RobertR

Some selected essentials. By genre. Silents The General City Lights Metropolis Nosferatu Science Fiction The Thing from Another World Invasion of the Body Snatchers Forbidden Planet 2001: A Space Odyssey Star Wars Alien The Empire Strikes Back Blade Runner Robocop The Matrix Horror Frankenstein / Bride of Frankenstein Cat People Horror of Dracula The Curse of Frankenstein Psycho Rosemary's Baby Night of the Living Dead Dawn of the Dead Halloween Fantasy The Wizard of Oz The Lord of the Rings War All Quiet on the Western Front The Bridge on the River Kwai Lawrence of Arabia Apocalypse Now Saving Private Ryan Gangster Scarface White Heat The Godfather I + II Goodfellas Westerns Stagecoach Fort Apache Red River The Searchers The Seven Samurai Yojimbo The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Unforgiven I'll have more later. Robert

A player on the 40 man roster can't be a PTBNL. And there's plenty of dross on KC's roster to immediately waive. That's good news as the Brewers were giving up a ton for Grienke. They're still giving up a lot, but this is more manageable. It's definitely an "All In" move. Betancourt stinks. Escobar doesn't have much of a hill to climb to become the best SS in KC history. I'd feel better about the deal if they can add a real centerfielder. Robert

Link? (or is that not allowed for some reason?) I've been intrigued by this one, despite never having seen the previous version. The first ads made the film seem very serious but the new batch does seem to show a more comedic/light-hearted side of the movie. Are those aspects well-balanced? Because the latest ads have put me off a little with their tone. I have a full review over at Al's Ramblings. But, overall, the Coens are masters of tone. It's generally serious, but well seasoned with the Coens humor. Especially in dialogue. Robert

Honestly I think it would detract. If anything, the Coens have made a movie the whole family can see. Really. It could even be called heartwarming and earnest. Yes, from the Coens. I'm shocked too. And very pleasantly surprised. Robert

I have a review elsewhere, but I can't recommend the Coens' latest movie enough. I think it's a flat out masterpiece that stands side by side with the giants of the genre. And we get to see a warm, fuzzy side of the Coens that I don't believe we've ever really seen before. Admittedly, in between gun fights, stylized dialogue, and some black humor. And there's at the center of it one of the best child performances ever. Robert

Glen and Daryl aka Redneck Legolas (thanks internet!) are really the only two characters that I find really consistently entertaining at present. I'd say they could split off to their own spinoff, but that's Zombieland. I sorta like Rick and there are moments with the other characters, but there's a whole lot of dross to sit through. Right now it's a zombie apocalypse show with awesome zombie attacks, saddled with often dumb melodrama, poorly fleshed out characters, and a murky goal beyond surviving the next zombie attack. There are real nuggets of gold, especially in the pilot, but they've wasted a lot of the pilot's goodwill. Hopefully when they actually start writing the second season they'll take a long look at what worked and what didn't and address the very real problems with the show. Robert

Yeah, pretty underwhelming as it didn't seem to address many of the key themes and conflicts. Yeah, choosing life and hope, however slight it may be, over a quick, painless death has potential as a conflict, but that's an issue better explored in depth than in a situation with the clock counting down. And I think the idea that there's nothing inside a zombie is a pretty boneheaded thing to toss out considering they've gone out of the way earlier in the season to imply that there may be something still there. Although, to be fair, they only showed the first few seconds of zombification so that shouldn't be considered definite. Still, why even go there? The ensemble is underdeveloped (apparently nobody in the group cared about Jacqui and I don't see why any viewer should have) and they really have to develop a goal for this group beyond survival. What kind of life can they carve out for themselves? Obviously they expected to be renewed given the lack of resolution of Merle and whatever was whispered in Rick's ear, but to date it feels more like an extended prelude to a series than an actual story. Say what you will about Lost, but that show was miles ahead of the Walking Dead in terms of characterization, dialogue, and themes. Plot-wise it was often a mess, especially towards the end, but it had the ensemble basics down pat early. Robert

