It came upon me not too long ago that this rule is more specifically tailored to Brady than perhaps it should be.
The one thing that seemed to bother him and his offense was the blitz (on either the rare occasion they didn't know the play before hand, or they decided to let it go).
Yeah, that's right. Pressure, getting a hand in his face, that is what stopped him the most.
While pressure seemingly affects all quarterbacks, Brady seems to stick out like a thorn in its affect. Some quarterbacks are simply not affected, while there are a rare few others (a B.R. from Pittsburgh) that seem to actually have better stats while being hit or on the run.
Oh, and that play where he got hurt, it was a blitzing safety who hit him.
Just throwing that out there.
The Tom Brady-fication of the league needs to stop.
3.27.2009
3.26.2009
The NFL Competition Committee Votes Against Playing Football
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2009/03/24/brady_rule_steps_taken_to_protect_qbs_knees/
After its meetings this week, the NFL has decided to put up a charade that football is being played, rather than fold entirely.
Yes, the NFL has decided that defenders who are rushing the passer need not exert any effort once blocked. Yes, tackling the quarterback is now illegal if in fact you are being blocked.
The league has decided that yes, in fact one player is not only greater than the team, but greater than the entire league.
No, we must never, ever be forced to suffer through another Tom Brady-less season. Because football without him is hell.
And God forbid they have to find a replacement. I mean, when Trent Green went down in 1999, the Rams only barely won the Super Bowl.
And when Drew Bledsoe went down in 2001, the Patriots had to use the second quarterback on their depth chart to win the AFC championship game. I hear they even had to steal signals to beat those Steelers.
And when...
OK, seriously, there is no actual discernible football reason for this rule to be made. It stifles defenses, and teams should never ever be reliant upon one quarterback. So why protect him so much more than the other players. Last time I checked, the Patriots still had a winning season (though could not win a weak division) and Brady's replacement was Franchised (giving him an 11 or so million dollar salary) before being traded to another team to be the cornerstone of their offense.
Just stop. OK. Just stop, Roger Goodel. You, sir, are killing a national sport. Something that was once revered is now but a laughing stock (as you plan on going international, no less).
-- Knuttel
After its meetings this week, the NFL has decided to put up a charade that football is being played, rather than fold entirely.
Yes, the NFL has decided that defenders who are rushing the passer need not exert any effort once blocked. Yes, tackling the quarterback is now illegal if in fact you are being blocked.
The league has decided that yes, in fact one player is not only greater than the team, but greater than the entire league.
No, we must never, ever be forced to suffer through another Tom Brady-less season. Because football without him is hell.
And God forbid they have to find a replacement. I mean, when Trent Green went down in 1999, the Rams only barely won the Super Bowl.
And when Drew Bledsoe went down in 2001, the Patriots had to use the second quarterback on their depth chart to win the AFC championship game. I hear they even had to steal signals to beat those Steelers.
And when...
OK, seriously, there is no actual discernible football reason for this rule to be made. It stifles defenses, and teams should never ever be reliant upon one quarterback. So why protect him so much more than the other players. Last time I checked, the Patriots still had a winning season (though could not win a weak division) and Brady's replacement was Franchised (giving him an 11 or so million dollar salary) before being traded to another team to be the cornerstone of their offense.
Just stop. OK. Just stop, Roger Goodel. You, sir, are killing a national sport. Something that was once revered is now but a laughing stock (as you plan on going international, no less).
-- Knuttel
3.24.2009
The NFL Competition Committee Convenes
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=packhowonemanwouldchange&prov=tsn&type=lgns
So the NFL Competition Committee is currently meeting in Los Angeles (Go Rams?) to discuss possible rule changes. Undoubtedly they have been vigorously reading this blog and are thus ready to cave into my demands.
The man who's article is linked directly above stands opposing to this superior mind of thinking. No wedge on kickoffs? A) how are you going to enforce that? B) how are kickoff teams going to block? C) Is the NFL going to pay for their players' tampons?
The Houchuli incident does need fixing, but officiating isn't something I am looking to involve myself in as of the moment. Maybe tomorrow.
The situation with roughing the passer has not, and does not look like it is going to be addressed. Defenses need to be able to play competitively, and not look around constantly to see if there's a striped fool ready to throw a flag at a moment's notice. Last time I checked, Quarterbacks also wear football pads, often times covering more than other players.
