7:53AM June 25th, 2010
Woke up at about quarter to five this morning to the sounds of cats fighting, either over whether or not the Oilers should select Taylor Hall or Tyler Seguin with the first overall pick or Merlin was taking umbrage with Buster's rape attempts.
The power was back on after being out all evening due to lightning storms, so I decided to get up and check out all the TSN pre-draft overhype I'd missed. Watched a few of Pierre Maguire's and Craig Button's mock draft and all of their 45 minute documentary on what has led the Oilers to today (watch the video called Oil Change). After all that, I'm still not sure who I want them to take. It's really a no-lose situation, which is a nice change of pace for an organization in which being losers has completely infiltrated the system. Good times ahead, though, with Eberle, Paajarvi-Svensson, and now Hall/Seguin.
Time to get ready for a final day of statistics/GIS training.
8:29AM
Gotta leave for training in a few minutes. The weather forecast is threatening me with possible thundershowers this afternoon. These electrical storms have taken us out twice this week already. Monday night, our power was off for about 7 hours and, last night, for about 8 hours. I will flip out if the power goes out before the Oilers make their pick. Like drive down to SaskEnergy and punch a random guy in the back flip out. I've been waiting for this draft for MONTHS. Fuck you, climate, you fucking prick. Stop playing with my emotions.
Time to go learn about hierarchical linear modeling for some unknown reason.
10:06AM
My instructor is a fast-talking Venezualan who looks like Madeline Stowe. I love her. I hope my bride-to-be will understand.
10:17AM
Quiet morning on the NHL front, especially considering how much activity there has been recently: Arnott going back to the Devils, Horton to the Bruins, Beefcake to the Thrashers (if that's not Byfuglien's nickname, it should be), and the Sharks declaring they wouldn't be resigning Nabokov. Some names being bounced around as being available include Jeff Carter, Tomas Kaberle, and anyone who wore an Oilers jersey who's old enough to grow a moustache.
Darren Dreger is reporting on Twitter that the 4th, 8th, and 15th picks might be in play. I'd love it if the Oilers were able to nab one of those picks and either take a defenceman or American goalie prospect Jack Campbell, both areas being significant weaknesses in their prospects depth.
10:28AM
There are a few websites I frequent for hockey rumours, and some of them are so ridiculous. Stevie Y, the new GM of the Tampa Bay Lighting, recently made a public statement that he is not going to trade Lecavalier. Today, an infamous anonymous blogger named Eklund is reporting that Lecavalier trade talks are heating up. I think he's been copy-and-pasting the same sentence for about three years now. Sportsnet once had Eklund on during their day long trade-deadline coverage (behind frosted glass so his identity wouldn't be revealed, of course), at which time he excitedly reported that the Oilers had re-signed Smyth to a multi-year contract!!... about ten minutes before reporters were interviewing a just-traded and sobbing Smyth while he waited to catch a plane to Long Island. He's like the Perez Hilton of hockey (except without the legal trouble for posting pictures of Miley Cyrus' pixelated snooch). What a maroon.
12:14PM
This is the most excited I've been about an unveiling since Y2J.
The importance this draft is going to have on the Oilers' organization can't be overstated, especially if they're able to land another first round pick (which is something they're reportedly trying very hard to attain). Paajarvi-Svensson/Hall or Seguin/Eberle has the potential to be one of the most explosive lines in the league in a few years. That's not hyperbole. But man do they need more depth in defence, goaltending, and toughness if they're going to give that line adequate support.
Need. More. Picks.
2:52PM
Severe thunderstorm warning for Regina... goddammit!!
Apparently Tambellini tried to get the 2nd overall pick out of Boston today. Hall AND Seguin... that'd be something else. Can't imagine they could get that done, though. At least they're dreaming big.
5:02PM
It has begun!
Where the hell is my draft preview mag??
Tambellini still going hard for the #2 pick. I'm "going hard" right now as well.
5:14PM
Bettman, you twitchy little turd, get to the draft!!
5:17PM
I'm guessing they don't have 2nd or it would have been announced by now...
5:18PM
It was a fall for Hall!
Hall with Eberle... that's fucking exciting.
5:25PM
Heh. Burke.
5:31PM
Man, this is fun. I hope the Oilers suck just as bad next year and get another top pick (which is very, very likely).
They just need a good d-man prospect or two and they'll be scary good in a few years. I don't think they're quite like the Blackhawks or Penguins were before they exploded, but really not too far off.
5:58PM
Nino should look great with Tavares on the Island.
Yzerman up to pick. Love seeing him as an NHL GM.
