Comparing the Ninja Raps

Next week will be the premiere of the first live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie since the abysmal 1990 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III.

As part of the film's marketing and soundtrack, a single titled Shell Shocked by Juicy J, Whiz Khalifa and Ty Dolla $ign was released a few weeks back, blasting our ears with delightful EDM and unforgettable lyrics such as "all my brothers want some cheddar, we all want a cut like the Shredder". This, however, was not the first time that a rap number was a part of a live action TMNT soundtrack. In 1991, when Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze came out, audiences were treated to a rap song simply entitled Ninja Rap, made by the Iceman himself. 

No, not these guys

So, which is the better ninja rap? Let's start with the title. The title of the new ninja rap is a bad pun about shells, which normally would not be a good indicator, but it's certainly more memorable and creative than Vanilla Ice's exceptionally bland Ninja Rap title, so point goes to the new. Lyrically speaking, both songs aren't really about the Ninja Turtles, but rather about Vanilla Ice and the trio of Juicy J, Whiz Khalifa and Ty Dolla $ign bragging about themselves, with a few TMNT references sprinkled in for good measure. That being said, Shell Shocked does make more of an effort to incorporate those references and make them somewhat clever. For instance, the orange Lamborghini that the three buy is apparently called Michelangelo and has nunchuck doors. Also, the "green" in the rapper's pockets is like turtle power. Well, okay, that's not very good, but the other two verses do a much better job of both relaying the basic concept of the Ninja Turtles, while also blatantly referring to the rappers themselves. The idea of family and the bond of brothers is particularly well conveyed in the second verse (although Khalifa's continuing refusal to rhyme is somewhat distracting) and reinforced in the chorus, and using the Turtles' emergence from the sewers as a metaphor for starting from the bottom and becoming a hero/celebrity is a neat idea that's handled pretty well too. Towards the end of the third verse things start to fall apart, though, with lyrics like "bandana on my face like a gangster" and a couple of lines that imply the turtles share their girlfriends It's sloppy, but overall, there was clearly effort put into these lyrics. There's also clearly effort put into the Iceman's rap, but... well, it's Vanilla Ice. He mentions the ninja turtles, the fact that there is four of them and that villains should run away. The rest is mostly generic bragging about how good of a rapper he is, which is unintentionally hilarious.  At one point he even proudly and completely non-ironically proclaims "Lyrics fill in the gap", a line so brilliant it surely inspired Robin Thicke's mind-boggling "What rhymes with hug me?" decades later. Unlike Shell Shocked, the references are sparse, poorly integrated and clearly not the focus, so again, point goes to the new. It's not that different thematically, but it simply does its thing a lot better. 

When it comes to the beat, though, both songs couldn't be more different. They're both very catchy, but while Ninja Rap has a very corny, dorky beat that matches the Iceman's signature lackluster delivery, Shell Shocked has a dark, hard-hitting beat, heavily influenced by EDM. That sense of aggression is in the title and chorus as well. Even if it is a groan-worthy pun, "Knock knock, you're about to get shell shocked" is still a pretty nasty, mean-spirited threat. That sort of attitude was extremely off-putting to me when I first heard the song and in a way, it still is. When you listen to the song in its entirety, you start to get into it and appreciate the lyrics more, but it starts off very much in your face. It's very thuggish, which granted, seems to match the design of the new Turtles, but it doesn't mesh with my idea of them. The Iceman's ninja rap is goofy and upbeat and it lures you instantly with its non-threatening silliness - and that's what I think when I hear Ninja Turtles: silly. Regardless of which version of the characters you go with, there's always going to be something inherently silly about four mutated turtles who are trained in martial arts by a giant mutated rat. Unintentionally or not, Ninja Rap celebrates and embraces that silliness in its music, conveying a sense of joy a goofiness that's sorely lacking from the new rap. On the other hand, Ninja Rap lacks any of the menace or the strong brotherly bond of Shell Shocked, which are also important aspects of the Turtles as characters. Maybe somewhere down the line we'll have some ultimate Ninja Turtles rap. One that combines the best of Ninja Rap with the best of Shell Shocked, acknowledging and embracing the silliness and goofy antics of the characters, while also showing that they can be tough and menacing. 

As it stands, even though in all aspects Shell Shocked is superior to Ninja Rap, what with its tighter lyrics and better understanding of the characters, or at least certain aspects of them, I still prefer the Iceman's version. It's my Ninja Turtle jam of choice, simply because I find it more fun and enjoyable to listen to. I get the same kind of "so bad, it's good" vibe from it that I get from Ice, Ice, Baby. 

