Edgy MD

I'm always freaked out stumbling across THERESA RUSSELL in WHORE A Ken Russell Film

Sounds... like something I don't want to see.

The restaurant critic (Anton?) was a great realization.

I met another couple who is crazy about this film, but both admit they can't remember the last time they saw it. I think the world is full of women who want to like this because they want to think of themselves as still having that girl that in them, and men who want to like this because they want to like everything about their girl, but nobody actually liking this. That Brian Froud got to design this film and Alan Lee got to design Lord of the Rings muist really come between the two of them.

Posada re-ups with the Yankees Correct: Edgy DC John Cougar Lunchbucket Benjamin Grimm smg58 sharpie DocTee metsmarathon metsguyinmichigan attgig Incorrect: Nymr83 (had him going to the Mets)

Nats are interesting. Bowden has made it clear that he thinks big-name free agents should be the last piece of the puzzle, but he's already met with reps for three big-ticket centerfielders --- Hunter, Rowand, and Jones. They don't need a big stud to have a good attendance year, as they have a new park, but they may need a centerpiece for their maketing going beyond this year.

I also want to point out the prediction by Johnny --- ever a sucker for a magic quote --- of Omar's rampaging spending spree. 6. Luis Castillo (NYM) 2B -- Mets 7. Ramon Castro (NYM) C -- Mets 15. Eric Gagne (BOS) RP -- Mets 16. Freddy Garcia (PHI) SP -- Mets 21. Jason Jennings (HOU) SP -- Mets 33. Alex Rodriguez (NYY) 3B -- Mets 35. Carlos Silva (MIN) SP -- Mets Mets to go nuts. You read it here first.

I like that last one on Dickshot's list. Todd Van Poppel went from off-injured talented young starter to effective middle-aged reliever for the Cubs, to failed free-agent for the Rangers. Why shouldn't Kerry Wood follow the same career track?

1. Armando Benitez (FLA) RP Toronto 2. Kris Benson (BAL) SP St. Louis 3. Barry Bonds (SFG) LF Chicago White Sox 4. Milton Bradley (SDP) LF Texas 5. Mike Cameron (SDP) CF Boston 6. Luis Castillo (NYM) 2B New York Mets 7. Ramon Castro (NYM) C Chicago Cubs 8. Roger Clemens (NYY) SP Retires 9. Bartolo Colon (LAA) SP Cincinnati 10. Francisco Cordero (MIL) RP St. Louis 11. David Eckstein (STL) SS St. louis 12. Pedro Feliz (SFG) 3B A-Rod's replacement in the Bronx 13. Cliff Floyd (CHC) RF Florida 14. Josh Fogg (COL) SP New York Mets 15. Eric Gagne (BOS) RP New York Yankees 16. Freddy Garcia (PHI) SP Baltimore 17. Tom Glavine (NYM) SP Atlanta 18. Livan Hernandez (ARI) SP Mets 19. Torii Hunter (MIN) CF Arizona 20. Geoff Jenkins (MIL) LF Houston 21. Jason Jennings (HOU) SP Milwaukee 22. Andruw Jones (ATL) CF Los Angeles written all over him. 23. Paul Lo Duca (NYM C Washington 24. Kenny Lofton (CLE) CF Atlanta 25. Kyle Lohse (PHI) SP Chicago Cubs 26. Kazuo Matsui (COL) 2B Colorado 27. Andy Pettitte (NYY) SP Philadelphia 28. Odaliz Perez (KCR) SP Seattle 29. Mike Piazza (OAK) DH Seattle also 30. Jorge Posada (NYY) C New York Yankees 31. Mariano Rivera (NYY) RP Yankees, fuhgeddaboutit 32. JC Romero (PHI) RP Mets 33. Alex Rodriguez (NYY) 3B Cubland 34. Aaron Rowand (PHI) CF Philadelphia 35. Carlos Silva (MIN) SP Royals 36. Sammy Sosa (TEX) DH Royals 37. Yorvit Torrealba (COL) C Mets 38. Steve Trachsel (BAL) SP Pads 39. Luis Vizcaino (NYY) RP Hiroshima Carp 40. Kerry Wood (CHC) RP Dodgers

