I read a recent article revolving around the Kanye and Jay-Z song "N****s in Paris" that featured the likes of the blue-haired Siren Katy Perry covering the Watch the Throne hit at karaoke, which of course made it a natural YouTube clip sensation. Now, this particular writer was curious at the start about what form of the "N word" she would use while singing, whether it be the white person appropriate phrase or just n****s in general to adhere to the rules of verbatim in karaoke. She proceeded to use the word ninja, which has been circulated for about 10 years as an "appropriate" substitute.
Obviously, not the most exciting report, but the point was that thrusting whatever gussied up version of THAT word out there does not change the fact that people are thinking about n**** in general, as Louis C.K. famously stated as part of his stand-up act. Why not say it? It does not change the fact that it is there, staring us in the face. For me, when n****s is in the context of a song, I blatantly say it because it has ever important quotations around it, not suggesting any different undertones than what the artist is exclaiming through the majesty of music. It's a quote, and when a quote is tampered with, especially one people know and can recite themselves, it loses its significance. I feel like I'm doing a disservice to the songwriter or singer if I self-editorialize.
My point of reiterating another writer's point? In the same article, Jay-Z was asked a question by this writer if white people came up to him and just said n**** to his face in the context of the song, and if he thought white people just liked having an excuse to say n**** (Consequently, one of my favorite songs is "Real N**** Role Call", by Lil' Jon and the Eastside Boyz, but not because I can say n**** 149x but because it's the dirtiest song I know.) He responded by saying white people should just call it "Paris", which seems to me like there are different sets of rules for different people, so it's essentially reverse racism. We HAVE to edit ourselves for his song, (by we I mean white people of course), despite the fact that he put the word n**** in the title to express the exorbitant lifestyle he and his boy Kanye have crafted for themselves after overcoming the stigma of being just n****s. Aren't we being somewhat racist as white people if we take that word out of the title since we are denigrating the message? People know the song, they know the actual title, and we think about it, so let's just say it. We shouldn't have to edit ourselves and sound like idiots, like Katy Perry undoubtedly did, by switching words that are direct quotes from the mouths of the authors. Also, using the term ninja probably offends all those people who spent numerous hours training to become silent assassins only to be deemed as "in Paris and they going gorillas"
Finally, I come to the meat of my rambling, which will more than likely make me sound so racist I'd probably be the most non-racist individual on the planet. When I think about rap music, in this day and age, it is so much more difficult to be a white rapper than a black rapper, and not for the obvious reasons like lack of rhythm or lack of respect in a predominantly black medium. I feel that crafting rap lyrics as a white person is much harder than a black person because black rappers have the buffer to use n**** in their songs, while white rappers are stuck with terms like honky, which sounds really uncool for a reason. Let's bring back my reference to "Real N**** Role Call" with 149 uses of the word n****. Now, I would never fathom tell Lil' Jon that his masterful weaving of words should be downgraded at all, but 149x? That's an entire verse in some cases, which would make the whole process worlds easier in my estimation. Also, the hardest part about rapping and making it sound good are decent transitions of lines and rhymes, finding genius seg-ways to seem more poetic and smooth. I constantly hear n**** being used as a transitional word, and utilized multiple times in that capacity in the same song, which doesn't seem unique or deft in any stretch, but simple.
A lot of black rappers fall into that category of being unoriginal or unimaginative with their lyrics, which in this day and age really doesn't matter because people really care about the beat and the bass, not the words. However, a lot of traditionalists believe the poetry of painting a picture with your lyrics, whether it be a tale of struggle or success, is vital to the craft. Rap is a craft, and obviously not all black rappers fall into this vein, but a number of them are destroying the craft of rap, making rappers like Eminem seem even more extraordinary because he is not only a white dude who raps quickly and decisively, but with passion and imagination that requires woven intricacies of phrases and sentences to tell a story that only he could cite. He is restricted with what he can say, but you couldn't picture him as having boundaries; he is unique in that people see him as a rapper without looking at his ethnicity first or celebrating his success despite his white heritage. He is a modern bard, and the majority of rappers can't be put in those terms, and most of that minutia are black rappers, so in my mind, black rappers have it so easy that they are challenged even further to be great, making rappers like Jay-Z interesting since, removing "N****s in Paris" from the discussion, which only uses n**** a handful of times anyway, he never relied on THAT word, making him the cream of the diluted black rapper crop. So, talented black rappers have it easy and hard as we will not fault them for using n****s occasionally but we will if they use it explicitly and if they manage to not let it define them and their music, they are seemingly better than their peers who rely on using n****s just to make a song flow. So, for those scoring at home, being a successful white rapper is challenging, being a masterful rap artist and white is incomparable, being a successful black rapper is less challenging, but being a masterful rap artist and black is special. (Someone will likely deem my assessment and divvying out of superlatives for particular racial groups as racist, but I can't Inception myself beyond 8 different levels of racism, although if you aren't black or white and successful at rapping, you are on your own level.)
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
We Have to Move the Island!
"One of these things is not like the other"
I really enjoy quoting failing shows (I took this from a Fringe episode) because either people know the line and thus have been committed to the plot or became aware of its existence later, thought it was too far to get into or probably in its twilight, and didn't bother. So, more than likely those who understand the origin are on the same level of fandom as me, or not worth my time for cordial discussion, so those people can throw themselves into the path of the ever-speeding Chris Brown hate-train, conducted by Miranda Lambert and every woman EVER IN EXISTENCE!
When having these types of philosophical discussions with like-minders, mutual respect seaps out of everyone's pores to the point that we start marinating in it, which sounds delicious but can really ruin the validity of points being made. Antithesis breeds further understanding and more prominent prepardedness by individuals who do not want to sound like Stuttering Stanley when speaking, so I invite anyone (although I can tell from the outset whose opinions I should consider and whose I should file away in my Afterthought Box, along with everyone who has tried to convince me Erin Andrews is hotter than Rachel Nichols) to contradict my views on something I noticed the other day.
In the brief moments of peace I mustered on Friday night from the mischievious imps that are my niece and nephews, I was watching J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, and I thought about all the shows I incorporated into my obviously full life that Mr. Abrams has had a hand in, and especially at this current time, as his fingerprints are smudging network TV like a sub-standard criminal.
Everything will always draw comparisons to Lost, and subsequently fall short like a Drive Shaft reunion tour, but interestingly enough, of the 3 shows currently airing as created by the famed Alias creator, the odd one out, the one not like the others, is the one that will inevitably have the most staying power: Person of Interest.
Now, I'd be the first to say contemporary television is oversaturated with crime dramas (and also documentary-styled comedies, but that's for another day), but PoI has a freshness about it resonating mostly from the quality of the acting and the badass-ness of the character development. How many times can we expect to find something novel in the whole "vigilante framework, working outside, above, below, around, through the heart and up the anus of the law" schtick? Well, how many times can you watch Jesus as an ex-CIA agent taking down mobsters and drug kingpins while only shooting baddies' legs, and being helped and redeemed by the greatest network drama's master manipulator Ben Linus? In my opinion, I could watch that every week, as it brings about a sort of epic overhaul and takedown of, in this case, New York City's criminal underbelly, with even cops and politicians in the tow (OK, not a big leap there). However, all this tenuous two-some have to go on is a Social Security number, as spat out by a government machine that was designed to preemptively determine violent crimes. Who designed this contraption you ask? Why, none other than one man big brother himself, Michael Emerson. Unfortunately, a gimpy leg prevents him from enacting the full potential of the machine, so he plucks Jim Caviezel off the former spy trash heap and provides him with unlimited resources, no real answers to any god-forsaken question asked, and some nerdy wit to drive him to intervene on unsuspecting (or possibly suspecting) New Yorkers' behalves, not knowing if the number is for a victim or a perpetrator.
It's a little contrived of a premise, and there is a constant annoyance that everyone who pops up in Dr. Linus' Mean Bean Machine generally gives up questioning the purpose and circumstances of Caviezel's character's entrance into their growing shit-storms of situations after a single gun shot is fired...
"Are you a Fed or something?" asks an undercover cop.
"Or something." Reese (Caviezel) curtly replies.
(I mean, this happens in every episode, but what would a J.J. Abrams drama be without catch phrases and repeat dialogue)
But I am engrossed each week, to find out what the two main characters manage to find out about one another (as their personal lives are completely blacked out on record) and how the dynamic of the relationship will change once more bubbles to the surface. Caviezel and Emerson have similar personality types in the show, although the way each acts is worlds apart, but two Type-? personalities manage to play off one another, which goes against the concept of every show I have ever watched on television, that opposites attract, and attract intriguing interaction, but for PoI, that doesn't have to exist.
