Cup of Coffee

March 12, 2012: Madness

82 Comments

I renewed our Tournament Pick 'Em league over at Yahoo. Last year's players should have gotten an email by now, but if you want into our (free) bracket, the league ID is 103688, and the password is 12346.

82 thoughts on “March 12, 2012: Madness”

      1. What bugs me is reviews complaining about the way the creatures or aircraft look. Listen, the movie is pretty faithful to a book that's 100 years old this year; if you don't like the acting or directing, fine, but the plot, effects, etc. shouldn't be to blame. Yes, there were pacing problems. Yes, some aspects reminded me of "The Chronicles of Riddick" (unfortunately), but I still got my monies worth, and though I don't personally clap at the end of movies, most of the small crowd that watched with me did clap at the end, so it wasn't disappointing to them.

        Looks like we'll never get to see the kaldane.

    3. I'll tell you why it underperformed: It's because they put the word "Disney" at top of the title.

        1. I heard the reasoning behind leaving off "of Mars", and while it made sense, I agree with you.

          btw, Bryan Cranston has a nice (albeit short) role in the film.

      3. Yeah, that was the death knell for Pirates of the Caribbean as well. Perhaps if they'd left "Disney" out of the title, there would have been enough buzz around it for a sequel.

        1. First off, when you look at the marketing material for John Cater, I saw the word "Disney" everywhere. The first Pirates movie doesn't have it nearly so many places (a quick look online at movie posters, etc., reveals my memory was right on this one). With Pirates, they were a brand promoting a movie, not vice versa.

          Second, I think there's enough of a genre difference between the two movies that a reasonable distinction can be drawn. I'll tolerate more ham-handed writing and narrowly drawn characters with singular motivations in the "action fantasy/historical" genre of Pirates. With sci-fi I want more nuance, truer motivations and politics, battles that aren't just empty action, maybe some actual pain and loss and bloodshed, etc. Maybe that's just me, but since sci-fi invites analysis in a way that action fantasy doesn't, I expect it to stand up. And seeing the word Disney told me it wouldn't stand up.

          I know I was turned off by their marketing. And seeing the word Disney everywhere was a big part of that.

          2. to be honest, I've barely noticed the "Disney" part of the marketing. Maybe because I've read all of the ERB books in the series (twice)?

            Burroughs' Mars series is of a piece with Robert E. Howard's Conan, IMO. It's sci-fi only in the sense that it involves another planet and alien creatures/races.

            1. If that's true, then they didn't market it right. I haven't read the books and from the marketing my impression was definitely more Star Wars than Conan.

              It looked like something I might have been interested in, but I didn't trust Disney's execution. And from the reviews, it sounds like I right to be skeptical.

              Not that I would have made it to the theater anyway, given the two small children at home.

              1. from the Atlantic review:

                The first installment of the John Carter saga, upon which the movie is loosely based, was penned by Edgar Rice Burroughs (of Tarzan fame) 100 years ago. Entitled Under the Moons of Mars when it was first published serially, and retitled A Princess of Mars when it was later released as a novel, it is an ur-text of modern genre fiction—pulp, science, fantasy, and superhero—an important forebear not only of Superman but of Brave New World as well. It is, however, by any objective measure, an awful book: inert in style, haphazard in plot, and woefully, annihilatingly devoid of humor. Given such source material, Stanton's John Carter might easily have been the kind of glum, tooth-clenchingly self-serious "entertainment" of which we have seen so much in recent years.

                But it's not. Rather, Stanton embraces the inescapable ridiculousness of his premise and adds several additional doses of likable whimsy.

                I am easily amused. I think I re-read A Princess of Mars 3-4 years ago, when I found a stash of the pulp novels at a local used book shop and bought them for The Boy. It's early 20th century pulp action. Not nearly so bad a book as the reviewer suggests, at least from my earnest perspective. Waaaay better than, say, most of the Narnia books, which really sucked on re-read.

                1. As a story, it is no worse than, say, Star Wars. The movie, like I mentioned, was still very entertaining, but it has more in common with a movie like The 13th Warrior maybe, in that it's primarily a main character completely out of his element but adapting (and appreciating) the "people" he finds himself among. And it has cool creatures and effects.

                  I have 8 of the 11 books in the series in 2nd printing hardcover. They're classic literature not because they're masterpieces, but because they're a foundation for so much sci-fi and fantasy. People went to see the Lord of the Rings movies because they knew (or knew about) the books; with the John Carter series, not really. I think that's where the marketing dropped the ball. If people realized the story behind the story, they'd see it in a different light.

                  1. I agree with this. I saw some ads for John Carter, but the ads I saw did not give me any real idea what the movie was about, nor did they tell me it was based on a Burroughs book. Now that I know that, it actually sounds kind of interesting.

          3. I know I was turned off by their marketing. And seeing the word Disney everywhere was a big part of that.

            That's a hangup you should think about dropping. The more you talk about it, the more I'm convinced this is a you problem, not a marketing problem.