Regardless of which version of ninja rapping floats your boat, I think we call agree that it is absolutely inexcusable that neither one mentions pizzas. Seriously, what's up with that?

P.S. Ninja Rap is also not the first rap song about the Turtles, as Partners in Kryme made Turtle Power for the original live-action movie's soundtrack. However, Ninja Rap is the one most people remember, most likely because Vannila Ice appears in the movie and sings it, essentially integrating a music video into the film. When people say "the ninja turtles rap" they usually mean Ninja Rap, which is why I chose to compare it to Shell Shocked. 

My Problem With Bioshock's Morality System

Expect to hear "Bioshock" whenever someone brings up morality in video games and for good reason. The dystopian world of Bioshock is built on tough, provocative ideas that are both political and philosophical in nature. The unique and incredibly immersive setting of the underwater city of Rapture served as the backdrop to a story that asked fundamental questions about what it meant to be human, questions that its haunting, chilling atmosphere made sure you won't soon forget. It was one question in particular that was the core of the morality struggle in Bioshock. One that is simultaneously remarkably simple and infinitely complex - as well as deeply flawed.

What little is left of Rapture centers around these adorable, yet frightening little girls, known as Little Sisters. Their primary job is to harvest ADAM - a remarkable scientific breakthrough, extracted from a unique specie of sea slugs, that allowed people to alter its DNA in just about every way they saw fit, the most popular choice being in order to receive superpowers, known as plasmids, such as telekinesis, pyrokinesis, launching-a-swarm-of-killer-hornets-out-of-my-arm-esis etc. The downside is that excessive use of ADAM and plasmids can have horrible consequences to the body and mind, turning most of the citizens of Rapture into disfigured, psychotic junkies known as splicers. Through some generic tampering, the Little Sisters themselves have been fused with the aforementioned sea slugs, which means that their bodies also produce ADAM, thus making them the primary target of just about every single splicer in Rapture. To get to them though, one must first deal with her protector, the ferocious metal giant known as the Big Daddy, who doesn't take kindly to anyone trying to take his Little Sister away. Once he is defeated, which is no easy feat, the player is presented with the fateful choice that defines the morality system of Bioshock - will he harvest or rescue the Little Sister? Harvesting her involves extracting the slug from her body, thus receiving the maximum amount of ADAM, but also killing the girl in the process. Rescuing her, meanwhile, turns her back into a regular girl, but yields a much smaller amount of ADAM in return. Which is it going to be? Will you selfishly take as much ADAM as you can to improve your own chances of survival, or will you do everything in your power to help these girls, even though that would make your own struggle all the more difficult?
It's a brilliant moral conundrum that works especially well within the context of the game. In a game, a choice like this directly affects your experience as player. There are consequences to your decision that extend beyond the story. Would you be as eager to save the Little Sisters if you know it will make it harder for you to finish the game? Simple and straight to the point.
The first time you are presented with this choice remains one of the most memorable sequences in video game history. It's a tense, emotionally charged moment, as you slowly approach a helpless Little Sister and she backs against a wall, clearly frightened and not knowing what to expect from you. Naturally, I rescued her and all the other Little Sisters I encountered. As I mentioned in previous posts, I tend to stick to the high ground in video games. This is partially because I know that almost all games with a morality system accept the "good" ending as canon to the story, while the "bad" or "dark" ending is usually presented as a "What if?" scenario that doesn't come back in later sequels (the most notable and fun exception was The Ultimate Sith Edition of The Force Unleashed, where you got to kill Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi in an alternative storyline - man, was that satisfying in a remarkably twisted way). Mainly I stick with the "good" choice, because I do strive to be a good person, so I guess I consider being that person in games as decent practice. Anyway, as I was saying, I rescued the Little Sister and planned to save all the rest, accepting the fact it would make the game much more challenging, forcing to strategically choose from a limited amount of plasmids I could acquire - or so I thought.
In the very next level, once I saved a few more Little Sisters, I received a notification that, out of gratitude, they've left me a present. What was in that present?

