Gods and Generals was a good movie

The critics are either stupid, atheist, politically correct, or have never read the original book.  Most of the criticisms leveled at this movie completely miss the point of it as well as everything in the movie that runs counter to said criticisms.

The book and movie is the first part in a Civil War trilogy started by Michael Shaara and finished by his son.  It tells the story of the American Civil War from John Brown's raid to the battle of Chancellorville through the eyes of different people, particularly soldiers and officers of note on both sides of the conflict.  The second book details the battle of Gettysburg, again through many eyes, and the final book finishes up the telling up to the surrender of the Confederates at Appomattox courthouse.

It is true that covering a major portion of a war in one book is different than covering just one battle such as the second book did but Gods and Generals pulls it off really well anyways.  Putting that in film form however and you get a movie more than 4 hours long and people are reintroduced to the intermission.  It can't be helped though and it was limited release to begin with because it was aimed at a target audience who have read the book or would rather see a visual depiction of the Civil War.  Considering this, it was unfortunate that for the theatrical release, it was cut down to a little more than 3 and a half hours, taking out many very interesting scenes which would have added to the story and shown more of the spectacular reenactments of battles.

Another interesting criticism that was leveled at the film was how some of the people talked.  They talked in very poetic fashions, carrying out soliloquies on a whim.  However, considering the education of the people in question, their ages, their background, their societal status, and their time period, I thought it fit in well.  Several were teachers or generals and would be natural speakers.  At times they did seem strained though but that's besides the point.  Jeff Daniels hadn't played his part for a long while now so he was naturally rusty and Robert Duvall replaced Martin Sheen for God knows what reason and he had a hard time filling his shoes in my opinion despite being an exceptional actor in his own right.

The main criticism that I've heard is that the movie was pro-Confederacy.  I'm no fan of the rebellion they carried out, I look at it as such and will not change my view of it.  However, even the worst villains in history have a human side to them which someone will show in a movie and then people will complain about it.  Hell, even Hitler has had several movies made, good movies, which showed a more human side to him.  However, in all of these movies, their craziness is still quite apparent and they are by no means the good guys of the story.

I remember Tora! Tora! Tora! showing the Japanese in a human light with their planning and carrying out of the bombing of Pearl Harbor and it is part of why people originally did not like it but its acting, story, and focus are a million times better than today's Pearl Harbor movie.  Comparable to Pearl Harbor's special effects for its time, the special effects for TTT were great for its time.

In G&G, Jackson and the other generals are shown fighting for their home and their view that the Union was invading them unjustly.  Yes that's a sad thing and you feel for it but any history savvy person should and would know the politics of the time and how even learned people like Lee and Jackson were manipulated emotionally.  Of course the book does talk more about that than the movie, I do find fault in the movie for that, but it is still discussed with some of the main Union characters such as Chamberlain who is a big player in the 2 sequels.

Anyways, Jackson and Lee were big players in the Civil War and these books and movies were to tell their stories as well however they saw it, even if we blatantly disagree with them.  On showing their craziness, Jackson repeatedly asserts that God is most definitely on their side and how if he had the choice, he would take no prisoners.  Lee in the final book is so distraught that God would not give them victory.

That of course leads to the other criticism of religious innuendo.  For God's sake people, no pun intended, the south is where the Bible Belt lays, its where people like Billy Graham came from, where the KKK was formed, and so forth; if the main characters include southern generals, its gonna get a little preachy.  The fact that these people who were supposed to be so learned and level headed ended up leading people to fight for BS reasons about states rights and defending their homes when in reality they were fighting for the foolish actions of slave holding landowners (secession) says a lot.

The final criticism solidifies in the minds of people who didn't read the book or know the history that this is a bad movie is how the Union is portrayed.  The main Generals, Burnside and Hooker, were arrogant and made stupid plans.  Not much was shown of Hooker but the way the Confederates ran through like 10 lines of Union soldiers in like 5 minutes of movie time suggests he might have forgotten they were at war, especially since a lot of the people in that battle were just camping and sitting around.  Burnside sent thousands of troop across an open field where Confederates were perched on an opposite side hill with cannons bearing straight down at them.  People make fun of Pickett's charge but this really took the cake.