As for the other two shows, Fringe and Alcatraz, they seem to be carbon copies of one another. Law enforcement girl meets loner-ish type male civilian with a high IQ, law enforcement girl recruits civilian boy to work for an agency (in this case, they are both FBI) due to their unique skill sets, and law enforcement girl and civilian boy solve crimes with weird and supernatural tendencies.
I am a big Fringe supporter, but Fox decided to move it to Fridays in an anticipatory move for its inevitable cancellation (I call that TV's Death Penalty, so Fringe was like the SMU Mustangs of this fall). I think it has almost jumped the shark, and it more than likely sealed its own demise when it ended Season 3 (FAUX SPOILER ALERT!) with Joshua Jackson's character Peter getting blotted out of existence because he "served his purpose" and didn't exist, like the universe initially intended before one of the alopecia-infected Observers intervened. Fringe was a cult favorite, but unless it gets a Chuck-like push of fan support, it is more than likely 4 and out.
Since Alcatraz was receiving enormous hype for about 6 weeks before it aired in January, and I promised myself I wouldn't buy into it, but I'm a fickle creature, and I thought, a crime drama with Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) and Hurley (Jorge Garcia) on an island could not possibly tank, so why not try it out? It opened with it's two hour premiere well, but since that time, even with it's prime location after House on Mondays, it has somewhat lost steam. Part of that is due to the uncertainty of what is going to take over Alcatraz's lead-in, as House has been cancelled, and the other, more significant part is it's seeming lack of depth after 6 weeks of existence, despite how closely it wants to associate itself with it's superior predecessor. One of the greatest parts of Lost was how it incorporated it's flashbacks to mirror the plot lines in real time while providing necessary character development that made us root or root against different people every week while allowing this mystery to fester on the periphery. (Why are these people here? Who came before them? Etc.) Alcatraz tries to emulate the intrigue of the mystery without the broadening of the characters, at least as of yet, and while the cuteness of corpulent Dr. Soto (Garcia) being involved in police investigations was fun at first, the novelty has worn off. Since it is a crime drama, new criminals get filtered in and out each week, so we are unsure of who to invest in for a prime villian. Turnover brings about ambiguous feelings for viewers in the context of a television show,and too much can sap out any tangible commitment.
So, the central theme is that while imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, which isn't a textbook case here because the developer for the prototype was also the developer of the copies, it is unfathomably impossible to bottle magic or lighting twice. Lost, at least for me, stands alone atop the pantheon of television artistry, so while it's hard to question the great J.J. Abrams (I think he could make a show entirely about monkeys flinging excrement at dry wall and get it picked up for 22 episodes), I don't think he should try to model his shows after his greatest creation. I cannot watch Alcatraz and not think about Hurley running away from the Others and various alternative dangers on The Island as opposed to the fake island, which is Alcatraz, which isn't really fake because it exists and not Lost's island. Ironically enough, the one show that deviates from the Abrams norm will more than likely continue on past the other two, which I didn't think possible at the time, but you cannot count out the Kobe-Shaq combo that is Jesus-Ben Linus.
I really enjoy quoting failing shows (I took this from a Fringe episode) because either people know the line and thus have been committed to the plot or became aware of its existence later, thought it was too far to get into or probably in its twilight, and didn't bother. So, more than likely those who understand the origin are on the same level of fandom as me, or not worth my time for cordial discussion, so those people can throw themselves into the path of the ever-speeding Chris Brown hate-train, conducted by Miranda Lambert and every woman EVER IN EXISTENCE!
When having these types of philosophical discussions with like-minders, mutual respect seaps out of everyone's pores to the point that we start marinating in it, which sounds delicious but can really ruin the validity of points being made. Antithesis breeds further understanding and more prominent prepardedness by individuals who do not want to sound like Stuttering Stanley when speaking, so I invite anyone (although I can tell from the outset whose opinions I should consider and whose I should file away in my Afterthought Box, along with everyone who has tried to convince me Erin Andrews is hotter than Rachel Nichols) to contradict my views on something I noticed the other day.
In the brief moments of peace I mustered on Friday night from the mischievious imps that are my niece and nephews, I was watching J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, and I thought about all the shows I incorporated into my obviously full life that Mr. Abrams has had a hand in, and especially at this current time, as his fingerprints are smudging network TV like a sub-standard criminal.
Everything will always draw comparisons to Lost, and subsequently fall short like a Drive Shaft reunion tour, but interestingly enough, of the 3 shows currently airing as created by the famed Alias creator, the odd one out, the one not like the others, is the one that will inevitably have the most staying power: Person of Interest.
Now, I'd be the first to say contemporary television is oversaturated with crime dramas (and also documentary-styled comedies, but that's for another day), but PoI has a freshness about it resonating mostly from the quality of the acting and the badass-ness of the character development. How many times can we expect to find something novel in the whole "vigilante framework, working outside, above, below, around, through the heart and up the anus of the law" schtick? Well, how many times can you watch Jesus as an ex-CIA agent taking down mobsters and drug kingpins while only shooting baddies' legs, and being helped and redeemed by the greatest network drama's master manipulator Ben Linus? In my opinion, I could watch that every week, as it brings about a sort of epic overhaul and takedown of, in this case, New York City's criminal underbelly, with even cops and politicians in the tow (OK, not a big leap there). However, all this tenuous two-some have to go on is a Social Security number, as spat out by a government machine that was designed to preemptively determine violent crimes. Who designed this contraption you ask? Why, none other than one man big brother himself, Michael Emerson. Unfortunately, a gimpy leg prevents him from enacting the full potential of the machine, so he plucks Jim Caviezel off the former spy trash heap and provides him with unlimited resources, no real answers to any god-forsaken question asked, and some nerdy wit to drive him to intervene on unsuspecting (or possibly suspecting) New Yorkers' behalves, not knowing if the number is for a victim or a perpetrator.
It's a little contrived of a premise, and there is a constant annoyance that everyone who pops up in Dr. Linus' Mean Bean Machine generally gives up questioning the purpose and circumstances of Caviezel's character's entrance into their growing shit-storms of situations after a single gun shot is fired...
"Are you a Fed or something?" asks an undercover cop.
"Or something." Reese (Caviezel) curtly replies.
(I mean, this happens in every episode, but what would a J.J. Abrams drama be without catch phrases and repeat dialogue)
But I am engrossed each week, to find out what the two main characters manage to find out about one another (as their personal lives are completely blacked out on record) and how the dynamic of the relationship will change once more bubbles to the surface. Caviezel and Emerson have similar personality types in the show, although the way each acts is worlds apart, but two Type-? personalities manage to play off one another, which goes against the concept of every show I have ever watched on television, that opposites attract, and attract intriguing interaction, but for PoI, that doesn't have to exist.
As for the other two shows, Fringe and Alcatraz, they seem to be carbon copies of one another. Law enforcement girl meets loner-ish type male civilian with a high IQ, law enforcement girl recruits civilian boy to work for an agency (in this case, they are both FBI) due to their unique skill sets, and law enforcement girl and civilian boy solve crimes with weird and supernatural tendencies.
I am a big Fringe supporter, but Fox decided to move it to Fridays in an anticipatory move for its inevitable cancellation (I call that TV's Death Penalty, so Fringe was like the SMU Mustangs of this fall). I think it has almost jumped the shark, and it more than likely sealed its own demise when it ended Season 3 (FAUX SPOILER ALERT!) with Joshua Jackson's character Peter getting blotted out of existence because he "served his purpose" and didn't exist, like the universe initially intended before one of the alopecia-infected Observers intervened. Fringe was a cult favorite, but unless it gets a Chuck-like push of fan support, it is more than likely 4 and out.
Since Alcatraz was receiving enormous hype for about 6 weeks before it aired in January, and I promised myself I wouldn't buy into it, but I'm a fickle creature, and I thought, a crime drama with Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) and Hurley (Jorge Garcia) on an island could not possibly tank, so why not try it out? It opened with it's two hour premiere well, but since that time, even with it's prime location after House on Mondays, it has somewhat lost steam. Part of that is due to the uncertainty of what is going to take over Alcatraz's lead-in, as House has been cancelled, and the other, more significant part is it's seeming lack of depth after 6 weeks of existence, despite how closely it wants to associate itself with it's superior predecessor. One of the greatest parts of Lost was how it incorporated it's flashbacks to mirror the plot lines in real time while providing necessary character development that made us root or root against different people every week while allowing this mystery to fester on the periphery. (Why are these people here? Who came before them? Etc.) Alcatraz tries to emulate the intrigue of the mystery without the broadening of the characters, at least as of yet, and while the cuteness of corpulent Dr. Soto (Garcia) being involved in police investigations was fun at first, the novelty has worn off. Since it is a crime drama, new criminals get filtered in and out each week, so we are unsure of who to invest in for a prime villian. Turnover brings about ambiguous feelings for viewers in the context of a television show,and too much can sap out any tangible commitment.
