Mount Hood

Clash Royale Hits the U.S. App Store

By: Ashton Newton
Staff Writer

The modern App Store has become very predictable. Each week, it gets updated with a fresh batch of Clash of Clans clones and Flappy Bird clones, more than one could count.

Developer Supercell started the action base-building craze with their 2012 release of Clash of Clans. The game is estimated to make $1.5 million per day.

Last month saw the release of Supercell’s Clash Royale, a pocket-sized MOBA based off the characters and world from Clash of Clans. And it’s amazing.

For anyone who doesn’t know, MOBA stands for Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, and games like League of Legends and DOTA 2 have taken over the competitive gaming market. Each year, multi-million dollar tournaments are held and professional players from around the world battle.

But with Clash Royale, the idea of the MOBA game is simplified and put in the pockets of the masses. The game pits you against another player and you have to send out troops to destroy the other players towers and castle, the first to lose their castle loses the battle.

Clash Royale instantly became the top grossing and most downloaded app on the App Store upon its release. Today it sits comfortably as the second top-grossing app, with Clash of Clans at number three.

It’s a simple game, yet there is so much room to master it and become more competitive. The game features cards for different troops that you can send out, so over time you can collect them in game and play around with different line-ups. There are 48 cards in total.

The game also has a feature called TV Royale, where you can instantly start watching a game between two players at the highest rank for enjoyment or to see the strategies of others. You can also, just like Clash of Clans, join a clan with your friends and talk, casually battle, and trade cards.

Clash Royale is free to play, but gives you the chance to spend real money on gems and coins to get more or improve your cards.

Clash Royale is out now on the Apple App Store and Android Market.

Contact the author at anewton15@wou.edu

How Superhero Movies Fail Their Characters

By: Declan Hertel
Entertainment Editor

There are a lot of superhero movies these days. This is not news to anyone. They consistently make big, big money at the box office, and there’s no real end in sight, with Marvel’s release schedule stretching at least into 2020 and DC’s cinematic universe just getting revved up.

These films have a deep and rich history of heroes and storylines and villains and themes to pull from; some of these characters have been around three times as long as I’ve been alive, having adventures in their countless comic books. So, it seems to me, the question is: why are these films so shallow?

Let’s waste no time: modern superhero movies aren’t allowed to take risks because they only have two hours and need to appeal to as broad an audience as possible to recoup the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on making them, and then some. Meanwhile, comic books cost a fraction of a fraction of a movie budget to produce and distribute, and can tell stories over the long term. Because of their low cost and long form nature, they’re allowed to (gasp) take risks with their storytelling, to tackle heavy issues and really meditate upon the American consciousness in a meaningful way.

Carmen Petaccio wrote a piece for The Atlantic this March about the increasing darkness of superhero films, and how this washed-out grittiness feels false, or out of place for stories about superheroes, and refers to the “Civil War” storyline, the basis for the next Captain America movie, as if it was created out of thin air for the films as a cynical attempt to keep the audience interested. This is a somewhat disheartening example of Did-Not-Do-the-Research: it would take a minimum of effort to find that in fact, the “Civil War” arc was a long and sordid affair in the comics world. And, while I agree with him that the upcoming film looks like mediocre fan fiction, that’s only because it literally doesn’t have the time available to it to tell the story well. In comics, the “Civil War” was a brutal and bloody conflict, involving pretty much the whole Marvel universe, over freedom vs. security in America: do we force heroes to register and be under government control, or do we let them continue independently and assume the risks therein? This is an issue even more prominent today than it was when the arc began, and I fear that the films will only pay lip service to these themes in exchange for two and a half hours of colorful men punching each other.

Comics are also the only superhero medium that allow heroes to be rounded, three-dimensional characters (though of the TV series, “Daredevil” comes close, and “Jessica Jones” closer, and yet … ) John Green railed against Batman in a Vlogbrothers video from about a year ago, saying that if Bruce Wayne/Batman really wanted to help Gotham, he’d invest his money in schools, rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure, into bringing the city into the modern age; instead, he pours gajillions of dollars into gizmos and gadgets for him to use to bring down Gotham’s psycho population, only for them to escape from Arkham Asylum, so he must begin the cycle anew. This is an absolutely fair criticism of the movie version of Batman (specifically speaking here about Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy): he comes off as a selfish, near narcissistic playboy who gets off on beating criminals to a pulp when the sun goes down, and who seems to care precious little about the well-being of the city.

