Saturday, October 17, 2009
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Kung Fu Panda
I initially wanted to start this blog as a way for me to review all of the various games, movies, music, and books that I pick up. I haven't exactly being doing that. But now is a good time as any.
Kung Fu Panda came out over the summer, and while it didn't garner nearly the hype or glowing reviews that Wall-E got, it still was one of the best received movies of the year. And for the most part, I concur with the other reviews. The most noticeable positive is the apparent manic energy impressively translated into his simple, hopeful, and rather large noodle-serving panda. Unlike some other characters in previous Dreamworks movies, at no point do you separate the voice from the character. This isn't Eddie Murphy's Donkey or those two insufferable idiots from The Road to El Dorado. (I could dedicate this entire post to my hatred for the Shrek franchise, so I think it's best I move along.) The animation style is impressive. It's smooth, crisp, and beautiful to look at. Most of the character models are equally solid - although the large cat models are the exception. And, thankfully, no human characters stilt around to muck up the scenery. On top of all of this, the movie FEELS exceptionally Asian. Even the story seems like it could be a simplified version of some Saturday afternoon kung fu matinee. But, while the story may seem simplified, there's a lot of weight here. The villain of the story, Tai Lung, carries a real sense of danger throughout the latter half of the story. And his utter battering of Shifu, his former master is a fight to rival any live-action fight scene. Also, Oogway is probably one of the best characters in any U.S. animated film. He has the funniest and most thought-provoking lines in the movie. His departure halfway through the film has an emotional - and, again, mature - tone rare for a children's film. I could see others criticizing the scene as a cop-out or glossing over reality, but I would disagree. It somehow manages to be spiritual without being campy or overwrought. And that brings me to the best compliment I can give this movie; it has a serious, spiritual, well-meaning message and it never pounds you over the head with it. (*Cough* Scorsese! *Cough*) It was only after the movie that I put two and two together and realized The Message. (Don't quit; even if you're a fat cow, you might be meant for something; believe in yourself; etc.) Finally, it's become a cliche now to call a film 'fun for the whole family' or 'a movie for kids and adults' or whatever corporate-generated, buzzword-filled tagline movie studios garnish their movie posters with, but that really does apply to this movie. The story moves along, the action is tight and exciting, the style stands out, it's funny . . . And, well, giant, fat pandas look both cute and funny.
But that's not to say their are no flaws. For starters, the actors are all wrong. While Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), Po (Jack Black), Monkey (Jackie Chan), the Rhino general (Michael Clarke Duncan), and Po's father (James Hong - or better known as "That Asian Guy") are all perfectly cast. Unfortunately, no one else is. While Ian McShane has the voice of a villain, it feels totally out of place here. Seth Rogan (Mantis) sounds bored and clearly could not be worse suited for voice-over work. The same can be said of Angelina Jolie who just seems to want to get through her lines before she misses overacting in The Changeling or A Mighty Heart or something. Luckily, hardly any of their characters are on the screen for very long. Unluckily, Shifu is on screen a lot. And Dustin Hoffman . . . sucks. There's no other word for it. He is horrible. His voice is grating and he never seems to hit the right emotional notes. While Dreamworks did an admiral job hiring the right people for some of the jobs, they clearly couldn't let go of their name-grabbing idiocy left over from the Shrek days and stuck "The Big Name" into key roles. And this is really too bad. The writing really is amazing. It's just . . . There were times when I just wanted to punch Dustin Hoffman right in the face. Another problem I had with the movie - and this is really kind of minor . . . We've seen it all before. This is basically a mash-up of The Matrix, Star Wars, every Kurosawa movie, and every kung fu movie ever made. But, for what it is, it works. And totally original stories are hard to come by. My biggest criticism, however, could also be my greatest compliment. I want MORE! The movie just felt too damn short! The fight scenes were amazing, but there weren't enough of them. And some of the emotional gravitas is only touched on and then quickly let go. There's a hint, a whiff of backstory or emotional resonance and then the movie moves on like nothing happened. I want to see what happened between Shifu and Tai Lung. I want to see Shifu's emotional rejection of Tigress. I want to see Po before the events in the movie - long before. I want to see MORE!
Despite my relatively minor gripes with the movie, this was eminently watchable. It's funny, touching, spiritual, and far more intelligent and respectful to its audience than ninety percent of most modern Hollywood movies. Hopefull, Dreamworks learns from this and moves more towards Kung Fu Panda and further away from the Shrek franchise.
Kung Fu Panda came out over the summer, and while it didn't garner nearly the hype or glowing reviews that Wall-E got, it still was one of the best received movies of the year. And for the most part, I concur with the other reviews. The most noticeable positive is the apparent manic energy impressively translated into his simple, hopeful, and rather large noodle-serving panda. Unlike some other characters in previous Dreamworks movies, at no point do you separate the voice from the character. This isn't Eddie Murphy's Donkey or those two insufferable idiots from The Road to El Dorado. (I could dedicate this entire post to my hatred for the Shrek franchise, so I think it's best I move along.) The animation style is impressive. It's smooth, crisp, and beautiful to look at. Most of the character models are equally solid - although the large cat models are the exception. And, thankfully, no human characters stilt around to muck up the scenery. On top of all of this, the movie FEELS exceptionally Asian. Even the story seems like it could be a simplified version of some Saturday afternoon kung fu matinee. But, while the story may seem simplified, there's a lot of weight here. The villain of the story, Tai Lung, carries a real sense of danger throughout the latter half of the story. And his utter battering of Shifu, his former master is a fight to rival any live-action fight scene. Also, Oogway is probably one of the best characters in any U.S. animated film. He has the funniest and most thought-provoking lines in the movie. His departure halfway through the film has an emotional - and, again, mature - tone rare for a children's film. I could see others criticizing the scene as a cop-out or glossing over reality, but I would disagree. It somehow manages to be spiritual without being campy or overwrought. And that brings me to the best compliment I can give this movie; it has a serious, spiritual, well-meaning message and it never pounds you over the head with it. (*Cough* Scorsese! *Cough*) It was only after the movie that I put two and two together and realized The Message. (Don't quit; even if you're a fat cow, you might be meant for something; believe in yourself; etc.) Finally, it's become a cliche now to call a film 'fun for the whole family' or 'a movie for kids and adults' or whatever corporate-generated, buzzword-filled tagline movie studios garnish their movie posters with, but that really does apply to this movie. The story moves along, the action is tight and exciting, the style stands out, it's funny . . . And, well, giant, fat pandas look both cute and funny.