So, the central theme is that while imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, which isn't a textbook case here because the developer for the prototype was also the developer of the copies, it is unfathomably impossible to bottle magic or lighting twice. Lost, at least for me, stands alone atop the pantheon of television artistry, so while it's hard to question the great J.J. Abrams (I think he could make a show entirely about monkeys flinging excrement at dry wall and get it picked up for 22 episodes), I don't think he should try to model his shows after his greatest creation. I cannot watch Alcatraz and not think about Hurley running away from the Others and various alternative dangers on The Island as opposed to the fake island, which is Alcatraz, which isn't really fake because it exists and not Lost's island. Ironically enough, the one show that deviates from the Abrams norm will more than likely continue on past the other two, which I didn't think possible at the time, but you cannot count out the Kobe-Shaq combo that is Jesus-Ben Linus.
Minus the 19th century academic attire, it's hard to distinguish between Hurley and Doc Soto
Sunday, June 12, 2011
A Game of Thrones Indeed!
A son of Zeus, King of the Gods, the hero Hercules had extraordinary talents, but he was mortal. As such, he could be influenced and persuaded, and a trick by Zeus' wife Hera, who felt betrayed by her husband, set Hercules off in a jealous rage in which he killed his family. To make penance, he had to endure 12 labors, extremely challenging tasks set forth by King Eurystheus that would take him 12 years to accomplish. With help from other gods like Hermes and Athena, Hercules was able to complete the feats and reached immortality.
LeBron James is not a character from Greek mythology, but this last week and a half has played out like a Greek tragedy. This NBA Finals was supposed to be a coronation, a realization of supposed limitless potential for #6 of the Miami Heat, a basketball god walking amongst mere mortals. However, with 3 late-game implosions leading to 3 unfathomable defeats, Miami stands to lose everything they were prematurely given, and LeBron stands as the centric figure behind what could be a historically epic failure. Unfortunately, he didn't ask for the role assigned, but the gifts he was born with thrust him to an ethereal level of stardom.
Peter Parker never asked to be bitten by a radioactive spider, nor did the Fantastic Four asked to have their molecules fundamentally altered by cosmic radiation, but it happened and they were forced to become superheroes. It wasn't always a position wrought with praise or easy goings, but they had to accept it. At times, they probably wanted to relinquish their power, to be average and forfeit the hardships associated with their received abilities, like Prince Akeem in Coming to America, willing to give up all his privilege to find exactly what he was looking for, in this case a perfect woman to be queen. (That analogy would've been perfect with LeBron had he actually gone to New York.) Failures, or foreboding failures, have a habit of making people look for a way out.
LeBron's attitude over the last 2 games have really made me wonder if he sometimes regrets his supreme basketball talents. If given the opportunity, would he zap some of the talent from his body to be a basketball player without great expectations? The decisions he has made over the last year seem to support that theory, and his regression toward absolute deferment of the basketball in this series has given credence to LBJ's uncomfortableness with the spotlight. Don't get me wrong, he will smile, laugh, flex his muscles, and do whatever he can to hype up a crowd while 40 cameras are pointed right at him, but I'm starting to believe it all is a facade, played-up machismo so as to appear like he relishes the attention. In all honesty, I think he deplores it, but he has to at least make an effort to fit in, like any socially-conscious teenager in high school.
On the eve of what is now the biggest game of his career, LeBron James faces a crossroads in his career, at the ripe age of 26. An interview with this high school coach revealed that LeBron is aware of basketball history and the impact this Finals will have on his legacy, and he obviously cares about his legacy or he'd still be suiting up for the Maroon and Gold, but are his outside influences making him care this much? Like Hercules, he is an incredible specimen, but he is mortal and can be swayed by external forces. How much did they play in murdering his relationship with Cleveland and looking for redemption with this title? If the Heat manage to take these last 2 games at home and win the crown, the stories of LeBron and Hercules will parallel one another completely. Even if they don't win, the stories will still mirror each other, maybe even more so since LeBron will have to deal with more criticism, more hardship, and spend more time wondering about lost chances and long roads ahead. The ultimate prize is immortality, and with a little help from some gifted friends, LeBron can take his rightful throne as King.
LeBron James is not a character from Greek mythology, but this last week and a half has played out like a Greek tragedy. This NBA Finals was supposed to be a coronation, a realization of supposed limitless potential for #6 of the Miami Heat, a basketball god walking amongst mere mortals. However, with 3 late-game implosions leading to 3 unfathomable defeats, Miami stands to lose everything they were prematurely given, and LeBron stands as the centric figure behind what could be a historically epic failure. Unfortunately, he didn't ask for the role assigned, but the gifts he was born with thrust him to an ethereal level of stardom.
Peter Parker never asked to be bitten by a radioactive spider, nor did the Fantastic Four asked to have their molecules fundamentally altered by cosmic radiation, but it happened and they were forced to become superheroes. It wasn't always a position wrought with praise or easy goings, but they had to accept it. At times, they probably wanted to relinquish their power, to be average and forfeit the hardships associated with their received abilities, like Prince Akeem in Coming to America, willing to give up all his privilege to find exactly what he was looking for, in this case a perfect woman to be queen. (That analogy would've been perfect with LeBron had he actually gone to New York.) Failures, or foreboding failures, have a habit of making people look for a way out.
(LeBron and D-Wade couldn't get away with those necklaces under the Dress Code)
On the eve of what is now the biggest game of his career, LeBron James faces a crossroads in his career, at the ripe age of 26. An interview with this high school coach revealed that LeBron is aware of basketball history and the impact this Finals will have on his legacy, and he obviously cares about his legacy or he'd still be suiting up for the Maroon and Gold, but are his outside influences making him care this much? Like Hercules, he is an incredible specimen, but he is mortal and can be swayed by external forces. How much did they play in murdering his relationship with Cleveland and looking for redemption with this title? If the Heat manage to take these last 2 games at home and win the crown, the stories of LeBron and Hercules will parallel one another completely. Even if they don't win, the stories will still mirror each other, maybe even more so since LeBron will have to deal with more criticism, more hardship, and spend more time wondering about lost chances and long roads ahead. The ultimate prize is immortality, and with a little help from some gifted friends, LeBron can take his rightful throne as King.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Excuse me, I'm Shaq-tose Intolerant
The world of sports is rife with hyperbole; writers and analysts have difficulties keeping things they see recently in perspective. It's actually an affliction, "prisoner of the moment" syndrome, and anyone who is required to talk as an expert on a sporting event could show symptoms, which include over-stimulation, fast speech, bug eyes, and a loss of grip on reality. Typically, to alleviate the complications, heavy doses of ESPN Classic and old game tapes are prescribed. Unfortunately, too much of said cure can cause its own disease, which is as equally disturbing and potent as POMS, and that's "over-romanticizing the past"-itis.
With the news of Shaquille O'Neal's retirement, or soon-to-be "official" retirement, came the inevitable discussions on the Big Shaq-tus' place in history. Lists were being drawn up faster than Kris Humphries running to get food stamps after all the money he spent on his engagement ring. How does Shaq's statistics and games compare with those of other great big men? Should we downgrade him for his lack of defensive POY's, rebounding titles, or any semblance of a jump shot? Did he maximize his potential with (insert tiny violin music here) ONLY 4 titles and 1 MVP? When NBA experts weren't talking about Game 2 and the Blitzkrieg Baller's torn tendon (that's Dirk Nowitzki's new nickname...copyright), they were giving their opinions on Big 32 and how he fits overall into professional basketball's historical landscape.
