As of last night, I've seen more of the History Channel's "Vikings" than I have the 2014 Minnesota Vikings. Which is to say, one full episode so far.
108 thoughts on “December 11, 2014: Vikings”
Is our resident automotive expert around? Trying to learn from the wisdom of the WGOM, I set the parking break when I was out with the car recently. A few hours later, I returned to the car and almost forgot to release the brake, but I did remember. I began driving along and suddenly noticed the dashboard was lit up like a Christmas tree. I pulled off at the next exit, consulted the manual, set and re-released the break, and . . . no change. The car sounded fine and handled normally, so I drove it home. The following day the situation with the lights was the same. The next day, Mr. NaCl was about to drive the car to have the dealership take a look at it when the warning lights all went back to normal.
So, the immediate issue seems to have resolved itself. But should I ever set the parking brake again?
Its always a little sad when internet friend go silent for weeks or months on end. I understand life happens and maybe had to delete Twitter or Facebook or whatever, but its not like you are ever going to bump into on accident running errands.
=/
I just saw that one. So much for my once-strong love of Cespedes. Stupid laundry.
in the same story is a headline claiming Kemp to Padres for Grandal and prospects. Huh.
That one's reportedly been in the works for a little while. Supposedly the Padres are interested in having Rene Rivera handle more of the catching since he's shown good results in framing.
I assume the Firars would play Kemp in right...
A couple of days ago I saw but had no time to comment on the annoyance that the Mission: Impossible movies were star vehicles rather than ensembles. I just wanted to mention that while I was working toward what I thought I wanted - a life in film - one thing that was drilled into me as both a writer and actor was that ensembles were bad business decisions because they make no money on the big screen. I never did a ton of research on this, but have long wondered if it's just one of those things that producers say to each other repeatedly so it becomes conventional wisdom, like "you can't make a baseball movie unless it's not about baseball," another popular bit I've heard over and over. Producers are risk-averse and if they can't promote a strong single lead or pairing, they want nothing to do with the script.
Frankly, I think they could have had it both ways. You can promote M: I as a Cruise vehicle all you want but in the actual film, make better use of the rest of the team. Of course, the other problem here is that if you don't constantly reassert the awesomeness of the lead in a script, it can be hard to draw a top star.
Ah, Hollywood.
uh, Avengers anyone? Ensemble film.
Of course, it's a bit different than a straight ensemble film, since most of the principals have their own individual titles as well. But...
Right. I don't think Avengers would have been made without the franchises building them first. Regardless, I think it would have worked anyway (and indeed, it still would have been marketed as a Stark-heavy film).
I love ensembles - both writing them and watching them. I don't think studios should fear them.
Let's all watch State and Main tonight, OK? (The mascot in my town is the Huskies. My wife and I always yell "Go You Huskies!")
you, sir, get an executive producer credit!
🙂
Also X-Men. Although, it has become more of Wolverine and the X-Men.
right. that series definitely paved the way for Avengers and Guardians and for future ensemble movies, such as the Inhumans.
The next step is ensembles not featuring existing properties. Or at least not featuring supers. Hopefully this has opened some minds, though.
Expendables
That one was probably an easy sell given the personnel involved. Again, not a perfect franchise by any means, but if it opens the door for more ensembles, I'm all for it.
Perhaps it's a guilty pleasure, but I always thought Rat Race was a pretty good ensemble act.
I love Rat Race, so if you're guilty, then so am I.
It's been a while since the last good competition caper movie, eh? I like the subgenre and will watch just about anything made in the style. Believe it or not, I'm intrinsically into narratives where there can be only one winner among many competitors.
Yes!
Here's one I love: Noises Off… I'd love to see a professional production of the play.
I've had some friends that have done it (it's a massive favorite among theater folk, which is intuitive enough).
They all say the same thing: difficult as hell, but so worth it.
let's not forget those great '80s classics, Cannonball Run I and II. 🙂
Not to mention the clones they spawned, like Speed Zone.
I've seen them all, and in spite of myself, I like even the bad ones.
I was in a community theater production of Noises Off years ago. Lots of fun.
I did not expect you to be able to one-up me in the arena of stage, good sir.
Who were you? I'm going to guess Tim while admitting that it's impossible to say without seeing all the other actors.
It was community theater in Pierre, South Dakota, so it was hardly one-upping you, but it was nice of you to put it that way. I played Frederick. He was played in the film by Christopher Reeve, whom I resembled in every detail except, well, all of them.
