-On Thursday afternoon an audio tape surfaced, reportedly of former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, in which Williams is heard encouraging his players to go after the heads of various San Francisco 49er players during this year's playoff game and offering bounties for big hits. If nothing else, this tape explains why Williams was the only person who was suspended by the NFL not to appeal. Williams is suspended indefinitely and this audio has a lot of people saying that once Commissioner Roger Goodell hears it he will never let Williams coach in the NFL ever again, especially when you consider the Saints had been repeatedly warned to knock off the practice of offering bounties. Personally, I go the other way. The footage was captured by a documentary film maker who was granted access to the Saints while working on another project. What that tells me is that Williams was so comfortable with what he was saying that he never thought it would come back to haunt him. So I think all this audio really does is just confirm how wide-spread and common the practice of putting bounties on other players really is. It doesn't sound good for Williams at the moment and I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up being out of the NFL for two or three years, but I still expect to see him on an NFL sideline at some point in the future.
-Still, the main result of this leaked audio is that many football coaches, already known for being tight-lipped, are going to close their ranks even tighter. This is going to make finding a team willing to be part of the "Hard Knocks" show an almost impossible task. The guys who film "Hard Knocks" get unprecedented access to teams during training camp and a leak like this will not help ease concerns about people getting a little too inside the organization. So, it was not surprising to learn that they went back to the Jets to inquire about their interest on being the focus of the show for a second time in three years. For the time being the Jets haven't said yes, but they haven't said no either. Of course, they would be a TV show's dream. Not only are the coached by the bombastic Rex Ryan, but they also added media lighting rod Tim Tebow and have a legitimate quarterback controversy angle producers could exploit. Still, I'm not sure if the Jets want to sign up. "Hard Knocks" adds a certain media circus quality to the mix and the team already has that in spades. While that would be fine for a team that doesn't plan on doing anything this season, the Jets seem to think of themselves as legitimate contenders. Let me just say this: inviting a reality show camera crew to follow you around for weeks on end is not exactly the best way to convince people to take you seriously.
-However, this week also served up a reminder that no matter how tight-lipped people think their staff may be, there is always at least one person willing to leak information. A few days ago an unflattering Wonderlic score was leaked to the national media. For those of you who may not be familiar, the Wonderlic test is given to all NFL recruits at the combine. It is composed of 50 questions which have to be answered in 15 minutes and you get one point for each correct response. Supposedly it measures your ability to think under pressure and every year there is one score which gets leaked to the media that people seem to latch onto. The player in the crosshairs this year is LSU cornerback Morris Claibourne, who allegedly got a 4. Now, some in the media are looking at this as a personal attack on one kid, but the main thing I feel about this story is indifference. Honestly, who cares what you get on the Wonderlic anymore? I'll give you two examples: Dan Marino supposedly got a 15 while Ryan Leaf got a 27. The first is in the Hall of Fame and the second was arrested twice in 48 hours last week for breaking into houses to steal pain medication. Moral of the story: the Wonderlic test doesn't mean anything.
-Late Saturday afternoon former Detroit Pistons stars Isiah Thomas was fired as head coach at Florida International University. Now, it is Thomas was 26-65 in his three years at the school, so you can't really claim this was a shocking firing. To me the shocking part of this story happened three years ago when he first took the job. FIU is mostly a commuter school, which means this was like Magic Johnson coaching at UMass-Boston. At the time Thomas was coming off a failed stint as GM of the New York Knicks and things had not ended well at two NBA stops before that either, so I get that he was trying to rehabilitate his image, but this still seemed like a bad job for him to take. FIU is a low-level D-1 school and will always have little to no luck recruiting against the dozen or so bigger colleges in the area. I don't care is Isiah Thomas is the coach, you're not going to FIU if schools like Central Florida or Miami also come calling. I'm sure Thomas thought this was going to be a stepping stone to a bigger job, but all he has succeeding in doing is hurt his reputation even more. I'll be very surprised if he gets another college coaching gig out of this. But at least he didn't kill the program completely, like his did when be bought the CBA. I guess in that regards it could be considered progress.
-On the total other end of the college coaching scale is John Calipari. After his Kentucky Wildcats won the National Championship on Monday a lot of basketball minds figured that now his college resume was complete and Calipari would follow the lead of most of his talented freshman and go pro. Calipari has come out and said he doesn't plan to leave and (for the moment) I tend to believe him. I do think he'll eventually go back to the pros because, much like Pete Carroll in the NFL, he has a desire to prove that his first attempt at coaching on the pro level wasn't a true indication of his skills. However, I just don't see him leaving right now. And why would he be in a hurry to go? Kentucky is a great job and next season is going to be one long victory lap. On top of that the majority of the jobs which will be open in the pros next season are going to be pretty bad. Why rush back to take a job where no one could win? That was what he did the first time around in New Jersey and it blew up in his face. If he stays at Kentucky for a couple more years and keeps winning (and there is no reason to think he won't), he'll start getting offers from better teams. He can afford to be a little picky at the moment and there is no reason to do anything rash. The NBA will be there for him when he feels like giving it another try.
