (and I recognize this is just my opinion), the movie was mediocre at best and left me feeling underwhelmed. To summarize my thoughts on the movie, I appreciated the film for what it is, but I did not like it because I found it too clumsy and sloppy. 

Here's my breakdown of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (SPOILER WARNING! I'm not going to hold anything back!):

The Good:

• I did enjoy Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman. He certainly did a much better job than most people thought he would when it was first announced that he had been cast. 
• The Metropolis prologue, where we see the ending to Man of Steel from Bruce Wayne's perspective, was a good way to set up Batman's motivation that drives his actions through the movie.
• The movie is pretty and good-looking, I will give it that. The fight between Batman and Superman (which took 1.5 hours to finally get to by the way) looked great. I just wish the story/character motivations' (see below) would have been strong enough to match the visuals because I would have enjoyed it a whole lot more. I'll also note here that I was let down by the fight since it only last about 7-8 minutes. I expected the sequence to be longer.
• I read something about Zack Snyder wanting to include Wonder Woman in the film because he dreamed of seeing the DC Trinity (i.e. Batman, Superman & Wonder Woman) on the big screen together. I admit it was visually pleasing to see them together on screen, but the movie did a poor job of building up to the moment where they all come together.
• I give DC/Warner Bros. a lot of credit for making the decision to kill Superman. I feel like that was a very bold move and I applaud them for doing so.

The Bad:

• I mentioned above that Ben Affleck was good. In fact he really makes this movie. However, I felt like I needed to see more of him as Bruce Wayne and as Batman to decide how he compares to previous iterations. I know some people say he is their new favorite, but I still prefer Christian Bale's performance.
• Going along with the previous bullet point,where was all the action? For being an "Action & Adventure/Superhero" movie, I expected a bit more. Maybe it's just the fact that most of the action was saved until the 2nd half of the movie. The first big action scene I can remember is the "Knightmare" sequence (at least that's the nickname I have seen for it online). While the action in this scene is awesome, I wish there would have been other scenes sprinkled throughout the first hour to show Batman being Batman. The scene in the warehouse (as featured in the final trailer) is easily one of the best Batman action sequences in any Batman movie, but unfortunately by that point I didn't care enough about the movie/story to enjoy it too much.
• The bathtub scene: Why does Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) jump into the tub fully clothed while Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is completely naked?! It really makes no sense to me. Though I understand how this scene adds to the character development of Clark Kent/Superman (one of only a few, more on that later), was it 100% necessary for Lois to be naked and taking a bath? The scene could have easily been rewritten to take place in their living room and they could still make out on the couch after they discuss the same issues.
• I was not a fan of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He didn't ruin the movie for me, but I felt like he was too psychotic and goofy. His character seemed too much like a mad scientist rather than the charismatic and subtly menacing Lex Luthor that I am familiar with from other storylines (such as Kevin Spacey's portrayal of the character in Superman Returns from 2006).
• I was not very impressed by Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. I also had a really hard time understanding her dialogue. This may be a result of audio levels being off for some reason, but I feel like this is something they need to fix in Justice League and Wonder Woman films (either by adjusting the audio composition, bringing on a dialect coach, or both). 

The Ugly:

