Continuing the trend begun by Wall-E, Up is a Pixar movie with depth, meaning, and even some tear-inducing depressions. Of course, there's still plenty of fun, adventure, and comedy. (And even a bit of hair raising action!) Basically, Up has every element you could want to find in a movie.

It's really hard to accurately describe what Up is about without giving important things away, or ruining their impact, but here goes. Up is the story of Carl Fredrickson. The movie begins with a silent prologue detailing Carl's life, from his young adventure club days, to meeting the girl of his dreams, to marriage, to the modern day world which features the grumpy old man you saw in all the original Up trailers.

Now in old age, Carl decides to finally realize a dream to adventure. Attaching balloons to his house, he takes off - with an unknown stowaway, the young, naïve, but ultimately heartfelt Wilderness Explorer (think Boy Scout), Russell.

The earlier parts in the movie are a slower pace, and set up the later events. As Up progresses, things begin to escalate following the climax theory progression perfectly. Once Carl and Russell land in South America, meet Dug (a talking dog) and Kevin (a rare exotic bird), and then run into Carl's boyhood hero... Things just sort of take off.

The movie doesn't lose track of itself, though. Even near the end, there are poignant moments of reflection intertwined with the breakneck scenes of action; comedy and life lessons going hand-to-hand. Up is a movie that all audiences will enjoy, and that has something for everyone. Pete Docter (who previously directed Monsters, Inc.) has done it again, but this time his movie isn't just a good Pixar one - it's one of the best.

The Disc

When I saw Up in theaters, I was lucky enough to see it in 3D, in what is easily the best 3D presentation to date. I was a bit worried about what it would look like in "plain" 2D HD, but I shouldn't have been, because Up on Blu-ray looks fantastic. Then again, that shouldn't be a surprise given Pixar's stellar Blu-ray record.

The colors in Up - both the mundane city colors and the vibrant jungle tones - pop off the screen. Character animations, facial expressions, clothing, and hair all look fantastic. The jungle and landscape itself looks picture perfect. It's really impossible to find any faults in the visuals; they're perfect, reference quality animation material. The only way this movie could ever look better on disc is if they bring the abilities of Disney Digital 3D to the home theater market in a perfect transition.

Audibly, Up is equally impressive. With yet another reference quality DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 track, Up soars on all fronts. Ambiance noises are present throughout the entire movie, but never so much that they detract. From the subtle noises of the jungle to the present noises of balloons as Carl and Russell sail the skies, Up's audio presentation is sure to impress. And, unlike a lot of discs that have stellar audio, Pixar's film never once has issues where the background or effects drown out the dialogue. From the effects themselves to the mix, Up is absolutely perfect. If you want to show off a sound system, this is the movie to do it. (Who would have thought an animated movie - and not a big budget action film - would become a standard for audio demonstrations?)

If the disc falls short in any way, it's in the supplemental features. While there are a number of great ones, overall they just get overshadowed by the film, the video, and the audio. The most impressive and enjoyable feature is a picture-in-picture commentary with Director Pete Docter and co-director Bob Peterson. They offer insights into what's going on on-screen, great anecdotes, and lots of interesting tidbits. In my opinion, it's one of the more enjoyable and informative commentaries in the last few months of releases.

The other features, however, are a bit lackluster. Adventure is Out There is a 22-minute look at the pre-production of Up and the jungle portions of the film; the two shorts, Partly Cloudy (theatrical) and Dug's Special Mission (disc release) are good, but the new one (Dug's) falls short compared to Pixar's standard of quality with short films. Disc 2 features over 45 minutes of documentaries, in a seven-part series, detailing everything from the creation of Carl to an overview of Carl's house and Muntz's balloon. They're informative, but the short running time of each, and the limited scope of their focus, makes them less interesting than the commentary provided during the feature film.