I'll like this deal a lot better if Melvin is able to sign Weeks and Marcum to extensions. As it is, I think it's pretty fair. Lawrie's a good prospect, but IMO, he's not an elite prospect. If he can't stick at second base and he takes a period of adjustment, there's good reason to believe that his pre-arby years won't be much of a bargain. And given that the division is winnable, a pitcher that can represent a 3 or more game improvement right now is pretty darn valuable to the Brewers. While I hate to give up a good prospect, you sometimes have to give something to get something. And the Brewers window of competing for the post-season is still open, IMO. Robert

Given how up and down the writing has been, even within individual episodes, I can't really regard a bunch of writers being let go as a bad thing. Now, Darabont has a reputation of being hard to work with, but when he's on top of his game he's produced good work. And Kirkman probably isn't going anywhere. Given what I've seen, it's hard to say that anyone else really made a case for sticking around. Robert

My ballot: Alomar Blyleven I see no real argument against either. They both stack up quite well against already qualified HoFers at their positions. Larkin Trammell I think middle infielders, catchers, and third basemen have been underrepresented compared to corner outfielders and first basemen. I think they're both qualified. Raines He'd rank much higher if he wasn't a contemporary of Rickey Henderson. I'll take him over Dawson as well. I'd probably leave it at that. Yeah, Parker deserves consideration if Rice and Dawson were in, but Parker fell off a steeper cliff and I consider Rice and Dawson mistakes as it is. Lee Smith is interesting, and I certainly think he's equivalent to Sutter, but I have him behind Hoffman and Rivera, and possibly Billy Wagner, on relievers not in the Hall and he's not a high priority to me. McGwire is probably qualified, but he has the steriod stink around him. I'm willing to make an exception for Bonds as a) I think his pre-PEDs career qualifies him and b) I think if it wasn't for Sosa and McGwire stealing the spotlight from Bonds when he was clean, Bonds might not have been tempted. I'll need some convincing on Bagwell as he fell off a cliff near the end, although his prime, especially considering the ballpark, makes an interesting case. Edgar Martinez is interesting, but I'd really have to figure out how to evaluate the DH. Molitor had defensive value when he played the field, Martinez didn't. Frankly, I'm willing to wait until Frank Thomas is up for a vote before deciding on Martinez. I don't have a particularly strong feeling on McGriff either way. Robert

It's taken 5 episodes, but it finally feels like Rick has joined the group. No more wandering off on side-quests, etc. And they've pared away most of the least interesting characters, although as far as I'm concerned T-Dog can go at any time. Because of that, I liked the last episode probably the best since the pilot. There's some honest interaction and debate. Yeah, some of it's still awfully on the nose, but it finally feels like a bit of a community that's going to be tested. And I might care about some of the characters if they're eaten now on a level beyond, "Cool! Intestines!". Too bad the next episode is the finale for the season, but at least it feels like they're going someplace now. I like the show. I want to love it. But there's potential still to be realized. Robert

For me, the "collapse of civilization" stuff is every bit as intriguing as the "surviving a zombie attack" stuff. Which is why I find some of the characterization stuff irritating. Frankly, I get that survival skills might not correlate one to one with a character's integrity. That's good stuff and inherent in good drama. But, right now I think they're not living up to their potential. I mentioned The Day of the Triffids before, and I'll bring it up again. It covered many of the same themes and ideas, collapse of civilization, danger lurking behind every corner, etc. but with a deftness of characterization. To me that's the standard to aspire to for this type of long form story. Robert

I don't mind a bit of soap opera amidst my zombie apocalypse. But, the goal should be to keep the soapy stuff at the same level as the zombie attack stuff. Right now, I think The Walking Dead's biggest problem is that it has a tendency to fall into cartoonish characterization at times. Racist, redneck and wife-beating, lazy, redneck are so blatantly bad guys that the best thing to happen would be for them to be eaten. Quickly. Granted, giving Shane a target helps me like Shane better, but I'd prefer these people to be flawed and gray, not drawn in black and white terms of good and evil. That even extends a bit to Rick and his decision to go back to Atlanta, he's white hat good. Someone like Daryl seems to be the more interesting variation on the flawed individual. He at least seems to be useful. There's some good stuff here, but the more people talk and the more the characters are painted in black and white, you see the show still has some growing to do. Robert

