Gunfight at the Wild West Stadium

This evening, while waiting for the early showing of this year’s Bill & Ted’s Excellent Halloween Adventure during Halloween Horror Nights, I pondered… In the old Wild West Stadium at Universal Studios Florida, which show has had more performances: The original Wild Wild Wild West Stunt Show, its successor – Fear Factor Live, or the HHN annual tribute to pop culture – Bill & Ted’s Excellent Halloween Adventure. So here’s my very unscientifically scientific analysis (and yes, that's a play on the line from Rocky Horror - you're quite observant):

The Champion: The Wild Wild Wild West Stunt Show

Opened: July 4, 1991
Closed: September 1, 2003

Traditionally, WWWWest was closed during September & October each year for Bill & Ted’s. So, assume 4 shows per day, 10 months per year, for 12 years.

4 x 30 x 10 x 12 = 14,400 performances

The Upstart: Fear Factor Live

Opened: June 3, 2005

While Fear Factor Live still exists, it has been a seasonal show since February 2009 – only operating during Spring Break, Summer rush, and over the Holidays. So, we’ll have to take that into account.

2005-2009: Again assuming 4 shows per day, 10 months per year for just over 3 1/2 years.

4 x 30 x 10 x 3.5 = 4,200 performances

2009-Present: As stated, the show now operates seasonally. We’ll say that the show runs for 10 weeks per year for the last 2 years.

4 x 7 x 10 x 2 = 560 performances

So, the estimate for FFL is 4,760 performances.

The Underdog: Bill & Ted’s Excellent Halloween Adventure

Opened: HHN II (2001)

By far, the hardest to figure out. The number of HHN event nights has changed over the years, and Bill & Ted’s held at the Toon Lagoon Stage in Island's of Adventure for HHN XII until HHN XVI. So we’ll break it down by year, again assuming 4 shows per night.

HHN II (5 nights): 4 x 5 = 20
HHN III (5 nights): 4 x 5 = 20
HHN IV (5 nights): 4 x 5 = 20
HHN V (12 nights): 4 x 12 = 48
HHN VI (15 nights): 4 x 15 = 60
HHN VII (18 nights): 4 x 18 = 72
HHN VIII (19 nights): 4 x 19 = 76
HHN IX (19 nights): 4 x 19 = 76
HHN X (19 nights): 4 x 19 = 76
HHN XI (19 nights): 4 x 19 = 76
HHN XVI (19 nights): 4 x 19 = 76
HHN XVII (22 nights): 4 x 22 = 88
HHN XVIII (23 nights): 4 x 23 = 92
HHN XIX (23 nights): 4 x 23 = 92
HHN XX (24 nights): 4 x 24 = 96
HHN XXI (25 nights): 4 x 25 = 100

Add them up and you get 1,088 performances.

Results

While I figured that WWWWest would win hands-down in this analysis, I really thought that Bill & Ted’s would be closer or even ahead of Fear Factor Live considering FF’s brief run. But the early years of HHN, with just a few nights each year, dampened B&T’s numbers. While I realize that each of the three shows had days where there were more performances and some days with less, considering the disparity in the data it’s unlikely there would be any change.

Our Winner: The Wild Wild Wild West Stunt Show

Review: Star Tours - The Adventure Continues

Note: This is a review of the Orlando version of the attraction, though I imagine it's likely identical at the other parks. And pictures would have been great for this review, but as they don't want to reveal much leading up to the grand opening, pictures inside the building are prohibited.

After being closed for several months for renovation, Star Tours re-opened over the weekend for "flight testing" leading up to the official grand opening this weekend, coinciding with Disney Hollywood Studios' annual Star Wars Weekends.

The original Disneyland version of Star Tours opened in 1987 and was imported to Orlando, relatively unchanged, in 1989. Created more than a decade prior to Episode I, it focused on a rebel assault on a Death Star similar to the finale of the original Star Wars (I could do a complete nerd rage post on why I refuse to call the original film Episode IV). The renovation, then, was not just to modernize a 20 year-old ride but to update the attraction with elements taken from the prequel trilogy.

