Thursday, September 2, 2010

Moving the site

I have moved the Adam Bomb blog over to http://crazyadambomb.wordpress.com/. Follow me over there for all my continuing adventures in following sports and entertainment.

And if you're interested in BYU sports, also check out the blog I'm doing with my brother, http://riseandshout1984.wordpress.com/.

Peace out.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Wesley Snipes in Star Trek?

You read that headline right. According to an article I read, Wesley Snipes was on the short list in 1987 to play the role of Geordi La Forge in Star Trek: The Next Generation, the role that eventually went to LaVar Burton. Was Snipes really being considered? Not sure. Even the article questions the authenticity of the report. But it does make for an interesting 'what if.'

According to Snipes' IMDB page, he would have been very available in 1987, playing bit characters on shows like Miami Vice. He didn't get his big break playing Willie Mays Hayes in Major League until 1989.

His career took off after that, with titles like New Jack City (1991), White Men Can't Jump (1992) and Passenger 57 (1992) quickly making him a household name. If I had to pick a favorite Snipes movie, it would probably be Blade (1998), though I think I've liked every Snipes movie I've ever seen (though I haven't watched most of his films). He has really dropped off the planet since 2004's Blade: Trinity, but at one point during the 1990s, this guy was one of the biggest stars.

But imagine if he had been cast as Geordi La Forge and made his career on the starship Enterprise. He may have become rich and famous, but now he would be doing Star Trek conventions and voicing cartoons. Very interesting.

New BYU Sports Blog: Rise and Shout

My brother Matt and I are starting a new BYU Sports blog called Rise and Shout, and you can read it over at http://riseandshout1984.wordpress.com/.

Today's topic: what BYU's 2011 football schedule could look like if we go all indepedent.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Revisiting Star Wars Episode II

Revisiting Star Wars Episode I

OK, so two months later I've watched the second one. It's been kind of a busy 60 days, with a family reunion, the birth of a child, and a lot of other things. Are these excuses to neglect my commitment to reflect on all six Star Wars films? Certainly not, but they are reasons.

When adjusted for inflation, 'Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones' is the 85th grossing movie of all-time, surrounded by such films as 'Aladdin', 'Mrs. Doubtfire' and 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.' The 2002 film grossed almost $650 million world wide, so it would have to be considered a huge commercial success. But why do many people, including myself, view this as the weakest movie of the six?

Because the middle act is boring, and the dialogue is the worst George Lucas ever wrote. As I re-watched it and listed to some of the 'romantic' lines between Anakin and Padme, I wasn't sure if I should cringe or laugh. I ended up doing some of both.

But this is still an awesome movie, and here are the biggest two reasons: Obi-won in action, and the awesome battle on Geonosis.

As I did with Episode I, I'm going to start with annoying before I jump to the awesomeness:
  • I already mentioned how bad the dialogue is. It is bad enough that it bears repeating. 'I deeply, truly love you.' As Harrison Ford reportedly once said to Lucas, "You can write this crap, but you can't say it."
  • George Lucas deciding he needed one more action scene (Anakin and Padme storming the Geonosis factory) in place of some plot building scenes. If you look at the deleted scenes, there is a key bit between Padme and her family where you find out why Padme likes Anakin, and it's Natalie Portman's best scene. I understand that Lucas thought the second act was getting a little tedious, but he took out the one scene that could have lifted their love story from ridiculous to somewhat bearable.
  • Too much CGI. The aforementioned scene of Padme and Anakin storming the Geonosis factory has not aged well, and a few scenes in the Jedi temple also look a little fake. A few more sets would have been nice.

Now, on to the good stuff.

Obi-won Kenobi: Jedi Knight
As a kid who grew up on Star Wars, I use to always wonder what Obi-won was like as a younger Jedi Knight during the days of the Republic. Though we get a good feeling for the young Obi-won in Episode I and his awesome victory over Darth Maul, this is where we begin to see the man who would eventually train Luke Skywalker and bring down his old apprentice Darth Vader and his old nemesis Emperor Palpatine.

What I didn't think about as a kid is that much of the fall of Anakin can be blamed on Obi-won. Surely Anakin's evil choices were his own, but Obi-won was very critical of his padawon, and though he did warn the Jedi Council about the danger Anakin might be, he was blind to some of the greatest seeds of Vader's birth: his secret marriage to Padme Amidala, and his violent reaction to his mother's death.

But you can see the wise Obi-won beginning to be born. Even leading members of the Jedi Council (Mace Windu and Yoda) council with him. He is renowned for his abilities. And then he single-handedly ferrets out the existence of the clones and tracks down Jango Fett.

Jedis in battle
Though the outcome was a little disappointing, seeing Jedi fight a full-out battle against a droid army on Geonosis was a dream come true. Mace Windu takes out Jango. Many Jedi die, but after a valiant fight against overwhelming numbers.

But you have to wonder why they were there. Yes, trying to rescue Obi-won (and subsequently Anakin and Padme) was a noble effort, but worth trading a dozen (or more) Jedi for? Mace knew from Obi-won's report that the separatists were building a droid army, so he had to know being outnumbered was a very good possibility. And though Yoda was headed to Camino to get the clones, Mace could not have known how timely Yoda's arrival would be.

Regardless of Mace's strategic misstep, seeing a bunch of Jedi in action was awesome.

Darth Sidious manages everything and everyone
Supreme Chancellor Palpatine/Darth Sidious seems to have planned for everything. He was deftly manipulating the Jedi, spreading them thinly throughout the galaxy. He was manipulating the Senate, quietly grabbing more and more power. And why was he able to get so much power? By creating his own threat, a separatist movement led by his apprentice Darth Teranus, aka Count Dooku, the former Jedi.

But his masterpiece was his manipulation of Anakin. He understood the young man's motivations better than Obi-won or any of the Jedi. He knew that the key to pushing the young, powerful Jedi to the Dark Side (or destruction) were getting his mother dead (which makes me wonder if her kidnapping by was coincidental) and a romance with Padme. He knew Anakin was the key to bringing down the entire Jedi Order, and he fostered a mentor relationship that would bring an entire galaxy to its knees.

The Jedi blind spot
Maybe the most important dialogue in the movie is between Mace Windu and Yoda. They are discussing the fact that the Jedi power is waning, and that the Sith Lord was clearing obscuring their abilities. But Yoda says that they should not make this public, because it would weaken the Jedi and therefore the Republic.

This Jedi 'blind spot' is the key to the entire story line. In Episode V ('The Empire Strikes Back') it appears that Yoda's ability to look into the future is better than in Episode II. The wisest Jedi of all-time was helpless, powerless to see that the Sith infiltration was right in front of him, and that his trusted ally Palpatine was actually a Sith Lord. Did he see the danger of Anakin? Yes. But he didn't see how it would happen, and it happened too quickly for Yoda to stop it.

Count Dooku: Revolutionary or Terrorist?
Who is Count Dooku? Was he really an idealist who saw the Sith path as a way to end Republic corruption and create a new better government? Or was he just a power hungry Jedi reject who found in the Dark Side more power? I think hestarted out as an idealist who was turned off by the corruption of the Republic and passive nature of Jedi. But in the end he gave away his soul in a quest for more power.

His relationship with Palpatine is a curious one. Unlike Darth Maul or Anakin, Dooku is not a young apprentice, or clearly Palpatine's eventual heir. So what did Dooku think was going to happen? Did he, like many Sith before him, believe that he would become more powerful than Palpatine and eventually kill him, taking control of the Republic in the process? Certainly that must of been his motive, but it's clear this was never going to happen.

