« November 2011 | Main | January 2012 »
I wasn't a huge fan of the Roots' new album "undun" when I first listened to it but I seem to be in the minority. The general consensus is that it's one of the best albums of the year (and in the Philly crew's career). Here, below, is the short film that the band made for the album. Reports say that they are hoping to get a movie or play out of the album/concept.
Couldn't find a great band for this week so I chose this week's Tryout on name alone. You have to love the name "The Cast of Cheers" although it doesn't make life easier for the band in terms of Google and legally since I have to imagine that the people behind the show Cheers won't be thrilled about it. As for the music, I loved the opening of first song "Family" but then it didn't really go anywhere. The others songs are kind of similar; "Derp" has a great riff and build up but it doesn't ever really build to anything. It kind of reminds me of early TV on the Radio (meets Bloc Party?). That being said, I think these guys could be a blast to see live and I'll definitely be keeping an eye out for their full record when it finally drops.
The Cast of Cheers - Derp by wantanearBecause of some Twitter comments about it and my complete lack of interest in it, I broke my trailer embargo to watch the GI Joe 2 trailer. And dammit if the director of Step Up 3 didn't manage to get me interested in this one. (Also, how can you not love Adrianne Palicki! Go Annie!) I do like how they explained the complete recasting of the movie (shades of Transformers: The (Animated) Movie). And there's one scene in general that will get every action nerd excited. And yes, it has ninjas in it.
It's often been said that McDonalds helped bring down the Soviet Union. Obviously that's an oversimplification but the theory is that the Red State allowing in one of the capitalism's most notable brand names was a sign of how things were about to change. Maybe they hoped people would have a Big Mac, think it was gross, and turn their back on "American cuisine" but instead it was a huge hit, people lined up around the block, and it left the people craving more.
Two years later, the USSR was no more.
And if there's a way for the West's way of thinking to seep into the minds of the Middle East, could reality TV be the way? Reality shows are already popular in many countries in the Middle East and they have their own Big Brother and Got Talent franchises and already people are talking about how these shows offer new avenues for politic and social discussions and for people to find away to question the norm. More importantly (sadly, but more important nonetheless) I believe that the chance at celebrity or belief that anybody could be famous could do some major damage to a social system that seems to require everyone to fall into line. In a land where women still need to stay covered up, never mind be heard, the desire to want to be seen could have devastating effects.
But is that a good thing? I mean, obviously freedom of expression is great but even some of the moderates in our own American Conservative party thinks we may have gone too far. (Although we in the US can't take all the credit/blame, The Economist recently pointed out that most reality franchises actually come from the UK. They've created almost half of the worlds reality franchises.) Case in point, there are now 22 version of "Wife Swap" floating around, a show that basically allows men to live their fantasy of living with another woman (albeit not the woman of their choice and it usually ends disastrously.) Our reality TV "I want my 15 minutes and I want it now!" mindset has led to the Octomom, Balloon Boy, sham weddings, and countless other questionable-to-damaging antics. I've often argued with a co-worker of mine that "16 and Pregnant" does more harm than good because, for every girl who watches it and thinks "I don't want to be like that", there are three who wonder if having a kid might be there way to get noticed. Not necessarily there own show and on the cover of People and Life & Style every month but noticed in their own circles/town/family.
More and more, it seems that ill behavior is celebrated on the TV which, in turn, makes it more acceptable in everyday life. I'd like to say that it is just more acceptable to kids and that parents can hopefully set them straight but after working on Real Housewives of New Jersey for a year, I have about as much faith in the kids acting as the voices of reasons than most adults.
Now, obviously, the title of this post is a massive overstatement for effect but there's something to be said for trying to limit the amount of something that pushes the envelope in the wrong direction far more often than it breaks down barriers in a positive direction (which it occasionally does, to be fair.) Because once the genie's out of the bottle is one thing, but if the genie then gets her own show, there's no going back.
"Hey, I'm sorry, you know, but it's a business..."
For years, some form of that phrase and a pat on the back is what NBA teams owners or officials have told players when they've been cut or traded. What the owners and officials never thought of and what they are now hating, is the fact that the players listened.