Queue

The exterior queue, and for the most part the first room (the maintenance bay with R2-D2 and C-3PO) remain relatively unchanged. The most noticeable update is to the video screen on the far wall, updated to show the new "tours" being offered. 3PO, still in his same spot, will comment on the tours while occasionally yelling at R2 for his incompetence. You then enter the second room, formerly the a droid maintenance facility, which is now a luggage & cargo inspection area. For a cute shout-out to the original attraction, look immediately to the left as you enter this room. The new area now features two new droids: a luggage inspector (really cool & funny scene) and a security guard you could liken to a TSA agent. Also keep an eye on the window into the terminal in the corner of the room.

While the actual preshow room is virtually unchanged, the preshow video obviously is different. Like in the original, you view a live feed of your Speeder being prepared for your journey with the customary safety spiel.

Ride

So before you board you'll notice the first difference, the need to pick-up a pair of 3-D "flight glasses". Which leads me to my first, well complaint's not the right word for it, but the 3-D doesn't add much of anything to the experience. Muppet-Vision next door, an attraction which just celebrated its 20th anniversary, makes better use of 3-D. It's there and it works but if it wasn't there I think you'd feel the same coming off the ride. As most know by now, the "tour" you take is supposed to be different with each ride. I believe a cast member said there are roughly 50 different possible iterations. (To dispel a rumor I had heard during the renovation, you do not get to pick the scenes you'll be experiencing, Horizons-style.) After an opening encounter, which I believe is the same for everyone, the ride breaks into 3 different segments which changes each ride: 2 action scenes and a finale. Which brings me to my second... I'll go with concern. If you're just an average tourist with limited exposure to the Star Wars universe (like someone who would recognize Luke Skywalker but can't name off-hand what planet he's from), you'll likely enjoy the ride's "story". If you not only can name Tatooine but also the output of moisture vaporators, the storyline will likely confuse you. Because the different segments are independent, it's hard to nail down when in the Star Wars continuity this supposedly takes place. The opening scene I mentioned is definitely in the "original trilogy"-era with stormtroopers, TIE fighters, and Star Destroyers. But after that it can vary. On my second ride-through, we went from the Battle of Hoth from the beginning of 'Empire Strikes Back' to a battle over the planet Geonosis, likely an homage to the end of 'Attack of the Clones'. In addition, the Geonosis scene has a couple other major continuity issues that I won'g spoil but will definitely baffle a Star Wars fan.

Finally is the actual movement of the ride. The original version, the first mainstream flight-simulator, was a fairly intense action ride. Obviously not as extreme as a roller-coaster, there were instances where it'd toss you around and shake you a bit. But the new generation ride is toned down quite a bit. If the original was akin to the Back to the Future/The Simpsons Ride at Universal Studios, the new one is closer to EPCOT's Soarin'. The lightspeed jumps are probably the most extreme parts while the actual "action" scenes were relatively tame.

Conclusion

While definitely worth a ride, it didn't live up to the build-up that it's receiving on the Internet. I did go on it twice last night, but not because it was such a great ride, more because I wanted to see if the experience changed significantly based on the scenes you go through (it does, but it didn't seem like the scenes make the ride any calmer or rougher) and the line was only 10 minutes because Fantasmic! was just starting. So yea, not to disappoint, but I found it kinda meh. Nothing wrong with it but nothing overly great. This original type of motion simulator style ride is growing kind of stale, and really the only cool aspect of this ride is the different scenes you can go through. Still, I had fun both times I rode and would recommend to anyone to give it a shot.

Who Marvel Should Have Killed Off…

For the three of you who will actually read this post, if you have any interest in the current Fantastic Four storyline, please wait to read this until after you read the current issue.  As one of the people who had the ending spoiled for me on Tuesday, I don’t want to be the one who ruins it for someone else.  And, to those of you who started tweeting & blogging who died on Tuesday, knowing full well that most of us couldn’t get our hands on a copy until Wednesday, I’d just like to say:  FUCK YOU!

---

The Fantastic Four was never a comic I read a lot as a kid.  However, as a person who grew up on Spidey & Hulk comics, I was obviously aware of Marvel’s “first family”.  Two of my favorite villains, Dr. Doom & Galactus, are spawned from their pages.  However, I always thought the FF were lame and cheesy.  It took the start of their current run Three, where it was announced at the beginning that one of the four would die, to actually get me to buy my first issue.

However, leading into the event, it was becoming evident who WASN’T going to die.  The Thing is currently a New Avenger, so killing him off in one title would mean he’d have to die in the other (at least you’d home Marvel wouldn’t create such a huge continuity hole).  Meanwhile, during the run, Mr. Fantastic popped in the Avengers title as a member of the Illuminati, which already featured a plot point where one of its members has died.  So we’re left with the Storm siblings:  Johnny & Susan.