The situation with numbers also looks like it is not going to be addressed. Sadly the only exceptions to this rule seem to remain wide receivers who are mainly return specialists. When will justice be paid, so any non-offensive lineman can be declared an eligible receiver (if properly aligned, of course) without having to report to the referee first. Its bull shit. Numbers 1-19, among the most prized for High School and College Students (for all positions) are limited to Quarterbacks, Kickers, and Punters. Wide Receivers occasionally can done 10-19. That's still far too narrow. Too many players are simply football players first, position second (Anquan Boldin comes to mind, imagine what they can do with him if they don't have to lock him so obviously to one dimension).
Really, it looks like the NFL is busying itself to fix non-existent problems. Which is sad.
There are two things that the NFL can fix, that they should. Sadly it only looks like one will be used.
1) Get rid of blind blocks downfield.
Sometimes this is referred to as a crack block. This rule might actually get enforced. It is the rule that allowed a wide receiver (Hines Ward) to break the jaw of a linebacker on the Bengals. Yeah, the jaw. Football players wear facemasks. Their jaw should largely not be at risk. A player needs to be able to defend himself against anything coming at him. It's the very reason punt returners can fair catch the ball.
2) Get rid of helmet to helmet hits.
This, sadly, is not going to happen. And the culprit for this, ESPN. In it's attempt to find something highlight worthy for the defense, it turned to the pick and the huge hit. Interceptions happen, but not with enough frequency to consistently make highlights, quarterbacks are throwing fewer and fewer, and alot of them are simply unreturnable, which is where the highlight really is. So what they have left is the big hit. Since most viewers don't know what to look for in a big hit, they listen. The pop, that loud crunching noise of plastic hitting plastic. That is what they look for. 9 times out of 10, that is the result of the tackler's helmet smashing into the other players helmet or straight into the shoulder pads. Safety's seem to be the biggest culprit, though it is increasingly happenning with linebackers, who getting smaller and faster, don't get as much practice with form tackling, and resort to trying to make highlights (think of the speedy contact hitter trying to swing for the fences to try and prove he can drive the ball long).
It's a big mess, and they need to clean that up, especially since they already supposedly have rules about this. Fines after the game do nothing, since most players will do anything, dirty and clean, to try and win the game in that moment. Making the hit actually illegal on the field, and doing something about it on the actual field, will significantly reduce helmet to helmet hits. The league doesn't need any more Dirty Waterses committing suicide, or Ted Johnsons being forced to play and practice through unnecessary concussions.
They have a long ways to go.
-- Knuttel
So the NFL Competition Committee is currently meeting in Los Angeles (Go Rams?) to discuss possible rule changes. Undoubtedly they have been vigorously reading this blog and are thus ready to cave into my demands.
The man who's article is linked directly above stands opposing to this superior mind of thinking. No wedge on kickoffs? A) how are you going to enforce that? B) how are kickoff teams going to block? C) Is the NFL going to pay for their players' tampons?
The Houchuli incident does need fixing, but officiating isn't something I am looking to involve myself in as of the moment. Maybe tomorrow.
The situation with roughing the passer has not, and does not look like it is going to be addressed. Defenses need to be able to play competitively, and not look around constantly to see if there's a striped fool ready to throw a flag at a moment's notice. Last time I checked, Quarterbacks also wear football pads, often times covering more than other players.
The situation with numbers also looks like it is not going to be addressed. Sadly the only exceptions to this rule seem to remain wide receivers who are mainly return specialists. When will justice be paid, so any non-offensive lineman can be declared an eligible receiver (if properly aligned, of course) without having to report to the referee first. Its bull shit. Numbers 1-19, among the most prized for High School and College Students (for all positions) are limited to Quarterbacks, Kickers, and Punters. Wide Receivers occasionally can done 10-19. That's still far too narrow. Too many players are simply football players first, position second (Anquan Boldin comes to mind, imagine what they can do with him if they don't have to lock him so obviously to one dimension).
Really, it looks like the NFL is busying itself to fix non-existent problems. Which is sad.
There are two things that the NFL can fix, that they should. Sadly it only looks like one will be used.
1) Get rid of blind blocks downfield.
Sometimes this is referred to as a crack block. This rule might actually get enforced. It is the rule that allowed a wide receiver (Hines Ward) to break the jaw of a linebacker on the Bengals. Yeah, the jaw. Football players wear facemasks. Their jaw should largely not be at risk. A player needs to be able to defend himself against anything coming at him. It's the very reason punt returners can fair catch the ball.