General consensus put Shaq on the Mount Rushmore of great centers, along with Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Hakeem Olajuwon. While Shaq was invited to the party however, he was never considered to have gone home with the best-looking girl. Everyone based their rankings on certain criteria: accumulated numbers, championships, awards, post-season performances, overall dominance, head-to-head match-ups with other great players, etc. It seemed to make sense, but the end results weren't really indicative of overall skill and impact on the game, not to mention the lack of consideration of the different eras in which these HOFers, or future HOF in Shaq's case, played. For example, look at pertinent statistics of these 5 all-time greats:
(PER stands for Player Efficiency Rating, an advanced statistic used to measure a player's overall contribution to a game by per-minute performance, with the average at 15.00)
Bill Russell-
13 seasons, 15.1 pts, 22.5 rebs, 4.3 asts, 44% fg, ? blks (didn't start keeping records until 1973),18.9 PER, 12 All-Star appearances, 11 NBA titles (2 as player/coach), 4 rebounding titles, 5 MVP's, 3 All-NBA First Teams, 8 All-NBA Second Teams, 1 NBA All-Defensive First Team (started in 1969, Russell's last year), 0 NBA Finals MVP's (weren't established until 1969 but award was named after him in 2009)
Wilt Chamberlain-
14 seasons, 30.1 pts, 22.9 rebs, 4.4 asts, 54% fg, ? blks, 26.1 PER, 13 All-Star appearances, 2 NBA titles, 11 rebounding titles, 4 MVP's, 7 All-NBA First Teams, 2 All-NBA Second Teams, 2 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 1 Finals MVP
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar-
20 seasons, 24.6 pts, 11.2 rebs, 3.6 asts, 56% fg, 2.6 blks, 24.6 PER, 19 All-Star appearances, 6 NBA titles, 1 rebounding titles, 6 MVP's, 10 All-NBA First Teams, 5 All-NBA Second Teams, 5 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 6 NBA All-Defensive Second Teams, 2 Finals MVP's
Hakeem Olajuwon-
18 seasons, 21.8 pts, 11.1 rebs, 2.5 asts, 51% fg, 3.1 blks, 23.6 PER, 12 All-Star appearances, 2 NBA titles, 2 rebounding titles, 1 MVP, 6 All-NBA First Teams, 3 All-NBA Second Teams, 3 All-NBA Third Teams, 5 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 4 NBA All-Defensive Second Teams, 2 Defensive Player of the Year Awards, 1 Finals MVP
Shaquille O'Neal-
19 seasons, 23.7 pts, 10.9 rebs, 2.5 asts, 58% fg, 2.3 blks, 26.4 PER, 15 All-Star appearances, 4 NBA titles, 0 rebounding titles, 1 MVP, 8 All-NBA First Teams, 2 All-NBA Second Teams, 4 All-NBA Third Teams,0 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 3 NBA All-Defensive Second Teams, 3 Finals MVP's
Now, every big man has impressive resumes, and I left off a number of details like records and gold medals won because it would have created extreme chaos. Also, I didn't want to give some statistics more importance than others by giving the players their rankings in those categories.(By the way, these 5 players are pretty close in rankings for most statistics, minus Bill Russell in total points.) The great question is how to interpret these statistics and make fair judgements of each player and their contributions to professional basketball. We have to try and account for everything, including positive and negative externalities from off-court issues, hindrances of different eras, etc. In my mind, those additional concerns make all the difference.
For instance, Russell and Chamberlain accrued monster statistics and multiple championships during their careers, but the NBA was only 8-12 teams when they played, so they benefited from less competition. Also, the term "monster" is quite apropos for these two because in their time, the average height of NBA players was 6'2"; Russell was about 6'10" and Wilt was 7'1". So, they should have dominated the way they did because no one could guard them or impose on them physically, especially when society at that time produced so few elite athletes; George Mikan took advantage in the 1940's and 50's for the same reason. Russell and Chamberlain only had each other to compete with, essentially, throughout most of their careers.The same argument can be used for why Babe Ruth shouldn't be the greatest baseball player ever since competition suffered due to no integration or internationalization. These factors have to be considered and given real credence, and thus hold Russell and Wilt from being the greatest at their position.
The other 3 big men, who had to compete in the more modern era of basketball, came about in what I consider the Golden Age of North American sports, the 1980's and 90's. There was never a greater influx of historically great talent than in the 80's, for all sports, but particularly basketball. Many different teams had other-worldly players who were trying to build dynasties with their particular teams: Bird with the Celtics, Magic with the Lakers, Jordan with the Bulls, Isiah Thomas with the Pistons, etc. Also, the NBA had expanded to 24 teams, so there was a grind to competing in the postseason because everyone would have to go through multiple teams. Finally, the league was expanding its game internationally, which added to the talent pool even more, along with modern societal enhancements that grew players bigger and stronger. Kareem, Hakeem, and Shaq had more on-court obstacles to overcome than Wilt or Russell could imagine.
Off-court issues were another story. Wilt and Russell grew up in a time when Blacks and Whites didn't play on the same court, and hardly, if ever, attended college. America was still extremely prejudiced against African Americans, so Wilt and Russell had to deal with the fact that many of the people in the country, the fans watching the game, hated them with a passion due to their beliefs, which made games more dangerous than modern players could possibly imagine. The mental toll that took on them was probably considerable, and the fact they were able to compete at such a high level was inspiring. They also couldn't benefit from the fruits of technology, such as luxury aircraft and hotels, effective work-out regiments, dieting, and yet they still managed to play almost as long as the other 3 centers considered for GOAT status. Their performances were remarkable, truly remarkable, and had the NBA been able to keep track of all the statistics they do now, they might've had more daunting numbers. (You telling me Russell wouldn't have won like 10 Defensive POY's and averaged 5 blocks a season or both Wilt and Russell wouldn't have made an All-NBA team of some kind every year?)
For these rankings though, I have to go against the grain a little bit. Kareem is number 1 for me because of his durability, his accumulated records held, his titles and accolades, his impact on the way the game was played (creation of the sky-hook), and the fact he played consistently great against the best competition. I have Russell at number 2 because of the titles, his defensive prowess and how he changed the scheme of playing championship basketball with defensive intensity that has carried itself over to the modern game, and the fact he managed to deal with the rigors of coaching, the first African American coach in the NBA, and still won 2 more times as the dominant player on his team. He also consistently whooped Chamberlain on a regular basis, especially in the playoffs. Wilt is number 3 because of his overall dominance, how he took the league by storm, and how he made it look so effortless, which unfortunately was a knock against him throughout his career. Shaq is number 4 because of his physicality, his postseason performance, and how he brought a personality to basketball that hadn't been seen by a guy his size ever. Hakeem is number 5 because of his impact on the game (the Dream Shake) and how being skilled as a big man made scoring so much easier, his annihilation of other great big men in the postseason, and his defensive superiority.
Personally, I couldn't put the older players ahead of Kareem because they were products of their eras, which wasn't wrong, but calls some things into question. Kareem came at a perfect time to display skill and intensity on the court against a number of guys who were as talented or more talented as him. However, it's not like he is playing at this time and we are blowing his accomplishments out of proportion. His contributions make him the best, in this or any other era, and I don't question it.
Sometimes, people fall in love with grainy, black-and-white taped footage because it's a peek at a time we couldn't see in person, and events look mystical in that light. Those tapes and the subjects of the tapes have romantic qualities, like characters in an epic tale. We fall in love, hype them up because they seem different than what we are used to, legends that we can gush over to kids and anyone not fortunate enough to have seen the footage. Since they came before anyone, we use them as measuring sticks, and if too much adulation is being given to unproven modern commodities, we reference the past participants, and they become retro and cool again. We have to keep facts straight though, and remember that it was just a different time with different restrictions. We must try to consider every aspect before we pass judgement, or we might pick Wilt when we should've picked Kareem
With the news of Shaquille O'Neal's retirement, or soon-to-be "official" retirement, came the inevitable discussions on the Big Shaq-tus' place in history. Lists were being drawn up faster than Kris Humphries running to get food stamps after all the money he spent on his engagement ring. How does Shaq's statistics and games compare with those of other great big men? Should we downgrade him for his lack of defensive POY's, rebounding titles, or any semblance of a jump shot? Did he maximize his potential with (insert tiny violin music here) ONLY 4 titles and 1 MVP? When NBA experts weren't talking about Game 2 and the Blitzkrieg Baller's torn tendon (that's Dirk Nowitzki's new nickname...copyright), they were giving their opinions on Big 32 and how he fits overall into professional basketball's historical landscape.