-Of course, if a job like Orlando opens up that could change Cal's mind and it certainly looks like current Magic coach Stan Van Gundy is on his way out the door. In an extremely awkward press conferences the other day, Van Gundy was talking to a group of reporters when he said that someone high in the organization had told him star player Dwight Howard had told the team's owner he wanted Stan fired. Howard happened to be walking by at the moment and, unaware what Van Gundy was saying, walked over and threw his arm around the coach. The two made small talk for a minute before Van Gundy walked away and left Howard to deal with a group of reporters asking if it was true that he wanted Van Gundy gone. Howard was clearly unprepared for the questions. Now, I don't know if Howard asked for Van Gundy to be fired before that day, but I'm pretty sure he has now. The stranger part is that I don't think Van Gundy even cares if he gets fired at this point, which is why he did this. Just goes to show you that even a few million dollars aren't worth dealing with Dwight Howard's should-I-stay-or-should-I-go melodrama for another year.
-Up until Wednesday, Mohammed El Akkari was carving out a quiet career playing professional basketball in Lebanon for Moutahed, a Division A team. He was chugging along, averaging 7 point a game while playing 19 minutes. But on Wednesday El Akkari went off for 113 points in a game against Bejjeh. Now, I'm obviously impressed with his point total, but all the stories I have seen have attempted to place this in the Wilt Chamberlain category and I just can't make that leap because not all high-scoring marks are the same. It doesn't even have anything to do with the quality of his league, but everything to do with how he scored his points. El Akkari was 40-69 from the floor, including 32 three pointers (and I thought Nate Robinson had no impulse control), something Chamberlain didn't have the option of shooting. Also, he made only one free throw, which tells me the guy never goes to the basket (there was no mention of his rebounding total, which leads me to assume it is because he didn't have any). Lastly, the game ended 173-141, which tells me they don't seem to value defense in Division A. People always wonder if there will ever be another 100-point game in the NBA. To me, this confirms it will never happen. Not because NBA players care more about defense, but because if any player ever took 69 shots I think his own teammates would start blocking them.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
More Movie Reviews
Last weekend I was given a few free days of all the premium movie channels. Now, I always have Showtime at my fingertips, so I was really only excited to see what Starz and HBO had to offer me. I don't know why Starz had the preview, but HBO was doing it because of the second season premiere of their show "Game of Thrones". I guess they thought if people saw the episode they would be so intrigue by what was to come they would be almost happy to plunk down a few extra bucks a month for the privilege. They tried this last year and I would love to find out the success rate because it certainly didn't work on me. Just like last time I didn't watch a single second of the show. However, the access to the movie channels did give me a chance to catch up on some movies I had been too lazy to rent. Again, these reviews have very little to do with the actual movie and more likely something else which just caught my eye. Apparently, this is the time when last year's big-budget summer movies finally start to show up as these reviews are very superhero-centric.
-Your Highness This is the perfect example of the kind of movie you watch during a free preview weekend. I thought the previews were funny, but not enough to go to the theater. Then I planned to rent it, but there was always a better option. Well, when it's free and on-Demand there is no more putting it off. Whether you will like this movie or not depends entirely on how you feel about Danny McBride. I happen to think he's very funny so I laughed several times and thought it was pretty good. The only thing which bothered me were the accents - they were inconsistent among the cast. I think they were supposed to be English but McBride essentially didn't attempt one, James Franco's came and went, while Natalie Portman not only went for the English accent, she went heavy. Yes, you won an Oscar - we get it. Stop trying to be Gwyneth Paltrow.
-Thor I feel like this whole film was written and filmed just so they could keep the upcoming "Avengers" movie under 4 hours. I don't really understand what the plot was or why Natalie Portman was involved in it and it also didn't really explain the backstory of Thor. Apparently the filmmakers assumed the only people who would be watching this would already be familiar with it. However, it did succeed in introducing Loki (who is the main villain in the movie coming out this summer) and gave people a glimpse of Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye - a character who is also in "Avengers" but in no way needs or deserves his own movie. I'm sure they could have gotten the Thor and Loki stuff into the "Avengers" movie, but it would have been far too long and complicated of a process and I'm going to guess that film is going to be heavy on action and light on plot, so the less dialog they had to write for it the better. Think of this movie like the vegetables you have to eat between dinner and dessert. Also, one spoiler alert: at no point does anyone yell, "Take back what you said about Thor!" Disappointing.
-Green Lantern Easily the worse superhero movie I have seen in a while, which is saying something. You know, someone needs to tell people that not every comic books needs to get the movie treatment. The villain was boring and fairly-easily defeated, the story was flimsy and the entire production was way too reliant on green-screen technology. I understand that it is easier to CGI in some special effects versus stringing a guy up with wires, but when 95% of the movie appears to have been done that way it is too much. While the cast was large, I would guess only about 7 actual actors appear on screen and the rest are just voice-overs of cartoons monsters. At least Blake Lively was very attractive, even if I spent the entire movie waiting for her to break into the terrible Boston accent she used in "The Town".
-X-Men: First Class The exact opposite of "Green Lantern", this is probably the best superhero movie I have seen in years. I've always believed that the best way to make a really good comic book movie is to simply take the time necessary to write a quality movie which just happens to be about superheros. Focus on the story and the characters instead of the CGI and special effects and you would be amazed at the difference in the quality of the film. Basically, write the movie for the larger audience who may not be familiar with the people and you'll find that the time spent developing the characters enhances the entire thing. This is what made the "Star Trek" re-boot so good, is the same thing that happened here and is exactly what was missing from the first two comic book movies I talked about. You know I don't generally use these movie reviews to tell you what to watch, but if your only other options are "Thor" and "Green Lantern" you should definitely go with this one.
