In seeing the firing of Avery Johnson from the Brooklyn Derons(Nets) today, I can't help but think this to be a mistake. I believe this to have happened because the Nets are currently 14-14 which is considered a huge disappointment given the ludicrous expectations this team had coming into the season. I predicted this team to make the playoffs but I've never expected them to be a top 4 seed as so many people did. I believed they would get in and be a 7th or 8th seed and would be handled pretty easily by Miami or whomever winds up with the 2 seed in the East. Quite frankly, if the Nets were in the Western Conference, they wouldn't sniff the playoffs this year but with the East being rather mundane at best and dreadful at worst, save for Miami, a .500 record pretty much guarantees a team a spot in the playoffs which is pretty much where I see the Nets. I see them winning 45-48 games maximum and 37-40 games minimum with 41-44 being the most likely win total.
Avery is a decent coach in my estimation. He's not a great coach, but he's a pretty decent one. This is the impetus for my ranking today. I've tried to decide who I thought were great coaches, good coaches, average coaches, below average coaches and coaches that would be better off finding a new line of work. So here are my rankings for all 30 Association teams. For the record, Avery Johnson will be included since as of this writing, a replacement hasn't been named.
GREAT Coaches:
There are only 4 can I really think of at this moment and they are head and shoulders above the rest in my opinion. These are the guys that I feel can win regularly, can take good talent and make them great and can take mediocre talents and make them actually look better than they really are. The truly great coaches in this league are in order:
Gregg Popovich - San Antonio Spurs
Tom Thibodeau - Chicago Bulls
Scott Brooks - Oklahoma City Thunder
Doc Rivers - Boston Celtics
GOOD Coaches:
There are quite a few coaches that I consider to be good coaches. These are guys that may not quite be able to take a mediocre talent and make him good, but they're coaches who can take an average team and overachieve with them on a consistent basis. These are also coaches than can take a really good team and can be that final piece of the puzzle towards building a championship contender. They are as follows in no particular order this time:
Doug Collins - Philadelphia 76ers
Frank Vogel - Indiana Pacers
Lionel Hollins - Memphis Grizzlies
George Karl - Denver Nuggets
Mike Woodson - New York Knicks
Rick Adelman- Minnesota Timberwolves
AVERAGE Coaches:
This group is the largest category of current NBA coaches. They are the coaches that I think can consistently be the 4th-6th seeds in their respective conferences. They can put up a .500 or even a winning season pretty consistently but the teams they coach will likely never be considered legitimate championship contenders for one reason or another. The caveat here is that if given a really good team, these coaches are capable of getting a team deep into the playoffs but there have to be a lot of pieces falling correctly into place for this to happen. They are in no particular order:
Larry Drew - Atlanta Hawks
Erik Spoelstra - Miami Heat*
Scott Skiles - Milwaukee Bucks
Kevin McHale - Houston Rockets
Avery Johnson - Brooklyn Nets
Byron Scott - Cleveland Cavaliers
Rick Carlisle - Dallas Mavericks
Mark Jackson - Golden State Warriors
Jacque Vaughn - Orlando Magic (need to see a lot more before he can accurately be judged)
Tyrone Corbin - Utah Jazz
Terry Stotts: Portland Trail Blazers
*Erik has been to the Finals 2 times in just 4 years of coaching, but his team is so loaded with talent that just about anyone who knows anything about basketball could win with the team. It's not meant to be a knock at Erik or an indictment, it's just my opinion on how good the Miami Heat actually are.
BELOW AVERAGE coaches:
These are the guys who can win just enough to keep their jobs on a yearly basis. Even with a really good team, the teams they coach will never be contenders and if any of these teams get into the playoffs, they'll sneak in with an 8 seed and then be bounced out within 5 games in the 1st round. There are more coaches here than I would honestly prefer to see based on my observation but they are in no order:
Lawrence Frank: Detroit Pistons
Mike Dunlap: Charlotte Bobcats (in all fairness, Phil Jackson couldn't win with this team)
Alvin Gentry: Phoenix Suns
Keith Smart: Sacramento Kings
Monty Williams: New Orleans Hornets
Vinny Del Negro: Los Angeles Clippers**
BAD Coaches:
These are the guys mentioned previously that would be better off finding another line of work. Thankfully this list is quite short:
Mike D'Antoni: Los Angeles Lakers***
Dwane Casey: Toronto Raptors
Randy Wittman: Washington Wizards
**Vinny Del Negro is currently coaching the team with the best record in the NBA, the LA Clippers. However, I rate him among the worst coaches in the NBA. I think Vinny Del Negro is the weakest link on the Clippers team. If the Clippers had any PG in the league not named Chris Paul, the Clippers would be a .500 team at best and yes that comment does include such names as Derrick Rose and Deron Williams. Chris Paul is such a great floor general that Vinny doesn't have to do a heck of a lot of actual coaching and it does appear that Vinny has decided to step back and let Paul run the team while he's on the floor so he should be given some credit for that. However, one good decision does not a great coach make. The Clippers will be a top 4 seed this year but mainly due to Vinny Del Negro's relative lack of coaching ability, I feel the Clippers can't be considered legitimate championship contenders.
***Mike D'Antoni led the Phoenix Suns to the Western Finals when he had Steve Nash as his PG. This ties also in with what I said about Del Negro in that D'Antoni had one of the smartest floor generals in the game and thus didn't have to do a lot of coaching. Mike D'Antoni proved in New York how far in over his head he actually is without someone to lead the team for him and if he didn't have the star power in Los Angeles that he does, he would've already been fired. I still think he'll be fired at latest by June 2013. The man does no defensive coaching whatsoever and his up-tempo style offense simply isn't going to work with a team as old and as large as the Lakers are. It also doesn't help that you have a confirmed ball-hog in Kobe Bryant who likes to try to do everything and D'Antoni's system can't begin to work when the PG isn't controlling the offense. This is an indictment on Lakers ownership as well as D'Antoni because of his adamant refusal to adapt his coaching style to his team instead choosing to force his team to try to adapt to his style. At the start of the season, I said the Lakers were likely the 2nd best team in the Western Conference but now, if the Lakers make the playoffs this year, it will be a miracle.
So ends my take on all 30 NBA coaches.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
November 15, 1992. One of the most significant days in Nascar history
Today is the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Hooters 500 from Atlanta Motor Speedway. What is the significance of this you ask? It was on this day in 1992 that several things that were relevant to the history of Nascar all occurred.
First of which, it was the day Nascar's king left his throne as Richard Petty finished his final race as a driver. The conclusion of a 35 year career in Nascar's top series. This for me was saying goodbye to an old friend because Richard was my first "favorite" Nascar driver. I dare say that if you grew up a Nascar fan at any point from the late 60's to the early 90's, there isn't one person out there who at the very least didn't include Richard among their favorite drivers. He may not have been your top choice but if your driver couldn't win that day, then you wanted to see Richard win. Richard Petty was my favorite from the time I was old enough to really know what was going on(circa 1990) and was gradually replaced by Davey Allison who also factored into the significance of this day in 1992. Richard's final lap after the race ended was one of the best tributes to any driver that's ever been done and even today, I get a little teary eyed when I watch it.
Secondly, it was also the debut race of Jeff Gordon. Many people consider this race when the "torch was passed" from Richard Petty to Jeff Gordon and I disagree with that statement for the simple fact it completely negates what Dale Earnhardt would do for the next few years. I personally consider 1996 to be when the torch was passed to Gordon but it came from Earnhardt, not Petty. Gordon has gone on to be arguably the most successful driver in the post-Richard Petty era.
Thirdly, before the gimmicked system came in, it was the closest points race in Nascar history. At the start of the race, 6 drivers were mathematically capable of winning the championship. Davey Allison, Bill Elliott, Alan Kulwicki, Kyle Petty, Harry Gant, and Mark Martin. It was also significant in that Dale Earnhardt was not only out of the championship hunt, he wasn't even in the top 10. This was the 2nd of only 2 times Earnhardt wouldn't finish a season in the top 10 in points in his career as a full time driver.
In the end, Alan Kulwicki would go on to be the last owner/driver to win a championship in Nascar's top series(sorry folks, Tony Stewart's 2011 abortion doesn't count). He would win his championship by a mere 10 points. Regrettably, Alan would not get to properly defend his title as he would be killed a few months later in April 1993 after his plane crashed just outside of Bristol Tennessee. Davey Allison would arguably be robbed of the title after being caught up in a wreck by Ernie Irvan. In a case of irony, Irvan would later become the full time replacement in the Robert Yates #28 car after Davey's untimely passing a few months later in July 1993. Kyle Petty, Bill Elliott and Harry Gant would never again come so close to a championship.
Many fans consider this to be the official transition from the old guard to the new guard in Nascar. I'm not sure I fully agree with that. I think there have been many eras and transitions in Nascar history and I don't think this to really be one of them because I consider these transitions to be when becomes obvious that a driver who had previously been the top driver has been replaced as the top driver. Earnhardt was still the top driver at the time and he would win the next 2 championships before, in my opinion, the official transition took place in 1996. I might make a list sometime of when I consider these transitions to have taken place. A few I can think of would be:
1976: Cale Yarborough officially overtakes Richard Petty
1981: Darrell Waltrip officially overtakes Cale Yarborough
1986: Dale Earnhardt officially overtakes Darrell Waltrip
1996: Jeff Gordon officially overtakes Dale Earnhardt
2006: Jimmie Johnson officially* overtakes Jeff Gordon
For the record, yes, the asterisk is there on purpose. In regards to different "eras" of Nascar, those are much more easily defined. Honestly, in reminiscing about this race and its significance, I have to say it was lost on me at the time. All I thought about was Richard's retirement and Davey Allison not winning the title. It's only as I've gotten older that I've realized where this race ranks in the history of Nascar. I don't believe we would see another race with this level of importance until the 2001 Daytona 500 and that race was important for all the wrong reasons.
First of which, it was the day Nascar's king left his throne as Richard Petty finished his final race as a driver. The conclusion of a 35 year career in Nascar's top series. This for me was saying goodbye to an old friend because Richard was my first "favorite" Nascar driver. I dare say that if you grew up a Nascar fan at any point from the late 60's to the early 90's, there isn't one person out there who at the very least didn't include Richard among their favorite drivers. He may not have been your top choice but if your driver couldn't win that day, then you wanted to see Richard win. Richard Petty was my favorite from the time I was old enough to really know what was going on(circa 1990) and was gradually replaced by Davey Allison who also factored into the significance of this day in 1992. Richard's final lap after the race ended was one of the best tributes to any driver that's ever been done and even today, I get a little teary eyed when I watch it.
Secondly, it was also the debut race of Jeff Gordon. Many people consider this race when the "torch was passed" from Richard Petty to Jeff Gordon and I disagree with that statement for the simple fact it completely negates what Dale Earnhardt would do for the next few years. I personally consider 1996 to be when the torch was passed to Gordon but it came from Earnhardt, not Petty. Gordon has gone on to be arguably the most successful driver in the post-Richard Petty era.