General consensus put Shaq on the Mount Rushmore of great centers, along with Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Hakeem Olajuwon. While Shaq was invited to the party however, he was never considered to have gone home with the best-looking girl. Everyone based their rankings on certain criteria: accumulated numbers, championships, awards, post-season performances, overall dominance, head-to-head match-ups with other great players, etc. It seemed to make sense, but the end results weren't really indicative of overall skill and impact on the game, not to mention the lack of consideration of the different eras in which these HOFers, or future HOF in Shaq's case, played. For example, look at pertinent statistics of these 5 all-time greats:
(PER stands for Player Efficiency Rating, an advanced statistic used to measure a player's overall contribution to a game by per-minute performance, with the average at 15.00)
Bill Russell-
13 seasons, 15.1 pts, 22.5 rebs, 4.3 asts, 44% fg, ? blks (didn't start keeping records until 1973),18.9 PER, 12 All-Star appearances, 11 NBA titles (2 as player/coach), 4 rebounding titles, 5 MVP's, 3 All-NBA First Teams, 8 All-NBA Second Teams, 1 NBA All-Defensive First Team (started in 1969, Russell's last year), 0 NBA Finals MVP's (weren't established until 1969 but award was named after him in 2009)
Wilt Chamberlain-
14 seasons, 30.1 pts, 22.9 rebs, 4.4 asts, 54% fg, ? blks, 26.1 PER, 13 All-Star appearances, 2 NBA titles, 11 rebounding titles, 4 MVP's, 7 All-NBA First Teams, 2 All-NBA Second Teams, 2 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 1 Finals MVP
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar-
20 seasons, 24.6 pts, 11.2 rebs, 3.6 asts, 56% fg, 2.6 blks, 24.6 PER, 19 All-Star appearances, 6 NBA titles, 1 rebounding titles, 6 MVP's, 10 All-NBA First Teams, 5 All-NBA Second Teams, 5 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 6 NBA All-Defensive Second Teams, 2 Finals MVP's
Hakeem Olajuwon-
18 seasons, 21.8 pts, 11.1 rebs, 2.5 asts, 51% fg, 3.1 blks, 23.6 PER, 12 All-Star appearances, 2 NBA titles, 2 rebounding titles, 1 MVP, 6 All-NBA First Teams, 3 All-NBA Second Teams, 3 All-NBA Third Teams, 5 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 4 NBA All-Defensive Second Teams, 2 Defensive Player of the Year Awards, 1 Finals MVP
Shaquille O'Neal-
19 seasons, 23.7 pts, 10.9 rebs, 2.5 asts, 58% fg, 2.3 blks, 26.4 PER, 15 All-Star appearances, 4 NBA titles, 0 rebounding titles, 1 MVP, 8 All-NBA First Teams, 2 All-NBA Second Teams, 4 All-NBA Third Teams,0 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 3 NBA All-Defensive Second Teams, 3 Finals MVP's
Now, every big man has impressive resumes, and I left off a number of details like records and gold medals won because it would have created extreme chaos. Also, I didn't want to give some statistics more importance than others by giving the players their rankings in those categories.(By the way, these 5 players are pretty close in rankings for most statistics, minus Bill Russell in total points.) The great question is how to interpret these statistics and make fair judgements of each player and their contributions to professional basketball. We have to try and account for everything, including positive and negative externalities from off-court issues, hindrances of different eras, etc. In my mind, those additional concerns make all the difference.
For instance, Russell and Chamberlain accrued monster statistics and multiple championships during their careers, but the NBA was only 8-12 teams when they played, so they benefited from less competition. Also, the term "monster" is quite apropos for these two because in their time, the average height of NBA players was 6'2"; Russell was about 6'10" and Wilt was 7'1". So, they should have dominated the way they did because no one could guard them or impose on them physically, especially when society at that time produced so few elite athletes; George Mikan took advantage in the 1940's and 50's for the same reason. Russell and Chamberlain only had each other to compete with, essentially, throughout most of their careers.The same argument can be used for why Babe Ruth shouldn't be the greatest baseball player ever since competition suffered due to no integration or internationalization. These factors have to be considered and given real credence, and thus hold Russell and Wilt from being the greatest at their position.
The other 3 big men, who had to compete in the more modern era of basketball, came about in what I consider the Golden Age of North American sports, the 1980's and 90's. There was never a greater influx of historically great talent than in the 80's, for all sports, but particularly basketball. Many different teams had other-worldly players who were trying to build dynasties with their particular teams: Bird with the Celtics, Magic with the Lakers, Jordan with the Bulls, Isiah Thomas with the Pistons, etc. Also, the NBA had expanded to 24 teams, so there was a grind to competing in the postseason because everyone would have to go through multiple teams. Finally, the league was expanding its game internationally, which added to the talent pool even more, along with modern societal enhancements that grew players bigger and stronger. Kareem, Hakeem, and Shaq had more on-court obstacles to overcome than Wilt or Russell could imagine.
Off-court issues were another story. Wilt and Russell grew up in a time when Blacks and Whites didn't play on the same court, and hardly, if ever, attended college. America was still extremely prejudiced against African Americans, so Wilt and Russell had to deal with the fact that many of the people in the country, the fans watching the game, hated them with a passion due to their beliefs, which made games more dangerous than modern players could possibly imagine. The mental toll that took on them was probably considerable, and the fact they were able to compete at such a high level was inspiring. They also couldn't benefit from the fruits of technology, such as luxury aircraft and hotels, effective work-out regiments, dieting, and yet they still managed to play almost as long as the other 3 centers considered for GOAT status. Their performances were remarkable, truly remarkable, and had the NBA been able to keep track of all the statistics they do now, they might've had more daunting numbers. (You telling me Russell wouldn't have won like 10 Defensive POY's and averaged 5 blocks a season or both Wilt and Russell wouldn't have made an All-NBA team of some kind every year?)
For these rankings though, I have to go against the grain a little bit. Kareem is number 1 for me because of his durability, his accumulated records held, his titles and accolades, his impact on the way the game was played (creation of the sky-hook), and the fact he played consistently great against the best competition. I have Russell at number 2 because of the titles, his defensive prowess and how he changed the scheme of playing championship basketball with defensive intensity that has carried itself over to the modern game, and the fact he managed to deal with the rigors of coaching, the first African American coach in the NBA, and still won 2 more times as the dominant player on his team. He also consistently whooped Chamberlain on a regular basis, especially in the playoffs. Wilt is number 3 because of his overall dominance, how he took the league by storm, and how he made it look so effortless, which unfortunately was a knock against him throughout his career. Shaq is number 4 because of his physicality, his postseason performance, and how he brought a personality to basketball that hadn't been seen by a guy his size ever. Hakeem is number 5 because of his impact on the game (the Dream Shake) and how being skilled as a big man made scoring so much easier, his annihilation of other great big men in the postseason, and his defensive superiority.
Personally, I couldn't put the older players ahead of Kareem because they were products of their eras, which wasn't wrong, but calls some things into question. Kareem came at a perfect time to display skill and intensity on the court against a number of guys who were as talented or more talented as him. However, it's not like he is playing at this time and we are blowing his accomplishments out of proportion. His contributions make him the best, in this or any other era, and I don't question it.
Sometimes, people fall in love with grainy, black-and-white taped footage because it's a peek at a time we couldn't see in person, and events look mystical in that light. Those tapes and the subjects of the tapes have romantic qualities, like characters in an epic tale. We fall in love, hype them up because they seem different than what we are used to, legends that we can gush over to kids and anyone not fortunate enough to have seen the footage. Since they came before anyone, we use them as measuring sticks, and if too much adulation is being given to unproven modern commodities, we reference the past participants, and they become retro and cool again. We have to keep facts straight though, and remember that it was just a different time with different restrictions. We must try to consider every aspect before we pass judgement, or we might pick Wilt when we should've picked Kareem
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Professional Athletics: An All-Boys Club with some All-Boys Love
As I matured throughout my life, and by matured I mean sprouted hair in all the wrong places, I grew to appreciate the subtleties of accomplishment. Certain amounts of skill, time, and effort need to coagulate to manifest something truly special. For example, to truly understand math, you had to perform as much chalkboard calculus as John Nash and Will Hunting, otherwise you were a schmuck poser.
Sports always seemed on the cutting edge to me, especially considering how much SportsCenter I watched. Technology was always improving to enhance the games, whether it be new HD cameras or pinpoint replay accuracy, and the sports leagues were always adapting to these changes, either right with the times or ahead of the times. Therefore, they were going the extra mile to reach the pinnacle of entertainment. I always trusted the sports world, and the outlets that cover it, to be the Universal Soldier of progressiveness. This week, I found out I was greatly mistaken.
A story was published a few days ago about Rick Welts, the president and CEO of the Phoenix Suns, coming out as homosexual, which is the first time a person in the front office of a major professional sports franchise has actually done that. It made sense when I heard it, but then I had a Lewis Black "brain melting into my shoes" moment; in the year 2011, there hasn't been one instance of someone revealing their sexual identity publicly in sports, at least at the executive level. I mean, in ancient Greece and Rome, they would have public trysts with open, homosexual acts displayed for everyone to see. No one thought it was odd, and that was over 2500 years ago. However, this story has managed to garner a lot of intrigue because of the courage and truthfulness of Mr. Welts, coming out in a world where suppression is protection. Homosexuality would be deemed as a weakness, as a tipping point for perception to swing negatively against whoever stood up to reveal their true self.
