Vic Sage

Caveman movies do not have an estimable track record of critical or commercial success. Lets take a look, shall we? Portraying the "stone age" was popular in the silent era, including Buster Keaton ("Three Ages") and D.W. Griffith ("Bruteforce"), and later, Laurel & Hardy ("Flying Elephants"). ONE MILLION B.C. (1940) was produced and directed by Silent comedy king Hal Roach, but it was not a comedy ... at least not intentionally. Although more of a "B movie" (or a "BC" movie, actually), it was the first big studio cave man hit. With Lon Chaney challenged for the leadership of the tribe by young hunk Victor Mature, and the stunning Carole Landis as the cavegirl-next-door. In glorious Black & White, the cheezy effects were nominated for an Oscar! Before the technicolor remake with Raquel Welch 26 years later, there were a few other crappy little caveman movies: Return of the Ape Man (44) Prehistoric Women (50) World Without End (56) Teenage Caveman (58) Monster on the Campus (58) Dinosaurus! (60) Valley of the Dragons (61) Eegah! (62) Some, like PREHISTORIC WOMEN and TEENAGE CAVEMAN (with young Robert Vaughn), used the structure of 1 MIILION B.C., with prehistoric cave folk in their native habitat (absurdly depicted as it was). Other movies brought cavemen into the modern world (EEGAH, RETURN OF THE APE MAN, DINOSAURUS!), and some others put modern men into a prehistoric environment (VALLEY OF THE DRAGONS, WORLD WITHOUT END). These 3 basic storytelling tropes evolved into the entirety of the sub-genre. Then Raquel came along in Hammer Film's remake of 1 MILLION B.C. (1966) and sealed the deal, with her fur bikini-full of technicolor widescreen pulchritude. Ray Harryhausen great SFX dinosaurs made it memorable, too. The next year (1968) featured Charlton Heston amongst the primitive tribesmen of Earth's future, instead of its past, in PLANET OF THE APES; and then Stanley Kubrick took the caveman to its high water mark, in the 1st section of the historic 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. After that, some caveman movies took their cue from Ms. Welch's sexually charged cavewoman. From 1970-72, there were a trilogy of Italian sexploitation movies ("when women had tails""when women lost their tails", "when women played ding dong"... i shit you not). There was also the "modern man/prehistoric world" pics, like THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT (75) and its sequel, THE PEOPLE THAT TIME FORGOT (77), based on E.R. Burroughs books. The 1980s had satires, like Ringo Starr's CAVEMAN (81) and the sex comedy CAVEGIRL (85). CLAN OF THE CAVE BEAR (86) wasn't supposed to be funny, but sure was. The decade's "cave man in his own world" movies also ncluded Jean-Jacque Annaud's QUEST FOR FIRE (82), which attempted seriousness and featured the discovery of the missionary position, amongst other prehistoric inventions. The italian exploitation film CONQUEROR OF THE WORLD (83) took the violence to repulsive levels, but the docu-drama style of MISSING LINK (88) gave the genre more credibility. In the "cave man in the modern world" line, ICEMAN (84) was a serious attempt to capture the sense of isolation inherent in this type of story. The regression of William Hurt into a primitive state in ALTERED STATES (80) was fun, but took itself way too seriously. This storyline is picked up with purely comic intent in the 90s with Brendan Fraser's ENCINO MAN. Soon after, THE FLINTSTONES (94) live-action comedy (and its sequel, VIVA ROCK VEGAS, in 2000), brings over-the-top cartoonishness to the forefront to bury the genre for good. And now, popmeister Emmerich has made a mishmash of the genre for a new generation, with cutting edge CGI SFX in "10,000 B.C." I hear it does suck hard, though. So i guess it won't recusitate this genre, one as old as the movie industry itself.

starters? Pagan is the only 1 of those guys that will even make the 25-man roster, and even with him its mostly due to injury.

bmfc1 wrote: What a lineup! ESPN must be thrilled! LF Ezequiel Carrera; SS Anderson Hernandez; CF Angel Pagan; DH Olmedo Saenz; C Raul Casanova; RF Fernando Martinez; 1B Robinson Cancel; 3B Dan Murphy; 2B Argenis Reyes. what team is that.. the Indians?

he has a chauffeur

so alou is out, and even when he comes back he'll likely find his way back to the DL at some point. And Beltrans knees are still bothering him. And Church has bats in his belfrey after that concussion. he's also never played an entire season, I don't think. Thats our OF. and the right side of our infield is the same. We're going to end up playing Pagan, Chavez (if he's healthy!), and Marlon freakin Anderson as our starting OF, in games that matter. Brady Clark is even looking good at this point, for the bench! Nobody else is concerned by this?

what about good ole A.Y.? anthony young set a record for consecutive losses, or something, right?

i think i'm in. have to clear it with mrs. sage.

if by "core" you mean Wright, Reyes and Maine, then you're correct. However, I don't think that's a big enough group to consider a "core". Perez is a FA to be, and everybody else is around 30 or more (give or take a decade or so). so what they've got now is not so much a "core" but moreo of a "co__"

i'm good either day. The draft on 3/16 isn't till 5:45pm and i could make it home by then.