2) Get rid of helmet to helmet hits.
This, sadly, is not going to happen. And the culprit for this, ESPN. In it's attempt to find something highlight worthy for the defense, it turned to the pick and the huge hit. Interceptions happen, but not with enough frequency to consistently make highlights, quarterbacks are throwing fewer and fewer, and alot of them are simply unreturnable, which is where the highlight really is. So what they have left is the big hit. Since most viewers don't know what to look for in a big hit, they listen. The pop, that loud crunching noise of plastic hitting plastic. That is what they look for. 9 times out of 10, that is the result of the tackler's helmet smashing into the other players helmet or straight into the shoulder pads. Safety's seem to be the biggest culprit, though it is increasingly happenning with linebackers, who getting smaller and faster, don't get as much practice with form tackling, and resort to trying to make highlights (think of the speedy contact hitter trying to swing for the fences to try and prove he can drive the ball long).
It's a big mess, and they need to clean that up, especially since they already supposedly have rules about this. Fines after the game do nothing, since most players will do anything, dirty and clean, to try and win the game in that moment. Making the hit actually illegal on the field, and doing something about it on the actual field, will significantly reduce helmet to helmet hits. The league doesn't need any more Dirty Waterses committing suicide, or Ted Johnsons being forced to play and practice through unnecessary concussions.
They have a long ways to go.
-- Knuttel
3.22.2009
Season 8, what hath become of you? (update)
Season 8 (Degrassi), from the start, was going to be an interesting experience. None of the students attending the school in season 1 attend the school anymore. Spinner still hangs around, even though he graduated, and Snake still teaches there. Emma, Manny, and Liberty are all out on their college experience.
But something grave has happened.
The man has found Degrassi.
It may have popped up as an anomaly where The Principal or the Cops or some other force has been the ultimate and true law, overruling everything about kid law. Season 8 thus far has been an exception. While the Principal himself as giver of the law may have been subverted to a certain extent (though after his totalitarian management of the football team), the kids have all been subject to laws outside of their own realm.
This has become really strong as of late. It began with "Heat of the Moment." The main plotline deals with a little sort of squabble that ends up online, where Alli makes a fool of Holly J to the extent that she doesn't want to come into school. This in and of itself would not be so bad, except, inexplicably, Acting Principal Snake Simpson and the Toronto Police Department both found out about this, giving her a school suspension, a juvenile criminal record, and at least a months worth of punishment from the parents.
It is a serious issue, for sure, but by some deus ex machina, Alli managed to get the worst punishment she could really get for this, and it all came seemingly from the outside. Not even Holly J was the one pressing charges. When Degrassi last dealt with bullying in general (not on the interwebs) the student himself eventually took matters into his own hands and shot the dude. Now, I'm not advocating School shootings by any stretch of the imagination, but this is a drastic shift in tone for the show. Before the adults were callous, uncaring, disinterested, and never out for the best interests. Now all of a sudden, they are watching, they will act when something is done wrong, and they claim (indisputably) that they are the best interest. When did Degrassi turn into Narc High?
3 episodes later, Narc-ville returns, in "Touch of Grey," which has only so far aired in Canada (thank you interwebs). In this episode, the main plotline deals with Emma's struggle to find an identity at college, in the process her nickname changes from "Blonde Emma" (even though at this point she is a brunette) to "Blaze." Yeah, this episode deals with pot, and what I assume to be outdated slang (I'm giving the kids younger than me some credit, surely they must use at least slightly different terminology). In this episode, a new friend of Emma's enters into a diabetic coma, and I am not making this up, because she forgets that she has diabetes after getting high off a few pot brownies. The RA's immediately know the culprit was pot brownies, because the method of choice for getting high by diabetics is naturally to consume pot with an extremely sugary baked confection. Campus police eventually catch up to "Blaze"'s roommate/boyfriend, who is trying to ditch her stash, because she didn't think of doing it herself earlier.