It is unfortunate that the top generals at the beginning of the war were mostly politically instated and not very well versed in war where there were more seasoned officers who had experienced the Mexican American war around.  They did show those officers and they showed their frustration too at not being able to flip off their commanding generals at the time.  General Hancock was the man on the Union side as were a few others that I don't remember as well because I read the book a while back and its harder to tell who's who in the movie.  I wish they had shown Hancock's repelling the Confederates near Williamsburg in the Peninsula campaign, that must have been his most epic scene in the book.  Instead, they just show his epic frustration at being commanded by idiots.

On the portrayal of the troops, they were shown at Bull Run better than expected in my opinion considering what I've actually heard about Bull Run.  It was Fredericksburg and Chancellorville that were the saddest and truest though.  When the Union invades Fredericksburg, they ransack the town after having sieged it for some time.  There are generals on scene who try to put a stop to it by force but what's done is done.  That of course did happen in the book though as I remember it, they acted that way because they had lost the battle, not because they had conquered the town but no matter, it is a sad thing to see and to know that they did do that.

They also showed it through the eyes of a rich southern family who lived there in the movie which wasn't in the book, that might have been a little pro-confederate if they didn't own slaves.  Yeah they were treated well, like family actually, but then later they show the mother slave crying and telling General Hancock that she wishes that she and her children could one day die free.  That's about as pro-Confederate as Uncle Tom's Cabin.

One last criticism I remember is that they filmed the battle of Antietam but they don't put it in the final cut.  You can't even find the footage anywhere online; I can't anyways.  It is a shame but again, if people had read the book, they'd remember that it was only talked about after the battle and they didn't talk about the actual battle when it was happening.  The defeat was talked about through Lee who retreated grudgingly and the victory was talked about through Chamberlain whose men were not allowed to take part in the battle because of some scare that they had some sickness or something and they were quarantined.

There was one funny thing that I found kind of annoying.  With the exception of General Armistead who's previous actor in Gettysburg, Richard Jordan, sadly passed away along with his character, I don't know why they changed a number of character's actors.  Tom Berenger and Martin Sheen were awesome as Longstreet and Lee and it was kind of annoying that they changed them no matter how excellent the replacement actors were.

The funny part was Stephen Lang who was Pickett in Gettysburg but played Jackson in G&G.  I tried hard to not think of Pickett looking at him but all I could think of was "Whats happenin' to my boys?!"  He looked like Pickett from Gettysburg with a different beard, it was kind of annoying.  Again, Stephen Lang was good but they should have just kept him as Pickett and someone else as Jackson.  They made Billy Campbell, aka the Rocketeer, Pickett which was ok since in Gettysburg he was some obscure soldier who complained about the war but he wasn't as lively as Stephen Lang was as Pickett, he sat there mostly like scenery as did whoever replaced Tom Berenger as Longstreet.

Overall, reading the book and knowing the history, I liked the movie and think it was good, I would give it 4 out of 5 stars.  I don't give it all 5 stars because I have only the movie Gettysburg to compare it to which was so damn epic.  It was not a pro-Confederacy movie, it was not a religious based movie, it was simply telling the story through many eyes on both sides, many of which were Confederates.  Even the director had stated that he had this plan envisioned that this movie would show the Confederate side more as main characters and when the third movie would have come along, the Union characters would have been more central.  They shouldn't have recast so many people except where they couldn't help it of course; rest in peace Richard Jordan, that guy was awesome; even his name was epic.

Mr. Smith went to Washington and became a Real American Hero

Another of my facebook notes I'd like to share briefly, this time about a movie.

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was an excellent movie, this country definitely needs A LOT more men and women like Jefferson Smith today.  Its kind of like "Legally Blonde 2" in that he is very optimistic yet naive about politics and that he fights strongly for his beliefs but it doesn't have the same silliness or odds that were stacked against Mr. Smith; he doesn't even have the same education Elle Wood have, he was a small town guy thrust into the position of some power he barely had any knowledge of.

The movie is about a Mr. Smith who is made senator after the death of another senator because he knows nothing about politics and so the politicians and political machine of his state want to use him to just sit in, do what they say, and not cause trouble. However, he decides to make a bill and when the conflicts with their plans, Mr. Smith finds the dirty workings and tries to block them but is then set up with fraudulent charges to discredit and dissuade him from going further.  Initially broken, he regains his confidence through a friend he makes in DC and fights to his last in the Capitol Building despite the vicious tactics that the machine employ to smear him in the state and in the senate.