While the NBA can bemoan the rise of the Superfriends and complain about how players keep leaving small market teams for higher profile cities, they can't really blame the players. After all, it's a business and since the NBA has capped how much money the greatest of players can make each year, it's even more important for these guys to go out and push to find a) a bigger market where endorsement deals are more prevalent and lucrative and/or b) try to find a winning team so they can achieve a higher profile and get said better endorsements.
Utah Jazz president made a comment about the CP3 veto that really spoke of how many people in charge of the NBA and the teams are stuck in a bygone era.
"I'm one who likes to see the market and teams that have invested in a player and helped develop a player have an opportunity to have that player be a long-time part of that community. As a small-market team, it's very important. ... We had a lot of years of success with certain players named John Stockton, Karl Malone, who invested and committed to a community. That community committed back, and we saw a lot of success together."
The term "lot of success" together is key here because no superstar in the NBA wants to have the "lot of success" that Stockton and Malone had. While they did have storied, Hall of Fame careers, Stockton and Malone only went to the Finals twice and lost both times. Both men retired without a championship ring, something that Paul, Bosh, LeBron, Wade, Stoudemire, and Anthony are all trying to avoid. And while I'm sure Rigby would bring up, "What about loyalty?!" He has to realize that, in the NBA, loyalty is a two way street. Whereas Rigby can bemoan the lack of loyalty Chris Paul might have, shouldn't he also lash out at the Lakers for dealing away Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol, both of whom seem to want to retire as Lakers?
In the end, though, it still comes down to winning and players wanting to have a shot at a ring. Karl Malone left the Jazz in his final year to chase a ring with the supposed super team in LA (they were upset by Detroit in the Finals). Players today are thinking, "Why wait?"
After all, it's a business.
Before I post up the THR Roundtable on writers, a quick reminder about how the Best Screenplay nominations are kind of a joke. What appears on the screen and what appeared in the original screenplay are often very, very different. First off, film is a collaborative effort and things always change throughout shooting. In fact, there have been iconic moments in film were actually improvised and had nothing to do with the screenwriter. Unless people actually read the screenplays themselves, you can't really know what the best screenplay was. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a few terrible movies actually found their original screenplays getting nominated because they were great ideas that fell apart during production.
But perhaps the best example of this is Michael Mann's "Heat", a film that people love and that includes a memorable scene with Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino facing off over a cup of coffee. It was a scene that film critics and fans went gaga over.
Some pretty strong, natural writing in that scene, no?
The thing is (as Lee Goldberg pointed out years ago) the writing in that scene wasn't considered all that great when Michael Mann first shot pretty much the exact same scene six years earlier for a straight-to-TV movie "LA Takedown". I'm not sure too many people would laud the writing in this scene.
Now don't get me wrong, I think the screenplay is the backbone of any good movie and that people should treat screenplays with far more respect than they do but I also can't support the idea that The Best Screenplay can be gauged by what ends up in the screen. The top screenwriters do usually pen stuff that is just too good to change or do a better job of arguing for their decisions rather than an actors or producers ideas but that's rewarding a different skill IMO.
Enough of my rant, here's the video of the full hour of the THR Roundtable with some potentially Oscar nominated writers of 2011.
Oh, and if you were wondering why everyone laughed so much at Aaron Sorkin saying that he loved the Writer's Guild and thought the union was great, it's because he pretty much savaged the union while the last year's Roundtable and did so while sitting next to the head of WGA, John Wells. Here's the clip.
And I thought LeBron James's Decision was terrible. In a move that will shake the already shaky foundations of the NBA, David Stern buckled to the pressure of owners who clearly weren't thinking straight (or, at the very least, about basketball) and nixed the trade to send Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Lakers. It's a move that makes little to no sense to me and that could affect the NBA for years to come (and, oddly enough, it also might work in the Lakers' favor.)
To start off, it should be explained that the NBA and the owners own the New Orleans Hornets and, like with any ownership group, it's their prerogative to shoot down any deals that they don't like. The problem here is that the NBA had pretty much stated that they would let Dell Demps, the GM of the Hornets, work without interference. But when Demps chose the deal to send Chris Paul to the Lakers, all hell broke loose.
