Vic Sage

Centerfield wrote: Come to the game and maybe you'll see Pridie's girlfriend! that would do it for me...

WE'RE ****BUNTERS!

yeah, LaRoche is a 2nd-half hitter, and Francisco will lose time when Dominic comes up. bad deal.

I must of missed something about Stardust. We made it a half hour into it and bailed. It felt corn-fried and Disneyfied, as obvious as the day is long and not enchanting at all. i loved the graphic novel it was based on, and i have a raging hard-on for Claire Danes. So all bets are off.

Conan is sort of set in a Scandanavian-like place just outside the fringes of Rome-like receding empire, but I guess doesn't quite qualify. Conan takes place during Robert E. Howard's "Hyborian age", approximately 14,000 BC to 10,000 BC, whereas the Viking age was roughly 8th century to 11th century. So that's about 11,000 years earlier than Vikings. Also, as a Cimmerian, Conan's descendants were Gaelic/Celt, not Scandanavian. Conan is only similar to a Viking in that both have come to be seen as products of the "noble savage" tradition of 19th-century style of Romanticism that Howard was steeped in. Necessary conditions for a Viking movie * Horned helmets * Round shields * Long boats with square sails and optional dragon's heads on them. necessary elements for viking movie -- It must relate in some way to the 8th-11th century Scandanavian seafaring warrior culture of the "Viking Age", or to the subsequently romanticized depictions of same, including but not limited to: - long ships; - paganism; - conquest and/or exploration; - horned helmets and battle axes; - scandanavian geography and climate - at least a little pillaging; - and drinking beer out of a skull would be ok too

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: BEOWULF (2007) - Robert Zemeckis used his "motion capture" technique for this animated version of Neil Gaiman's excellent adaptation of the Scandinavian myth. Gaiman makes the story work better (and more coherently) than it ever has before, but as usual the motion capture animation is life-deadening and annoying. Still, pretty good overall. I think Hollywood's still looking for the medium that will fully realize the potential of a Gaiman script. Coraline was close. i didn't like CORALINE, either as a book or a movie. but i loved STARDUST. And the low-budget BBC miniseries of NEVERWHERE is highly recommended to afficianados.

i feel your pain.

In honor of the upcoming THOR, i offer this selected filmography of the often overlooked Viking movie subgenre. PRINCE VALIANT (1954) - First big Hollywood hit Viking movie, this comicstrip adaptation features young Robert Wagner as the viking prince with the bad haircut in the court of King Arthur. Played straight, despite its ludicrous script. SAGA OF THE VIKING WOMEN and the SEA SERPENT (1957) - typical low-budget Roger Corman exploitation flick. THE VIKINGS (1958) - Richard Fleisher directed this rousing epic adventure, with Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas as viking brothers and Ernest Borgnine their dad, a viking chief. Dated sure, but tons of fun. And that haunting theme music, with the french horns in the distance sounding like viking horns, has stayed with me since i saw it as a kid on the 4:30 movie. Around this time, the Italian film industry picked up the Viking movie and ran with it (as it also was doing with westerns and sword-and-sandal epics, and later horror films) often with Cameron Mitchell in the lead, including LAST OF THE VIKINGS (61), THE INVADERS (61) (a visual feast directed by Italian horror auteur Mario Bava), THE TARTARS (61) (with Orson Welles!), ATTACK OF THE NORMANS (62), and VIKING MASSACRE (65) (a lesser Bava entry). LONG SHIPS (1964) - This lush UK co-production featured viking Richard Widmark and Moorish prince Sidney Poitier (as the villain!), in a light-hearted adventure romp, akin to THE CRIMSON PIRATE'S tongue-in-cheek take on pirate movies. ISLAND AT THE TOP OF THE WORLD - Lame Disney fantasy; Victorian-era Brit explorers find a lost colony of Vikings "at the top of the world'. THE NORSEMAN (1978) - Just as sword-and-sorcery B movies would soon start spewing out of Hollywood's underbelly, first did this viking "epic" with Lee Majors, about Vikings in America. A disaster. ERIK THE VIKING (1989) - Monty Python's Terry Jones directed this Pythonesque spoof with Tim Robbins as a reluctant viking who didn't care too much for raping and pillaging. Not as funny as it should have been. 13th WARRIOR (1999) - Antonio Banderas as a Spanish courtier stuck inside the Beowulf saga; an overlooked gem. PATHFINDER (2007) - this Viking / Native American story should have been good, but it was a disaster. The slap-dash editing suggests last-minute surgery that tried to save it, or may have ruined it, but i don't think there's been a "director's cut" so we'll never know. BEOWULF (2007) - Robert Zemeckis used his "motion capture" technique for this animated version of Neil Gaiman's excellent adaptation of the Scandinavian myth. Gaiman makes the story work better (and more coherently) than it ever has before, but as usual the motion capture animation is life-deadening and annoying. Still, pretty good overall. OUTLANDER (2008) - Jim Caveizal as an alien soldier who crashlands amongst 8th century vikings; they team up to battle an alien monster. The best B movie you never saw. VALHALLA RISING (2009) - gritty low-budget Danish indie; reviews indicate it has some merit. HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (2010) - charming animated feature about a young viking who befriends a dragon. Sweet fun.

i saw it ages ago on tv, and remember really liking it, but i'd need to see it again to rate it.

between his bullpen use and willingness to give up outs, i'm beginning to really dislike Ye Olde ****bunter.

