Vic Sage

That's one... two... three strikes to Nady

no, there is nothing wrong with GOOD mindless summer movies. a BAD movie is a bad movie, no matter what time of year it comes out.

Edgy DC wrote:Yes, but many of those movies become all-time classics only with the passage of time and the perspective it lends. If one is to do this thing, he or she has to make snap judgements on films that have been recently been released, without the benefit of time, and the perspective it lends, to say nothing of the years of exposure to the winds of critical consensus (and the erosion of original thought that they lend).And if that means you risk over-reacting to a film you saw last night, and you're afraid you'll wake up years from now to find you gave a perfect or near perfect rating to the equivalent of Rocky III, too bad. A life well lived is a life of risk.this is the entire post i responded to. If you are saying that your parenthetical phrase only referred to the last in the list of factors in that sentence, then i apologize and stand corrected.That doesn't however alter the basis of our disagreement on this subject one iota. You are still asserting that exposure to the opinions of others about a film erodes one's original thoughts, and i still assert that such opinions are worth considering, whether one rejects or accepts the consensus they build (or the lack thereof that they reflect). Basing opinions on MORE data rather than less is a good thing. Always.As for CRASH... i saw it on dvd about 3 months ago. There wasn't much hoopla. I didn't have particularly high expectations. I think expectations and anticipation can factor in to how much you like or dislike a movie, based on whether it meets or falls short of those expectations.Was it the best movie since KANE? uh, no. It wasn't even as good as KILL BILL (1 or 2). But it was an involving piece of drama that had some significant and insightful things to say about our society. Which is better than a sharp stick in the eye.What i found in it was a story about connectedness... all these assumptions we have about the "others" we are surrounded by, and how those assumptions can all come crashing down one day, when we all see how interconnected and interdependent we all are. Its ultimately a redemptive story... hopeful, even, that we are capable of crashing through. I didn't see the slightest bit of camp or triteness anywhere. Its "overratedness" is not the film's fault. Is it self-important? To the extent it wants to be about something, then i guess it is. But i'm happy to see an artist like Haggis try to say something than to see him use his craft in a cynical way merely to distract us for a few hours.There's enough of that out there already. And it was only the content of this script that attracted so many terrific actors (they surely didn't get their "quotes" for doing this one), which allowed this movie to get made at all. And the performances are, in the end, what makes the picture work.But your mileage may vary.Now, is anybody's original thought "eroded" by exposure to my critical opinion? Gosh, i'd hope not. I'd hope it might inspire others to take a deeper look at the movie, or evoke fleshed out and articulated contrary views.

i was happy CRASH won. I didn't see BROKEBACK but Mrs. Sage did, and she agreed that CRASH was the best movie of the year. the best movie won... that hardly ever happens! Jon Stewart was entertainingly smartassed all night. After they showed that self-congratulatory montage of moments from "important films", he said something about how, because of those movies, all of those problems were solved! Yea, us! beautiful. of course, this is the year that "its hard out here for a pimp" joins the prestiguous lineage of Oscar-winning songs, so i loved it when Stewart said something about how "Scorsese = 0 oscars; 3-6 Mafia = 1 Oscar" and he clearly thought it absurd. The CRASH song featured people running from burning cars in slow motion, presenting the obligatory "surreal production number" moment for the evening. Jennifer Garner almost tripped over her dress. And what was that thing Charlize Theron was wearing? Uma looked unbelievable.

Beltran was a very successful #2 hitter in KC. Why does anybody think hitting there again would do damage to his psyche? and the reason Willie needs to "protect" Wright (a player whom everyone has described as mature and advanced for his age) but throws Reyes into the top slot without having to "protect" him (despite being younger, less experienced, and a seemingly emotional player) despite his lack of production there, is just another indicator of stupidity, in my view. You can interpret it as a move imposed on him from above, but then that just means those above him (ie, Minaya) are the stupid ones. I think Willie hits Reyes leadoff cuz Jose is fast! And Willie would rather hit a fast guy leadoff than a guy with a good (or even adequate) OBP.

] think it's a little early to start reaming Willie for his 2006 starting lineup. I'd wait until we actually see one hey, nobody told Willie to announce to the press his view that LoDuca is the ideal #2 hitter. If he didn't want to get reamed for that opinion, he shouldn't have expressed it. What i'm reaming him for, by the way, is not the lineup order per se (as i've said, i don't think it makes a huge difference statistically, either way) but for what his expressed view about the lineup reveals about his view of baseball. His notion about "productive outs" at the top of the lineup is antediluvian.