Why? Because he wasn't powerful enough. Though his talents with a lightsaber were undeniable, it's likely he would have met his end if Anakin had fought alongside Obi-won as instructed. And he only escaped his duel with Yoda through trickery. He was a stooge, he just didn't know it yet.

Yoda: Jedi Master
When Luke Skywalker meets Yoda on Dagobah in Episode V, Luke does not recognize the diminutive creature as a great Jedi Master. Part of it is Yoda's hermit act, but the bigger part is what Luke had in his mind: someone more like Obi-won Kenobi. He likely would have been impressed if an older Mace Windu had survived, or one of the more physically impressive members of the Jedi Council.

But Yoda was the greatest Jedi of his day. Even though he was already well into his twilight years in Episode II, we get to see him fight his former apprentice Dooku. His acrobatic, Force-aided fighting style was an awesome sight to see, and it one of the greatest scenes in movie history.

The Clone Wars begin
As Yoda points out at the end of Episode II, the victory on Geonosis was really not much of a victory. A war had begun against a well-armed and motivated foe. Count Dooku was in league with the Sith Lord, who was still unknown. Many of the Jedi had died, and many of the surviving Jedi were already spread throughout the Republic.

And, unknown to Yoda, another awful event was unfolding: Anakin's secret wedding to Padme.

What did she see in the guy?
My final section is one of the most puzzling. After Anakin comes back from killing an entire village of his mom's kidnappers, he admits it to Padme. At this point, wouldn't most women have run the other direction? The guy was unstable, and extremely powerful, especially when he gave into his anger.

But for whatever reason, she still loves him. Maybe she feels bad for him. Maybe she sees the desert dwellers as non-intelligent life. Maybe she was a little nuts herself.

Regardless, the galaxy would be glad she stuck around. Anakin was headed toward the Dark Side, and the one good thing that would come out of this series of tragedies was the birth of twins who would bring down the monster she helped create.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

The Legend of Josh Hamilton

Do you know what the Most Interesting Man in the World wears to bed? Josh Hamilton pajamas.

Chuck Norris has only cried once in his life. That was while watching Josh Hamilton hit during the 2008 All-Star Game Home Run Derby.

Jack Bauer has only truly feared for his life once. He stood in an empty alley, fully armed. And Josh Hamilton stood at the other end with just his bat.

After watching Josh Hamilton this season, I understand why Tampa Bay made him the No. 1 overall selection in the 1999 draft. He is a true all-tools talent. He's fast, he's powerful, he's graceful, and his baseball IQ is high. Very few baseball players have ever played the game with his supreme combination of talents.

We also all know the story. What should have been a Babe-like career was derailed by powerful drug and alcohol addictions, and injuries. Tampa Bay got so fed up with him they left him unprotected in the 2006 Rule 5 draft, and he was sent to the Reds for $100,000. Imagine that. One of the best athletes ever to put on a baseball uniform basically given away because of personal issues.

He broke through in 2007 with the Reds, amassing 337 PAs, a 292/368/554 line and 2.5 WAR. In a sense, he had arrived. Finally clean, Hamilton put together a very good partial season and established himself as a potentially legitimate major leaguer. And then the Reds traded him to the Texas Rangers for Edison Volquez and Danny Herrera. The Reds were selling high.

2008 was the dream. Hamilton made the All-Star team, finishing first among American League outfielders. In the first round of the Home Run Derby, he hit 28 home runs, though he lost the contest to Minnesota's Justin Morneau. He finished the season with a 304/371/540 line and 3.8 WAR. He was a legitimate All-Star.

If 2008 was the dream, 2009 was the nightmare. Hamilton was dogged by injuries and only had 365 PAs. His 268/315/426 line was a shadow of his previous two seasons. And his personal life was again in the spotlight, as it became public that he slipped back into alcohol for at least one night.

This past weekend I was again amazed by Hamilton. At full strength again this season and with a couple years under his belt, Hamilton has become a force, a one-man wrecking crew. The play of the series was during Game 1 on Friday night. With Boston flamethrower Daniel Bard on the mound and the Rangers behind 9-8 in the bottom of the 8th, Hamilton doubled with two outs. Vlad Guerrero then hit a weak ground to second. Jed Lowrie made the play, but his throw to first pulled Mike Lowell off the bag.

Where was Hamilton? Almost to home, all the way from second. Lowell's reaction was a little slow, he turned and gunned it home, but the tag was too late. Hamilton had scored, and the Rangers had tied the game. Texas would go on to win the game in the 11th on a Nelson Cruz no-doubt bomb.

My brief description does the play no justice whatsoever. You can watch video highlights of Hamilton's big night at MLB.com.

Do you know who's been the most valuable player in the AL this season? Josh Hamilton, and it's not particularly close. Is this an aberration? Is this his true talent? Is this the Hamilton we've been missing? Jack Moore at Fangraphs pointed out last weeks that Hamilton's BABIP is a little high (and likely unsustainable), but even so, he's mashing.

I hated watching Hamilton decimate the Red Sox this weekend, further dampening the team's postseason dreams. But he is currently my favorite player to watch, joining a rarefied group that includes Rickey Henderson, young Barry Bonds, and young Griffey Jr. Unfortunately his career won't likely hit the true legend status of any of those Hall of Famers (or should be HOFers).

But however long he players, and wherever his career lands, Josh Hamilton has arrived and is the most exciting player in the bigs.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

On DVD: Up

If I was rating Disney/Pixar movies, here's how I would put them:
  1. The Incredibles (2004)
  2. Toy Story (1995)
  3. Toy Story 2 (1999)
  4. Up (2009)
  5. Finding Nemo (2003)
  6. Monster's Inc. (2001)
  7. Cars (2006)
  8. Ratatouille (2007)
  9. A Bug's Life (1998)

Haven't seen: WALL-E (2008), Toy Story 3 (2010)

What a fabulous roster of movies. A Bug's Life is at the bottom, but I like it. And I've found Cars to be very re-watchable (my daughter went through a phase of watching that one). The Incredibles ranked as my 8th favorite movie of the past decade, and Toy Story and Toy Story 2 were 11th and 17th on my best movies of the 1990s.

And they did it again with Up. Most people who love Pixar probably already saw it last year. I didn't because my daughter was 2 at the time, and friends and family said that the movie was probably a little too old for her. I meant to take my wife in the theater or rent it shortly after it was released on DVD, but that didn't happen.

It's a lot different movie than any of the others. The deep tones remind me more of Pixar's short films than the other longer films they have made. And who but Pixar could have pulled off a story where the main characters are an old man and a boy scout.

Yes, the film had the requisite child movie silliness, including some slapstick comedy and talking dogs (though this was the best group of talking dogs ever). And my friends and family were right: this is not a little kids movie. Besides it being a little scary at parts, the themes are really more adult, or better said, a better fit for older kids.

But as always with Pixar, you get a kid's movie that rises about the silliness and gives you something more, something real. The premise of the movie, like all Pixar movies, it's complete fantasy. Talking cars. Talking toys. A world full of friendly monsters. Rats that love to cook. Or an old man moving his house to South America using balloons. Yet the characters and the feelings they create are more real than a lot of 'real' movies.

The biggest missing piece in this one was the villain, who was a little too cliche and was introduced too quickly. Other than that, I have no complaints. It was a movie worthy of the Pixar legacy, and I'm not sure I can pay it a bigger compliment than that.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Movie Review: Inception

Most of your who wanted to see Inception have probably already done so. Going into this weekend (it's 4th weekend in theaters) it had been the top grossing US movie each weekend, which is quite uncommon in today's movie market. The timing couldn't be more perfect: late July is usually after most studios have released their big tentpoles, and it's been up against fairly minor competition. I went to it on Friday night for a 9:30pm showing in Appleton, Wis., and my wife and our friends Megan and Brad were joined by about 15 other people (at most).

