So did I, when I was like 8. I didn’t like that the characters were entirely different (it’s a long story) and that the game was just really fucking hard. It’s sort of like how I didn’t like “Star Trek,” because the Kirk character was so different — that is, so douchy — and because the logic behind the story was just really fucking stupid. Then again, years after first playing and failing at “Mario 2,” I finally got to the end screen and decided that it wasn’t so bad after all — in fact, it may be my favorite Mario game on NES. It was challenging, colorful and a courageous and complete rethinking of its predecessor; it was Talking Heads Plus Eno, a good thing that made itself into a great thing. I was a brand loyalist when I was a kid — I liked Nintendo, not Sega; Marvel, not DC; Nirvana, not Pearl Jam. In college, I was The Guy Who Loved Coca-Cola. Now, I’m that hipster who loves his iPhones and ridicules Blackberries. Because there are people like me, the people with the awesome/ful responsibility of protecting these brands have to be utterly careful that they don’t dilute their precious through unwise tinkering that puts off the loyalists. Without the loyalists, what’s left? Fleeting moments of hype, followed by eternal obscurity. (See: “X-Men” film franchise.) The loyalist can be wrong, per the “Mario 2″ example. But, the difference was that “Mario 2″ was a quality game that just didn’t adhere to aesthetic expectations. J.J. Abram’s “Star Trek,” aesthetically, is brilliant. A total upgrade on all “Trek” movies — but the quality that might someday win over Trekkies is missing. That is, a story that respects the mystique of the characters and also the intellect of the loyal fans.
Tags: capt. james t. kirk, coca-cola, douche, j.j. abrams, marvel, nes, nintendo, nirvana, star trek, super mario bros. 2, x-men