Thirdly, before the gimmicked system came in, it was the closest points race in Nascar history. At the start of the race, 6 drivers were mathematically capable of winning the championship. Davey Allison, Bill Elliott, Alan Kulwicki, Kyle Petty, Harry Gant, and Mark Martin. It was also significant in that Dale Earnhardt was not only out of the championship hunt, he wasn't even in the top 10. This was the 2nd of only 2 times Earnhardt wouldn't finish a season in the top 10 in points in his career as a full time driver.
In the end, Alan Kulwicki would go on to be the last owner/driver to win a championship in Nascar's top series(sorry folks, Tony Stewart's 2011 abortion doesn't count). He would win his championship by a mere 10 points. Regrettably, Alan would not get to properly defend his title as he would be killed a few months later in April 1993 after his plane crashed just outside of Bristol Tennessee. Davey Allison would arguably be robbed of the title after being caught up in a wreck by Ernie Irvan. In a case of irony, Irvan would later become the full time replacement in the Robert Yates #28 car after Davey's untimely passing a few months later in July 1993. Kyle Petty, Bill Elliott and Harry Gant would never again come so close to a championship.
Many fans consider this to be the official transition from the old guard to the new guard in Nascar. I'm not sure I fully agree with that. I think there have been many eras and transitions in Nascar history and I don't think this to really be one of them because I consider these transitions to be when becomes obvious that a driver who had previously been the top driver has been replaced as the top driver. Earnhardt was still the top driver at the time and he would win the next 2 championships before, in my opinion, the official transition took place in 1996. I might make a list sometime of when I consider these transitions to have taken place. A few I can think of would be:
1976: Cale Yarborough officially overtakes Richard Petty
1981: Darrell Waltrip officially overtakes Cale Yarborough
1986: Dale Earnhardt officially overtakes Darrell Waltrip
1996: Jeff Gordon officially overtakes Dale Earnhardt
2006: Jimmie Johnson officially* overtakes Jeff Gordon
For the record, yes, the asterisk is there on purpose. In regards to different "eras" of Nascar, those are much more easily defined. Honestly, in reminiscing about this race and its significance, I have to say it was lost on me at the time. All I thought about was Richard's retirement and Davey Allison not winning the title. It's only as I've gotten older that I've realized where this race ranks in the history of Nascar. I don't believe we would see another race with this level of importance until the 2001 Daytona 500 and that race was important for all the wrong reasons.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
In honor of new Star Wars movies being produced, I present 130 movies better than Star Wars
I'm depressed by the announcement of more Star Wars movies to be produced. To me, this franchise is the NFL of cinema. An overhyped, overrated, somewhat pointless movie series that, while moderately entertaining, are in NO WAY worthy of the hype and praise that they receive. To many people, the original trilogy is referred to as the "holy trilogy" which I think is just asinine in every sense of the word. Applying such terminology to any trilogy of movies is insane by itself but applying it to such films as these is even more insane.
All 6 films are little more than eye candy and regardless of what the Star Wars fan base might think, if you take the special effects out of them, they would have absolutely no relevance today nor would they be anything remotely near as popular as they are. I realize my opinions are in the minority in relation to these films and granted I didn't see my first Star Wars film until 2005 so I didn't grow up watching these films but at the same time, like the Indiana Jones, Back To The Future and Jurassic Park films, I have really, really tried to love these films and the fact is, I just can't. There is so much better that cinema has to offer than Star Wars.
With these thoughts in mind, I present to you the first 130 movies that I can think of that are better than anything that has the Star Wars name on it. These are in no particular order and in fact are a bit random in their order. They're just ones I've come up with off the top of my head. If I list one twice, my apologies but let me know and I'm sure I'll easily be able to replace it with another one.
130 Films Better Than Star Wars:
All 6 films are little more than eye candy and regardless of what the Star Wars fan base might think, if you take the special effects out of them, they would have absolutely no relevance today nor would they be anything remotely near as popular as they are. I realize my opinions are in the minority in relation to these films and granted I didn't see my first Star Wars film until 2005 so I didn't grow up watching these films but at the same time, like the Indiana Jones, Back To The Future and Jurassic Park films, I have really, really tried to love these films and the fact is, I just can't. There is so much better that cinema has to offer than Star Wars.
With these thoughts in mind, I present to you the first 130 movies that I can think of that are better than anything that has the Star Wars name on it. These are in no particular order and in fact are a bit random in their order. They're just ones I've come up with off the top of my head. If I list one twice, my apologies but let me know and I'm sure I'll easily be able to replace it with another one.
130 Films Better Than Star Wars:
The Good The Bad and The Ugly
Seven Samurai
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
The Dark Knight
My Neighbor Totoro
Fistful of Dollars
For a Few Dollars More
Ran
Yojimbo
Rashomon
Throne Of Blood
Sanjuro
Kagemusha
The Hidden Fortress
The Bad Sleep Well
High and Low
Drunken Angel
The Men Who Tread On The Tiger's Tail
The Lower Depths
Red Beard
The Terminator
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Terminator Salvation
First Blood
Rambo
Saw
The Lion King
Wall-E
Cars
Lawrence Of Arabia
The Crow
Saving Private Ryan
The Transformers: The Movie(1986)
The Bridge on the River Kwai
The Silence of the Lambs
Red Dragon
Taken
Sin City
Shrek
Shrek 2
Halloween(1978)
Texas Chainsaw Massacre(1972)
Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie
Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring
Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers
Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King
The Ten Commandments
Gladiator
Schindler's List
The Matrix
The Matrix Reloaded
The Matrix Revolutions
American History X
Alien
Aliens
Dirty Harry
Planet Of The Apes(1968)
The Naked Gun
Gettysburg
Predator
Crank
The Naked Gun
Casino Royale
300
Con Air
No Country For Old Men
Friday the 13th Part 6: Jason Lives
Red Cliff
The Exorcist
Unforgiven(1992)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek III: The Search For Spock
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek: First Contact
Star Trek (2009)
Last Action Hero
The Passion of the Christ
Batman Begins
The Blues Brothers
Platoon
The Siege of Firebase Gloria
North by Northwest
Gojira
Ben Hur
Once Upon a Time in the West
Se7en
Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Toy Story 3
The Maltese Falcon
King Kong(1933)
Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Fight Club
12 Angry Men
Casablanca
Doctor Zhivago
The Dark Knight Rises
2001: A Space Odyssey
Avatar
Apocalypse Now
Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb
The Shawshank Redemption
High Noon
Fritz Lang's M
Metropolis
Titanic
The Godfather
The Godfather Part 2
The Godfather Part 3
Inception
Der Untergang(Downfall)
The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)
Once Upon A Time In America
The Last Temptation Of Christ
Stagecoach
Charade
Touch Of Evil
Double Indemnity
Psycho
Ponyo
The Secret World Of Arietty
Castle In The Sky
The French Connection
To Catch A Thief
The Avengers(2012)
Duck, You Sucker
The Incredibles
Princess Mononoke
Howl's Moving Castle
Blade Runner
Update 11/2: I noticed that I had Titanic listed twice. This has been fixed.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
2012-13 NBA Playoff Predictions
In the words of Paul Ellering, I HAVE RETURNED! I've gotten a little break in the madness that is my semester at RCC so I'll return to the blog by continuing my yearly tradition of predicting the teams that will make the NBA playoffs for the coming season.
I will hopefully have time to revisit this in April to make predictions for the Conference Finals and NBA Finals(Spring 2013 is looking like an even bigger madhouse in terms of classes) but for now, here are my predictions for the teams that will get in. Other than the number 1 seed, these are in no particular order. For the record, I correctly predicted all 16 playoff teams last year and predicted the correct matchup for the NBA Finals, even though my outcome was wrong. I had OKC over Miami in 7 games.
Eastern Conference:
Top Seed: Miami Heat
Indiana Pacers, Atlanta Hawks, Boston Celtics, New York Knicks, Philadelphia 76ers, Brooklyn Nets, Chicago Bulls.
Western Conference:
Top Seed: Oklahoma City Thunder
Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Clippers, San Antonio Spurs, Memphis Grizzlies, Minnesota Timberwolves, Denver Nuggets, New Orleans Hornets.
Of the teams I have listed, without making any official predictions yet, I believe this year is Miami's championship to lose. In the East, they are head, shoulders and chest above every other team in that conference. The only teams I think in the NBA that might give them a run are the Lakers and Thunder and I don't give either of them a very good shot at dethroning Miami. Lots can change due to injuries, team chemistry issues(particularly in the case of the Lakers) and a myriad of other things but all things equal, I don't believe anyone can touch Miami this year.
I will hopefully have time to revisit this in April to make predictions for the Conference Finals and NBA Finals(Spring 2013 is looking like an even bigger madhouse in terms of classes) but for now, here are my predictions for the teams that will get in. Other than the number 1 seed, these are in no particular order. For the record, I correctly predicted all 16 playoff teams last year and predicted the correct matchup for the NBA Finals, even though my outcome was wrong. I had OKC over Miami in 7 games.
Eastern Conference:
Top Seed: Miami Heat
Indiana Pacers, Atlanta Hawks, Boston Celtics, New York Knicks, Philadelphia 76ers, Brooklyn Nets, Chicago Bulls.
Western Conference:
Top Seed: Oklahoma City Thunder
Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Clippers, San Antonio Spurs, Memphis Grizzlies, Minnesota Timberwolves, Denver Nuggets, New Orleans Hornets.
Of the teams I have listed, without making any official predictions yet, I believe this year is Miami's championship to lose. In the East, they are head, shoulders and chest above every other team in that conference. The only teams I think in the NBA that might give them a run are the Lakers and Thunder and I don't give either of them a very good shot at dethroning Miami. Lots can change due to injuries, team chemistry issues(particularly in the case of the Lakers) and a myriad of other things but all things equal, I don't believe anyone can touch Miami this year.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Top 10 Nascar drivers based on a variety of factors
Make no mistake, Nascar died to me in 2004 when the Chase became the method for deciding a "champion" in Nascar. I use "champion" in quotations because due to the majority of these titles (5 of 8) being awarded to people who didn't win them outright over a season. But this isn't a rant against Nascar. Most people reading this know my positions and if you don't, I'll explain them another time.
This list is based on drivers that I have seen which basically means there may well be guys from the 40's and 50's who don't make this list. I'm not discounting people like Jim Roper, Red Byron, Cotton Owens, etc., I've just never seen them before but I am familiar with many of their accomplishments. My list concerns accomplishments, legitimate driving ability (judgement based) as well as factors such as what the competition was like for them. So, the top 10 drivers, in my opinion, in Nascar history are as follows:
10. Alan Kulwicki - The last owner/driver to win a championship. Sorry, that abomination from 2011 doesn't count because it wasn't legitimate and Tony Stewart is only a 51% owner of his team and has significant financial backing whereas Alan Kulwicki was 100% owner of his team and funded the entire team out of his own pocket. What this man did on the racetrack with very little money and average equipment will likely not be equalled again in the future because the scope of Nascar has changed so much since he won his title in 1992. Alan had many chances to drive for the top teams. Junior Johnson, who fielded one of the top teams in the sport in the 70's, 80's and early 90's, tried to sign Alan no less than two times and Alan turned him down both times because of his desire to do things "his way." Perhaps it was fitting that the man he defeated by a mere 10 points was driving a car owned by none other than Junior Johnson. Alan Kulwicki unfortunately did not get a chance to properly defend his championship as he was killed on April 1, 1993 in a private plane crash just outside Bristol Tennessee.