There should have been more. This was a incredible movie, one of the best movies I've ever seen. The story, the cinematography, the directing, the acting, the effects; everything came together to create a phenomenal film that continues to stick in my brain. It's one of the movies you can't shake, and you don't want to.

So what made this movie work? I'm glad you asked.
  • Christopher Nolan. Everything begins and ends with the creator. Nolan wrote and directed this film, and his fingerprints are all over it. He has hit that rarefied moviemaker air for me, that is only breathed by one man: Stephen Spielberg. What Nolan makes, I will see. His Batman movies have been superb, The Prestige (2006) was awesome, and I've been talking about seeing Memento (2000) for so long, I feel like I've now cheated myself by not seeing it. So the success of Inception begins and ends with Nolan.
  • The Story. This story is one of the most original, intense, and mind-wrapping stories since The Matrix (1999). From the first 30 seconds, you are confused, enthralled, intrigued and completely absorbed.
  • The actors. I used to say I didn't like Leonardo DiCaprio, but I think I misstated. I just didn't like his two breakout roles: Romeo + Juliet (1996) and Titanic (1997). I haven't seen him in much else, and I really liked him in Catch Me If You Can (2002) alongside Tom Hanks. He is awesome as the main character in this film, perfectly cast. When I heard that Ellen Page was the female lead, I was unsure, but she nailed it. The rest of the cast is equal to the two stars.
  • The effects. With one exception that I can remember, the effects in this movie were seamless, which is exactly how it should be. There are some zero gravity fight sequences I'm still trying to figure how they did. The complexity and bizarre nature of this story required killer effects, and they were delivered.
  • A true climax. After building up the tension for 2 hours, the movie delivers in the final 30 minutes. Even the last 5 minutes took the breath out of the theater. The ending was simple yet complex. Sublime.

Did they make any mistakes? No, nothing substantial. There was one scene where the effects looked fake, but that lasted for like 3 seconds.

The one caveat to this is that the movie is rather violent, pressing the limits of a PG-13 rating. There are some dark themes in it, so it certainly is not for kids.

This is one of the best movies I've ever seen. And while I gushed over Avatar last year, Inception is its superior in every way except for visuals, and that is in no way an insult to Avatar. I cannot wait to see it again, and sometime soon I need to think about where this film fits among my favorite films of all time.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Red Sox Storylines: Aug. 5

Here are some recent Red Sox major storylines and what I think about them.

The Sox are doomed and won't make the playoffs.
I covered what I thought about the Boston's playoff chances a couple weeks ago. What has happened since then? Not a lot, really. Yes, there was the exciting trading deadline where the Yankees improved themselves by importing Lance Berkman, who used to be good. Their playoff chances are about the same as they were -- not very good, but still possible. The killer blow may have been Youk's injury, especially if he's really out for a month. He's the best hitter on the team, and anytime there's more ABs for Kevin Cash, that's not a good thing. But New York is old, Tampa is vulnerable, and Boston has a good combination of pitching, defense and offense that could make a sustained run. Is it likely? No. Is it possible? Certainly.

Jacoby Ellsbury is a bad teammate
Dan Shaugnessy of the Boston Globe is a master agitator, and he did it again this week but calling out Jacoby Ellsbury, questioning his heart, grit and whether he's a good teammate. The best part? He intimates that Ellsbury's teammates think he's a problem, but without any sources whatsoever. Comments by Kevin Youkilis have been overblown, and Youk even addressed those in a column on ESPNBoston.com.

Does Youk think Ellsbury is a woos? Maybe. Was there some miscommunication between management and Ellsbury about his rehab? From outside, it looks like it. But so what? This really seems like a media creation to me. Shaugnessy can't even find anyone to complain about Ellsbury off the record, so he's left to his own conjecture and smearing the reputation of a very good player who's been very good for the Sox. Let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt until we actually have something substantial to talk about.

The Red Sox should have done something more at the deadline
Really? What exactly? I mentioned previously that the biggest need was the bullpen. The starting 5 is good (especially with Beckett returning to form), the lineup is deep (before Youk's injury), and the defense is good. The Sox needed a bullpen arm and maybe a better hitting back-up outfielder to take the place of Eric Patterson, though I think those options existed internally with Ryan Kalish and Daniel Nava. And they needed healthy players.

But the price for good bullpen help was high, so Theo & Co. passed. I don't blame them. They can use some young arms (like Felix Doubront and Michael Bowden) who likely will be as effective as some mediocre National League reliever. And with about a 1-in-5 chance of making the playoffs, sending off a useful minor leaguer for a replacement-level reliever is bad management.

And let's be clear: I don't think they were deeply in on any big names. Adam Dunn? Where would he have played? His natural position is DH, and we have one of those. Lance Berkman? Please. He would have been an upgrade over Lowell, but before Youk's injury, we couldn't find a place for Lowell on the roster. And none of the 'big-name' starters were anyone the Sox should have mortgaged the future over.

What's up with all the injuries?
Randomness. It just happens. Fill in a cliche. There's really nothing to explain it, unless you believe Adrian Beltre was intentionally trying to break the ribs of Jeremy Hermida and Ellsbury. Would the Sox be in the thick of it if Ellsbury, Victor Martinez, Beckett, Youkilis, Varitek, Mike Cameron, and Pedroia, had been healthy all season? Likely, but they weren't. The key thing to remember is that Theo built a good team that had a high chance of contending. Things have not worked out as planned, which happens.

Red Sox fans have stopped watching this boring team
Bill Simmons spent 1,653,345 words explaining why this team is boring. Ratings are down in Boston. Tickets are easier to come by. The reason? The team is boring.

I'll give you a simpler reason: the Sox are 6 games out of first place and Sox fans are spoiled. Since 2003, the Red Sox have only missed the playoffs once and have won two World Series. In each of those playoff seasons, Boston has won at least 95 games. Does this team lack the name power of Manny and Big Papi? Maybe, but with gritty players like Youk and Pedroia (and Boston loves players like that), and new fan favorites like Beltre and Nava and Martinez, I don't buy the boring tag. I just think the team is underachieving compared to the recent past, and Boston fans are spoiled, like Atlanta Braves fans used to be, or Yankees fans have been for a long time.

Mark my words: if the Sox go on a 12-2 run and get within 2-3 games, the team suddenly won't look very 'boring' anymore, and the roster will be about the same.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Book Review: 'The Hunger Games'

Do you know where I get my book recommendations? Well, one place is from my sister Rachel, who is reading 365 books this year; she's a pretty good source. I have also posted a request on Facebook, asking for recommendations. My Facebook friends have not led me astray; first they led me to read Dune, a book I tried to read as a teenager but never finished. Most recently they turned me onto The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins.


What intrigued me the most about the recommendation was the diverse group who recommended it. This group included my neighbor who's a stay-at-home mom who used to work in finance, and a former journalist colleague who's biggest claim to fame is that he's interviewed almost every great living rock guitarist. What could this fiction book offer that appealed to such a divergent group?


So I dove in and learned myself. The Hunger Games is easily one of the most compelling character books I've read in a long time, a compelling futuristic thriller that breaks no new ground in sci-fi/post-apocalyptic lore, but weaves a spell-binding tale with characters that quickly become real to the reader.