But in reading the pretty freaking brilliant run of “New 52: Batman,” written by Scott Snyder of “American Vampire” fame, after a badass opening fight (because let’s not forget that Batman is a badass), Bruce Wayne delivers a speech unveiling a plan to do literally all the stuff Green claimed Bruce Wayne doesn’t do. He promises to rebuild the infrastructure, fund schools, and modernize Gotham’s public transport, among other plans. He notes that he already has a number of highly interested donors and buildings already all but underway (and yeah the new buildings he proposes will include new Bat-outposts for him to use, but they will also be the source of legitimate boosts to Gotham). In these comics, Bruce Wayne is a deeply troubled man with a savior complex and deep love for his city that he utilizes his ultra-wealth to act upon, both as Batman when night falls and in his own guise as a philanthropist.

And this is where movies fall short. They can’t show the truly interesting and meaningful explorations of the humanity of heroes. They can’t show the nitty gritty. They can’t show Bruce Wayne glad-handing with potential investors and donors. Audiences (especially in the Chinese market, but that’s a different article entirely) want to see colorful dude number one punch colorful dude number two in the face. While this can be fun, it totally misses the point of superhero stories, which is the same point of Greek myths: godlike beings who struggle with their inherent humanity.

Superheroes at their best give us a new way to explore the human condition through the struggles of powerful beings. Unfortunately, I fear that with superhero films being the purely for-fun, somewhat vapid popcorn flicks they are, superheroes and comic books are experiencing reinforcement of the stereotype that they are for children and maladjusted man-children. But at their best, they’re not: besides the decidedly adult stories of a great many franchises (having just read DC’s brutal and disturbing and brilliant “Death of the Family” arc, I can attest that this shit ain’t for the younger set), they’re a means, like Greek myth, to explore being human through the eyes of the superhuman, to cast light directly on human foibles as they shine through the cracks in the armor and deeds of these characters.

Contact the author at dherterl12@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalfuntimes

April Fools’ Day takes over the internet

By: Ashton Newton
Staff Writer

There’s one day a year where it is not safe if you are a fan of anything to go on the Internet, and that day is April 1.

My April Fools’ Day started with seeing the new trailer for the Star Wars Netflix Series: Wrath of Maul up on IGNs website. I was going to cry of happiness until I looked at the date.

Companies and developers get the chance to cause totally socially acceptable pain and suffering on April 1, and like always, the results were hilarious.

“World of Warcraft” and “Hearthstone” developer Blizzard released a trailer for “Hearthstone: the MMO,” showing World of Warcraft gameplay. Calling it a new “MMO based off of the popular card game.” Also, it was announced that the “Frost-doge Clan” was coming to “World of Warcraft.”

The popular figure collecting game “Disney Infinity” revealed a new line of scented “Zootopia” figures. Who wouldn’t want a carrot scented Judy Hopps?

On the Internet, National Geographic promised to stop publishing “Animal Nude Photos” and Hamburger Helper dropped a mixtape of five songs and a music video.

Funko Pop, the popular toy brand, revealed Funko Pop Vaults, a literal safe that Funko says can “withstand lava, punching, gunfire, nuclear fallout, stampedes, frog people, and more.”

“Game of Thrones”’ Hafthor Bjornsson, aka The Mountain, released a commercial for his new brand of sparking water, Heavy Bubbles, coming in giant weight-shaped bottles.

Then there was the mean pranks: Yahoo announced that Trader Joes would be closing all stores by 2017, which must have freaked out some loyal customers and employees out until it was said that it was all a prank at the end of the article.

The meanest of them all was Ford’s prank that the Ford Bronco was making a return, complete with pictures. This made some diehard Bronco fans extremely happy, until they saw the April Fools’ at the end.

All in all, April 1 fooled a lot of people in a lot of ways, myself included. Next year, it might be safer to stay off the Internet on April Fools’ Day.

Contact the author at anewton15@wou.edu.