Despite later spin that the deal was turned down for "basketball reasons" (a comment that quickly turned into a Twitter meme), it's pretty much clear that one of the main reasons that the owners were upset is because this kind of move, a small market team being forced to trade their star to a big market team, that they didn't want to happen anymore. This is why there was a lockout.
The problem with that thinking is a) it ignores the fact that the compromises made during the collective bargaining negotiations left a system in place in which these kinds of trades would and always will still be made (honestly, I'm not sure there's a system that could really prevent this from happening in the NBA) and b) by turning down the deal, they've essentially poisoned Chris Paul as a trade asset, made it nearly impossible for New Orleans to trade him, and now instead of getting maybe fifty cents on the dollar for Chris Paul, they could very well lose him via free agency and get nothing in return at all.
In a move that defies all logic, one of the owners who was opposed to the deal and called it "a travesty" was Dan Gilbert, the owners of the Cavs who just a year ago watched his franchise player LeBron James waltz off to Miami, leaving him with nothing but a couple of late first round draft picks in return. Now THAT is a travesty. The Chris Paul deal wasn't great but at least it didn't leave the team in the utter shambles that the Cleveland Cavaliers find themselves in right now.
But still, Gilbert ignored what happened to him, fought the trade, and got his way. I guess misery really does love company.
The next thing that the few defenders of the NBA owners point out is that the trade was done in the name of Competitive Balance, a rallying cry that the owners adopted during the lockout as they hoped it would get the masses on their side. But in terms of the competitive balance of the league the trade might have actually weakened the LA Lakers and strengthened the Houston Rockets and left the Western Conference even more wide open than it was last season.
Los Angeles broke a cardinal rule of basketball and traded big for small, a decision that could have been especially damaging because their greatest advantage over other teams was their size and low post scoring (teams match up much better with CP3 and Kobe than they did with Kobe and two bigs in the paint) and they also would have been relying heavily on Andrew Bynum, a petulant young big who can't seem to ever make it through a season without getting hurt. And with the new compact schedule and more games in less night, the odds of Bynum wearing down was greater than ever. (And for that matter, so were the odds of the schedule getting to the aging Kobe and the somewhat beat-up CP3.)
So when looking at it practically, halting the trade prevented the Lakers from potentially committing subtraction by addition, prevented the Rockets from improving their team and putting themselves in a better position to make another big move (the trade would have opened 3 million more in cap space for them to go after a big name free agent center), and might have cost the Hornets their last chance to get any value out of Chris Paul rather than just watching him sign with a big market team next offseason.
But let's be real, none of this really matter because that's basketball talk and the only talk that matters is dollars and cents.
That leads us to the other reason being floated for the potential block of the trade and that is that the owners were looking at the Hornets, not as a basketball team, but as an commodity that they are trying to sell as quickly as possible. If they are going to move Chris Paul aka the only real asset that the Hornets have, they have to get something better than a bunch of good but not great players who nobody outside of loyal NBA fans has ever heard of.
But again, there are a couple of problems with this.
First off, approaching the Hornets this way essentially validates the actions of the worst owners in the NBA, especially Donald Sterling. For years, Sterling ran the Clippers to be profitable rather than to be successful. He kept his payroll low, shared a building with the Lakers to cut costs, and did whatever it took (which usually meant watching stars go and replacing them with cheaper players) to make a dime. How can you tell Donald Sterling that he shouldn't run his team like this when you treated the Hornets the same way. What's good for the gander, in this case, should also be good for the goose.
The second issue is that the reason that Demps accepted such a lopsided deal was because the owners and their GMs weren't offering anything better. It's their own damn fault that LA was able to land Chris Paul.