Compare this wth the way pot was dealt with during season 7 (before hand it was simply alluded to). Two instances specifically come up, one in "Love is Like a Battlefield" the other in the aptly titled "Pass the Ductchie." Both of these have very real circumstances, none of which are too heavyhanded. Both of which are ambiguous. In the first, Alex smokes up with Jay as a way to cheer him up after he gets dumped. Their friendship goes way back, and Jay had been alluded to as a smoker previously. This costs Alex her ability to help out her girlfriend, Paige, with her newfound job, and thus eventually costs her the relationship. In the latter, Spinner is dealing with chemotherapy and is having difficulty holding things down. Jay suggests to him that marijuana may help him with this (naturally Jay knows of its anti-emitic properties). It helps Spinner hold both his medicine and his food down, and everything is fine and dandy, until he loses focus in school (a recurring problem with him, mind you) and has some minor fights with his girlfriend, mainly about hanging out too much with his ex. He decides to stop, deal with the constant vomiting of chemo, and focus on school. What a trooper.
Both of these instances dealt with the actual effects of marijuana on the user, and not the possession of said substance. In addition, neither of those instances paints a black and white picture of marijuana use, and have arguably deleterious effects if they had chosen not to partake. If Alex hadn't smoked up with Jay, it would have soured that moment in their friendship, Alex disavailing herself while Jay needs her the most. If Spinner hadn't smoked up, he would have been throwing up even more. It gave him a few days of holding everything down, and he eventually learns on his own that he'd rather go without it. Jay isn't even painted as a stereotypical pothead. Thuggish, sure, pothead, nah, not really. Compared to Kelly's friend, total pothead (even down to recreational frisbee).
So why shift gears like this? It seems in the Degrassi universe, no longer is it the consequences of your own actions on your friends which affects you. No, it is the consequences from outside authority figures on seeing your actions that affects you.
Is Canada entering into some sort of Police State I am unaware of?
-- Knuttel
The intermediary episode (a two parter, "Jane Says") actually dealt with an important issue, the first time in a while they've dealt with such a serious issue. Sadly the secondary plots in both just seemed annoying. 1) don't lie to the popular kids because they are petty, and have poor taste in tv and music; 2) Claire starts attracting male attention away from Alli. Way to counterbalance child molestation. Yeah, and they definitely did scale back on the issue itself in both of them, old degrassi would have been much more intense.
And while I'm at it, what is the deal with all of the retconning?
Edit: An episode in Season 5 deals with pot, "Death of a Disco Dancer" I believe is what it was called. Paige gets a joint from her former Teacher/boyfriend now exile Matt O upon the official ending of their relationship. After stupidly flailing it about the front steps of the school, Paige and Alex settle on smoking up before the College/Career fair visits. Paige eventually has to interview with the representative from Banting (like the Ivy equivalent) who is also a family friend. She freaks out, her mom finds out she smoked, an she gets grounded or whatever. But again, here it is not the possession of Marijuana which caused the problem, and it's not the all seeing eye which incurred wrath. Again too, the situation surrounding the consumption is rather ambiguous. While Palex is certainly not making out, it is certainly in its beginning stages, and doing this helped to strengthen the budding friendship/romance.
Later in the season, there was another drug related matter. Not only did it deal with a much "harder" drug (percs), but the kid (JT) was straight up dealing them. Again, all of his consequences came from his peers (including his pregnant girlfriend) discovering his dealing and his eventual consumption (and overdose) on the drug itself. It was an ultimate lesson in responsibility, not a childish lesson in -- hey, why do you have that, you're not supposed to have that, I'm telling, you're gonna get in soo much trouble.
After all of these years, does Degrassi have to grow up?
But something grave has happened.
The man has found Degrassi.
It may have popped up as an anomaly where The Principal or the Cops or some other force has been the ultimate and true law, overruling everything about kid law. Season 8 thus far has been an exception. While the Principal himself as giver of the law may have been subverted to a certain extent (though after his totalitarian management of the football team), the kids have all been subject to laws outside of their own realm.
This has become really strong as of late. It began with "Heat of the Moment." The main plotline deals with a little sort of squabble that ends up online, where Alli makes a fool of Holly J to the extent that she doesn't want to come into school. This in and of itself would not be so bad, except, inexplicably, Acting Principal Snake Simpson and the Toronto Police Department both found out about this, giving her a school suspension, a juvenile criminal record, and at least a months worth of punishment from the parents.
It is a serious issue, for sure, but by some deus ex machina, Alli managed to get the worst punishment she could really get for this, and it all came seemingly from the outside. Not even Holly J was the one pressing charges. When Degrassi last dealt with bullying in general (not on the interwebs) the student himself eventually took matters into his own hands and shot the dude. Now, I'm not advocating School shootings by any stretch of the imagination, but this is a drastic shift in tone for the show. Before the adults were callous, uncaring, disinterested, and never out for the best interests. Now all of a sudden, they are watching, they will act when something is done wrong, and they claim (indisputably) that they are the best interest. When did Degrassi turn into Narc High?