The problem with a 6-man bench on this particular team is that it means the Mets have no LHP in the bullpen (other than Wagner). BP Wagner Sanchez Julio Bradford Ikiri Padilla But, assuming the Mets are either willing to start the season without a LOOGY or other LH-ed type reliever, or one of the LHers in ST beats out one of these guys for a slot (all of whom have guaranteed ML contracts this season), then the 6-man bench is likely to be: Castro - obviously Woodward - good RH UT guy (IF/OF), primary backup at 2b/ss Franco - he's a RHed (not LHed) PHer /backup 1B Valentin - the only LHed power on the bench (backup at ss/3b/LF) Redman or Chavez - only available backup CFer (PRer/LHed PHer) Nady/Diaz - 1 will start, 1 will be a backup corner OFer/1b (RHed PHer) If Nady wins RF job, Diaz could go back down (he has options), and they have a slot for either: -LHed RPer (Ring, Feliciano, Perisho, Oliver), or -another UT IFer (loser of 2b competition) frankly, i think we'll need at least 1 lefty in the pen more than another guy who can backup at 2b, behind Woodward, or 2 RHed RFers (especially since both Woodward and Valentin have experience in the OF, and are at least as good defensively as either Nady or Diaz) i just think Nady and Diaz are redundant and another reason why the Cameron traded was stupid.

Rotblatt wrote: The whole thing's kind of screwy, and doesn't address your question about AB's at all, Norrin, but I thought it was kind of neat. Made a little more palatable/realistic, it would probably look something like: 1. Reyes, SS 2. Beltran, CF 3. Delgado, 1B 4. Wright, 3B 5. Floyd, LF 6. Diaz, RF 7. LoDuca, C 8. Matsui, 2B which isn't terribly unusual at all, unless you're Willie. this is what i'm saying.

so, that looks to me like, if LoDuca gets about 600 plate appearances in the #2 slot, then David Wright would get about 560 or so plate appearances in the #5 slot. Is that about right? Would you want to take 40 ABs from Wright and give them to Paul LoDuca, just so you can have the benefit of a slow, powerless contact hitter behind Jose Reyes? I wouldn't. But maybe thats just me. Again, i dont' think it'll make a huge difference overall, but i think Willie's reported view on this matter is just one more reason why i think he's an idiot. Reyes Beltran Wright Delgado Floyd LoDuca Nady/Diaz Matsui/Keppinger

I've heard and read repeatedly that LoDuca is an "ideal" #2 hitter, and has been basically pencilled into that slot by Willie, for the upcoming season, and David Wright slotted to hit 5th. I have a question to the statistically inclined amongst us... how many plate appearances, over the course of a season, does the #2 slot in a lineup get, compared to the #5 slot? I'm guessing more. Perhaps a bunch more. So why would you take ABs away from David Wright and hand them to Paul LoDuca? I'm not someone who is generally overly concerned with lineup order, as i think the ideal order vs a random order makes only a limited difference over the course of a season. However, i just don't understand the thinking that a slow, powerless "contact hitter" should be put in a position to get more ABs than a player like Wright, with power, speed, bat control, everything. I think the only rational way to compose a lineup is to give your best hitters the most ABs. period. please explain to me why i'm wrong. use numbers, if possible, and small words.

as a hitter, Grote was no J.Bench, but he wasn't putrid (as compared to other catchers in the mid-1960s to mid 1970s era). He was basically a .250 hitter, without much punch or speed. He hit like a SS, but his defensive value was equivalent to a top SS as well. Thats why he lasted for over 15 years. There was a handful of great hitting catchers in that era. Grote wasn't amongst them. But he was a great catcher nonetheless. He did have a rep as a prickly hardass. But so did the other catcher in the Bronx, if i recall correctly. And it took a plane crash to keep that guy out of the record books.

]One more post ought to do it congrats, wp. i can talk to you again.

i remember when he was picked up by the Dodgers as a backup, and they were playing the Yankees, i think, in the WS (1981?). Lasorda had put Grote in as part of a double switch. The Yanks had a man on first and tried to bunt him over to 2nd. Grote pounced on the bunt like a tiger and threw the guy out at 2nd. The Yanks tried it AGAIN. Grote threw out the lead runner AGAIN. I think he even threw out a basestealer at one point in that game. It was a beautiful thing to see.

avi

you also need to have a MAXIMUM innings pitched, too. Unlimited IP minimizes pitching strategies. 162 x 9 = approx 1450 IP

i vote for no more than 2 DL slots. I'd prefer 1.

well THAT blows. now i'll have to do an autodraft. and drafting is, if not half the fun, at least 17.34% of the fun of being in a fantasy league. now i'm going to have to go off and join another league too, just so i can get to do a draft! dang it.

]You can't hate that guy. if you can't, then you're just not trying very hard.

]were you reading? don't get snippy with me, mister. i get enough of that from my 8-year old. I've played in some Yahoo public leagues, and their settings (which i assumed were default settings, since Yahoo sets them, and they were all identical) were much different, so i didn't read CAREFULLY enough to see that you said you'd set them to "default". I'm confused by that, but happy that the parameters are still up for discussion. just so you know, in the 6 Yahoo public leagues i've participated in over the past 2 years, they've all had the following parameters: 5x5 standard roto live snake draft 23-man roster = - 11 hitters: C, 1b, 2b, ss, 3b, MI, CI, Of/Of/Of, Ut - 7 pitchers: SP/SP, RP/RP, P/P/P - 5 bench, with 1 DL slot 1250 IP / 162 game caps 15 game position eligibility with daily transactions and lineup changes; 1 day FA pickups; 3 day waiver/trade periods;