Dreger saying the Oilers are still trying hard to get another relatively high pick. Awesome, awesome, awesome.
6:02PM
Hedman, Stamkos, and, if he pans out, Brett Connolly, who analysts say would have been in the mix with Hall and Seguin if he hadn't hurt himself this year. Tampa Bay is going to be scary good.
6:45PM
I was hoping the Oilers would have drafted the goalie Campbell.
It'll be difficult to get a mid-round pick with those two d-men still hanging around.
8:19PM
Drafts are pretty boring once all the good prospects are gone and no trades of significance are being made...
9:13PM
All in all, I can be nothing but satisfied with the Oilers today. They now have an impressive stable of offensive prospects. It might take a while to win games on a regular basis, but it should be a very exciting squad next year. I just need to figure out who's jersey I want to get (I'll likely be going to watch the Oilers in Ottawa in November and want to represent).
They weren't able to get any more picks in the first round, but it was a relatively inactive group of GMs today, and by the sounds of it they were definitely making a strong effort, even striving to get both Taylor AND Tyler.
Down the road, the Ducks will probably be the big winner of the day. Two good prospects who both slipped down to them. Lucky Ducks.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Chasing Eric Staal, or Why I Drafted the Young 'Uns
In my first blog post, I bragged up the strategy I used for my ’08 hockey pool. Essentially, I targeted those players who were approaching the end of their careers and were thought by most prognosticators to have nothing left in the tank. I put my faith in the old guard, believing they had a lot left to prove and that today’s training regimens would allow them to prove it. It turned out to be a fairly misguided strategy. Not that all the old farts played that poorly, but not enough of them played that well, and they suffered a lot of injuries. In the end, I finished near the bottom of the pile, not so much because I utilized a bad strategy, but rather because it wasn’t a good strategy. (Lesson learned: don’t brag up your drafting skills less than a month into a season, because you never know when Joe Sakic’s senility will kick in and he’ll stick his hand into a snowblower blade.)
I decided to take the opposite approach this year, inspired by the early career of Eric Staal. He entered the NHL with high expectations after being drafted 2nd overall behind Marc-Andre Fleury. He didn’t live up to the hype, though few rookies do, and he finished with a lowly 31 points. After a season in the AHL during the NHL lockout, Staal exploded for 100 points, finishing 7th in league scoring. Jonathon Cheechoo also exploded that year for 93 points, the beneficiary of San Jose acquiring Joe Thornton early in the year. Both would have been incredible steals for poolies that year. One big difference though: people who drafted Cheechoo got lucky; people who drafted Staal were being astute.
Then again, other top draft picks from Staal’s draft year include Nathan Horton and Nikolai Zherdev. Horton had 47 points in his sophomore year while Zherdev had 54. Respectable numbers, but not the type that will elevate someone into first place in a hockey pool.
Picking players involves a consideration of risk and reward. The risk of the all-too-common “Sophomore Jinx” is well known. And reaping the rewards of a young superstar coming into his own early in his career after a shaky rookie season, like Staal managed to do, might be too rare an occurrence to bother trying to chase, like the moron who spends $500 a month on lottery tickets instead of saving for retirement.
But, goddamnit, I certainly chased Staal this year. Claude Giroux, Jakub Voracek, Peter Mueller, Dave Bolland, Michael Frolik… all had decent rookie campaigns with occasional flashes of brilliance and all were strong prospects. Like my old farts from the year before, though, they may not have all played too bad for me, but none of them have been that great, either. I’m going to finish near the bottom of the pack again this year, let down by a very different though equally misguided strategy as the year before. (It’s probably a good thing I wasn’t able to draft Steven Stamkos, or I would have resisted the idea that drafting sophomores isn’t a good strategy.) Not that this strategy is the sole reason I'm stinking up the place -- most of my veterans have been just as disappointing as the sophomores -- but it certainly wasn't a winning strategy.
Much like my Edmonton Oilers, even though there’s 15-17 games left, I’m already looking towards next season and I’ll be using this summer to retool. I haven’t given up on the concept that there’s a winning formula to picking players for pools, one that can be applied from year-to-year and will give me an edge. I just have yet to solve it.
I decided to take the opposite approach this year, inspired by the early career of Eric Staal. He entered the NHL with high expectations after being drafted 2nd overall behind Marc-Andre Fleury. He didn’t live up to the hype, though few rookies do, and he finished with a lowly 31 points. After a season in the AHL during the NHL lockout, Staal exploded for 100 points, finishing 7th in league scoring. Jonathon Cheechoo also exploded that year for 93 points, the beneficiary of San Jose acquiring Joe Thornton early in the year. Both would have been incredible steals for poolies that year. One big difference though: people who drafted Cheechoo got lucky; people who drafted Staal were being astute.
