Frayed Knot

The good news is that if I do decide to check out BARBIE so as to not be the only one without an opinion of it come Monday morning, my local has 27 showings of it running tomorrow. First airing commences at 9 AM with the final one at 10:50 PM I mean, really, there's just no excuse not to.

I have a pink t-shirt from a long ago bike ride I did. Can, and occasionally still do, wear it around. I pretty sure the real Ken (by that I mean the real fake Ken) was neither blond nor wore pink. It is a '90s movie being made in 2023 in that the '90s were the prime era for making moves based on baby boomer nostalgia topics, mainly on TV shows from bb's youth. The problem now is that even the youngest boomers are about to hit 60 as the oldest creep up on 80. Not exactly your prime theater-going audience and probably less likely now than they were 30-ish years ago to wallow in rewatching new adaptations of every sit-com, cartoon, or toy they ever watched/owned.

No and no

Let's leave his personal life out of this, OK?

Edgy MD wrote: The biggest thing that bothered me was that we really get an utterly fictional version of Art Howe, and anybody who has watched the guy over the previous 40 (now 50) years in baseball knows it. But that's nothing new. Howe, who i recall being not a big presence in the book (but its been a while), is portrayed in the flick as generally grumpy and not at all in line with Beane's direction for the club. Was he actually grumpy? Not that I know of (we heard, after all, that he lit up rooms) but of course I have no idea what he was like behind the scenes. Maybe behind closed doors he did nothing but bitch and moan about his contract as well as interference from above. In line with his GM? Most probably not and, in any case, was chosen by screenwriters to represent one of the doubters within the A's org that our heroes Billy and Petey have to win over or push out of the way. So you could say it's more a symbolic portrayal than a personal one. And while I can understand why that bothers Art, it doesn't particularly bother me as a viewer.

Like maybe the script could have had Beane and Shapiro talking politics while discussing potential trades for LH relievers. S. Shapiro: It's really getting crazy these days Beane: 'Tell me about it. I was just reading this fan site called the MoFo where some guys were demanding dead Arabs in the streets of NYC' And what delayed opening? The 2002 season started on April 1st

It didn't cover the growing troubles in Iraq either, but maybe because that's not what the movie was about. I don't have a problem with most of the 'problems' often cited in this flick. Sure the A's had other good players, specifically starting pitching. But the focus is that, after coming off a 102 win season, they lost three top FAs to high budget clubs via offers with which they couldn't possibly come close to matching due to baseball's financial structure. So forced to think out of the box and shop at the island for misfit toys, they adopted strategies that were mocked both in-house and by much of established baseball. The result was a season with 103 wins including a record 20 straight. Then, when that club also failed to advance in the post-season, the choruses of 'See, I told ya so' dogged them anyway, at least until the lifeline thrown by Boston's John Henry signals maybe the beginning of acceptance. That PSH playing Art Howe didn't look enough like Art Howe? That a movie which (briefly) opens some 5-6 weeks after 9/11 and takes place mostly 6-12 months later doesn't mention 9/11? That the players focused on were mostly just the old ones going out and the new ones coming in? Ffffft, all non-issues for me. The biggest baseball mistake I can find is that Jeremy Giambi was on the 2001 team rather than being added during the '01/'02 off-season as shown. Other than that, Play Ball!

Edgy MD wrote: I'm just disturbed that Damon and his top-shelf Q-rating are being deployed for corporate propaganda disguised as commercial films. On top of Ford vs. Ferrari, that's a pattern. Not sure that I see Ford v Ferrari as a corporate propaganda film. Ferrari is going broke as the film progresses (though they fudged the timeline a bit to make it fit the story) and Ford culture certainly doesn't come off very well as it's the two independent mavericks, the driver and the designer, who are the heroes of the film butting heads with the bulk of Ford execs along the way. 'Air' certainly seems a little more problematic. I have to say 'seems' since I've not seen it but upon first hearing of the movie my initial reaction was, 'Oh great, not only does this country have an odd penchant for worshiping gym sneakers to an unhealthy degree but now we're taking to celebrating the more than a bit sleazy folks who brought us the holy grail of status sneakers.' I see your concern but without buying the idea that it's part of a pattern due to the two films sharing a single actor.

