Back on February 4, I suggested that Tennessee men's basketball coach Bruce Pearl owns Florida coach Billy Donovan. Pearl ran his record against Donovan to 5-1 tonight as Tennessee went to Gainesville and beat the Mighty Gators 89-86. The Volunteers overcame a 16-point deficit in claiming the win.
However, the most important thing to come out of this game is that the Vols clinched the SEC regular season championship. Vanderbilt helped out by beating Mississippi State in overtime to eliminate the Bulldogs.
Congratulations to Coach Pearl and the players. Well done.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
Hank Steinbrenner should provide us years of quality entertainment
Let me say right up front that when it comes to baseball I am an Atlanta Braves fan, but I have always been a Boston Red Sox sympathizer because of my intense dislike for the New York Yankees.
I just don't like the Yankees style. They are one of those teams that you either love or hate.
In recent years, the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry hasn't quite been the same because owner and team patriarch George Steinbrenner has faded into the shadows because of his age and health issues. George always ran his big mouth and personified all the things I disliked about the Yankees.
Now, his sons have taken more control of the team, and his son Hank seems like a chip off the old block.
He recently had this to say about the Red Sox and their fans:
"Red Sox Nation? What a bunch of (expletive) that is...That was a creation of the Red Sox and ESPN, which is filled with Red Sox fans...Go anywhere in America and you won't see Red Sox hats and jackets, you'll see Yankee hats and jackets. This is a Yankee country. We're going to put the Yankees back on top and restore the universe to order."
I will give the Yankees credit for one thing. They were the best baseball team of the 20th century.
However, we now live in the 21st century, and the Sox have won two World Series' titles and the Yankees have won zero. The score is 2-0.
Go Sox!
I just don't like the Yankees style. They are one of those teams that you either love or hate.
In recent years, the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry hasn't quite been the same because owner and team patriarch George Steinbrenner has faded into the shadows because of his age and health issues. George always ran his big mouth and personified all the things I disliked about the Yankees.
Now, his sons have taken more control of the team, and his son Hank seems like a chip off the old block.
He recently had this to say about the Red Sox and their fans:
"Red Sox Nation? What a bunch of (expletive) that is...That was a creation of the Red Sox and ESPN, which is filled with Red Sox fans...Go anywhere in America and you won't see Red Sox hats and jackets, you'll see Yankee hats and jackets. This is a Yankee country. We're going to put the Yankees back on top and restore the universe to order."
I will give the Yankees credit for one thing. They were the best baseball team of the 20th century.
However, we now live in the 21st century, and the Sox have won two World Series' titles and the Yankees have won zero. The score is 2-0.
Go Sox!
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Hollywood doesn't interest me much these days
Last Sunday, I tuned in to watch the Academy Awards so I could see who the folks in Hollywood thought produced the best films of 2007.
I tuned in more out of curiosity than anything else. I enjoy well-made movies, but last year I went to fewer movies than I have in all the years of my adult life.
Many of the movies made today do not speak to me. They don't touch my heart in the ways they did when I was younger.
Maybe I've reached the age where I am no longer included in the demographics that Hollywood executives consider when deciding on which movies to make.
It seems like most films are targeted toward a younger audience than me. There's nothing wrong with that. The people in the 18 to 35-year-old age group have a ton of disposable income, and it makes sense that Hollywood would want to exploit that.
Still, it is frustrating that there are few films that interest me. Many of the big budget films seem to get made for reasons other than having an interesting story to tell.
Marketability plays a big role in determining which films get the most funding. For example, Spider-Man 3 and Shrek the Third were both fairly bland movies, and the studios making them had to have known that as they were being made.
But each got tens of million of dollars pumped into their budgets not only because they would likely attract a big audience to theaters, but because they could sell a lot of merchandise. In these cases, the films were nothing more than a successful franchise like McDonalds or Burger King.
Much like the food served in those restaurants, people knew what they were going to get even before they watched the films. Obviously, the people who went to see them did not care because Spider-Man 3 made $336.5 million and Shrek the Third made $322.7 million.
Maybe this is just an example of the downside of capitalism. Like any industry, the motivation of Hollywood moguls is to make money so when a formula is found that works, it gets flogged to death until the marketplace won't buy it anymore.