I haven't read the original books. I know of them, but I expect that they're going to go their own way to an extent. I suspect that the trip down the stairs, if it wasn't in the original book, was inspired by a similar bit in The Stand. Certainly I'd expect Frank Darabont, director of The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and The Mist, to draw inspiration from that, if Robert Kirkman didn't draw from the same well earlier. I also get the feeling that they're pulling from the same well as The Day of the Triffids which was at least as much about trying to rebuild a semblance of civilization as it was about survival. Robert

Just got around to the pilot and liked it very much. Heck, we've all seen the "my loved one was turned into a zombie" trope before and usually it ends with either a) the zombie being put down or b) the zombie eating the person that loved them. In a long form format, you've got maneuverability from needing instant payoffs and can try other tactics. I also enjoyed that it's a quiet show. Much sneaking around. A simple scene of a guy going down stairs with matches that keep going out, needs nothing else to set a mood. I like Rick too. OTOH, I thought the conversation between Rick and Shane at the beginning of the show rang false. And am I supposed to like Shane? At all? Or Lori? But, generally, I'm very positive. I'm very happy to have something different, and well done, than yet another cop/doctor/lawyer show. Robert

Other than being a good story and possibly supplying a good quote or two, there's really no justification for Casey. Apparently the sportswriters have to get their eyes off the RBI stat and actually watch a game. But, as noted above, it's relatively meaningless. He had a good year, but does anyone think that the Brewers don't know who's truly valuable on the team? Robert

Given that it's the season, I might as well bump this topic up rather than create a new one. I have a horror movie watching party every year for Halloween. This year, two films I mentioned earlier in this topic are on the schedule; Night of the Demon and I Walked With a Zombie. Followed by a "midnight movie" which is going to be the twisted, kinky, kid killing Vampire Circus on Netflix Instant. (BTW, don't believe the PG rating.) Robert

I was very pleased with Boardwalk Empire's premiere. There's still some rough edges which were covered over a bit by skilful directing and editing, but it looks like a show with both scope, tieing in with New York and Chicago, historical perspective, and good character work. Been a while since I've seen so many vintage suits as well. Buscemi really seems like an appropriate lead as well. I'm definitely on board. Robert

I'll be in the minority, but I think it was the right call according to the rule. The rule is that the coach may not assist the runner. Period. Not, assist the runner enough to make it back when he otherwise would have been out. I'm willing to agree that the degree of help in breaking the runner's momentum was infinitesimal and didn't make a difference between safe and out, but I'm quite o.k. with setting the bar at "infinitesimal". There's really no reason for a coach to ever touch a runner while there's a play going on and setting the bar that low discourages it and makes judgement easy. Robert

I'm clearing out a large collection of material basically from the early 80s to present. Mostly DC, but with some scattered runs from Marvel, First, Dark Horse, Eclipse, etc. It's probably easier to list what I'm not parting with, Swamp Thing, Sandman, V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Starman, Flex Mentallo, American Flagg!, Miracleman, and Batman related books other than Batman and the Outsiders. Most of the books I'd consider in Good or better condition. I bagged and boarded most of the stuff listed above, but the rest merely found their way into boxes. But, I have 20 some boxes of other stuff. And, before I hit ebay, I figured I see if someone is interested in some long runs. Stuff that I have that might be of interest.... Superman - Byrne relaunch through approx Superman Red/Blue Wonder Woman - Perez Suicide Squad 80s Firestorm JLI to modern JLA runs Peter David Aquaman BATO Wolfman/Perez Titans (missing 2 through 11) for a long time LOSH - end of Reflecto storyline through end of Levitz era, 5 years later... Doom Patrol Hellblazer (most of the first 100 issues) Green Arrow (Longbow Hunters through end of Grell era) Doom 2099 Spider-Man 2099 It certainly would be easier for me to move large runs. Go ahead and ask if there's something you're looking for that I might have. Robert

To be fair to Manny, all reports that I heard say that the pitch wasn't even close to a strike. It really sounds like an ump with an attitude. Robert