And if that line is bullshit (as it almost certainly is) I really don't have a problem with it. It's a movie so, like most, it's a story built around a real story but then embellished for entertainment purposes. They can't really show MJ himself because an actor pretending to be him would look unrealistic so they focus the story around him and give more credence to others in his circle such as his parents especially seeing as how stuff like that helps to get his approval for the story, and that is his voice on the phone at the end. The Damon & Affleck characters are of course real. Sonny Vaccaro (Damon) started out as a somewhat sleaze-ball sneaker rep dealing with summer leagues for teenage prospects before eventually turning himself at least slightly more respectable. I suspect the movie smooths those rough and often exploitive edges off him. Phil Knight (Affleck) ran track at U of Oregon under legendary coach Bill Bowerman and the two formed the beginnings of Nike back then by selling shoes Bowerman would mold sometimes using his wife's waffle iron to make the tread and selling them out of the back of a station wagon at track meets as many runners felt the established companies, such as Adidas, weren't making the kind of lighter-than-light shoes that runners wanted. By getting into the basketball business via Jordan (and others) Nike was essentially going after Adidas/Puma/Converse instead of just side-stepping them on the running circuit. I might get around to seeing this if and when it hits a platform that I actually get. Or they can keep it exclusive and I'll never see it. I'm pretty much fine with either course.

I certainly have trouble believing that the line from Jordan's mom, 'the NBA isn't going to be promoting my son, it's going to be the otherway around', actually occurred.

Never saw it. Part of that definitely had to do with my anti-disco attitude at the time. But I think a large part of its popularity had to do with guys identifying with Travolta's Tony, something I never did. Rogert Ebert used to claim that the reason it was one of Gene Siskel's all-tiime favorites (Siskel at one point owned one of the two iconic white suits worn in the film) was that he wished he could look and talk and walk as cool as Tony. I used to joke that it was mostly the Irish and Jewish kids who wanted to wish themselves into that part rather than the Italian ones because a large chunk of them already fancied themselves as the Tony Manero of their neighborhood. But that whole scene never appealed to me and the handful of times I've tuned in over the years when it came around on cable I've just never hung with it. I'll take in a couple of scenes and then say 'Yeah, that's enough'.

Using 'Rotten Tomatoes' as a gauge, both the critics and the audience reviews were very high. I got about a half hour in recently and was totally lost, both because i had trouble understanding the dialogue due to accents and very rapid fire delivery, and also lots of trouble following the plot. Maybe I'll give it another shot, maybe not.

Doesn't seem like my cuppa either. I've made no attempt to see it despite it being all over cable and winning a boat-full of awards.

I always find it interesting when a movie studio can't reconcile their promo photo with the billing order of names, in this case putting Fishburne's name above a teenage girl and Angela Basset's on top of Fishburne's forehead. GREASE famously had the Travolta and Newton-John pics in reverse order of the names.

The 2011 Philly season ended with 1 - 0 loss to StL in the first round of the playoffs with Howard grounding out to end the game/series. In trying to get out of the box he collapsed in a big heap and needed to have his huge self carried of the field. I can't remember now the specific injury -- Achilles tear maybe? -- but he took all winter and half the next season to heal (July 6th was his first 2012 game). Never real mobile to begin with, he became increasingly Mo Vaughn-ish after that.

Certainly. I focused on those two because they represent two opposite ends of action taken by their clubs: - Philly opting to effectively make the 30+ Howard a Phil-for-life, perhaps against better judgement - Atlanta choosing the more unsentimental and unpopular route of pivoting to another choice as soon as they realized that they couldn't keep the guy who had been a favorite in their system for 14 years within the terms they set. Neither approach is necessarily right or wrong, just examples of two potential paths involving big Pete

The idea that we're going to sign him at some price and length is certainly reasonable but the presumed inevitability of it begs the question of, then why not now or even why hasn't it already happened. And it of course still could. Just because they hit an arb number doesn't mean they can't come up with something longer that we'll hear about between now and opening day. But if nothing happens prior to the end of the '23 season then Pete is looking at complete free agency just a year away which provides all kinds of reasons for a player to NOT sign a L-T deal while also giving the team a slightly larger disincentive to commit a player will have already hit 30 y/o, especially one who is limited to the one position on the field (two if you want to treat 1B & DH as interchangeable) where it's easiest to find a bat. Another potential comp is Freddie Freeman whom the Braves famously allowed to walk away despite coming off four straight top-10 MVP seasons (including one 1st) and a WS title. Now he was turning 32 as he hit FA-gency, not 30, so the comp isn't exact and Atlanta had already squeezed 11 full seasons plus a cup of coffee year (he debuted in late 2010 a few days prior to turning 21) out of him to that point. His new deal with LA will still have a few years left by the time Pete can leave on his own so we likely won't know by then if Freddie turns out to be a good long term signing by the Dodgers or more a wishful thinking one.