Now, I may seem like I'm saying that the extras are bad, but they aren't - they just aren't GREAT. With any average movie, they'd be a strongsuit that carried the disc. But in this case, they're the weakpoint. Up is a fantastic movie filled with adventure, drama, action, comedy, and whimsy. It's easily one of Pixar's best movies to date, and is one of the few that can be equally enjoyed by people of all ages. The video and audio of the Blu-ray release are stellar, and both are reference quality material. When you put the extras up against that kind of competition, they're bound to look weak.

Whether or not they look weaker, though, there's no denying that Up is Pixar's best Blu-ray release to date, and a must-own for any Blu-ray collection.

-----------------------------------------------

Movie: 5 / 5

Video & Audio: 5 / 5

Disc: 4 / 5

-----------------------------------------------

Overall: 5 / 5

At this point, Pixar and Blu-ray basically go hand in hand. The studio has yet to make a truly bad movie (even their worst [in my opinion], Cars, is better than 90% of the movies out there) and their Blus have constantly been reference material, and must-owns in any collection.

So it should come as no surprise that their latest catalogue release, Monsters, Inc., is once again a must-buy for Blu-ray viewers, Disney fans, Pixar fans, and fans of great films.

Like many of Pixar's pre-Wall-E films, Monsters, Inc. is fairly simplistic in terms of its story. It revolves around the world of monsters. The monster in your closet or under your bed when you were little? Totally real. And they scare humans to capture their screams so that they can power their city, Monstropolis, with the efficient energy. The large, blue-furred Sulley is the best scarer at Monsters, Inc., and his best friend is the diminutive one-eyed monster, Mike Wazowski. Things are going great for both of them, until one workday when Sulley manages to bring back a human child (named "Boo") on accident.

While humans are afraid of monsters, monsters are afraid of children. As expected, they find out a human child has infiltrated Monsters, Inc., and everyone is in a scurry to find the little demon and dispose of it. Sulley, however, learns that maybe - just maybe - human children aren't quite the monsters that the monsters make them out to be.

What follows is a great comedy with a lot of memorable scenes and characters, and some great messages about the power of friendship. John Goodman (Sulley) and Billy Crystal (Mike) both do a great job with their voice acting, and you really begin to connect with the characters despite their monstrous condition.

Personally, Monsters, Inc. isn't one of my absolute favorite Pixar films, but it's above the fold. As I said earlier, though, even the worst of Pixar's movies (and this definitely isn't it) is better than almost any other animation out there. So for fans of the movie, or for those who have never seen it, consider Monsters, Inc. a must-see.

The Disc

In terms of the disc itself, Monsters, Inc. really benefits from the HD ability Blu-ray offers. The picture is by far the best this movie has ever looked, and is even up there with the most recent Pixar releases, Up and Wall-E. Every texture looks great, every color is vivid, and every shadow is black. Perhaps most impressive is Sulley's fur, which looks absolutely realistic.

The movie was really loved due to the huge variety of creatures present, and on DVD many of these differences were really only noticeable as differing colors, sizes, shapes, and a few extremely different textures. On Blu, however, the uniqueness of each monster really shines through, and ones that before looked like they were at least partially similar now look startlingly different.

Monsters, Inc.'s sound is equally impressive. In my opinion, this is the best example of HD sound in a Pixar release yet. Presented in DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1, the audio track far outperforms the DVD release, and makes Monsters, Inc. seem like a real place you can step into. Monsters sound big, and their work environment is constantly busy on all fronts. The end chase scene is one of the best examples of audio in any animated release yet.

As with a lot of Blu-ray releases, many of the extras available are brought over from various DVD releases. Commentary, the shorts, various out-of-movie clips, etc. are all brought back. What's new however, are an intro from director Pete Docter (which explains what you can find on the discs and will make you drop your jaw), a 22-minute Filmmakers Roundtable, a corny trivia-like game, and a 12-minute look at the new Monsters, Inc. ride at Tokyo Disneyland. The Roundtable is the best of the new features, as it explains a lot of how the movie was made, and offers plenty of anecdotes. The look at the Monsters, Inc. ride feels a lot like an advert for Tokyo Disneyland, but seeing as most of us will never have a chance to see the ride in person, it's an interesting bit - especially for those who love going to the Disney parks, or who grew up within a few minutes drive of Disneyland (as yours truly did).