9. Joe Weatherly - The "clown prince of Nascar." Little Joe has an accomplishment that no other Nascar champion that I'm aware of could boast and that is he won championships driving for many teams in the same year. In Weatherly's days of the late 50's and early 60's, most teams didn't run full seasons because they didn't have the financial backing from the automakers. Weatherly won his two championships driving for an average of 10 teams a year. Many of these teams had 2nd and 3rd rate equipment but Joe managed to take the lesser equipment, run up front on skills and determination and was rewarded with the 1962 and 1963 championships. Like Alan Kulwicki, Joe Weatherly didn't get a chance to properly defend his 1963 championship. He was killed instantly during a race at Riverside California on January 19, 1964. Joe died when his car came into turn 6 which was a very hard right hand turn and slammed the wall flush on the driver's side. This was before window nets had been mandated by Nascar and Joe died on impact due to his head going out the window and slamming into the wall.
8. Junior Johnson - Many people consider Junior Johnson to be the greatest driver of all time. I can't necessarily agree with that but I can say he belongs here. His career spanned 313 races and he won 50 times. There aren't many drivers with such a high winning percentage. There really isn't much I can say because I've not seen much video of him during his driving career but in looking at his accomplishments, he's worthy of making this list but he's not worthy of being called the greatest ever.
7. Richard Petty - Sure to cause controversy among lifelong Petty fans due to such a relatively low ranking. There is no denying his accomplishments. 200 wins, 7 championships, 7 Daytona 500 wins, 27 wins in a single season, 10 wins in a row. So why is the King so low here? By his own admission, Richard won most of his races during a time when several things were happening. First, Petty Enterprises was by far the best funded and backed team in Nascar in the late 50's and 60's. Richard has admitted many times that he wouldn't have won as many races as he did if he hadn't had such an advantage. Bear in mind that in a race with 40 cars at this time, maybe 10 of them had legitimate backing from the automakers. Secondly, this was during a time when there were over 45 races a year and when many races were very short races i.e. 100 miles, 250 laps on a half-mile track, etc. By the 70's, there were less than 35 races a year, many teams had full support from the automakers and every race was at least 250 miles long. When these things happened, Richard's wins dropped off. Taking these into account, I just can't in good conscience rank him above the names to come on this list although he was my first "favorite" driver growing up from the ages of 3-7.
6. Darrell Waltrip - Jaws, as he was known in his prime, raced his way to 84 wins and 3 championships. His 1985 championship win ranks among what I consider to be one of the best examples of Nascar's old points system done correctly. Bill Elliott had won 11 races that year to Waltrip's 3 but Waltrip had a much more consistent season with more top 5's, more top 10's and less DNF's than Elliott and thus won the title. This is the way a Nascar champion should be crowned and Darrell Waltrip in 1985 proved why such a system works. His feud in the mid 80's with Dale Earnhardt was one of the best feuds of that time period.
5. Lee Petty - Winner of the first Daytona 500 in 1959, Lee Petty began the Petty dynasty that for all intents and purposes ended in 1979 with Richard's last championship. I personally consider Lee to have been the most talented of the Petty's because, while he did have a similar advantage as I mentioned for Richard earlier, Lee was the one who built the team and established it. I'm honestly not convinced Richard on his own could've done that in the manner that Lee did in the late 1940's. I also met Lee in the early 90's at Monroeton Golf Club but at the time, I didn't realize who he was. My dad played golf with him and I rode with both of them but as I said, I didn't learn until later who he was. After his forced retirement following a crash in 1961, Lee Petty essentially shunned anything related to the spotlight and tried to draw as little attention to himself as possible. He was a humble man but I wish he'd have told me who he was when I was there. Lee died on April 5, 2000 at the age of 86. Less than 6 weeks after Lee's death, his great-grandson Adam Petty was killed in a practice crash at New Hampshire. I mentioned that to me, the Petty dynasty ended in 1979 and for the record, most historians don't agree with that. Most believe that it officially ended with Adam's death as he was intended to be the Petty that would lead Petty Enterprises into the 21st century.
4. Cale Yarborough - The only driver to legitimately win 3 consecutive Cup championships in 1976, 77, and 78. Cale Yarborough racked up 83 wins, and among them were 4 Daytona 500s. This was a man who won nearly everything the sport had to offer. The only crown jewel he never picked up was a win at the Coca-Cola 600. Cale was a man who was gonna drive the car until the wheels fell off and more often than not, his efforts were well rewarded. He, along with our next driver, played a very important role in what was arguably the most important race in Nascar history, the 1979 Daytona 500. For the record, I personally believe that if he and Donnie Allison hadn't crashed, Cale would've won the race. He was already under him before Donnie forced him to the wet grass which caused Cale to slide up into Donnie and eventually caused them both to crash.
3. Bobby Allison - The leader of Nascar's Alabama Gang. Depending on who you ask, Bobby racked up either 83, 84, or 85 wins. You'll have to read Wikipedia to learn why because it's a rather complicated mess. He was only a champion 1 time, in 1983, but he racked up wins in all 4 of the sport's crown jewel races including 3 Daytona 500's. One of my favorite all time moments in Nascar was the 1-2 father-son finish in 1988 between Bobby and Davey Allison. Same as I mentioned with Cale, in the footage I've seen of Bobby racing, he certainly ranks in the top 2 or 3 for most determined racers in Nascar history. For an example of this, go and look up the 1982 Daytona 500 "trick bumper incident." Depending on what you believe, this was either a lucky accident or it was a man who would literally do anything to win. As I mentioned in Cale's post, Bobby was also involved in the 1979 Daytona 500 but as a secondary character. After Donnie and Cale's crash, Bobby went to the backstretch to pick up Donnie and give him a ride to the pits. A shouting match ensued and Cale and Bobby ended up throwing punches(or as Bobby Allison tells it, Cale threw his nose into Bobby's fist several times). Combined with the outcome of the race itself, these 2 events propelled Nascar into the national spotlight and signaled the beginning of Nascar's golden age. Bobby's career was unfortunately cut short in June 1988 after being t-boned in the driver's side. Bobby survived but suffered severe head and brain injuries and to this day, he still has amnesia problems. Bobby has stated many times that he has no memory of his and Davey's 1-2 finish at Daytona. He only knows what he's been told.
2. David Pearson - The Silver Fox. David Pearson is the only man aside from Richard Petty to win more than 100 races. He was a 3 time champion and quite honestly, he could've been a champion more times over had he chosen to run more full seasons than he did. The Silver Fox's nickname was well-earned because this was a man who could beat you with his mind just as easily as he could his car and his skill. To me, he may have been the most crafty driver that's ever been. I've rarely seen drivers who were so focused and determined yet were calm and collected at the same time. You would literally get the impression that David had ice water flowing through his veins. He won all the crown jewels including the 1976 Daytona 500 which many people state was the best finish to the Daytona 500 that's ever been. The only other ones typically mentioned with it are 1979 and 2007.
1. Dale Earnhardt Sr. - The Intimidator. That pretty much says it all about Dale Earnhardt. This was a man who literally could and would drive anything to the front. There are so many examples of him taking cars that anyone else would've crashed because they handled so bad and running up front with them. There are many people who still like to say that he was a dirty driver. This excuse is the most common detractor that people use against him and it holds no water. I personally challenge anyone to find evidence of him purposely attempting to crash someone. No doubt the 1999 night race at Bristol would be mentioned and it still doesn't hold. The video in this instance clearly shows that Terry Labonte slowed way down with the purpose of having Dale hit him. The intention is that Dale would have to back off the gas or damage his car and thus Labonte could drive away and win. It obviously didn't work that way but the point is that it was not his intention to crash Terry Labonte. I'd also challenge that if anyone really tried, you could find just as many examples of people getting bumped by any other driver out there but because of Dale's popularity and his position in Nascar, his got more attention. Regardless of whatever people say about it, there is no one out there who can legitimately deny the man's talent and as I said, there are countless examples out there which prove his abilities. Dale Earnhardt was experiencing a career resurgence going into the 2001 season and looked to finish 3rd in the Daytona 500. As we all know, he didn't make it out of the race alive and February 18, 2001 became the day that Nascar "lost its greatest driver ever." That is a direct quote by the way from Bill France Jr. Dale Earnhardt's passing signaled the end of Nascar's golden era but it was not what killed the sport. Nascar could've survived and possibly even thrived in the post-Earnhardt era but in the winter of 2003, that changed forever when the Chase was implemented and Nascar became auto-racing's version of professional wrestling in that it's championships became worthless and bogus.
Note 1: People like AJ Foyt and Mario Andretti are not on this list because, while both were great drivers, most of their accomplishments came outside the Nascar realm and this list focuses on accomplishments in Nascar. Yes they both won the Daytona 500 but so have guys like Ryan Newman and Trevor Bayne and neither of them belong anywhere near this list. Point being, winning a big race despite your accomplishments outside the world of Nascar doesn't guarantee a spot on this particular list.
Note 2: You'll notice the absence of the following people who most will argue belong on this list: Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson, Rusty Wallace and Bill Elliott. I will explain myself as follows:
Jeff Gordon doesn't make this list because, while his accomplishments would rank him somewhere in a top 50 list, Gordon's accomplishments have come less due to ability and more due to superior equipment. I will however be the first to admit that he should be a 6 time champion but he isn't due to the sham that is the Chase. Doubt me? Look at the 2007 points standings as kept traditionally. Gordon's margin of victory would've been one of the largest in Nascar history and it's things like this that have made Nascar's championship absolutely worthless and bogus because clearly the best driver didn't win it.
Jimmie Johnson doesn't belong anywhere near this list. His accomplishments are completely based on equipment rather than skill, not to mention that 3 of his 5 championships are not legitimate and when he doesn't have the very best of equipment, he's not very good. If you ever saw Johnson drive before he joined Hendrick Motorsports in 2002, most of the time he couldn't keep the car on the track. Jimmie Johnson has literally been handed by Rick Hendrick everything he's ever won in Nascar and it truly disgusts me that his name is listed as a 5 time champion when it's not only not deserved, but it pisses all over Cale Yarborough's accomplishment as the only man to LEGITIMATELY win 3 championships in a row. 2 of these 3 illegitimate championships have come during seasons (2007 and 2010) when he would've lost the championship by an average of over 300 points which is just an unbelievable margin of victory. It leaves no doubt as to who the champions were in these years (Jeff Gordon and Kevin Harvick respectively) but Nascar's record book doesn't recognize these men for their accomplishments and instead honors a false champion who won them through a gimmicked system. For the record as well, Jimmie Johnson is not the man who ruined Nascar despite what many people seem to believe though he certainly hasn't done the sport any favors.
Rusty Wallace has 50 wins and a championship in 1989 but he doesn't make this list because he was essentially a one-dimensional driver. Rusty Wallace was one of the best short track drivers that's ever been but he was mediocre at best on larger race tracks. I don't think I've seen many drivers with his accomplishments that had worse records at Daytona and Talladega especially because, particularly at Daytona, it was clear that he wasn't comfortable on these tracks and arguably he didn't belong on those tracks because of his lack of ability on huge tracks.