People know there's corruption today but they think of political machines and either laugh at it being of the past or wonder what's a political machine but the more I look around, the more I see it is still an ever present force in politics. In fact, looking at the problems that Mr. Smith faced, today it seems like they're magnified 1000 times more or so not in the same violent way maybe but certainly in the same political and social way.  They are certainly a lot more clever about it because of the expansion of both the bureaucracy and economy.  The violence they showed I must say may have been over the top not in the sense that it doesn't happen anymore but that it was happening in broad daylight almost mafia style.  Then again, this was set in the 30s or 40s I think so maybe it wasn't far off.

Mr. Smith chose not to give up because he was shown that he could not live with himself or bear to tell the kids in his home town the truth about how modern politics treated the American ideals and truth and justice.  He also could not be bought off with more years in office or threats that he would be ruined for speaking his mind about what happens in his country because he believed in the truth.  A lot of people say they stand for the truth but I wonder how many would stand up like he did to fight for it when the odds are up against them instead of caving in to bribes, threats, and "scandals".  They either can't stand to go the distance or they truly value something more material such as an office, money, or the minimal of what they asked for.  I sincerely hope I would not be that way because I feel that there is no other thing I idea I value higher than the truth.


The truth is a valuable asset, lies are like a house of cards and in time, I believe they always come crashing down on themselves.  As long as there are people out there who believe in it and those who believe in it in our government, I believe things will turn out alright even if we do have to go through hell and back like Mr. Smith.

El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) was awesome

I put this in a facebook note last year and is partly the reason I started blogging.  I think maybe other people would like to hear what I think on it too.

The personage of Malcolm X has been severely distorted after his death, something he himself saw coming, as one of being one who propagated violence. In truth, he taught obedience of the law but if there is anarchy or someone is attacked against the law, they are entitled to self defense irregardless of race. That too is upheld in the law.  This was the case even when he was part of the Nation of Islam, it was just racist attitudes prevalent at the time that helped to demonize him as he was a strong opponent of many mindsets of different races held to be normal at the time.

I also disagree very much that his approach to the race problem and Dr. King's problem had varying degree of results because both of them were approaching it differently at different points.  This is in response to a poster I saw at the UMD book store which stated "Dr. King's message" was more successful than "Malcolm X's message".  Its also worth noting that a lot of people also ignored whatever they were saying altogether in the way a person agrees with someone wholeheartedly to their face but refuses to change because that's how its been for him always or he doesn't have the guts to take action.  Also, those further away in time from a certain message will forget it also like followers of Prophets and their messages.

The former more strongly approached the social change, first in just the African Americans themselves and then, when his views changed, people all around but he still focused his efforts mostly on blacks because he identified very strongly to them and knew they needed unity.  At first it was very extremist in the sense that he generalized about a people the way they did him and irrelevant of how justified he may have been, it was wrong.  He also followed a version of a belief that was changed by people to fit one cause but was not only for that cause originally and he found that out later.

Dr. King had all of that but he also pushed for the political change with such bills as the various Civil Rights Bills that were passed but those things by themselves did not foster the change in the minds of the people which would lead them away from racist ideology.  He also seemed to be more of the mind of let alone whatever happened and lets move on which is a good attitude and mindset but when wrong things have been done, most people can't just pretend they didn't happen and eventually they have to be faced.

I think that in the end, they both had a fair amount of success but Malcolm X is less remembered by everyone b/c of his past with the Nation of Islam where he admitted he was not right on many things, particularly of the reverse hate of whites.  It eventually led him to a greater truth but people find it hard to let go of somethings, particularly the media which never portrayed him in a good light and were at the forefront of pushing that everlasting bad image of him.  He also followed a religion which the majority of people in this country can't relate to while on the other hand, people all over Muslim countries know him as well as they knew Muhammad Ali because of his faith.