You get to keep the teddy too, I imagine

 A bunch of ADAM and even some weapons and plasmids. Well then. Way to make the complex morality struggle entirely pointless. Rewarding the player with ADAM and plasmids for being kind to the Little Sisters happens throughout the entire game and it makes sense, but it also completely negates any semblance of a moral dilemma. If saving the Little Sisters gets you just about as much ADAM as harvesting them, as well as leads to the canon ending to the story, the player suddenly has no reason to even consider harvesting Little Sisters, unless he simply wants to be a jerk. The core morality struggle of the game is now a no-brainer.
This is something that bugs me to this day about Bioshock. Sure, the first time you made that choice it was handled beautifully, but that's about it. Wouldn't it have been truly amazing to have to face the same choice over and over throughout the course of the game, constantly wondering if you have enough ADAM to get by, or if you need to harvest the next Little Sister simply to survive? I think it would have. Sadly, it's not what they went with and to this day, it's the only thing I actively dislike about an otherwise spectacular game.

Why the Sinister Six Movie is Probably Going To Be a Mistake

The summer of 2014 saw two different franchises attempt to replicate the successful formula of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Ironically, both franchises were about Marvel characters - Spider-Man and the X-Men. Days of Future Past promised to unite the cast of the original X-Men trilogy with the cast of First Class, which pretty much meant every single X-man and woman featured on the big screen, plus a few new characters would be present in some capacity in a story that also involved time-travel and an apocalyptic future. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 promised us Electro, the Green Goblin and the Rhino, while also teasing the death of Gwen Stacy and the truth about Spider-Man's origin. Very big, very complex, very ambitious movies.

When I say both franchises were trying to replicate the Marvel Studios formula, I mean that they were both clearly setting up sequels and spin-offs, while also trying to tell their own stories. X-Men: Apocalypse, another Wolverine and a Gambit movie, as well as The Amazing Spider-Man 3, 4, a Sinister Six and a Venom movie were announced way before Days of Future Past or TASM2 even made it to theaters. If you look at the original trilogies of both franchises, you'll notice that while they did leave possibilities open for a sequel, they were clearly intended to be standalone movies. After The Avengers, that's no longer the case. Nowadays, everyone wants a piece of the "shared comic book universe multi-picture" pie - which in itself is not a bad thing, if it's done well. Days of Future Past was amazing, managing to intricately, yet very fluently weave the stories of all the X-Men together in a way that made sense, but wasn't too complex, giving the characters enough breathing room to have fully realized arcs. It's a movie that understood that you couldn't really fit all of the X-Men into one story and give each of them the same level of attention, so it instead focused on a handful of characters, while still giving the rest a noteworthy place in the grand scheme of things. It was simply brilliant and exceptionally well done. 

As for TASM 2, well.. whether you liked it or not, you have to admit it was all over the place, juggling various different sub-plots and villains, switching from heavy drama to goofy antics within the space of a cut, barely leaving its characters enough room to breathe. I found this particularly distracting, because it was very clear that the movie was more interested in setting up future sequels and spin-offs than its own story. Villain motivations felt especially rushed, probably because of the planned Sinister Six movie. As the title would imply, you need six villains for that, so you'd better crank out as many as you can as fast as you can, I guess. Or should you? Marvel Studios made sure that most of the characters from their Avenger roster had their own solo movie in order to introduce their backstory, character motivation and personalities. The only notable exceptions were Black Widow and Hawkeye, but Black Widow was a supporting character in Iron Man 2, Hawkeye made a cameo in Thor and both characters actually had their own subplot in The Avengers that fleshed them out more as characters. Bottom line, they were all at least introduced to audiences before The Avengers came out. Meanwhile, Sony plans to release the Sinister Six movie as soon as 2016, even though in the rebooted Spider-Man movies, only four villains have been introduced so far (and one of them kind of blew up, although that doesn't necessarily mean he can't come back). In the original comic in which they were introduced, the Sinister Six was made up of villains who had faced Spider-Man at least once prior. Audiences knew who they were, which is why the idea of them uniting was such an interesting concept, which is something a 2016 Sinister Six movie can't offer.

The possible Sinister Six movie line-up. Only the first four from left to right have been introduced in the previous movies

As it  stands, the Sinister Six movie has to introduce at least two more villains, probably three, (or even four, it's not entirely clear at this point) give them backstories and motivations, all while also creating the team and having the team fight Spider-Man. The only way this could work is if they sidelined the new villains to a certain extent, but since the teasers have made it abundantly clear that one of the new villains will be Doctor Octopus, one of the greatest Spider-Man foes ever and the original founder of the Sinister Six, I don't see that working out particularly well. I was worried about the Sinister Six movie even when I thought it would come out after TASM 3, but now I quite frankly think it's a mistake to go through with it. It's a dangerous gamble and one I am not at all convinced they can pull off, particularly after seeing how much of a mess TASM 2 was. The smarter move would be to hold off production on the Sinister Six, make TASM 3, introduce the new villains or flesh out the ones that were already introduced and then go for it. I think the best way to go would be to make it entirely from the perspective of the villains, sidelining Spider-Man himself and keeping him as a supporting character - which is another reason why I believe they should wait, as I think Spidey needs some time to deal with Gwen's death. We need to see him go through that emotional journey. The sequence at the end of TASM 2 was great, but entirely too short for such a significant moment in Spider-Man history. 