How good we were is a relative thing. I think we were pretty good for a bunch of amateurs in a small town, while realizing that's a long way from actually being good. We did our best, and we had a blast doing it. Other than meeting and marrying Mrs. A, my community theater days were the best thing about my time in Pierre.
Excellent!
Worst play I ever saw was a professional production of Noises Off. All but one character was awful.
A high school version of the same was also one of the best plays I ever saw. It's a good show.
I'm mostly bothered by Mission: Impossible (and I Spy, and for God's sake The Wild, Wild West and The Lone Ranger, and countless others) is the hijacking of a TV title and having a barely tenable link to its main premise. Tantamount to fraud.
It's because of how they happen. Often a property is shopped around without a script, and a ton of money is paid for the privilege to make it before anyone but a studio and director is involved. From there, the director starts putting together any movie he wants.
Alternatively, and this happens a lot in video games too, sometimes the work is completed and then the property is branded. Here's a page where mostly screenwriters cover this phenomenon.
Some examples from just one single franchise:
Die Hard was at one time considered as a sequel to Commando, starring Arnold himself. Then the script became a story about terrorists taking a building hostage as a super cop comes to rescue the day.
Die Hard 2 was based on the novel 58 Minutes. Amazon.com: 58 Minutes (Basis for the Film Die Hard 2) eBook: Walter Wager: Kindle Store
Die Hard 3 was based on a hot spec script called Simon Sez.
The hot spec script Simon Sez, which later became the third Die Hard movie, was considered for Lethal Weapon 3. It should be noted that Die Hard 1 and 2 and the Lethal Weapon franchise were produced by Joel Silver.
The Tears of the Sun TITLE was actually the title for a script that was to be the fourth Die Hard movie, possibly co-staring Ben Affleck, Bruce Willis' co-star in Armageddon. Willis wanted the title for the eventual Navy Seals movie he starred in and promised the studio that if he could have the title he'd help develop what became Live Free or Die Hard, the fourth film of the franchise.
Makes me wish that TV had a Stan Lee to keep movies in the spirit of their TV theme.
Yup.
My attitude on the whole thing, taken more or less from Stephen King's book On Writing, is that they can never change your original source material, no matter what they change for the movie. It stopped bugging me a long time ago. If I don't think they're going to do anything interesting with it, it's pretty easy to not watch a movie.
A whole generation thinks The Wild, Wild West is a horrible movie and know nothing about the great campy TV series, unfortunately. My lawn needs getting off of.
Aye-yup. The real WWW was awesome, and plausibly deserves a refresh that stays true to the spirit of the original.
I'd winkingly argue that nowhere near a whole generation bothered to see that movie, but yes, I get your point. I wonder, though, if the extremely bad press toward the movie - for the reason you outlined - made more people go out and find it than if it had actually been a good movie that was faithful to the show. Who wants to do a scientific experiment?!?!?!?
Seriously, did anyone need to see the movie to know that it was garbage? Some great actors threw away time on that project. But yeah, it may have raised awareness towards the show.
The commercials definitely made it clear that it was not worth seeing. It's hard to spend that much money and still look that cheap.
my attitude is that it's crassly false advertising. You take a known brand name (e.g., any TV show) and hollow it out to refill with a mostly different approach and vibe, then you are selling a bill of goods.
with something like a Tom Cruise vehicle, what, exactly, is the point? You market the thing as Tom Cruise.
I recognize that some film realizations are as good or better in their own ways than the source material. Eventually the new versions become seen as stand-alone works of art, largely independent of their inspirations. I'm just whining that well-established-and-known source material should not be abused and utterly re-written for crass commercial purposes. If I'm buying a steak dinner, I'd better not be getting fish stew instead.
We don't disagree. I just can't work up the annoyance anymore, is all. A general distrust and cynicism toward Hollywood is just the safest way to go.
And since I'm already referencing the great William Goldman, let me assert that the movie Maverick is awesome.
Co-signed
I had heard about the Die Hard 3 rewrite. Didn't know this happened to a lot of movies, but somehow, I'm not surprised at all.
So... what piece of trash source material did Indiana Jones 4 start as?
I actually thought about researching that, but I'm still so annoyed that Frank Darabont's script was passed over, thanks to Lucas's infinite wisdom, that I didn't want to anger myself by reading more about.
The Big Chill?
Chill Factor?
Cold Steel?
Stone Cold?
