RealityChuck

It's risky. If a movie flops, it can cause a chain reaction of flops. Also, there's the risk that the entire superhero genre becomes oversaturated. It's not risky at all. They're not making the films simultaneously; its a planned schedule. Just because they announced those films doesn't mean they have to make them. If the genre starts to tank, they can just stop. .But if a film tanks, it's gonna tank big, and that's going to effect anything that is in production. Remember, these take years to make; if film A tanks, films B and C are in production. Do you keep on track? Do you call it a loss and stop? The latter seems very unlikely: Marvel depends on these films to make profits. No one will be thinking sunk costs. So they continue with B and C, hoping the A was a fluke. If B flops, then do you complete C and continue on D? Maybe C will be a blockbuster . . . If the genre has run its course, then billions could be lost. It already growing very tired from a storytelling point of view. There hasn't been an original superhero film since . . . Burton's Batman, maybe. Maybe even Superman vs. the Mole Men. It's always the same story: eeeeeevillll villain shows up and goes head to head with the hero(s) in hours of fight scenes (which always bore me). The genre is an artistic dead end, and eventually, Marvel is going to hit the brick wall at the end of it. The only question is whether they can hit the brakes before they crash into it.

It's risky. If a movie flops, it can cause a chain reaction of flops. Also, there's the risk that the entire superhero genre becomes oversaturated.

Ca$h.

Dull and cliched. I am sorely tired of superhero films, but watched this because my wife still likes them. This did nothing to change my opinion. Also, I've come to the conclusion is that Marvel villains are fundamentally stupid and the heroes aren't much better.

DeGrom Duda Lagares Murphy Familia Wheeler Mejia Granderson D'Arnaud Wright Colon Niese Black Gee Flores Torres Recker Carlyle den Dekker Campbell Tejada Nieuwenhuis E. Young Matsuzaka Edgin Everland Herrera Abreu C. Young Montero

Craig Swan

Just got a chance to see it this weekend. This is one of Disney's best, partly because they way it subverted Disney tropes. It one of the few where the main antagonist wasn't a villain, and where the "true love's kiss" didn't resolve everything. The ending was very emotionally powerful, especially since it showed that the Disney ideal of true love didn't matter.

Franco

Keith Olbermann chimes in [youtube:1xkiup1g]__UJ9VZB508#t=129[/youtube:1xkiup1g]

He can't spell "Niewenhus" and doesn't want it to show it on the lineup card.

I first saw him when he was on Laugh-In. Not the Rowan and Martin version, but the reboot in the late 70s. What I remember best was that in his official bio, he claimed to be a Scottish lord with his own castle. Here's a clip. Williams shows up at about 1:40. dtIx3RguLaw

The problem with Williams is separating him from his films. I don't think he had a fully satisfying starring role in a first-class movie (other than The Fisher King and Aladdin). Of those I've seen, his starring vehicles were usually flawed in one way or another (sometimes terribly so); the first-class movies he was in all had him in a supporting role, and he was a far better supporting actor -- where he could be controlled -- than a lead.

The Fisher King Aladdin Good Will Hunting Moscow on the Hudson Good Morning Vietnam Popeye Baron Munchausen Dead Again Hook Williams had his misfires (including some of his best-known films, though the fault was usually due to the scripts, not Williams) and could go too deeply into pathos, but when given the right role and a good director, he was wonderful.

Nymr83 wrote: RealityChuck wrote: You keep Niese simply because he's the only left handed starter on the roster. I don't think thats a wise strategy. So what if he's the only lefty starter? it might matter with hitters because you can platoon guys, alternate the order to protect against "specialists" who only pitcher well against lefties or righties etc. but it doesnt really matter for pitching UNLESS you were to take the extreme steps of frequently shuffling the rotation to move around Lefties and Righties to face opposing teams that are markedly better against lefties or righties. Since you're actually NOT going to do that and will just keep throwing everyone out there every fifth day, keeping a starter on the roster because of his handedness is meaningless.With all other factors equal, you want to have a lefty starting somewhere. Platooning is still rare (rosters are short of position players and salaries are such that you can't afford to platoon some positions (and you certainly cannot platoon all positions). It also keeps teams off balance to have a mix of styles among your starters. If a team has been facing two right handers in the first two games of a series, a left hander is going to require adjustments.

Saw it this weekend. I think that Anderson just gets better and better. This may have been his best (though Moonrise Kingdom was also great). His earlier films consisted of quirky moments, but never really combined into a whole movie; these last two did.

You keep Niese simply because he's the only left handed starter on the roster.

Richard Hildago Not 20th century, but who remembers Cal Koonce?

I wonder how many Mets have had ten years on the team. Offhand, I can think of Kranepool, Seaver, Koosman, Harrelson, Grote, Cleon, Gooden, John Franco, and Lee Mazzilli (in two tours of duty)

seawolf17 wrote: Intentional Walks Leaders Rank Player Pos Team At Bats Intentional Walks 1 David Ortiz DH BOS 337 16 2 Giancarlo Stanton RF MIA 353 15 3 Victor Martinez DH DET 302 13 4 Prince Fielder 1B TEX 150 11 5 Ruben Tejada SS NYM 245 9 6 Jose Abreu 1B CWS 322 9 7 Robinson Cano 2B SEA 353 9 8 Paul Goldschmidt 1B ARI 357 8 9 Evan Longoria 3B TB 373 8 10 Chris Davis 1B BAL 281 7 11 Anthony Rizzo 1B CHC 345 7 12 Ryan Howard 1B PHI 354 7 13 Nelson Cruz LF BAL 356 7 14 Albert Pujols 1B LAA 373 7 one of these things is not like the others... Mets pitchers as hitters: .087 / .127 / .110 // .237. Spot the connection.

http://metsblog.com/metsblog/murphy-not-wright-to-represent-mets-in-asg/ Murphy � not Wright � to represent Mets in ASG July 6th, 2014 7:52 pm Daniel Murphy will be the only player representing the Mets during next week�s MLB All-Star Game in Minnesota. This is Murphy�s first All Star Game appearance. David Wright finished roughly 300,000 votes behind starting 3B Aramis Ramirez. It is only the second time in his nine-year career that Wright will not taking part in the All-Star Game. Murphy finished fourth in voting for the starting second baseman, which went to Chase Utley. Edgardo Alfonzo was the last second baseman from the Mets to make an All-Star Game.

Some reporter said that Cashin had a chart that showed his plans for who would be playing what position for the next five years. Harder to do these days, where you don't know what free agency will do, but he always had someone coming up from the minors ready to replace anyone who left.

I guess Jim Duquette was right, after all: Kazmir was never going to be able to pitch in Queens.

Back in the day, I can't remember seeing a ground rule-double in MLB. Now, I feel like I'm seeing at least one a month. Has the number of them increased? Does anyone keep track of this?

Vic Sage wrote: After all, the vessel with the pestle has the pellet with the poison...No. As Angela Lansbury pointed out, "The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon; the vessel with the pestle holds the brew that is true."

It's the old "trade for prospects" merry-go-round. If you believe the adherents, the way to build a great team is. 1. Trade your best players for prospects. 2. Be lousy until the prospects (only a handful of which pan out) make the majors. 3. When one does pan out and the team isn't winning, go to step one.