-Adjustment Bureau I went in thinking I was about to watch a sci-fi movie about a secret society of magical people who control the entire world without any of us knowing it. On the surface this is what it appears to be, but as you get closer to the end of the movie you discover it's actually a chick flick about not letting anything or anyone (no matter how powerful or mysterious) get in the way of true love. I'm assuming this confusion is why this movie wasn't more successful when it was initially released - it was marketed to the entirely wrong group of people. This is what happens when you make a sci-fi love story or an action chick flick - the wrong people go to the theater, hate the movie and it gets poor word-of-mouth reviews. But, the main thing I came away from this movie with was a deep questioning of whether or not I could pull off wearing a fedora.
-Your Highness This is the perfect example of the kind of movie you watch during a free preview weekend. I thought the previews were funny, but not enough to go to the theater. Then I planned to rent it, but there was always a better option. Well, when it's free and on-Demand there is no more putting it off. Whether you will like this movie or not depends entirely on how you feel about Danny McBride. I happen to think he's very funny so I laughed several times and thought it was pretty good. The only thing which bothered me were the accents - they were inconsistent among the cast. I think they were supposed to be English but McBride essentially didn't attempt one, James Franco's came and went, while Natalie Portman not only went for the English accent, she went heavy. Yes, you won an Oscar - we get it. Stop trying to be Gwyneth Paltrow.
-Thor I feel like this whole film was written and filmed just so they could keep the upcoming "Avengers" movie under 4 hours. I don't really understand what the plot was or why Natalie Portman was involved in it and it also didn't really explain the backstory of Thor. Apparently the filmmakers assumed the only people who would be watching this would already be familiar with it. However, it did succeed in introducing Loki (who is the main villain in the movie coming out this summer) and gave people a glimpse of Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye - a character who is also in "Avengers" but in no way needs or deserves his own movie. I'm sure they could have gotten the Thor and Loki stuff into the "Avengers" movie, but it would have been far too long and complicated of a process and I'm going to guess that film is going to be heavy on action and light on plot, so the less dialog they had to write for it the better. Think of this movie like the vegetables you have to eat between dinner and dessert. Also, one spoiler alert: at no point does anyone yell, "Take back what you said about Thor!" Disappointing.
-Green Lantern Easily the worse superhero movie I have seen in a while, which is saying something. You know, someone needs to tell people that not every comic books needs to get the movie treatment. The villain was boring and fairly-easily defeated, the story was flimsy and the entire production was way too reliant on green-screen technology. I understand that it is easier to CGI in some special effects versus stringing a guy up with wires, but when 95% of the movie appears to have been done that way it is too much. While the cast was large, I would guess only about 7 actual actors appear on screen and the rest are just voice-overs of cartoons monsters. At least Blake Lively was very attractive, even if I spent the entire movie waiting for her to break into the terrible Boston accent she used in "The Town".
-X-Men: First Class The exact opposite of "Green Lantern", this is probably the best superhero movie I have seen in years. I've always believed that the best way to make a really good comic book movie is to simply take the time necessary to write a quality movie which just happens to be about superheros. Focus on the story and the characters instead of the CGI and special effects and you would be amazed at the difference in the quality of the film. Basically, write the movie for the larger audience who may not be familiar with the people and you'll find that the time spent developing the characters enhances the entire thing. This is what made the "Star Trek" re-boot so good, is the same thing that happened here and is exactly what was missing from the first two comic book movies I talked about. You know I don't generally use these movie reviews to tell you what to watch, but if your only other options are "Thor" and "Green Lantern" you should definitely go with this one.
-Adjustment Bureau I went in thinking I was about to watch a sci-fi movie about a secret society of magical people who control the entire world without any of us knowing it. On the surface this is what it appears to be, but as you get closer to the end of the movie you discover it's actually a chick flick about not letting anything or anyone (no matter how powerful or mysterious) get in the way of true love. I'm assuming this confusion is why this movie wasn't more successful when it was initially released - it was marketed to the entirely wrong group of people. This is what happens when you make a sci-fi love story or an action chick flick - the wrong people go to the theater, hate the movie and it gets poor word-of-mouth reviews. But, the main thing I came away from this movie with was a deep questioning of whether or not I could pull off wearing a fedora.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Looking For More
I feel like I write this every year (oh yeah, it's because I totally do), but I find the TV coverage of The Masters super annoying. The tournament has strict control over how much airtime they are willing to let the networks have, so even though the golf start at 8:30, ESPN is not allowed to start broadcasting any of it until 3 in the afternoon. What you get in the interim are very sporadic and annoying break-ins of people giving updates from the event going on right behind them while not being able to show you any of it. I know that what they they are doing in Augusta is basically trying to play hard-to-get, knowing that people always want what they can't have. They think by limiting how much coverage we see it will drive up interest, but all it really does is annoy the fans (normally the people you would want to keep happy) every single year. The reason they do this is quite simple - because they can. Much like the captain of the cheerleaders in high school they know they can be a bitch and still have people lusting over them. The Masters is like the unofficial start to spring and golf season as well as being the first major of the season, so golfers just love this event. The tournament has power and its officials are happy to use it. (Just once I would love for the Masters to be scheduled as the fourth major of the year and let's see how much coverage would be limited then.)