When the Chris Paul sweepstakes commenced, tost teams dropped out when they heard that Paul wouldn't sign an extension with a team and wanted to test free agency after the season. (And you can blame this partly on the new CBA which makes it far more advantageous fiscally for a player to hit free agency and resign than it does to extend their contract.) Still, there were a few suitors but as the rumors started to get sorted out, the truth came out that those suitors were all making low ball offers and that only one team, the Boston Celtics, was willing to get rid of a blue chip prospect (their All-Star PG Rajon Rondo, who by all accounts, Demps wasn't very fond of.) The Warriors refused to deal Stephon Curry. The Clippers, it was reported, not only wouldn't give up their young SG Eric Gordon but their offer was the laughable deal of Chris Kaman, Mo Williams, and Eric Bledsoe. In other words, one guy that was going to leave next year, one guy they might have cut with their amnesty provision, and a mid-first round pick from a year ago who was arguably their 6th best prospect. That is what was being offered Dell Demps. So Demps finally found a deal that got him pieces that he liked that would keep the Hornets competitive (if not all that great) and he went for it. And then the owners realized that the Lakers were getting Chris Paul and they lost their shit.
In short, what happened was: the owners shot down a deal that none of them were willing to offer because they claimed the offer should have been better. The offer that none of them were willing to actually make.
If they thought Chris Paul was worth the gamble and should have been able to fetch more, why didn't any of them tell their owners to offer more? Even the Celtics deal, which was widely regarded as the best offer, was not head and shoulders better than what the Lakers/Rockets offered. And if you, like many fans and GMs, were dissuaded by Rondo's lack of a jumpshot and questionable leadership abilities, then the offer Demps took was seemingly the only legit offer on the table.
But the owners didn't care. They didn't like Chris Paul forcing his way out of town and to the team he wanted. Stern probably hated that as much as he hated being said to having a "plantation owner" even though the former kind of supported the latter. They took a stand and now the NBA doesn't seem to really stand for anything. Chris Paul has hired a lawyer and is trying to fight the decision but I doubt he'll win. I can't see the NBA approving any other trade of Paul because it would have to be MUCH better than the Rockets offer for the league to pass the smell test and nobody in the league seems willing to pay that for what might be a one year rental of CP3. I'd really hate to think that Danny Ainge is still thinking about going after Chris Paul when his head will be in LA all year. I can just see Chris in Boston, getting out of his car to head to practice and being met by the brisk winter New England wind and thinking, "I bet it's t-shirt weather in LA right now." and moping to the locker room. The Hornets are now stuck with a guy who clearly doesn't want to be there and who they could lose for nothing. And good luck trying to sign anyone to play in New Orleans right now. I can't see many players opting to go to New Orleans, an organization led by an emasculated GM, an unhappy star, and an ownership group that only cares about the fiscal value of the franchise and who all obviously and admittedly have another franchise's best interests at heart with whatever they do.
After the lockout, people just wanted to be excited about basketball again. And even if the Chris Paul trade wasn't even, at least people were talking about hoops and how CP3 and Kobe would co-exist and whether the Lakers could win by relying on Bynum and how the Rockets could make another move to add to to their new core of Pau and Lowry and could they make a run in the playoffs, etc..
I was walking home conjuring up trades that might happen when the other sneaker dropped after this deal. And when I got home, I was met with more politics. The economics was continuing to infect the league that I so loved and it was making an already compromised season seem like a complete joke. (And god help us if the Lakers end up with Dwight Howard for Gasol and Bynum; people will go crazy about how the NBA actually helped Los Angeles land an even better player.)
David Stern is hinting at retirement now and he probably should go through with it. His reign had been one of the best sports in general had seen but his last decade or so has been riddled with mistakes, controversies, two labor stoppages, and greed. The NBA was gaining momentum after last season but now they've basically shot themselves in the foot twice and made it so even the die hard fans are questioning whether they should really stay invested in a league that is run like an annoying fantasy football league.
I'm sure once the games start, I'll get over this but it'll still be in the back of my mind. Fans can forgive but I doubt they'll forget. Although to be honest, I doubt most people will care enough to do either. With each new CBA, the owners think they're aiming at competitive balance but what they're really doing is creating a system in which fans have to follow every penny their team spends to know what they can hope to add in the offseason. Trades are more and more about cap space and luxury taxes and less about points, rebounds, and assists. The NBA should be primed for the second step of its comeback but instead it's finding its leader in what my be a place of no return.