Just to stipulate, the 'Pete Alonso Conundrum' is neither a lost Robert Ludlum book, nor is it the band that opened for BTO on their western Canada tour back in the '80s The question, of course, is when/whether the team should stop paying him year by year and plunge into a long term contract. The comp that keeps popping into my head, maybe because it serves as the cautionary tale, is Ryan Howard. Both are large, slugging 1st baseman who reached the majors in their mid-20s Pete did get a slight jump on Howard by playing a full season at age 24 where RH was just getting his feet wet (39 ML ABs) but Howard quickly jumped to higher peak seasons. [td]AGE[/td][td]Ryan Howard[/td][td]OPS+[/td][td]Pete Alsonso[/td][td]OPS+[/td][td]24[/td][td]39 ABs[/td][td]122[/td][td]ROY-1, MVP-7[/td][td]147[/td][td]25[/td][td]88 G, ROY-1[/td][td]133[/td][td]Covid Season[/td][td]122[/td][td]26[/td][td]MVP-1[/td][td]167[/td][td][/td][td]133[/td][td]27[/td][td]MVP-5[/td][td]145[/td][td]MVP-8[/td][td]146[/td][td]28[/td][td]MVP-2[/td][td]125[/td][td]MVP-17[/td][td]124[/td][td]29[/td][td]MVP-3[/td][td]141[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]30[/td][td]MVP-10[/td][td]127[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]31[/td][td]MVP-10[/td][td]126[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]32[/td][td]71 G[/td][td]91[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]33[/td][td]80 G[/td][td]115[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]34[/td][td]153 G[/td][td]92[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]35[/td][td]129 G[/td][td]96[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]36[/td][td]112 G[/td][td]85[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td] The mistake the Phillies made, and I remember thinking this at the time, is that by the time they signed Howard to a multi-year deal he was already into his early 30s and in what turned out to be the start to a significant decline in both output and availability. Had he been with the Braves (then or now) they would have wished him well and immediately set off looking for a replacement. Of course had Pete come up with the Braves they probably would have signed him long-term coming off his rookie season (or maybe while still in the middle of it) but the Mets haven't shown that they buy into that philosophy and certainly weren't going to do it in the midst of the Wilpon/Cohen transitional mess. Alonso becomes a FA the winter he'll turn 30 following the '24 season. Given the length of contracts now in vogue it'll be tough NOT to sign him into his late '30s and we know that the track record of aging sluggers in the steroid testing era, even among the elites (Pujols, Cabrera) isn't a pretty one. If you want to pick another slugging comp, Judge, with an MVP plus two other top fives under his belt, just signed for 9 years starting at age 31. Be interesting to see how that one turns out. So I guess what I'm asking here is, what's your plan Stan?

Where is this running?

Odd that it took Stallone this long before he got cast as an Italian mobster.

That's $10.98 more than I'd pay, but your milage may vary.

'The Titular Cat', not one of Robert Ludlum's better novels.

The walk rate might be the most impressive part. A 65 - 70 point gap between a hitters BA & OBA is about average. Lurking around 100 and even 100+ point gap when young and young for your league is a very good sign.

My first thought about this movie is to wonder whether there's enough of a story in the incident to justify a feature length film.

There's an old line about how the small guy has to prove he can play while the big guy has to prove he can't. So, yeah, particularly when they're in the early stages of of rating talent, the smaller ones really need to stand out in order get selected. With your friend's kid, if he shines in JuCo maybe that gets him to a bigger school which, if he continues to improve, makes him a draft pick even if he never gets any bigger. Jett obviously has enough skills and potential to not just get drafted but make the top half of the 1st round. Do that and they stop caring how tall you are.