Bill Elliott with 44 wins and a championship in 1988 is the same as Wallace. He was a one-dimensional driver who was great on super-speedways but was terrible on short tracks. In his entire career he only won 2 races on short tracks. One at Bristol in 1988 and the biggest reason for that was because most of the guys who typically dominated short-tracks at that time either crashed out or had mechanical problems. The second came at Richmond in 1992 in which he dominated the race but it must also be mentioned that he ran many races on the original Richmond Fairgrounds track before it was expanded to its current layout in 1988 and he was abysmal on this track.
This list is based on drivers that I have seen which basically means there may well be guys from the 40's and 50's who don't make this list. I'm not discounting people like Jim Roper, Red Byron, Cotton Owens, etc., I've just never seen them before but I am familiar with many of their accomplishments. My list concerns accomplishments, legitimate driving ability (judgement based) as well as factors such as what the competition was like for them. So, the top 10 drivers, in my opinion, in Nascar history are as follows:
10. Alan Kulwicki - The last owner/driver to win a championship. Sorry, that abomination from 2011 doesn't count because it wasn't legitimate and Tony Stewart is only a 51% owner of his team and has significant financial backing whereas Alan Kulwicki was 100% owner of his team and funded the entire team out of his own pocket. What this man did on the racetrack with very little money and average equipment will likely not be equalled again in the future because the scope of Nascar has changed so much since he won his title in 1992. Alan had many chances to drive for the top teams. Junior Johnson, who fielded one of the top teams in the sport in the 70's, 80's and early 90's, tried to sign Alan no less than two times and Alan turned him down both times because of his desire to do things "his way." Perhaps it was fitting that the man he defeated by a mere 10 points was driving a car owned by none other than Junior Johnson. Alan Kulwicki unfortunately did not get a chance to properly defend his championship as he was killed on April 1, 1993 in a private plane crash just outside Bristol Tennessee.
9. Joe Weatherly - The "clown prince of Nascar." Little Joe has an accomplishment that no other Nascar champion that I'm aware of could boast and that is he won championships driving for many teams in the same year. In Weatherly's days of the late 50's and early 60's, most teams didn't run full seasons because they didn't have the financial backing from the automakers. Weatherly won his two championships driving for an average of 10 teams a year. Many of these teams had 2nd and 3rd rate equipment but Joe managed to take the lesser equipment, run up front on skills and determination and was rewarded with the 1962 and 1963 championships. Like Alan Kulwicki, Joe Weatherly didn't get a chance to properly defend his 1963 championship. He was killed instantly during a race at Riverside California on January 19, 1964. Joe died when his car came into turn 6 which was a very hard right hand turn and slammed the wall flush on the driver's side. This was before window nets had been mandated by Nascar and Joe died on impact due to his head going out the window and slamming into the wall.
8. Junior Johnson - Many people consider Junior Johnson to be the greatest driver of all time. I can't necessarily agree with that but I can say he belongs here. His career spanned 313 races and he won 50 times. There aren't many drivers with such a high winning percentage. There really isn't much I can say because I've not seen much video of him during his driving career but in looking at his accomplishments, he's worthy of making this list but he's not worthy of being called the greatest ever.
7. Richard Petty - Sure to cause controversy among lifelong Petty fans due to such a relatively low ranking. There is no denying his accomplishments. 200 wins, 7 championships, 7 Daytona 500 wins, 27 wins in a single season, 10 wins in a row. So why is the King so low here? By his own admission, Richard won most of his races during a time when several things were happening. First, Petty Enterprises was by far the best funded and backed team in Nascar in the late 50's and 60's. Richard has admitted many times that he wouldn't have won as many races as he did if he hadn't had such an advantage. Bear in mind that in a race with 40 cars at this time, maybe 10 of them had legitimate backing from the automakers. Secondly, this was during a time when there were over 45 races a year and when many races were very short races i.e. 100 miles, 250 laps on a half-mile track, etc. By the 70's, there were less than 35 races a year, many teams had full support from the automakers and every race was at least 250 miles long. When these things happened, Richard's wins dropped off. Taking these into account, I just can't in good conscience rank him above the names to come on this list although he was my first "favorite" driver growing up from the ages of 3-7.
6. Darrell Waltrip - Jaws, as he was known in his prime, raced his way to 84 wins and 3 championships. His 1985 championship win ranks among what I consider to be one of the best examples of Nascar's old points system done correctly. Bill Elliott had won 11 races that year to Waltrip's 3 but Waltrip had a much more consistent season with more top 5's, more top 10's and less DNF's than Elliott and thus won the title. This is the way a Nascar champion should be crowned and Darrell Waltrip in 1985 proved why such a system works. His feud in the mid 80's with Dale Earnhardt was one of the best feuds of that time period.
5. Lee Petty - Winner of the first Daytona 500 in 1959, Lee Petty began the Petty dynasty that for all intents and purposes ended in 1979 with Richard's last championship. I personally consider Lee to have been the most talented of the Petty's because, while he did have a similar advantage as I mentioned for Richard earlier, Lee was the one who built the team and established it. I'm honestly not convinced Richard on his own could've done that in the manner that Lee did in the late 1940's. I also met Lee in the early 90's at Monroeton Golf Club but at the time, I didn't realize who he was. My dad played golf with him and I rode with both of them but as I said, I didn't learn until later who he was. After his forced retirement following a crash in 1961, Lee Petty essentially shunned anything related to the spotlight and tried to draw as little attention to himself as possible. He was a humble man but I wish he'd have told me who he was when I was there. Lee died on April 5, 2000 at the age of 86. Less than 6 weeks after Lee's death, his great-grandson Adam Petty was killed in a practice crash at New Hampshire. I mentioned that to me, the Petty dynasty ended in 1979 and for the record, most historians don't agree with that. Most believe that it officially ended with Adam's death as he was intended to be the Petty that would lead Petty Enterprises into the 21st century.
4. Cale Yarborough - The only driver to legitimately win 3 consecutive Cup championships in 1976, 77, and 78. Cale Yarborough racked up 83 wins, and among them were 4 Daytona 500s. This was a man who won nearly everything the sport had to offer. The only crown jewel he never picked up was a win at the Coca-Cola 600. Cale was a man who was gonna drive the car until the wheels fell off and more often than not, his efforts were well rewarded. He, along with our next driver, played a very important role in what was arguably the most important race in Nascar history, the 1979 Daytona 500. For the record, I personally believe that if he and Donnie Allison hadn't crashed, Cale would've won the race. He was already under him before Donnie forced him to the wet grass which caused Cale to slide up into Donnie and eventually caused them both to crash.
3. Bobby Allison - The leader of Nascar's Alabama Gang. Depending on who you ask, Bobby racked up either 83, 84, or 85 wins. You'll have to read Wikipedia to learn why because it's a rather complicated mess. He was only a champion 1 time, in 1983, but he racked up wins in all 4 of the sport's crown jewel races including 3 Daytona 500's. One of my favorite all time moments in Nascar was the 1-2 father-son finish in 1988 between Bobby and Davey Allison. Same as I mentioned with Cale, in the footage I've seen of Bobby racing, he certainly ranks in the top 2 or 3 for most determined racers in Nascar history. For an example of this, go and look up the 1982 Daytona 500 "trick bumper incident." Depending on what you believe, this was either a lucky accident or it was a man who would literally do anything to win. As I mentioned in Cale's post, Bobby was also involved in the 1979 Daytona 500 but as a secondary character. After Donnie and Cale's crash, Bobby went to the backstretch to pick up Donnie and give him a ride to the pits. A shouting match ensued and Cale and Bobby ended up throwing punches(or as Bobby Allison tells it, Cale threw his nose into Bobby's fist several times). Combined with the outcome of the race itself, these 2 events propelled Nascar into the national spotlight and signaled the beginning of Nascar's golden age. Bobby's career was unfortunately cut short in June 1988 after being t-boned in the driver's side. Bobby survived but suffered severe head and brain injuries and to this day, he still has amnesia problems. Bobby has stated many times that he has no memory of his and Davey's 1-2 finish at Daytona. He only knows what he's been told.
2. David Pearson - The Silver Fox. David Pearson is the only man aside from Richard Petty to win more than 100 races. He was a 3 time champion and quite honestly, he could've been a champion more times over had he chosen to run more full seasons than he did. The Silver Fox's nickname was well-earned because this was a man who could beat you with his mind just as easily as he could his car and his skill. To me, he may have been the most crafty driver that's ever been. I've rarely seen drivers who were so focused and determined yet were calm and collected at the same time. You would literally get the impression that David had ice water flowing through his veins. He won all the crown jewels including the 1976 Daytona 500 which many people state was the best finish to the Daytona 500 that's ever been. The only other ones typically mentioned with it are 1979 and 2007.
1. Dale Earnhardt Sr. - The Intimidator. That pretty much says it all about Dale Earnhardt. This was a man who literally could and would drive anything to the front. There are so many examples of him taking cars that anyone else would've crashed because they handled so bad and running up front with them. There are many people who still like to say that he was a dirty driver. This excuse is the most common detractor that people use against him and it holds no water. I personally challenge anyone to find evidence of him purposely attempting to crash someone. No doubt the 1999 night race at Bristol would be mentioned and it still doesn't hold. The video in this instance clearly shows that Terry Labonte slowed way down with the purpose of having Dale hit him. The intention is that Dale would have to back off the gas or damage his car and thus Labonte could drive away and win. It obviously didn't work that way but the point is that it was not his intention to crash Terry Labonte. I'd also challenge that if anyone really tried, you could find just as many examples of people getting bumped by any other driver out there but because of Dale's popularity and his position in Nascar, his got more attention. Regardless of whatever people say about it, there is no one out there who can legitimately deny the man's talent and as I said, there are countless examples out there which prove his abilities. Dale Earnhardt was experiencing a career resurgence going into the 2001 season and looked to finish 3rd in the Daytona 500. As we all know, he didn't make it out of the race alive and February 18, 2001 became the day that Nascar "lost its greatest driver ever." That is a direct quote by the way from Bill France Jr. Dale Earnhardt's passing signaled the end of Nascar's golden era but it was not what killed the sport. Nascar could've survived and possibly even thrived in the post-Earnhardt era but in the winter of 2003, that changed forever when the Chase was implemented and Nascar became auto-racing's version of professional wrestling in that it's championships became worthless and bogus.
Note 1: People like AJ Foyt and Mario Andretti are not on this list because, while both were great drivers, most of their accomplishments came outside the Nascar realm and this list focuses on accomplishments in Nascar. Yes they both won the Daytona 500 but so have guys like Ryan Newman and Trevor Bayne and neither of them belong anywhere near this list. Point being, winning a big race despite your accomplishments outside the world of Nascar doesn't guarantee a spot on this particular list.
Note 2: You'll notice the absence of the following people who most will argue belong on this list: Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson, Rusty Wallace and Bill Elliott. I will explain myself as follows:
Jeff Gordon doesn't make this list because, while his accomplishments would rank him somewhere in a top 50 list, Gordon's accomplishments have come less due to ability and more due to superior equipment. I will however be the first to admit that he should be a 6 time champion but he isn't due to the sham that is the Chase. Doubt me? Look at the 2007 points standings as kept traditionally. Gordon's margin of victory would've been one of the largest in Nascar history and it's things like this that have made Nascar's championship absolutely worthless and bogus because clearly the best driver didn't win it.
