Vic Sage

a major disappointment. Tolkien's HOBBIT is a relatively gentle and charming fairy tale written for children. If Jackson had made a movie similarly filled with wonder, it could have been...well... wonderful. Instead he forged this bloated oaf of a movie, pointlessly and cynically extended with extraneous material to pad the story out to make another "trilogy". Unfortunately, the trilogy it is most emulating is not the original Star Wars trilogy but its subsequent and inferior prequel. There are some good things, to be sure. Andy Sirkus is still terrific as Gollum, as is Ian McCellan as Gandalf. And the battle with the goblins is impressive (if soulless). And there are nice tie-ins to the LotR story. I particularly liked Gandalf's use of the butterfly, which we see again in LotR:Two Towers. So its not without its own virtues. But, overall, i think fans will be unhappy with it and the uninitiated will wonder what the fuss is all about.

The aspect of OHMMSS that appeals to me the most is the fact it depicts Bond as a human being with frailties, rather than a superhero (something that wasn't seen again until LTK). yeah, that's part of my problem with it, as i alluded to in my discussion of SKYFALL. Realism is anathema to Bond. My point about Lazenby was that he was closer to the real Bond's appearance than any other actor -- somebody you wouldn't give a second glance to if you saw him in a bar per IF. That's fine, but i don't really care about the fidelity to the books. I'm looking at them purely as movies, standing on their own, and a Bond at whom you wouldn't give a second glance is not a Bond i'm particularly interested in watching. a great Bond movie is not the same thing as a great movie. I'll take a stab in the dark: The difference is the lack of a character arc of the central protagonist?

a great Bond movie is not the same thing as a great movie.

cody ross reportedly just signed with the D-Backs for a 3-year deal ($ unknown, but maybe $25m range). It would have been useful to have a RHed .260/20hr/80rbi guy in our OF, but not a 32-year old one on a 3-year deal at over $8M/yr. So I'm ok with this. Bring back Hairston, if available for no more than a 2-year deal. Otherwise, its Cowsill as our RHed OFer?

as would i, which makes his trade value for a 2-month rental (considering his massive salary) virtually nil. But i thought the same of Beltran. So I would take a solid A-Ball prospect for Santana in July. Hell, i'd be happy to just give him away for the payroll relief if i thought for a moment that the Wilpons would use the money saved on scouting, player development or draft bonuses, instead of just debt service. But they won't, so let him play out the string, unless somebody comes along with a good offer.

GOLDENEYE definitely gets bonus points for reviving the character after the aging, increasingly ridiculous Roger Moore and the utterly mediocre neutered charm of Tim Dalton ran the franchise into a ditch in the 1980s. And its the best of the Brosnan films, and certainly a good film overall. But the notion that one could make a list of top 5 Bond pictures without listing a single Connery movie seems to me willfully contrarian... not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. The plots of Connery's films were ridiculous? yes, but that is to damn water for being wet. All BOND movie plots are ridiculous. They're superhero movies. They were tedious? That's in the eye of the beholder. Certainly the level of craftsmanship available for action films from the 1960s was different than that of the 1980s-90s. And certainly the pacing of that era seems creaky compared to the ADD-addled/MTV-style editing of subsequent eras. But i find the latter aesthetic, endlessly recapitulating the formula that the Connery films established, to be more tedious by far. Certainly the various levels of mediocrity in the subsequent Bond portrayals, when compared to Connery's rendition, were utterly and consistently disappointing until the arrival of Daniel Craig, who is another honest-to-goodness actor. And whatever else Bond movies are about, they are about Bond. Without a great Bond, you can't have a great Bond movie. And ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE did not have a great Bond. Not even a good Bond. I would agree that it's a very good film overall, and underrated i think, and Diana Rigg is one of the best things to come out of the 1960s... but George Lazenby? Lazenby was a male model whose delivery of lines was so poor and with an aussie accent so thick he had some of his scenes dubbed. His post-Bond career was a joke, highlighted by an appearance in the soft-core Emmanuel. And he's going to be favorably compared to real actors like Connery and Craig? or even Dalton, Brosnan and Moore? Alright, but i respectfully, though adamantly, disagree.