By the way, the popular poster of him holding a rifle with the caption "By Any Means Necessary" is such misrepresentation and I was surprised to find out that it wasn't even people who hated him that started that if I recall correctly.  He was afraid for the lives of his family and if he had enemies before leaving Nation of Islam, they multiplied afterward.  He believed in self-defense as stated and and also stated is its legality in the law.  If its saying I'll protect my home and family by any means necessary, that's perfectly fine.

Osama is dead, why the details?

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, many things are meant to apply to a general group instead of individuals.

This is pretty belated, I know, and if anyone saw my other post, you'll remember what I said about people forgetting some things quicker than others and/or the press going on to the next big thing in present life instead of beating to death one issue.  I wanted to say somethings about the killing of bin Laden since I had all these ideas swirling around for a while on the different issues with it that people keep raising for reasons unknown to me.  They're unknown because him being dead was enough to elate me in this War on Terror even before I heard it was US Navy Seals who took him out. 

So when some people I knew well and trusted well were pushing so hard to vilify our government worse than bin Laden himself I had a serious "WTF" moment.  Mind you, the degree of vilification varied as did the aim.  All of them also did not question for the same reason and were sometimes content with him being dead but for the sake of principle prodded but even then, there were times I thought it was too much.  Questioning is an important part of being a citizen in a government run by the people and for the people.  Respect however should still be maintained.

To start, I just want to say I wholeheartedly do believe that US troops went into Abbotobad, Pakistan and secretly took out Osama bin Laden.  Its true that our government has given us many reasons to not trust them in the past century but seriously, if you're just going to assume everything they say is a lie, don't be involved in it.  It is similar to criticizing something you don't like or are not interested in or don't know jack about, why are you making a fuss over it?  Also, people in our government are always changing, you can't attach the same transgressions to one person 30 years ago to another person today that holds the same office or is part of the same body.

Branching from that, there are 3 main bodies in the government with many different federal agencies with varying agendas and degrees of power in the various facets of running the country and our operations over seas.  If someone lies and tells it someone else to tell it someone else, how can you hold all of those people responsible if you yourself could easily just be stuck in that rut?  If there was a lie or breach of trust from our government, it is absolutely unfair without knowing the details of where it could have originated to point fingers and vilify people.

It is also always better to have a positive outlook on the nature of people because if you stop giving them a chance, they will head down a one way road to self-destruction.  Its like Lex Luthor on Smallville when Clark trusts Lex less and less for no reason other than him being just as curioius about the other person as it is vice versa.  The only difference was that Lex was smarter and had more means to find out what he wanted.  Similarly, God forbid, our government could go straight down that path of violence and rebellion because there is no trust left between the people and the government; I pray everyday for the welfare of our country and its citizens.  If you think that was a convoluted analogy, then you're probably right, the point is treating someone or something like a villain will eventually make it that way.

Anyways, lets say that the US didn't kill Osama and that he died some years ago of whatever illness they were suggesting he may have died (note "may" have died, not he "did" died of those illnesses as people keep inferring; I never remember hearing any confirmed reports of his death till recently).  Who cares?  He's died, isn't that what matters, isn't that one of the goals we were aiming for in this War on Terror because this is the guy who was the face of one of the worst attacks on US soil in history?  It also doesn't matter how he died because as history has shown, even monsters don't always die a fitting death; in my belief, for some cases it is a case of God letting their evil deeds add up for a greater punishment in the hereafter or there are other reasons, many of which will just digress this topic so I'll just continue.

Then people will bring up the point that they're angry because the government lied about it.  Again, who cares?  Mind you, if I ran the government, I wouldn't lie (if you think I'm naive, maybe I am but I pray that God gives me strength to keep that fortitude) but maybe that's why I would not be good at running this country.  It is the nature of this country to have to lie occasionally despite what any politicians say and it isn't always for personal reasons either.  There is such a thing as "need to know basis" which people who are so bent up about revealing other peoples faults publicly forget about and sometimes put the lives of a few or even hundreds and thousands at stake or higher stakes in the case of terrorism today. 

If Osama died of natural causes or some stupid death not by US hands, it would be elating to hear he died but not as elating as hearing that US Navy SEALs got the job done.  Its like the "Inglorious Basterds" ending to Hitler as opposed to the real ending in history, all the persecuted minorities in Europe were happy when they found out he died but they'd be partying like crazy if it happened like the movie.  So people who have been going all out about the possibility that they're lying to us, you ever wonder maybe they had good intentions at heart?  Maybe they wanted to raise the morale of a country that's at war in two countries, just got out of a war that lasted almost a decade, and hated by the people of many others?  Why can't it just be taken as that?