Jimmie Johnson doesn't belong anywhere near this list. His accomplishments are completely based on equipment rather than skill, not to mention that 3 of his 5 championships are not legitimate and when he doesn't have the very best of equipment, he's not very good. If you ever saw Johnson drive before he joined Hendrick Motorsports in 2002, most of the time he couldn't keep the car on the track. Jimmie Johnson has literally been handed by Rick Hendrick everything he's ever won in Nascar and it truly disgusts me that his name is listed as a 5 time champion when it's not only not deserved, but it pisses all over Cale Yarborough's accomplishment as the only man to LEGITIMATELY win 3 championships in a row. 2 of these 3 illegitimate championships have come during seasons (2007 and 2010) when he would've lost the championship by an average of over 300 points which is just an unbelievable margin of victory. It leaves no doubt as to who the champions were in these years (Jeff Gordon and Kevin Harvick respectively) but Nascar's record book doesn't recognize these men for their accomplishments and instead honors a false champion who won them through a gimmicked system. For the record as well, Jimmie Johnson is not the man who ruined Nascar despite what many people seem to believe though he certainly hasn't done the sport any favors.
Rusty Wallace has 50 wins and a championship in 1989 but he doesn't make this list because he was essentially a one-dimensional driver. Rusty Wallace was one of the best short track drivers that's ever been but he was mediocre at best on larger race tracks. I don't think I've seen many drivers with his accomplishments that had worse records at Daytona and Talladega especially because, particularly at Daytona, it was clear that he wasn't comfortable on these tracks and arguably he didn't belong on those tracks because of his lack of ability on huge tracks.
Bill Elliott with 44 wins and a championship in 1988 is the same as Wallace. He was a one-dimensional driver who was great on super-speedways but was terrible on short tracks. In his entire career he only won 2 races on short tracks. One at Bristol in 1988 and the biggest reason for that was because most of the guys who typically dominated short-tracks at that time either crashed out or had mechanical problems. The second came at Richmond in 1992 in which he dominated the race but it must also be mentioned that he ran many races on the original Richmond Fairgrounds track before it was expanded to its current layout in 1988 and he was abysmal on this track.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Random odds and ends
Not much really has been happening with me which is why I've not really posted any musings. I'm back at RCC now so most of my extra time is devoted to that which doesn't leave much time for posting here. I will be updating my Atlanta Braves post next week with a few new thoughts on how they've progressed in the month since last posted on them.
I can say that my recent lists did draw a bit of controversy over at the Home Theater Forum website. Most of it was benign and harmless controversy but I did come across one troll who seemed to think that my views were "too extreme" and accused me of using certain words way too often. The words he picked out were used a grand total of 3 times in both posts combined. Oh well, I'll respond to that with the following Metallica lyric to close down today's post:
No remorse
No repent
We don't care what it meant
I can say that my recent lists did draw a bit of controversy over at the Home Theater Forum website. Most of it was benign and harmless controversy but I did come across one troll who seemed to think that my views were "too extreme" and accused me of using certain words way too often. The words he picked out were used a grand total of 3 times in both posts combined. Oh well, I'll respond to that with the following Metallica lyric to close down today's post:
No remorse
No repent
We don't care what it meant
Monday, August 6, 2012
A thought or two on the Atlanta Braves heading into the final 1/3 of the season
I'm glad to see Atlanta doing so well right now, but before any of us get our hopes up for a playoff run, consider that Atlanta has played 24 games since the All-Star break and only 7 of those have been against teams with winning records. Their record over those seven games is 3-4 and one of those wins only came because Washington's bullpen absolutely gagged away a 9 run lead. They've only got 5 series left in the season against winning teams. Of their final 52 games, 25 of them come against such teams as the Padres, the Marlins, the Phillies and the Rockies who are all among the worst teams in baseball. The final series of the season is against Pittsburgh and assuming Pittsburgh doesn't fall apart in August and September, in all likelihood, this series will determine whether Atlanta or Pittsburgh gets the 2nd NL Wild Card spot. I believe that by this point, it will be a question as to whether Atlanta or Pittsburgh plays against St. Louis in the play-in game.
I really don't expect Atlanta to continue their pace because let's face it, they're the Braves. This team has one of the most dubious histories of late season/postseason collapses in American sports history. If Atlanta does actually make the playoffs, their record is going to be inflated (i.e. their record is going to indicate that they're a better team than they actually are) due to the previously mentioned lack of true quality teams they're playing in the final 2 months of the season. I personally am of the opinion that in their final 52 games, they will likely win somewhere between 19-24 of these 52 games. However, if Atlanta does actually make the postseason, the ceiling for them is the NLDS. They might win the Wild Card play-in game and get into the NLDS, but the honest truth is they are simply not good enough to beat teams like Washington, Cincinnati, Los Angeles or San Francisco depending on which of those last 2 teams wins the NL West in a best of 5 series. I don't think Atlanta is a bad team. I think they're a mid-pack team in that I think if you ranked all 30 teams in terms of how good they are, Atlanta would likely be somewhere between 11-15.
What really concerns me about them is that this year is the best they're gonna be for a long time to come. With the exception perhaps of Brian McCann, every major player this team has is gonna be leaving within the next 5 years because Atlanta's ownership (Liberty Media Group) basically refuses to pay their players enough to stay. The only reason McCann is probably gonna still be around is because Chipper Jones is retiring and management needs a new face for the franchise in the post-Chipper Jones era and Brian McCann is the most logical pick for this role. For the record, Liberty Media has the money to pay their players. Atlanta is currently somewhere between 12-15th in terms of the team's payroll and honestly, they should be in the top 5. The Braves case really is one in which it's not that a team doesn't have the resources to pay their players, but that the team will not use its resources to pay their players.
Remember these names because they will be superstars for the next decade plus and all of them will have passed and slipped through the Braves fingertips due to stingy ownership:
Michael Bourn, Martin Prado, Craig Kimbrel, Tommy Hanson, Johnny Venters, Freddie Freeman, Jason Heyward, Mike Minor, Brandon Beachy.
I really don't expect Atlanta to continue their pace because let's face it, they're the Braves. This team has one of the most dubious histories of late season/postseason collapses in American sports history. If Atlanta does actually make the playoffs, their record is going to be inflated (i.e. their record is going to indicate that they're a better team than they actually are) due to the previously mentioned lack of true quality teams they're playing in the final 2 months of the season. I personally am of the opinion that in their final 52 games, they will likely win somewhere between 19-24 of these 52 games. However, if Atlanta does actually make the postseason, the ceiling for them is the NLDS. They might win the Wild Card play-in game and get into the NLDS, but the honest truth is they are simply not good enough to beat teams like Washington, Cincinnati, Los Angeles or San Francisco depending on which of those last 2 teams wins the NL West in a best of 5 series. I don't think Atlanta is a bad team. I think they're a mid-pack team in that I think if you ranked all 30 teams in terms of how good they are, Atlanta would likely be somewhere between 11-15.
What really concerns me about them is that this year is the best they're gonna be for a long time to come. With the exception perhaps of Brian McCann, every major player this team has is gonna be leaving within the next 5 years because Atlanta's ownership (Liberty Media Group) basically refuses to pay their players enough to stay. The only reason McCann is probably gonna still be around is because Chipper Jones is retiring and management needs a new face for the franchise in the post-Chipper Jones era and Brian McCann is the most logical pick for this role. For the record, Liberty Media has the money to pay their players. Atlanta is currently somewhere between 12-15th in terms of the team's payroll and honestly, they should be in the top 5. The Braves case really is one in which it's not that a team doesn't have the resources to pay their players, but that the team will not use its resources to pay their players.
Remember these names because they will be superstars for the next decade plus and all of them will have passed and slipped through the Braves fingertips due to stingy ownership:
Michael Bourn, Martin Prado, Craig Kimbrel, Tommy Hanson, Johnny Venters, Freddie Freeman, Jason Heyward, Mike Minor, Brandon Beachy.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Top 12 Movies That I Hate But Everyone Else Loves Part 2
Yes here come the ones that are the highest offenders on my list of "popular" films that I just can't stand to watch. As usual, these comments may contain spoilers so if you don't want to be spoiled, read the bold titles and then move on. We'll continue the hate with number 6.
6. Michael Bay's Transformers Series. I don't know that I can say much more about these films that hasn't been said already. For the record, I think the first Transformers film from 2007 was actually not a bad movie. It's just lumped into bad company with 2 and 3. It still can't begin to touch the 1986 film however in terms of actually being a good story. The 1986 film as stated previously is the best representation of the Transformers mythology that's yet been made for the screen. The second film, Revenge Of The Fallen, is a disorganized mess of a film that actually rates up there with Battlefield Earth for worst sci-fi themed film ever made. The story line makes little sense, the acting for the most part is atrocious and of course, the waste of space known as Megan Fox takes up more than .5 seconds of screen time which means she has too much screen time. In a film with loads of weaknesses, she may actually be the biggest weak point. She has no acting talent whatsoever and the only reason she's famous is because a bunch of men who never got past puberty enjoy beating off to her. She's the equivalent of Kristen Stewart if Kristen Stewart were more popular among guys. I like beautiful women as much as the next straight man, but they have to bring something besides their looks to the table and Megan Fox does absolutely nothing besides look good. She's acting's version of Rena Mero AKA Sable. Transformers 3, Dark Of The Moon, is a little less of a congealed mess in that it gets rid of Megan Fox but replaces her with a nearly equally useless sidekick in Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. This movie has the same problem that Pirates Of The Caribbean 3 does in that THE MOVIE WILL NOT END! I watched this movie and I had a birthday waiting for it to end. To make it worse, the biggest reason for the length is because the movie takes forever to get started. I swear it's literally over an hour before something remotely interesting finally happens. To make it worse, we're not done with this cinematic fecal storm. I hear there's a Transformers 4 coming that is possibly to be directed by Steven Speilberg himself. Unless this is a reboot with an entirely new cast, save for Peter Cullen and Frank Welker (GIVE HIM BACK THE MEGATRON ROLE YOU BLITHERING CLODS!), there is no hope for redemption with this series.
5. Nightmare On Elm Street (1984). The film that gave Freddy Krueger to the world. I don't see this as a bad film from a production point of view. It's actually about as good as you can expect from a relatively low budget horror film. I just personally believe the story and theme of the movie(and series) is incredibly stupid. I can understand the allure of a guy who only kills you in your dreams and therefore can't be defeated but at the same time, I just don't understand how it got so popular. Robert Englund is also one actor that I've never began to understand why he's so beloved. He seems like a very nice and humble man and I respect him as a man, but I don't think he can act his way out of an unlocked bathroom. This one is actually a little more difficult for me to put into words because again, I just really can't explain my dislike for this film other than I just saw it as so ridiculously far-fetched that I couldn't suspend my disbelief far enough to actually enjoy it. Perhaps had the film been done as a comedy or satire, it might've worked better for me but as a serious horror movie, it sucks. This legacy of Freddy Krueger even crossed into the Mortal Kombat game franchise as the 2009 "reboot" (cough total rehash cough) later included him as a DLC character. Yes folks, an overhyped, overrated joke of a horror icon gets included with an overhyped, overrated joke of a video game release. It's a perfect match really except Mortal Kombat's legacy was far greater than Nightmare On Elm Street's ever tried to be and all this did was kick dirt on to what little was left of Mortal Kombat. But I digress.