Then again, other top draft picks from Staal’s draft year include Nathan Horton and Nikolai Zherdev. Horton had 47 points in his sophomore year while Zherdev had 54. Respectable numbers, but not the type that will elevate someone into first place in a hockey pool.
Picking players involves a consideration of risk and reward. The risk of the all-too-common “Sophomore Jinx” is well known. And reaping the rewards of a young superstar coming into his own early in his career after a shaky rookie season, like Staal managed to do, might be too rare an occurrence to bother trying to chase, like the moron who spends $500 a month on lottery tickets instead of saving for retirement.
But, goddamnit, I certainly chased Staal this year. Claude Giroux, Jakub Voracek, Peter Mueller, Dave Bolland, Michael Frolik… all had decent rookie campaigns with occasional flashes of brilliance and all were strong prospects. Like my old farts from the year before, though, they may not have all played too bad for me, but none of them have been that great, either. I’m going to finish near the bottom of the pack again this year, let down by a very different though equally misguided strategy as the year before. (It’s probably a good thing I wasn’t able to draft Steven Stamkos, or I would have resisted the idea that drafting sophomores isn’t a good strategy.) Not that this strategy is the sole reason I'm stinking up the place -- most of my veterans have been just as disappointing as the sophomores -- but it certainly wasn't a winning strategy.
Much like my Edmonton Oilers, even though there’s 15-17 games left, I’m already looking towards next season and I’ll be using this summer to retool. I haven’t given up on the concept that there’s a winning formula to picking players for pools, one that can be applied from year-to-year and will give me an edge. I just have yet to solve it.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Lowe Vs. Burke, Revisited
Almost three years ago, Kevin Lowe did Brian Burke a favour and signed away Dustin Penner. This act triggered an increasingly embarrassing and very public comparison of cock sizes between the two. It was embarrassing not only because of the inherent immaturity of it all, but also because they weren't so much claiming, "My cock is bigger than yours" but, rather, "Your cock is smaller than mine." Well, that's great and all, but of course the debate is just as valid if theirs also happened to be the two smallest cocks on the playground. (Gary Bettman, of course, holds the title of "Biggest Cock.")
Now where was I again? Oh, right, I was talking about cocks.
Burke claimed that Lowe ran the Oilers into the sewer, and that he was a GM desperate to keep his job. That's hard to debate considering their free-fall following a surprising run to game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. One quibble with Burke's assessment is that Lowe did not need to be concerned with keeping his job, as evidenced by his promotion from GM to President of Hockey Operations. Neither the previous owners or Rexall mogul Daryl Katz seem interested in holding the team's executive brass to account. Lowe's job is secure because, in the Oilers' NHL era, he was their first ever draft pick, scored their first ever goal, won 5 Stanley Cups with them, and has played more games as an Oiler than anyone else. His lofty position has nothing to do with merit or performance in his current role and has everything to do with being one of the Boys on the Bus.
Eventually, Lowe had had enough of Burke's comments to the media and responded with some venom of his own. Lowe called Burke a moron and a media junkie, dismissed the Anaheim hockey market as pathetic, called Bobby Ryan a waste of a draft pick, and argued Burke's M.O. is to deplete a team of its assets before moving on to greener pastures. Phew, I forgot just how dense Lowe's rant was. Too bad he was working with less ammunition than Burke had on him. Looked at today, most of what he bitched about rings false. First, Burke's not a moron -- the dude's got a doctorate in law, after all -- though he certainly is a media junkie. Second, cutting down the Anaheim hockey market was a cheapshot that had nothing to do with anything. Third, Bobby Ryan has more goals this year than any Oiler, just like he did last year when he was a rookie. Some waste. Fourth, Burke left the Canucks with the Sedin sisters, Kevin Bieksa, Ryan Kesler, and Alexandre Burrows, all of whom came into the organization during his tenure. And he left Anaheim with a Stanley Cup banner in the rafters. So, out of all that nonsense, the only zing Lowe connected with is that he's a media junkie. It would seem that Brian Burke's cock is in fact bigger. Or, more appropriately that Kevin Lowe's is smaller.
But, hold on, maybe Burke being a media junkie should be considered more of a significant negative characteristic. Burke has left the relative anonymity of operating in California and is now working out of the focal point of the hockey media. Burke can't take a shit anymore without a live TSN panel praising its fragrant complexities. But, like Lowe said, Burke craves this kind of exposure. And it seems to me it's affecting his business decisions.