Going into the issue itself a little, the number of reasons for why it doesn't make sense that Osama was there and the US killed him probably equal the number of reasons a lot of the conspiracies don't make sense.  People with theories have all these doubts which they believe gives the truth and in the process of coming to those theories, they don't realize how many more doubts those theories have.  In essence, those who are going to doubt will be like that always regardless of what evidence is given to them.  They've lost their faith in the government enough that just questioning all out is meant to prove that view.  I genuinely believe that no matter what the government said about his death, it would be seen as a lie in some shape or form by lots of people anyways and probably the same exact people.


God bless America and let it not perish from this Earth.

Disaster Victims Everywhere: You Are Not Forgotten

So I just saw this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42935279/ns/weather/

A few days ago, I also saw a similar comment by a friend on the twisters being forgotten for dead terrorists and royal weddings.  I'm quite sad that such a sentiment exists not just because I think its thinking too little of people like me who do care and have not forgotten these people in my prayers and thoughts but also because it sounds cynically presumptuous if that makes any sense.

The news is there to tell about what is happening in the world today and everyday and something notable pops up, its going to go on the front cover, especially if its sells well.  Because something happened a week ago or even a few days ago doesn't mean it will continuously be covered to death for months on end.  The article said that the effects of Katrina are still present but as we move forward in time, we can't just keep our full attention on that one notable disaster and keep crying and devoting all our energies to it. 

Continued donations and community work is of course not wrong but making everyone feel guilty solely about you when good and bad things are happening around the world all the time, trivial to you or not, is not right either.  People will care long after something has stopped being discussed in the news and being posted on facebook in a million statuses.  Yes donations and community work will decrease but so will its need.

Even this story about bin Laden, as far impacting as it has been, I'm starting to notice a decline in the fervor around it just a few days after it happened.  It's still quite lively everywhere because of it and the  news is still deep in it but a few weeks from now, I think it will only have small mention and we will be on the trail of other news such as his replacements and Al-Qaeda's further initiatives and what America is continuing to do about that. 

This whole business of whether it is fake or not too will die down like the question of whether the holocaust was a hoax or the moon landing was a hoax.  I remember at least about the holocaust that the story surrounding people questioning it was in full force only a few weeks before other things came up.  Mind you, I believe in the holocaust and the moon landing and Osama's death and if I feel like it, I'll make posts on them, maybe a few months from now just to tease this point on caring.

One more thing, the people of Japan suffered a great deal worse I think than anything we've faced so far this year, even Katrina couldn't compare with the death, damage, and danger.  They do not however worry about the world forgetting them because they know two things.  First, they must take an initiative in picking themselves up when they've fallen and second, as long as there are good people in this world, people will always care and not let the suffering and fallen people in this world be forgotten.

I'll give a fictional example.  The destruction of the planet of Alderaan was the worst disaster to hit the Star Wars universe since God knows what.  For so many books and movies they kept pushing it forward and making charity cases of the survivors and making us feel really sorry for them.  After a point though it got irritating and pathetic.  People still cared of course but just rubbing it in over and over while dozens of other crises were occurring in the New Republic was a real hindrance and mood killer at points.  Point being, time moves on, so should we.

Religion is a scapegoat

If religion did not exist, people would use other excuses to try and justify their hate and violence so people will follow them, its as simple as that.  However, many people don't consider it as such unfortunately because they either are quite narrow minded on many topics or they've had first-hand bad experience with people who say they do something because of religion.  It is a difficult to task to change the views of many people but the more open-minded people remain, the further we will go away not only from the misconceptions about religion but fanaticism for those who still choose to follow it.

Most all religions have some peaceful roots both in their origins and core beliefs.  They did not originate randomly when someone dreamed of world domination through the generations.  It is when the religion has become so ingrained in the people of society that negative forces see fit to use that strong passionate belief to give them control.  Overtime that merges with the beliefs and practices and it seems as if the religion is the dominating force creating all the trouble when in fact, even if it has become so, it was not always like that and it was made that way by outside forces of corruption.  Its just put up as a face for the most part and the other part involves things being put in to the religion or created.