The more Santana is like Santana the less likely the Mets are hopelessly terrible (hopelessly terrible seems like a long shot anyway) Santana can pitch like vintage Santana, and we could still suck enough to be out of it by July. (e.g., see Dickey, RA / Cy Young season / 2012 Mets)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Vic Sage wrote: the medium is the message. The medium is, like, the same effects over and over, in slightly-different iterations of the same, shallow movie. Or am I missing something? Tell me what I'm missing. You may not be missing anything at all, and you are certainly not the only one to view Snyder's work that way. You either appreciate his aesthetic or you don't. I do. Why? Harder to say. Snyder didn't invent slo-mo action, nor did Sam Peckinpah for that matter, but they both have used it as a tool to extend and illustrate theme and character, rather than a just create a Michael Bey/JBruckheimer action moment. He places his hyperreal characters, generally warriors, in fantastical computer-generated landscapes (somewhere between a video game and Dali), that is simply unique. He is making comicbook movies better than anybody, in tone and style, with utter respect for the underlying work and an understanding of its particular strengths, and approaches it with a singular seriousness of purpose. There's no camp, or satire, or condescension. He has a greater focus on character, setting and theme than is typical in the genre, which otherwise tends towards fast-cutting action hyperactivity these days. He lets his stories breathe more (which critics take for a tedious languorish quality), which elevates them above the MTV aesthetic of his generation. Your mileage may vary.

Edgy MD wrote: What's interesting is Mejia is either forgotten, dismissed, or considered graduated from prospect status. Hard to figure out what kind of asset he is at this point. in the comments section, Sickels is asked about Mejia, and he says that, if he were still eligible, he'd rate him a C+ type prospect. For what that's worth.

just in time for a Cowgills Christmas!

The Mets will probably sign a couple of those journeyman type minor league contract rehabilitation projects, that strategy hasn't worked out too badly for them in recent years.

That Milledge hit .300/20hrs in Japan last season is pretty much all you need to know about the relative quality of play over there. And its a surprise he hit that well, since you'd figure he'd always be nervously on the look out for Godzilla and other prehistoric-type creatures that coexisted with mankind.

Fangraphs gives $4.5M per WAR, meaning Dickey has been worth $54M over the past three years for the Mets. (Of course, to be sabermetrically anal, the 12.1 WAR is based on ERA, when Fangraphs bases its WAR on FIP, or fielding-independent pitching. FIP is one of those bullshit stats, predicated on the notion that all balls put in play are created equal, that has become important because the people who made it said it was important. Plenty of good pitchers -- including Dickey and Gio Gonzalez -- consistently outperform their FIP by quite a bit.) http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-dollar-value-of-a-win/ ...the overal value of a win is less than the market price � in general, it�s about $2.5 million per win, significantly less than the going rate for wins in free agency.

Chuck, it always surprises me (and it shouldn't by now, of course) that, considering how closely our particular interests overlap and align, how diametrically opposed are our views and tastes with regard to those common interests. C'est la vie, as they say in Yiddish.

Lagares doesn't have nearly enough power to justify his K rates and BB/K ratios, nor enough OB% to complement his speed. He's also a 23 year-old Dominican turning 24 in the spring, which makes him a little old for AA, further discounting his recent production (and being from the DR, he may be 26 or 27, for all we know). plus, as a RHer, he fills the wrong end of a platoon. Unless this guy is a GG-level CFer, i don't see his value.

Edgy MD wrote: Jaws wasn't the villian, so much as the henchman/assassin. It was a theme in the earlier films to include an oddall assassin with a fetish for death and often a cartoonish M.O.: Kronstein, Oddjob, TeeHee, and Bambi and Thumper, among others. Jaws was part of a proud (though goofy) tradition. Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd, the assassins from DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, were the model for Neil Gaiman's killers, Croup and Vandemar, in NEVERWHERE.

Is it weird that I liked LIVE AND LET DIE in part because of its terrible racism? It's campy and awful, and yet somehow stylish, and there's the song, and that's why it got one of my votes. The best Bond song ever, and that should matter. And the "terrible racism" was emblematic of the Blaxploitation films of the period. It was hip racism. ... the Sellers '67-model vehicle CASINO ROYALE Now THAT'S perverse. I liked it, too, though. Maybe not top 5, but i always had a fondness for it.

