Died a hero, became the villain....

So, it was announced at the San Diego Comic-Con that Robert Downey Jr. will make his long-awaited return to the Marvel Cinematic Universe as........... Dr. Doom? Huh?? That was the sentiment of MANY people online. Like, wha?....Really?? Why Him? I mean, Cillian Murphy is out there and while I'm not a fan of actors playing major characters in multiple comic universes (Cillian Murphy played Jonathan Crane a.k.a The Scarecrow in Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy,) that was more than 15 years ago so it's not that bad. This, however is far worse. Iron-Man was the foundation of the MCU. Robert Downey Jr. is as synonymous with Iron-Man as Christopher Reeve was and still is as Superman. Imagine, if Tim Burton had hired Christopher Reeve to play Owl-Man in Batman Returns? That would have been cool on paper, but you just can't un-see Chris Reeve as Superman. It's like God literally created him TO be Superman. Likewise, you cannot un-see RDJ as Tony Stark. We all understand that RDJ in every role he's in these days prints money, but on the surface this move feels really desperate. NOW. IF this "particular" Dr. Doom is actually a variant of Tony Stark that went down a dark-path and became Dr. Doom, I can buy that. Again, TOTALLY unnecessary to do it this way, but I can least see that as "plausible."

When you think of Tony's mindset in Avengers: Age Of Ultron and how even though he knew the consequences of his actions, he just plowed right on ahead with the creation of Ultron much to the consternation of everyone because in HIS mind HE felt that HE knew best for the world. That literally is the genesis point for every major super-villain arc. At least the GOOD ones anyway. They always feel like what they are doing is for the "greater-good" so to speak.

I've heard people say that they should have just made him "Superior Iron-Man" which is definitely canon in the comic books, but Ultron kind of already checked that box. It's possible that maybe they don't want to cheapen the legacy of the original Tony Stark by just bringing back another variant of him. At the time of this post, there are far more questions than answers. One question is why is this movie being called Avengers: Doomsday when this movie clearly is centered on the Fantastic Four? I know that they have a movie coming out the predates this one. Maybe they fight Dr. Doom in the first film and it ends in a stalemate or a LOSS, which is why other MCU characters will have to get involved to stop Dr. Doom in this film? I don't know. It just seems very disjointed and disorganized. Even with the original MCU, while we didn't know what was coming next, what we were given made sense. Nothing that they announced or were planning felt off track. I guess we will have to wait and see how this plays out, but as of right now, I don't know about this.

Will the next Nintendo Console flop?

Based on the trend of home consoles released by Nintendo since 2001, they actually are due for a stinker.

GameCube - 21 million units sold.

Wii - 101 million units sold.

Wii U - 13 million units sold.

Switch - 140 million unit sold and counting.

So, based on these numbers, Nintendo could be in trouble. Now, it is fair to mention that it is incredibility difficult to maintain momentum from one generation to the next. The NES was very success selling over 61 million units which at the time was the most any game console had sold. However, with the next three home consoles, Nintendo would lose on average of 13-14 million units in console sales per lifecycle. Their handheld division however has been constantly strong. The weakest numbers they have seen there were for the 3DS at 75 million units sold, but that is still a great number. This is one of many reasons why Nintendo chose to go hybrid.

This is also why in my opinion, the next Nintendo console will NOT just be a more powerful Switch. There is going to be a gimmick involved, so get ready for it. The only time Nintendo followed up one home console with just a more powerful version of the predecessor was the SNES. That was almost 35 years ago. Every console since has had a gimmick of varying levels and/or was vastly different from the predecessor.

Everyone does not NEED a more powerful Switch because you already have more powerful hybrids out there. Some of which can be jury rigged to play Switch games digitally. Not even every Nintendo fan NEEDS a more powerful Switch because the vast majority of that 140+ million install base are casuals who could care less about graphics and performance. All they care about it the portability. Just like the vast majority of the Wii install base could care less about those outdated graphics and lack of HD. They just cared about motion control. Just like the vast majority of the DS install base only cared about the touch screen. The gimmicks bring in the casuals, and the casuals bring in the dough.