In my opinion, Sony seriously needs to slow down and focus more on the storytelling aspect, rather than the franchise making one. Any of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, even the bad ones, could stand on their own. Days of Future Past understood the importance of that. TASM 2 didn't. 

Why I Love Clementine from The Walking Dead

Clementine from The Walking Dead by Telltale is one of my favorite characters of all time. I came to this realization as I was playing the penultimate fourth episode of The Walking Dead Season Two, specifically when I was given a choice between stealing medicine from a defenseless man or giving it back and sending him on his way. At this point in the game's story, medicine would have been a godsend, as one of the members of our group, Rebecca, was pregnant and would soon give birth while many others were injured or in pain. The stranger carried a bag bursting at the seams with various kinds of painkillers and other goodies that would immensely help us. He was babbling unconvincingly about a sick sister that really needed it, and was in no position to do anything if we wanted to take the bag by force. The obvious decision was to simply take it. I didn't. Why?

Well, this situation took me back to a similar choice in the original game, where the protagonist Lee and his group discovered an abandoned car, packed with supplies, of which food was the most important, seeing as how the group was starving. The car was still running though, so there was a good chance that these supplies belonged to someone nearby. Stealing or not, the group really needed those supplies. As Lee, you can choose whether or not to join them in their looting of the car, but perhaps more importantly, you choose for Clementine as well. If you refuse, so will Clementine - and refuse I did. I almost never leave the high ground whenever I'm playing any game with a morality system. My characters are typically paragons of virtue and restraint - they never steal or bribe, threaten or intimidate, pray on the weak or kill the defenseless. So when I made the choice not to steal from that car, I made it because I always make that choice when faced with it. I'm kind of boring and predictable in that sense. 

Here's the thing, though. When I made the choice to return the bag of medicine to its owner, not taking any of it for myself or the group, I did for an entirely different reason. I did it because I felt it's what Clementine would have done. 

Anyone who's played The Walking Dead by Telltale is familiar with the "[insert character name] will remember that." It's a tooltip that pops up whenever you do or say something significant in the course of the story and it's meant to indicate that this choice of words or actions will somehow affect something down the line. Throughout most of the the first game, or first season, I was told many times that "Clementine will remember that." and out of all the characters, it seemed to matter the least with her. Other characters lived or died because of your choices, grew to love or hate you because of your actions, but Clementine stayed an adorable, innocent little girl throughout all five episodes, regardless of how you treated her - or so it seemed.

In The Walking Dead Season Two, you play as Clementine directly and it didn't take me long to realize that with her as the protagonist, I approached each decision in a very different way. Every thing I said or did as Clementine was directly influenced by my perception of her as a character. I know what she's been through in the first game, I know what she remembers and now I get to decide what's she learned. Choices were no longer "right" and "wrong". They were much more than that. It's the first time I ever felt I was a part of a truly interactive character study. I didn't take from the bag of medicine, not because it was the right thing to do, but because Lee had taught Clementine not to steal, no matter what the circumstances. A seemingly small, yet infinitely large distinction.

Earlier one of the members of the group was attacked and bitten by a walker. A bite is a death sentence waiting to happen and I, as Clementine, had to decide right then and there - do I cut off the arm that was bitten, or do I strike the walker that did it, allowing the victim to escape? As someone who watches the show and reads the comics, I know that removing a bitten limb, if done immediately after the bite, works. It prevents the person from turning into a walker. But Clementine doesn't know that. In fact, in her bitter experience (at least in my playthrough of the first season) removing someone's limb after a bite does nothing at all. I knew that cutting off that arm was the right thing to do, but I also knew it would be out of character for Clementine to do it - and that's why I love Clementine so much. It's the only character in a video game that I can think of that's both under my control and fully independent in her own right. I can't wait to see what's in store for her next in the final chapter of The Walking Dead Season Two.