3 episodes later, Narc-ville returns, in "Touch of Grey," which has only so far aired in Canada (thank you interwebs). In this episode, the main plotline deals with Emma's struggle to find an identity at college, in the process her nickname changes from "Blonde Emma" (even though at this point she is a brunette) to "Blaze." Yeah, this episode deals with pot, and what I assume to be outdated slang (I'm giving the kids younger than me some credit, surely they must use at least slightly different terminology). In this episode, a new friend of Emma's enters into a diabetic coma, and I am not making this up, because she forgets that she has diabetes after getting high off a few pot brownies. The RA's immediately know the culprit was pot brownies, because the method of choice for getting high by diabetics is naturally to consume pot with an extremely sugary baked confection. Campus police eventually catch up to "Blaze"'s roommate/boyfriend, who is trying to ditch her stash, because she didn't think of doing it herself earlier.
Compare this wth the way pot was dealt with during season 7 (before hand it was simply alluded to). Two instances specifically come up, one in "Love is Like a Battlefield" the other in the aptly titled "Pass the Ductchie." Both of these have very real circumstances, none of which are too heavyhanded. Both of which are ambiguous. In the first, Alex smokes up with Jay as a way to cheer him up after he gets dumped. Their friendship goes way back, and Jay had been alluded to as a smoker previously. This costs Alex her ability to help out her girlfriend, Paige, with her newfound job, and thus eventually costs her the relationship. In the latter, Spinner is dealing with chemotherapy and is having difficulty holding things down. Jay suggests to him that marijuana may help him with this (naturally Jay knows of its anti-emitic properties). It helps Spinner hold both his medicine and his food down, and everything is fine and dandy, until he loses focus in school (a recurring problem with him, mind you) and has some minor fights with his girlfriend, mainly about hanging out too much with his ex. He decides to stop, deal with the constant vomiting of chemo, and focus on school. What a trooper.
Both of these instances dealt with the actual effects of marijuana on the user, and not the possession of said substance. In addition, neither of those instances paints a black and white picture of marijuana use, and have arguably deleterious effects if they had chosen not to partake. If Alex hadn't smoked up with Jay, it would have soured that moment in their friendship, Alex disavailing herself while Jay needs her the most. If Spinner hadn't smoked up, he would have been throwing up even more. It gave him a few days of holding everything down, and he eventually learns on his own that he'd rather go without it. Jay isn't even painted as a stereotypical pothead. Thuggish, sure, pothead, nah, not really. Compared to Kelly's friend, total pothead (even down to recreational frisbee).
So why shift gears like this? It seems in the Degrassi universe, no longer is it the consequences of your own actions on your friends which affects you. No, it is the consequences from outside authority figures on seeing your actions that affects you.
Is Canada entering into some sort of Police State I am unaware of?
-- Knuttel
The intermediary episode (a two parter, "Jane Says") actually dealt with an important issue, the first time in a while they've dealt with such a serious issue. Sadly the secondary plots in both just seemed annoying. 1) don't lie to the popular kids because they are petty, and have poor taste in tv and music; 2) Claire starts attracting male attention away from Alli. Way to counterbalance child molestation. Yeah, and they definitely did scale back on the issue itself in both of them, old degrassi would have been much more intense.
And while I'm at it, what is the deal with all of the retconning?
Edit: An episode in Season 5 deals with pot, "Death of a Disco Dancer" I believe is what it was called. Paige gets a joint from her former Teacher/boyfriend now exile Matt O upon the official ending of their relationship. After stupidly flailing it about the front steps of the school, Paige and Alex settle on smoking up before the College/Career fair visits. Paige eventually has to interview with the representative from Banting (like the Ivy equivalent) who is also a family friend. She freaks out, her mom finds out she smoked, an she gets grounded or whatever. But again, here it is not the possession of Marijuana which caused the problem, and it's not the all seeing eye which incurred wrath. Again too, the situation surrounding the consumption is rather ambiguous. While Palex is certainly not making out, it is certainly in its beginning stages, and doing this helped to strengthen the budding friendship/romance.
Later in the season, there was another drug related matter. Not only did it deal with a much "harder" drug (percs), but the kid (JT) was straight up dealing them. Again, all of his consequences came from his peers (including his pregnant girlfriend) discovering his dealing and his eventual consumption (and overdose) on the drug itself. It was an ultimate lesson in responsibility, not a childish lesson in -- hey, why do you have that, you're not supposed to have that, I'm telling, you're gonna get in soo much trouble.