The re-used extras are numerous, and while some are offered in HD, most are in SD. HD extras include the two Pixar shorts, the storyboard to film comparison, an alternative treatment for the early film, banished concepts, and a brief history of Monster World.

All in all, Monsters, Inc. is a must-buy Blu-ray title. The movie is one of Pixar's better works (though not their best), but the disc itself is one of the most impressive discs yet. With Monsters, Inc. out on Blu, now we just have to wait until The Incredibles and the two Toy Story films make their transition. Thankfully, the current Pixar discs are good enough to tide me over until my favorites show up on shelves.

-----------------------------------------------

Movie: 4 / 5

Video & Audio: 5 / 5

Disc: 5 / 5

-----------------------------------------------

Overall: 5 / 5

The chart pictured above has been making its way around the internet over the past few days, and seems to be causing a stir among videogame publications seeking to... cause a stir. The general message from most outlets is the cataclysmic claim that "teh gam3z r doooomed" in light of the current economic climate.

They obviously can't read and interpret charts very well.

When you look at this chart, the first thing you notice is obviously the foreboding downward slope of the data points from month to month, but the most important information here is what these points actually represent. These are not concrete sales figures, but, as listed at the top of the chart, "Y/Y % Change." This little term is a more abstract way of saying that each month's sales data is a comparison to the sales from the same month in the previous year, presented as a percentage.

Also worth noting is that the chart's y axis (the vertically arranged part) ranges from a 40% decrease to an 80% increase, leaving the no-change line of 0% relatively close to the bottom, and that the time frame under observation begins at September 2007, 10 months after the last entries into the current console generation landed at retail. So, this means that the chart is dealing with mostly POSITIVE numbers and is only looking at a very small part of modern gaming history.

If we examine the dips in the data, it's easy to see that between March and August of 2009 appear to have been be the roughest times for the industry, but let's not forget how the information is presented -- these numbers are a comparison to the previous year. Looking back at the same period in 2008 shows that for most of that time, videogame sales maintained a steady and sizeable 40-60% increase compared to those months in 2007, dipping to only a 10-30% improvement at the period's tail end. It stands to reason that the numbers would show a decline in the following year when compared to such a boom, but still, even a 20% decrease from what had been a 50% increase in the previous year remains a net improvement.

To make this concept clearer, I've edited the chart, overlaying the September 2007 - September 2008 data with those from September 2008 - September 2009. Comparing the blue and red lines makes it even more obvious that the number sets from each successive year will naturally oppose one another simply as a result of the type of data we are looking at -- a percent change.

Even without the decades of sales figures preceding September 2007, it shouldn't be difficult to estimate the change from 2007 to 2009. Simply splitting the difference between the red and blue lines above gives an approximation of where sales from 9/08-9/09 stand as compared to those from 9/07-9/08. The purple line below represents that estimate, shifted into place on the chart for the later time period. Notice that all but the last few months show % increases, meaning that videogame sales have indeed gone up since 2007 and earlier.

If anyone bothers to take a look at where the videogame industry stood in the early part of the century, the 1990s, or the 1980s, I'm sure they will find that it is far from being "in decline." Unless of course you call anything other than skyrocketing a decline, that is -- in that case, sure, this is a decline from the astronomical growth the industry has consistently experienced over the last 25 years.

Eddie, Jason, Mike, and Dan discuss achievements, trophies, in-game rewards, and the value of each.

Eddie Inzauto, Jason Fanelli, Mike Murphy, and Dan Crabtree look at a few of the latest releases, then dive into a discussion about videogame achievements, trophies, and rewards in general.