But that's not to say their are no flaws. For starters, the actors are all wrong. While Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), Po (Jack Black), Monkey (Jackie Chan), the Rhino general (Michael Clarke Duncan), and Po's father (James Hong - or better known as "That Asian Guy") are all perfectly cast. Unfortunately, no one else is. While Ian McShane has the voice of a villain, it feels totally out of place here. Seth Rogan (Mantis) sounds bored and clearly could not be worse suited for voice-over work. The same can be said of Angelina Jolie who just seems to want to get through her lines before she misses overacting in The Changeling or A Mighty Heart or something. Luckily, hardly any of their characters are on the screen for very long. Unluckily, Shifu is on screen a lot. And Dustin Hoffman . . . sucks. There's no other word for it. He is horrible. His voice is grating and he never seems to hit the right emotional notes. While Dreamworks did an admiral job hiring the right people for some of the jobs, they clearly couldn't let go of their name-grabbing idiocy left over from the Shrek days and stuck "The Big Name" into key roles. And this is really too bad. The writing really is amazing. It's just . . . There were times when I just wanted to punch Dustin Hoffman right in the face. Another problem I had with the movie - and this is really kind of minor . . . We've seen it all before. This is basically a mash-up of The Matrix, Star Wars, every Kurosawa movie, and every kung fu movie ever made. But, for what it is, it works. And totally original stories are hard to come by. My biggest criticism, however, could also be my greatest compliment. I want MORE! The movie just felt too damn short! The fight scenes were amazing, but there weren't enough of them. And some of the emotional gravitas is only touched on and then quickly let go. There's a hint, a whiff of backstory or emotional resonance and then the movie moves on like nothing happened. I want to see what happened between Shifu and Tai Lung. I want to see Shifu's emotional rejection of Tigress. I want to see Po before the events in the movie - long before. I want to see MORE!
Despite my relatively minor gripes with the movie, this was eminently watchable. It's funny, touching, spiritual, and far more intelligent and respectful to its audience than ninety percent of most modern Hollywood movies. Hopefull, Dreamworks learns from this and moves more towards Kung Fu Panda and further away from the Shrek franchise.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Love / Hate: My relationship with poker
I've been playing poker off and on now for about 10 years. I love the competition, but I hate that poker is one of the few games that you can make all of the right decisions and still lose. Looking back, there is no way that I could consider myself a 'good player.' I played too many hands, and, as a result, lost way more money than I won. But no matter how many times I got my teeth kicked in, I always came back for more.
A few months ago, I felt that I had become pretty good at poker - at least somewhat respectable. I managed to win a fairly significant amount in Las Vegas last year. I left with $400 or so and came back with something like $750. Considering I spent over $100 each on food, drinks, tips, and cabs, that $750 seemed pretty good. (Also, I paid for my hotel and flight after a strong run online.) Then, during this past March, I managed to win . . . much more than that. I can't remember how much I brought, but it was somewhere between $200 and $400. After two 36-hour sessions, I took home a little under $2000. On top of that, I made money at every table that I sat down at. At only one table did I not double up . . . And I missed it by $1.
After this monster run and after graduation, I thought I would try to play as my job. I talked to some people and they suggested I try the casino at Mountaineer in West Virginia. I heard that the tables were cake, but that, apparently, wasn't the case. While there was still the occasional fish, I found the tables to be much tougher than in either Atlantic City or Vegas. After a few trips down, I got my bearings and started to make some money. Unfortunately, it wasn't very much and it certainly didn't justify my 1.5 hour drives down into the hills of South-Eastern Ohio. But I kept plugging along. My reads got better and I thought my play was getting better. And then came the blood bath. Over the course of two trips - and about 6 hands - I lost my entire bankroll. AA vs. KK - (-$300). AA vs. KK vs. JJ - (-$250). Flopped set vs. idiot with top pair vs. guy who got priced in to chase his flush. Etc, etc. The culmination of that came when I played in a freeroll about a month ago. After a decent run that put me in a table lead, I came up with KK against QQ . . . and lost . . . with only one Q left in the deck. It was pretty sick. Online wasn't going much better. I was down to my last $100 of a $500 buy-in. And I pretty much stopped playing. I loved winning, but I was just taking too many beats. As a friend of mine put it, I wasn't have very good "variance." Two weeks ago, I logged in again, played about 20 hands, and immediately logged off. While I didn't lose much - maybe $2 or $3 - I was sick of it. Sick of poker. Sick of losing. Sick of waiting around for big hands.
But then I caught the World Series of Poker on ESPN last week. And I was hooked - almost. I didn't want to put in the massive amounts I was shoving around before. I just didn't want to risk that much. And I didn't want to play cash games anymore. Just let me put in a small amount, know that's as much as I'm going to risk, and then, maybe . . . So, I signed up for $3 tournament that night. And finished 2nd. Out of some 400 people. Winning about $200. (Never mind that I made a terrible play in the first heads-up hand that cost me the tournament . . . ) Today, I finished 13th out of 200. And in another tournament I finished 40th out of about the same number. Oh, I didn't win much money, but it was enough to cover my buy-ins.