Over the last 3 years, Dickey has delivered 12.1 WAR to the Mets. Accepting the Fangraph estimate of $2.5M of salary/per point of WAR, that is about $30m of value that Dickey gave the Mets over the past 3 years. Is is so outrageous for him to ask for and expect $30m over the next 3 years? Especially considering he was only paid $12m for the last 3 (underpaying him by $18m for his production)? Hell, I'd be asking for the $30m PLUS the $18m I didn't get in the first place. But he's not. We should sign him to a 2-year/$20m extension, with a $2.5m signing bonus and a $2.5m buyout option for a $10m/3rd year (guaranteeing him $7.5/$10/$12.5 over the next 3 years, or $7.5/10/10/10 over 4). Plus, there should be appropriate contingency bonuses (Allstar, cy young, etc). Then, if we still want to trade him, we trade him. He'd probably have MORE value then, since he wouldn't be a FA at the end of the year. Maybe signed, he nets the "2 top prospects" they seem to be fishing for. While there is likely to be some drop-off from last year's CY/5.6WAR performance, there's no reason to think he'd be less than the 3-4 WAR pitcher he was for the Mets before that, at least for the next few years, anyway. So i don't know why they are balking, except that it feels to me like their greasing the skids for his departure, in REYES-ish fashion.

Dalton was strong, and looked the part, but had the sexuality of a bachelor uncle. he was a "Ken doll" Bond.

Dalton didn't do A VIEW TO A KILL. That was Roger Moore's last Bond movie, and it was one of the worst ever made. Dalton did 2 films, LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENSE TO KILL. Maybe you've confused the latter one for it.

Ready for some Bondage? you can vote for UP to 5 films (5 are not required)

Ranking the Bond films - I've arranged the 25 films to date (not including the `67 CASINO ROYALE spoof) into 3 groups, based on the "rotten tomatoes" %ranking (it aggregates critic response), and the IMDB rating (from fans), and then I've adjusted based on my own preferences. Since my basic assessment of a Bond film is primarily (but not exclusively) affected by who is playing Bond, my Bond actor ranking should be considered first: * Connery * Craig * Moore (when he's good) * Brosnan * Dalton * Lazenby * Moore (when he's bad) That being said (ranked in descending order): top 10: *Goldfinger (1964) - Sean Connery / 96% rotten tomatoes ranking (52 reviews) / 7.8 imdb rating * From Russia with Love (1963) - Sean Connery / 96% (48 reviews) / 7.5 *Casino Royale (2006) - Daniel Craig / 95% (220 reviews) / 7.9 *Dr. No (1962) - Sean Connery / 98% (45 reviews) / 7.3 *Skyfall (2012) - Daniel Craig / 92% (278 reviews) / 8.1 *Thunderball (1965) - Sean Connery / 85% (39 reviews) / 7.0 *You Only Live Twice (1967) - Sean Connery /71% (38 reviews) / 6.9 *GoldenEye (1995) - Pierce Brosnan / 82% (49 reviews) 7.2 * The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - Roger Moore / 78% (41 reviews) / 7.1 * On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) - George Lazenby / 81% (43 reviews) / 6.8 watchable: * For Your Eyes Only (1981) - Roger Moore / 73% (40 reviews) / 6.8 * Live and Let Die (1973) - Roger Moore /65% (40 reviews) / 6.8 * The Living Daylights (1987) - Timothy Dalton / 75% (36 reviews) / 6.7 * Licence to Kill (1989) - Timothy Dalton / 74% (38 reviews) / 6.5 * Diamonds Are Forever (1971) - Sean Connery / 64% (39 reviews) / 6.7 * Quantum of Solace (2008) - Daniel Craig / 64% (244 reviews) / 6.7 * SPECTRE (2015) - Daniel Craig / 64% (288 reviews) /6.9 * Never Say Never Again (1983) - Sean Connery / 59% / 6.1 unwatchable: * Moonraker (1979)- Roger Moore /62% (39 reviews) / 6.2 * The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) - Roger Moore / 46% / 6.7 * Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - Pierce Brosnan / 57% (63 reviews) / 6.4 * Die Another Day (2002) - Pierce Brosnan / 57% (197 reviews) / 6.0 * The World Is Not Enough (1999) - Pierce Brosnan /51% (120 reviews) / 6.3 * Octopussy (1983) - Roger Moore / 43% (35 reviews) / 6.6 * A View to a Kill (1985) - Roger Moore / 36% (44 reviews) / 6.2

yeah, a cleanup hitting CFer sure WOULD be nice. Didn't we used to have one? Anyway, it's not like they grow on trees, or like we could afford one if one was available. How much is Josh Hamilton going to go for? And he's an addict. And even if we could trade for one, who would that be? Who would be a "difference maker" in that role that could be obtained for a good pitcher like Dickey or even Niese?