While one is a seemingly ancillary character, the other is a linchpin of the series.  Would Marvel take it safe or return to their “dropping Gwen Stacey from a bridge” roots?  Indicative of current-gen Marvel, consisting of mostly tired and uninspiring stories, the poor Human Torch is no more.  Even worse, Marvel didn’t even give Johnny a creative exit!  It was an Aerosmith song away from the ending of Armageddon.

 

Had Marvel wanted to create a compelling storyline that would keep me interested in the Fantastic Four now that I know who dies, it was the Invisible Woman who should have perished.  Really, what are the ramifications of losing Johnny?  Sue mourns the loss of her brother, Thing and Spider-Man are bummed about losing their friend, Reed shows 10 minutes of concern before he’s distracted by his next project, and random hot New York chicks miss out on Johnny making “flame on this” jokes.

 

But imagine the lingering affect losing Susan would have merely on the other inhabitants of the Baxter Building’s penthouse:

• Reed and the Kids:  on the Slacker & the Man podcast last Father’s Day, Reed was ranked as one of the worst dad's in geekdom.  He’s as much of an absent father as a guy who works from home can be.  How would a guy whose brain runs a mile a second be able to slow down not only to cope with the loss of his wife but also help his two children mourn the death of their mother?
• Johnny:  as far as I remember, Johnny & Sue’s mother died when they were kids and their father went to jail for killing a guy in self-defense.  So Sue has always had to act as a surrogate mother to Johnny.  Heck, she’s the reason why he’s the Human Torch to begin with!  How does Johnny react to losing pretty much the only family he’s ever known (well, other than his niece and nephew)?

• Ben:  his response would probably be the most heart-breaking.  Odd, since he’s the only one who’s not related to Susan.  However, as overly-protective and big-hearted as The Thing is, he would likely take Sue’s death as some sort of shortcoming on his part and his response could go in several directions.

And that would be the effect on just the other members of the Fantastic Four…  How would the arrogant Namor react had he been responsible for the death of the woman he desired?  Since Susan was generally the only one able to talk sense into Dr. Doom (she just did in a recent issue of the somewhat off-kilter retelling of the Infinity Gauntlet story)…  How would his dealing with the Fantastic Four change?  In addition, he was also known to have a thing for Sue.  It’s easy to see a side story where, once he finds out Namor’s responsible for her death, Doom leads the armies of Latveria in an attack on Atlantis.

 

Instead, we lose the Human Torch (at least for the brief period of time they decide to keep him dead).  At least his funeral issue should be more entertaining than that shitty one they did for Sentry last year.  Meanwhile, Marvel’s a fan of doing the “What if?” one-shots, so I can see them doing one where Sue dies instead.  But, by the time it’s published, no one will care and as a one-shot there wouldn’t be time to truly flesh-out how losing Susan affects the family, the team, and the Marvel Universe as a whole.

 

Note to Marvel:  Other than Spider-Man, your storylines lately have been crap.  I followed Dark Reign expecting for it to turn into some socio-political commentary on living in a police state led by an egomaniacal madmen.  Instead, it was just a bad guys-playing-good guys story that you’ve done better in Thunderbolts.  Siege, even at 4 issues, seemed long because it just didn’t seem to matter.  Quit focusing on the Films Division and get back to your core.  Maybe you wouldn’t have to fish for amateurs to write a screenplay for one of your secondary characters if you had decent plots in the comics to draw from.

Do Artists Need to Age With Their Audience?

As those of you who follow my Twitter know, I'm currently in upstate New York for my family's annual get-together later this evening. Taking full advantage of a little break from work and school, I'm going through some of the stuff that I've accumulated in the last few months. Amongst them, I finally completed Nick Hornby's newest book Juliet, Naked (it was a Christmas present) while listening to Weezer's newest album "Hurley". In doing both at the same time, it seems that each are appealing to their fans in different ways and it brings the following question to my head: Do artists need to age with their audiences?

