Ridiculous things that movies always get wrong

12:00 pm EST, November 21, 2012

A lot of movies are unbelievable. However, sometimes they just get things plain wrong. In this opinion piece, Richard looks at some of the less obvious (yet no less ridiculous) things that crop up time and time again.

There’s something to be said about a good story. Actually, there is more to be said about a bad story than a good one, but that contradicts with my opening narrative. But while we’re on the topic, have you ever noticed that the longest reviews and critiques are generally negative? Isn’t it odd that we enjoy criticism more than appreciation? Clearly there is something odd from an evolutionary standpoint that enlightened humans revel in masochism, albeit in an intellectual way. Anyway, getting back to good stories.

I’m talking about the kind of tale that gives you a strange tingling deep in your stomach containing a mixture of apprehension and exhilaration. It’s really a conflict between wanting to get to the end of a story and not wanting the story to end. One of the few good conflicts in life; the only other one I can think of is deciding whether to leave the job you love for another one that is a bit duller but pays 10x more and gives you a free helicopter. If that tingling is closer to nausea, then you’re more likely to be hungover than exhilarated. On the other hand, if you’re watching say, The Shawshank Redemption, and you get nothing from it emotionally, then you’re probably just dead inside. Finally, if that tingling is a bit further down from your stomach, then you probably aren’t consuming a good story, but instead watching pornography.

What really fascinates me is that we’re fully willing to abandon all plausibility when we’re gripped in something, whether it be a film or a book or television episode. We know (or at least should know) when reading something completely fictitious (Harry Potter, Twilight, the Bible, etc) that the plot is out-with the realms of probability or even possibility, yet we pursue the fantasy with energy and gusto.

There are, however, some regular occurrences (particularly in the movies) that I want to focus on which simply defy all logic, belief and credibility yet no one seems to bat an eyelid or even notice. Before we begin, I know what you’re probably thinking. “Can’t you just enjoy movies for what they are and be done with it?” … “Weren’t you JUST moaning about everyone in journalism complaining all the time a mere three paragraphs ago?” … “Are you THAT much of a killjoy?” … “I didn’t actually like The Shawshank Redemption, but now that you’ve mentioned pornography. Hmmm…” and so on. Well, yes. These are all true, but allow me to paint a picture for you…

Professionally, I’m a scientist. I work in an academic institution where I’m expected to make claims and back them up with sufficient evidence. If I say something unsubstantiated, the first response I typically hear is, “prove it!” Scepticism, it seems, is contagious. A questioning, inquisitive and arguably narcissistic mind has been instilled into me, and it has boiled over from the test tube of science and into the dubious world of entertainment.

7 things that movies always get wrong:

Massive Explosions in Space

Virtually every science fiction movie ever made makes this glaring error. When the Death Star blows up at the end of Star Wars, there is a massive boom with sparks and fire and debris and so on. This is all nonsense. It’s nonsense in Star Wars, nonsense in Star Trek, nonsense in The Avengers and nonsense in everything else. I can accept that say, in the future, mankind has found a way to make space travel a regular occurrence. I can accept that we interact with alien life. I can even accept that the aliens seem to speak English. This isn’t impossible, just highly improbable. What IS impossible is to see flames of any kind in space. Why? Because flames require oxygen to burn and there is no oxygen in space. And there is no boom either. Sounds require air to travel and as we’ve just learnt, no air means no loud explosions.

This might not bother you, but I wince each time I see one of the fundamental laws of physics essentially shat over in each sci-fi movie. Imagine you were watching something really terrible like My Best Friend’s Wedding. I know, it’s a horrible thought, but bear with me. Now imagine that as Julia Roberts’ character starts singing “I Say A Little Prayer” at the wedding reception, she started hovering in mid-air instead, then a pink unicorn crawled out of her massive, massive mouth. This is exactly how ridiculous it is to have an explosion in space, yet somehow, if a floating Julia Roberts in the middle of a romantic comedy transpired, your gut instinct would not be to admire the wonderful special effects but instead to ask “Why?” You might even raise an eyebrow.

Reason: Explosions look cool. It IS possible to have a small and very instant ignition if a massive ship was to blow up, from the oxygen inside the ship. However, that oxygen would burn up in a fraction of a second in the vacuum of space.