A BOND filmography? hmm....

This 23rd installment of the franchise is not the "best bond ever", as some critics have trumpeted, but it has a distinct POV and look, and it is well worth seeing. SKYFALL is a sleek, beautifully shot action film with perfectly executed set pieces, with all kinds of vehicles chasing each other and blowing up all over the globe. It's got an enjoyably over-the-top villain played by Javier Bardem as a mincing cyber terrorist-for-hire with his own island, army, and obsessive mommy issues. The film has got some beautiful (albeit anonymous) women for Bond to bed or banter with (or both), and it even carries on the tradition of great Bond theme songs, this one written and performed by Adele over a visually arresting and evocatively Bondian title sequence. Mostly, it's got the current Bond himself, the excellent Daniel Craig, playing Bond with a depth and psychological realism that is largely absent from the character's history. Putting Craig's Bond in context with the gallery of Bonds over the years, different actors have brought different elements to the character: * Roger Moore's urbane, witty Bond was always believable falling into bed or throwing off a quip, but less so when killing the bad guys... you just didn't buy that he'd be willing to stain his tux; * Timothy Dalton was more brutish than Moore, but lacked charm and sexuality, despite matinee looks; * Pierce Brosnan had the charm and sex appeal, and was believably (and surprisingly) sadistic, but lacked gravitas (substituting, instead, a morose stiffness); and * Daniel Craig looks like he kills people for a living. Somewhat light on charm, he has just about everything else. BUT Connery had it all. Connery's Bond was a sadistic animal in a fine tux who appreciated a good martini, a great car, a beautiful woman, and a reliable pistol. When taking off a woman's bikini top, he was as likely to strangle her with it as kiss her. He enjoyed killing and fucking and driving fast and living well, and every man wanted to be him and every woman wanted to be with him. He was superhuman, you see, and Bond movies were FANTASIES... high-tech (for their day) wish fulfillment fantasies for boys, like superhero comic books were. And this is the problem with SKYFALL. Director Sam Mendes (an excellent stage director, with a few good films to his credit, particularly AMERICAN BEAUTY) has taken the franchise down into the muck of realism, developing a freudian backstory for Bond, investigating the roots of his murderous tendencies, literally taking him all the way home to find out what makes him tick. The triangular relationship between Bond and M and the villain, Silva, represent a familial nightmare of dysfunction. In the end, the STRAW DOGS-style payoff in which Bond defends his surrogate mommy & daddy at his ancestral home from his symbolic brother/villain is the stuff of Greek Drama, but it imposes a moroseness and dire quality symptomatic of the whole film. Even Q, who often provided Bond with his fun spy toys, is a victim of realism. Here he gives Bond only a gun and a radio transmitter. "What did you expect, an exploding pen? We don't go in for that type of thing anymore." Apparently not. From a purely narrative perspective, the villain's "want" is surprisingly small. He just wants to kill one person, for personal reasons. *** SPOILER *** (he ends up succeeding, with Bond failing to protect her.) *** END OF SPOILER *** Now a Bond villain usually wants to take over the world or destroy it, or something consistent with the fantasy basis of the franchise. So, the stakes end up being surprisingly low, even if consistent with the more realistic and psychological approach to the material being offered by Mendes. But the story does do a nice job of taking us full circle to leave us at the beginning of the Bond legend, setting up characters that would be seen from DR. NO on, performing a narrative ju jitsu of sorts that works surprisingly well and, of course, sets us up for further sequels. But a realistic Bond is not an ideal Bond and ignores the character's fundamental nature. A "realistic" Bond would in the real world be a murderous, imperious, sociopathic ass, abusive to women and condescending to all; that's why he was a "fantasy" Bond in the first place. So its a very good film, but not the best one by a large margin, and one decidedly misguided in its overall approach.