After all of these years, does Degrassi have to grow up?
3.20.2009
3.08.2009
A Watchmen review?
Is this going to be a Watchmen review? To be honest, I don't know and I can't really predict.
Maybe it's just going to be a Snyder (the director) review.
Yes, that is what it is going to be.
The Watchmen was everything 300 was not.
I say this as a man who has read both of these books before seeing the movies. Oh, and yes, they are books; just because they have pictures does not mean they cannot also be literature.
300, Snyder's first film which was not a remake (unless you consider it to be a remake of The 300 Spartans, the movie which probably inspired Miller to write the book) was a faithful adaptation, almost frame for frame. Really, there were several shots, slowed down to emphasize, which were from the book -- something done to great effect most notably in Sin City, but also done to far lesser extents (simple recognizable poses or phrases) in pretty much every comic book movie. But what Snyder cut out was the character development. The redemption of Stelios (or should I say, Stumblios) was cut out entirely, though he was still picked to lead the final charge. The rise of Leonidas himself was too bastardized. Though it was not cut, the scene in which he faces a wolf as a child turned from a coming of age survival story to simple badassery. Also, there was a plotline added where Leonidas' wife tries winning support in Sparta and in the Spartan senate.
The Watchmen, on the other hand sacrificed little, if any, character development. Rorschac's real identity is only alluded to, even when his face is exposed. That was a major flaw, but it doesn't really affect him as a character, it simply helps the audience understand him a little bit better. The curse of the black pearl, the meta-comic, was cut out, but it will be released separately, presumptively straight to video. Again, something that in and of itself does not hurt the media, but helps the audience to better understand what is going on. While both the book and the movie used an ensemble cast, the focus seemed to shift more to Silk Spectre II (or maybe Ackerman was just a scene-stealer). I dunno, maybe I was just drawn more to Rorschac's character when I read it, and the movie obviously couldn't have all of his insanity. They also cut out alot of the story about the Minutemen, the superhero group preceding the Watchmen, also including the Comedian.
Where the "freeze-frames" or slo-mo shots helped with 300, they hurt with Watchmen. 300 was set in a fantacized version of ancient greece. Slowing frames down emphasized their un-realness while making it all seem that much more epic. Watchmen had a realistic, dirty tinge to it. The only superhero with actual superhero powers was Dr. Manhattan, and that happenned in a ridiculously freak accident. These freeze-frames de-realized whatever scenes whenever they happenned.
In the end, as Moore himself said, it was written to sho what comics could do that cinema could not (sic). The universe that was so meticulously created in the comic was faithfully recreated in the movie sets, however movies move too fast. A true adaptation of the book would probably take 4, maybe 5 hours, and wouldn't really be that watchable. This was probably the best a Watchmen adaptation could be. It really is a good attempt, but it is not the best comic book movie, and never really could be unless it was severely stripped down from or "done in the spirit of" the book. Simple as that.
It's been common knowledge that Short Stories usually adapt much better than Novels into movies, now I guess we found out what happens when one full legnth comic with novel-esque depth (300 isn't very long, and Sin City is like an anthology of stories, not all of which were movie-ized (yet)) is adapted into a movie, at 2 hours and 40 minutes, still feeling a little light.
-- Knuttel
Maybe it's just going to be a Snyder (the director) review.
Yes, that is what it is going to be.
The Watchmen was everything 300 was not.
I say this as a man who has read both of these books before seeing the movies. Oh, and yes, they are books; just because they have pictures does not mean they cannot also be literature.
300, Snyder's first film which was not a remake (unless you consider it to be a remake of The 300 Spartans, the movie which probably inspired Miller to write the book) was a faithful adaptation, almost frame for frame. Really, there were several shots, slowed down to emphasize, which were from the book -- something done to great effect most notably in Sin City, but also done to far lesser extents (simple recognizable poses or phrases) in pretty much every comic book movie. But what Snyder cut out was the character development. The redemption of Stelios (or should I say, Stumblios) was cut out entirely, though he was still picked to lead the final charge. The rise of Leonidas himself was too bastardized. Though it was not cut, the scene in which he faces a wolf as a child turned from a coming of age survival story to simple badassery. Also, there was a plotline added where Leonidas' wife tries winning support in Sparta and in the Spartan senate.