4. District 9. It seems that most years recently have had a very highly acclaimed film that I just simply have found intolerable. 2007 had Juno, 2008 had Slumdog Millionaire, 2010 had The Social Network, and 2011 had Hugo. Why did I skip 2009? Because it contained the most offensive of films from those years as far as general popular opinion goes and that was District 9. Really, the concept of this is fantastic. Xenophobia taken to an entirely new level. The biggest problem I have with this film is the tone it takes. It really comes off as extremely righteous and self-important to me. None of the characters in it are likable and the main character, Wikus, just comes across as a complete douche for the entire duration of the film. If anything, I think this movie actually comes closer to convincing people that xenophobia is a good thing rather than a bad one. A friend of mine once referred to this film as "cinematic excrement" and I'm inclined to agree. This film was a chore to finish but I actually did finish it and have been trying ever since to wipe it from my memory.
3. Top Gun. I'm sure it might sound strange that an American male who was born in the 1980's would hate this movie. But not only do I hate it, I simply can't finish watching it. I've watched it in bits and pieces and have seen the whole movie over time but I am incapable of watching it in one sitting. My longest stretch in watching it has been around 43-44 minutes and after that I couldn't take any more without a break. The easiest way to sum up this movie is that it's basically a 2 hour dick measuring contest. The plot is absolutely ridiculous. For that matter, there is no plot. It's basically a bunch of "macho" guys showing off which one is the manliest and the planes merely serve as props in this glorious mission to prove which one has the biggest johnson. How in the blue hell this movie made Tom Cruise a star I will simply never understand. The constant excuse I get from people is that the soundtrack to the movie is extremely good and yes, I will admit it's a pretty good soundtrack. This however doesn't make up for the complete lack of substance in the film itself. I say, avoid the dick-measuring contest, buy the soundtrack, and hire a toddler to write a remake of this film because the toddler certainly could write a better film than the people who made this piece of dick-cheese did.
2. Jurassic Park. At one time, this was the highest grossing film in movie history. I didn't understand why before, and I don't understand it today. I can honestly say I've seen this film several times. I've tried to like it. I've wanted to like it. But guess what? I can't stand it. This hype job was one of the first films that really showed how far CGI had come and what it was capable of. Or so people who are fans of this film would have you believe. If you want the true answer to that question in a film that's not only watchable, but also one of the best American films ever made, look to Terminator 2. But I digress. This film suffers from the same problem that I mentioned with Nightmare on Elm Street which is that I just couldn't suspend disbelief enough. The concept is just incredibly asinine and the idea that people are actually stupid enough to do some of the things in this movie, while not inconceivable by any means, is certainly one that I'd prefer not to see in my entertainment world because God knows we see enough of it in our real lives everyday. I remember having to watch this film for the first time in my 11th grade ELPS class. We watched the film and then did a mock trial. I portrayed the Richard Attenborough character, whom I will refer to as Col. Sanders because frankly it's not worth actually going to Wikipedia to look up the character's name. The idea of the trial was to see whether or not this character was legally liable for the actions of the dinosaurs and the loss of life/property that ensued. In the end, our jury found that the character was not liable. How the hell they managed to come to this verdict I'll never know but in any case, I was not allowed to disagree since I was playing the character and to do so would've been an F for the assignment. I haven't seen the entirety of Steven Spielberg's filmography, but I can safely say that this is the worst film he's made that I've yet seen and the sequels to it are even worse but they're not highly acclaimed and regarded so they don't make this list. In describing this film, I can only use a line that Jeff Goldblum himself used in the film itself: "That is one big pile of shit."
And the number 1 film on my list of hatred is:
1. Finding Nemo. This is not anywhere near the top of my list of worst films I've ever seen. The story line isn't a bad one and it does present a good message to both parents and kids. Kids need to learn their boundaries sometimes while parents sometimes need to loosen the reigns and let the kids fly on their own. However, this movie makes the top of the list because of the films that I truly hate, this one seems to be the most highly thought of by the general population. Why do I hate this film so bad? What could possibly be in this film that just raises my blood pressure to the point of stroke? The answer is Ellen Degeneres. Or more specifically, the way she plays her character in the film, Dory. This character is one of the most unintentionally annoying characters in the history of cinema. By that I mean there are characters that are meant to get on your nerves and invoke that reaction from you. This was not the case here. Everything about her is just aggravating. Her voice, her personality and that WAY BLOODY OVERPLAYED SHORT TERM MEMORY LOSS ISSUE!! Was this supposed to be funny? Was it supposed to mock people with short term memory loss? I don't understand what purpose it serves other than to further a story line that has been told many times before in much better ways without resorting to things like this. Dory singlehandedly ruined this entire film for me. Perhaps had she not been such a focal point later in the film I would've had less of a problem with her but having her be one of the main characters in the film was a literally fatal mistake for this movie. I don't know whether Ellen had any creative input on this character or not so I don't know whether to blame her personally for this abomination or if one of the writers wrote the character this way and instructed Ellen to play her this way. Whichever one made that decision should've gotten 3-5 years for introducing this utterly useless and annoying character that so many people seem to love for some ungodly reason to the world of cinema.
So there we have it. The top 12 films I hate but you love. Thank you for causing the increase in my blood pressure and hardening of my arteries. Oh, one last thing, I must give dishonorable mentions to The Wizard Of Oz, and for that matter, 99% of musicals ever made and the Back To The Future series. Utter atrocities but they just couldn't crack this top 12 list. If there is ever a "next top 12" list, I'm sure they'll make it near the top.
6. Michael Bay's Transformers Series. I don't know that I can say much more about these films that hasn't been said already. For the record, I think the first Transformers film from 2007 was actually not a bad movie. It's just lumped into bad company with 2 and 3. It still can't begin to touch the 1986 film however in terms of actually being a good story. The 1986 film as stated previously is the best representation of the Transformers mythology that's yet been made for the screen. The second film, Revenge Of The Fallen, is a disorganized mess of a film that actually rates up there with Battlefield Earth for worst sci-fi themed film ever made. The story line makes little sense, the acting for the most part is atrocious and of course, the waste of space known as Megan Fox takes up more than .5 seconds of screen time which means she has too much screen time. In a film with loads of weaknesses, she may actually be the biggest weak point. She has no acting talent whatsoever and the only reason she's famous is because a bunch of men who never got past puberty enjoy beating off to her. She's the equivalent of Kristen Stewart if Kristen Stewart were more popular among guys. I like beautiful women as much as the next straight man, but they have to bring something besides their looks to the table and Megan Fox does absolutely nothing besides look good. She's acting's version of Rena Mero AKA Sable. Transformers 3, Dark Of The Moon, is a little less of a congealed mess in that it gets rid of Megan Fox but replaces her with a nearly equally useless sidekick in Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. This movie has the same problem that Pirates Of The Caribbean 3 does in that THE MOVIE WILL NOT END! I watched this movie and I had a birthday waiting for it to end. To make it worse, the biggest reason for the length is because the movie takes forever to get started. I swear it's literally over an hour before something remotely interesting finally happens. To make it worse, we're not done with this cinematic fecal storm. I hear there's a Transformers 4 coming that is possibly to be directed by Steven Speilberg himself. Unless this is a reboot with an entirely new cast, save for Peter Cullen and Frank Welker (GIVE HIM BACK THE MEGATRON ROLE YOU BLITHERING CLODS!), there is no hope for redemption with this series.
5. Nightmare On Elm Street (1984). The film that gave Freddy Krueger to the world. I don't see this as a bad film from a production point of view. It's actually about as good as you can expect from a relatively low budget horror film. I just personally believe the story and theme of the movie(and series) is incredibly stupid. I can understand the allure of a guy who only kills you in your dreams and therefore can't be defeated but at the same time, I just don't understand how it got so popular. Robert Englund is also one actor that I've never began to understand why he's so beloved. He seems like a very nice and humble man and I respect him as a man, but I don't think he can act his way out of an unlocked bathroom. This one is actually a little more difficult for me to put into words because again, I just really can't explain my dislike for this film other than I just saw it as so ridiculously far-fetched that I couldn't suspend my disbelief far enough to actually enjoy it. Perhaps had the film been done as a comedy or satire, it might've worked better for me but as a serious horror movie, it sucks. This legacy of Freddy Krueger even crossed into the Mortal Kombat game franchise as the 2009 "reboot" (cough total rehash cough) later included him as a DLC character. Yes folks, an overhyped, overrated joke of a horror icon gets included with an overhyped, overrated joke of a video game release. It's a perfect match really except Mortal Kombat's legacy was far greater than Nightmare On Elm Street's ever tried to be and all this did was kick dirt on to what little was left of Mortal Kombat. But I digress.
4. District 9. It seems that most years recently have had a very highly acclaimed film that I just simply have found intolerable. 2007 had Juno, 2008 had Slumdog Millionaire, 2010 had The Social Network, and 2011 had Hugo. Why did I skip 2009? Because it contained the most offensive of films from those years as far as general popular opinion goes and that was District 9. Really, the concept of this is fantastic. Xenophobia taken to an entirely new level. The biggest problem I have with this film is the tone it takes. It really comes off as extremely righteous and self-important to me. None of the characters in it are likable and the main character, Wikus, just comes across as a complete douche for the entire duration of the film. If anything, I think this movie actually comes closer to convincing people that xenophobia is a good thing rather than a bad one. A friend of mine once referred to this film as "cinematic excrement" and I'm inclined to agree. This film was a chore to finish but I actually did finish it and have been trying ever since to wipe it from my memory.
3. Top Gun. I'm sure it might sound strange that an American male who was born in the 1980's would hate this movie. But not only do I hate it, I simply can't finish watching it. I've watched it in bits and pieces and have seen the whole movie over time but I am incapable of watching it in one sitting. My longest stretch in watching it has been around 43-44 minutes and after that I couldn't take any more without a break. The easiest way to sum up this movie is that it's basically a 2 hour dick measuring contest. The plot is absolutely ridiculous. For that matter, there is no plot. It's basically a bunch of "macho" guys showing off which one is the manliest and the planes merely serve as props in this glorious mission to prove which one has the biggest johnson. How in the blue hell this movie made Tom Cruise a star I will simply never understand. The constant excuse I get from people is that the soundtrack to the movie is extremely good and yes, I will admit it's a pretty good soundtrack. This however doesn't make up for the complete lack of substance in the film itself. I say, avoid the dick-measuring contest, buy the soundtrack, and hire a toddler to write a remake of this film because the toddler certainly could write a better film than the people who made this piece of dick-cheese did.