THE EDITOR DOTH PICK

“Stuff and Nonsense” is a fantastic little card/board game from Cheapass Games. You and your opponents are would-be adventurers who scour the outskirts of London for somewhat exotic trinkets and tidbits that you can use as evidence of your non-adventures, so that you can go to the prestigious Adventurer’s Club and spin fantastic tales about places you’ve never been (it’s pronounced “chee-NAH,” yes?). It’s fast, easy to learn, and if you’ve got even a single performative bone in your body, it has proven great fun in my sessions to pour some drinks, give each other silly posh-sounding names (Sir Beefwellington of the Oxfordshire Beefwellingtons, for example), and relate our tales in great detail with gusto and British accents. Your first game will probably take about an hour while you learn, and from then on it can take as little as 40 minutes, or a couple hours, depending on whether you play it as a straight up card game or take more time to relish in the stories you tell. I highly recommend it.

Scooting. I’m that dude that scoots everywhere around campus. Scooting is way more fun than that walking garbage y’all are doing. Plus it looks hella doofy and I think we all need to be more comfortable with being doofy. They got ‘em at Target for $30-ish, #scootlife breh join the revolution.

THE EDITOR PICKETH NOT

… superhero movies. Not superheroes, just this recent explosion of films based on them. I have a lot to say about this, so check the full article at wou.edu/westernjournal.

Phone Power: They Might Be Giants

By: Darien Campo 
Staff Writer

This week, March 8th, alternative rock duo They Might Be Giants released their 19th studio album “Phone
Power”. “Phone Power” is the third collection of songs from the 2015 revival of TMBG’s Dial-a-Song
project, in which they recorded and released a brand new song (with an accompanying video) every
week this year. The previous two collections of 2015 Dial-a-Songs, released earlier this year, were
“Why?” and “Glean”.

Anybody who follows TMBG is already familiar with most of the songs on this album, since they’ve
previously made an appearance on dialasong.com, but it’s still great to hear them all collected together
for the first time.

For a band that’s been releasing music almost constantly for the past 30 years, it’s truly amazing that
they’ve kept the same standard of quality on each album. Every song on “Phone Power” shows the same
attention to detail that Johns Flansburgh and Linnell have consistently delivered to their eager fans.
There are some really fun tracks on this album. My personal favorite is “I Am Alone”, which details a
very dramatic (and hilarious) standoff between 4 characters with too many plot twists to count. The
songs are creative and fun as always, but nothing on the album really breaks away from the TMBG
standard — which is hardly even a complaint.

The most notable detail about “Phone Power” is that it is TMBG’s first foray into the world of “pay-what-
you-want” releases. If you visit tmbg.com/phonepower you’re greeted with the option to choose your
own price for the 18 track album. They even say that you can pay nothing for the album, “because, like,
you don’t have any money right now. We understand. We totally support that idea. We don’t mind
giving things away.” They do offer special deals for folks who pay more for the album, like a physical CD
instead of a download link, and even an exclusive live stream to a show of theirs in April.

Though the songs on “Phone Power” are fun, I’m still waiting for TMBG to blow me away again like they
did with their 2013 release “Nanobots”. Regardless, “Phone Power” is a powerful addition to the
unstoppable The Might Be Giants discography, and is sure to please any fan.

‘Ghostbusters’ Returns to Big Screens This Summer

By: Ashton Newton
Staff Writer

We’ve all known for a long time what to do if there happens to be something strange
in the neighborhood. That’s common knowledge: Who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters.
But this summer, a new team is putting on the jumpsuits and taking on the iconic
role in the ‘Ghostbusters’ reboot film.

The first trailer for the upcoming film debuted last week, featuring plenty of laughs,
ghosts, and slime. The reboot has all new, all female team. The film stars Melissa
McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones.
The film follows the scientists and a subway worker as they work together to defeat
a powerful demon who can take over the bodies of humans. The trailer also revels
that there is someone in the city who created a device that amplifies ghostly activity.
People are much more opposed to the idea of ghosts in the reboot’s New York than
in 1984 New York, which adds a new goofy dynamic to being a Ghostbuster.
The trailer put a lot of focus on the comedy of the movie, making it look like an over
the top modern day comedy film, instead of the classic ‘Ghostbusters’ style like long
time fans were hoping for.