Deep Freeze?
As William Goldman wisely said, Life is Pain "Nobody Knows Anything"
Anybody who says differently....
I think that's why I liked Ghost Protocol so much, they did such a great job with the rest of the team. Simon Pegg was great comic relief, and Renner was a great secondary start.
Yes, if any of the franchise somewhat resembled the TV series, it was that one.
I have nothing really to add to this discussion, and I was waiting for a movie day for this, but I'll say it here anyway. I am totally on board with this new Mad Max flick coming out next year.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtKfNYpXp3c
What made The Road Warrior so awesome was that it didn't rely on CGI. That, and it was practically dialogue-free. Judging by the trailer, this one--not so much.
I'm more excited for this.
httpv://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wZfs22E7JmI
And talk about a cast...
I'm mystified by film's aversion to silence. Long, quiet scenes are some of the most memorable in the hands of an artful director, and we just don't see many anymore.
I'm with you on Inherent Vice. PTA is one of the only directors who can make excess a good thing.
Theaters spend way too much on surround sound systems to be wasted on silence, don't ya know.
Vertigo has an amazing 17 minute sequence where there is like 3 lines of dialogue. Silence can be a great mood setter.
Now I'm excited!
Cannonball Run movies, FTW!
Oceans' 11, 12, 13...
The Magnificent Seven
The Dirty Dozen
The Longest Day
MASH
Any Monty Python movie
Kung Fu Hustle
The Great Escape
The League of Extroardinary Gentlemen
Young Guns I & II
Goonies
Mars Attacks
The Breakfast Club
Mission to Mars
Im just going to leave this here:
@JonHeymanCBS: kendrys morales gets $17M for 2 years plus 750 incentives each year. $18.5M max. #royals
Well, I mean, he did have a .612 OPS last year while providing absolutely no defensive value. When you get a chance to sign that guy to a multi-year deal, you don't mess around.
He's cheaper than Butler at least! Unfortunately there's a very good reason for that.
The Minnesota Twins selected JR Graham, a RHP from the Braves. A former top prospect in the pitching-strong Braves organization, he was able to throw 100 mph. However, shoulder problems the last two years greatly reduced his fastball, but he did pitch some in 2014.
Later in the draft, the Twins lost LHP Sean Gilmartin to the New York Mets organization. He came to the Twins from the Braves a year ago in exchange for Ryan Doumit. He split the 2014 season between New Britain and Rochester.
-Seth Stohs
We've got Santana and now Graham. Let's just completely raid the Braves and get Justin Upton while we're at it.
Gilmartin turns 25 next year and hasn't had any success above AA yet. He may improve, but I don't see him as a big loss. On the other hand, Graham also turns 25 next year and hasn't had any success above Class A yet. He may improve, but I don't see him as a big gain.
Doesn't he have to stay on the 25 man roster, though?
Yeah, I can't imagine that either of the draftees end up staying in their respective new organizations without trades being involved.
Maybe for each other.
Derp, thought the Twins lost Gilmartin back to the Braves.
When I first saw it, I was really hoping that was the case.
The Twins have reportedly signed Ervin Santana to a four year, $54 million dollar deal.
Well, year one of Nolasco hasn't scared them off of four year contracts then, anyway.
With a fifth option year , depending on how many innings he pitches.
I mean, this is sort of crazy, right?
He looks like he's been a fairly decent pitcher for the last several years. He turns thirty-two tomorrow, so four or five years seems like a stretch, but he doesn't have much injury history.
Wait, did anyone tell Twins Management that this isn't Johan?
But he was Johan! Seriously.
Assuming $13.5 million each year, with $7 million/win that projects him to be two wins next year. Steamer projects 1.8 fWAR and he was worth 2.8 fWAR last year. There's a reasonable case that the price per win is closer to $8 million so that projects him to be worth 1.7 wins next year. This seems to be, in money terms, market rate.
It's not so much 2015 that I'm worried about.
The rest of the years fall out from the first year. The better the player, the more years. Santana arguably was a better fit for three years, but four years and $50 million was set as the going rate for this caliber last year. As Jeff said, injuries haven't been a problem for him, so it's probable he'll beat projections based on that alone. He's done just fine in the AL previously, and in this division, so there's also that. The larger determiner of performance will be defense. So, 2015 might be the bigger concern maybe.
Well, hey. I already feel a lot better about this.
injuries haven't been a problem for him
past performance is not indicative of future results
Especially with this training staff...