One of Burke's first significant transactions as the Leafs' GM was trading two first-round and one second-round draft picks to Boston for a then-injured Phil Kessel, rather than pulling a Penner and signing him away as a restriced free agent. This trade was fucking stupid. Burke said it was a move to push the Maple Leafs into the playoffs, for anything less would be unacceptable. That is the same misguided, impatient management philosophy that has made the Maple Leafs the joke that they are (though at least Burke has updated the strategy to targeting young players rather than guys nearing retirement). And, despite all Burke's bluster, I don't believe for a second that he thought that team could make the playoffs. (And his commitment seems even more artificial now that he's traded away four of the Leaf's top-eight scorers, though he's still been sticking to that same playoffs song and dance for the press gallery.) Kessel's a good goal scorer, but he's not the kind of player who can carry a franchise on his back. That trade was nothing more than Burke sacrificing the team's long-term future to make an immediate splash. A photo opportunity with a second-tier star that will cost the Leafs two very high draft picks.
Meanwhile, in Edmonton, there's a new guy making questionable decisions. Steve Tambellini inherited Lowe's clusterfuck of a gong show of a mess (but not before Lowe gave him the a final gift of signing Shawn Horcoff to one of the most crippling contracts in the league). Steve's three major accomplishments with the Oilers to date have been: 1) signing Khabibulin, which is the equivalent of putting a four million dollar bandage on lung cancer, 2) wasting months in a failed attempt to woo Dany Heatley, and 3) hiring Pat Quinn to chew gum and look confused. But, really, I don't fault Steve. I feel kind of sorry for him. No GM could fix the deep and systemic damages that Lowe has done, at least not until some of the long-term contracts he signed are off the books.
The Oilers' cupboards are bare right now but, as a fan (why the fuck am I still a fan?... there's a topic for a future blog), at least I can take solace in that ineptitude in sports is rewarded on draft day. Lowe's bad decisions will be converted into a great prospect this June. There's a faint glimmer of light on the horizon. Or at least there is in Edmonton. Toronto's just fucked.
Now where was I again? Oh, right, I was talking about cocks.
Burke claimed that Lowe ran the Oilers into the sewer, and that he was a GM desperate to keep his job. That's hard to debate considering their free-fall following a surprising run to game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. One quibble with Burke's assessment is that Lowe did not need to be concerned with keeping his job, as evidenced by his promotion from GM to President of Hockey Operations. Neither the previous owners or Rexall mogul Daryl Katz seem interested in holding the team's executive brass to account. Lowe's job is secure because, in the Oilers' NHL era, he was their first ever draft pick, scored their first ever goal, won 5 Stanley Cups with them, and has played more games as an Oiler than anyone else. His lofty position has nothing to do with merit or performance in his current role and has everything to do with being one of the Boys on the Bus.
Eventually, Lowe had had enough of Burke's comments to the media and responded with some venom of his own. Lowe called Burke a moron and a media junkie, dismissed the Anaheim hockey market as pathetic, called Bobby Ryan a waste of a draft pick, and argued Burke's M.O. is to deplete a team of its assets before moving on to greener pastures. Phew, I forgot just how dense Lowe's rant was. Too bad he was working with less ammunition than Burke had on him. Looked at today, most of what he bitched about rings false. First, Burke's not a moron -- the dude's got a doctorate in law, after all -- though he certainly is a media junkie. Second, cutting down the Anaheim hockey market was a cheapshot that had nothing to do with anything. Third, Bobby Ryan has more goals this year than any Oiler, just like he did last year when he was a rookie. Some waste. Fourth, Burke left the Canucks with the Sedin sisters, Kevin Bieksa, Ryan Kesler, and Alexandre Burrows, all of whom came into the organization during his tenure. And he left Anaheim with a Stanley Cup banner in the rafters. So, out of all that nonsense, the only zing Lowe connected with is that he's a media junkie. It would seem that Brian Burke's cock is in fact bigger. Or, more appropriately that Kevin Lowe's is smaller.
But, hold on, maybe Burke being a media junkie should be considered more of a significant negative characteristic. Burke has left the relative anonymity of operating in California and is now working out of the focal point of the hockey media. Burke can't take a shit anymore without a live TSN panel praising its fragrant complexities. But, like Lowe said, Burke craves this kind of exposure. And it seems to me it's affecting his business decisions.