"We have to stop telling ourselves we are a better team than this � we might not be." I hope Ceetar didn't hear that. It'll drain the rose from his glasses.

****bunter strikes again... makes me long for wee willie small balls.

I would like to hear from the last-year-was-a-mirage crowd. i won't bother with writing new words on the subject, but here's what i said in the "all optimism" thread before the season started: Yes, lets pretend he's an established full-time player, instead of being a part-time player for 4 years and a full timer for 1, with a 100+ point career differential in OPS vs LHPers and 2800+ minor league PAs with an OPS just barely over .700. Because otherwise it would interfere with the rose tinting of your glasses.

prefer STATION AGENT'S sense of melancholy, but this is a darn good little movie.

Ceetar wrote: The Mets are merely a 7-2 stretch from getting back to .500, starting tonight with everyone's favorite starter, D.J. Carrasco! My mini goal here would be to get back above .500 by the time they face the Phillies at the end of the month. They'd need to go 9-3 for that. i admire your optimism. no, really, i do. you're like Scarlett Ohara, sitting alone at Tara, saying "well, tomorrow is another day". Yes, indeed it is.

soupcan wrote: I really have no faith in this team turning anything around anytime soon. I've almost resigned myself to the fact these Mets are the new (old) Knicks and that as fans we're going to have to deal with bad to mediocre play until and unless this financial mess gets sorted out. I'm thinking that's at least 3 years down the road. I. Am. Really. Bummed. That being said I think they've got a better chance of Bay contibuting what we want him to rather than Pagan doing anything close to what he did last year. Soupy, i'm not disappointed in the least. The Mets are playing pretty much as badly as i expected. My faith resides in Alderson doing a stealth rebuild under the pretense of competing. Deal bad contracts, see which kids can play, get some new kids, make sure KRod's option doesn't vest... if he does all that, i'll consider it a successful year. My concern is that when pendulum swings back this season (as pendulums tend to do) and the Mets play well for a few weeks, Sandy is convinced by ownership to "stay the course" or "go for it" (albeit less likely this year, due to financial constraints), and we don't rebuild to the extent necessary. But i don't think that's likely. I think the more likely obstacle is Terry ****bunter Collins, not going along with the gameplan, letting FRod finish losing games ("cuz he needs work".... no Terry, what he needs is to get fucking lost), and playing no-upside guys like Hairston and Harris in LF instead of a steady diet of Dudas, Martinezes, etc., because he wants to "win now", as if those guys actually give us a better shot of winning now OR later. And Izzy? Really? over Acosta, or any number of young arms in AA and AAA itching for a chance? Why cuz he might help us get to .500 this year? BIG FUCKING DEAL. This year will have its ups and downs but will, inevitably be a Bataan death march to utter irrelevance by mid-season. Were that it not so, but alas, the writing was on the wall to any who chose to look thru any but the rosiest of spectacles. So I'll make the most of a lost season by rooting for Alderson to succeed in remaking the team over Collins' interference and Wilpon's restraints.

bmfc1 wrote: The good news is that F. Rodriguez won't finish 55 games this way. wanna bet?

Pelf has a 3.925 contract in his 3rd year. this year is weaver's 4th year, and got himself a 7.37 mil contract. it would be realistic to pelfrey to target a similar number. yeah, except like Weaver is all good and shit. just lead the AL in Ks, with a career ERA under 3.5. Pelfrey's ERA is almost a full run higher, even with Weaver in the DH league. They're not even comparable in service, with Weaver having already pitched nearly 50% more innings to date. If he gets Weaver-type money in arbitration, the Mets screwed up big time. which, of course, is entirely possible.

Is it my imagination, or does this suddenly look like shit? yes, it's your imagination. I just watched that trailer and got goosey bumps all over my body!

damned IS people at work have blocked fantasy baseball damn them to hell!

we had a thread at one time about movies shot in or about NYC... if you're hard up enough for such views to sit thru BRAVERMAN, there are probably some better alternatives to consider. as for ANDERSON TAPES, RealityUpChuck's endorsement of it leaves me second-guessing myself. I haven't seen it in over 20 years (at least) so it may not be as good as i remember, but it probably is. Let me know if you think it's any good. I always have enjoyed a good caper film.

metirish wrote: I look at my team and yeah it has some holes that need filling but damn if there is anybody out there to pick up.Do I spend an hour a night pouring over charts?, no I don't but I make sure my pitching is set and my players....some of these guys available have like five at bats. What would you do with my team? its the problem with a 13-team/NL-only/4-OFer league. if you have an injury, or get unlucky, or make a mistake in the draft, you are stuck playing part-time guys... or guys who hardly play at all! I agree. i don't like that either. If a team has an injury, they bring in somebody to fill the slot... they don't just abandon the position! While i understand wanting to tighten things up a little (how competitive can a league be if there are all-stars on the waiver wire?), this league goes too far. Perhaps a trade?

Any interest in something like that? totally. with a LIVE in-person rotisserie-style auction.

well, half-smart is half-stupid. and half-assed is a guy who ends up sliding into the toilet. or something. never mind. nothing to see here. move along.

whattsamatta, Irish? why no fun?