A lot of people WANT a more powerful Switch, but unless Nintendo is prepared to make you spend a lot of money, the increase in power will not be much and the system will age pretty fast. In two years, the next Nintendo console will look as antiquated to the newer crop of hybrids on the way as the current Switch does to the ones on the market now. This is why the next console WILL have a gimmick. I encourage you to research the story on how the Wii came to fruition and why they made the decisions that they did. It will tell you everything you need to know about Nintendo's business strategy. Do I think the next Nintendo console will fail? No. Do I think it will come anywhere close to the Switch in terms of sales and market impact? No. Do I think it will be successful? Yes. While it won't match up in terms of horsepower to the other devices, it will be powerful "enough" to where 1st-party Nintendo games will finally have that "next-gen" look to them. The cost of hyper-realism is not paying off for developers anymore. Development time is too long, and the cost is to big. Not only for one big-budget, AAA game itself, but all the time, money, and resources that are not available for other games. Even Nintendo President Shuntaro Furukawa has addressed that cost of game development is going up across the board. Even for Nintendo which is not known from pushing graphics since the GameCube era, development costs are getting bigger.

Nintendo in my best estimation is not ready to invest in releasing a console that is "realistically" competitive with the PS5 or XSX in terms of horsepower, or even some of the higher-end hybrid consoles like the ROG Ally, Ayaneo 2, and Legion Go. I cannot imagine Nintendo ever releasing a console for more than $399 and to even come close to knocking on the back door in terms of performance of the aforementioned hardware, Nintendo would need to price their device beyond $399. They are going to want it to be cheap. They are going to need it to be cheap.

The point is that the next Nintendo console will have better looking and performing games, but on it's own a power increase will not be enough to re-engage casuals that got bored with the Switch and moved onto other things. There will have to be a new gimmick along side of the new console to get people excited again. I think I already know what it is.

Is Social Media worth it for artists?

Speaking as a creator myself, I have come to the conclusion that it really all has come full circle to us having to do things the old-fashioned way. We have gotten used to using social media for instant promotion and instant gratification for our work that we have forgotten about how difficult it was and how long it took for artists to be appreciated beforehand.  

Think about famous artists from centuries ago? While they were alive, they were not appreciated for the most part. Today, they are greatly appreciated and called geniuses. That happens in many creative genres actually. Music, movies, TV shows, operas, soap operas, cartoons, comics, anime, manga, etc.  

Someone who is determined can find a way to make anything work for themselves, so, I would never say you should "abandon" social media. However, I do think people need to understand what social media truly is as a means of control. It's not there for YOUR benefit. It's there for someone else's benefit and they are using YOU for that benefit.  

There are a lot of dilapidated people out there that got fat eating off social media when it was doing what they "claim" it does now that look down upon others that don't have the large following that they have. If you gained hundreds of thousands of subs to your Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, or any other major social media platform 10 years ago or so when IMO social media was at its peak of usefulness, of course you are going to have a different perspective because you already have a huge following, and it was pretty easy to get one, at that time.   

Even with the algorithm garbage of today, the pool is deep enough if you have a huge following already to where you have enough people that will keep coming back regardless of the frequency of your content, and organic growth is not as much of an issue. HOWEVER..... .....if you are someone that has a small following, or are someone just starting out, and the social media platform is only allowing less than 5% of people who follow you to see your content, and probably less than 1% organically, you cannot grow a brand that way. It's not about the "quality" of your work. It's not about the "quantity" of your work. It's all about whether you are willing to sell out to that platform, to push whatever agendas they want to be pushed.  

PERIOD, POINT BLANK.   

It's that simple. 

If you are posting content that is divisive and inflammatory, content that is decadent with self-absorption e.g. people pushing materialistic lives to the max showing themselves shopping all the time buying expensive clothes, eating high-priced food, traveling to expensive vacation resorts, etc., posting absolute foolishness and goofiness with people sticking forks in light sockets, or trying to parachute off the top of their house with a bath towel, or anything that at its core is 100% useless, then you get a surprisingly consistent amount of traffic.  

If you are posting content that is inclusive to EVERYBODY and welcoming, content that is helping others by teaching or giving tips to improve various aspects of life, content that is designed to just have fun with cool stuff whether it be art, music, movies, TV shows, toys, hobbies, video games, comics, manga, anime, etc., that EVERYONE can relate to and enjoy, and just enjoy posting positive content that in general is useful and uplifting to people, unsurprisingly it is extremely difficult to get a consistent amount of traffic or even get people that follow you anyway to see your content.  

What a coin-ci-dink. 

So, we are going to have to go back to doing things the old school way. Pounding that pavement to push our brands. Going out to meet people at as many events as we can go to. Funnel people to our own personal websites, chat rooms, Discord servers, etc. where WE can control engagement and use social media to our advantage as just a tool in our toolbox in our cars rather than THE car we drive every day.