I played Little League from ages 8-12, intramural softball in HS and college, beer-league softball games in prospect park up till my early 30s, Broadway Show league softball for a little while more. I hung up the spikes about 8 years ago. Pitching? I was used as a LOOGY in little league. I threw slow, slower and slowest. When i got the ball over, i was effective, but that wasn't very often. my motion was a little bit of Luis Tiant, a little Kent Tekulve. "Funky", they said. Still, i was more a novelty act than a regularly used pitcher. I didn't pitch much in softball. Hitting? I sucked. Sometimes i'd swing after the catcher had caught the ball. I tried a closed stance to keep from bailing out, but it didn't help. I'd ocasionally hit a texas-leaguer to short LF and that would be my hit for the year. I was better in softball. The ball was bigger and came in slower. I always ran the bases aggressively, and with a tremendous lack of speed. Fielding? As a LHer with no arm and no speed, my defensive options were limited. But I was good at 1b... I had good hands. In the OF i caught whatever i could get to, which wasn't much. in softball, i could play anywhere... even SS, on occasion.

QUADROPHENIA definitely belongs on the "music film" list. TOMMY is on my "movie musicals list". I happen to love THE WALL, though i can see why some might hate it. i've included documentary concert films within the definition of "music films" but i can see a point in breaking them out. GIMME SHELTER would definitely be included. so would WOODSTOCK. I also loved Laurie Anderson's HOME OF THE BRAVE. also: Wim Wenders' BUENA VISTA SOCIAL CLUB, HAIL! HAIL! ROCK N ROLL, D.O.A., DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION, DON'T LOOK BACK, IMAGINE, JIMI PLAYS MONTEREY, THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT, MONTEREY POP, NO NUKES, SAY AMEN SOMEBODY, TAMI SHOW.

]Sorry to have been needlessly stubborn and ill-mannered in this discussion. as opposed to which other discussions?

overly sentimental, but Crowe was great, and the film was engaging. I think they got screwed in the Oscar nominations because (1) it came out early (2) it was a relative flop, and (3) Russell was a very bad boy this year.

a MUSICAL is a genre of story-telling in which songs are sung by characters, in furtherance of the narrative. a MUSIC FILM is a genre of filmmaking, in which music is either the point (ie, a "concert film" or "documentary" [or mockumentary]) or a key background element (soundtracks, montage sequences), but the particular songs are irrelevant or secondary to the narrative, and are not performed by characters in the story to further the narrative. HARD DAY'S NIGHT is a terrific music film... one of the seminal works of the 60s (HELP is just silly, but fun). IMO, it's NOT a "musical". Paul doesn't sing a song to his groupies to express his hopes and dreams; the Beatles perform songs either in concert scenes or as background to alot of running around. Music is an essential and central element of the film, but that doesn't make it a "musical". If it were then so would all of the films of Cameron Crowe and Martin Scorsese, for example. Edgy, i did mention NEW YORK, NEW YORK but that is clearly a "music film" insofar as ALL the musical numbers are concert performance -type numbers (what are called "source music" numbers that can pop up in a musical once in a while). There are no "musical" moments in which the characters sing as characters. FAME is a closer call. Though most of the musical moments are of the "concert" or "performance" variety, some are ensemble numbers (in the cafeteria or on the street) which could be interpreted as character-based and narrative-driven. I could go either way on this one. Upon futher reflection, i'd put FAME in the "original movie musical" category. I'd have to look at PURPLE RAIN again too, in that context. YENTL is clearly and solely a "movie musical" but i found it a painful experience, and was neither a commercial or critical hit sufficient to justify listing it. if i were making a list of best "music films", i'd include HARD DAY'S NIGHT THE LAST WALTZ THIS IS SPINAL TAP NEW YORK, NEW YORK STOP MAKING SENSE VICTOR / VICTORIA PURPLE RAIN ALMOST FAMOUS RED SHOES YANKEE DOODLE DANDY FANTASIA / FANTASIA 2000 PINK FLOYD: THE WALL THE COMMITTMENTS BUDDY HOLLY STORY RAY and i haven't seen WALK THE LINE yet, but i here its very good.

disagree, mom. i was very disappointed. Its lethargic, heavy-handed and obvious. I also found certain parts ludicrous: * the old guy with the hand grenade is able to rush past the russian guards and not only blow up the bad guy, but survive and get away? puhlleeez * the old guy whose job it is to worry and be careful picks up the "honeytrap" at the bar, even after the hero warns him? puhllleeeez. * as a Mossad agent, he's probably been involved with killing people before. Now his conscience is tormenting him over the death of 7 palestinians? puhleeez. Stuff like this only bothers you when you're not really involved in the story. And i wasn't, because Spielberg's skills as a director of "political thrillers" are dubious. The movie is a series of assassination set pieces, none of which is brilliantly planned or brilliantly executed, or excitingly rendered. The pacing is leaden. If you want to see a movie about how a govt agent becomes involved in an assassination plot and cover up, and, after losing faith in his own govt's morality, becomes paranoid that his govt is trying to kill him, then i've got a great film for you... its called THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR. rent it now!