Humanoids in Space

While we’re on the topic of space, let me point out another ridiculous notion, and that’s the general assumption that aliens have a slight (often profound) resemblance to humans. Our own particular species wasn’t just planted on this planet the way we are now. We’ve evolved over millions of years of gradual, non-random change and along the way, we’ve developed the tools that we need to survive.

Our distant cousins, for example, didn’t walk on their hind legs like we do now but on all fours. Our legs have grown stronger and stronger as we gradually made more use of them. Our bodies’ intake of oxygen and output of carbon dioxide (which subsequently fuels other life) developed to become a seamless process. Why aliens would share this is simply ludicrous.

Why would one assume that aliens have noses (or can even smell)? Perhaps on their home planet, it favoured their species from an evolutionary standpoint to eat through their anus. Perhaps they don’t even have an anus. Perhaps their entire “body” for lack of a better word is just one giant anus. Come to think of it, that seems rather efficient doesn’t it? One organ that eats, sniffs, breathes and poops.

Reason: Set and prop designers lack imagination. And for some reason, we’re apparently more likely to identify something as an alien if it’s closer looking to humanity than not.

Knocking someone unconscious

How many times has James Bond refrained from killing someone (how gracious), instead given them a quick chop to the face, rendering them unconscious? Sometimes they wake up later but generally the movie just moves on and we assume that the victim will recover from Bond’s assault. He kindly allowed them to live. Ehhh, I’m afraid not.

People do get knocked unconscious in real life all the time, but it generally only lasts for a few seconds at most. Any longer and it’s typically called something different: a coma. Yes, all those times John McClain or Jason Bourne left someone “asleep,” they weren’t being humane at all. They were giving those poor people a likely dose of brain-damage and probably a very upset wife to top it off. Fiends!

Reason: You can punch someone unconscious and still get your movie listed as a PG-13, however, if you start shooting people, then that’s much more likely to up the censor’s rating.

Rationality will detonate in T minus 4 minutes

For some unknown reason, it’s customary for a (stupid) ship’s computer to tell us that the space ship, or secret base or bomb will blow up in “T minus 60 seconds,” or some other value of time. Why? Who knows. T stands for time. Therefore, if the ship is to explode in T (Time) minus four minutes, that means the ship has already exploded four minutes ago! This phrase is used time and time again, yet no one seems to spot this glaring logical error. Funny how the ship’s computer is sufficiently well programmed to be able to initiate a self-destruct mechanism, yet the simple task of telling the time is beyond it. The ship’s computer SHOULD be telling us that detonation will happen in T plus four minutes, however, let’s be honest, this isn’t that useful either.

If I’m unfortunate enough to be on a vessel somewhere that is about to be incinerated, the last thing I want is an incorrect countdown. Quite frankly, clarity is a must. Instead, I want a loud shouting voice that repeatedly warns, “RUN! THIS SHIP IS ABOUT TO BLOW UP BUT THERE WILL BE NO EXPLOSION AS WE’RE IN SPACE, BUT YOU’RE STILL GOING TO DIE FROM IT! FOR GOODNESS SAKE, RUN! ARGHHH!” Or better still, ships that don’t self-destruct at all. That’s probably easier for all concerned.

Reason: The term comes from NASA, when they say “launch in T minus 60 seconds” where T stands for “Takeoff.” T actually makes sense in this context, but ever since Ridley Scott (incorrectly) used the phrase in Alien, it took on a new meaning and other screenplay writers started using the term without wondering what it meant.

The Elevator Hatch

Whenever an elevator breaks down in a movie or TV programme, someone invariably pushes open a hatch on the roof and climbs up in fear that it might plummet to the floor. I’ve been looking for a hatch in an elevator for 25 years and I’ve yet to see one. Have you?

Secondly, what do they expect to find up there? It’s a shaft. The only way is up because the elevator is blocking your way down and as I pointed out earlier, you can’t just randomly hover upwards (unless you’re still imagining my image of Julia Roberts in My Best Friend’s Wedding). You may as well climb back down the imaginary hatch and wait for the rescue to arrive.

Thirdly, the elevator will never just plummet to the ground because like any moving object, it has brakes.

Reason: The hatch seemingly provides a story-arc for whatever follows it. No other reason can be attributed to this nonsense.