So they should eat salary to dump guys with roles (albeit limited ones) on this year's squad, in order to bring pact prospects so we can make roster room for ... who... steve register? really? My point is that i don't think there is anybody in ST (or in the FA pool) that we should move Scot for, just to free up a roster spot. So, Omar likes Register. That's fine. Can he get lefties out? Scot can. Can he be a spot starter or long man? Sosa can. Lets be a little careful about suggesting we eat contracts to give away guys who have roles on the team, unless we're pretty sure we're upgrading this year's team in the process. Because the Mets (average age 31.3) are in full blown "win now" mode, and making moves to open spots for inexperienced guys and getting prospects back for veterans, doesn't sound like a great idea to me at this point in time. what's more likely is, having gone on a huge spending spree, Minaya is being asked to nibble down the payroll a bit. And getting rid of those marginal guys making more than the mininim (like sosa and schoenweis) is the way for him to to do that. And it opens up roster spots, too, if all he gets back are prospects, which allows him to keep Register on board, if that's what he wants to do.

this makes me want to do an Alan Parker filmography. A really interesting filmmaker... even when he sucks.

With 2/3 of the projected 25-man roster at age 31 or more (at some point this season), injuries are likely to plague us and it's not about "luck". It's about the icky, sticky residue of Omar's design. Sure, if most everything breaks right, we have the talent to win the WS. But how often does everything break right? I think the only players we shouldn't necessarily be concerned about (health wise) are hitters Wright, Reyes and Church (despite having his bell rung) and pitchers Santana, Perez and Maine. Everybody else has question marks ranging from "slight concern?" to "have the paramedics on speed-dial?" We're likely to have serious ongoing health issues this year with Delgado, Castillo, Alou, Easley, and El Duque, and possibly with Castro, Schnieider, Beltran, Chavez and Pedro, too. And practically the entire bullpen is over 30, with many having recent injury issues. This has nothing to do with it being "early", or "this is the same stuff every team has to worry about", because not every team has an average age over 31.

]I guess the question in my mind becomes, do you really want Schoenewies facing the Howard, Utley, Fielder, et al in crucial situations on a regular basis? yes on Howard and Fielder, who have big differentials when facing LHPs, and no on Utley who is an equal opportunity basher. And if bringing in Scotty forces the other manager to PH for a potent LH bat, then we go to Sanchez, Heilman, Sosa, Smith, etc., and its still a good matchup for us. Look, Scot had a bad year but he's an ok pitcher if you use him correctly (and if he's healthy, of course). Yes, he's overpaid, but that's not the issue. If they move him, it'll be for contract reasons, not baseball reasons, so its unlikely they'll get back anything of value if they're trying to move a bad contract. We'd still have Feliciano as a LHed specialist in the pen, so it wouldn't necessarily hurt us to lose Scot, but lets not pretend his coming or going is of much consequence beyond saving Freddie's $$

somebody should let KC know that marlon anderson has engaged in some Church-bashing. Perhaps he can respond to this dire situation in the Shawn Green thread.

Frayed Knot wrote: Never saw the original ... but I hope it asks me to buy fewer ridiculous situations and decisions by the characters than the end of this version did. fewer, yes. but still some. Yet certainly worth watching.

sharpie wrote: Good movie but holes in it. Biggest one: why did he get out of the car? while Monsieur Lunchbucket may be right, I don't think he got out for any specific reason related to the safety of the car or his situation. As i recall my feelings watching that moment, he saw the horses and was drawn to them for metaphysical, spiritual, thematic reasons. He felt so degraded and exhausted with his life at that moment, he needed to touch those horses... to feel something pure, beautiful, real, natural. And that impulse toward the pure ends up saving his life. It's as touching, quiet and haunting a scene of redemption as i've seen in recent years.

what horse would that be... Pegasus?

as long as the coaching efforts are really about getting Reyes to focus on his approach (being patient and putting a consistent swing on hittable pitches) rather than screwing with his swing (hit it on the ground and runnnnn, Forrest!), I don't have an issue with it. But its a fine line before all this "coaching" becomes 1 more voice in his head that keeps him from playing with the energy and cahnnnfidence he needs. And i disagree with any notion of turning him into a punch-&-Judy hitter. He's got gap power and, with his lean, sinewy frame still developing, i can see him hitting 20+HRs/40+doubles/15+triples a year. You don't have to steal third if you're already standing on it.