Past performance is not uncorrelated with future results either. He's been healthy so far, so there is likely beat the over/under for innings pitched* next year.
* By this, I mean if you took all full-time starters in 2013 and found the median number of innings pitched in 2014, there would be a correlation between pitchers historically healthy with those that beat the median. Santana isn't a lock to pitch another 200+ innings. I do think it's reasonable to think he has a greater than 50% chance of beating the projected median.
I'm not sure whether that is a function of forecastable health so much as a quality effect. If injuries are at random, controlling for, say, age (e.g., time-varying parameter), well, they aren't really forecastable. So you have higher-quality pitchers exceeding the median number of innings pitched in a future year more often than low-quality pitchers, systematically.
Looking at who's under contract for next year as a starter, there's Hughes, Nolasco, Pelfrey, Milone, Gibson, May, and whoever from the minors (e.g. Logan Darnell). Adding Santana makes that seven total. I think projecting zero innings from Pelfrey is reasonable, so that's six starters. May and Milone aren't guarantees to start the season with the Twins, plus injuries, so this seems reasonable.
Going off MLBTR's free agent tracker, Santana was the top starter outside of Scherzer, Lester, and Shields. First two, hah, wasn't happening. Shields I could see as a maybe, but checking FanGraphs' free agent predictions, they would have need to guarantee him $90 million. And those values might all be a bit low.
I'm happy with this for the moment, and think its smart money. But I guess I was happier about RIcky than Phil last year. So what do I know?
This is where I'm at - almost word for word!
Re: this whole Sony hack and the endless stories about filmmaking arguments and insults in the heat of said arguments.
It is utter bullshit that semi-respectable news outlets are carrying this and even posting entire emails. Anyone who values his or her own privacy shouldn't be passing along ill-gotten sensitive business conversations.
In an unbelievable little bit of serendipity, one of the screenwriting emails I got in the last hour was for Drew Yanno's blog and it's all about building a script for a single character. For anyone wondering more about the approach Hollywood has to this, I'll put the whole article here (under a spoiler, because length) and let you check it out, or not. He says he'll be doing a post about ensembles soon (again, what a stroke of luck) and I eagerly await it, given how much he drills home the ideas present in today's "single star" blog.
One of the most common problems beginning screenwriters seem to have is grasping the notion that your script must have a single main character who drives the story. There are two exceptions to this: (1) the dual protagonist story (“buddy picture”); and (2) the multi-protagonist story (“ensemble piece”). I’ll talk about each of those in separate posts. But for now, I want to talk about the importance of telling the story through your main character.
In my previous post, I instructed you to try to frame your idea and eventual logline using this paradigm: “somebody wants something badly and goes after it against great odds.” Of course, the first word there is “somebody.” Your main character. And that’s an indication of the importance of the main character from the get-go.
As you may have heard me and others say before, it’s all based on the myth tale, which has been the dominant model of storytelling for centuries, crossing every geographical and cultural boundary. I believe it’s ingrained in our DNA. My kitchen-sink psychological take on this is that we are, at our core, a goal-driven species. In our primitive years, that goal may have been simply to hunt down the mastodon to get some food. Today, it may be to get the big job or the pay raise or the prom queen.
For whatever reason, we like to watch stories that involve a single main character pursuing a goal. Beginning screenwriters tend to get the concept on some level, but often have trouble with the execution. The result is that they’ll fall in love with some secondary character or characters and pursue some secondary storyline for an extended length of time while their main character all but disappears. I’ll offer a separate post on the importance of great secondary characters, as well as one on the magic of subplots. But if your goal is to write a commercial script that attracts big-time producers, know that you must have a main character who dominates the story.
Whenever I consult on a script from a writer who has failed in this regard, I always ask them to guess on how many pages of the script their main character appears. Almost without exception, they’ll overestimate. Of course, I will have counted before asking, and when I give them the raw data, they’re surprised. More importantly, they suddenly get it.
For my money, in a 105 page script, your main character should appear on no less than 90 of those pages. If you go more than two consecutive scenes or five pages without your main character appearing, alarm bells should go off.
In novels, this isn’t such a hard and fast rule. Readers will go along for the ride if the main character in a novel takes a breather for awhile, so long as the writing is good and the story moves forward. Hell, there are successful novels that don’t have easily identifiable main characters, The Help being a recent example. However — and this is making my point for me — notice that they changed that in the film adaptation.