Magic Johnson made his famous HIV announcement in 1991 that forced his retirement from professional basketball. When the media circus pitched their tents, the first thought that penetrated people's minds was that the 5-time NBA champion must have engaged in sexual congress with another male since our shallow knowledge of HIV and AIDS stated those diseases are carried in homosexual males and passed through intercourse. Magic wanted to make sure he was not labeled as "gay" or "bisexual", (I only put those terms in quotes because I imagine when Magic did interviews, he put them in quotations.) so he did the press junket and said firmly that he was straight, and people would cheer, relieved that their hopes about their basketball icon and hero were true. They were cheering for their "manly" 6'8" PG who liked women, and only women.
I'm not chastising Magic for making sure people knew he was straight, since we now know women can carry HIV and AIDS as well and he probably wasn't lying. He was being honest, but his opinion about what being gay means was a little archaic, or maybe not because like I said, people accepted homosexuality in ancient times. I guess he was being too 80's, too caught up in how people ostracized gay men for their supposed pandemic. The public was afraid of homosexuals, and homosexuals were afraid of the public. Magic probably felt the same way, even going so far as to have a falling out with Isaiah Thomas after Magic almost punched Isaiah in the face for an attempted kiss. Magic has done a lot to progress HIV and AIDS research over the last 20 years, but never did anything to help progress the plight of homosexuals.
As we jump back up to 88 and park the DeLorean in 2011, it seems silly that a 3 word sentence, a sentence millions of others have expressed out in public and millions more will say in the future, can generate this much media attention. We now have multiple articles about Mr. Welts and Will Sheridan, a former Villanova basketball standout, citing their own experiences with being gay in their respective sports positions, we have smart-story reporter Jeremy Schaap doing an exclusive interview with Rick Welts and even a Bill Simmons podcast tackles the subject. Reporters are asking NBA players, current and retired, about homosexual teammates and their own opinions, highlighted by Charles Barkley claiming the perception of professional athletics being extremely homophobic is crazy. This story continues to have legs, and in this modern society, it really should have just come and gone. I admire these men for being true to themselves, but it's a truth many people live with and openly acknowledge. MTV had many specials run through the 90's and 2000's about gay men and women dealing with the struggle of telling their families and friends about who they actually were, and after the seventeenth one, I figured the idea of telling people that secret wasn't a big deal anymore. I thought in a progressive world like sports and entertainment, no one would really care, or not care enough to give it massive coverage. I was wrong, and my general opinion about sports has been altered.
Eminem asked "Won't the Real Slim Shady please stand up?" in 2000 and had a number 1 hit. Rick Welts did just that and inspired gay men in not just sports, but all facets of life. Unfortunately, professional sports and sports media really stood up during this last week of coverage, and I lost some respect for both of them.
Sports always seemed on the cutting edge to me, especially considering how much SportsCenter I watched. Technology was always improving to enhance the games, whether it be new HD cameras or pinpoint replay accuracy, and the sports leagues were always adapting to these changes, either right with the times or ahead of the times. Therefore, they were going the extra mile to reach the pinnacle of entertainment. I always trusted the sports world, and the outlets that cover it, to be the Universal Soldier of progressiveness. This week, I found out I was greatly mistaken.
A story was published a few days ago about Rick Welts, the president and CEO of the Phoenix Suns, coming out as homosexual, which is the first time a person in the front office of a major professional sports franchise has actually done that. It made sense when I heard it, but then I had a Lewis Black "brain melting into my shoes" moment; in the year 2011, there hasn't been one instance of someone revealing their sexual identity publicly in sports, at least at the executive level. I mean, in ancient Greece and Rome, they would have public trysts with open, homosexual acts displayed for everyone to see. No one thought it was odd, and that was over 2500 years ago. However, this story has managed to garner a lot of intrigue because of the courage and truthfulness of Mr. Welts, coming out in a world where suppression is protection. Homosexuality would be deemed as a weakness, as a tipping point for perception to swing negatively against whoever stood up to reveal their true self.
Magic Johnson made his famous HIV announcement in 1991 that forced his retirement from professional basketball. When the media circus pitched their tents, the first thought that penetrated people's minds was that the 5-time NBA champion must have engaged in sexual congress with another male since our shallow knowledge of HIV and AIDS stated those diseases are carried in homosexual males and passed through intercourse. Magic wanted to make sure he was not labeled as "gay" or "bisexual", (I only put those terms in quotes because I imagine when Magic did interviews, he put them in quotations.) so he did the press junket and said firmly that he was straight, and people would cheer, relieved that their hopes about their basketball icon and hero were true. They were cheering for their "manly" 6'8" PG who liked women, and only women.
I'm not chastising Magic for making sure people knew he was straight, since we now know women can carry HIV and AIDS as well and he probably wasn't lying. He was being honest, but his opinion about what being gay means was a little archaic, or maybe not because like I said, people accepted homosexuality in ancient times. I guess he was being too 80's, too caught up in how people ostracized gay men for their supposed pandemic. The public was afraid of homosexuals, and homosexuals were afraid of the public. Magic probably felt the same way, even going so far as to have a falling out with Isaiah Thomas after Magic almost punched Isaiah in the face for an attempted kiss. Magic has done a lot to progress HIV and AIDS research over the last 20 years, but never did anything to help progress the plight of homosexuals.
As we jump back up to 88 and park the DeLorean in 2011, it seems silly that a 3 word sentence, a sentence millions of others have expressed out in public and millions more will say in the future, can generate this much media attention. We now have multiple articles about Mr. Welts and Will Sheridan, a former Villanova basketball standout, citing their own experiences with being gay in their respective sports positions, we have smart-story reporter Jeremy Schaap doing an exclusive interview with Rick Welts and even a Bill Simmons podcast tackles the subject. Reporters are asking NBA players, current and retired, about homosexual teammates and their own opinions, highlighted by Charles Barkley claiming the perception of professional athletics being extremely homophobic is crazy. This story continues to have legs, and in this modern society, it really should have just come and gone. I admire these men for being true to themselves, but it's a truth many people live with and openly acknowledge. MTV had many specials run through the 90's and 2000's about gay men and women dealing with the struggle of telling their families and friends about who they actually were, and after the seventeenth one, I figured the idea of telling people that secret wasn't a big deal anymore. I thought in a progressive world like sports and entertainment, no one would really care, or not care enough to give it massive coverage. I was wrong, and my general opinion about sports has been altered.
Eminem asked "Won't the Real Slim Shady please stand up?" in 2000 and had a number 1 hit. Rick Welts did just that and inspired gay men in not just sports, but all facets of life. Unfortunately, professional sports and sports media really stood up during this last week of coverage, and I lost some respect for both of them.
Friday, January 7, 2011
When Movie Stars Retire, They Go to Television
As I was watching the travesty that was Rams-Seahawks last Sunday, one of the NBC commercials caught my eye, which isn't really hard because I use commercials as a way to vent my frustrations and point out the subtle hilarity of American consumerism. However, this wasn't a product advertisement, it was a promo for a new NBC show entitled "Harry's Law" starring Kathy Bates, Academy Award-winning Kathy Bates. It's a law drama, which between that and cop shows seems to be the only source of entertainment network TV believes the American public likes, but it made me wonder about the state of Hollywood at this present time. I understand the mantra, "Either you're hot or you're not", but have we become so obsessed with youth and image that even talented older people who still got game are pushed to the side like the nerdy kid that no one wants on their dodge ball team? I'm sure Kathy Bates didn't imagine she'd be doing network drama at this stage of life, she's only 62, and she has other movie roles, but it's not the same as it was even 5-10 years ago. Then I realized, that's been happening more and more with older or more seasoned actors. Think about this:
(Note: The "Now" portion of these Then and Now's are recent history, not presently. I'm making this clear so I don't get into a semantics debate with anyone who reads this.)
1. Richard Dreyfuss
Then: Featured in some of the most iconic movies of all time, such as Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Won an Oscar in '78 for The Goodbye Girl and was nominated for Mr. Holland's Opus in '95.
Now: Had roles in Poseidon and W. and a minor role in Red while most recently doing some voice work for "Family Guy" as himself. Age 63
2. James Caan
Then: Played Sonny in The Godfather and had feature roles in Brian's Song and more recently Elf.
Now: Spent 4 seasons on the TV show "Las Vegas" while doing some bit roles in other movies. Age 70
3. Denise Richards
Then: Had iconic roles in Starship Troopers, Wild Things, and was a Bond girl in The World is Not Enough.