What worked. The best part about the book is the lead character, Katniss, and that the book is told in her first person voice. I always fear first person when I began reading a novel; I think it's a default mode for modern fictionalists, but I think it fails more often than it works. In this case, I can't imagine the story told in any other way.

The other key part for me was the world. Katniss lives in District 12 before she's thrown into the Capital's sadistic Hunger Games. The settings are few (which is a good thing), but feel real, particularly District 12 and the arena for the Hunger Games.

The other characters were also strong. The other key characters, Peeta and Haymitch, are beautifully done, filling in the rest of the story, perfect counterpoints to the headstrong lead.

What Didn't Work. Very little. The book is quite violent during the final act in the arena, and has very dark themes. But none of this really bothered me because of the way it was handled and how it played into the story.

Who Would Like It. Anyone who likes good, compelling, character-driven fiction. I've heard it described as a young-adult novel, but this is way too narrow of a definition; I think it's appeal is much broader than that. It also is good for all you post-apocalyptic fans (like me).

Who Wouldn't Like It. As I mentioned above, the final act is quite violent, and many of the themes are quite dark. Personally I don't think it's over the top (especially since the violence is in no way glorified, just the opposite), but it could offend some people's sensibilities. And though it called a young adult novel, I would urge parents to read it first or with their younger teens or tweens to discuss the deeper themes.

Parting Thoughts. As you might have noticed, I loved this book. It wasn't a page-turner in the style of Harry Potter, or my favorite sci-fi book of all-time Ender's Game, but it was awesomely compelling, character-driven, action-packed drama. And you can quote me on that.

Thank you Facebook friends.

Saturday, July 31, 2010

BYU and the search for indepedence

Now, for most people who know me or who read my little blog, it goes without saying that I'm an idiot. I get sports stuff wrong all the time, like my 2010 MLB predictions (nice call on the Mariners) and being certain the Celtics would prevail over the Lakers in the 2010 NBA Finals.

So when I read this morning Dick Harmon's take in the Deseret News that BYU could be considering breaking from the MWC and becoming independent, I was ticked off that I hadn't thought of it. Of course this was an option.

Dick does a good job pointing out some of the reasons. To sum up, BYU has HD broadcasting capabilities, a national following, and seems to be likely to be left out of the Big 12 or any other major expansion because of its religious affiliation. So of course it's a course of action the athletic department and university leadership would consider.

It's an interesting prospect. BYU, because of its religious affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). There are approximately 6 million Mormons in the United States, though only a fraction of those have a passion for Brigham Young University, and only some of those care about BYU sports. Could BYU sustain itself as an independent?

In football, I think so. EPSN likes BYU because the school provides decent national TV ratings and has a national brand (as opposed to TCU, which arguably has a better program). But TCU has a very small following, while BYU has shown itself to be a national draw.

But besides potentially a slightly bigger pay day than staying with MWC football, what could the benefit be? Well, that's hard to say. With Boise State, TCU and BYU, the MWC is a borderline BCS conference. Had Utah stayed, it would have been almost impossible for the big wigs to keep the MWC out of the BCS mix without potentially risking outside innovation. The BCS should still include the MWC, but the draw isn't as strong as it would have been. On its own? BYU would have to put together a killer schedule and nearly run to the table to break into the BCS party. And with most bowl games affiliated with conferences, the postseason could be a problem.

It goes without saying that BYU would have to maintain conference affiliations for the other sports, with the MWC being the logical match in most sports.

Why wouldn't they do this? I think one of the biggest reasons Dick left out of his article. I don't think the LDS Church wants to turn BYU-TV into a sports network. Yes, BYU already has a network on satellite TV and most major cable providers. But right now it's filled with educational and religious programming. Forget, for a second, whether the satellite and cable companies will roll if they switch its non-profit mission to a sports channel. Would the Church even want to do that? Does it fill the mission of the channel? I think the likely answer is no.

I am intrigued by independence. I would love to see BYU create rivalries with Notre Dame and other national programs, and maintain rivalries with Utah and Air Force. And let's never play Utah State again.

I don't think this is likely to happen, but it's an interesting thought.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

The Red Sox can still smell the playoffs

Before games are played on July 27, the Red Sox sit 8 games behind the division-leading Yankees and five games behind the wild card-leading Rays. Many prognosticators had Boston, New York and Tampa as the best three teams in the American League coming into 2010, and they haven't been too far off. Boston's 56 wins trails only New York, Tampa and surprising Texas.

But can the Red Sox make up ground and get past their division rivals and into the playoffs? To answer this question, I usually turn to the Playoff Odds Report at Baseball Prospectus and the MLB Odds at Coolstandings.com. The other thing I do is use my brain.

BP gives Boston an almost 25% chance of making the playoffs, with almost 20 of that coming from a wild card berth. For comparison, New York has a 91% chance. Coolstandings is a little more skeptical, giving Boston a 20% chance, with 16 of that being in the wild card. So looking at these numbers, and just using a little reason, Boston's biggest chance is making up the 5 games between it and Tampa.

But can they do that? Yes, they can. Many of Boston's walking wounded are returning, with Victor Martinez following Josh Beckett and Clay Buchhloz last night. Dustin Perdoia is likely to follow, and Jacoby Ellsbury has started rehabbing. This is a team that has seen Jeremy Hermida's .632 OPS see the most time in LF, followed by Bill Hall and Darnell McDonald. Ellsbury is very unlikely to be worse.

But the biggest problem is the bullpen. They have the worst bullpen in the AL by FIP and 3rd worst by xFIP. I don't really care if Okajima talks to reporters or not, but getting people out would be nice.

So instead of chasing Jayson Werth or an NL pitcher who might not be an upgrade over anything we have, let's go get some less expensive bullpen arms for the stretch drive, even if we only have a 20% chance of making the playoffs. Remember, that's 20 points higher than Baltimore.

Friday, July 23, 2010

On DVD: 'The Road' and "Wolverine'

I watched a couple of movies recently while traveling, and here are some thoughts.

The Road (2009): What a hauntingly good film. Vigo Mortenson and young Kodi Smit-McPhee form a powerful duo, who spend most of the time together, with interludes of interaction with other characters in this post-apocalyptic drama. It is violent, and is it dark, but the film reeled me in from the beginning and didn't let go of me until I sat there stunned and emotionally drained during the closing credits. Like Children of Men (which I reviewed briefly earlier this year), it's really not a sci-fi movie; it's really a dark tale of a father and son, and one that, though I'm not likely to watch again, I'm glad I did.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009): I reviewed this last year after it came out, and I can tell you I actually enjoyed it more this time without the weight of the 20-year expectations of a Wolverine movie. It still had it's problems: the last fight scene was too over-the-top; the special effects were sub-par; and there are too many characters. But I liked it better the second time. Hugh Jackman is awesome as Logan, Ryan Reynolds is good as Deadpool (though they butchered his charater a little), and the story was interesting. Is it a great movie? No. Does it belong among the best super-hero movies? No. But it's very entertaining, and I would certainly see a sequel.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

All-MLB Team: American League

You can check our yesterday's All-NL team, and also last year's team. On with the show!