If religion did not exist, there would still be some strong motivating beliefs and ideas out there to manipulate by corrupt people.  Those ideas, very basic ideas like love or compassion could even be twisted into being evil and wrong when it is only bad people creating that corruption.  So it is quite flimsy to suggest religion is the
cause of all problems in the world, the root of all hatred, or the reason for histories wars.  History is filled with examples where something else started something and then the religion was used to rile it up further because the main reason was too complacent to act on.

Another way to look at it is to look at other reasons wars were initiated in our world.  European and American powers fought Native Americans for many years, breaking treaties, taking land, forcing them to migrate further and further west, etc.  That wasn't simply motivated because they didn't believe the same as they did, they also had a different skin complexion.  The colonization of Africa by European powers and the breakdown of China and its kingdom through spheres of influences and drugs was followed by a wave of religious zeal but the oppression was started by it.  Knowing all this, you wouldn't say that we should abolish all cultures or make people breed so much that races don't exist.  One, that's genocidal and two, it destroys an important aspect of humanity, that is it's diversity.  Same way, religions all hold different views and ideas of the world but only those that choose to use it and corrupt it without remorse for their purposes will sacrifice it in the peoples minds.  Blaming it and calling for its abolishment would serve no purpose.

As I said, history is filled with these examples.  The most basic way to look at it but also the most time consuming would be to look at every war and its causes and the reason for each side fighting.  I have looked at many wars including so called religious wars and could not truly find religion ever being a cause of any fight.  Even the Crusades can be seen as the Papacy trying to increase prestige, land, and influence by starting a full scale war against the biggest threat to Europe at the time; its like Hollywood making movies capitalizing on the tension of the Cold War by making movies about Soviets being evil monster bad guys against the US.  No one would say that Hollywood was being very patriotic by making these movies, they just wanted a good villain for movies to make a lot of money.

To talk about more current events and central examples of the fallacy that religion causes all problems, people in Muslim countries didn't like their corrupt politicians and governments, their lack of resources, the debts they had gained from western powers, the long gone days of glory the Muslims had, etc., not that the West was Christian or Jewish.  That was made to exacerbate the hatred but it certainly didn't start it.  Any fighting that has happened between the Muslim countries themselves has occurred through Western Power meddling from the end of the Cold War. 

They upset governments and peoples there for many decades to counteract the influence of the Soviet Union.  With the fall of the Ottoman Empire, they also divided up the region into their own countries with their own royal families and petty disputes so that there would be little hope of reconciliation and reemergence of a strong Eastern Power such as the Ottomans and others who had been a pain for the Europeans for many centuries.  Once they started overcoming that and other problems started emerging from continuous outside influence in other forms, they just went over the edge. 

To gain some unifying force for violence and retaliation, those who chose to terrorize used the common religion of the people because it was a strong ideology that had not faded so much as it had in the West.  Corrupt governments certainly didn't care as long as their rule was kept intact and whatever deals they had with strong foreign powers was kept.  Current events show however that the people are now getting fed up of even that.  Governments fighting amongst each other too use it.  Both sides in the Iran-Iraq war said their people would go to heaven for killing the other and they would go to hell even though both were Muslim and both had a considerable population of either denomination who fought, Iraq does anyways.

I hope that clears it up some for many people, I spit it out as I see it and as it comes to mind so its not always organized or even very considerate sometimes so I'm sorry if anything offends anyone.

Star Wars: Dark Forces - some comments

I've played the games and now I've read the graphic novels and I've gotta say I enjoyed both a lot.  However, I still prefer the game not just because I don't get to play Kyle Katarn, the most awesome Expanded Universe character I know, but because its like they did some things better in the games.  Also, they sort of deflated some of the awesomeness of Kyle Katarn in the books but he still kicked butt.

The main thing I didn't like in the books was that they sort of just ignored the majority of the first Dark Forces game.  Its almost as if they didn't even happen.  They get the part where Kyle steals the Death Star plans but leave out the whole arc where he destroys the Empires plans for Dark Troopers and became one of the few people who defeated Boba Fett.  In fact, the one point where Boba Fett comes up in the books, he acts like he never met or even fought the guy; maybe it was such an embarrassing moment as a Mandalorian (though not as bad as what happened in Return of the Jedi, such a noob way to go).