The reason for this difference between novels and films is the delivery device. A novel is a one-to-one relationship between the writer and the reader. It’s long term. The book is not meant to be read in one sitting.
On the other hand, film is a relatively short form story that, for those psychological reasons I mentioned, almost forces us to walk in the shoes of the main character and be done with the experience after two hours. Want proof? Tell me you didn’t watch Cast Away and put yourself in Chuck’s home-made shoes and ask yourself what the hell you would have done if you were him on that island.
Finally, there’s one more practical reason for not going away from your hero for any length of time. A main character who’s featured on almost every page is going to attract an actor. The more they are going to appear in the film, the more enticing the role. And you want to write a script that will attract a great actor.
So remember, like your toddler, keep a close eye on your hero. And don’t let them out of your sight.
Despite what I thought was a very strong showing, I'll not be getting a callback from Monday's interview. Back to it (never really stopped, but...). Chin up, and all that.
Damn. Sorry to hear that, Phyllo. Keep your swing level. Hit scores a run.
Ugh. Sorry, man.
Dido to what bS said.
It's such a difficult feeling when you have this great rapport with a hiring manager and somehow don't move forward. Certainly, there are cynical and optimistic ways to look at the situation, and I hope you can focus on the optimistic one.
I won't do anything as foolhardy as promise you'll get something soon. All the same, you're having great interviews, so I do believe it's likely.
Trying to keep optimistic. I also got a rejection letter today from another one I thought would be a good fit, based on the description. It's been a rough couple hours, but I also bookmarked 4 new positions I want to apply to shortly after the letter came in, and all 4 seem really interesting.
ARGH! I just got another rejection! At least it's just one bad day, getting them all out of the way!
Ugh, sorry bout that.
Also, my daughter accidentally punched me in the junk.
Man, you cannot get a break today. Better luck tomorrow, Philos.
Sorry to hear that. Best of luck moving forward.
That sucks. All you can control is what you do. You never know what the competition has done. Just try to look at it as a good learning experience for the next interview.
Sorry to hear that. If it helps, I've interviewed for lots of jobs I didn't get, and when I ultimately got one it turned out to be better than the ones I thought I wanted. Hang in there.
Is our resident automotive expert around? Trying to learn from the wisdom of the WGOM, I set the parking break when I was out with the car recently. A few hours later, I returned to the car and almost forgot to release the brake, but I did remember. I began driving along and suddenly noticed the dashboard was lit up like a Christmas tree. I pulled off at the next exit, consulted the manual, set and re-released the break, and . . . no change. The car sounded fine and handled normally, so I drove it home. The following day the situation with the lights was the same. The next day, Mr. NaCl was about to drive the car to have the dealership take a look at it when the warning lights all went back to normal.
So, the immediate issue seems to have resolved itself. But should I ever set the parking brake again?
Its always a little sad when internet friend go silent for weeks or months on end. I understand life happens and maybe had to delete Twitter or Facebook or whatever, but its not like you are ever going to bump into on accident running errands.
=/
MiltOnTilt was at your grocery store?
Me?
The description fits...
Friedman is doing all sorts of interesting things with the Dodgers.
Ok, that's genuinely hilarious. Sounds like a guy with a little personality.
Cespedes to Detroilet, Porcello to Boston.
Wow. Didn't see that coming.
I just saw that one. So much for my once-strong love of Cespedes. Stupid laundry.
in the same story is a headline claiming Kemp to Padres for Grandal and prospects. Huh.
That one's reportedly been in the works for a little while. Supposedly the Padres are interested in having Rene Rivera handle more of the catching since he's shown good results in framing.
I assume the Firars would play Kemp in right...
A couple of days ago I saw but had no time to comment on the annoyance that the Mission: Impossible movies were star vehicles rather than ensembles. I just wanted to mention that while I was working toward what I thought I wanted - a life in film - one thing that was drilled into me as both a writer and actor was that ensembles were bad business decisions because they make no money on the big screen. I never did a ton of research on this, but have long wondered if it's just one of those things that producers say to each other repeatedly so it becomes conventional wisdom, like "you can't make a baseball movie unless it's not about baseball," another popular bit I've heard over and over. Producers are risk-averse and if they can't promote a strong single lead or pairing, they want nothing to do with the script.
Frankly, I think they could have had it both ways. You can promote M: I as a Cruise vehicle all you want but in the actual film, make better use of the rest of the team. Of course, the other problem here is that if you don't constantly reassert the awesomeness of the lead in a script, it can be hard to draw a top star.