C -- J. Mauer, Min (2.1, -1 293/368/424 345). This was actually pretty tough. Mauer is not as awesome as usual this year, and Carlos Santana, the remarkable Cleveland rookie, made me think about moving Mauer off the top of the heap. But I didn't. Honorable mention: C. Santana, Cle

1B -- J. Morneau, Min (5.0, 8.0 345/437/618 447). I hated knocking Youkilis off the perch, but Morneau is either having a career year, or he's tranformed into Pujols North. I couldn't pass on him. Honorable mentions: K. Youkilis, Bos; M. Cabrera, Det

2B -- R. Cano, NYY (4.4, 5.6 336/389/556 401). Cano has transformed from an overrated Yankee into one of the best players in baseball. He and Pedroia are really the two best second sackers in baseball, both in the same division. Honorable mention: Pedroia, Bos

3B -- E. Longoria, TB (3.7, 1.6 300/381/513 389). Longoria is the man, sitting on the peak waiting for someone to challenge him. Though Beltre has been very good for Boston, no one is Longoria. Honorable mention: A. Beltre, Bos

SS -- D. Jeter, NYY (1.8, -0.4 274/340/392 328). AL shortstop is not the glamour position it used to be. It pains me to leave Jeter in this position for another year, but he is who I would pick. Has he been the most valuable in 2010? No, Alex Gonzalez in Toronto has been more valuable (2.4 WAR). And Scutaro (Bos) and Pennington (Oak) have been as valuable. But I would still pick Jeter. (Someone shoot me.) Honorable mentions: A. Gonzalez, Tor; M. Scutaro, Bos; C. Pennington, Oak

LF -- C. Crawford, TB (4.7, 15.2 317/373/511 393). Josh Hamilton (Tex) is just as valuable this year, but Crawford's defense is tremendous, and Hamilton is up-and-down a little over time. So this wasn't easy, but Crawford's still the man. Honorable mention: J. Hamilton, Tex.

CF -- T. Hunter, LAA (2.9, 14.9 292/379/502 372). Hunter is having a bit of a career resurgence the past season and a half. He's flashing the leather, and his bat is more valuable than at any time in his career. When he signed the 5-year/$80 million deal with the Angels before the 2008 season, I thought he would be way overpaid by the end of the deal. Though that still may be true (who knows what his value will be in 2012), right now he's worth it. Honorable mentions: A. Rios, CWS; A. Jackson, Det

RF -- S. Choo, Cle (2.8, 2.1 286/390/475 382). I hate to unseat Ichiro, as he's been as valuable as Choo this season. And technically Swisher (NYY) has been a little more valuable (though we're splitting hairs). The truth is, this was a tough one, so I would take the power/youth of Choo over the defense/speed of Ichiro. Honorable mentions: Ichiro, Sea; N. Swisher, NYY

Starters
1. C. Lee, Sea/Tex (4.1 2.59 2.55); 2. F. Liriano, Min (4.5 3.76 2.16); 3. J. Lester, Bos (3.9 2.81 2.97); 4. Grienke, KC (2.8 3.67 3.53); 5. J. Weaver, LAA (3.5 3.16 3.08). Honorable mentions: F. Hernandez, Sea; J. Verlander, Det
Lee and Liriano are clearly the class of the AL this season; Lester is alone after them. After that, it was hard to chose. I think Grienke would thrive in Boston/New York/Anyplace but Kansas City, and Weaver has taken a great stride forward.

Relievers
1. M. Rivera, NYY (1.3 1.01 2.25); 2. M. Thorton, CWS (1.6 2.58 1.90); 3. Putz, CWS (1.2 1.50 2.10); 4. Balfour, TB (1.1 2.20 2.40); 5. F. Francisco, Tex (1.2 3.92 2.55). Honorable mentions: D. Oliver, Tex; D. Bard, Bos
I wrote earlier this year just how amazing Mariano is. The AL reliever corps are not as strong as their NL brethren, but it's a good group. Thorton and Putz have been awesome on Chicago's South Side, and Balfour continues his consistent, top-level performance.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

All-MLB Team: National League

Here's my second annual All-MLB team (here's last year's squad). I'm going to start with the NL.

Just like last year, I'm looking for the best players. If I had to win the pennant this year, who would I pick. I weighed 2010 performance heavily, and I also didn't unseat an incumbent from last year unless there was clearly a better choice.

And here's the format: A. Mangum, Team (WAR, Fielding AVG/OBP/SLG wOBA). All stats are from Fangraphs.com. If the names are in italics, the player is the incumbent.

All NL-Team
C -- B. McCann, Atl (2.7, 1 267/380/447 364). McCann is the class of the NL catchers, and he brings it with a powerful bat (though he's down a little this year). He's also passable behind the plate. Honorable mentions: M. Olivo, Col; G. Soto, ChC

1B -- A. Pujols, Stl (3.4, -1.1 308/416/576 412). Sometimes we might forget just how remarkable Pujols has been over his nine seasons coming into 2010. Joey Votto (Cin) has been more valuable this year(4.2 WAR), but I would take Pujols for the stretch drive (and next year too). Honorable mentions: J. Votto, Cin; A. Gonzalez, SD

2B -- M. Prado, Atl (3.2 1.1 325/367/484 368). If Chase Utley (Phi) wasn't hurt, I'd pick him, but he is, and Prado has been equally valuable this year. So Utley is unseated for a year. Honorable mentions: C. Utley, Phi; D. Uggla, Fla; B. Phillips, Cin

3B -- D. Wright, NYM (4.1, 3.3 314/392/532 396). This is one of the toughest calls in either league. Wright and Zimmerman (Was) are pretty much equals at this point, two dueling virtuosos at the hot corner. Wright has been slightly more valuable, so I kept him, but this is really a pick'em. Honorable mention: R. Zimmerman, Was

SS -- H. Ramirez, Fla (2.7, -6.1 301/381/485 378). There is no doubt that Ramirez is an offensive force, even if he's off his career wOBA number (393). But his fielding is suspect (despite good range and enough talent to be at least average), and apparently he's an attitude problem. I would have gladly unseated him, but if I wanted to win games between now and November, he's the guy. Honorable mention: S. Drew, Ari

LF -- M. Holliday, Stl (4.4, 9.2 309/388/536 399). Last year it was Manny, but he's been limited due to injury. So here comes Mr. Holliday, the $120 million man. He has delivered in the first year of his shiny new contract. And, really, he's the only awesome LF in the NL right now. Honorable mention: A. Torres, SF

CF -- A. Pagan, NYM (3.2, 12.5 306/362/466 366). With incumbent (and teammate) Carlos Beltran sidelined by injury, Pagan has filled in nicely. Technically Marlon Byrd has been more valuable (3.8 WAR), but I would rather have Pagan and his awesome fielding roaming center. Honorable mention: M Byrd, ChC

RF -- J. Upton, Ari (2.4, 5.7 269/354/460 360). Besides 3B, this was the toughest call in the NL. I really like Upton, but he's down this year. But besides the breakout of Heyward in Atlanta, the rest of the field is pretty comparable to Upton. And I wouldn't trust Corey Hart any farther than I can throw him -- which I couldn't at all (he's a bid dude). Honorable mentions: J. Heyward, Atl; C. Hart, Mil; R. Ludwick, Stl; J. Werth, Phi

Starting rotation (WAR, ERA, FIP)
1. J. Johnson, Fla (4.7, 1.62, 2.25); 2. R. Halladay, Phi (4.4, 2.40, 2.97); 3. Y. Gallardo, Mil (3.0, 2.58, 2.98); 4. U. Jiminez, Col (3.6, 2.38, 3.23); 5. A. Wainwright, Stl (3.6, 2.02, 3.05). Honorable mentions: T. Lincecum, SF; R. Oswalt, Hou; C. Kershaw, LAD
It was tough leaving Lincecum off the list, but the five are picked are awesome, and Lincecum is fading behind the pack. Johnson is likely the best starter in the league, and Halladay is a stud. Jiminez has come back to earth, but his stuff is still sick.