Now: Did the reality thing with her series "Denise Richards: It's Complicated" and has recent multiple appearances on Spikes' "Blue Mountain State". Age 39
4. Chevy Chase
Then: Started as a regular cast member on "Saturday Night Live" before showing up in iconic roles in the Vacation movies and Caddyshack.
Now: Is a featured cast member on the NBC show "Community". He also appears in various commercials for T-Mobile and Chase Commercial Bank. Age 67
5. Martin Sheen
Then: Starred in various cinematic favorites like Apocalypse Now, Wall Street, and Gettysburg.
Now: Is most notably recognized as the President from "The West Wing", which is a role he maintained for several seasons. He had a notable role in The Departed in '06 but will have to wait until the next edition of Spider-Man in 2012 for his next decent role. Age 70
6. Holly Hunter
Then: Was an accomplished movie actress with two Oscar nominations and one win in The Piano. Also had a starring role in Raising Arizona.
Now: Has not been in a film since 2005, with her last major role in the animated film The Incredibles. She has had a starring role on TNT's "Saving Grace" for the last four years. Age 52
7. Sally Field
Then: She also was an Academy Award-winning actress in the earlier part of her career, taking home two Oscars for Norma Rae and Places in the Heart. She also appeared in favorites like Mrs. Doubtfire and Forrest Gump.
Now: For the past five years, she has held the starring role in ABC's "Brothers and Sisters" but has not appeared in a recognizable role in a film since 2003 in Legally Blonde 2: Red, White, and Blonde. Age 64
8. Glenn Close
Then: Of the list, she had the most Oscar nominations with 5, while also appearing in notable films like The Natural and 101 Dalmatians.
Now: She is presently the star of FX's "Damages" and was a regular on "The Shield" but hasn't been featured in movies since the 1990's. Age 63
9. Charlie Sheen
Then: He was one of the hottest actors in the 1980's and 1990's with major roles in hits like Platoon, Wall Street, and the Major League movies.
Now: He is more recognizable as a television actor, first winning an Emmy on "Spin City" and now in the process of completing his sixth season on "Two and a Half Men". He hasn't had a starring role in a film in over 10 years. Age 45
10. Bill Paxton
Then: Had memorable roles in films like Weird Science, Aliens, Apollo 13, Twister, and Titanic.
Now: He is starring on HBO's "Big Love" which is currently in its fourth season and has not been in a movie for about 6 years. Age 55
I didn't even include actors who were more known for iconic television parts before they jumped into movies, such as Jimmy Smits on "NYPD Blue" who had a brief series this year called "Outlaw", or Tom Selleck who was Magnum P.I. and has recently had stints on "Las Vegas" and now "Blue Bloods". The relative similarity between all these actors I mentioned is their age. In the era where actors are bred from birth and if you haven't started out on the Disney Channel then you are behind the eight ball, the younger generations are pushing out the more experienced, veteran performers. This would be like the Vikings saying no to Brett Favre last year because they had Tarvaris Jackson on roster and were excited about his upside and physical tools (The craziest of crazy notions). We have become obsessed with youth, sex, action, gratuitous violence, and explosions as an audience, so Hollywood looks to satisfy our needs with younger actors. They seem more inclined to handle the rigors of action movies, even if they don't have the acting chops. (I'm looking at you Vin Diesel.) As such, movies are losing substance, plots are becoming stale and over-used, and CGI is pegged as a crutch (see what I did there) to assist directors who can't find the necessary talent to make a movie good on its own. So, where does the talent go? Television is a different beast, especially if it's live like SNL, and it gives actors freedoms they couldn't possess in cinema, like a potential cross-over into directing or producing. Also, the money isn't lacking. (Charlie Sheen makes almost $2 million an episode for "Two and a Half Men". Last season, they made 22 episodes, meaning he made about $44 million dollars doing probably 70% of the work he would do on set of a feature film.)
What's next? In 15 years, will Tom Cruise be starring in an NBC drama as an over-protective pediatrician who sees fit to solve families' domestic issues on the side? Perhaps in 10 years Denzel Washington will play the father in the CBS re-make of "Good Times". Those ideas sound ridiculous, but the trends suggest the real future won't stray too far from those suggestions. How can movie stars rise up and not be pushed out? Jack Nicholson at the ripe age of 73 is still playing major roles in successful films. Is it just his talent (12 Oscar nominations and 3 wins)? Is it the level of icon he has become due to his persona and earlier roles like the Joker in Batman? I don't rightly know, but Nicholson hasn't made the jump to the short screen, or hasn't had to yet because directors still see him as viable, as a movie star. So, a lot of older movie stars are losing their bank-ability on the silver screen but are gaining credibility on television, which honestly is becoming more entertaining than movies at this current juncture due to HD TVs and DIRECTV packages; TV directors also seem to make more risks with their productions, which viewers respect and admire. As such, TV stars can get paid like box-office juggernauts and yet, they lost that tag of being "big".
I don't plan on watching "Harry's Law" because I have enough courtroom drama in my life, but it probably will keep Kathy Bates out of movies for a while, unless it's not worth the trouble going back.
(Note: The "Now" portion of these Then and Now's are recent history, not presently. I'm making this clear so I don't get into a semantics debate with anyone who reads this.)
1. Richard Dreyfuss
Then: Featured in some of the most iconic movies of all time, such as Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Won an Oscar in '78 for The Goodbye Girl and was nominated for Mr. Holland's Opus in '95.
Now: Had roles in Poseidon and W. and a minor role in Red while most recently doing some voice work for "Family Guy" as himself. Age 63
2. James Caan
Then: Played Sonny in The Godfather and had feature roles in Brian's Song and more recently Elf.
Now: Spent 4 seasons on the TV show "Las Vegas" while doing some bit roles in other movies. Age 70
3. Denise Richards
Then: Had iconic roles in Starship Troopers, Wild Things, and was a Bond girl in The World is Not Enough.
Now: Did the reality thing with her series "Denise Richards: It's Complicated" and has recent multiple appearances on Spikes' "Blue Mountain State". Age 39
4. Chevy Chase
Then: Started as a regular cast member on "Saturday Night Live" before showing up in iconic roles in the Vacation movies and Caddyshack.
Now: Is a featured cast member on the NBC show "Community". He also appears in various commercials for T-Mobile and Chase Commercial Bank. Age 67
5. Martin Sheen
Then: Starred in various cinematic favorites like Apocalypse Now, Wall Street, and Gettysburg.
Now: Is most notably recognized as the President from "The West Wing", which is a role he maintained for several seasons. He had a notable role in The Departed in '06 but will have to wait until the next edition of Spider-Man in 2012 for his next decent role. Age 70
6. Holly Hunter
Then: Was an accomplished movie actress with two Oscar nominations and one win in The Piano. Also had a starring role in Raising Arizona.
Now: Has not been in a film since 2005, with her last major role in the animated film The Incredibles. She has had a starring role on TNT's "Saving Grace" for the last four years. Age 52
7. Sally Field
Then: She also was an Academy Award-winning actress in the earlier part of her career, taking home two Oscars for Norma Rae and Places in the Heart. She also appeared in favorites like Mrs. Doubtfire and Forrest Gump.
Now: For the past five years, she has held the starring role in ABC's "Brothers and Sisters" but has not appeared in a recognizable role in a film since 2003 in Legally Blonde 2: Red, White, and Blonde. Age 64
8. Glenn Close
Then: Of the list, she had the most Oscar nominations with 5, while also appearing in notable films like The Natural and 101 Dalmatians.
Now: She is presently the star of FX's "Damages" and was a regular on "The Shield" but hasn't been featured in movies since the 1990's. Age 63
9. Charlie Sheen
Then: He was one of the hottest actors in the 1980's and 1990's with major roles in hits like Platoon, Wall Street, and the Major League movies.
Now: He is more recognizable as a television actor, first winning an Emmy on "Spin City" and now in the process of completing his sixth season on "Two and a Half Men". He hasn't had a starring role in a film in over 10 years. Age 45
10. Bill Paxton
Then: Had memorable roles in films like Weird Science, Aliens, Apollo 13, Twister, and Titanic.