Nick Hornby, whose book High Fidelity (and the subsequent movie) is amongst my favorites, spoke to me when I first found it just after college. The book, which tells the story of a late-20's hipster trying to figure out why his relationships have all gone bad spoke to me as my college girlfriend moved on to bigger-and-better things leaving me behind. In this book, a middle-aged English woman enters into an online flirtation with an aging reculisve American singer. So, in the 15 or so years since High Fidelity came out, the character's he writes about have aged roughly 15 years with him. And I ate the book up because I could still relate to its themes and characters as I've also aged with them.

Then, you go to "Hurley". I've been a Weezer fan since I first heard "Buddy Holly" playing on the old WKRO back in high school (back before they sold out and went country). "Hurley" seems to try recreating the themes and sounds of the Blue Album, though like High Fidelity, it came out nearly 15 years ago. And, while there are a few catchy songs, I'm just not that into it. What's funny is that this follows up last year's Red Album which I did enjoy, but that was because it seemed to have a mix of both the poppy Blue Album-style stuff with some more mature songs of Rivers talking about his wife and new baby.

There's just, to me, something off-putting about seeing someone write or perform something that seems no longer in their element. For ages, I hated Green Day for singing songs about life in high school though each of the guys looked like they were in their 30's, but Green Day also makes an apt example for my point. "American Idiot", which is a more mature and poignant album, I loved but many die-hard Green Day fans hated. So, does maturing as an artist alienate their fans, or do their fans appreciate that the group they started following 15 years ago because they could identify with them in their current lives still appreciate their music/literature, because they use themes that they still can identify with? Is their a difference between the two media - where readers are more accepting while music fans aren't? Just throwing it out there.

Random Stuff

• As Microsoft has decided to discontinue Windows Live Spaces, I have taken down my old blog over there. As I haven't been contributing much to my blog lately anyways, and for the last few months have been posting identical posts on both, not much will be lost. But, now Blogger is the official home of AOwL.com. Yes Google, you might want to consider having shirts made up.
• While also in my "non-school related" reading kick, I was also able to finish up John Booth's Collect All 21. I picked up the book, a collection of all the author's Star Wars related memories, following Star Wars Celebration V (speaking of which, I never uploaded the pictures from my camera... I will soon and post them here). Anyways, the book is great for the Star Wars fan like me as each of the stories is relatable. Even though Booth was at the age to see Star Wars in theaters (I guess I did too, technically. My mom took me to see it at the drive-in theater in Daytona. I'm somewhat hazy on the experience, though, as I was just 2 months-old), some of the stories about seeing the movies - especially Jedi and the prequels, which I was a little older for - I totally remember and can identify with. So, if you're a fan, it's cheap and fun and I'd recommend picking it up.
• Finally, another hand for Google, for finally allowing the non-"Coversation View" option for Gmail. I have been jumping between three e-mail addresses for the last few years because none offered a reading experience I enjoyed. My primary problem with Gmail was that, with Conversation View, it was so hard to find the message I was looking for. If an e-mail was sent out to a large group and out of 15 responses, you could have 14 just respond with OK or something while the 15th had something to add, but you'd never be able to find it without going through all of the others because it was such a pain to delete them. Gmail is finally a usable product for me. I think more love should go to whoever the new Gmail product manager is who's asking for these updates. Remember when you couldn't even delete anything in Gmail, and their response was "You have so much space, you don't need to delete things"? I appreciate the new features that Gmail offers, but I more appreciate that they make them optional now using the Labs feature instead of forcing them on you.

Why Do Adults Hate on Teen Culture?

I am a follower of Harry Potter’s dark wizard Lord Voldemort on Twitter (@Lord_Voldemort7).  While usually good for a Harry Potter joke or two, a few recent jokes he has made has started a Twitter war with the tween fans of pop icon Justin Bieber.  Poor Justin…  While beloved by his fanbase of teen girls, he is the target of near constant ridicule by everyone else.

At what point did adults start just outright start attacking the stuff popular with kids?  And I’m not talking Maude Flanders “What about the children?”-style protectionism.  This is a near constant skewering of Miley Cyrus, Twilight, and whatever the younger generations like, usually by those around my age on TV and on the web.