At least they have gotten a little better in the past few years by expanding their online presence. Now you can either go to their website directly or download an app to your tablet which will give you several viewing options before the TV coverage kicks in. For example, you can either watch as groups play through a couple of specific holes or follow one group all the way around the course (for some reason they never seem to choose the really interesting groups, though). The other alternative golf fans have is to follow enough golf writers who are at the event on Twitter to keep them up-to-date on what is going on there. It is not the best option, but it is better than nothing. Still, this creates a problem for people like me whose computers are full of large files and who don't have a ton of virtual memory to spare. After streaming video for 10 minutes my computer slows down immensely and I'm left watching halted images where the people are moving in slow motion even though the audio remains at normal speed. The result is I hear the crowd applaud a full 5 seconds before the putt drops or the video will skip ahead to catch up with real time and I won't see the putt at all. And that's if I can watch long enough to not have the site crash on me. Now, I've had a little more luck with my tablet this year, but it is still not great. It streams better than my computer, but it doesn't change the fact the screen is rather small. Do you know how stupid you feel when you are watching something on a 10-inch screen while you are in a room with a 52-inch television?
Reporters who can't think of a better story for that night are always filing reports about how medical professionals are worried that people are getting too attached to their mobile devices and tablets. Well, today was a perfect reminder that it doesn't matter how much new technology we get, TVs will always be the king of attention-hoggers. Personally, I have never understood the fascination with watching TV or movies on your smartphone. If I want to watch TV I have a TV for that. I don't much see the need to watch the same thing except on a much smaller surface. It's the same confusion I have about people who would rather take a train than fly. Why? We've invented a better experience. No need to keep using the old method when the upgrade is so readily available. TV screens are much bigger, the picture quality is awesome and, as an added bonus, you don't have to carry the thing around with you at all times - you can put it in one place and have your hands free to do something else. So why on Earth would you purposely watch something on a smaller screen if you didn't have to? Checking Twitter it was pretty easy to see that I am not alone in my feelings. Many people were expressing frustration with the coverage online and could not wait for the network feed to start.
The old saying is that less is more. That might be true everywhere else, but it does not apply to sports on television. My point is it doesn't matter how many alternatives golf fans are offered, the only thing which will make them truly happy is more coverage of the tournament. Also, it actually makes a lot of business sense for the tournament as well. I know the Masters only has a few commercial partners, but don't those companies want as much exposure as they can get? Their logos may be splashed all over the website, but think about the stereotypical golfer in your mind - do they seem like the kind of people who are going to be comfortable around technology? You may be reaching a younger audience with your web presence, but all the disposable income is locked away with the old folks who still use dial-up. The only way to reach them is through their TVs and that means more hours of the tournament on a big network. Now, the other day I wrote that the quickest way to make sure something doesn't happen at Augusta National is to tell the members that they have to do it, so I'm not about to stand up and demand they expand their viewing windows. Hell, you can't even try to bribe them with TV money because they already have more than they know what to do with, so it's not like a sponsor can threaten to leave unless they expanded coverage because that bluff will be called in a second. I just think Augusta National would be wise to remember that in marketing, just like in life, things are cyclical. What is in demand now could easily be a forgotten fad by tomorrow. To complete my analogy from earlier, there are plenty of fat, former cheerleaders who know just what I'm talking about. Let me put it another way - just because you can act like a bitch doesn't mean you should.
At least they have gotten a little better in the past few years by expanding their online presence. Now you can either go to their website directly or download an app to your tablet which will give you several viewing options before the TV coverage kicks in. For example, you can either watch as groups play through a couple of specific holes or follow one group all the way around the course (for some reason they never seem to choose the really interesting groups, though). The other alternative golf fans have is to follow enough golf writers who are at the event on Twitter to keep them up-to-date on what is going on there. It is not the best option, but it is better than nothing. Still, this creates a problem for people like me whose computers are full of large files and who don't have a ton of virtual memory to spare. After streaming video for 10 minutes my computer slows down immensely and I'm left watching halted images where the people are moving in slow motion even though the audio remains at normal speed. The result is I hear the crowd applaud a full 5 seconds before the putt drops or the video will skip ahead to catch up with real time and I won't see the putt at all. And that's if I can watch long enough to not have the site crash on me. Now, I've had a little more luck with my tablet this year, but it is still not great. It streams better than my computer, but it doesn't change the fact the screen is rather small. Do you know how stupid you feel when you are watching something on a 10-inch screen while you are in a room with a 52-inch television?
Reporters who can't think of a better story for that night are always filing reports about how medical professionals are worried that people are getting too attached to their mobile devices and tablets. Well, today was a perfect reminder that it doesn't matter how much new technology we get, TVs will always be the king of attention-hoggers. Personally, I have never understood the fascination with watching TV or movies on your smartphone. If I want to watch TV I have a TV for that. I don't much see the need to watch the same thing except on a much smaller surface. It's the same confusion I have about people who would rather take a train than fly. Why? We've invented a better experience. No need to keep using the old method when the upgrade is so readily available. TV screens are much bigger, the picture quality is awesome and, as an added bonus, you don't have to carry the thing around with you at all times - you can put it in one place and have your hands free to do something else. So why on Earth would you purposely watch something on a smaller screen if you didn't have to? Checking Twitter it was pretty easy to see that I am not alone in my feelings. Many people were expressing frustration with the coverage online and could not wait for the network feed to start.