00:00 - Welcome. Achievement unlocked! Introductions.
01:06 - What we've been playing. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and "the scene." Dragon Age: Origins.
07:50 - Natal launch detailed. Coming November 2010 for 80 dollars or less.
09:20 - Achievements and Rewards discussion.
09:33 - Are you an "achievement junkie"?
13:08 - Achievements and trophies as motivation to play.
16:55 - Achievements/trophies reiterating and reinforcing existing in-game goals.
20:02 - Player-created goals and their relationship to achievements/trophies. Developers preempting players.
22:54 - Can a game rely on achievements/trophies as its only rewards structure? Tying achievements/trophies to in-game rewards. Modern Warfare 2, Uncharted 2, Borderlands.
26:20 - Avatar awards. A middle ground.
27:49 - Importance of achievements/trophies to gamers. What was your first? Nostalgia vs. score padding. Jason's getting ready for Assassin's Creed II.
32:22 - Completion. In how many games have you earned 1000 gamerscore or a platinum trophy.
35:29 - Can a game's rewards structure make or break that game?
37:50 - Social validation: "Whose is bigger?"
39:22 - Scalable achievements and trophies.
40:46 - The most ridiculous achievements/trophies?
45:15 - Can a game exist with no rewards? Maybe Superman 64...
47:18 - Thanks, plugs, shoutouts, and outro. Gamers with hearts. You Earned a Trophy!

Intro, Microsoft Xbox 360 startup and achievement sounds. Outro, Sony PlayStation 3 startup and trophy sounds.

Links:
GamerNode's Modern Warfare 2 review - CoD: Modern Warfare 2
GamerNode's Uncharted 2 review - Uncharted 2
GamerNode's Borderlands review - Borderlands
GamerNode's Academy of Champions: Soccer review - Academy of Champions
Eddie's Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/EddieInzauto
Jason's Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/bigmanfanelli

Right click here and click "Save Target/Link As" to download

For a direct link to the podcast feed, click here.

Hello Journalism,

I am Jason Fanelli, one of your newest members. I'm not very happy with you right now. 

One of your media outlets, declaring itself a "fair and balanced" representative of yours, is being exactly the opposite. It has once again skewed the perception of the gaming world from one of entertainment to that of barbarism and lawlessness, breaking one of your most important rules in the process.

The first time, Mass Effect drew the ire of this establishment. This time, it is Modern Warfare 2 that is the victim. 

Both times, the game in question has a scene taken completely out of context. Both times, a nervous representative of the gaming world, unprepared for the barrage of accusations about to confront him, is made to be the fool. Both times, the gaming industry is cast in a negative light, while the other side of the argument is praised as the voice of reason.

Most alarmingly, both times, the "journalists" conducting the interview make it painfully obvious that they did not view the source material for themselves.

Is it not true that the core mantra of journalism is to know all of the relevant information in a story before reporting? Is the journalist not supposed to report the story as objectively as possible, so that those who are watching can draw their own opinions of the subject matter? These were the lessons I was taught on the road to my Broadcast Journalism degree, so then why are they not being followed in the real journalism world?

Maybe what needs to happen is that these "media outlets" need to start having the "fair and balanced" debates that they advertise. Perhaps they should start giving both sides equal time to present their side, without the talking-head host getting in the middle of it. Perhaps, and no offense to the two who stood for gaming the first two times, they should bring someone on who's not afraid to be as vocal as possible about their stance.

Someone, perhaps, like me.

I hereby issue an open challenge to any and all "fair and balanced" news outlets. If you plan to talk about any video games on your show, and you want someone who will defend the gaming world to the best of his ability, look no further than me, Jason Fanelli of GamerNode.com. I will debate the topic to the wee hours of the morning, and I will not relent. If I were to lose the debate, rest assured I would still go down swinging.

This idea of skewing the flow of the story to support your own hidden agenda needs to end. As far as gaming is concerned, if given the chance, it will end with me.