Here’s the funny thing…  C’mon Gen X’ers, looking back on it, was the shit we had at that age any cooler?  Lets use my timeline as an example.  I was “tween” (age 12) in 1989.  Looking at the top 10 songs in 1989, two came from what you’d consider teeny-boppers:  “Hangin’ Tough” by the New Kids on the Block and “Lost in Your Eyes” by Debbie Gibson.  While I remember some New Kids jokes, usually it was at the expense of Donnie being “old”, being the thug, and of course the time when he set his hotel room on fire.  Not at all the vitriol spewed at a 16 year-old kid like what’s happening to Bieber.  And really, the only thing I remember adults talking about Debbie Gibson was the “Who’s hotter?” game between her and Tiffany.  Were there the jokes about them like they made about Miley (and I’m not talking about now, but during her Hannah Montana heyday)?  While not comparable to Twilight and the whole vampire/werewolf craze, 1989 brought us about a dozen slasher movies including Friday the 13th Part VIII, Halloween 5, and A Nightmare on Elm Street 5.  In my mind cheesy-is-cheesy, no matter the genre.

I heard a great comment on Sirius XM’s Covino & Rich Show a few months ago.  Following the video of the little girl crying on YouTube because she loved Justin Bieber so much, co-host Steve Covino said that he would never let his baby daughter grow up to be the type who would like bubble gum pop music.  One of the listeners, a father of a young girl, called in with this – No matter how much he hated the music, no matter how much he thinks the lyrics are garbage, it made his daughter so happy that, in the end, he didn’t care.  They will grow up to realize that the music was dumb, but they will have great memories of that time in their lives.  In my opinion, to crap on Justin Bieber music to a 12 year-old girl is like telling a 6 year-old there’s no Santa Claus.

Personal Tidbit:  I have a great memory of pushing my newborn baby brother in his stroller around the Central Florida Fairgrounds, jamming to my Walkman and the newest tape I had bought at the Musicland in Altamonte Mall that I had gotten on the way there.  The tape I was bopping-around to and picking up my brother to dance with – To the Extreme by Vanilla Ice.  Yes, horrible music, but 20 years later I still remember that day.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love ESPN

It has been roughly three months since, after getting sick of the hyperbole and bickering, I dropped ESPN cold-turkey.  And not just ESPN, but pretty much the entire “sports talk” genre.  I’ll watch actual games when they’re on, but no more SportsCenter, PTI, Mike & Mike, or other shows I had traditionally watched.  And, frankly, I still feel I’m as much of a sports fan as ever.

What triggered my “boycott” of ESPN was their coverage around the Eastern Conference Finals between the Magic and Celtics.  As you probably remember, the Magic went down in the series 0-3, at which point the pundits start calling out how the Magic didn’t belong and projecting a future series against the Lakers (this is, of course, after many of them had picked the Magic to win the series after they had swept the first two rounds).  However the Magic came back to win the next two games, and they all change their tunes, picking the Magic to complete the “reverse” sweep and comparing it to the 2004 Yankees/Red Sox series.  And, of course, the Magic lose the next game and they immediately all switch back to how the Magic were a weak competitor who were outmatched.

That’s my main complaint about ESPN.  Not how they consistently favor teams that can help their ratings, not how they overhype stories (the 2010 NBA free agent class, Brett f’in Favre), not even TMZ-ing of athletes as celebutantes, but it’s this new focus they have on analyzing events that haven’t happened yet!  And it’s going on across the field of sports talk and even the print and online journalists have fallen into the trap.  Instead of actually covering the events and news from the day, they consistently feel the need to bring “perspective” by comparing everything to great moments in sports history (every SportsCenter has to have one random statistic compared to that other random statistic through the history of the game).  Or, they must constantly speculate, which I find is just brainless filler material.  The thing is, sometimes “picks” can be fun but it shouldn’t be something they focus on.  As the U.S. made the knock-out round of the World Cup, they were already prognosticating them making the finals and devoted a whole segment to their spectacular run.  Of course, they were immediately knocked out in their first game by Ghana.

Here’s some tips for the sports fan like me who still loves the games but have had enough of the ESPN’s over-the-top hype:

• If you just want highlights without as much of the “analysis”, I’ve been watching FSN’s Final Score over SportsCenter.
• As a fan on the Cubs and Bears, ESPN Chicago has their local SportsCenter.  Just highlights and some news without all the other fluff.  Of course, as of right now, ESPN only has local editions for a few major markets.
• Sports talk radio is not informative, it’s not even entertaining.  It’s just annoying blowhards arguing over stuff they don’t even know about with callers who know even less.  I actually kind of respect shows like Mike & Mike because they don’t take listener calls, though then it goes back to the over-analysis and prognostication that annoys me.