Childbirth

Movies always seem to romanticise childbirth. There is always a lot of screaming, and then a loving mother embraces her newly born child. For some reason, such fictional births never seem to include the part where the woman shits herself. Yes, you read that correctly. Most women tend to defecate during birth; it is natural, albeit unpleasant. As a result, I suspect a new mother’s first reaction isn’t to hug her new child, but for someone to very quickly wipe off the faeces that is now dripping down her legs and smelling quite badly.

Another more unpleasant part of childbirth: it’s actually quite common for doctors to make a small cut in a woman’s vagina, giving the baby’s head more room. This is also perfectly routine. However, when Rachel gave birth to her baby in Friends, at no point did a doctor come along with a scalpel and slice an extra inch down her woman-bits. Perhaps this is a bit too much realism for Jennifer Aniston to convey in her acting? One does struggle to find a good expression for illustrating one’s torn vagina.

Reason: If we showed the unromantic side of childbirth in the media, we might put mothers off of having babies which might endanger our human race? I’m sure something stupid like this crossed the mind of the TV producer or film director.

Computer Hacking

This one is my absolute favorite (or most hated, depending on which way you look at it). Firstly, the idea that one can hack into some government agency from an HP laptop in around 11 seconds by pressing lots of keys very quickly, and secondly, the wonderfully elaborate user-interfaces that the computer seems to have on its monitor showing bright colors, wavy lines and moving shapes.

If the aim is to gain access to someone else’s computer (like Q was trying to do in the new James Bond movie), why on earth did he or anyone else spend a seemingly massive amount of time making the process look so pretty? Surely that’s just counter-intuitive AT BEST, given all these moving shapes are going to be a bit of a distraction when you’re desperately trying to guess someone’s password.

Reason: Movies try to make computer hacking seem cool and sophisticated. The reality is most hackers are middle-aged men, considerably overweight, and sitting in front of a screen with just a lot of text on it and nothing else (because pretty much all hacking is done on a command line). Go to hackertyper.com, type really fast and see how movies fake it.

These are just some of the many things that bug me when watching a film or TV episode. I’m not at all advocating that movies should be based firmly in reality because then the magic of fantasy would be lost forever. However, I think (due to movies) that we sometimes forget just what is and isn’t real.

Most importantly, now you know how difficult it can be for scientists to go to the cinema. It turns out, people sitting next to you find it rather irritating when you’re scoffing at something every seven minutes.

Exclusive: Richard Speight, Jr. chats ‘Kings of Con’ and his return to the ‘Supernatural’ director’s chair

"I don’t worry about hitting too close to home. It’s my home, so if I want to burn it to the ground I can."

9:30 am EST, January 13, 2017

Actor Richard Speight, Jr. joined Hypable in Australia to talk about aiming the blast laser at himself in his satirical convention-life series Kings of Con and returning to his Supernatural home turf as a director.

“Oh, I don’t worry about hurting people’s feelings or hitting too close to home! It’s my home, so if I want to burn it to the ground I can.” Such is the mantra of Richard Speight, Jr., the peppy Supernatural and Band of Brothers alumnus currently ruling the internet as the writer, director and star of convention circuit comedy Kings of Con. The question at hand is whether he ever feels trepidation about exposing the inner workings of his industry, perhaps to the embarrassment or expense of his colleagues. The answer is a resounding no. “I am an actor and it is my world, so I apologize to nobody for any jokes I make,” he declares confidently. However, if you’re a superfan, don’t expect to find yourself in the line of fire – despite the show’s premise, you’re definitely not the target.

Created by Speight and Rob Benedict, two Supernatural guest stars whose characters have, over the years, become deeply woven into the very fabric of the show’s canon, Kings of Con is a farcical yet heartfelt glimpse behind the curtain in the world of fan conventions, in which Rich and Rob play heightened versions of themselves, parodying themselves as washed-up actors clinging to the 13 weekends per year in which they’re blessed with fame and mild fortune thanks to their past roles on a popular genre show with a deeply loyal fandom, one that stars a couple of hot “lumbersexuals.” Sound familiar? Yup.

Read full article

Actor Richard Speight, Jr. joined Hypable in Australia to talk about aiming the blast laser at himself in his satirical convention-life series Kings of Con and returning to his Supernatural home turf as a director.

