[I realize Anthony posted this, but I didn't even see it until very recently and I've already spent a bit of time on this response. Also, you should take what I say about Citizen Kane with a pinch of salt considering I've only seen half of the movie.]
I am at odds with the approach Anthony Burch took towards this week's Rev Rant. What irks me is that the implication associated with said response has the potential to be misinterpreted by his audience. The intended critique most probably pertains to the incessant faltering of the webcast itself, but Anthony's approach to it can bring about two potential misinterpretations on part of the viewer: that he means to say that Metroid Prime is the one at fault and that the topic discussed in the webcast is entirely without merit. It is highly probable (and to me, highly concerning) that the latter is his intended viewpoint. Perhaps it alludes to the former, but if that is the case, then the Rev Rant doesn't make it entirely clear.
Regardless of what Anthony's intendment is, the subjected webcast justifies criticism; this is completely undebatable. There are distinguishable falsities associated with Michael Thompson's interpretation of Metroid Prime's motif as a result of a contrived, hackneyed attempt to find similarities between the allegories of it and Citizen Kane (combat doesn't take a backseat to environmental exploration in Metroid Prime. Nothing takes a backseat to anything in Metroid Prime, and that's one of the things about Prime I have a fondness for; it doesn't compromise anything in order to excel in any sole aspect. Additionally, the feelings of human connection that are apparent in Metroid Prime aren't remotely as pervasive as and can't hold a candle to those of Citizen Kane) The newscast scavenges arbitrary examples pertaining to how Citizen Kane's themes of loss and loneliness pertrain to Metroid Prime and then shoehorns them into a poorly developed interpretation. The comparison of the two faces at the end is particularly insulting; one is a cool easter egg and one PINCHOFSALT is a deep portrayal of death, but it's not like that's going to stop that misguided IGN prat from issuing an association between those two meanings. By daring to use such choice of words as "in the same way as Citizen Kane", the webcaster gravely portrays Metroid Prime and Citizen Kane as having a synonymous artistic message. The webcast does absolutely nothing other than extrapolating upon how Metroid Prime's themes are "the same" as those of Citizen Kane.
Let me say that the topic of comparing Metroid Prime and Citizen Kane is not meritless. To compare doesn't mean only to expose similarities; it means to differentiate. That webcast wasn't a comparison; it was Prime and Kane's artistic likenesses mashed together in an ugly, slipshod, inarticulate mess. If the webcast was left in better interpretive hands, it could have contrasted Metroid Prime's atmospheric poise with Citizen Kane's PINCHOFSALTALERT humanity and cultural indictments, and discussed how both meant something different for their respective mediums. The webcast could have been a representation of how expressive methods vary between mediums or discussed the respective milestones of the two works and then drew similarities between what those meant for movies and video games respectively. Indeed, the representation of Metroid Prime as a development of interactivity in portraying tone and atmosphere in games and Citizens Kane's [insert whatever the hell Citizen Kane did here] would be justifiable; moreso than a dumb comparison of what the two are trying to say. The Rev Rant doesn't touch on the fact that this justification exists.
My other issue is that the Rev Rant can be perceived as a direct affront to Metroid Prime. This is most prevalent with the direct quotation of "Are you fucking kidding me?", but is compounded by the webcaster's aforementioned focus on Prime rather than Kane. Michael Thompson obviously doesn't PINCHOFSALT have a comprehensive grasp of Citizen Kane, which is why Metroid is given substantially more attention. He then proceeds to fail even harder at interpreting the motif of something that he has more acquaintance with, which really puts Metroid Prime in an awkward "wrong place at the wrong time" situation. Prime serves in this case as a borderline scapegoat for the webcast's wrongdoings. There's also the matter of Anthony's one and only segment of dialogue throughout the entire Rev Rant. The very tone associated with his one rhetorical question creates an implication to the opinion that Metroid Prime should be barred from attaining an artistic milestone in the same way as Citizen Kane. It's almost as if Rev believes Metroid Prime in particular doesn't deserve to be respected in the same way as Citizen Kane just because of Prime's subject matter, because it's a video game and because Citizen Kane is to forever float upon the clouds in an impenetrable artistic citadel, as if Rev believes there's something about Metroid Prime that makes it common knowledge that it could never achieve the same thing for video games as Citizen Kane achieved for movies. Because this is the only comment made by Anthony throughout the entirety of the Rev Rant, it almost seems as if this potential interpretation is the result of every fallacy associated with the webcast. As someone who considers the first Metroid Prime to be the greatest game they've ever played, I take serious offense to that kind of mindset, although that's my personal gripe. Nevertheless, that interpretation is rather unsettling, and I wouldn't be comfortable with it even if a game like Super Mario 64 or Metal Gear Solid took Prime's place in a situation like this.
My concern is that it isn't the faults of the webcast that are being directly addressed by the Rev Rant and that it is interpretable that alternate criticisms are being made. It is difficult to determine if Rev is criticizing the newscast itself or denouncing it's subject matter.
Why are all three Metroid Prime games mentioned when only footage from MP1 is shown? Pretty shitty advertising.