            1. Branding means something. Disney thinks putting their name on it will help the product. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

              Maybe for some people it makes them want to see the movie. Maybe for some people it doesn't matter. Personally, I've been burned by Disney enough times that it made me assume there would be certain problems. So yeah, it's a "me problem" in that sense. But I don't think it's an unreasonable one to have.

              Now, if they'd put "Pixar's John Carter" I probably would have been first in line. And yes, I know that Disney owns Pixar, but that branding tells me something about who was involved with the project and the standards that they hold themselves to.

              1. but that branding tells me something about who was involved with the project and the standards that they hold themselves to.

                And this is where the problem comes in. Approximately 6.3 billion people work for Disney. Their name at the top of a project actually tells you nothing about who was involved. It just tells you that Disney wants you to think it's significant.

                Pixar's the same. They're extremely careful in who they use, but several different men have driven the creative narratives of the films.

              2. Pixar's John Carter opens in Late December or Late June, has top box-office receipts for four straight weeks, and gets 2 or 3 Oscar nominations.
                /Still cannot believe that Lasseter Exec Produced that turd "Princess & the Frog"

    4. Also watched it, in IMAX 3D no less, on Sunday. I'll wait until the movie post as well.

  4. Speaking of leagues for which to register, the fantasy baseball keeper league from last year is open. Of the 19 teams that signed up originally, we have 11 for this year. I'm personally okay with this, but I wanted to put another reminder out that if you were signed up last year and wanted to go another round, either let me know here, at robzk (at) yahoo, or use the sign up email I sent a few weeks ago. We'll likely be shrinking the league due to the lack of interest, so we'll have to have some discussion about what that means for last year's rosters.

    Additionally, I would be open to taking on another person or two (or three) to make it a 14 team league. I do have every intention of keeping this going for the long term, however, so please keep that in mind before you ping me.

        1. Sounds good. I've kind of been looking for a keeper league for a while anyway. This seems like about the right group for me to lose to. Just let me know if anything's available.

          1. The owners of these teams haven't shown up yet:

            Moonlight Graham
            Beer & Sausage
            Tricycle Frogs
            Also Sprach Punto
            The Dongers
            SS Failboat
            Halsey St. Chevron
            disabled list

            If one of these is your team and you want to keep playing, let me know. Otherwise, they are open if anyone wants to join.

    3. While on this topic, I mentioned it over there but there wasn't much follow up, can we move the draft to Sunday. 3/25?

  5. i believe jason pridie's suspension was mentioned around here, but i don't believe it was noted that it was for a drug of abuse, not a performance enhancing drug, which then means this was his second positive test.

    1. Oy. I hope the guy gets treatment.

      I dislike the concept of automatically suspending employees without pay for these sorts of things. Sometimes, such a suspension can be the wakeup call a person needs; other times, cutting off an employee with addiction issues is exactly the wrong thing.

      1. other times, cutting off an employee with addiction issues is exactly the wrong thing.

        This happened to my best friend in high school. "Oh, he was caught using drugs? Remove him from all his extracurricular activities."

        The extra time he had to do drugs nearly killed him. Within a month of that decision, he weighed 85 pounds. He's 6'1".

    1. Sometimes, I love him so much that it hurts.

      I've been struggling with cynicism lately. Both as a purveyor and as a victim (not even just my writing, but also in life. It's ugly stuff.). I had similar thoughts about the Olive Garden article, and did my best not to let earnestness get shoved aside by snark. I wasn't entirely successful. I'm gonna work harder at it now.

      1. The article made me sad that my oldest two will never get to a Disney-affiliated theme park while they're young enough. The younger two would make a Disney-affiliated vacation ridiculously pointless. EAS* would be so very negative.

        Plus, if we're putting ourselves onto a plane to get somewhere, we should go to Alaska to visit my Sister and her kids.

        I was in third grade, CER's exact age, when we went to Disneyworld, and while that was cool, I more enjoyed our trips out west (Black Hills, Rocky Mountain, Grand Teton, Yellowstone). I've already proposed to EAR that we do a few vacations like that split-style. We'll have the grandparents take care of the younger two while we take the older two to those places or similar.

        *Enjoyment above Staycation

        Dang, I'm having parental regret for not planning good vacations.

    2. This is wonderful. I found that review wonderful because of how earnest it was. It felt so very North Dakotan. It made me a bit bummed so many people felt the need to rip the author.

      1. "You've gotta dance like there's nobody watching."

        that section really resonated. I remember with a great deal of wistfulness those days of joy and wonder for my own kids.

      2. I admit to having a good chuckle out of the review, but I grew up among people like the reviewer (heck, I grew up less than an hour from GF) and I just can't make fun of that. And while I'd take any of the locally owned italian places (or even Macaroni Grill) over OG, I won't turn down OG if someone wanted to go there to eat. I can put away the breadsticks...