2. Jurassic Park. At one time, this was the highest grossing film in movie history. I didn't understand why before, and I don't understand it today. I can honestly say I've seen this film several times. I've tried to like it. I've wanted to like it. But guess what? I can't stand it. This hype job was one of the first films that really showed how far CGI had come and what it was capable of. Or so people who are fans of this film would have you believe. If you want the true answer to that question in a film that's not only watchable, but also one of the best American films ever made, look to Terminator 2. But I digress. This film suffers from the same problem that I mentioned with Nightmare on Elm Street which is that I just couldn't suspend disbelief enough. The concept is just incredibly asinine and the idea that people are actually stupid enough to do some of the things in this movie, while not inconceivable by any means, is certainly one that I'd prefer not to see in my entertainment world because God knows we see enough of it in our real lives everyday. I remember having to watch this film for the first time in my 11th grade ELPS class. We watched the film and then did a mock trial. I portrayed the Richard Attenborough character, whom I will refer to as Col. Sanders because frankly it's not worth actually going to Wikipedia to look up the character's name. The idea of the trial was to see whether or not this character was legally liable for the actions of the dinosaurs and the loss of life/property that ensued. In the end, our jury found that the character was not liable. How the hell they managed to come to this verdict I'll never know but in any case, I was not allowed to disagree since I was playing the character and to do so would've been an F for the assignment. I haven't seen the entirety of Steven Spielberg's filmography, but I can safely say that this is the worst film he's made that I've yet seen and the sequels to it are even worse but they're not highly acclaimed and regarded so they don't make this list. In describing this film, I can only use a line that Jeff Goldblum himself used in the film itself: "That is one big pile of shit."
And the number 1 film on my list of hatred is:
1. Finding Nemo. This is not anywhere near the top of my list of worst films I've ever seen. The story line isn't a bad one and it does present a good message to both parents and kids. Kids need to learn their boundaries sometimes while parents sometimes need to loosen the reigns and let the kids fly on their own. However, this movie makes the top of the list because of the films that I truly hate, this one seems to be the most highly thought of by the general population. Why do I hate this film so bad? What could possibly be in this film that just raises my blood pressure to the point of stroke? The answer is Ellen Degeneres. Or more specifically, the way she plays her character in the film, Dory. This character is one of the most unintentionally annoying characters in the history of cinema. By that I mean there are characters that are meant to get on your nerves and invoke that reaction from you. This was not the case here. Everything about her is just aggravating. Her voice, her personality and that WAY BLOODY OVERPLAYED SHORT TERM MEMORY LOSS ISSUE!! Was this supposed to be funny? Was it supposed to mock people with short term memory loss? I don't understand what purpose it serves other than to further a story line that has been told many times before in much better ways without resorting to things like this. Dory singlehandedly ruined this entire film for me. Perhaps had she not been such a focal point later in the film I would've had less of a problem with her but having her be one of the main characters in the film was a literally fatal mistake for this movie. I don't know whether Ellen had any creative input on this character or not so I don't know whether to blame her personally for this abomination or if one of the writers wrote the character this way and instructed Ellen to play her this way. Whichever one made that decision should've gotten 3-5 years for introducing this utterly useless and annoying character that so many people seem to love for some ungodly reason to the world of cinema.
So there we have it. The top 12 films I hate but you love. Thank you for causing the increase in my blood pressure and hardening of my arteries. Oh, one last thing, I must give dishonorable mentions to The Wizard Of Oz, and for that matter, 99% of musicals ever made and the Back To The Future series. Utter atrocities but they just couldn't crack this top 12 list. If there is ever a "next top 12" list, I'm sure they'll make it near the top.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Top 12 films that I hate that everyone else loves
I revealed films that I like and you all hate so now you get your revenge on me as I list the top 12 films that I hate that everyone else seems to love. Same as before, there are possible spoilers in my comments so if you've never seen the films mentioned, read past the bold titles to avoid spoilers. So we start off this list of hate with the following:
12. Any zombie film ever made. I guess its perhaps due to the success of The Walking Dead tv show, but I will be so happy when this zombie craze goes away. I've never at all understood what was supposed to be scary about zombies. They're not scary and it's not even like the worst horror movies in that they're not so bad that they're funny. Zombie films as a whole are an utter bore and all have the same predictable plot line, usually terrible acting and for that matter, they're really unpleasant to look at. I'm sure that speaks to the job that the makeup people do in these films, but they're just absolutely unpleasant to look at. Even films that are meant to satirize these films, such as Shaun of the Dead are utterly atrocious as well and that's bad because Simon Pegg is not a bad actor in any way. It's just a shame that he was dragged down by a total waste of a film that is neither funny nor scary. Basically that's the best way to describe anything to do with zombies. Not funny, not scary and a complete waste of cinematic time.
11. O Brother Where Art Thou. Everyone loves the Coen Brothers. Dan Le Batard has stated on television that "those guys are incapable of making an uninteresting movie." Well I beg to differ. In fact, the Coen's not only are capable of making an uninteresting movie, they're little more than one hit wonders as far as directors go. For the record here, I have not seen Fargo so I can't comment on that film, but I have seen this one mentioned above, The Big Lebowski, The Ladykillers, True Grit and No Country For Old Men and of all those, No Country For Old Men is the only one of them that even begins to approach "good." But I digress. I guess I should've made this entry about the Coen Brothers entire filmography but I picked the one here that I think is most beloved of the list that I just absolutely hate. The story is a badly executed loose re-telling of Homer's The Odyssey and yet the Coen's have the nerve to insult me by telling me that they've never read the story before. So you guys are not only piss-poor filmmakers, you're also flat liars? A winning combination in my book. But again, I digress. Let's look at the main star of the film, George Clooney. Where did this guy get his popularity from? He's like this generation's Pauly Shore. Okay, maybe not that bad. I mean he has made one good movie and that was the Ocean's 11 remake. And while I'm on the subject, Pauly Shore did at least make one decent movie with In The Army Now. So by my scorecard, they're both even on the scale of decent movies between them. Another major player in this film is John Goodman. My Lord the Coen's have such an ability for wasting this man's talent. O Brother Where Art Thou indeed. That's my exact quote to my television remote whenever this movie comes on tv. It's not funny, it's not heartwarming, it's not even interesting and having George Clooney shoved at me for 2 hours is never a winning proposition.
10. Mortal Kombat (1995). I'm stretching a bit when I say everyone else "loves" this film, but at the same time, when you ask most people what the best video game film adaptation is, usually Mortal Kombat ranks in the top 3 and in many cases, it ranks as the top of the list. The only other film I've ever seen that consistently ranks as high as this one is Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children which, as I understand it, is not an adaptation of the game but more or less a continuation of the game's story line. Why do I hate this movie so much? Simple. It has so very little to do with the actual game itself. Basically the creators took a generic martial arts movie, slapped a few character's names into it, called it Mortal Kombat and there you go. I guess I don't really hate the film for being a bad film per se. It has a good performance by Cary Tagawa as Shang Tsung but other than that, most of the characters are utterly forgettable. I guess my biggest gripe is that the film is EXTREMELY tame. You just can't have Mortal Kombat without violence and blood. We all should've known what would be coming by the first trailers released in 1995 which showed the movie had a PG-13 rating. This movie can't be properly made without an R rating. Beyond that, the movie follows very little of the actual Mortal Kombat tournament itself which should be the focal point of any film based on this franchise. How in the hell does Johnny Cage get to fight Goro simply by asking? He wins one fight and somehow asks to get to Goro when Goro is the last guy you get to before Shang Tsung. And who are all these fighters that none of us have ever seen or heard of? Just a jumbled and total mess of a film that somehow 17 years later is still held in high regard by video game film fans and Mortal Kombat fans.
9. Batman (1966). This one makes the list more because of the television show that it was made from. Prior to Christopher Nolan's masterpiece trilogy, I was not a fan of Batman and to be honest, I still am not a fan outside of Nolan's trilogy. I have seen Keaton's Batman and didn't like it beyond Jack Nicholson as the Joker and none of the sequels to it are any good either. But the worst of all here is the 1960's version of Batman. For the record, I'm referring to the movie and television show since they're basically one and the same. This film/series took Batman towards a campy tone and both are just unwatchable. I like a good satire but this movie/show went beyond satire and was just plain insulting. Even as an 8 year old child seeing this for the first time, it was an experience in which my feelings were literally hurt by seeing it because I just felt dirty and insulted. It was one of the first instances that I can remember feeling the need to take a shower simply after viewing it. There's nothing redeeming whatsoever about anything related to this version of Batman. It basically took Bob Kane's work and made into the butt of a joke and how this version of Batman became popular (AND STILL IS) is something I will never get. In fact, I've heard quite a few people make the statement that this version of Batman is still the best version. I simply can't reply to that because if you truly believe that, you're beyond intelligent discussion.
8. Spiderman Trilogy. This falls under a similar category as Batman in that I don't usually like superheroes. Whereas Chris Nolan made one of the best film trilogies in history with a character that I don't really care too much for, Sam Raimi took a character I didn't care for and simply reinforced that apathy and really turned it from apathy into hatred. Tobey Maguire might actually be a pretty good actor but he certainly wasn't here. In fact there is nothing redeemable about any of the performances in this entire trilogy. The only one of them that resembled "good" was Thomas Haden Church as The Sandman in part 3. Let's talk about part 3 as it is indeed the worst of the worst in this trilogy. A jumbled mess with no real tangible plot line(same can be said for the other 2 as well) as well as apparently a mandate by Marvel to showcase as many villains as possible. Someone a long time ago made the statement about Spiderman 3 which was "too many crooks can spoil the broth" and I'm inclined to agree wholeheartedly although this broth was spoiled and rotten before it even made it to the stockpot. An overhyped, overrated film trilogy that somehow lead to literally billions of dollars in returns. Personally, if you want to see a film that is everything this film wants to be and literally can't be, find 12 Angry Men sometime because that film is the prototype for how you take a wide variety of characters, make them all interesting, and give them all plenty of screen time without making the film an utter waste.
7. It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. I will sum up my hatred for this film with a couple of sentences followed by the cast listing for this film straight from Wikipedia. How in the hell can a film with this cast be so boring and not funny? It just doesn't seem possible to me but it's here before my eyes. This film has to be one of the biggest disappointments in my lifetime of watching movies. It isn't the worst I've ever seen but it's certainly up there with most disappointing given all the praise I've read about it over the years. I watched the movie twice and literally never cracked a smile. None of the main characters in it are in anyway redeemable or even likable which is just amazing given some of the people in this cast. One day, I hope to watch Inherit The Wind and Judgment At Nuremberg. Both films directed by Stanley Kramer who also directed this train wreck. I fear for them but perhaps he's better at dramas than he is "comedy" and I use that last term loosely with this film. Anyway, here's the cast list and just remember that NOT ONE of these names turned in anything that was good or even funny in this "comedy."
So there we have the first half of my top 12 films that I hate that everyone else loves. Tune in tomorrow for 6-1 on this list. I'm sure this list will raise your blood pressure sufficiently and if it doesn't, tomorrow's most certainly will.
12. Any zombie film ever made. I guess its perhaps due to the success of The Walking Dead tv show, but I will be so happy when this zombie craze goes away. I've never at all understood what was supposed to be scary about zombies. They're not scary and it's not even like the worst horror movies in that they're not so bad that they're funny. Zombie films as a whole are an utter bore and all have the same predictable plot line, usually terrible acting and for that matter, they're really unpleasant to look at. I'm sure that speaks to the job that the makeup people do in these films, but they're just absolutely unpleasant to look at. Even films that are meant to satirize these films, such as Shaun of the Dead are utterly atrocious as well and that's bad because Simon Pegg is not a bad actor in any way. It's just a shame that he was dragged down by a total waste of a film that is neither funny nor scary. Basically that's the best way to describe anything to do with zombies. Not funny, not scary and a complete waste of cinematic time.