For now, I'm back. We'll see for how long. As long as I don't get impatient and play above myself . . . I've never been too good at letting go.
A few months ago, I felt that I had become pretty good at poker - at least somewhat respectable. I managed to win a fairly significant amount in Las Vegas last year. I left with $400 or so and came back with something like $750. Considering I spent over $100 each on food, drinks, tips, and cabs, that $750 seemed pretty good. (Also, I paid for my hotel and flight after a strong run online.) Then, during this past March, I managed to win . . . much more than that. I can't remember how much I brought, but it was somewhere between $200 and $400. After two 36-hour sessions, I took home a little under $2000. On top of that, I made money at every table that I sat down at. At only one table did I not double up . . . And I missed it by $1.
After this monster run and after graduation, I thought I would try to play as my job. I talked to some people and they suggested I try the casino at Mountaineer in West Virginia. I heard that the tables were cake, but that, apparently, wasn't the case. While there was still the occasional fish, I found the tables to be much tougher than in either Atlantic City or Vegas. After a few trips down, I got my bearings and started to make some money. Unfortunately, it wasn't very much and it certainly didn't justify my 1.5 hour drives down into the hills of South-Eastern Ohio. But I kept plugging along. My reads got better and I thought my play was getting better. And then came the blood bath. Over the course of two trips - and about 6 hands - I lost my entire bankroll. AA vs. KK - (-$300). AA vs. KK vs. JJ - (-$250). Flopped set vs. idiot with top pair vs. guy who got priced in to chase his flush. Etc, etc. The culmination of that came when I played in a freeroll about a month ago. After a decent run that put me in a table lead, I came up with KK against QQ . . . and lost . . . with only one Q left in the deck. It was pretty sick. Online wasn't going much better. I was down to my last $100 of a $500 buy-in. And I pretty much stopped playing. I loved winning, but I was just taking too many beats. As a friend of mine put it, I wasn't have very good "variance." Two weeks ago, I logged in again, played about 20 hands, and immediately logged off. While I didn't lose much - maybe $2 or $3 - I was sick of it. Sick of poker. Sick of losing. Sick of waiting around for big hands.
But then I caught the World Series of Poker on ESPN last week. And I was hooked - almost. I didn't want to put in the massive amounts I was shoving around before. I just didn't want to risk that much. And I didn't want to play cash games anymore. Just let me put in a small amount, know that's as much as I'm going to risk, and then, maybe . . . So, I signed up for $3 tournament that night. And finished 2nd. Out of some 400 people. Winning about $200. (Never mind that I made a terrible play in the first heads-up hand that cost me the tournament . . . ) Today, I finished 13th out of 200. And in another tournament I finished 40th out of about the same number. Oh, I didn't win much money, but it was enough to cover my buy-ins.
For now, I'm back. We'll see for how long. As long as I don't get impatient and play above myself . . . I've never been too good at letting go.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
So, it looks like I won't be updating this as much as I hoped. Oh, well. Maybe I'll update it once in awhile.
Of course the big news that happened since my last post was the election of Barack Obama. I voted for Obama, and I'm happy that he won. As I've stated in other places, I think that both Obama and McCain are good, decent men and will do what they think is necessary to bring this country out of its many quagmires. But I would not vote for McCain for one reason: Sarah Palin. She represents the worst of the Republican Party; ignorance, arrogance, divisiveness, misinformation, evangelicalism, and greed. I hope the Republicans stuff her in a box. She has no qualifications or attributes that would lend her to a national office.
I have no problem with people who didn't vote for Obama because they disagreed with his policies. There's nothing wrong with believing that Obama's policies will force him to raise taxes more than he says. If you disagreed with some program Obama wanted to install, then your vote for McCain was justified. If you just liked McCain more, I can respect that. What I can't respect is all of the bullshit excuses and attacks tossed at Obama. It was like the Republican Party decided to throw as much garbage at Obama as they possibly could. He's a terrorist; he's a socialist; he's an Arab; he's a Muslim; he's an extremist; he engaged in voter fraud; he wasn't even born in America. None of it is true. Where did this come from?
1. Arab - His mother was born in Kansas. His father was born in Kenya. His father's father and mother were both born in Kenya. How does this make him Arab?
2. Muslim - His father was a Muslim, but then became an atheist. He converted to Christianity as a child. He attended the same church for 20 years.
3. Terrorist - Yes, William Ayers is a friend and political ally, but that shouldn't reflect on Obama. One of my college roommates was a flaming racist and took a shotgun to his ex-girlfriend's wedding. Should I be painted as a racist as well? Should I be considered an obsessive, potentially-murderous loon?
4. Voter fraud - Yes, Obama had a cursory association with ACORN . . . Years before 2008. What evidence do you have that Obama had in what happened this year?
5. Socialist - Well . . . I don't know when 'liberal' became associated with 'socialist,' but those people that think Obama's a socialist clearly have no fucking clue what a socialist is. A socialist wouldn't support the bailout bill and he wouldn't merely roll back the Bush tax-cuts of 2000. When Obama is taking your FULL paycheck and redistributing it, then you can claim socialism. When Obama nationalizes the banking industry under ONE federal bank, then you can claim socialism. Why is Obama a socialist now and why wasn't Clinton a socialist in 1992? The definition of 'socialist' and 'socialism' didn't change in the past 16 years. Also, this contradicts the claim that Obama is a Muslim. How can one be both a Muslim and a socialist? Hmm?
6. Extremist - Obama ran as a centrist - a politician everyone can believe in. Also his programs and proposals have been in place before or have been introduced before. He's not proposing NEW tax increases; he's calling for a rollback of previous tax cuts. His health-care plan is a compromise between what we have now and nationalized health-care Bill Clinton proposed in 1993. Also, he has already asked Republicans to be members of his Cabinet and staff. Compromise . . . Interesting.