In one move, David Stern and the owners turned everyone's excitement about the NBA's return and transformed it into confusion, disappointment, disillusionment, and, most damning of all, disinterest. (And worst of all, if this really does turn off the fans and teams struggle to make money, I'm sure Stern and the owners will blame it on the players.)
The NBA: Where a sad state of affairs happens. Again and again.
Again, chose sleep over the exercise bike so I haven't watched this year but I have seen one clip in which Steve McQueen, director of "Shame" and "Hunger", goes off about how shameful it is that so few blacks get work in Hollywood. And if to prove his point, when the question as to why there is such a disparity in terms of employment is turned to them, the rest of the panel, all white men, sit silent and awkward, as if they are complicit in the problem. It's really one of the more awkward moments I've seen in some time and, to me, hilarious because a few of these directors (Alexander Payne, especially) come off as know-it-alls when it come to the craft and making movies but then when pressed with an actual real world issue and legitimate problem, they clam up like school kids who didn't do their homework. The Roundtables have had some great moments and I think this one ranks right up there as one of the most memorable.
So it's that time again, where I hop back onto basketball message boards, waste time arguing over things that none of us really know or could ever affect, and spend nights playing around with the ESPN Trade Machine (sorry RealGM, you did it first but ESPN does it better) and figuring out deals that both teams would be happy about. And because nobody wants to think about the same old rumors, here are the first two crazy trades that I'm going to put forth to make this mad dash of a season even more interesting.
The Orlando Magic get the ball rolling by dealing Jameer Nelson and Ryan Anderson to Atlanta for Josh Smith. The Hawks get a legit starting point guard and a nice perimeter big man who should click nicely with Al Horford. Also, the move clears some money off of the cap now and in the future, which Atlanta needs to do because of Joe Johnson's monster deal. As for the Magic, they add an exciting young defensive player who won't replace Dwight Howard but could at least make it so Orlando does go from stalwarts to sieves on the defensive end. Also, he should be great on the other end of Chris Paul alley-oops.
Chris Paul?
In a blockbuster deal that changes the face of the NBA and that I'm sure fans of these teams will probably bitch about even though they all get better (or, in the Hornets' case, make the best out of a bad situation), we have a monster deal of:
Orlando gets: Chris Paul, Tyson Chandler, and Trevor Ariza
LA Lakers get: Dwight Howard and Gilbert Arenas
Dallas gets: Andrew Bynum
Oklahoma City gets: Pau Gasol, Rudy Fernandez and the Mavericks' 2012 first round pick
New Orleans gets: James Harden, Serge Ibaka, Brandon Bass, Rodrigue Beaubois, Nazr Mohammed's expiring contract, Nate Robinson, and Orlando's 2012 first round pick
Now the deal isn't perfect and I'm sure fans of each team will complain (and I admittedly don't value Bynum as highly as others and think that there could be a way for the deal to work with OK City holding onto Ibaka) but these deals help every team turn into legit contenders (or have a very nice launch to rebuilding for the Hornets.) Bynum helps Dallas replace Chandler, who they were probably going to lose. Gasol gives the Thunder the low post scoring threat that I believe they need to truly contend. Howard gives the Lakers the dominant force who'll become the face of the franchise and allow Kobe transition to the final act of his career. Orlando gets a very nice return but also has to deal with the threat of CP3 leaving. If they can re-sign Jason Richardson, a CP3, Richardson, Ariza, Smith, Chandler lineup (with Redick on the bench ready to fire away) could be one of the more exciting units in the league.
The trade leaves the Clippers out in the cold, the Celtics trying to convince Rondo that he's wanted, and the usual trade suspects (Granger, Iggy, Monta, etc) stuck on their squads. I'll try to figure out something with them later this week.
(And remember, I had to shut down the comments on this due to spam screwing things up but you can always respond/comment on Facebook or Twitter.)
I haven't watched any of this besides the little clips that THR posted earlier (which had some interesting moments) because I thought I'd say it to watch when I work out and then didn't work out. So hopefully I'll watch it tonight but until then, enjoy the roundtable with the likely nominated actresses of 2011.