Ah, Hollywood.
uh, Avengers anyone? Ensemble film.
Of course, it's a bit different than a straight ensemble film, since most of the principals have their own individual titles as well. But...
Right. I don't think Avengers would have been made without the franchises building them first. Regardless, I think it would have worked anyway (and indeed, it still would have been marketed as a Stark-heavy film).
I love ensembles - both writing them and watching them. I don't think studios should fear them.
Let's all watch State and Main tonight, OK? (The mascot in my town is the Huskies. My wife and I always yell "Go You Huskies!")
you, sir, get an executive producer credit!
🙂
Also X-Men. Although, it has become more of Wolverine and the X-Men.
right. that series definitely paved the way for Avengers and Guardians and for future ensemble movies, such as the Inhumans.
The next step is ensembles not featuring existing properties. Or at least not featuring supers. Hopefully this has opened some minds, though.
Expendables
That one was probably an easy sell given the personnel involved. Again, not a perfect franchise by any means, but if it opens the door for more ensembles, I'm all for it.
Perhaps it's a guilty pleasure, but I always thought Rat Race was a pretty good ensemble act.
I love Rat Race, so if you're guilty, then so am I.
It's been a while since the last good competition caper movie, eh? I like the subgenre and will watch just about anything made in the style. Believe it or not, I'm intrinsically into narratives where there can be only one winner among many competitors.
Yes!
Here's one I love: Noises Off… I'd love to see a professional production of the play.
I've had some friends that have done it (it's a massive favorite among theater folk, which is intuitive enough).
They all say the same thing: difficult as hell, but so worth it.
let's not forget those great '80s classics, Cannonball Run I and II. 🙂
Not to mention the clones they spawned, like Speed Zone.
I've seen them all, and in spite of myself, I like even the bad ones.
I was in a community theater production of Noises Off years ago. Lots of fun.
I did not expect you to be able to one-up me in the arena of stage, good sir.
Who were you? I'm going to guess Tim while admitting that it's impossible to say without seeing all the other actors.
It was community theater in Pierre, South Dakota, so it was hardly one-upping you, but it was nice of you to put it that way. I played Frederick. He was played in the film by Christopher Reeve, whom I resembled in every detail except, well, all of them.
How good we were is a relative thing. I think we were pretty good for a bunch of amateurs in a small town, while realizing that's a long way from actually being good. We did our best, and we had a blast doing it. Other than meeting and marrying Mrs. A, my community theater days were the best thing about my time in Pierre.
Excellent!
Worst play I ever saw was a professional production of Noises Off. All but one character was awful.
A high school version of the same was also one of the best plays I ever saw. It's a good show.
I'm mostly bothered by Mission: Impossible (and I Spy, and for God's sake The Wild, Wild West and The Lone Ranger, and countless others) is the hijacking of a TV title and having a barely tenable link to its main premise. Tantamount to fraud.
It's because of how they happen. Often a property is shopped around without a script, and a ton of money is paid for the privilege to make it before anyone but a studio and director is involved. From there, the director starts putting together any movie he wants.
Alternatively, and this happens a lot in video games too, sometimes the work is completed and then the property is branded. Here's a page where mostly screenwriters cover this phenomenon.
Some examples from just one single franchise:
Makes me wish that TV had a Stan Lee to keep movies in the spirit of their TV theme.
Yup.
My attitude on the whole thing, taken more or less from Stephen King's book On Writing, is that they can never change your original source material, no matter what they change for the movie. It stopped bugging me a long time ago. If I don't think they're going to do anything interesting with it, it's pretty easy to not watch a movie.
A whole generation thinks The Wild, Wild West is a horrible movie and know nothing about the great campy TV series, unfortunately. My lawn needs getting off of.
Aye-yup. The real WWW was awesome, and plausibly deserves a refresh that stays true to the spirit of the original.
I'd winkingly argue that nowhere near a whole generation bothered to see that movie, but yes, I get your point. I wonder, though, if the extremely bad press toward the movie - for the reason you outlined - made more people go out and find it than if it had actually been a good movie that was faithful to the show. Who wants to do a scientific experiment?!?!?!?
Seriously, did anyone need to see the movie to know that it was garbage? Some great actors threw away time on that project. But yeah, it may have raised awareness towards the show.