Relievers
1. J. Broxton, LAD (1.7, 3.15, 1.60); 2. S. Marshall, ChC (1.6, 1.88, 2.06); 3. Belisle, Col (1.6, 2.72, 2.45); 4. Bell, SD (1.4, 2.01, 2.06); 5. B. Wilson, SF (1.6, 1.98, 1.98). Honorable mentions: L. Nunez, Fla; B. Wagner, Atl; C. Marmol, ChC
Not a single holdover from last year, which basically tells you how mercurial relievers are. That being said, Broxton is awesome, and Bell and Wilson are studs.

Friday, July 9, 2010

LeBron: From King to Jester

I didn't see the big production last night; I was traveling with my wife and two daughters, and got back to our house hours after it was done. I have watched highlights, and red scathing POVs like Tony Massarotti's in the Boston Globe. And I read Bill Simmons' preview as well.

So where do I sit? Well, LeBron is an idiot, that is clear. He basically raised a big middle finger to an entire fan base and possibly even a state, and he seems oblivious. And he did it on national television in a bizarre, inhuman way. All very strange.

What I Know
  1. If I were a Cavs fan, I would hope for LeBron's eternal destruction until my dying breath. Not just because he left (potentially forgivable), but the spectacle he made of it, and the poor effort he showed in the playoffs against the Celtics.
  2. I now have a new least-favorite team in the NBA, and yes, the Heat have eclipsed the Lakers. I think LeBron and Bosh are glory-hogging idiots, and Wade is only a level below them in that department. I may not hope for their eternal destruction, but I will hope for lots of disappointment for the Miami Heat.
  3. There are no guarantees of NBA championships, even with LeFraud, Bosh and Wade on the roster. Are they the 2011 Eastern Conference favorites? Today, no. I need to see the rest of that roster. But likely Riley will work some magic and get a decent team together. But Boston is still pretty good, and Orlando is much deeper than Miami will be.

What I Believe

  1. LeBron should have gone to Chicago. To me, it's all about legacy. If LeBron really wants to be remembered as one of the greatest ever, I think teaming with Derek Rose, Noah and Boozer in Chicago would have given him a contending team that would have been his team; there's no doubt to me that Miami is still Wade's team. And no, he should not have gone to the Knicks. They would have stunk for another 2-4 years. Easy decision, even if it is New York.
  2. If LeBron, Bosh and Wade win a string of NBA titles (as I mentioned above, it's a tough feat even with all that talent), I think LeFraud's legacy is tainted by the way he left Cleveland and by the fact that he never won a title without Wade. Time will tell, but he might grow to detest Wade.

What We Don't Know

  1. If this was all a foregone conclusion, and if all of the gameplaying by Wade, Bosh and LeBron was nothing more than media fodder, or as Simmons mentions in his column, a potential plot for a reality series, than shame on them. Totally pathetic.
  2. How many (if any) title Miami will win. Like I wrote above, winning an NBA title isn't easy. Because of salary cap realities, Miami will not have a deep roster, and they will need health and some luck to win in 2011. After that? Who knows. A new collective bargaining agreement could make it easier or harder for them or easier. And a major injury to any three of them would stall the whole thing (and bring a evil smile to the entire city of Cleveland).
  3. If LeBron is really one of the best players ever. I (among a host of others) have been touting this for years, that LeBron's statistical dominance makes him a once-in-a-generation type of player. But what kind? Will he be remembered like Bernard King? Oscar? Jordan? Magic? Bird? Malone? Winning titles in the NBA means more for a legacy than in any other of the US sports. Look at Robert Horry; good role player, who's status has sky-rocketed due to his being on so many championship squads. Know what we'd call the Horry equivalent in baseball? Lucky. But because basketball is such a team game, we give Horry extra credit for his teams' success, and we torch Karl Malone for his teams' playoff failures.

If someone reads this in 10 years (highly unlikely) or a column like Massarotti's, this may seem silly. LeBron may have 4 titles and have cemented himself as one of the greatest players of all time. The only people who may still care about any of this are Cavs fans and older fans who dislike him for the way he disrespected the game by making such a pathetic spectacle of himself. But I think it's more likely we've seen a likable hero transformed into a villain.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Looking back at some great MLB decisions

Recently came across Jon Heyman's article at SI.com via Rob Neyer on ESPN.com where he examined the best 15 baseball management decisions of the past year. I loved the list and wanted to talk about a couple of them.
  • 1. The Nationals' signing of Stephen Strasburg. In June of last year, I opined that the Washington Nationals should pass on drafting the phenom. I then stated a few months later that the Nats made the right decision, mainly because they signed him for less than I thought they would. And of course, Strasburg has been awesome so far, putting up unbelievable numbers: 2.27 ERA, 1.54 FIP, 13.64 K/9, 1.5 WAR. All of this in just 5 starts and about 32 innings. Amazing. But let's not get too crazy. While Heyman is right that it was a good decision, Strasburg might be a once-in-a-lifetime player, or he might be Mark Prior. Time will tell.
  • 4. The Padres' decision not to trade Adrian Gonzalez and/or Heath Bell. I predicted that the Padres would finish a distant fourth in the NL West, but San Diego GM Jed Hoyer had a better handle on his team than I did (no big surprise). He held onto his two best players, and they have both contributed to one of baseball's biggest surprises (3.3 and 1.1 WAR respectively).
  • 6. The White Sox's decision last August to claim Alex Rios and his $12-million-a-year contract on waivers. Man, I thought the White Sox were crazy when they claimed Rios. And now he's hitting 312/368/534, which would be his best line ever. Will he stay there? Not likely, but he's a great fielder, and even if he falls down to his 06-08 level, Chicago made a great call.
  • 9. The Rangers' decision to stick with manager Ron Washington. This is one where I think Heyman missed the mark. Yes, the Rangers lead the AL West by 4.5 games, but there's no reason to believe another manager couldn't have done just as well. I think the decision was still very hypocritical of a sport that is punishing drug users.
  • 14. Adrian Beltre's call to turn down Oakland's multiyear offer to sign with Boston for one year. As Heyman points out, if Beltre had signed with the A's, he might have been stuck with the same moniker he had in Seattle: great glove, bad bat. Now he's hitting 340/379/547, thanks to a 404/649 OBP/SLG at cozy Fenway. (Editor's note: These are actually his away splits. He's his OBP/SLG is acually 370/500 at Fenway. Wow.) And he's been great with the glove. This guy is making himself a lot of money, and I hope the Sox resign him, as long as he stops hurting our LFs.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Pierce opens a window for the Celtics

During my pain-staking write-ups during the NBA Finals, I constantly talked about how the Celtics are really Rajon Rondo's team now. Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and KG may not realize that, they may think they're still A-Level players, but reality played itself out on the 2010 playoff stage.

Tony Massarotti of the Boston Globe agrees with me, and he writes that Paul Pierce opting out of his contract may give Danny Ainge an opportunity to re-build around Rondo sooner than he might have otherwise. A blessing in disguise, kind of like not trading Pierce a couple years back.

First off, I'm a huge Pierce fan. Without him, the Celtics do not win the 2008 title and do not make it to the 2010 Finals. Yes, he sputtered in Game 7 against Ron Artest, but he did put up a 19/6/3 in the playoffs on 44/40/83 shooting. Despite declining skills, he's still a very good player.

But I think it's likely he will be a good player somewhere else in 2010-11. I think Ainge is going to take a chance on a free agent. According to Mazz, he's got $25 million to play with. Is he going to sign one of the big guys like LeBron or D-Wade? No, that's not going to happen. But what about Joe Johnson (I'm not a fan)? Or Amar'e? Carlos Boozer? David Lee? The Celtics need to get younger and more athletic. All of those guys would qualify.