One of Burke's first significant transactions as the Leafs' GM was trading two first-round and one second-round draft picks to Boston for a then-injured Phil Kessel, rather than pulling a Penner and signing him away as a restriced free agent. This trade was fucking stupid. Burke said it was a move to push the Maple Leafs into the playoffs, for anything less would be unacceptable. That is the same misguided, impatient management philosophy that has made the Maple Leafs the joke that they are (though at least Burke has updated the strategy to targeting young players rather than guys nearing retirement). And, despite all Burke's bluster, I don't believe for a second that he thought that team could make the playoffs. (And his commitment seems even more artificial now that he's traded away four of the Leaf's top-eight scorers, though he's still been sticking to that same playoffs song and dance for the press gallery.) Kessel's a good goal scorer, but he's not the kind of player who can carry a franchise on his back. That trade was nothing more than Burke sacrificing the team's long-term future to make an immediate splash. A photo opportunity with a second-tier star that will cost the Leafs two very high draft picks.
Meanwhile, in Edmonton, there's a new guy making questionable decisions. Steve Tambellini inherited Lowe's clusterfuck of a gong show of a mess (but not before Lowe gave him the a final gift of signing Shawn Horcoff to one of the most crippling contracts in the league). Steve's three major accomplishments with the Oilers to date have been: 1) signing Khabibulin, which is the equivalent of putting a four million dollar bandage on lung cancer, 2) wasting months in a failed attempt to woo Dany Heatley, and 3) hiring Pat Quinn to chew gum and look confused. But, really, I don't fault Steve. I feel kind of sorry for him. No GM could fix the deep and systemic damages that Lowe has done, at least not until some of the long-term contracts he signed are off the books.
The Oilers' cupboards are bare right now but, as a fan (why the fuck am I still a fan?... there's a topic for a future blog), at least I can take solace in that ineptitude in sports is rewarded on draft day. Lowe's bad decisions will be converted into a great prospect this June. There's a faint glimmer of light on the horizon. Or at least there is in Edmonton. Toronto's just fucked.
Monday, December 14, 2009
I'm an achievement whore. Literally.
Six months ago, I finally took the plunge into the new generation of consoles and bought myself an XBox 360. A new feature to gaming has been introduced since my Gamecube days -- Achievements (XBox 360) and Trophies (Playstation 3) -- which are basically meant to give players bragging rights and to compare games played with friends. I don't have a Playstation, so fuck Trophies. I'll just be talking about achievements.
Achievements (which really couldn't be more of a misnomer) can be earned in different ways: for simply advancing through stages of a game, for reaching a stats threshold, or for doing some action that is obscure and/or inane. No matter what the condition met, I love hearing the "Bwop!" when a new achievement is unlocked. I don't know why, I just find it satisfying. Not an accomplishment per se, as that would be fucking sad, but it does add to the fun. It's sorta reminiscent of that feeling when you get the top score on an arcade machine and get to put your initials in. It's a permanent record of games that were conquered. However, it's gotten to the point that the promise of achievements are herding my actions.
Two shameful examples.
1) There's a free game on Live called Dash of Destruction. It's a poorly programmed Doritos commercial that's not at all fun. I played it for about an hour and a half because the achievements were easy to unlock. So I guess I'm not just an achievement whore, I'm also a corporate whore.
2) I'm currently playing the RPG Dragon Age, a game that offers an amazing number of difficult choices. One of those choices is whether or not to seduce a bisexual elf and then sleep with him. Well, I did it... for 10 achievement points. And 10 points ain't much. In real-life terms, that's the equivalent of a $2 crack ho. And the game didn't let me off easy with a suggestive fade to black. This is some Six Feet Under shit right here. Share my degradation. The game really rubbed my nose in it (and by "it," I mean an elf's taint).
But I think Dragon Age may have cured me of my whorish ways. It scared me straight by making me totally gay. From now on, the only achievements I'll be... uh... achieving will be incidental ones while I'm racking up head shots. Fuck yeah!!
(Goodbye, sweet Zevran...)
Here's an ign blog that talks about the same subject, and has an interesting example of an achievement for pricks found in Halo: ODST.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Jesus Christ, DC, these are comic books. Try writing for an audience other than Rain Man.
Without actually bothering to read comics, I had always been a bigger fan of DC than Marvel. You can thank Christopher Reeve and Michael Keaton for this. Superman and Batman were the only worthwhile superheroes in my eyes (the only other superhero who was even on my radar was Spider-Man because of the 60s cartoon with the funky backgrounds).