11. O Brother Where Art Thou. Everyone loves the Coen Brothers. Dan Le Batard has stated on television that "those guys are incapable of making an uninteresting movie." Well I beg to differ. In fact, the Coen's not only are capable of making an uninteresting movie, they're little more than one hit wonders as far as directors go. For the record here, I have not seen Fargo so I can't comment on that film, but I have seen this one mentioned above, The Big Lebowski, The Ladykillers, True Grit and No Country For Old Men and of all those, No Country For Old Men is the only one of them that even begins to approach "good." But I digress. I guess I should've made this entry about the Coen Brothers entire filmography but I picked the one here that I think is most beloved of the list that I just absolutely hate. The story is a badly executed loose re-telling of Homer's The Odyssey and yet the Coen's have the nerve to insult me by telling me that they've never read the story before. So you guys are not only piss-poor filmmakers, you're also flat liars? A winning combination in my book. But again, I digress. Let's look at the main star of the film, George Clooney. Where did this guy get his popularity from? He's like this generation's Pauly Shore. Okay, maybe not that bad. I mean he has made one good movie and that was the Ocean's 11 remake. And while I'm on the subject, Pauly Shore did at least make one decent movie with In The Army Now. So by my scorecard, they're both even on the scale of decent movies between them. Another major player in this film is John Goodman. My Lord the Coen's have such an ability for wasting this man's talent. O Brother Where Art Thou indeed. That's my exact quote to my television remote whenever this movie comes on tv. It's not funny, it's not heartwarming, it's not even interesting and having George Clooney shoved at me for 2 hours is never a winning proposition.
10. Mortal Kombat (1995). I'm stretching a bit when I say everyone else "loves" this film, but at the same time, when you ask most people what the best video game film adaptation is, usually Mortal Kombat ranks in the top 3 and in many cases, it ranks as the top of the list. The only other film I've ever seen that consistently ranks as high as this one is Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children which, as I understand it, is not an adaptation of the game but more or less a continuation of the game's story line. Why do I hate this movie so much? Simple. It has so very little to do with the actual game itself. Basically the creators took a generic martial arts movie, slapped a few character's names into it, called it Mortal Kombat and there you go. I guess I don't really hate the film for being a bad film per se. It has a good performance by Cary Tagawa as Shang Tsung but other than that, most of the characters are utterly forgettable. I guess my biggest gripe is that the film is EXTREMELY tame. You just can't have Mortal Kombat without violence and blood. We all should've known what would be coming by the first trailers released in 1995 which showed the movie had a PG-13 rating. This movie can't be properly made without an R rating. Beyond that, the movie follows very little of the actual Mortal Kombat tournament itself which should be the focal point of any film based on this franchise. How in the hell does Johnny Cage get to fight Goro simply by asking? He wins one fight and somehow asks to get to Goro when Goro is the last guy you get to before Shang Tsung. And who are all these fighters that none of us have ever seen or heard of? Just a jumbled and total mess of a film that somehow 17 years later is still held in high regard by video game film fans and Mortal Kombat fans.
9. Batman (1966). This one makes the list more because of the television show that it was made from. Prior to Christopher Nolan's masterpiece trilogy, I was not a fan of Batman and to be honest, I still am not a fan outside of Nolan's trilogy. I have seen Keaton's Batman and didn't like it beyond Jack Nicholson as the Joker and none of the sequels to it are any good either. But the worst of all here is the 1960's version of Batman. For the record, I'm referring to the movie and television show since they're basically one and the same. This film/series took Batman towards a campy tone and both are just unwatchable. I like a good satire but this movie/show went beyond satire and was just plain insulting. Even as an 8 year old child seeing this for the first time, it was an experience in which my feelings were literally hurt by seeing it because I just felt dirty and insulted. It was one of the first instances that I can remember feeling the need to take a shower simply after viewing it. There's nothing redeeming whatsoever about anything related to this version of Batman. It basically took Bob Kane's work and made into the butt of a joke and how this version of Batman became popular (AND STILL IS) is something I will never get. In fact, I've heard quite a few people make the statement that this version of Batman is still the best version. I simply can't reply to that because if you truly believe that, you're beyond intelligent discussion.
8. Spiderman Trilogy. This falls under a similar category as Batman in that I don't usually like superheroes. Whereas Chris Nolan made one of the best film trilogies in history with a character that I don't really care too much for, Sam Raimi took a character I didn't care for and simply reinforced that apathy and really turned it from apathy into hatred. Tobey Maguire might actually be a pretty good actor but he certainly wasn't here. In fact there is nothing redeemable about any of the performances in this entire trilogy. The only one of them that resembled "good" was Thomas Haden Church as The Sandman in part 3. Let's talk about part 3 as it is indeed the worst of the worst in this trilogy. A jumbled mess with no real tangible plot line(same can be said for the other 2 as well) as well as apparently a mandate by Marvel to showcase as many villains as possible. Someone a long time ago made the statement about Spiderman 3 which was "too many crooks can spoil the broth" and I'm inclined to agree wholeheartedly although this broth was spoiled and rotten before it even made it to the stockpot. An overhyped, overrated film trilogy that somehow lead to literally billions of dollars in returns. Personally, if you want to see a film that is everything this film wants to be and literally can't be, find 12 Angry Men sometime because that film is the prototype for how you take a wide variety of characters, make them all interesting, and give them all plenty of screen time without making the film an utter waste.
7. It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. I will sum up my hatred for this film with a couple of sentences followed by the cast listing for this film straight from Wikipedia. How in the hell can a film with this cast be so boring and not funny? It just doesn't seem possible to me but it's here before my eyes. This film has to be one of the biggest disappointments in my lifetime of watching movies. It isn't the worst I've ever seen but it's certainly up there with most disappointing given all the praise I've read about it over the years. I watched the movie twice and literally never cracked a smile. None of the main characters in it are in anyway redeemable or even likable which is just amazing given some of the people in this cast. One day, I hope to watch Inherit The Wind and Judgment At Nuremberg. Both films directed by Stanley Kramer who also directed this train wreck. I fear for them but perhaps he's better at dramas than he is "comedy" and I use that last term loosely with this film. Anyway, here's the cast list and just remember that NOT ONE of these names turned in anything that was good or even funny in this "comedy."
Main actors
- Sid Caesar as Melville Crump
- Edie Adams as Monica Crump
- Milton Berle as J. Russell Finch
- Dorothy Provine as Emmeline Marcus-Finch
- Ethel Merman as Mrs. Marcus
- Jonathan Winters as Lennie Pike
- Mickey Rooney as Dingy Bell
- Buddy Hackett as Benjy Benjamin
- Spencer Tracy as Captain T. G. Culpeper
- Terry-Thomas as Lt. Col. J. Algernon Hawthorne
- Phil Silvers as Otto Meyer
- Dick Shawn as Sylvester Marcus
[edit]Secondary actors
- Jim Backus as boozy and rich airplane owner Tyler Fitzgerald
- William Demarest as Aloysius, Chief of the Santa Rosita Police Department
- Jimmy Durante as "Smiler" Grogan
- Peter Falk as a cop-hating cab driver
- Eddie "Rochester" Anderson as a cab driver
- Paul Ford as Col. Wilberforce
- Barrie Chase as Sylvester Marcus' bikini-wearing girlfriend, Mrs. Haliburton (or Halliburton)
[edit]Cameo appearances
- Jack Benny as a man who drives by in a Maxwell, offering to help, but is put off by Mrs. Marcus
- Paul Birch as a Santa Rosita Police Department officer
- Ben Blue as the vintage biplane pilot
- Joe E. Brown as the union official giving a speech at a construction site
- Alan Carney as a sergeant with the Santa Rosita Police Department
- Chick Chandler as detective outside Chinese laundry
- John Clarke as helicopter pilot
- Stanley Clements as a local reporter at police station
- Lloyd Corrigan as the mayor of Santa Rosita
- Howard Da Silva as an airport official
- Andy Devine as the Sheriff of Crockett County, California (fictional)
- Selma Diamond (voice only) as Ginger Culpeper, Captain Culpeper's wife
- Minta Durfee as a crowd extra
- Roy Engel as a Santa Rosita Police Department officer
- Norman Fell as primary detective at the "Smiler" Grogan accident site
- James Flavin as a Santa Rosita Police Department officer
- Stan Freberg as a Crockett County Deputy Sheriff
- Nicholas Georgiade as supporting detective at the "Smiler" Grogan accident site
- Louise Glenn (voice only) as Billie Sue Culpeper, Captain Culpeper's daughter
- Leo Gorcey as a cab driver bringing Melville and Monica to the hardware store
- Stacy Harris (voice only) as police radio voice unit F-7
- Don C. Harvey as a Santa Rosita Police Department officer
- Sterling Holloway as a Santa Rosita Fire Department fire captain
- Edward Everett Horton as Mr. Dinckler, owner of the hardware store
- Allen Jenkins as a Santa Rosita Police Department officer
- Marvin Kaplan as garage/service station co-owner Irwin
- Robert Karnes as Simmy, a Santa Rosita Police Department officer
- Buster Keaton as Jimmy the Crook (boatman)
- Tom Kennedy as a Santa Rosita Police Department traffic cop
- Don Knotts as the nervous motorist
- Charles Lane as the airport manager
- Harry Lauter as a police dispatcher of the Santa Rosita Police Department
- Ben Lessy as George the steward
- Bobo Lewis as vintage biplane pilot's wife
- Jerry Lewis as the man who runs over Culpeper's hat
- Bob Mazurki (presumed) as Eddie, the miner's son
- Mike Mazurki as the miner bringing medicine to his wife
- Charles McGraw as Lt. Matthews of the Santa Rosita Police Department
- Cliff Norton as a reporter
- Barbara Pepper as an ice cream counter waitress (scene deleted)
- ZaSu Pitts as Gertie, the Santa Rosita Police Department Central Division's switchboard operator
- Carl Reiner as the Rancho Conejo airport tower controller
- Madlyn Rhue as secretary Schwartz of the Santa Rosita Police Department
- Roy Roberts as a Santa Rosita Police Department officer (scene deleted)
- Eddie Ryder as Rancho Conejo air traffic control tower staff member
- Charles Sherlock as a crowd extra
- The Shirelles (voice), singing "31 Flavors" in Sylvester's bachelor pad scene
- Eddie Smith as an extra
- Arnold Stang as garage/service station co-owner Ray
- Nick Stewart as migrant truck driver forced off the road
- The Three Stooges (Moe, Larry, and Curly Joe)[2] as Rancho Conejo Airport firemen (they have the shortest cameo appearance; five seconds)
- Sammee Tong as a laundryman
- Doodles Weaver as a hardware store employee
- Jesse White as a Rancho Conejo air traffic controller
So there we have the first half of my top 12 films that I hate that everyone else loves. Tune in tomorrow for 6-1 on this list. I'm sure this list will raise your blood pressure sufficiently and if it doesn't, tomorrow's most certainly will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)