Although the trailer stars out with a nod to the original, director Paul Feig has stated
that there are no narrative ties between the reboot and the original. Luckily, fans
can count on the original song being in the reboot, as well as a lot of nods to the
original ghosts.

The ‘Ghostbusters’ reboot sparked up some controversy when it was first
announced because of its all female cast, but Feig has since than talked about how
the all female cast is going to provide a new energetic dynamic to the classic
‘Ghostbusters’ concept and criticism has died down.

There has also been speculation that Bill Murray will reprise his role as Dr. Peter
Vankman, for he’s listed as a cast member on IMDB. Some people believe he’ll play
an important role in the movie, while others are saying he’ll simply be a cameo.

‘Ghostbusters’ will premiere worldwide this summer.

Primal fear over petty scares

By: Megan Clark
Campus Life Editor

When I saw the first trailer for “The Witch” over summer, I was hyped. A Puritan themed horror movie full of black magic and dancing goats was right up my alley. I saw it opening night, knowing it probably wasn’t going to be amazing, but a fun watch nonetheless.

Much to my surprise, I was wholly disappointed, but not because of the movie. No, the movie was good and full of the gloomy, mystical vibes I had so desired.

I was disappointed because of the audience, who complained and joked throughout the entire film.
Now, “The Witch” isn’t necessarily bad. It has an 89 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and that’s a better grade than what I’m getting in some of my classes this term.

While I understand it’s not everybody’s cup of tea, I have a hunch that the audience wasn’t adequately prepared for what they were going to see. I mean, sure, there were like three different trailers for it that they could’ve watched, but maybe there’s more to it than that.

When horror is mentioned, people expect scary.

They expect horror films to follow a certain formula that they have grown accustomed to, usually involving horror movie tropes and tricks like jump scares or twist endings that don’t seem much like scares or twists anymore because people come to expect them more often than not.

Horror, however, encapsulates a large array of films, the genre being defined only by its ability to make the viewers uncomfortable through feeding on their primal fears.

The first horror movies of the silent film era, like “Nosferatu” (1922) or “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” (1925), aren’t exactly terrifying, especially by today’s standards. They are, however, still super creepy due to their chilling visual effects and their ability to prey on fears innate in humanity, like the fear of supernatural creatures or of inevitable death.

In my opinion, the golden age of horror started in the late ‘60s and ‘70s, with classics like “Night of the Living Dead” (1968), “Rosemary’s Baby” (1968), and “The Exorcist” (1973), that focused on supernatural, ghostly, or satanic happenings.

Again, not super scary, perhaps even a bit comical. The group of elderly folk chanting “Hail Satan!” in “Rosemary’s Baby” isn’t particularly terrifying, but the film is still widely considered one of the best horror movies to date.

These paranormal themed movies have stayed strong, alongside the thrills and chills provided by the slasher crowd pleasers of the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s, like “A Nightmare on Elm Street” (1984) and “Scream” (1996).
The focus in popular horror has shifted from the inventive plotlines and visually arresting atmospheres of the early and mid 20th century to simply imitating other movies that have found a foothold in popular culture.

The early 2000s welcomed in a slew of found footage films, starting with “The Blair Witch Project” (1999) that has continued with the ever popular “Paranormal Activity” series.

Found footage films are pretty uncomplicated movies to make, considering the film’s grain and shaky footage excuses poor special effects or lack in production value. They follow a similar recipe for plot, using healthy doses of invisible, overpowered evils and helpless protagonists to evoke excitement from viewers.

A lot of movies have come out as being genuinely unique and exciting, such as “Insidious” (2010) or “The Conjuring” (2013), but the quality of these movies is diminished because the market is flooded with sequels, prequels, and offshoots that mirror the style and plot of previous films.

There are still really great horror movies that don’t rely on imitating other plots, like “It Follows” (2014) or “The Babadook” (2014), which also have social commentary alongside their wonderfully eerie storylines and visuals.

While plenty of good horror movies are still being made, the majority of horror movies currently out are heavily referential and uncreative. This may make horror movie audiences ill-prepared for movies that break the mold, like “The Witch” (which isn’t really scary, but pretty good if you like that sort of thing).

Contact the author at meclark13@wou.edu or on Twitter @WOU_campuslife