7. Not American - This is my favorite. I have no idea who said this, but it's absolutely ridiculous. First off, whoever allows people to run for president must do some sort of background check on the candidates, and I assume that includes checking that candidate's place of birth. I'm guessing they just don't look at your driver's license and say, "Yup! Yer an American!" They probably require an actual birth certificate, and . . . I don't know, probably something more than that. Also, someone placed a birth notice in an Hawaiian newspaper for one Barack H. Obama on August 4th, 1961. That's awfully coincidental if he was born in Kenya. Some have claimed that this isn't 'proof.' While it may not be legal proof, it should be proof enough. It seems that some would claim that Obama's parents knew that their BI-RACIAL SON would run for president sometime after he turned 35 in 1961 -- a mere five years after the Montgomery bus boycott and years before the Civil Rights movement fully gained acceptance.
I have a couple of more points before I sign off -
Politics has become too much like sports. We root for our 'team' (our political party) more than we root for the betterment of America. We should vote for the best person for the job, not the political party they represent. McCain, I think, would have been very good at the job, but his selection of Palin as his running-mate proved that he wasn't the best person for the job.
We have become obsessed with affixing labels to people. And that is a problem. In a way, we have to affix these labels in order to understand . . . everything. But at the same time, it becomes imprisoning. When these labels are ascribed to someone or something, they immediately take on attributes of that name and we scrutinize them under those labels. So, when someone says that there is a 'liberal bias' or 'liberal media,' everything that a reporter or news station does becomes shaded by that label. It's like calling someone a pedophile. Pedophilia is probably the worst crime we have in our society. Sometimes, a person is called a pedophile without sufficient evidence. But that person has to live with that label affixed to them for the rest of their life. They will always be considered a pedophile whether they deserve it or not.
I have gotten into several arguments with someone who wallows in his ignorance. He proudly calls himself narrow-minded and close-minded. He says he sticks to his opinions and won't change them no matter what evidence contradicts his views. How can you be proud to be stupid? How can you be proud to be ignorant? Somehow, someway, intelligence, consideration, and contemplation became dirty words in America. Somehow, I'm not American or patriotic because I think and can speak and write well. Somehow, I'm an elitist because I read and try to improve myself. You're right, I'm not Joe Six-pack and I never will be, but that doesn't make my opinion - my INFORMED opinion - invalid. It doesn't make me un-American or unpatriotic. It doesn't give you the right to bully me into an opinion that conforms with yours. And just because you have an opinion, and someone else happens to agree with it, doesn't make your opinion fact.
Of course the big news that happened since my last post was the election of Barack Obama. I voted for Obama, and I'm happy that he won. As I've stated in other places, I think that both Obama and McCain are good, decent men and will do what they think is necessary to bring this country out of its many quagmires. But I would not vote for McCain for one reason: Sarah Palin. She represents the worst of the Republican Party; ignorance, arrogance, divisiveness, misinformation, evangelicalism, and greed. I hope the Republicans stuff her in a box. She has no qualifications or attributes that would lend her to a national office.
I have no problem with people who didn't vote for Obama because they disagreed with his policies. There's nothing wrong with believing that Obama's policies will force him to raise taxes more than he says. If you disagreed with some program Obama wanted to install, then your vote for McCain was justified. If you just liked McCain more, I can respect that. What I can't respect is all of the bullshit excuses and attacks tossed at Obama. It was like the Republican Party decided to throw as much garbage at Obama as they possibly could. He's a terrorist; he's a socialist; he's an Arab; he's a Muslim; he's an extremist; he engaged in voter fraud; he wasn't even born in America. None of it is true. Where did this come from?
1. Arab - His mother was born in Kansas. His father was born in Kenya. His father's father and mother were both born in Kenya. How does this make him Arab?
2. Muslim - His father was a Muslim, but then became an atheist. He converted to Christianity as a child. He attended the same church for 20 years.
3. Terrorist - Yes, William Ayers is a friend and political ally, but that shouldn't reflect on Obama. One of my college roommates was a flaming racist and took a shotgun to his ex-girlfriend's wedding. Should I be painted as a racist as well? Should I be considered an obsessive, potentially-murderous loon?
4. Voter fraud - Yes, Obama had a cursory association with ACORN . . . Years before 2008. What evidence do you have that Obama had in what happened this year?
5. Socialist - Well . . . I don't know when 'liberal' became associated with 'socialist,' but those people that think Obama's a socialist clearly have no fucking clue what a socialist is. A socialist wouldn't support the bailout bill and he wouldn't merely roll back the Bush tax-cuts of 2000. When Obama is taking your FULL paycheck and redistributing it, then you can claim socialism. When Obama nationalizes the banking industry under ONE federal bank, then you can claim socialism. Why is Obama a socialist now and why wasn't Clinton a socialist in 1992? The definition of 'socialist' and 'socialism' didn't change in the past 16 years. Also, this contradicts the claim that Obama is a Muslim. How can one be both a Muslim and a socialist? Hmm?
6. Extremist - Obama ran as a centrist - a politician everyone can believe in. Also his programs and proposals have been in place before or have been introduced before. He's not proposing NEW tax increases; he's calling for a rollback of previous tax cuts. His health-care plan is a compromise between what we have now and nationalized health-care Bill Clinton proposed in 1993. Also, he has already asked Republicans to be members of his Cabinet and staff. Compromise . . . Interesting.