When I actually started reading comics about 12 years ago, I shied away from anything that carried too much continuity baggage. I wanted to start out on the ground floor as much as possible so that my enjoyment wouldn't be outweighed by my confusion. I ended up by-passing all the mainstream DC titles and opted mostly for self-contained Batman mini-series or stuff that was entirely new.
But now we're living in the glorious information age! Wikipedia is a gold-mine for explaining the esoteric and unnecessarily bloated minutiae that is comic book continuity. I no longer had reason to be intimidated by backstory because a quick scan on the Interweb would educate me right quick. So, after reading some positive stuff on a recent Green Lantern storyline, I decided to take the plunge.
"... Who the fuck are these guys and what the fuck are they doing?" I wondered, after reading every single fucking page. So, 2 hours of googling and wikipedying later, I had some idea of who most of the main players were. I liked what I read, but it required a lot more work than I was expecting.
But I was now getting the lay of the land and so I kept with it and bought the next issue: "Ok, now who the fuck is this? Where the fuck are those blue guys going? What the fuck?!" Back to wikipedia for an hour. Rinse. Repeat.
I do like reading Green Lantern. And, about 20 issues later, I've got a pretty decent grasp of the cast of characters' history (and the cast involves dozens of characters) to not be completely lost while I'm reading it.
This summer, with tentative confidence, I decided to try swimming in the deep end and, for the first time, read one of the big comics summer events -- DC's Final Crisis -- complete with specials and tie-ins. It's the third (or arguably fourth) segment of a trilogy of Crisis stories / retcons that has been told over the course of decades. My confusion with Green Lantern? That was nothing. There is no way I can be brought up to speed with this ridiculous mess. It involves numerous parallel universes and a cast of thousands. And it's being written by Grant Morrison -- an incomprehensible, drug-addled, writer-of-complete-nonsense who's famous for utilizing the most obscure characters and plot-lines from DC's history and providing the audience with no clue of how to put his incompatible puzzle pieces together. He's like David Lynch, if David Lynch was an asshole who wrote Batman comics.
I don't understand why DC would allow their major storyines and premier characters to be made so inaccessible to their readers. Don't they have any interest in expanding their audience beyond those with encyclopedic knowledge or Asperger syndrome? No wonder comics is such a niche medium that, if anything, has shown negative growth over the decades. Marvel, though, seems to get it better than DC. I can read most Marvel comics and not feel like a fucking idiot.
But I don't want to read Marvel. That brand has no nostalgic value for me. I want to read Superman and recapture that feeling I used to get when I'd hear John William's score during the opening credits. And I'm trying to read Superman. But when I read an issue that involves two versions of Superman, three versions of the League of Superheroes, the League of Super-Villains, the Fatal Five, the Green Lanterns, and a bunch of other dudes -- literally, like a hundred actual characters crammed into 22 pages -- I want to tell them that it's not worth my effort. I'd rather just pop in the DVD and watch the movie for a 20th time.
When I actually started reading comics about 12 years ago, I shied away from anything that carried too much continuity baggage. I wanted to start out on the ground floor as much as possible so that my enjoyment wouldn't be outweighed by my confusion. I ended up by-passing all the mainstream DC titles and opted mostly for self-contained Batman mini-series or stuff that was entirely new.
But now we're living in the glorious information age! Wikipedia is a gold-mine for explaining the esoteric and unnecessarily bloated minutiae that is comic book continuity. I no longer had reason to be intimidated by backstory because a quick scan on the Interweb would educate me right quick. So, after reading some positive stuff on a recent Green Lantern storyline, I decided to take the plunge.
"... Who the fuck are these guys and what the fuck are they doing?" I wondered, after reading every single fucking page. So, 2 hours of googling and wikipedying later, I had some idea of who most of the main players were. I liked what I read, but it required a lot more work than I was expecting.
But I was now getting the lay of the land and so I kept with it and bought the next issue: "Ok, now who the fuck is this? Where the fuck are those blue guys going? What the fuck?!" Back to wikipedia for an hour. Rinse. Repeat.
I do like reading Green Lantern. And, about 20 issues later, I've got a pretty decent grasp of the cast of characters' history (and the cast involves dozens of characters) to not be completely lost while I'm reading it.
This summer, with tentative confidence, I decided to try swimming in the deep end and, for the first time, read one of the big comics summer events -- DC's Final Crisis -- complete with specials and tie-ins. It's the third (or arguably fourth) segment of a trilogy of Crisis stories / retcons that has been told over the course of decades. My confusion with Green Lantern? That was nothing. There is no way I can be brought up to speed with this ridiculous mess. It involves numerous parallel universes and a cast of thousands. And it's being written by Grant Morrison -- an incomprehensible, drug-addled, writer-of-complete-nonsense who's famous for utilizing the most obscure characters and plot-lines from DC's history and providing the audience with no clue of how to put his incompatible puzzle pieces together. He's like David Lynch, if David Lynch was an asshole who wrote Batman comics.