The old saying is that less is more. That might be true everywhere else, but it does not apply to sports on television. My point is it doesn't matter how many alternatives golf fans are offered, the only thing which will make them truly happy is more coverage of the tournament. Also, it actually makes a lot of business sense for the tournament as well. I know the Masters only has a few commercial partners, but don't those companies want as much exposure as they can get? Their logos may be splashed all over the website, but think about the stereotypical golfer in your mind - do they seem like the kind of people who are going to be comfortable around technology? You may be reaching a younger audience with your web presence, but all the disposable income is locked away with the old folks who still use dial-up. The only way to reach them is through their TVs and that means more hours of the tournament on a big network. Now, the other day I wrote that the quickest way to make sure something doesn't happen at Augusta National is to tell the members that they have to do it, so I'm not about to stand up and demand they expand their viewing windows. Hell, you can't even try to bribe them with TV money because they already have more than they know what to do with, so it's not like a sponsor can threaten to leave unless they expanded coverage because that bluff will be called in a second. I just think Augusta National would be wise to remember that in marketing, just like in life, things are cyclical. What is in demand now could easily be a forgotten fad by tomorrow. To complete my analogy from earlier, there are plenty of fat, former cheerleaders who know just what I'm talking about. Let me put it another way - just because you can act like a bitch doesn't mean you should.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Your Last Good Idea
When I decided to start this blog a few years ago, the first few hours were mostly spent trying to come up with a good title. Not because I couldn't think of one, but because I couldn't think of one which wasn't already taken. I really wanted to use "Apropos of Nothing" because I thought that phrase captured the randomness which was going to be the point (or lack thereof) of this blog. However, not only was that web name already taken, so were about 10 different variations of it. Anyway, I don't know why I was thinking about this a couple days ago, but since it was on my mind I decided to check back and see if those blogs are still around. Most of them are and thankfully they are updated regularly. This is rare because the vast majority of blogs on the internet are abandoned after 30 days and some go without being updated for months on end. If you've wandered over to my golf blog any time recently (don't worry if you haven't, as you haven't missed anything) you know I am as guilty of this as the next guy. But the difference with me is that at least I don't feel like I am hogging a great domain name with an outdated blog.
I remember when I tried to start a band back in high school - the first three band 'meetings' were spent batting around a lot of possible band names while doing little to no actual practicing. That's because we knew, even at the tender age of 15, that a good band name is almost as important as the music. I firmly believe that some bands get signed just because they have a really good name to market. This way of thinking is not unique to me either. You would be surprised to learn (though, maybe you wouldn't) how much time guys spend coming up with names for bands we do not have (also names for bars we do not own and sports shows we do not have a chance of ever getting on the air). A lot of people think any thing can be made into a band name, but that is not the case. If it were than there would not be so many musical artists throughout history which have changed names after signing with a label. Think about it: do you think The Temptations would have topped as many charts if they had remained "The Elgins", which was their original name? Of course not. No one wants to buy the hot, new "Elgins" record. Clearly, The Temptations is much better.
Look, I get it - coming up with a great name for your blog is a fantastic moment. In that second you are convinced you are an extremely talented person who was simply looking for the correct outlet for all the things you have to say. But if you haven't come up with a creative thought for the site since that day it may be time to let someone else have it. Let someone else have a go at turning that catchy domain name into something which will actually produce content on a regular basis. There is no point in having a blog with a great title if the space underneath that title has one post from 3 years ago and that post is four sentences about how you though the end of "Lost" was really bad. You've had some time to come up with something more and nothing has come along so clearly, the well ran dry. You had one hit and it was that title - you are officially the Chumbawumba of blog writers (catchy, memorable name, extremely short career). So step aside and let someone else see if they can pick up the pieces.
Admittedly, I am a little neat-freakish when it comes to this kind of stuff. I hate it when people leave out-dated material about themselves on the world wide web for the entire world to see and misread. This is why I do things like delete my MySpace page as soon as I notice I haven't been on the site for two months. But I just think if you aren't going to update your blog than you may as well delete it and stop hogging the website. Honestly, some of the domain names otherwise creative people have been forced to use as an alternative to the one they really want because somebody had the smart idea to buy the domain back in 2005 but haven't had a good idea since are ridiculous. So, here is what I propose - Google (because they take care of everything else on the net) announces they are giving everyone six months of warning before they do a sweep of blogger and any sites which haven't been updated in two full years are being deleted. That way if you really gave a crap you would have enough time to go in, write something and save your blog. If you don't than you don't have to worry about it, as it will be taken care of for you and you can continue to put out your same level of non-effort. I'm willing to bet it would free up lots of domain names for people to claim. Just make sure you don't also stop updating once you get it, because a great domain name is a terrible thing to waste.
I remember when I tried to start a band back in high school - the first three band 'meetings' were spent batting around a lot of possible band names while doing little to no actual practicing. That's because we knew, even at the tender age of 15, that a good band name is almost as important as the music. I firmly believe that some bands get signed just because they have a really good name to market. This way of thinking is not unique to me either. You would be surprised to learn (though, maybe you wouldn't) how much time guys spend coming up with names for bands we do not have (also names for bars we do not own and sports shows we do not have a chance of ever getting on the air). A lot of people think any thing can be made into a band name, but that is not the case. If it were than there would not be so many musical artists throughout history which have changed names after signing with a label. Think about it: do you think The Temptations would have topped as many charts if they had remained "The Elgins", which was their original name? Of course not. No one wants to buy the hot, new "Elgins" record. Clearly, The Temptations is much better.
