I'm willing to admit that if Kevin Garnett was not a Celtic, I would be ripping him today for throwing elbows in last night's game. After all, Garnett seems to rub a lot of players the wrong way and, as I've said before, you can only be in so many altercations before you have to wonder if it's you. The fact that guys who aren't even in the same playoff series have come out and said that Garnett has a history of playing dirty should speak volumes (still, perhaps Joakim Noah should worry about his own series and not suddenly grow a voice when he knows he won't be seeing Garnett again this year). Garnett has always been an intense player, but he also needs to be smarter with his actions. He can't let a marginal guard take him out of the game and even worse, getting suspended for the next one during a crucial playoff series. Beating the Heat will be hard enough without having to start Rasheed Wallace and his gut at power forward in Game 2. [Sidebar: Rasheed, no one is going to yell at you if you want to.... you know, run, at some point this season. This isn't like being in the halls at high school.] Garnett needs to dial the intensity back and think it through.
All that being said, however, KG is a Celtic and thus I put all the blame on Quentin Richardson. I don't know why he felt the need to go stand over Paul Pierce and if you want to talk about a guy having a reputation, Richardson was traded about 8 times this offseason. There's a guy it seems no one wants on their team, despite his obvious skills. Danny Ainge actually had tried multiple times to sign him through the years. Given the fact that Richardson has come out and said he doesn't like Pierce or Garnett, I would say that it's probably a good thing Danny never pulled that one off. Though, I do want to thank Richardson, because I was having a tough time coming up with the one player on the Heat I was going to have an irrational hatred for until the series is over (I was going to go after Jermaine O'Neal due to his previous playoff history against the Celtics, but it just felt forced). That problem has been solved.
-I know that movie directors are often put under a lot of pressure to bring their film in under a certain time limit. A lot of people are scared away from seeing something in the theatre if they hear that a movie is almost 3 hours long. Still, I think at times directors take it for granted that we haven't all read the script and therefore don't know the entire story like the people who lived this movie for the last 4 months. It turns out that oftentimes a scene that has been cut would come in handy to see in the context of the movie. Recently the movie channels have started showing the director's cut of Watchmen. Now, this was a movie that I had to watch twice to figure out what the hell I was looking at to begin with, but now that I've seen the extended director's cut several parts make much more sense. I think that film-makers would be well served to bring in a couple of friends who have never seen the movie before (and if the story is based on a book, haven't read the book either) to come in and watch the film before it's released. This way they could ask any questions that may arise during the movie and if those questions would have been answered in a scene that was cut then the director would have a much better idea of what he needs to keep. And if you still need to cut for time, I'm sure there are some background shots for ambiance we could all live without.
No comments:
Post a Comment