Where this falls down is that the Pirates haven't been competitive on the field. Which is where objections to the Pirates owners taking profits come from. Heck, if I was Mark Attanasio, I'd have serious questions to ask the other owners when the CBA comes around next. The Brewers have lived up to their bargain of fielding a competitive team. The Pirates haven't. Shouldn't the Brewers be rewarded for that? Robert

From a fan's perspective, I think it's totally o.k. for the owner to collect a profit in a year when he put a product on the field that he honestly thought had a chance at winning. But, when you field a perennial last place team AND take money out of the organization, you are pretty much breaking a covenant with the fans, taxpayers, and owners that agreed to share revenue with you. It's not like the Pirates went and signed all the prospects in Latin America that they could have. Nobody's arguing they should plow the money into crummy free agents that don't help them win. But, there's certainly an argument that the Pirates aren't doing everything they could to turn the organization around. Robert Robert, As an owner, there are two goals. Winning on the field and maintaining profitability. Let's move away from baseball for an example: Assume there are two restaurants. One wins all kinds of culinary awards and draws crowds of people, but goes out of business because they pay their award-winning staff way too much money. The other restaurant never wins an award, but has a loyal following and stays in business for generations. Which would you rather own? In baseball, not all teams are created equally. Some get a decided advantage over others, which is why revenue sharing started. I agree the Pirates have been managed poorly on-the-field, maybe they're starting to change that, but maybe not. However, other owners know that they need other teams to survive in order to hold the MLB together, so they voted in revenue sharing. The other teams realize that if they don't pay this money (and if other owners can't make any money), too many teams will go bankrupt, which isn't good for anyone. Municipalities and fans desired so strongly to have a major league team in their backyard that they were willing to put taxpayer money into a new stadium without need to look at the team's financials. Agreements were made over the financials in revenue sharing and in funding the stadium. None of those agreements (to the best of my limited knowledge) said anything about owner profitability. It sucks as a fan of a smaller market team to continually watch a miserable team take the field. However, we vote with our dollars. If someone is upset that an owner is making money, that person should stop attending games or buying merchandise. If enough people do this, the owner will certainly stop making money. However, most fans love the game and their team too much to do that, and fans in Pittsburgh will continue to go into that taxpayer-funded stadium and willfully spend their money rooting on their team, all the while knowing that they are putting money into the owners' pockets. Is one of the restaurants getting subsidized by bigger restaurants and the taxpayers? Where I come from, I think it's fair for money to come with strings attached. The taxpayers don't build stadiums with the promise that the team will stay in business and turn a profit, but that they'll actually be competitive. Bigger markets didn't give the money with the idea that it would be turned into profits, but that it actually would be used for competitive balance. Where did I ever say that the Pirates should lose money and go out of business? There's a third option, plow money back into the organization, scouting, signing Latin American prospects, and break even. Why is that not an acceptable outcome? It's likely that the Pirates wouldn't turn a profit at all without help from the government and other teams, so what has ownership done to deserve a profit other than join a cushy cartel? But, before they take a profit, bolstered from revenue sharing and a taxpayer subsidized stadium, the question has to be asked did ownership do all they could with their money, within reason, to field a competitive team, now or in the future? If the answer to that question isn't "yes" without rationalization or equivocation, then I certainly think it's fair to question how committed they are to fielding a winner. One thing I don't question about Mark Attanasio is that he's spent the money to put a competitive product on the field. Yeah, things haven't worked out the last two years, but it wasn't for lack of effort. The Pirates ownership and the Marlins ownership certainly deserve to have their committment to winning questioned. And I think the leaked financials back that up. Robert

From a fan's perspective, I think it's totally o.k. for the owner to collect a profit in a year when he put a product on the field that he honestly thought had a chance at winning. But, when you field a perennial last place team AND take money out of the organization, you are pretty much breaking a covenant with the fans, taxpayers, and owners that agreed to share revenue with you. It's not like the Pirates went and signed all the prospects in Latin America that they could have. Nobody's arguing they should plow the money into crummy free agents that don't help them win. But, there's certainly an argument that the Pirates aren't doing everything they could to turn the organization around. Robert

Sports might be the only multi-billion dollar industry that can't afford to build their own places of work. Robert