Here's the full discussion with some of the leading contenders for acting nominations this year: George Clooney, Christopher Plummer, Gary Oldman, Christoph Waltz, Albert Brooks and Nick Nolte. It's a much different feel from last year's as it's a much older group and have more perspective on their jobs and careers and don't have the youthful exuberance of last year's crew but it's still an interesting listen. I have only heard about half of it but the best quote so far was from Nick Nolte on 48 Hours, "They kept saying the black kid isn't funny." Although he promised not to out which of Jeffrey Katzenberg's minions/cohorts actually said it. (I also have to confess that I always forget that Gary Oldman is British; the accent always surprises me.)
Foxy Shazam made a little Twitter video for their upcoming album. "The Church of Rock and Roll".
While I wasn't blown away with the little snippet at the end, I'm a huge fan of "I Like It", the first single from the album and am really hoping that this album helps the band blow up. On the other hand, the selfish part in me kind of hopes they don't blow up because they're a great small venue act and someone that I think everyone should probably check out. Just an amazing amount of energy and lead singer Eric Nally is always good for a few good stories and a couple of funny stunts. Here's the first single, which could be the 21st century ode to big butts ala "Fat Bottomed Girl" except with a little less glam and a lot more rock.
In other glam-ish news, The School of Seven Bells has a new album out. I thought their first album "Alpinisms" showed promise but they kind of took a step back with their second one and this one seems like they've settled comfortably into making songs that just kind of float around and never really deliver anything to hold on to. It's not bad music, just not anything that I would purchase or that I would find myself wanting to hear. They're the kind of band that you forget about completely until one of their songs pops up on shuffle and you remember that you own that album/song.
Here's "Half Asleep", one of the better songs from their debut album.
My typing has always been terrible. This typing test kind of proves it. I got 79 with four mistakes. How can you do?
Visit the Typing Test and try!
It's been awhile since there's been a Tryout that I've liked enough to consider buying their album but it seems like I've finally found one. At the very least, I've found a song that I can't get out of my head.
I think that's a great video and that song has been stuck in my head all weekend. Granted, I'm way behind on The Maccabees since they debuted in 2007 and their last album made minor waves in 2009 but better late than never (and they have a new album coming out soon, featuring the first single "Pelican".
No, I'm not sure if these guys have what it takes to really breakthrough but I give them a puncher's chance. I'm sure there's a better comparison that this but the band kind of strikes me as what Arcade Fire would sound like had they come out in the late 80's/early 90's. Their album comes on at the beginning of next year (January 9th, to be exact) and it should be one to follow. Are these guys the next Phoenix or Arcade Fire or will they just settle into their indie, smaller but loyal fan base.
While my love for Blalock's Indie Rock Playlist has dimmed over the months, I have to say that it is still a great way to find some new indie music. Even better, they now have made their collection of 100+ news songs each month embeddable so you now can find the entire playlist over to the left on the SoulHonky.com main page. So if you ever want to hear some new indie music or just peruse what's out there amongst the unsigned, unwashed masses, give a listen. Be warned, it is very "indie" in the hipster sense of the term and not so much a wide range of different genres of music. Still, there's usually one or two bands worth a listen each month and it's helped me find some of my recent faves.
The Muppets was a bit too long, a little too meta, but it's The Muppets so how can you not like it? The movie wasn't Great but it was very good and had a number of laugh out loud moments so I definitely recommend it. Interestingly, the movie was put in perfect perspective by what came before it. The previews before the film were pretty terrible (save for Tintin) and made me appreciate a good family movie. However, the movie was preceded by a Toy Story short which was arguably the best part of the whole evening. The thing that stuck out to me about the short was that it was better at making jokes that both kids and adults would laugh at. Too many of the meta jokes in The Muppets were just straight in-jokes or comments that did nothing but break the fourth wall whereas the jokes in the Toy Story short had elements for all ages; kids and adults would both dance albeit for completely different reasons.
But I don't want to sound too negative. Again, The Muppets is a quality family film and one of the better flicks of the year - check it out.