Of course, I have no idea how this will turn out. Could Pierce return? Sure. He's mentioned in the past about being a lifelong Celtic, but would he pass up the opportunity to play along side Nash in Phoenix (not likely), Wade in Miami (a little more likely), or maybe be a veteran presence in a place like Oklahoma City? Only he could say for sure.

I will miss Pierce if he leaves, and will look forward to the day his No. 34 jersey joins the others in the rafters. But it's time for the Rondo era to begin.

The panicking Mets

What's with all the panic in NY surrounding the Mets? Do they really have to acquire Cliff Lee to secure a playoff spot?

The 2010 season thus far would say no. The Mets are 1.5 games behind Atlanta in the NL East and are the WC leader. Granted, the WC is very tight, with the Cardinals, Phillies, Dodgers and Giants all within 3 games, so lots of potential to blow it. And we know that the Mets have blown it in recent years, so the panic is warranted to some degree.

But do they need Lee? And at what cost? According to Fangraphs.com, the Mets have the 10th best offense in the NL. If you look at their team page at BaseballReference.com, they have some easy upgrades to the lineup: Franceour is not good, but the Mets have Carlos Beltran returning and if the Mets are smart (a big leap there) Angel Pagan will start over Franceour. The other hole is Luis Castillo as 2B. They should be able to better a 624 OPS (and he's below average in the field as well).

Back to Fangraphs, the Mets are similarly 10th in pitching. They have three plus starters (Santana, Pelfrey and Dickey), and a mish-mash group behind them (not that different from the
a lot of teams). The bullpen is actually an area of need as well.

So could the Mets use Cliff Lee? Absolutely, almost any contender could. But the Mariners are likely going to want top prospects, and the Mets might mortgage their future in a year when they could make the playoffs anyway. They have good internal options to upgrade the OF, and upgrading 2B would be cheaper. Can you say Dan Uggla?

So before the New York media pressure Omar Minaya into mortgaging the future for Lee (who would be a tremendous rental arm), the Mets have other areas where an impact upgrade could be made at a fraction of the cost.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Book Review: Percy Jackson and the Olympians Series

I first got interested in the Percy Jackson series when I saw ads for the movie. The concept intrigued me: the Olympian Gods were still alive, living in the US, and their demigod children were living among us mere mortals. Seemed like an interesting premise.

Then I never saw the movie. I heard about the changes from the novel, and my interest waned in the film. But I did read all five books over the past 6 months.

For whatever reason, this series frequently gets compared to the Harry Potter books. I understand why: teen fantasy novel written in a modern world for a modern teen audience. Other than that, here are the major differences:
  • Percy Jackson author Rick Riordan writes nothing like J.K. Rowling. Unlike like Rowling 3rd person, limited narrator (from Harry's perspective), Riordan goes with the first person story telling technique, which is done in an irreverent, teenage tone (and is actually one of my favorite parts of his writing).
  • Olympians and witches/warlocks is not the same thing. The worlds are very different from one another. I didn't feel like I was in similar world at all.
  • Unlike the Harry Potter universe, which became incredibly complicated as time went on, Riordan keeps it relatively simple. This means less depth to his world, but easier reading.

So on with the review.

What works
A lot of things, so I will return to my lazy old bullet list.

  • Characters. I love the characters. Percy is a believable, NYC teenager. His friends, fellow demigod Annabeth and Grover the Satyr (half man, half goat), were unique and interesting. The other main characters (including the Gods and villains) were fun, especially during the first 2-3 books when everyone is being introduced.
  • Fast-moving plot. If I have one major issue with some fantasy is slow plot. Riordan keeps it rolling.
  • Great battles. His battles are awesome, and I really had a hard time stopping during those tense moments.

This is a complete list at all, but these were my favorite elements.

What doesn't work
Again, back to the bullets.

  • Cliche gods. Though some of the gods and monsters were really cool, a lot of them were cop outs, where Riordan went with cliches over depth.
  • Swift conclusions. This wasn't true for books 4 and 5, but 2 and 3 ended a little abruptly for me. A little more denouement would have been appreciated.
  • High brow teenager. Sometimes Percy knows a little too much about architecture and history for a kid who hated school. Obviously this is Riordan flexing his literary muscles a bit, but sometimes it made me pause.

Who would like this
Anyone who likes light fantasy. It's also a good match for the Harry Potter crowd, though I know some Potter fans have rejected the series (not sure why). It's also a pretty light read for those looking for a fun series to read during the series. Would be good for teens who like fantasy fiction.

Who wouldn't like this
Only people without a soul. Just kidding. It's pretty light fiction, and it does have violence and death (especially book 5). Also, if you're afraid your kid might turn into an Olympian god worshiper, I would avoid this. (Warning: Heavy doses of sarcasm have been know to be very contagious).

Final Chapter
As you can tell, I really liked these books. I've been reading a lot of deep nonfiction lately, and the Percy Jackson series has been a nice change of pace. If you're looking for a good, fun fantasy read, pick it up. Five books later you won't regret it.

Monday, June 28, 2010

The World Needs Replay

Sunday was not a good day for FIFA. Too phantom goals changed the course of two elimination games, the Argentine goal against Mexico being the most egregious. The Mexican team became deflated, and what had been 25 minutes of griping soccer with two very determined teams, turned into a circus. Argentina scored its bogus goal and Los Tres Colores was left arguing fruitlessly with the FIFA officials. Several minutes later, a careless turnover and Mexico is down 2-0.

Now, I am claiming no Nostradamus powers. If the play had been called correctly, I have no idea who would have won. According to the Soccer Power Index rankings on ESPN.com, Argentina is the second best team in the world; Mexico is No. 12. The true talent level is probably greater, but certainly Mexico is capable of playing a good enough game to beat the blue and white on a given day.

I have stopped reading articles that argue against instant replay. It's just stupid. The job of the officials is to get the call correct, period. If we can fix that, we should. Here are my thoughts, by sport:
  • Football. This one is so easy, so of course the NFL has missed it. It is not the responsibility of the coach to officiate a game; no more coach challenges. Just put another ref in the booth who makes the call. No more looking under the hood. He stops the game, he quickly reviews and makes a call.
  • Basketball. Anything around scoring (two or three points) and out of bounds plays should be reviewable. Again, a separate replay official who does it on his own.
  • Baseball. This is where replay should go to a new level. All balls and strikes should be called electronically, no more 'human factor.' All base calls should be reviewable, as well as home runs and foul balls. Separate replay official.
  • Soccer. I already mentioned that FIFA needs another official (or two) on the field. They also need a replay official. It would be very limited, just to replay goals.

This isn't perfect, but it's closer to perfection, and isn't that the point? Don't we want to get as close as we can to the 'true' outcome? The less 'human' factor the better as far as I'm concerned.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Revisiting Star Wars: Episode I

I love Star Wars. I am a Star Wars nerd. I have seen all six movies more times than I can count. I have read almost all Star Wars novels and comics. I have pondered serious questions like: Who are Yoda's parents, and what do they look like? Would Luke in his prime beat Obi-Wan in his? What exactly did Padme see in Anakin?

So I decided to start a journey of re-watching the six movies in order over the next several weeks/months. I would do it quicker, but I have a family and a job, and I would like to keep both.

To kick off 'Episode I: The Phantom Menace', I'm not sure why there's so much bad talk about the newer prequel trilogy. Were these movies as good as the first three? No, but the first three were three of the best movies ever made, so that's asking a lot. But all three movies were commercial successes. Phantom Menace, when adjusted for inflation, is the 20th all-time grossing movie, ahead of movies like 'The Godfather', 'The Lion King', and 'The Dark Knight.'