Not good. Really ambitious, and I wanted to like it, but a plot that is retrofitted onto songs that aren't contextually connected, at least in a literal sense, just challenges my credulity. Nice performance by the guy who played Jude. Makeup and costume did what they could to make him look like a young Paul McCartney, but he seemed to get more Lennon songs to sing, and his dichotomous Lennon --- the annoying smartass Maxwell --- got more Paul material. Psychedelic film-making just bores me, and it gives them an out for not constucting a coherent plot. I actually thought Bono was fine --- agree on Izzard --- but going from one acid guru to another is just an excuse to get another psychedelic song in there, while they neither took the effort portray these guys as visionaries or exploiters on the same level that the anti-war radical leaders or the record company execs were. They really challenged themselves musically, expanding on the songs' arrangements, changing the tempos (and therefore moods for some) but mostly leaving the vocal readings the same, in that they have the actors respect old Beatle improvosational vocal flourishes as sacrosanct parts of the composition. ("Hey Jude" includes the actor screaming, "Ju Jude and Judey Judey Judey Judey! Ow! Wow") They also tried hard to never change or drop lyrics to suit the plot --- Izzard's scene, again, is an exception --- or even change gender pronouns. "With a Little Help from My Friends" morphs about 60% of the way through from a variant on the 2/4 Beatles arrangement to a version of the 3/4 Joe Cocker reading. Cocker himself appears and sings the hell out of "Come Together." All the beautiful design work and technical execution is something that they should be proud of, but it all meant nothing to me (in fact, the color intensity had both Mr. and Ms. Edgy leaving with headaches) because it was in the service of a plot that felt insincere and incoherent. After all the exposition is seemingly in place, we get a non-sequiter flash out of nowhere to the Detroit riots, where a little boy is taking cover and singing a beautiful version of "Let It Be." Who is this boy that's breaking our heart? Turns out the scene is just to introduce an Ike Turner/Jimi Hendrix-cross character whose relationship to the boy is never made clear, who joins the other characters and never mentions the boy or the riot that launched him into the plot. Prick. Not him, the writer. I went to see it because of Roger Ebert's rave (his favorite movie is A Hard Day's Night), but have read mostly negative online reviews since then. One review wondered at the material and the budget and quoted William Hurt's line in A History of Violence: "How do you fuck that up?" Then I realized it was previously fucked up over a generation ago with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. At day's end, we just have here an artier and less linear version of Forrest Gump a manipulative and mythmaking arc through a tumultuous time in US cultural history, that impossibly manages to brush all the touchstone moments of the era, while getting you over the speedbumps with an expensive licensed catalog of music, worth every penny to the director because it's all been fieldtested to produce the exact effect in the audience she wants. Ugh. I don't mind the revisiting of the catalog --- some fine readings there --- but just do it as a review next time; don't insult me and suggest you've got something to say through these songs about the meaning of the Vietnam War and the generation that fought it.

Great work, guys. You broke the new poster.

Vic Sage wrote: ending is ending. climax is climax. 2 different things. Of course, though sometimes it's the same. Payoff, curtain. North By Northwest, for instance, includes the climax and the brief cut afterwards to the train. But I understand the rule here, even if NxNW kind of breaks it..

Does a climactic point count as an ending if there's a brief denoument after it? Is the end of Star Wars, for the purpose of this exercise, Luke and Han riding off yee-hah like the Duke boys, or is it everybody giggling at R2 in the awards ceremony?

Kingdom of the Spiders.

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Bogie made the list, Heston didn't. Then I ain't clicking. God damn that list to Hell.

How much should we care about likenesses to the seriies actors?

It was Wide BeeGee who pants me for treating league averageness as an entitlement, and anybody below average as actually counter productive and worth less than a guy who slugged .650 in a handful of at-bats. i was ranking Rey Ordoñez; 27th or something, behind Rich Becker. Wrongly. I forget who you were pantsing in aught-two, but yeah, that's Norrin.