The commercials definitely made it clear that it was not worth seeing. It's hard to spend that much money and still look that cheap.
my attitude is that it's crassly false advertising. You take a known brand name (e.g., any TV show) and hollow it out to refill with a mostly different approach and vibe, then you are selling a bill of goods.
with something like a Tom Cruise vehicle, what, exactly, is the point? You market the thing as Tom Cruise.
I recognize that some film realizations are as good or better in their own ways than the source material. Eventually the new versions become seen as stand-alone works of art, largely independent of their inspirations. I'm just whining that well-established-and-known source material should not be abused and utterly re-written for crass commercial purposes. If I'm buying a steak dinner, I'd better not be getting fish stew instead.
We don't disagree. I just can't work up the annoyance anymore, is all. A general distrust and cynicism toward Hollywood is just the safest way to go.
And since I'm already referencing the great William Goldman, let me assert that the movie Maverick is awesome.
Co-signed
I had heard about the Die Hard 3 rewrite. Didn't know this happened to a lot of movies, but somehow, I'm not surprised at all.
So... what piece of trash source material did Indiana Jones 4 start as?
I actually thought about researching that, but I'm still so annoyed that Frank Darabont's script was passed over, thanks to Lucas's infinite wisdom, that I didn't want to anger myself by reading more about.
The Big Chill?
Chill Factor?
Cold Steel?
Stone Cold?
Deep Freeze?
As William Goldman wisely said,
Life is Pain"Nobody Knows Anything"Anybody who says differently....
I think that's why I liked Ghost Protocol so much, they did such a great job with the rest of the team. Simon Pegg was great comic relief, and Renner was a great secondary start.
Yes, if any of the franchise somewhat resembled the TV series, it was that one.
I have nothing really to add to this discussion, and I was waiting for a movie day for this, but I'll say it here anyway. I am totally on board with this new Mad Max flick coming out next year.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtKfNYpXp3c
What made The Road Warrior so awesome was that it didn't rely on CGI. That, and it was practically dialogue-free. Judging by the trailer, this one--not so much.
I'm more excited for this.
httpv://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wZfs22E7JmI
And talk about a cast...
I'm mystified by film's aversion to silence. Long, quiet scenes are some of the most memorable in the hands of an artful director, and we just don't see many anymore.
I'm with you on Inherent Vice. PTA is one of the only directors who can make excess a good thing.
Theaters spend way too much on surround sound systems to be wasted on silence, don't ya know.
Vertigo has an amazing 17 minute sequence where there is like 3 lines of dialogue. Silence can be a great mood setter.
Now I'm excited!
Cannonball Run movies, FTW!
Oceans' 11, 12, 13...
The Magnificent Seven
The Dirty Dozen
The Longest Day
MASH
Any Monty Python movie
Kung Fu Hustle
The Great Escape
The League of Extroardinary Gentlemen
Young Guns I & II
Goonies
Mars Attacks
The Breakfast Club
Mission to Mars
Im just going to leave this here:
Well, I mean, he did have a .612 OPS last year while providing absolutely no defensive value. When you get a chance to sign that guy to a multi-year deal, you don't mess around.
He's cheaper than Butler at least! Unfortunately there's a very good reason for that.
We've got Santana and now Graham. Let's just completely raid the Braves and get Justin Upton while we're at it.
Gilmartin turns 25 next year and hasn't had any success above AA yet. He may improve, but I don't see him as a big loss. On the other hand, Graham also turns 25 next year and hasn't had any success above Class A yet. He may improve, but I don't see him as a big gain.
Doesn't he have to stay on the 25 man roster, though?
Yeah, I can't imagine that either of the draftees end up staying in their respective new organizations without trades being involved.
Maybe for each other.Derp, thought the Twins lost Gilmartin back to the Braves.
When I first saw it, I was really hoping that was the case.
The Twins have reportedly signed Ervin Santana to a four year, $54 million dollar deal.
Well, year one of Nolasco hasn't scared them off of four year contracts then, anyway.
Twins sign Ervin Santana to four-year, $54 million deal.
With a fifth option year , depending on how many innings he pitches.
I mean, this is sort of crazy, right?
He looks like he's been a fairly decent pitcher for the last several years. He turns thirty-two tomorrow, so four or five years seems like a stretch, but he doesn't have much injury history.
Wait, did anyone tell Twins Management that this isn't Johan?
But he was Johan! Seriously.