I’m guessing that I’m in the vast minority as ESPN continues adding more talk shows and analysis, but I know I can’t be the only one.

Time For a New 360 or PS3?

I’ve been very lucky to be the owner of both a PS3 and an Xbox 360.  While I’ve had my issues with each (my PS3 being merely a pricey Blu-ray player since there were no good games for it/360 red ring of death), each has their merits and I will pop on either one from time-to-time.

I’m thinking of selling both of my systems and replacing it with the newer models.  I love the new 360 design and my current one (an Arcade I got after my launch 360 red-ringed, using my old ones hard drive) is close to being maxed-out on space.  Meanwhile, while the Sony fanboys love to crack on how loud 360s can be, I’ve never had that issue with mine.  However my PS3 can sound like a jetfighter getting ready to take off, even when just playing a PSN game.  The PS3 Slim both looks better and supposedly eliminates this problem. 

However, here’s the thing…  If I do go through with this plan, I’m not buying both a new 360 and a new PS3.  It’s going to be one or the other.  So which to choose?  I’m debating the merits of both.

Xbox 360

• Advantages
  • I definitely have a larger library of 360 games to go back to than PS3.
  • While it does cost $50/year, the Xbox Live experience is so incredibly good.  And compared to the PlayStation Network, it’s like going from a Porsche to a Dodge.
  • As I’m a Zune fanboy, love that I can download stuff onto my Zune and easily play it back through my 360.  In addition, Microsoft has said that the 360 will natively support Zune meaning I won’t even have to go through that.
  • Kind of interested in the Kinect.  I doubt that I would get one, but I’m definitely interested in seeing what it could do.  Meanwhile, the PlayStation Move is pretty much DOA with me.
• Disadvantages
  • With no Blu-ray player, getting a 360 would mean that I’d also have to get a Blu-ray player.  While cheaper than a PS3, it’s just something else to clutter my entertainment center.
  • This is debatable, but there’s no good 360 exclusives coming out in the near-term that I’m interested in.  I’m kind of over first-person shooters, and was incredibly disappointed in Halo 3: ODST, so do not have any intention of getting Halo Reach.  And Microsoft’s other big exclusive for 2010 is Fable III and I don’t do RPGs.
  • A purely speculative one, but I think that a new Xbox model is, at most, 2 years away.  I think the Kinect is a stop-gap to tide people over for whatever their new console is with built-in motion support.

PlayStation 3

• Advantages
  • I can use to both play games and watch Blu-rays.
  • PSN is free.
  • Better exclusives.  In 2011 they get Twisted Metal and Infamous 2 (though I’m still very early in Infamous 1, and while I think it’s cool I don’t think it’s anything spectacular).  And while I’m not interested in DCU Online with its subscription price, I could be enticed if they significantly lower the price, include it in the Playstation Plus membership, or offer the game itself for free.  I’m a console game, I’m not used to paying a subscription fee to play a game which I already paid for.
  • My most anticipated game of next year is Portal 2, and according to Valve the PS3 experience with Steam Support will be much better than what the Xbox is getting.
• Disadvantages
  • While the PSN is free, it’s practically unusable.  The interface is crap, you can’t get into games without agreeing to TOS agreements every time, and since I don’t have a headset or chat pad there’s no easy way for me to communicate.  (BTW, putting the chat pad at the top instead of at the bottom like the 360?  Not very ergonomic.)
  • Only PlayStation friend is my roommate…  He hasn’t logged into the PSN in 13 months when he was playing Resistance 2.
  • OMG they need to do something about the system updates!  I’m not going to pay for a PlayStation Plus membership so I can program my PS3 to do the updates when I’m not using it.  So, instead, I have to deal with turning on my PS3 to play a quick game of Super Stardust or run a quick race in GT5 Prologue and finding out that I have to download a firmware update for some feature that I don’t even use that takes 20 minutes to download and install.  By the time it’s done, I’ve either lost interest in playing or no longer have time to.

Even though I think the Blu-ray support and better exclusives are more compelling arguments, I’m leaning towards getting a 360.  After my launch 360 red-ringed, I lived with only my PS3.  That lasted about 5 months before I broke down and got a new 360.  But that was because, like I said earlier, there were no games I was interested in for the PS3 at the time.  So, without starting a flame war, what do you guys think?