7. Not American - This is my favorite. I have no idea who said this, but it's absolutely ridiculous. First off, whoever allows people to run for president must do some sort of background check on the candidates, and I assume that includes checking that candidate's place of birth. I'm guessing they just don't look at your driver's license and say, "Yup! Yer an American!" They probably require an actual birth certificate, and . . . I don't know, probably something more than that. Also, someone placed a birth notice in an Hawaiian newspaper for one Barack H. Obama on August 4th, 1961. That's awfully coincidental if he was born in Kenya. Some have claimed that this isn't 'proof.' While it may not be legal proof, it should be proof enough. It seems that some would claim that Obama's parents knew that their BI-RACIAL SON would run for president sometime after he turned 35 in 1961 -- a mere five years after the Montgomery bus boycott and years before the Civil Rights movement fully gained acceptance.
I have a couple of more points before I sign off -
Politics has become too much like sports. We root for our 'team' (our political party) more than we root for the betterment of America. We should vote for the best person for the job, not the political party they represent. McCain, I think, would have been very good at the job, but his selection of Palin as his running-mate proved that he wasn't the best person for the job.
We have become obsessed with affixing labels to people. And that is a problem. In a way, we have to affix these labels in order to understand . . . everything. But at the same time, it becomes imprisoning. When these labels are ascribed to someone or something, they immediately take on attributes of that name and we scrutinize them under those labels. So, when someone says that there is a 'liberal bias' or 'liberal media,' everything that a reporter or news station does becomes shaded by that label. It's like calling someone a pedophile. Pedophilia is probably the worst crime we have in our society. Sometimes, a person is called a pedophile without sufficient evidence. But that person has to live with that label affixed to them for the rest of their life. They will always be considered a pedophile whether they deserve it or not.
I have gotten into several arguments with someone who wallows in his ignorance. He proudly calls himself narrow-minded and close-minded. He says he sticks to his opinions and won't change them no matter what evidence contradicts his views. How can you be proud to be stupid? How can you be proud to be ignorant? Somehow, someway, intelligence, consideration, and contemplation became dirty words in America. Somehow, I'm not American or patriotic because I think and can speak and write well. Somehow, I'm an elitist because I read and try to improve myself. You're right, I'm not Joe Six-pack and I never will be, but that doesn't make my opinion - my INFORMED opinion - invalid. It doesn't make me un-American or unpatriotic. It doesn't give you the right to bully me into an opinion that conforms with yours. And just because you have an opinion, and someone else happens to agree with it, doesn't make your opinion fact.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
About the Browns
Something I wrote on a sports message board. I wrote this before they beat the Giants and lost to the Redskins, but I feel it's still pertinent . . .
There are three things that have defined the Browns' season so far. The first has been injuries. Other than quarterback and running back, a player at every vital area has been injured for a significant amount of time. From wide-receiver, offensive line, defensive line, secondary, and linebacker, a key cog that the Browns' had been relying on to make significant contributions this season has gone down, often for the season. But the Browns, for once, seem to actually have some depth - except in the secondary and at wide-receiver.
This has lead to the second problem; inconsistent play. Eric Wright and Ben McDonald look like they may turn into big-time corners in the near future. Unfortunately, this is the present and all too often they appear to be overwhelmed and only occasionally do they step up and make a big play or big stop. Kamerion Wimbley apparently has taken a huge step backward. Again. As has Andra Davis. Again. What happened to them? Both of them? They both showed flashes of brilliance in their first seasons, but then tailed off in progressive seasons. Shaun Rogers has been a force of nature at nose tackle, but his compatriot at defensive end, Corey Williams, seems lost by all accounts. This is what happens when you move a 4-3 defensive end to 3-4 defensive end or 3-4 linebacker! It rarely works! How many times has this happened now? How many times has it NOT worked? On the other side of the ball, the offensive line has taken a step backwards - albeit small, but one significant enough to be obvious. Anderson has had less time this year than last year and he's taken quite a few more hits in these first four games than he did much of last season. Meanwhile, what receivers are healthy can't seem to catch the ball, even when it's thrown to them. Which brings us (ok, me . . . ) to Derek Anderson . . . In only one quarter has Derek Anderson appeared to be a competent quarterback and that was against one of the few teams worse than the Browns. His throws have been off-target, weak, and lack the confidence and zip he had last year. He's been throwing off his back foot and been staring down his receivers. His mechanics are completely out of whack. And that leads to short drives, turnovers, and more field goals than touchdowns.
Which brings me to the third and, I think, biggest problem. After Romeo Crennel led the team to an improbably 6-10 record his first year, I felt cautiously hopeful about the following season. Even though the new front office was still ignoring the three key weaknesses - quarterback, offensive and defensive lines - it seemed like new skill players were making significant contributions AND players from the previous "regime" (and the Butch Davis-era seemed very much like a monarchical "regime") started taking progressive steps forward. Of course, Browns fans suffered through yet another 4-12 year. While many of my fellow fans were calling for Crennel's head, I urged patience. It was only his second year. Yes, he seemed unusually passive. Yes, his clock management skills could be improved. And, yes, he was bewilderingly loyal to a completely incompetent offensive coordinator. But what coach doesn't have flaws? I thought the key was that previous malcontents were suddenly playing hard and keeping their mouths shut while young players were making strides and playing their roles. Also, the front office was finally addressing blatantly weak areas of the team. And, even though they were losing, they were playing hard. There were a lot of 17-10 and 16-13 games that year, so I urged patience. A few new skill players and I felt the Browns could very well finish 6-10 again or, dare I dream of such grandeur, 8-8. Of course, the Browns exceeded my - and all of our - expectations by missing out on the playoffs only by a backroom deal worthy of any Chicago politico or Tammany Hall veteran. But hidden in that 10-6 season was a lot of luck and a shadowy hint of those same old flaws. Crennel still couldn't manage the clock and was still too passive; the defense gave up a lot of yards and points; injuries were, for once, a dodged bullet; and Derek Anderson only completed 58% of his passes, threw 19 interceptions, and completely melted down in a couple of games at the now-forgotten tail-end of the season.