I don't understand why DC would allow their major storyines and premier characters to be made so inaccessible to their readers. Don't they have any interest in expanding their audience beyond those with encyclopedic knowledge or Asperger syndrome? No wonder comics is such a niche medium that, if anything, has shown negative growth over the decades. Marvel, though, seems to get it better than DC. I can read most Marvel comics and not feel like a fucking idiot.
But I don't want to read Marvel. That brand has no nostalgic value for me. I want to read Superman and recapture that feeling I used to get when I'd hear John William's score during the opening credits. And I'm trying to read Superman. But when I read an issue that involves two versions of Superman, three versions of the League of Superheroes, the League of Super-Villains, the Fatal Five, the Green Lanterns, and a bunch of other dudes -- literally, like a hundred actual characters crammed into 22 pages -- I want to tell them that it's not worth my effort. I'd rather just pop in the DVD and watch the movie for a 20th time.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Does Osgood belong in the Hall of Fame? No, you fucking putz!
I wish I made that shit up. Some Red Wings fan at pickuphockey.com posed this question, and tries to argue that Osgood may be a first ballot entrant based on his career wins. The guy spouts out a bunch of out-of-context career stats and cements his position by stating that "Stats are stats." Well, how can one possibly argue with that? Oh, yeah, I guess with the much more common adage that "Stats fucking lie." Or, in the case of Osgood's career, completely leave out the truth that he's a fairly dependable but completely unremarkable player whose stats have been padded from playing on an excellent defensive team for most of his career (much of which was as a back-up to better goaltenders).
This is indicative of a general problem I have with the typical moronic turds who think they're analysts and flock to message boards. When talking about potential HOFers, they crunch and compare numbers, peruse the league's all-time leaders lists in various categories, count the number of Cup rings... But that's all mostly bullshit. There's a much better way to decide if a guy belongs there which captures the context behind the numbers. Watch fucking hockey!! Anyone who does that wouldn't give a rat's ass if Osgood does in fact retire with better numbers than Grant Fuhr because, figuratively speaking, they're not in the same fucking league!
If and when I go to the Hall of Fame in Toronto, I want to be impressed and inspired by the faces and names. I want to feel a sense of awe, that I'm surrounded by the men (and about three women) who made the sport and hockey culture what it is today. There are names that are synonymous with excitement and drama. In my lifetime, that's Messier, and Roy, and Bure, and... uh... Adam Foote (for Rick). They are who belong. It is, after all, the Hockey Hall of FAME, not the Hockey Hall of League Leaders in Various Statistical Categories. That's why Cam Neely's in there and Mike Gartner is not. If I see Osgood in there in any capacity other than as another dude like me who's paid his admission to see the greats of hockey, I'll demand my money back.
Unless they have a video of his fight in the Roy exhibit. That'd be awesome.
This is indicative of a general problem I have with the typical moronic turds who think they're analysts and flock to message boards. When talking about potential HOFers, they crunch and compare numbers, peruse the league's all-time leaders lists in various categories, count the number of Cup rings... But that's all mostly bullshit. There's a much better way to decide if a guy belongs there which captures the context behind the numbers. Watch fucking hockey!! Anyone who does that wouldn't give a rat's ass if Osgood does in fact retire with better numbers than Grant Fuhr because, figuratively speaking, they're not in the same fucking league!
If and when I go to the Hall of Fame in Toronto, I want to be impressed and inspired by the faces and names. I want to feel a sense of awe, that I'm surrounded by the men (and about three women) who made the sport and hockey culture what it is today. There are names that are synonymous with excitement and drama. In my lifetime, that's Messier, and Roy, and Bure, and... uh... Adam Foote (for Rick). They are who belong. It is, after all, the Hockey Hall of FAME, not the Hockey Hall of League Leaders in Various Statistical Categories. That's why Cam Neely's in there and Mike Gartner is not. If I see Osgood in there in any capacity other than as another dude like me who's paid his admission to see the greats of hockey, I'll demand my money back.
Unless they have a video of his fight in the Roy exhibit. That'd be awesome.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
I Invite TV Executives to Eat a Bag of Dicks
Like most people who aren't dumb but still watch TV, I hate it when high-quality shows are cancelled while pedestrian junk can stay on the air for a decade (go away, Charlie Sheen and Duckie). Here are five that were killed too soon.