Look, I get it - coming up with a great name for your blog is a fantastic moment. In that second you are convinced you are an extremely talented person who was simply looking for the correct outlet for all the things you have to say. But if you haven't come up with a creative thought for the site since that day it may be time to let someone else have it. Let someone else have a go at turning that catchy domain name into something which will actually produce content on a regular basis. There is no point in having a blog with a great title if the space underneath that title has one post from 3 years ago and that post is four sentences about how you though the end of "Lost" was really bad. You've had some time to come up with something more and nothing has come along so clearly, the well ran dry. You had one hit and it was that title - you are officially the Chumbawumba of blog writers (catchy, memorable name, extremely short career). So step aside and let someone else see if they can pick up the pieces.
Admittedly, I am a little neat-freakish when it comes to this kind of stuff. I hate it when people leave out-dated material about themselves on the world wide web for the entire world to see and misread. This is why I do things like delete my MySpace page as soon as I notice I haven't been on the site for two months. But I just think if you aren't going to update your blog than you may as well delete it and stop hogging the website. Honestly, some of the domain names otherwise creative people have been forced to use as an alternative to the one they really want because somebody had the smart idea to buy the domain back in 2005 but haven't had a good idea since are ridiculous. So, here is what I propose - Google (because they take care of everything else on the net) announces they are giving everyone six months of warning before they do a sweep of blogger and any sites which haven't been updated in two full years are being deleted. That way if you really gave a crap you would have enough time to go in, write something and save your blog. If you don't than you don't have to worry about it, as it will be taken care of for you and you can continue to put out your same level of non-effort. I'm willing to bet it would free up lots of domain names for people to claim. Just make sure you don't also stop updating once you get it, because a great domain name is a terrible thing to waste.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Waited Long Enough
Just a couple days ago I wrote about the newly-announced "Anchorman" sequel and how I found it odd that they would make it now, considering the movie came out in 2004 and the cries for a second adventure in the life of Ron Burgundy stopped around 2009. Well, if I thought that was weird than you can imagine how confused I really am over yesterday's announcement that Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels had signed on to make a "Dumb and Dumber" sequel. Look, I enjoyed the silly humor of the original immensely (and still do) but it should also be pointed out that I had to be driven to the theater to see it, because the movie came out in 1994. If you thought the "Anchorman" sequel was about 5 years too late, the momentum for another "Dumb and Dumber" movie stopped around the time we were all worried about the Y2K virus. And frankly, given the run of movies the Farrelly brothers have pumped out in the last decade, I'm not totally sure you can trust them with this movie, even if they were the ones who penned the original. (Seriously, go to their IMDB page and find me a good movie from this century. I'll wait.) I know piles of money can change everything, but I still can't figure out why this is happening now.
They say repetition is what happens when all the other good ideas are taken. Well, this "Dumb and Dumber" announcement comes not only on the heels of the news about "Anchorman" but also the fact that "Ghostbusters 3" is supposedly ready to go as soon as everyone can talk Bill Murray into appearing in it and they even have a script ready in case he doesn't. So, I guess it is safe to say that 2013 will be the year of the long-overdue sequel. Also, that people in Hollywood are officially out of fresh ideas (though, we kind of knew that part already). There used to be a belief that if a sequel wasn't made in a timely fashion than the ship had sailed. Clearly that belief has fallen by the wayside. Anyway, with that in mind, I thought I would fire off some movies which probably should have been had sequels made before now but better late than never, right?
-Bull Durham This is another movie which reportedly has been green-lit and then cancelled half a dozen times. Obviously you can't expect the original stars to be back as players, so perhaps a new story line where they are managers or coaches? I'm sure Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon could be professional enough to mask the obvious awkwardness and I'm sure Kevin Costner would jump at the chance to do yet another sports movie. Honestly, there hasn't been a good baseball movie released in a while, so aren't we just about due?
-Godfather 2 I think a final installment of the Godfather series would be great for the fans. Now, the math majors in the audience may be confused and think that a sequel to a sequel would make it a trilogy, which already happened. Well, the reason we need a sequel to the second one is because "Godfather 3" never happened. Do you hear me? That monstrosity never occurred. Like a group of teenagers who accidentally kill someone and then tried to cover it up at the start of a horror movie, we all agreed to act like it never happened. This is just like what Sly Stallone did when he tried to act as thought "Rocky 5" never happened by naming the last movie "Rocky Balboa" instead of "Rocky 6". That is what is happening here. We just name it something like "Godfather: Legacy" and be done with it. That is the plan and you will stick to it!
-Billy Madison Perhaps the last good movie Adam Sandler made, so it is due for a sequel treatment. I'm sure he would wreck it somehow, probably by putting Kevin James, David Spade and Rob Schneider in it and then making Billy be all annoying and self-pitying because he is just so successful at teaching and it makes him feel bad. But if we don't let Sandler write it, I'm thinking the plot could revolve around Billy and his teaching career where he is being sent to a really rough high school. Think of it like "Dangerous Minds", but with more comedy. And if he's really being annoying the audience can start rooting for the character to get stabbed or something.