“Oh, I don’t worry about hurting people’s feelings or hitting too close to home! It’s my home, so if I want to burn it to the ground I can.” Such is the mantra of Richard Speight, Jr., the peppy Supernatural and Band of Brothers alumnus currently ruling the internet as the writer, director and star of convention circuit comedy Kings of Con. The question at hand is whether he ever feels trepidation about exposing the inner workings of his industry, perhaps to the embarrassment or expense of his colleagues. The answer is a resounding no. “I am an actor and it is my world, so I apologize to nobody for any jokes I make,” he declares confidently. However, if you’re a superfan, don’t expect to find yourself in the line of fire – despite the show’s premise, you’re definitely not the target.

Created by Speight and Rob Benedict, two Supernatural guest stars whose characters have, over the years, become deeply woven into the very fabric of the show’s canon, Kings of Con is a farcical yet heartfelt glimpse behind the curtain in the world of fan conventions, in which Rich and Rob play heightened versions of themselves, parodying themselves as washed-up actors clinging to the 13 weekends per year in which they’re blessed with fame and mild fortune thanks to their past roles on a popular genre show with a deeply loyal fandom, one that stars a couple of hot “lumbersexuals.” Sound familiar? Yup.

The Rob’n’Rich origin story has a slightly unusual twist: Speight, who played the mischievous archangel Gabriel, and Benedict, who portrays the prophet Chuck Shurley recently revealed to be God himself, never actually shared screen time while filming Supernatural. Instead, they met as guests on the (real) Supernatural convention circuit, and through this environment, grew into the very best of friends. This bond led to the pair becoming a fan-favorite double act, and through their work over the years hosting the tours together, where Speight acts as each weekend’s MC and Benedict leads rock group Louden Swain as the convention’s onstage “house band,” the idea for Kings of Con was born.

At this point, you may be saying to yourself “Hang on, a webseries about conventions? Isn’t that already a thing?” Yes, it is a thing. Con Man, written by Alan Tudyk and produced by Nathan Fillion, which satirizes their experience on the circuit in the wake of Firefly, is a thing that also exists. But neither project was based on the other, or knew the other even existed when they each went into production. The situation at hand simply proves two things: number one, that convention culture is becoming so prominent in the lives of actors and in the process of being a fan that it inspires multiple parties to tell their stories about it; and number two, that irony truly is a bitch, because, as Speight and Benedict revealed in their Indiegogo campaign video, the very day that they finished filming scenes for their own first pass at Kings of Con, the crowdfunding campaign for Con Man was dropped online.

A little competition was not enough to dissuade Speight and Benedict — “What if the makers of ER had said ‘you know what, there’s a Chicago Hope?'” — and the Kings of Con Indiegogo, which launched in early 2015, met its initial goal within days. The creators increased their plans from three to ten episodes, and the campaign ended on May 11, 2015 with a total of $279,655 raised by backers. Around a year later, it was announced that the series had been picked up by Comic-Con HQ, the nerdcentric video-on-demand channel launched by Lionsgate. I sat down with Speight in the lobby of his Sydney hotel on a recent visit Down Under for — what else — a Supernatural convention, to talk about how that partnership came into being, why his comedy doesn’t exploit fan culture, and what to expect from his latest episode of Supernatural.

The success of the Kings of Con crowdfunding venture was not only financially beneficial in terms of helping Speight and Benedict’s business plan, it also got the project a fair amount of positive press. From that hype came a meeting at Nerdist Industries, which is home to a whole slate of original video content alongside their flagship podcast hosted by Chris Hardwick. It turned out not to be the right fit. “Nerdist’s format for doing a show like that would have been very different,” Speight admits. “Great company, great people, but different kind of design. They do ad-supported content, it’s just very different.”

However, in that meeting was a man named Seth Laderman, who, unbeknownst to Speight and Benedict, was at the time in the process of leaving Nerdist to start a new digital arm for Lionsgate, which was a partnership with the Comic-Con International brand. When Laderman took up his new position, he called the Kings and told them that he wanted their show, and that Comic-Con HQ would be the right home. “It ended up being a perfect mix, because we had autonomy. We could make whatever show we wanted. It wasn’t ad-supported, so we didn’t have to worry about content being altered to fit a brand or anything like that. It was really a perfect storm for us.”