• The story seemed really scattered and disjointed, which I think was a result of my two main complaints with the movie: the writing and the editing.
• 1) Screenplay/Story
• They should have stuck with one main protagonist. I could never really tell if the movie was supposed to be 1) a Batman movie that includes Superman, 2) a Man of Steel sequel that has a substantial Batman presence or, 3) a Lex Luthor movie that was really poorly written because other characters get more screen time than the protagonist.
• I don't usually pick up on bad writing, continuity errors or plot holes in movies, but the use of plot devices in this movie was so obvious and "in your face" that I couldn't help but notice.
• The character of Lois Lane was completely unnecessary in this movie. 90% of the time she is only in a scene to be the damsel in distress so that Superman will have something to do in the story by coming to her rescue.
• The resolution of the Batman v Superman showdown was extremely disappointing. First of all, the story fell so flat along the way that by the time we got to the fight I didn't even care about them fighting. After having thought about this scene for the past few days I have come to terms with the idea that Superman crying out "Save Martha!" catches Batman off guard. However, I see no reason why the fact their mothers' have the same first name should resolve the tension between them and cause them to set aside their differences for good. The scene could have been so much better even with some minor adjustments such as Batman saying something to the effect of, "I will help you save your mom, but this isn't over between us."
• Bruce Wayne's motivations could have been greatly improved. The prologue set up his story really well, but it took too long to pay off. Confrontations between Batman & Superman along the way (such as the "Do you bleed?" scene, which I thought was one of the better moments in the movie) could have fueled his anger and strengthened his resolve to defeat Superman when they finally have their big showdown. By the time the movie finally gets to that point, there wasn't really any tension to make me care about them fighting.
• At one point during the showdown sequence Superman called Batman "Bruce", but the movie never explained how he learned/knew that Batman was Bruce Wayne. When that happened, I remember specifically thinking, "Wait a minute, did he just call him Bruce?" I know some people might argue that an audience doesn't need to be spoon-fed the answers to every question in a plot, but this is one of those questions where I would have liked a better explanation.
• Returning to the death of Superman, so what? We all know he won't stay dead for long because we already know he is going to be a part of the Justice League. By that point in the movie I didn't care enough about Clark Kent/Superman as a character to have any emotional reaction to him dying anyway. I was also very disappointed at the end of the movie, when the dirt started to rise. DC/Warner Bros. should have committed to the idea of Superman being dead, rather than so obviously telling the audience that he is going to come back from the dead in the future.
• Overall, I thought Clark Kent/Superman was very poorly handled. For supposedly being a sequel to Man of Steel, he did not feel like he had a large presence in this movie. His motivations for confronting and fighting Batman were also really weak. I still can't believe that Lex Luthor kidnapping his mother is what leads to the big fight.
• 2) Editing
• Sure it looked great, but the Batman origin scene at the beginning was unnecessary. Honestly I felt like the only reason they included it was for the plot device and to set up the call back to "Martha" later on during the Batman v Superman fight. I think the film would have started out on a much better note if it began with Bruce Wayne landing in Metropolis.
• The scene about halfway through with Kevin Costner was odd and detracted from everything else going on at that point in the story.
• The Justice League intros were extremely out of place.
• Don't get me wrong, each of the teases looked cool, but the whole scene killed what little momentum the main story had finally started to build. I don't think this scene necessarily needed to be cut from the film altogether it just needed to be placed somewhere else.
• It also didn't make much sense to me to have Diana/Wonder Woman click on the videos. The audience could have watched the videos with Bruce Wayne when he first finds them and it would have fit so much better with the rest of the story. He could have opened Wonder Woman's file last to finish the scene with the big surprise of her photo revealing that she hasn't aged in almost 100 years.
• The logos for each of the characters were also really silly and convenient. Obviously the people involved in the production process don't care about overt foreshadowing.
• Although the Batman/Lex Luthor confrontation at the end of the movie was well filmed and looked cool, this scene was also really out of place. I was actually really pleased with the ending and liked the contrast between the Superman funeral versus Clark Kent's funeral. But just as I thought the movie was wrapping up fairly well the scene cut abruptly to the prison sequence, only to then return to the cemetery for the last minute or two. Some minor rearranging of scenes could have made this movie so much better.

Concluding thoughts:

• I was disappointed from the start. I got bored very early on. About 10 minutes into the movie I had the thought, "Oh shoot, I forgot send that text to members of my group" come to mind. There should have been no reason for me to even get distracted that easily! If I had been hooked and engaged right from the start I would not have thought twice about forgetting to send the text. Since I wasn't yet hooked (and I don't know if the movie ever really hooked me unfortunately), I pulled out my phone, turned the brightness down as low as I could and sent the text!
• If Zack Snyder is still going to direct Justice League, I hope they involve a co-director. Otherwise I don't know if DC will ever get me excited about their cinematic universe.
• Ben Affleck said in an interview that this movie was not made for critics, but made for the fans. I consider myself a fan of comic book movies and I didn't really care for it. Maybe it was made for the fans who are avid readers of DC comics, in which case I am not the kind of fan he was referring to, but I feel like this movie should have at least been enjoyable for the average movie-goer.
• I thought the the movie took too long to end after the battle with Doomsday. It seemed like the last 5-10 minutes were 3 different subplots randomly thrown together.
• If nothing was added or removed from the movie, but it was reedited so that many of the scenes were in a different order, I think I would have liked it a whole lot more overall than I did. I am not a filmmaker, but I feel like I could have done a better editing job, and it saddens me to think that.
• I consider The Dark Knight to be one of the darkest, most macabre superhero movies ever made. Yet I still found that movie entertaining and enjoyable. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is sadly too dreary and simply put: joyless. My one main expectation going into the movie was that it would at least entertain me, but it didn't even manage to do that.

"Guilty" as Charged

Ever since we had the lecture on music (2 months ago now), I have been thinking about writing this post. The song "Guilty" by Newsboys came up in the playlist I was listening to on my iPod last night and with Easter Sunday this weekend I believe this to be the perfect time to write about this topic.

Christian Rock/Pop is my favorite music genre. Before I served my mission I was under the impression that this genre was really stigmatized, but maybe that is because I grew up in the "Mormon bubble" of Utah County. I never understood why it would have such a bad reputation and looking back I really wish I knew! I think the genre is awesome!

Most of the music I listened to in high school was whatever came on the pop radio stations, which turned out to be a lot of Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Nickelback, Ke$ha, Jason Derulo, Bruno Mars and OneRepublic (to name a handful). Not all of their music is terrible, but many of the artists I have listed here had hit songs that I would not exactly consider "wholesome". Unlike many of the songs that become so popular they are known by almost everyone, I have never heard a Christian rock/pop song that has ever caused me to second guess what I was listening to. I wish this uplifting music (which in my opinion can be just as catchy as "Poker Face", "Hot n Cold" or "Just The Way You Are") was as well known in popular culture!

When we were discussing music in class we talked about tone vs. lyrics. One of the studies we talked about in class found that lyrics had more of an effect than tone did, which I found intriguing. At that time I remember realizing why I like Christian music so much: The tone gets me pumped, grabs my attention and makes me want to listen to a song over and over, but when I really pay attention to the lyrics I often find them very inspiring.

At the end of that lecture we watched the music video for "Soldier" by Gavin DeGraw. I was captivated by the song immediately and bought it off iTunes as soon as I got home that afternoon! The beat (tone) caught my attention early, but the lyrics really touched me.

The first time I heard "Guilty" by Newsboys I had the opposite experience. When I heard the first line of the lyrics I was hooked! After listening to the song for a little longer, the tone hit the spot for me as well.

Verse 1 of the song goes as follows:

"When did it become breaking a rule,
To say Your name out loud in school?
When Your name's the only one that sets us free.

When did it become incorrect,
To speak the truth about life and death?
When Your life gave us all eternity."

All of my favorite Christian songs strengthen my testimony of the Savior and the Gospel every time I listen to them. In my honest opinion, many of these songs are as powerful as the LDS hymns. I love the message of "Guilty" for that reason. The overall message of the song, at least in my interpretation of it, is that our belief in Christ should defy anything that mortals may impose on us to restrict religion. Even though all the Christian artists I listen to are probably not LDS, I find great strength in the testimonies they express through their music and I can always find a line or theme that agrees with the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I want to give a very special shout-out to my good friend John Kunz in New Jersey for being who I consider the person that introduced me to this wonderful genre of music. I am grateful for how this music has impacted my life in many positive ways and it makes up the majority of what I listen to on a regular basis now. Thank you John!

Happy Easter everyone! Jesus the Christ lives and truly set us free from the bonds of physical and spiritual death. I do not believe God will allow America to sink to so low a point that "serving [Him] is against the law of man", but if that day should ever come I hope to find myself among the "guilty".