Arrested Development
I actually kinda understand why AD was canceled -- I don't think another sitcom in the history of television required as much dedication and attention from its audience to be fully effective. It's a very layered comedy that relied heavily on in-jokes and subtly delivered double entendres. So it didn't have great ratings (I guess its strong DVD sales don't balance the books). But at least it got three seasons in and was able to go out in its prime with its head held high... meanwhile, King of the Hill is recycling the same handful of stale jokes for a 13th year and The Simpsons will again tarnish its legacy for a 20th (!) season.
Carnivàle
I totally get why this one was shit-canned. The budget was too high and the creator was too stubborn. The plan was to tell an epic story over the course of six seasons, but the curtains on this one closed for good with some huge cliff-hangers at the end of the first and only Act. What a cock tease.
The Dana Carvey Show
Damn you, Dana Carvey, why did you have to go out of your way to upset your sponsors every week? Looking back, there was an incredible amount of talent on this show (seriously, check out the credited writers) and its a goddamn shame it only lasted 6 episodes. If only it had been on HBO instead...
Firefly
This is an infuriating one. FOX sabotaged its own show before the first episode even aired. I remember I was excited back in 2002 to watch the pilot. It was about a train heist and it was pretty good, though a bit confusing. Little did I know at the time that it was actually the third episode because FOX was airing them out of order, and then didn't even bother airing all the episodes that had been filmed. The movie was good, but Whedon was meant for TV. (Hopefully Dollhouse will be another gem.)
Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot
This was the most frustrating cancellation of them all. It was, without a doubt in my mind, the ultimate animated adventure show for kids (too bad it came out when I was in my 20s). Fuck the Ninja Turtles and fuck Dungeons & Dragons. Big Guy and Rusty was it. It took some basic story elements from Japanese anime (i.e., mecha, giant monsters attacking cities) and added top-notch Western animation and some great voice acting. Two things that really chap my ass: 1) Like Carnivàle, this one ended with a pretty great cliffhanger. I tuned in the next week but it had been replaced by Digimon. 2) This will never, ever be available on DVD.
...
I should finish by giving due credit to the current execs at ABC. LOST has lost a lot of its viewers over the years but, despite the significant cost of the show, the network is apparently committed to it until the story is complete.
Arrested Development
I actually kinda understand why AD was canceled -- I don't think another sitcom in the history of television required as much dedication and attention from its audience to be fully effective. It's a very layered comedy that relied heavily on in-jokes and subtly delivered double entendres. So it didn't have great ratings (I guess its strong DVD sales don't balance the books). But at least it got three seasons in and was able to go out in its prime with its head held high... meanwhile, King of the Hill is recycling the same handful of stale jokes for a 13th year and The Simpsons will again tarnish its legacy for a 20th (!) season.
Carnivàle
I totally get why this one was shit-canned. The budget was too high and the creator was too stubborn. The plan was to tell an epic story over the course of six seasons, but the curtains on this one closed for good with some huge cliff-hangers at the end of the first and only Act. What a cock tease.
The Dana Carvey Show
Damn you, Dana Carvey, why did you have to go out of your way to upset your sponsors every week? Looking back, there was an incredible amount of talent on this show (seriously, check out the credited writers) and its a goddamn shame it only lasted 6 episodes. If only it had been on HBO instead...
Firefly
This is an infuriating one. FOX sabotaged its own show before the first episode even aired. I remember I was excited back in 2002 to watch the pilot. It was about a train heist and it was pretty good, though a bit confusing. Little did I know at the time that it was actually the third episode because FOX was airing them out of order, and then didn't even bother airing all the episodes that had been filmed. The movie was good, but Whedon was meant for TV. (Hopefully Dollhouse will be another gem.)
Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot
This was the most frustrating cancellation of them all. It was, without a doubt in my mind, the ultimate animated adventure show for kids (too bad it came out when I was in my 20s). Fuck the Ninja Turtles and fuck Dungeons & Dragons. Big Guy and Rusty was it. It took some basic story elements from Japanese anime (i.e., mecha, giant monsters attacking cities) and added top-notch Western animation and some great voice acting. Two things that really chap my ass: 1) Like Carnivàle, this one ended with a pretty great cliffhanger. I tuned in the next week but it had been replaced by Digimon. 2) This will never, ever be available on DVD.
...
I should finish by giving due credit to the current execs at ABC. LOST has lost a lot of its viewers over the years but, despite the significant cost of the show, the network is apparently committed to it until the story is complete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