While Speight is quick to assure me that he and Benedict would have produced the show at any level, with just their fundraising budget and no further reach than inviting the Supernatural fandom to view it on their YouTube channel — an eventuality they would have been happy to rely on — they were never aiming to make the show feel small in scope. He disparages my use of the term webseries — a pet hate, as the mainstream implications of “videos on the internet” don’t truly reflect the current state of content creation. “Really, it’s a digital series, but so is House of Cards. There’s no difference between what we’re trying to do and what Netflix is doing. Digital is really just a distribution platform,” he explains, and that’s what makes Comic-Con HQ such a valuable asset — along with a plumper production budget to better showcase the vision and abilities of the creators, the partnership with the VOD service has provided the show the opportunity to reach a much wider crowd outside the built-in congregation that is the Supernatural fandom.

Speight describes Comic-Con HQ’s national and international plan to get their own brand and the brand of their shows out to a larger audience, and it’s no small thing. Since Kings of Con premiered in November, Comic-Con HQ has also hosted Kings of Conversation, a globally accessible live after show with special guests breaking down each week’s episode, and has cut deals with a host of other paid subscription services: iTunes, Amazon, Google, Playstation, Xbox and Vimeo to get their content available to international viewers. And if you attended San Diego Comic-Con this past summer – where Speight and Benedict hosted the Sunday morning Supernatural panel in the cavernous Hall H for their second year running, a gig that came not from their relationship with Comic-Con as Kings of Con promo but with Warner Brothers for their relationship with Supernatural itself, you’ll have noticed that the push for the channel was absolutely inescapable, with their own stage area, giveaways, subscriber sign-ups left and right. Billboards for Kings of Con, alongside Comic-Con HQ’s other projects – Pop Culture Quest, the Mark Hamill-hosted documentary series about collectors of memorabilia, and, irony strikes again, Con Man, which joined the platform for its second season – lined the walkway between Hall H and the Hilton.

2015, Speight’s first year onstage in Hall H, also saw SDCC play host to a huge panel for Con Man, and questions about the spoofing of fan culture within such a series began to arise, especially as Tudyk’s character was extremely disdainful of his own circumstances. The Firefly cast are deeply and famously in love with their own fandom, so they handled that aspect in their own way, but Kings of Con is a completely different animal, for a variety of reasons, so the same questions must be brought to the table here. Fans are always extremely cautious about anyone trying to fictionalize fandom on film — it’s failed many times in the past, but it turns out that if you point the camera in the other direction, you get a pretty accurate portrayal, because much to the delight of the Supernatural fandom, Kings of Con does a great job in normalizing its own setting and the community surrounding it.

Set on the road at various stops of a weekend convention tour for on an unnamed cult genre show (based on Creation Entertainment’s Official Supernatural convention tour, probably the biggest such event for a currently airing show) Kings of Con never draws its humor at the expense of fans. “Here’s our aim,” Speight lays it out when the question of writing about fan culture comes up. “We don’t set out to make fun of fans. Fans are the reason why we have an audience. They’re the reason why Supernatural is successful, why Supernatural conventions are successful, and why the crowdfunding campaign was successful.”

Moreso than that, Kings of Con isn’t actually about fans themselves – the representation of fan culture is actually very limited, with Speight and Benedict pulling most of their character-driven comedy from the stories of the actors and onsite staff who help make the con work. Moments in which the stars are shown meeting with fans — at autograph signings, panels, and so on — are treated very sincerely, with no mocking private commentary of these interactions, and the fact that fans choose to come spend their time and money at conventions is, as I mentioned, treated as valid and reasonable. Several episodes revolve around Rob and Rich covering up their own mess-ups in order to give a good performance for a waiting audience, and the hardest digs hand the power to the fans rather than the actors — moments when an actor is dismayed not to be recognized, or acknowledges that he’s just there to pad out time for fans keen to meet the real celebrities, the show’s as-yet-unseen stars “Justin” and “Jaden,” who only appear on Sundays.

If they’re not using the celebrity/fan dynamic to send up the fans, then what’s left is using it to send up the actors – in all their insecurities and desperation and bravado and unfounded confidence. “It makes a ton of fun of the actors,” Speight laughs, “and that’s what it’s going to do every week.” Given that large portions of the show were filmed on location on the convention circuit, the majority of characters on Kings of Con are played by other Supernatural staples also in attendance – some, such as Alaina Huffman as Rob’s ex-wife, are roles crucial to the plot, but others, including Osric Chau, Kim Rhodes, Kurt Fuller and Matt Cohen, play fellow caricaturized convention guests with all manner of odd hang-ups and habits that absolutely stink of observations totted up during exposure to all manner of other working actors within the industry over the years.