This leads to my next point that they didn't just skip the game but they ignored its impact on the people in the Star Wars universe.  Mon Mothma was suspicious of Kyle before he stole the plans for the Death Star and then less so after that but she still was and they showed that in the book.  However, considering how much Imperial butt he kicked in the first Dark Forces game and on her orders, that's pretty rough.

Another thing that was disappointing and I wish they'd have given it more depth was his Imperial Academy training.  He leads one strike mission, graduate, finds out about his dad's murder, finds out the Imperials actually did it, and then he defects.  The author doesn't let him go on more missions which would have given more experience as a soldier and mercenary and also explain his prowess in the video games as a one man army.  It also would have shown him express early on hate and a leaning to the dark side before his force powers came to fruition because he thought the rebellion had killed his dad.  But no, he just does one mission, feels angry and then finds the truth and changes his mind.  Maybe he wanted to emphasize his growth in the force helping him to become this way more than experience which is fine I guess too, it makes it more awesome that he became a Jedi Knight on his own (with help from a dead Jedi Master though) and in such a short time period.  Luke did that too if I'm not mistaken.

Going back to the one man army comment, that is another let down.  He acts more like a spy at times and other times like he's trying to conserve ammo for some reason.  The one time they kind of show off his awesomeness as a one man army is when he infiltrates the Imperial base for the Death Star plans but that's the end of it.  I guess it makes more sense though considering his prowess with the force which continues to grow through the series and most Jedi might go for stealth more than strength but if Knights of the Old Republic said anything about the types of Jedi, it was that some were diplomatic, some were stealthy, and some were soldierly and Kyle is definitely more of the last and first kind, not the second.

I'm also kind of disappointed they didn't bring the live action actors back in the 3rd game for live action scenes but I guess live action scenes in games do tend be low budget and corny often so that's why they just stuck with in game acting for the 3rd game plus they were more necessary in a time when games had bad resolution and live action just looked better.  Mind you, the scenes weren't corny and they were pretty serious and had alright acting but the special effects weren't great.

What I did like was the inclusion of more characters, the game seemed kind of microcosmic because there were just a few speaking characters of any importance in the second and first game with a whole lot of faceless mooks.  Now you got political refugees on the planet containing the Valley of the Jedi, stormtroopers with friends and family, officers with aspirations, and so forth.

I also liked a lot how they explained the back story of the Valley of the Jedi because they didn't explain it enough in the game.  Few thousand years before the game, an army of light side Jedi fought an army of dark side Jedi and they met at a final confrontation where the dark siders made a force bomb called a "thought bomb" and killed everyone.  Its a really creepy and crazy attack too and it made Kyle more awesome that he was able to free all the spirits it trapped.  Here's a detailed article on it too:  http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Thought_bomb

Anyways, another cool thing was how he got used the lightsaber so fast, he defeated 7 Jedi Knights so easily, easier than I could in the game mind you.  He didn't even need a lightsaber for 2 of them, one he just shot in the face and the other he just beat to death.  He also uses smart tactics to defeat them such as how he used the anger of one Dark Jedi to make him lose his concentration and then against the Big Bad, he made a force bubble around the guy to cut off his connection to the power from the Valley of the Jedi; I had to chase him around in the freakin' game hacking away with my light saber and dodging those crazy Force Destruction attacks.  On a side note, I wish that attack was more prevalent, its like a Force Hadoken except you don't have to be standing still to use it.

Finally, his relationship with his partner was expanded upon earlier on than in the games too; considering the years they spent together between when they met and the second game, it would only make sense.  In the game though, they just didn't emphasize any of it and it was almost like the developers didn't want a relationship between the 2 and then they changed their mind in the 3rd game.

Aside from that, I enjoyed the whole story and action and awesomeness of Kyle Katarn, the Star Wars universe needed more awesome characters like him.  Its almost like giving a normal awesome character like Han Solo and giving him Force powers.  I might not want them to make a book on the last 2 games though, Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy, considering they delved a lot in the story already in the game as opposed to not so much in the previous games.