Assuming $13.5 million each year, with $7 million/win that projects him to be two wins next year. Steamer projects 1.8 fWAR and he was worth 2.8 fWAR last year. There's a reasonable case that the price per win is closer to $8 million so that projects him to be worth 1.7 wins next year. This seems to be, in money terms, market rate.
It's not so much 2015 that I'm worried about.
The rest of the years fall out from the first year. The better the player, the more years. Santana arguably was a better fit for three years, but four years and $50 million was set as the going rate for this caliber last year. As Jeff said, injuries haven't been a problem for him, so it's probable he'll beat projections based on that alone. He's done just fine in the AL previously, and in this division, so there's also that. The larger determiner of performance will be defense. So, 2015 might be the bigger concern maybe.
Well, hey. I already feel a lot better about this.
injuries haven't been a problem for him
past performance is not indicative of future results
Especially with this training staff...
Past performance is not uncorrelated with future results either. He's been healthy so far, so there is likely beat the over/under for innings pitched* next year.
* By this, I mean if you took all full-time starters in 2013 and found the median number of innings pitched in 2014, there would be a correlation between pitchers historically healthy with those that beat the median. Santana isn't a lock to pitch another 200+ innings. I do think it's reasonable to think he has a greater than 50% chance of beating the projected median.
I'm not sure whether that is a function of forecastable health so much as a quality effect. If injuries are at random, controlling for, say, age (e.g., time-varying parameter), well, they aren't really forecastable. So you have higher-quality pitchers exceeding the median number of innings pitched in a future year more often than low-quality pitchers, systematically.
Looking at who's under contract for next year as a starter, there's Hughes, Nolasco, Pelfrey, Milone, Gibson, May, and whoever from the minors (e.g. Logan Darnell). Adding Santana makes that seven total. I think projecting zero innings from Pelfrey is reasonable, so that's six starters. May and Milone aren't guarantees to start the season with the Twins, plus injuries, so this seems reasonable.
Going off MLBTR's free agent tracker, Santana was the top starter outside of Scherzer, Lester, and Shields. First two, hah, wasn't happening. Shields I could see as a maybe, but checking FanGraphs' free agent predictions, they would have need to guarantee him $90 million. And those values might all be a bit low.
I'm happy with this for the moment, and think its smart money. But I guess I was happier about RIcky than Phil last year. So what do I know?
This is where I'm at - almost word for word!
Re: this whole Sony hack and the endless stories about filmmaking arguments and insults in the heat of said arguments.
It is utter bullshit that semi-respectable news outlets are carrying this and even posting entire emails. Anyone who values his or her own privacy shouldn't be passing along ill-gotten sensitive business conversations.
In an unbelievable little bit of serendipity, one of the screenwriting emails I got in the last hour was for Drew Yanno's blog and it's all about building a script for a single character. For anyone wondering more about the approach Hollywood has to this, I'll put the whole article here (under a spoiler, because length) and let you check it out, or not. He says he'll be doing a post about ensembles soon (again, what a stroke of luck) and I eagerly await it, given how much he drills home the ideas present in today's "single star" blog.
Despite what I thought was a very strong showing, I'll not be getting a callback from Monday's interview. Back to it (never really stopped, but...). Chin up, and all that.
Damn. Sorry to hear that, Phyllo. Keep your swing level. Hit scores a run.
Ugh. Sorry, man.
Dido to what bS said.
It's such a difficult feeling when you have this great rapport with a hiring manager and somehow don't move forward. Certainly, there are cynical and optimistic ways to look at the situation, and I hope you can focus on the optimistic one.
I won't do anything as foolhardy as promise you'll get something soon. All the same, you're having great interviews, so I do believe it's likely.
Trying to keep optimistic. I also got a rejection letter today from another one I thought would be a good fit, based on the description. It's been a rough couple hours, but I also bookmarked 4 new positions I want to apply to shortly after the letter came in, and all 4 seem really interesting.
ARGH! I just got another rejection! At least it's just one bad day, getting them all out of the way!
Ugh, sorry bout that.
Also, my daughter accidentally punched me in the junk.
Man, you cannot get a break today. Better luck tomorrow, Philos.
Sorry to hear that. Best of luck moving forward.
That sucks. All you can control is what you do. You never know what the competition has done. Just try to look at it as a good learning experience for the next interview.
Sorry to hear that. If it helps, I've interviewed for lots of jobs I didn't get, and when I ultimately got one it turned out to be better than the ones I thought I wanted. Hang in there.
Think Putin can see it from the Kremlin?