-Old School Well, if we're finally getting around to sequels that should have been made as soon as the last one came out of video, this is about as good a candidate as any. By agreeing to do another "Anchorman" Will Ferrell has clearly gotten over his problem with doing sequels, so why not go all the way in and start to franchise all his old movie roles? Seriously, it is not like we even need Luke Wilson or Vince Vaughn if they start asking for too much money. Just give me more "Frank the Tank" and you've got box-office gold.
-Beetlejuice This would have gotten the world really excited back in the early 90s, but now so much time has passed the only people who would be excited by this movie now are the creepy people who still think Beetlejuice is a great Halloween costume. Still, all you really need is the title character to make this sequel work, so as long as you can get Michael Keaton (and I'm sorry, does he seem busy at the moment to you?) you can can move forward with the same title. Hell, it's a Tim Burton movie, so simply promise him he can put Johnny Depp and his wife in it and I'm sure he'll be on board. Just hurry up and green-light this movie so it will distract Burton before he goes and makes yet another terrible remake of a once-loved movie.
They say repetition is what happens when all the other good ideas are taken. Well, this "Dumb and Dumber" announcement comes not only on the heels of the news about "Anchorman" but also the fact that "Ghostbusters 3" is supposedly ready to go as soon as everyone can talk Bill Murray into appearing in it and they even have a script ready in case he doesn't. So, I guess it is safe to say that 2013 will be the year of the long-overdue sequel. Also, that people in Hollywood are officially out of fresh ideas (though, we kind of knew that part already). There used to be a belief that if a sequel wasn't made in a timely fashion than the ship had sailed. Clearly that belief has fallen by the wayside. Anyway, with that in mind, I thought I would fire off some movies which probably should have been had sequels made before now but better late than never, right?
-Bull Durham This is another movie which reportedly has been green-lit and then cancelled half a dozen times. Obviously you can't expect the original stars to be back as players, so perhaps a new story line where they are managers or coaches? I'm sure Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon could be professional enough to mask the obvious awkwardness and I'm sure Kevin Costner would jump at the chance to do yet another sports movie. Honestly, there hasn't been a good baseball movie released in a while, so aren't we just about due?
-Godfather 2 I think a final installment of the Godfather series would be great for the fans. Now, the math majors in the audience may be confused and think that a sequel to a sequel would make it a trilogy, which already happened. Well, the reason we need a sequel to the second one is because "Godfather 3" never happened. Do you hear me? That monstrosity never occurred. Like a group of teenagers who accidentally kill someone and then tried to cover it up at the start of a horror movie, we all agreed to act like it never happened. This is just like what Sly Stallone did when he tried to act as thought "Rocky 5" never happened by naming the last movie "Rocky Balboa" instead of "Rocky 6". That is what is happening here. We just name it something like "Godfather: Legacy" and be done with it. That is the plan and you will stick to it!
-Billy Madison Perhaps the last good movie Adam Sandler made, so it is due for a sequel treatment. I'm sure he would wreck it somehow, probably by putting Kevin James, David Spade and Rob Schneider in it and then making Billy be all annoying and self-pitying because he is just so successful at teaching and it makes him feel bad. But if we don't let Sandler write it, I'm thinking the plot could revolve around Billy and his teaching career where he is being sent to a really rough high school. Think of it like "Dangerous Minds", but with more comedy. And if he's really being annoying the audience can start rooting for the character to get stabbed or something.
-Old School Well, if we're finally getting around to sequels that should have been made as soon as the last one came out of video, this is about as good a candidate as any. By agreeing to do another "Anchorman" Will Ferrell has clearly gotten over his problem with doing sequels, so why not go all the way in and start to franchise all his old movie roles? Seriously, it is not like we even need Luke Wilson or Vince Vaughn if they start asking for too much money. Just give me more "Frank the Tank" and you've got box-office gold.
-Beetlejuice This would have gotten the world really excited back in the early 90s, but now so much time has passed the only people who would be excited by this movie now are the creepy people who still think Beetlejuice is a great Halloween costume. Still, all you really need is the title character to make this sequel work, so as long as you can get Michael Keaton (and I'm sorry, does he seem busy at the moment to you?) you can can move forward with the same title. Hell, it's a Tim Burton movie, so simply promise him he can put Johnny Depp and his wife in it and I'm sure he'll be on board. Just hurry up and green-light this movie so it will distract Burton before he goes and makes yet another terrible remake of a once-loved movie.
Monday, April 2, 2012
You Should Be Asleep
I'm often amazed at what my brain chooses to focus on as I go through the activities which make up my life. I never seem to take any particular notice to the things most people would consider to be extremely odd and instead my eyes immediately focus on the slightly off things which occur around me. This one happened the other night: I was heading out of Boston after an unsuccessful attempt at bowling, but a very successful night of watching movies instead. (Short version of a much longer story: we put our names in and were told it was a 100-200 minute wait to get a lane. After an hour I went up to check the progress and was told there were 18 groups still ahead of us, at which point we gave up. So much for priority lanes for people who order dinner, eh King's?) Anyway, as I was walking to my car I passed an old man on the street. Now, this was not one of those simply 'too old to be in the bar trying to pick up college girls and it's sad that you are even trying' kind of deals. This guy had to be in his late 70s. That isn't just too old to be at the bar, that is too old to be awake at that time. As you can imagine, this guy was fascinating to me.