But Speight isn’t worried about his comedy offending his own community. “Robbie and I come from that world. We’re not outsiders looking in, we’re insiders looking out, so if we want to take the piss out of our co-workers we can and will, but the thing is, we don’t do it in a mean way. Rob and I don’t have a mean bone in our body in terms of our comedic sensibilities or how we write or how we perform,” he tells me truthfully. “Keep in mind, the characters we make the most fun of are ourselves. If we’re aiming that judgmental laser at ourselves, we can get away with whatever we want. There’s a blast radius, but nobody steps in more turds than Rob and Rich.”

The methodology seems to be working, as during the production of its first season, Kings of Con has attracted a host of notable guests including Speight’s Band of Brothers co-stars Ron Livingston and Michael Cudlitz, comedian Josh Meyers, and veteran character actor Bernie Kopell, who appeared as himself in a hallucination after the pilot introduced a running gag about him. In next week’s episode, the season finale, Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles will also appear, presumably as their Kings of Con-verse alter egos, the pampered and elite Justin and Jaden – Speight and Benedict have clearly won the unwavering support of their peers with this project.

Returning to the real world, Speight also recently wrapped several weeks filming as the director on an upcoming episode of Supernatural — his second, after season 11’s “Just My Imagination.” That episode, a sweet story about Sam’s ‘imaginary friend’ Sully, who turned out to be a real supernatural being, was an intimate tale that hits very close to home, but Speight’s next turn in the director’s chair for episode 12 of season 12 sees him taking the reins on a much, much bigger piece. Originally teased as an homage to a certain famous director, the title was revealed to be “Stuck in the Middle (With You)” so you can rest assured that the icon in question is Quentin Tarantino – some huge shoes to fill.

Speight sings the praises of the production as he reflects. “That episode was a phenomenal experience. Davy [Perez, a new addition to Supernatural’s writing team this season] wrote a hell of a script. It’s a tip of the hat to a certain director’s style, but it is its own episode of story and action, everything else. It is not a meta episode at all. It’s simply a style nod.” This confirmation — the lack of meta — is part of our discussion of Supernatural’s history of deep absurdism, having gotten away with everything from a high school musical about the characters to a fourth-wall breaking trip to an alternate universe in which Sam and Dean find themselves on the set on the TV show where everyone thinks that they’re their actor counterparts Ackles and Padalecki. Speight’s character, especially when still in disguise as the Trickster, has even been the lynchpin of several such meta episodes.

The prospect of a Tarantino “theme” isn’t even necessarily the aspect that will make this episode memorable. It wasn’t confirmed whether the content would be monster-of-the-week-ish or tied to the season’s bigger British Men of Letters or Lucifer arcs, but given Speight’s description that it is “very cool and very full plot, with a lot of storylines going on with a lot of characters being serviced really well,” it’s safe to assume that it’s a showstopper. Speight finished shooting around 24 hours before he made the flight out to Australia, and describes the episode as “all-encompassing,” with some huge sequences to pull off. “It’s big, and it’s broad. There’s style, and there’s several different stories happening and they’re intertwine in interesting ways. It’s a doozy of an episode.” If Supernatural’s back half doesn’t take a mini-hiatus when it returns on January 26, “Stuck in the Middle (With You)” will air on 16 February, and Speight is also booked to direct yet another episode towards the season’s conclusion.

In the meantime, catch Richard Speight, Jr. and Rob Benedict in the Kings of Con season finale on Tuesday 17 January on Comic-Con HQ, or watch episode 1 right now below!

All episode stills © Comic-Con HQ and The CW. All portraiture used with permission © Stardust and Melancholy.

Nintendo unveiled their next video game console, the Switch, on Thursday.

Initially teased in October, Nintendo hosted a primetime event to share all the big details about the Switch. Amongst the news was the price, games, and how the controllers work

You can watch the Nintendo Switch’s unveiling below. Additional details are available further down the page.

Read full article

Nintendo unveiled their next video game console, the Switch, on Thursday.

Initially teased in October, Nintendo hosted a primetime event to share all the big details about the Switch. Amongst the news was the price, games, and how the controllers work

You can watch the Nintendo Switch’s unveiling below. Additional details are available further down the page.