Of course, we all know that these "journalists" don't want someone who's actually willing to put up a fight. They want someone that they can bully into a corner, giving them barely any chance to speak. Geoff Keighley and Jon Christensen, both fantastic gaming journalists themselves, were treated as sub-par humans for supporting that which the "fair and balanced" media outlet thought was essentially the Devil.

Rest assured, dear "journalists," that we see right through your facade. We see you for the sensational, biased, people-with-obvious-agendas-posing-as-journalists that you are. We would all love to expose you as just that, but those who are given the chance to do so are barely able to speak.

Not me. Give me the chance, and I'll give you the debate you say you want. That is, if you actually want it.

As a journalist, nothing aggravates or infuriates me professionally more than seeing a news media outlet showing blatant bias towards a subject. It goes against everything I was taught in college, as the primary rule of being a journalist is to analyze a story and try to see both sides. To see this cardinal rule of journalism broken by so-called "fair and balanced" or "well respected" news outlets makes me want to punch holes in walls.

It should go without saying that the most recent example of Fox News' complete bias against the videogame industry, the industry that I love dearly and write about, has infuriated me to no end. So much so that I have dedicated this latest edition of my column to Fox News' completely ignorant coverage of games and the industry.

This most recent incident occurred on the network's Fox & Friends program. The show featured Infinity Ward and Activision's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and what they called a game that "let's you be a terrorist and kill people." The host of the "fair and balanced" debate had an obviously nervous and unprepared Jon Christensen of Slash Gamer defending the game.

The piece was focused on a mission in the game where you play as an undercover CIA operative who has infiltrated a terrorist organization and is forced to take part in an airport massacre in order to get close to the group's leader. This mission however, is completely optional and the player is warned on several occasions how disturbing the scene may be and offers the player a chance to skip the mission on each occasion. This is a fact that was completely left out of the piece and wasn't even brought up by Christensen.

The optional mission is all the host of the show brings up about the game and continues to urge that children can get a hold of this game. Christensen then states that the game is rated M for Mature and game retailers have turned away underage consumers looking to buy the game. Despite this fact, the host still says if a game is brought into a house, what is to stop a child from playing it?

It is here where I personally was floored with Fox News' host's ignorance. Just to try to drive home to some unintelligent viewer that their kids could be in danger from playing this optional mission, he essentially states that only neglectful parents and/or siblings could be responsible for children being exposed to the content. In which case, he has completely ruined his own argument and yet speaks with a demeanor suggesting he's just stumped Christensen.

Even the man Fox News had on the program who they believed would bash the game for them, Common Sense media CEO Jim Steyer, admits that the content is only too violent depending on who is playing the game. When that happens, the host has the nerve to cut Steyer off. However, he does allow Steyer later on in the story to continue to make his point.

As disgusting and aggravating as this was, it showed that Fox News hadn't learned much from the last time they decided to criticize a game with heavy bias. Back in January of 2008, the network decided to run a piece on the controversial sex scene in Mass Effect that could take place towards the end of the game.

In that piece, the game was dubbed by one of the reporters as "Luke Skywalker meets Debbie Does Dallas." Representatives for and against the game were game journalist Geoff Keighley on the defense and author Cooper Lawrence on the attack.

When asked by Keighley, after ranting about how the game portrayed women as "objects of desire," Lawrence admitted that she had never played the game. Later in the story, even the host of the show admitted not having played the game or watched the scene.

The story also stated that there was full-frontal nudity and graphic sex in the scene, when in actuality the scene was not even as bad as a typical romance scene in a PG-13 rated movie. A side-boob and quick butt shot was all the "graphic" nudity in the scene. All after a lengthy romantic relationship had developed during a 30-plus hour game.

Despite Keighley making Lawrence and the host look like complete fools, Lawrence and eventually the rest of the Fox & Friends cast continued to bash the game without having a clue as to what they were ranting about.

The crew went to the same argument of unsupervised kids getting access to these games. This once again just goes to show that they have to blame neglectful parents and/or siblings in order to present any semblance of a valid argument.