Coming into this season, a lot fans had a lot of hope, but I was cautiously hopeful once again. And I warned fellow fans to be cautiously hopeful as well. I looked at the staggeringly tough schedule, the snake-bitten injuries that once again reared their heads, and the glaring lack of depth at key positions and said, "They'll be lucky to finish 8-8." I think all Cleveland fans have that "cautious optimism" inbred in us by now. We're the new Boston. Now we've seen the real Browns and we've seen the real Romeo Crennel. He is borderline incompetent. And, as much as it pains me to say this, so is Phil Savage. There are glaring areas of weakness on this team and both the head coach's and front office's response has been to "stay the course." This is not the answer. Let me say that again. This is not the answer. The 3-4 defense is not working. Sticking to it until the end of the year is not the answer. Romeo Crennel hasn't shown any inventiveness or any willingness to deviate from the norm. Why haven't the Browns used Josh Cribbs more? Why not move him around like the Bears do with Devin Hester? Why not give him some game time at quarterback? Why don't the Browns move defensive players around? Why don't they vary their blitz packages at all - especially when it seems they're so successful when they do? (And when other teams like the Ravens and Steelers do it so well?) Why don't they give Brady Quinn a few plays per game just to give him a taste of the speed and texture of the NFL game? Why not give Jerome Harrison and Jason Wright more than one or two touches per game when they so clearly change the complexity of the Browns' offense? Why not go back to the 4-3 RIGHT NOW when it so obviously would help several players RIGHT NOW - not at the end of the season when the season's already lost? Why not try something new NOW? This lack of inventiveness and adherence to the plain vanilla, "same ol' same ol'" infuriates me to no end. But the thing that infuriates me the most is that the Browns have looked woefully under-prepared going into every game since that first Giants preseason game two months ago. I would rather have that 4-12 season back and all of those low-scoring brawls than to watch a team that looks like a JV team taking on St. Ignatius or Benedictine. (Or, if you prefer, a Sun Belt team taking on a SEC team.) He's in his sixties, this is his fourth year, and he hasn't shown any sort of imagination, flexibility, or fire. And that is why Romeo Crennel needs to be fired. Immediately.
There are three things that have defined the Browns' season so far. The first has been injuries. Other than quarterback and running back, a player at every vital area has been injured for a significant amount of time. From wide-receiver, offensive line, defensive line, secondary, and linebacker, a key cog that the Browns' had been relying on to make significant contributions this season has gone down, often for the season. But the Browns, for once, seem to actually have some depth - except in the secondary and at wide-receiver.
This has lead to the second problem; inconsistent play. Eric Wright and Ben McDonald look like they may turn into big-time corners in the near future. Unfortunately, this is the present and all too often they appear to be overwhelmed and only occasionally do they step up and make a big play or big stop. Kamerion Wimbley apparently has taken a huge step backward. Again. As has Andra Davis. Again. What happened to them? Both of them? They both showed flashes of brilliance in their first seasons, but then tailed off in progressive seasons. Shaun Rogers has been a force of nature at nose tackle, but his compatriot at defensive end, Corey Williams, seems lost by all accounts. This is what happens when you move a 4-3 defensive end to 3-4 defensive end or 3-4 linebacker! It rarely works! How many times has this happened now? How many times has it NOT worked? On the other side of the ball, the offensive line has taken a step backwards - albeit small, but one significant enough to be obvious. Anderson has had less time this year than last year and he's taken quite a few more hits in these first four games than he did much of last season. Meanwhile, what receivers are healthy can't seem to catch the ball, even when it's thrown to them. Which brings us (ok, me . . . ) to Derek Anderson . . . In only one quarter has Derek Anderson appeared to be a competent quarterback and that was against one of the few teams worse than the Browns. His throws have been off-target, weak, and lack the confidence and zip he had last year. He's been throwing off his back foot and been staring down his receivers. His mechanics are completely out of whack. And that leads to short drives, turnovers, and more field goals than touchdowns.
Which brings me to the third and, I think, biggest problem. After Romeo Crennel led the team to an improbably 6-10 record his first year, I felt cautiously hopeful about the following season. Even though the new front office was still ignoring the three key weaknesses - quarterback, offensive and defensive lines - it seemed like new skill players were making significant contributions AND players from the previous "regime" (and the Butch Davis-era seemed very much like a monarchical "regime") started taking progressive steps forward. Of course, Browns fans suffered through yet another 4-12 year. While many of my fellow fans were calling for Crennel's head, I urged patience. It was only his second year. Yes, he seemed unusually passive. Yes, his clock management skills could be improved. And, yes, he was bewilderingly loyal to a completely incompetent offensive coordinator. But what coach doesn't have flaws? I thought the key was that previous malcontents were suddenly playing hard and keeping their mouths shut while young players were making strides and playing their roles. Also, the front office was finally addressing blatantly weak areas of the team. And, even though they were losing, they were playing hard. There were a lot of 17-10 and 16-13 games that year, so I urged patience. A few new skill players and I felt the Browns could very well finish 6-10 again or, dare I dream of such grandeur, 8-8. Of course, the Browns exceeded my - and all of our - expectations by missing out on the playoffs only by a backroom deal worthy of any Chicago politico or Tammany Hall veteran. But hidden in that 10-6 season was a lot of luck and a shadowy hint of those same old flaws. Crennel still couldn't manage the clock and was still too passive; the defense gave up a lot of yards and points; injuries were, for once, a dodged bullet; and Derek Anderson only completed 58% of his passes, threw 19 interceptions, and completely melted down in a couple of games at the now-forgotten tail-end of the season.