Nintendo Switch live stream

Nintendo Switch highlights

  • Nintendo Switch will be released March 3, 2017 in Japan, the United States, Canada, major European countries, Hong Kong, and other territories.
  • The Switch will cost $299.99
  • Battery life for on-the-go gaming is 2 1/2 hours to 6 hours
  • 8 Switch systems can be connected to one another
  • Switch uses USB-C to charge (meaning you can plug Switch into any computer to charge it if it’s not docked to the TV)
  • Super Mario Odyssey is the latest 3D Mario game that is set in an “unknown” sandbox world. Mario has a hat with eyes. The game won’t be released until the end of 2017, so few details about the game were shared. It looks like an open world game similar to Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario 64, but with a variety of different worlds to explore — including one with humans.
  • Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild will be released March 3, the launch date of the system. It’ll be released for Wii U the same day.

Update: Watch a few great trailers below, including one for the new Mario Kart, which is simply an updated version of Wii U’s Mario Kart 8. The new game is called Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Edition and includes everything from the Wii U installment plus a new battle mode, new maps, new items, and new characters. It’ll be available at the end of April:

‘The Defenders’ first look involves a messy hallway meeting

Plus: Who is Sigourney Weaver's villain?

1:45 pm EST, January 12, 2017

The Defenders are finally assembling, and our first look offers uneasy alliances — and a glimpse at Sigourney Weaver!

Our first look at The Defenders comes from Entertainment Weekly. EW was on set for the long-awaited first collision of Marvel’s reluctant, Netflix-based superheroes, and it sounds about as cacophonous as you would imagine.

Apparently, Matt Murdock, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Danny Rand all coincidentally collide on hero-business at the gigantic hole in Midland Circle. In classic Marvel-Netflix form, a tight hallway fight quickly ensues — this time, times four.

Read full article

The Defenders are finally assembling, and our first look offers uneasy alliances — and a glimpse at Sigourney Weaver!

Our first look at The Defenders comes from Entertainment Weekly. EW was on set for the long-awaited first collision of Marvel’s reluctant, Netflix-based superheroes, and it sounds about as cacophonous as you would imagine.

Apparently, Matt Murdock, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Danny Rand all coincidentally collide on hero-business at the gigantic hole in Midland Circle. In classic Marvel-Netflix form, a tight hallway fight quickly ensues — this time, times four.

“We wanted them all caught off guard,” says showrunner Marco Ramirez of the epic meet-cute. “Once they’re in that room together, it’s kind of like, “Oh, shit, who are you?””

EW has also provided behind-the-scenes video of The Defenders cover shoot, where the actors share tantalizing details of the eight-episode series.

“I’m not entirely sure how Matt fits into the Defenders yet,” says Charlie Cox, “But I can’t wait to see how he deals with those characters. I think both Matt Murdock and Jessica Jones are quite oppinionated and quite stubborn. I imagine that would be kind of a fiery relationship — in a good way!”

Kristin Ritter agrees that her Jessica Jones is not exactly the type to play nice.

Her superstrong heroine is “very reluctant to exist in the world, let alone use her superpowers,” Ritter says. “So Jessica fits in very, again, reluctantly.”

Jessica, she says, “brings her attitude and her biting sense of humor” to the motley crew. In contrast, Mike Colter says that Luke Cage is “the most centered” member of the Defenders. Hopefully, Luke can inject some groundedness into the hot mess parade of his fellow superheroes.

The unknown property of the group is Danny Rand, whose Iron Fist series hits Netflix in March. Actor Finn Jones explains Danny’s powers as the accessing of a spiritual force, and says that “he’s the one that knows really what’s going on.”

“He knows how serious the situation is,” Jones says. “He’s the one that kind of drives the group to get shit done, really.”

So what kind of villain could drive this disparate crew to “get shit done”? As announced at New York Comic Con, Sigourney Weaver will be playing The Defenders unifying villain.

EW reveals that Weaver’s character will be called “Alexandra,” though Marvel remains mostly tight-lipped on further details.

Ramirez calls Alexandra an “utter badass,” who is “a very powerful force in New York City.”

“She’s everything Sigourney is: Sophisticated, intellectual, dangerous,” he says.

Well, the Defenders are certainly plenty dangerous. Maybe between the four of them, they can scrape up enough intellect and sophistication to match wits with Weaver.

Marvel’s The Defenders comes to Netflix in summer 2017.

What excites you the most about our first look at ‘The Defenders’?