The Watchmen, on the other hand sacrificed little, if any, character development. Rorschac's real identity is only alluded to, even when his face is exposed. That was a major flaw, but it doesn't really affect him as a character, it simply helps the audience understand him a little bit better. The curse of the black pearl, the meta-comic, was cut out, but it will be released separately, presumptively straight to video. Again, something that in and of itself does not hurt the media, but helps the audience to better understand what is going on. While both the book and the movie used an ensemble cast, the focus seemed to shift more to Silk Spectre II (or maybe Ackerman was just a scene-stealer). I dunno, maybe I was just drawn more to Rorschac's character when I read it, and the movie obviously couldn't have all of his insanity. They also cut out alot of the story about the Minutemen, the superhero group preceding the Watchmen, also including the Comedian.
Where the "freeze-frames" or slo-mo shots helped with 300, they hurt with Watchmen. 300 was set in a fantacized version of ancient greece. Slowing frames down emphasized their un-realness while making it all seem that much more epic. Watchmen had a realistic, dirty tinge to it. The only superhero with actual superhero powers was Dr. Manhattan, and that happenned in a ridiculously freak accident. These freeze-frames de-realized whatever scenes whenever they happenned.
In the end, as Moore himself said, it was written to sho what comics could do that cinema could not (sic). The universe that was so meticulously created in the comic was faithfully recreated in the movie sets, however movies move too fast. A true adaptation of the book would probably take 4, maybe 5 hours, and wouldn't really be that watchable. This was probably the best a Watchmen adaptation could be. It really is a good attempt, but it is not the best comic book movie, and never really could be unless it was severely stripped down from or "done in the spirit of" the book. Simple as that.
It's been common knowledge that Short Stories usually adapt much better than Novels into movies, now I guess we found out what happens when one full legnth comic with novel-esque depth (300 isn't very long, and Sin City is like an anthology of stories, not all of which were movie-ized (yet)) is adapted into a movie, at 2 hours and 40 minutes, still feeling a little light.
-- Knuttel
3.04.2009
Obama needs to take control
http://www.newsweek.com/id/186961
The above is a recent article in Newsweek that shows a clear problem in Washington.
There are some in the democratic party who don't realize who the party head is. By some, I mean Nancy Pelosi.
There are two possible people at any time who can be the party leader. If the party does not hold the presidency, then it is the party's national committee president who is the leader (although mostly in a quiet, behind the scenes way). If the party has the president, then he is the party leader.
Only in the rare case where the President is disowned by his party (yes, it has happened once, and we can blame the great comprimiser Henry Clay for that) (oh, and it was John Tyler), would that person no longer be the party leader.
Barry O has been in office for roughly a month. He has not done anything drastic so far to attract the ire of the party. He has no colossal screw ups, or at least it is far too early to tell.
So where does Pelosi get this power trip? She is running the house of representatives under her iron fist. Her constituency isn't even close to national. She is California's representative from San Francisco. She does not even represent the entire state of California.
Barry O needs to come in NOW and strong-arm her so she knows exactly how stuff will get done. If Barry O wants Washington to be bi-partisan, he is going to have to find a way to get Pelosi to put her ego or vendetta or whatever the hell it is (really, I'm clueless) aside.
-- Knuttel
The above is a recent article in Newsweek that shows a clear problem in Washington.
There are some in the democratic party who don't realize who the party head is. By some, I mean Nancy Pelosi.
There are two possible people at any time who can be the party leader. If the party does not hold the presidency, then it is the party's national committee president who is the leader (although mostly in a quiet, behind the scenes way). If the party has the president, then he is the party leader.
Only in the rare case where the President is disowned by his party (yes, it has happened once, and we can blame the great comprimiser Henry Clay for that) (oh, and it was John Tyler), would that person no longer be the party leader.
Barry O has been in office for roughly a month. He has not done anything drastic so far to attract the ire of the party. He has no colossal screw ups, or at least it is far too early to tell.
So where does Pelosi get this power trip? She is running the house of representatives under her iron fist. Her constituency isn't even close to national. She is California's representative from San Francisco. She does not even represent the entire state of California.
Barry O needs to come in NOW and strong-arm her so she knows exactly how stuff will get done. If Barry O wants Washington to be bi-partisan, he is going to have to find a way to get Pelosi to put her ego or vendetta or whatever the hell it is (really, I'm clueless) aside.
-- Knuttel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)