Coming into this season, a lot fans had a lot of hope, but I was cautiously hopeful once again. And I warned fellow fans to be cautiously hopeful as well. I looked at the staggeringly tough schedule, the snake-bitten injuries that once again reared their heads, and the glaring lack of depth at key positions and said, "They'll be lucky to finish 8-8." I think all Cleveland fans have that "cautious optimism" inbred in us by now. We're the new Boston. Now we've seen the real Browns and we've seen the real Romeo Crennel. He is borderline incompetent. And, as much as it pains me to say this, so is Phil Savage. There are glaring areas of weakness on this team and both the head coach's and front office's response has been to "stay the course." This is not the answer. Let me say that again. This is not the answer. The 3-4 defense is not working. Sticking to it until the end of the year is not the answer. Romeo Crennel hasn't shown any inventiveness or any willingness to deviate from the norm. Why haven't the Browns used Josh Cribbs more? Why not move him around like the Bears do with Devin Hester? Why not give him some game time at quarterback? Why don't the Browns move defensive players around? Why don't they vary their blitz packages at all - especially when it seems they're so successful when they do? (And when other teams like the Ravens and Steelers do it so well?) Why don't they give Brady Quinn a few plays per game just to give him a taste of the speed and texture of the NFL game? Why not give Jerome Harrison and Jason Wright more than one or two touches per game when they so clearly change the complexity of the Browns' offense? Why not go back to the 4-3 RIGHT NOW when it so obviously would help several players RIGHT NOW - not at the end of the season when the season's already lost? Why not try something new NOW? This lack of inventiveness and adherence to the plain vanilla, "same ol' same ol'" infuriates me to no end. But the thing that infuriates me the most is that the Browns have looked woefully under-prepared going into every game since that first Giants preseason game two months ago. I would rather have that 4-12 season back and all of those low-scoring brawls than to watch a team that looks like a JV team taking on St. Ignatius or Benedictine. (Or, if you prefer, a Sun Belt team taking on a SEC team.) He's in his sixties, this is his fourth year, and he hasn't shown any sort of imagination, flexibility, or fire. And that is why Romeo Crennel needs to be fired. Immediately.
Coming into this season, a lot fans had a lot of hope, but I was cautiously hopeful once again. And I warned fellow fans to be cautiously hopeful as well. I looked at the staggeringly tough schedule, the snake-bitten injuries that once again reared their heads, and the glaring lack of depth at key positions and said, "They'll be lucky to finish 8-8." I think all Cleveland fans have that "cautious optimism" inbred in us by now. We're the new Boston. Now we've seen the real Browns and we've seen the real Romeo Crennel. He is borderline incompetent. And, as much as it pains me to say this, so is Phil Savage. There are glaring areas of weakness on this team and both the head coach's and front office's response has been to "stay the course." This is not the answer. Let me say that again. This is not the answer. The 3-4 defense is not working. Sticking to it until the end of the year is not the answer. Romeo Crennel hasn't shown any inventiveness or any willingness to deviate from the norm. Why haven't the Browns used Josh Cribbs more? Why not move him around like the Bears do with Devin Hester? Why not give him some game time at quarterback? Why don't the Browns move defensive players around? Why don't they vary their blitz packages at all - especially when it seems they're so successful when they do? (And when other teams like the Ravens and Steelers do it so well?) Why don't they give Brady Quinn a few plays per game just to give him a taste of the speed and texture of the NFL game? Why not give Jerome Harrison and Jason Wright more than one or two touches per game when they so clearly change the complexity of the Browns' offense? Why not go back to the 4-3 RIGHT NOW when it so obviously would help several players RIGHT NOW - not at the end of the season when the season's already lost? Why not try something new NOW? This lack of inventiveness and adherence to the plain vanilla, "same ol' same ol'" infuriates me to no end. But the thing that infuriates me the most is that the Browns have looked woefully under-prepared going into every game since that first Giants preseason game two months ago. I would rather have that 4-12 season back and all of those low-scoring brawls than to watch a team that looks like a JV team taking on St. Ignatius or Benedictine. (Or, if you prefer, a Sun Belt team taking on a SEC team.) He's in his sixties, this is his fourth year, and he hasn't shown any sort of imagination, flexibility, or fire. And that is why Romeo Crennel needs to be fired. Immediately. Am I really a 'blogger'?
I guess it's official. After years of bucking dozens of trends, I've finally caved in and decided to follow the pack. Everyone's got a blog, and now so do I. I know this is just a form of mental masturbation, but, whatever. I like to write and I like to read what I write. And I like to think that I have a somewhat competent understanding of the English language. (The last time I gave in on what I thought was a fad, I ended up reading all of the Harry Potter books in under a week.)
I'm reading The Dark Tower series, and I've just reached the final book. I felt the first book was amazing while the subsequent three to four books all follow along fairly well. There are some ups and downs within those books, but, to that point, Stephen King had written a series that I thought could eventually be compared with The Lord of the Rings of Harry Potter or any other fantasy series with a fanatical following. But then I read Song of Susannah. And the wheels came flying off. The book is horrible. And I don't think I'm being particularly hyperbolic or unkind. It really is that bad. There's no need for the book. Not only is it the vestigial organ of the series, but King includes many details and sections that have no place in the universe he has created and completely ruin the mythos he has created. For instance:
King is known now as the genre-defining horror author. Most of his books could typically be described as pulp or fluff. Occasionally, he rose above his typical fare by writing stories like The Green Mile, Misery, Hearts in Atlantis, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption." In these stories, King wrote not of horror or fantasy, but a plausible reality tinged with the highly improbable. He also avoided unnecessary and overtly graphic scenes and descriptions. And, for the most part, the first four books of The Dark Tower series follow these trends rather than the typical populist horror stories he's more known for writing. In the fourth book, Wizard and Glass, we see that King begins to lose his way. Rather than sticking to the world of The Gunslinger, King reverts back to his pulpy pop-culture past - even going so far as to include scenes and places not only from his previous books but from other fictions as well. Also, King includes a rather graphic and unnecessary description of a young boy blowing up a stray dog's head with a firecracker. While King may have felt the need to include these scenes as a writer, as a reader, he only manages to rip me completely out of the story. When he writes scenes like these, I am not immersed in his world but aware of the construction behind it. He is not a writer, then - a wordslinger - but a very, very poor magician. Ironically, he alludes to the scene from The Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and her 'ka-tet' visit the Emerald Palace. Don't look behind the curtain.