If you didn't like the movie, fine, but the Star Wars movies are not about awesome stories or compelling dialogue. The Star Wars formula is simple: fun adventure story + cool characters you care about + visually excitement + just plain coolness. Phantom Menace worked in the formula. Am I a Lucas apologist? Absolutely. But this is a very, very good movie. I even ranked it as the No. 5 movie of the 90s.

That being said, Lucas & Co. missed the opportunity to make this a transcendent film (like the first three), so in that way it was a slight disappointment. Here are some of the misses:
  • Jar-Jar Binks. What a waste of screen time. I realize that this character was an attempt to engage younger viewers, but that's a crock to me. With young Anakin playing a central role, and R2-D2 and C3PO involved, he was completely superfluous and completely annoying. And he turned the Gungans from a warrior race into a joke.
  • Anakin. Young actor Jake Lloyd just didn't get it done. Child acting can ruin movies, and he didn't do that poorly, but either Lucas was too impatient to get young Jake to the right point, or Jake just didn't have it in him. It was likely a little of both. Regardless, this detracted from the film.
  • Medachlorians. Reducing the Force to some symbiotic creature was dumb, and Lucas never mentioned it again. Neither will I.
  • Virgin birth. Anakin was conceived by the Force? Oh good golly. Again, we will never mention this again. I would have preferred that Palpatine had an affair with his mother, or it was Jango Fett. Anything but a virgin birth.
  • More Darth Maul. He needed to blow out who Darth Maul was a little. His appearance in the series was too brief. What a cool character who only barely touches the surface of what he could have been.

Without further desecration of my Star Wars fandom, here's my not-so-random thoughts regarding Phantom Menace.

The Worlds of Naboo and Coruscant
The movie takes place on three planets: Naboo, Coruscant and Tatooine. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the third one. It's a desert planet visited in three of the other five films. Naboo is only briefly featured again, and Coruscant is introduced to us.

Naboo, both the beautiful countryside and the spectacular capital city of Theed, gave Lucas and a his team their first chance to create a world with the new technology that was available at the time. It's a vibrant world, with two divided nations, the Gungans and the humans, who live in a tense peace. And we also get to see the beautiful Gungan underwater city. (By the way, how do the Jedi swim underwater with all those robes? That's got to be tough.)

Coruscant is a planet that is one entire city. Awesome visually, with ships and speeders criss-crossing everywhere. Coruscant is featured more in the later films, so I won't waste too many pixels here, but it was great to see the capital planet in all its glory.

The Jedi
In the first three films, there are a couple of old Jedi (Obi-Wan and Yoda), a young Jedi in training (Luke), a potential Jedi (Leia) and a Jedi-turned bad (Darth Vader). But we see very little of the Jedi, and know very little about them.

The movie begins with Qui-Gon Jinn, Jedi Knight, taking his padowan apprentice Obi-Wan on a diplomatic mission that ends up with them in some minor skirmishes. We finally get to see Jedi in action as a team, and it's pretty cool, knocking down droid soldiers and running through different terrains. Awesome.

We also get to see the Jedi Council, are re-introduced to a younger Yoda and meet other major players, including the very serious Mace Windu. We also find out that the wise Obi-Wan was trained by a somewhat rebellious mentor, someone who frequently defied the council's best wishes.

This movie left me with some questions about the Jedi Council, some of which were answered in the other movies, some of which weren't:

  • What did they know about Anakin? We'll get into this later, but if Mace Windu and Yoda were do nervous, why didn't they take him as a padowan?
  • Why was Mace Windu so arrogant about the Sith? Why did he believe they couldn't rise again without the Jedi knowing?
  • If the Republic was already corrupt, why weren't the Jedi already becoming more proactive? Was Palpatine's power over them that complete?

The Sith
Darth Sidious (aka Palpatine) quickly becomes the central evil mastermind of this drama. He's pulling all the strings, attempting to manipulate the Republic, the Jedi, the Trade Federation, basically playing everyone off each other, all with the goal of consolidating power underneath him, ruling the galaxy under the hand of the Sith.

The question is how much of what happens in this movie was his plan or what was an accident he used to his advantage. Hard to say. I think he misjudged Amidala and her abilities, but it accelerated his opportunity to become Supreme Chancellor. I think he also greatly underestimated Obi-Wan, which he would do again decades later. He thought Darth Maul would earn his stripes against Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, and instead, he inadvertently launched the career of the Jedi Knight who would ultimately lead to his downfall (by watching over and training Luke).

Speaking of Darth Maul, I'm not exactly sure what Palpatine had in mind for him. Was he eventually to become the enforcer Darth Vader would become? Seems to make sense. Was he more of an apprentice experiment? That's the problem with the Sith; they don't want an apprentice that's too powerful, and maybe Palpatine recruited and trained Maul to be too weak, and this bit him. And that's what drew him to the more powerful Anakin.

And the end of the movie, Palpatine makes a passing comment to Anakin about watching his career. It's clear he saw him as someone to manipulate, as an emotionally vulnerable child who would have a set of weaknesses unlike most Jedis. I don't believe Palpatine knew how he would use Anakin yet, he just knew that, unlike Obi-Wan or Yoda, he was someone he could steer.

The Seeds of a Villain
Was Anakin destined to become Darth Vader? Qui-Gon obviously believed something different, unless he believed bringing balance to the Force was killing almost all Jedis and eventually killing Palpatine. But that seems like a stretch.

I think Yoda said the most important things about Anakin: his path was unclear and dangerous. And because no one, at that point, seemed to realize that a Sith Lord would be trying to manipulate Anakin in order to destroy the Jedi Order, he was allowed to be trained by Obi-Wan in the traditional fashion, instead of being kept in the temple in a more special arrangement. But certainly, as Obi-Wan pointed out to Qui-Gon, the Jedi Council viewed Anakin as a dangerous person to train. But they also probably thought of him as a dangerous kid to leave untrained.

Obviously his attachment to his mother is the problem, worsened by his slavery and the hatred he felt toward the evil authorities on his home planet. Combine that with the chilly initial reception he received from the Jedi Council, and the seeds were planted for his rebellion.

The Mother of Luke and Leia
Amidala is a vexing figure. One of the things viewers forget is that Padme Amidala is a democratically elected, 13 year-old queen, who 5 months into her reign was faced with the aggressive blockcade of the Trade Federation. How inconceivable that may seem to us, she was put into political training at age 8, and the culture of the planet was to groom young politicians before they became corrupt.

She shows a tremendous amount of courage, similar to the courage her daughter Leia Organa would show decades later in opposing the oppressive rule of Emperor Palpatine. Her alliance with Palpatine is one of the great ironies of the story, as is the trust she places in him. This trust would dissolve in the future as his truer nature began to be revealed.

Closing Thoughts
I really could go on forever, but I won't, mainly because, as I mentioned above, I have a job and a family. But Phantom Menace does a beautiful job of setting up the next two films and establishing the three most important characters of the prequel trilogy: Anakin, Padme Amidala, and Obi-Wan. And anytime Yoda is shown on screen is awesome.

When I saw Phantom Menace on screen in 1999, it was a sublime moment, a fulfillment of boyhood dreams for a 23 year-old. Yes, I realize some of you probably find that pathetic. Others of you remember the feeling all to well. Was I slightly disappointed by some elements of this film? Yes, but I was overwhelmingly pleased with what came out.

So hopefully soon I can watch 'Attack of the Clones' and continue this little series. It's been fun to get back into the Star Wars galaxy.