I've always believed that there is a point at which "tonight" becomes "tomorrow morning". While the exact time this happens can be left up to each person's individual standards, my internal clock says it happens about 3:30 AM. While the time that I saw this man was well before that, it was not as thought it as early evening. Occasionally we talk on this blog about what activities are appropriate for which age and I happen to believe there are times which are appropriate for certain ages as well. Just as an example, when you are out on the roads at 5 AM the majority of the people out are either delivering newspapers or trying to get to the pharmacy as soon as it opens for business. Either way, it is not a young mix of people. Similarly, when you are leaving the bar at 1 AM, you expect to only have to deal with a very specific mix of people: cab drivers, med students on their way home and the college kids and single people who are leaving the same bars. That is about it, which means the range of people's ages goes from about 20-39. As you can imagine, seeing a guy who was near 80 was almost as shocking as if I had gone onto the street and discovered a 10 year-old walking around.
I know the cliche about old people going to bed super-early and waking up even earlier, but even with that in my mind, this was a little ridiculous. I almost wanted to ask this guy if he should be out this late, but he was clearly dressed for being outside on a cold night with a thick coat and good hat. Also, his well-pressed pants caught my eye. This man was clearly just up for the day. I would have thought he was on his way to Church if he wasn't going to be about 6 hours too early for the first service. By the time I got to my truck and turned around I saw he had begun collecting the various free papers which were available and then he continued to shuffle his way down the street. Apparently, he just wanted something to read. The only theory this left me with was he is currently visiting from the Old Country (doesn't really matter which one) and is not interested in adjusting to the time difference. Seeing as how he may have been born before it was put in to place, I can understand why he would be hesitant to conform.
Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule and this older gentleman could have had plenty of legitimate reasons to be wandering the streets of Brookline at 1 AM on Saturday night. (The truly scary thought which occurred to me later is that the trains had stopped running by that time, so if he was on his way somewhere he was most likely driving.) Either way, it doesn't change the fact that he was the oldest person on the street by at least 40 years and stuck out like a sore thumb. It was as though he was coming in to break up the party his grandson had thrown. I feel as though I am qualified to speak for a large group of people, so I'd like to propose a deal to the octogenarians in the audience - how about anyone who isn't on their way to work or school promises to stay off the road before 5 AM and you guys stay home after midnight? That way you guys can do your errands without as many cars on the road and the rest of us don't have to worry you've wandered out of your house without supervision. I just feel as though it would be better for everyone involved.
I've always believed that there is a point at which "tonight" becomes "tomorrow morning". While the exact time this happens can be left up to each person's individual standards, my internal clock says it happens about 3:30 AM. While the time that I saw this man was well before that, it was not as thought it as early evening. Occasionally we talk on this blog about what activities are appropriate for which age and I happen to believe there are times which are appropriate for certain ages as well. Just as an example, when you are out on the roads at 5 AM the majority of the people out are either delivering newspapers or trying to get to the pharmacy as soon as it opens for business. Either way, it is not a young mix of people. Similarly, when you are leaving the bar at 1 AM, you expect to only have to deal with a very specific mix of people: cab drivers, med students on their way home and the college kids and single people who are leaving the same bars. That is about it, which means the range of people's ages goes from about 20-39. As you can imagine, seeing a guy who was near 80 was almost as shocking as if I had gone onto the street and discovered a 10 year-old walking around.
I know the cliche about old people going to bed super-early and waking up even earlier, but even with that in my mind, this was a little ridiculous. I almost wanted to ask this guy if he should be out this late, but he was clearly dressed for being outside on a cold night with a thick coat and good hat. Also, his well-pressed pants caught my eye. This man was clearly just up for the day. I would have thought he was on his way to Church if he wasn't going to be about 6 hours too early for the first service. By the time I got to my truck and turned around I saw he had begun collecting the various free papers which were available and then he continued to shuffle his way down the street. Apparently, he just wanted something to read. The only theory this left me with was he is currently visiting from the Old Country (doesn't really matter which one) and is not interested in adjusting to the time difference. Seeing as how he may have been born before it was put in to place, I can understand why he would be hesitant to conform.
Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule and this older gentleman could have had plenty of legitimate reasons to be wandering the streets of Brookline at 1 AM on Saturday night. (The truly scary thought which occurred to me later is that the trains had stopped running by that time, so if he was on his way somewhere he was most likely driving.) Either way, it doesn't change the fact that he was the oldest person on the street by at least 40 years and stuck out like a sore thumb. It was as though he was coming in to break up the party his grandson had thrown. I feel as though I am qualified to speak for a large group of people, so I'd like to propose a deal to the octogenarians in the audience - how about anyone who isn't on their way to work or school promises to stay off the road before 5 AM and you guys stay home after midnight? That way you guys can do your errands without as many cars on the road and the rest of us don't have to worry you've wandered out of your house without supervision. I just feel as though it would be better for everyone involved.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Fooled Us
Happy April Fool's Day. Now, I'm not a big fan of pranks because I feel like a lot of the time they are more mean than funny. That is why I happen to prefer jokes where everyone is in on it and gets an equal laugh. As you can imagine, I was not the one leading the charge to bring back "Punk'd". Anyway, I will tell you the best practical joke that has happened in a while and that is this week's weather. Seriously, last week it was almost 90, we all got a false sense of security and then this weekend some areas north of Boston got snow. I made a bet of how warm it was going to be on Easter and it has become pretty obvious that I will be on the losing end of that one. It appears that Mother Nature is the biggest trickster of all. At least it made this week's musical interlude fairly easy to pick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)