        1. I think I've solved OG. Get the cheapest thing on the menu. I used to get the expensive things, but one time I went, CER got the kids' spaghetti, and I had some of that and it tasted the same as my expensive thing. I don't go there often, though CER speaks about it like it's Brothers' Deli or Cecil's Deli. But now I just get the spaghetti marinara ... and load up on breadsticks and salad, which is what I'm there for anyway.

          2. In college, I would accompany Sheenie to Olive Garden when Passover ended because she wanted to gorge herself on the breadsticks. We still probably go once or twice a year now (I think my grandparents keep giving me gift cards there for Christmas or something), but we eat so much pasta at home that it seems silly for us to go out for Italian.

          3. The only time I go there is during Endless Pasta Bowl, when all the pastas are $8.95. Otherwise I think it's a little overpriced. If I want a crapload of cheap Italian, there are better options. It's worth it for the breadsticks, though.

    3. I watch this every few months to remember just how amazing things can be if we just take the time to appreciate them.

      httpv://youtu.be/8r1CZTLk-Gk

      1. Nice reference. In relation to my struggles with cynicism (seriously, my brother in law was vigorously discouraging me from pursuing my dream job... that was a rough day) and in conjunction with his appearance on Parks and Rec, my wife and I discussed this one a few weeks back.

  8. Im doing some paper work and have the BoSox/Marlins game on in the background because its on ESPN. There was a Terry Tiffee sighting! He is with the Marlins.

    Also, I think its pretty silly to build a minor league park like Fenway.

    2. I'd recommend buying a sharpener and doing it yourself. It's pretty simple for any mechanically-inclined person, and it's nice having your own sharpener to touch up the chain before and after any big jobs.

      1. I am trying to avoid buying maintenance tools and such since it's a borrowed chainsaw.

        1. Then I recommend buying a chainsaw and a sharpener! J/K, I borrow both when I need to cut something up, too. As much as I'd like to have my own, the one or two times a year I need a chainsaw don't make buying one worth it.

  11. to steal a bit from the Boss: Who said it?

    I think one of the oddest things about this free-agency season is how Donovan McNabb's stock has plummeted to the point where you don't even hear of him. Nothing. Just 23 months ago, the Redskins traded second- and fourth-round picks to Philadelphia for McNabb. He was just OK in 13 starts in Washington, and a little worse than that in six starts in Minnesota (6-13 overall, with 18 touchdowns and 17 picks in those two stops). He's healthy, and he's 35, and I don't hear anything about any team wanting him. It's almost like he's gone from being Hewlett-Packard in 2009 to a penny stock today.

    Spoiler SelectShow

    wow, just wow.

      1. no kidding. He looked soooo disinterested in playing football when he was with the Vikings. Id rather take my chance on Sage Rosenfels or drag Scott Mitchell out of retirement than make a play for McNabb

        1. I love that this was sent two minutes before bS put up a link to Sage coming back.

        2. I didn't think he looked disinterested. I just thought he looked like he can't do it any more. It happens to everyone at some point.

    1. I have suspicion that a big part of the problem is that when kids (or probably just about anyone) pitch competitively, they are throwing a max effort pitch just about every time out. Pitch counts are more or less necessary because you can't trust a kid to pace himself through the game, taking it easy against the weak links on the other team and going all out against the best hitters. There's a grain of truth in the GOML assertion that pitch counts are useless--if pitchers are throwing at different effort levels, then not all pitches are created equal. I know that in general the Livan Hernandez experience was not a big hit, but I thought he was kind of fascinating to have around. He generally threw in the low-80s, but he'd always have some upper 80s heat left in his last inning or two. But, since most pitchers don't seem to approach the game that way, and because hitters are so good, it seems that most pitchers are throwing all out, all the time, so pitch counts are a reasonable approximation at the wear that they've put on their arm for that day.

      Also, if those kids want to be awesome pitchers, they should learn a good change-up. They can learn a curveball and/or slider later, as they seem to be easier pitches to learn anyway.

      1. I wonder what the research has to say about the pressure that change-ups put on arms and elbows. Isn't the general idea that a pitcher wants the arm action to look the same on lots of pitches, so that it is the grip and rotation put on the ball, not how fast the arm moves, that will determine pitch speed?

        obviously, most young pitchers won't have mastered those skills, so they probably would throw pitches with less-than-max-effort when trying to change speeds....

        1. I think we're still learning a lot about this, and twenty years from now we'll probably know a lot more than we do now. I do very much agree with the statement about the importance of teaching proper throwing mechanics. Unfortunately, a lot of youth baseball coach are simply not equipped to do that.

  13. Hey all, I'm starting to plan my first trip to the Bullseye: July 30-Aug 1 vs. the White Sox. Wife and kids traveling to Maryland to see a friend. I'm heading up with my mom (with whom I've watched many Twins games) that week to finally check out the new digs.

    2. The only games I know I could conceivably attend this year are Memorial Day weekend when I'm back for the wedding, so I'm guessing those will be pretty well sold out. *Sigh* maybe someday I'll get to see TF.

Comments are closed.