Nymr83 wrote: why the obssession with replacement level? I'm not obsessed with anything. Nymr83 wrote: if everyone was replacement level we'd win 50 games. Fewer, but how is that relevant? We're not talking about replacement level player. We're talking about a guy who produced below league average but above replacement level. How many games would we win if everyone got 157 plate appearances and left the rest of the appearances to guys picked up off the waiver wire? Nymr83 wrote: you should be comparing guys to the average player to determine whether they are helping or hurting No I shouldn't. Nymr83 wrote: i'm trying to make the point that below-average production over a larger number of chances is hurtful not helpful. Hurtful relative to what? It's a key question. If somebody is struggling along at eighty-ninety percent of the league average, do you think most teams have a guy on the bench at every position who will produce at league average to replace him. It doesn't work that way. The Mets had a better hitter this year backing up Lo Duca, but he didn't get the playing time to claim he outproduced him. Several men, a robot and a couple of databases have averred this as being clearly the case. I once was slow figuring this out (It's probably in the archives), but a guy producing below league average is not a negative --- not positive enough to build a championship around, but not a below zero contributor either. League average isn't your zero point. The logical extension of your reasoning is that (1) Pedro Martinez is the top performing Met pitcher, whle you know he isn't, and (2) I was more productive than Paul LoDuca this year by sitting home and doing nothing.

Nymr83 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Player A goes .400/.500/.600 in 100 ABs Player B goes .250/.300/.325 in 600 ABs and they're both DH's because i don't want to hear about defense (yet) who is higher on your list? The second one, and isn't that close. There's only so much you can help your team if you don't play. Sorry to the secret slugger. The second guy gave his team about 40% more. so a guy who is actually a negative at the plate is more helpful than a guy who was positive in a small sample size? i guess you're a big fan of "chuckers" in the NBA who score lots of points by ball hogging and you hate those guys who quietly go 6 for 10 for 12 points. Can we just stop posting about the NBA? I honestly don't know what you're talking about. A guy with a .625 OPS is not a negative contributor. He's not helping his team win too many games, but he's producing above replacement level.

Nymr83 wrote: Player A goes .400/.500/.600 in 100 ABs Player B goes .250/.300/.325 in 600 ABs and they're both DH's because i don't want to hear about defense (yet) who is higher on your list? The second one, and isn't that close. There's only so much you can help your team if you don't play. Sorry to the secret slugger. The second guy gave his team about 40% more. Feel free to draft Player A in your simulated league and play him more. i'm just trying to see if you think playing time = contribution because it sure seems that way. No it doesn't. But you sure like framing things in black and white.

Nymr83 wrote: but contributing more wins in fewer at-bats makes you BETTER. No need to capitalize it for me. I can read. We're not measuring who is or was better. We're measuring who contributed the most. Nymr83 wrote: contributing more defensive wins in far more playing time doesnt make you better. No, it makes you a larger contributor to the effort. dividing the win shares by playing time might give a better idea of who was contributing more, So, Pedro Martinez is at the top of your pitching list? Playing time is already factored in to win shares, and you're dividing it out.

Nymr83 wrote: they (the catchers) were all pretty bad defensively No, they weren't. Nor should this statement lead logically to the implicit, "therefore they were a wash as far as their defensive contributions." They weren't. Castro made a significant offensive contribution. In far fewer at-bats, which gives him about an equal score offensively (checking win shares here, and they say exactly the same) while LoDuca's defensive win shares is a much larger number. I think you're using this thread to hammer home your position on who should have been playing.

And the score at catcher was Lo Duca 3.4 Castro 1.2 DiFelice 0.2 Alomar Jr. 0.2 so, using your logic, you can do the same with "they were all pretty bad defensively, but he was bad offensively too and he did it over more innings (hurting them more.)"

Nymr83 wrote: they were all pretty bad defensively, but he was bad offensively too and he did it over more innings (hurting them more.) That's absurd. 1) It's almost impossible to be on the extreme right side of the defensive spectrum and be a net negative defensively. Just by being there and allowing better hitters to play other positions you're a positive. 2) By what standard are you claiming he (and everyone else the Mets ran out there) performed defensively beneath a replacement level catcher, let alone a general replacement level player? That's just a shocking disaster to consider and I'd imagine we wouldn't have all missed it. i'd really like to argue more about 2B though... Of course you would.

Nymr83 wrote: 2. why the LoDuca-love? he had an 85 OPS+ and is not a good defensive catcher By what measure is he bad? CatcherGGSIPTCPOAEDPFP%RFZRPBSBCSCS%CERAPaul Lo Duca113112974.079775434950.9897.280.8892722223.40%4.12