Again, there is nothing wrong with that. If films don't produce a profit, then the movie business will shut down. However, this does create an environment where artistic ambition is pushed to the side.
As for the Academy Awards, it interested me that most of the films nominated were not the big blockbusters that the Hollywood marketing machine crammed down our throats.
Several of the films nominated only performed modestly at the box office and were not part of the action-adventure genre. Films like Michael Clayton and There Will Be Blood dealt with serious themes but as I am writing this, neither has come close to making $100 million.
The idealist inside me wants to believe that the critical acclaim those two films received will encourage the major movie studios to make more films like that instead of trotting out the predictable stuff they do over and over again.
However, the realist inside me understands that those studios will make more thought provoking movies only when more people go to see them.
From a business point of view, that make sense, but we live in an age where there are a lot of important subjects to ponder. Movies are often an important way to do that, but movie goers seem more interested in silliness these days.
Movies have always been a way to escape from the pressures of every day life, and the silliness of our movie landscape is likely a reflection of this.
I am as silly as the next guy, but I would like to see more films that tackle the serious issues of our time.
However, that's not to say that movies can't be silly and thought provoking at the same time. For example, Charlie Chaplin made his brilliant film The Great Dictator back in 1940, and it was an obvious spoof of Adolf Hitler.
Chaplin's silliness in the film lampooned Hitler in a way that showed how ridiculous tyrants are.
I don't expect anything like this from Hollywood these days, but would it hurt to try?
I tuned in more out of curiosity than anything else. I enjoy well-made movies, but last year I went to fewer movies than I have in all the years of my adult life.
Many of the movies made today do not speak to me. They don't touch my heart in the ways they did when I was younger.
Maybe I've reached the age where I am no longer included in the demographics that Hollywood executives consider when deciding on which movies to make.
It seems like most films are targeted toward a younger audience than me. There's nothing wrong with that. The people in the 18 to 35-year-old age group have a ton of disposable income, and it makes sense that Hollywood would want to exploit that.
Still, it is frustrating that there are few films that interest me. Many of the big budget films seem to get made for reasons other than having an interesting story to tell.
Marketability plays a big role in determining which films get the most funding. For example, Spider-Man 3 and Shrek the Third were both fairly bland movies, and the studios making them had to have known that as they were being made.
But each got tens of million of dollars pumped into their budgets not only because they would likely attract a big audience to theaters, but because they could sell a lot of merchandise. In these cases, the films were nothing more than a successful franchise like McDonalds or Burger King.
Much like the food served in those restaurants, people knew what they were going to get even before they watched the films. Obviously, the people who went to see them did not care because Spider-Man 3 made $336.5 million and Shrek the Third made $322.7 million.
Maybe this is just an example of the downside of capitalism. Like any industry, the motivation of Hollywood moguls is to make money so when a formula is found that works, it gets flogged to death until the marketplace won't buy it anymore.
Again, there is nothing wrong with that. If films don't produce a profit, then the movie business will shut down. However, this does create an environment where artistic ambition is pushed to the side.
As for the Academy Awards, it interested me that most of the films nominated were not the big blockbusters that the Hollywood marketing machine crammed down our throats.
Several of the films nominated only performed modestly at the box office and were not part of the action-adventure genre. Films like Michael Clayton and There Will Be Blood dealt with serious themes but as I am writing this, neither has come close to making $100 million.
The idealist inside me wants to believe that the critical acclaim those two films received will encourage the major movie studios to make more films like that instead of trotting out the predictable stuff they do over and over again.
However, the realist inside me understands that those studios will make more thought provoking movies only when more people go to see them.
From a business point of view, that make sense, but we live in an age where there are a lot of important subjects to ponder. Movies are often an important way to do that, but movie goers seem more interested in silliness these days.
Movies have always been a way to escape from the pressures of every day life, and the silliness of our movie landscape is likely a reflection of this.
I am as silly as the next guy, but I would like to see more films that tackle the serious issues of our time.
However, that's not to say that movies can't be silly and thought provoking at the same time. For example, Charlie Chaplin made his brilliant film The Great Dictator back in 1940, and it was an obvious spoof of Adolf Hitler.
Chaplin's silliness in the film lampooned Hitler in a way that showed how ridiculous tyrants are.
I don't expect anything like this from Hollywood these days, but would it hurt to try?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