]Another FA first baseman that may available for 2009 is Adam Dunn. I sincerely hope the Mets don't entertain any thoughts of acquiring him. yes, heaven forfend that we acquire a 27-year old slugger with a career OPS of .900 [OB% = .380 (!) + SLG% = .520] and an OPS+ of 130 [2007 = 136]. Your observation is typical of people who still think "Batting AVG" is a stat with a meaningful correlation to run production, or that strikeouts are anything other than an out. such thinking would almost be quaint if it weren't so annoying.

you fellas ought to get a room...

i'm not saying that there aren't tons of implausibilities in every film. In fact, I'm saying that there ARE. So, when people focus on implausibilities as the basis for why they don't like a particular movie, it seems to me they're not making an accurate analysis. It's not necessarily because the film is implausible that they don't like it, its because they don't like it that they are focusing on the implausibilities. pointing out implausibilities is called "nitpicking" when its about a film you like, and it's called "this story has holes so big you can drive a truck through them" when its one you don't. (note to self: remember to find a word equivalently short and pithy as "nitpicking" for this opposite situation.)

not possible in the least. it's just that i had little to add to the general consensus here that FF4#2: - is better than the first one, - offers a great rendition of the silver surfer, and - absolutely blows the portrayal of Galactus (much as FF1 blew Dr. Doom) The FF movies are more of a kiddie film franchise than any of the other major comicbook movie franchises, but i find them enjoyable nonetheless. The Thing and the Torch are great characters, Sue is just awful, and Reed not as interesting as he could be. The effects are ok, nothing special, and the scripts are the same. all in all, i've seen worse, but they're nothing to blog about.

with regard to EASTERN PROMISES, i liked it very much. Mortensen continues to prove himself a strong movie presence... almost mythic, really. But i liked HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, too, so i'll let the rest of you debate the "implausibilities" inherent in the dreamlike cinema of David Cronenberg. At some point, i'm going to do a Cronenberg Filmography. He's been a really important and underrated filmmaker for a very long time.

don't get me started on the issue of "plausibility". In an analysis similar to the Chicago school of legal realism, "plausibility" is a complaint you make when you don't like a movie, its not the real REASON people dislike a movie. to put it another way... "legal realism" is a theory of jurisprudence in which judges, instead of gleaning the facts and applying them to the law to arrive at a legal opinion, have a viceral instintive reaction to a fact pattern (based on a range of their own emotional, logical, political, sociological reasons) and then have their clerks go find the judicial bases for the conclusion they've already come to. in movies, the similar analysis goes, we as viewers have an instinctive and viceral reaction to a film (for a host of reasons... some rational, some not), and then we find reasons to pick apart those films we don't like or to defend the films we do. "Plausiblity' is one of the prime excuses we use to justify our dislike of a movie. Vincent Canby once wrote an excellent Sunday Times column on this subject... its not that we don't like stories that are implausible, its that we find implausible the stories we don't like, and we stretch to find plausibility (or excuse implausibility) for the stories we like. Its just a theory. I happen to subscribe to it.

Gfafif, your meter is totally off. fromWikipedia: ]A limerick has five lines, with three metrical feet in the first, second and fifth lines and two metrical feet in the third and fourth lines. A variety of types of metrical foot can be used, but the most typical are the amphibrach (a stressed syllable between two unstressed syllables) and the anapaest (two unstressed syllables followed by a stressed syllable). The rhyme scheme is usually AABBA. A "metrical foot" is not a single syllable, but a string of syllables comprising an accent or beat. for example (with the beats in CAPS): 1st line (3 metric feet)= there ONCE was a HIT-ter named CHURCH 2nd line (3 metric feet)= who was FOUND when the METS did a SEARCH 3rd line (2 metric feet) = they LOOKED for a VILL-age 4th line (2 metric feet) = to EX-ile MILL-edge 5th line (3 metric feet) = so he was SENT off to DC to PERCH There ONCE was an ACE named San-TAN-a who was KNOWN as a HARD throwin' MAN-a when re-BORN in New YORK, as if DROPPED by the STORK, he made ALL of us sing a "ho-SANN-ah! got it? but usually limericks require some form of vulgarity: there once was a catcher named Castro who had a severe case of gas-tro so when he would crouch the ump would say "Yowch! You need a big plug in your ass-tro!"