This continues in the next book. While the story that takes place in Calla Bryn Sturgis seems to fit the overall arc, significantly larger chunks of the book fall outside of the construct of the series. I'm sorry, Mr. King, but vampires and zombies and barely disguised 'low-men' have no place in your story. Nothing so unbelievable occurs in this world you've created. Much like Lucas' inclusion of midiclorians, this drastic change in plausibility ruins the mythology he has created. It just doesn't fit. And the references to lightsabers from Star Wars and snitches from Harry Potter and the continued 'borrowing' from the writer's other books only further diminish the illusion of immersion.
Song of Susannah is the culmination of King's gradual deviation. This isn't merely a scene of unnecessary description and gore. This isn't merely a chapter of implausibility. This is an entire, fully-conceived, full-price book. And it is an abomination. First off, nothing happens in this book. If you were to skip this book in its entirety while reading the series, you would not miss one development in the overall story. On top of that, there is so much unnecessary fluff and gore . . . At one point, one of the characters hypnotizes another character and convinces him that he will be 'regular' for the rest of this life. Really? Was this necessary? Does this benefit the story in any way? Also, by this point, we know that the low-men are evil; that they are creatures of destruction that should be avoided at all costs. And yet King felt it necessary to include a vivid and graphic description of the low-men cooking a human baby. Yes, that's about as jarring a sentence as it was a scene in the book. Why include any of this?
Part of the reason I continued to read the series is that, as a reader, I have been 'drawn' along with Eddie and Susannah and Jake into Roland's search for the Dark Tower. I, too, want to see the field of red roses and the smoky, hazy form of blackness rising out of it. Unfortunately, with Song of Susannah (and, apparently, the beginning of The Dark Tower), this wordslinger has lost his drive and desire to complete the quest.
I'm reading The Dark Tower series, and I've just reached the final book. I felt the first book was amazing while the subsequent three to four books all follow along fairly well. There are some ups and downs within those books, but, to that point, Stephen King had written a series that I thought could eventually be compared with The Lord of the Rings of Harry Potter or any other fantasy series with a fanatical following. But then I read Song of Susannah. And the wheels came flying off. The book is horrible. And I don't think I'm being particularly hyperbolic or unkind. It really is that bad. There's no need for the book. Not only is it the vestigial organ of the series, but King includes many details and sections that have no place in the universe he has created and completely ruin the mythos he has created. For instance:
King is known now as the genre-defining horror author. Most of his books could typically be described as pulp or fluff. Occasionally, he rose above his typical fare by writing stories like The Green Mile, Misery, Hearts in Atlantis, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption." In these stories, King wrote not of horror or fantasy, but a plausible reality tinged with the highly improbable. He also avoided unnecessary and overtly graphic scenes and descriptions. And, for the most part, the first four books of The Dark Tower series follow these trends rather than the typical populist horror stories he's more known for writing. In the fourth book, Wizard and Glass, we see that King begins to lose his way. Rather than sticking to the world of The Gunslinger, King reverts back to his pulpy pop-culture past - even going so far as to include scenes and places not only from his previous books but from other fictions as well. Also, King includes a rather graphic and unnecessary description of a young boy blowing up a stray dog's head with a firecracker. While King may have felt the need to include these scenes as a writer, as a reader, he only manages to rip me completely out of the story. When he writes scenes like these, I am not immersed in his world but aware of the construction behind it. He is not a writer, then - a wordslinger - but a very, very poor magician. Ironically, he alludes to the scene from The Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and her 'ka-tet' visit the Emerald Palace. Don't look behind the curtain.
This continues in the next book. While the story that takes place in Calla Bryn Sturgis seems to fit the overall arc, significantly larger chunks of the book fall outside of the construct of the series. I'm sorry, Mr. King, but vampires and zombies and barely disguised 'low-men' have no place in your story. Nothing so unbelievable occurs in this world you've created. Much like Lucas' inclusion of midiclorians, this drastic change in plausibility ruins the mythology he has created. It just doesn't fit. And the references to lightsabers from Star Wars and snitches from Harry Potter and the continued 'borrowing' from the writer's other books only further diminish the illusion of immersion.
Song of Susannah is the culmination of King's gradual deviation. This isn't merely a scene of unnecessary description and gore. This isn't merely a chapter of implausibility. This is an entire, fully-conceived, full-price book. And it is an abomination. First off, nothing happens in this book. If you were to skip this book in its entirety while reading the series, you would not miss one development in the overall story. On top of that, there is so much unnecessary fluff and gore . . . At one point, one of the characters hypnotizes another character and convinces him that he will be 'regular' for the rest of this life. Really? Was this necessary? Does this benefit the story in any way? Also, by this point, we know that the low-men are evil; that they are creatures of destruction that should be avoided at all costs. And yet King felt it necessary to include a vivid and graphic description of the low-men cooking a human baby. Yes, that's about as jarring a sentence as it was a scene in the book. Why include any of this?
Part of the reason I continued to read the series is that, as a reader, I have been 'drawn' along with Eddie and Susannah and Jake into Roland's search for the Dark Tower. I, too, want to see the field of red roses and the smoky, hazy form of blackness rising out of it. Unfortunately, with Song of Susannah (and, apparently, the beginning of The Dark Tower), this wordslinger has lost his drive and desire to complete the quest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)