Watching the rant just makes you scratch your head in confusion and want to hit something in anger. One woman says she wonders why the game didn't get an Adults Only rating. The woman obviously made her judgment on hearsay, something a journalist should never do, for if she had watched the scene she would have known the content was nowhere near as serious as her biased network was making it out to be.

A good thing did come out of this piece however, as gamers flooded Amazon.com and down-rated Lawrence's book due to her ill-informed appearance on the Fox News story. The backlash forced her to issue an apology.

"I recognize that I misspoke," said Lawrence. "I really regret saying that, and now that I've seen the game and seen the sex scenes it's kind of a joke. Before the show I had asked somebody about what they had heard, and they had said it's like pornography. But it's not like pornography. I've seen episodes of Lost that are more sexually explicit."

These two pieces are an atrocity to journalism and make me angry that these biased, ignorant people call themselves professional journalists as I do myself. They neglected to gather enough information to provide an unbiased story, choosing simply to ignore it. These "reporters" and their "fair and balanced" network have broken two cardinal rules of journalism, remaining unbiased and being well-informed on your story.

All of it just in an attempt to spite the gaming industry. It makes me sick.

"Are you buying that new game coming out tomorrow?" she asked me, somewhat randomly.

"Oh... Yeah, Call of Duty right? Modern Warfare 2?" I said to her.

"Yes, that's the one. It's been on the news all night here. They've been interviewing kids waiting in lines, and videogame store employees about it. They said it's going to be crazy, and that it's the biggest game ever," she said to me. "I figured you would know about it."

Yep, as a matter of fact, Mom, I do know about it. But wait, how surprised could I actually be that my mom has heard about Modern Warfare 2?

It's only the biggest thing since Halo 3 (maybe even bigger, as I'm sure we'll all find out real soon from every videogame website ever!), and I suspect that her local news station isn't the only one broadcasting something about Modern Warfare 2's release.

Any gamer that's been online recently has no doubt been absolutely bombarded with information regarding the game. For the last few months, everything from the newest trailers, pre-order numbers, leaked footage, single-player impressions, spec-ops impressions, playable characters, and weapon details to the miniscule things like the newest perks, PS3 and Xbox 360 comparison screen shots, and exclusive gear has been reported to death by multiple websites. It's all too much, and in my opinion, is ruining what makes the game feel new and special.

For example, I logged on to Kotaku last night just to see what news headlines were popping up, and I ended up finding twelve Modern Warfare 2-related articles on their front page. Twelve. And that's just for one day.

I'm not knocking Kotaku's work, I really enjoy it in actuality, but I have to ask, "what's left to report on?" I understand MW2 is a sequel to an amazing FPS, one that I put my fair amount of time into, and that its hype was unavoidable. I also understand that if one wanted to avoid all the hype and commotion surrounding the game, they could have just skipped on reading the articles.

But it's not that you could see the articles and ignore them, it's that they are constantly in your face, all the time. This isn't the first time this has happened to an anticipated game, and it won't be the last.

The question I want to bring up is this -- can a game be reported on so much that it affects it negatively? Not that I think that MW2 will be adversely effected from all its media exposure, but does games journalism go too far to the point that nothing is a surprise, and too much is revealed about a game before its release?

It's tough when you have a AAA game like MW2, where millions of people are seeking out information and demanding to know anything about the game that they can. Obviously gaming websites want to provide this info to the readers to draw traffic and to report on said game. That's their job, and they do it well. But if someone like me wants the final game to remain a surprise (or is just plain tired of hearing about the game) and wants to go without seeing the headlines blasted across every website's homepage, then it seems the only thing to do is to avoid gaming news altogether.

Is it time videogame journalism looks at the way (and frequency with which) videogames are previewed? Or are the publishers the problem, with their viral marketing ads and PR stunts? How much previewing do you want on your games, and what hurts a game, pre-release, the most in your eyes?