Now: He is starring on HBO's "Big Love" which is currently in its fourth season and has not been in a movie for about 6 years. Age 55
 |
| Kathy Bates storms into a courtroom Law and Order-style with her young staff in the new NBC series "Harry's Law" |
I didn't even include actors who were more known for iconic television parts before they jumped into movies, such as Jimmy Smits on "NYPD Blue" who had a brief series this year called "Outlaw", or Tom Selleck who was Magnum P.I. and has recently had stints on "Las Vegas" and now "Blue Bloods". The relative similarity between all these actors I mentioned is their age. In the era where actors are bred from birth and if you haven't started out on the Disney Channel then you are behind the eight ball, the younger generations are pushing out the more experienced, veteran performers. This would be like the Vikings saying no to Brett Favre last year because they had Tarvaris Jackson on roster and were excited about his upside and physical tools (The craziest of crazy notions). We have become obsessed with youth, sex, action, gratuitous violence, and explosions as an audience, so Hollywood looks to satisfy our needs with younger actors. They seem more inclined to handle the rigors of action movies, even if they don't have the acting chops. (I'm looking at you Vin Diesel.) As such, movies are losing substance, plots are becoming stale and over-used, and CGI is pegged as a crutch (see what I did there) to assist directors who can't find the necessary talent to make a movie good on its own. So, where does the talent go? Television is a different beast, especially if it's live like SNL, and it gives actors freedoms they couldn't possess in cinema, like a potential cross-over into directing or producing. Also, the money isn't lacking. (Charlie Sheen makes almost $2 million an episode for "Two and a Half Men". Last season, they made 22 episodes, meaning he made about $44 million dollars doing probably 70% of the work he would do on set of a feature film.)
What's next? In 15 years, will Tom Cruise be starring in an NBC drama as an over-protective pediatrician who sees fit to solve families' domestic issues on the side? Perhaps in 10 years Denzel Washington will play the father in the CBS re-make of "Good Times". Those ideas sound ridiculous, but the trends suggest the real future won't stray too far from those suggestions. How can movie stars rise up and not be pushed out? Jack Nicholson at the ripe age of 73 is still playing major roles in successful films. Is it just his talent (12 Oscar nominations and 3 wins)? Is it the level of icon he has become due to his persona and earlier roles like the Joker in Batman? I don't rightly know, but Nicholson hasn't made the jump to the short screen, or hasn't had to yet because directors still see him as viable, as a movie star. So, a lot of older movie stars are losing their bank-ability on the silver screen but are gaining credibility on television, which honestly is becoming more entertaining than movies at this current juncture due to HD TVs and DIRECTV packages; TV directors also seem to make more risks with their productions, which viewers respect and admire. As such, TV stars can get paid like box-office juggernauts and yet, they lost that tag of being "big".
I don't plan on watching "Harry's Law" because I have enough courtroom drama in my life, but it probably will keep Kathy Bates out of movies for a while, unless it's not worth the trouble going back.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Hey Egg, I See You and the NFL's Face Met and Hooked Up!
Nobody likes to admit when they made a mistake, but when something goes wrong that could be considered an anomaly, a scenario plays out that is deemed to be near impossible; the fault, even if uncalled for, lands with the overseer. Whoever is in control, whoever facilitated the actions that caused the grand faux pas is the one picking up the pieces, and while the NFL never dreamed of a bad closing weekend to their 2010-11 regular season considering all these divisional, "rivalry" games, that dream spiked into a nightmare yesterday and the NFL is now holding the feces-stained bag.
First off, the level of drama and excitement that was supposed to be ratcheted up by the scheduling changes flat-lined big time, with AFC powers like the Steelers, Patriots, and Jets all obliterating their intra-divisional competition by at least four scores. Then, the playoff spots up for grabs fell almost as predicted, minus the misstep by Kansas City dropping to the 4th seed. Some games ended up close but overall, the games were terrible. Finally, due to some quirky, dark twist of fate, only one game was left that in itself decided a division title and a playoff berth, the not-often and hopefully never duplicated NFC West. The NFL was obligated to flex the SEA/STL game into a primetime spot, the last one available for the regular season, Sunday Night Football; the gameplay was marred with sloppy, inconsistent play, turnovers, incompetence, and over-conservative tendencies. Fans were treated to only one touchdown early in the game, and the rest of it was punctuated with field goals. This game was truly the icing on the cake of an interesting yet somewhat underwhelming regular season as the Seahawks became the first team to make the playoffs with a losing record at 7-9. Now, after benefiting from a supremely weak division, a football team who managed to lose every one of those nine games by 15+ points is hosting a playoff game on Saturday; the NFL really backed their way into the playoffs this time.
Where do we stand? Well, I'd bet the world on a few things: MTV will continue to produce lackluster programming that isn't music-related, Lindsay Lohan is going to skip out of rehab, and the NFL was hoping, may I say even praying that the Rams won that game to avoid the constant questioning and the scrutiny they now will indubitably have to endure. Is this a slap in the face to the other playoff teams and teams who didn't even make it with better records? Will you consider changing the playoff structure? Will re-seeding occur? On and on the tilt-a-whirl will go, and we don't know when it will stop, but it will probably make the NFL and its officials throw up when it's all said and done.
As we go into the playoffs, three Wild Card matchups feature teams with better records having to go on the road to play "inferior" teams who happened to win their divisions. This scenario validates the above questions. Also, should realignment be considered? Oakland manages to go 6-0 in the division and not make the playoffs, becoming the first team to ever do that. In that case, their advantage was a disadvantage because they don't get a high draft pick but don't make the playoffs, even though they technically were the best team in their division. Is that fair? Perhaps everyone should be quiet and worry about taking care of their own business, but it would appear that there are unfair benefits/losses to those who prey on the weak in their respective divisions. The NFL office could look into old-school baseball style, maybe just split the conferences up, construct the schedules, let everyone play everyone else, and take the top four teams from each conference. It's simple, but it would rub those teams supposedly on the cusp the wrong way who can't get beyond the chronic powerhouses, but if there's one theme that rings loud in the media, it's that fans care about juggernauts and dynasties and stars. It could work, and I'm hesitating, but these are just considerations. The NFL is going to have to spend a lot of time after this postseason wiping off the muck they stepped in and going to work to make sure that this particular can of worms doesn't open itself up again.
First off, the level of drama and excitement that was supposed to be ratcheted up by the scheduling changes flat-lined big time, with AFC powers like the Steelers, Patriots, and Jets all obliterating their intra-divisional competition by at least four scores. Then, the playoff spots up for grabs fell almost as predicted, minus the misstep by Kansas City dropping to the 4th seed. Some games ended up close but overall, the games were terrible. Finally, due to some quirky, dark twist of fate, only one game was left that in itself decided a division title and a playoff berth, the not-often and hopefully never duplicated NFC West. The NFL was obligated to flex the SEA/STL game into a primetime spot, the last one available for the regular season, Sunday Night Football; the gameplay was marred with sloppy, inconsistent play, turnovers, incompetence, and over-conservative tendencies. Fans were treated to only one touchdown early in the game, and the rest of it was punctuated with field goals. This game was truly the icing on the cake of an interesting yet somewhat underwhelming regular season as the Seahawks became the first team to make the playoffs with a losing record at 7-9. Now, after benefiting from a supremely weak division, a football team who managed to lose every one of those nine games by 15+ points is hosting a playoff game on Saturday; the NFL really backed their way into the playoffs this time.
Where do we stand? Well, I'd bet the world on a few things: MTV will continue to produce lackluster programming that isn't music-related, Lindsay Lohan is going to skip out of rehab, and the NFL was hoping, may I say even praying that the Rams won that game to avoid the constant questioning and the scrutiny they now will indubitably have to endure. Is this a slap in the face to the other playoff teams and teams who didn't even make it with better records? Will you consider changing the playoff structure? Will re-seeding occur? On and on the tilt-a-whirl will go, and we don't know when it will stop, but it will probably make the NFL and its officials throw up when it's all said and done.
As we go into the playoffs, three Wild Card matchups feature teams with better records having to go on the road to play "inferior" teams who happened to win their divisions. This scenario validates the above questions. Also, should realignment be considered? Oakland manages to go 6-0 in the division and not make the playoffs, becoming the first team to ever do that. In that case, their advantage was a disadvantage because they don't get a high draft pick but don't make the playoffs, even though they technically were the best team in their division. Is that fair? Perhaps everyone should be quiet and worry about taking care of their own business, but it would appear that there are unfair benefits/losses to those who prey on the weak in their respective divisions. The NFL office could look into old-school baseball style, maybe just split the conferences up, construct the schedules, let everyone play everyone else, and take the top four teams from each conference. It's simple, but it would rub those teams supposedly on the cusp the wrong way who can't get beyond the chronic powerhouses, but if there's one theme that rings loud in the media, it's that fans care about juggernauts and dynasties and stars. It could work, and I'm hesitating, but these are just considerations. The NFL is going to have to spend a lot of time after this postseason wiping off the muck they stepped in and going to work to make sure that this particular can of worms doesn't open itself up again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)