We go through another season of NBA Basketball and the New York Knicks have failed... again for the umpteenth time since 2001. They can never get themselves out of the cellar. Even with some of their big players, it's not enough to get even 40 wins. This year has been all kinds of embarrassment as they celebrated 70 years of basketball, which was when the NBA first started. Once again, owner James Dolan has found himself in the spotlight again, and the league will not do anything about it.
I'm sure some have heard about it already, but this past Tuesday, the Knicks faced the Chicago Bulls at Madison Square Garden in Manhattan. A lawyer, Mike Hamersky, was having a quick beer at a bar after getting off work. A season ticket holder, he saw Dolan heading out to a limousine and said he should sell the team, which sounds like something you would hear the last 10 year or so years. Dolan heard it, and went back to Hamersky to call him an asshole and put up some wild accusations. The pudgy owner confirmed the story on Deadspin and told his take on the story. He accused Hamersky of being an alcoholic and told his security crew to make sure he didn't get into the Garden. Supposedly, a security guy did follow Hamersky, and the Knicks PR put up a statement, possibly written by Dolan about what happened and their thoughts. Sadly, this situation is not without precedent.
Back in February, beloved Knick legend Charles Oakley was arrested after security had to drag him out of Madison Square Garden. Oakley has never been liked by Dolan as he is not invited to participate in the team's activities with former players. What happened two months ago is up for interpretation. Some could say Oak said a few negative things by Dolan, or Dolan wanted him out because of what would happen. A night or two after the incident, Dolan goes on The Michael Kay Show and puts up an accusation that Oakley had an alcohol problem. He would ban the former great from the arena, fire a head of security for the incident, and the PR group dug a deeper hole that really made the situation a lot worse. In the end, a lot of people stood up for Oak while Dolan got even more hated. There was a meeting between the two and the ban was lifted.
Two years ago, Dolan got sent an angry email from a Knicks fan that had grown up with the team since their early days in the 1950s. In response, he berated the fan and accused him of not only being an alcoholic, but that he had done nothing positive in life. From this past Tuesday and these two examples, the NBA did nothing. This is a big punch to the face for the league, and its sad that there is no intervention because of the way Dolan acts.
The owner has been one of the most controversial and most hated in the league since his daddy, Charles, gave him the team in 1999. From what I understand, he is a very private person. One of his policies on MSG channels is that you can't criticize the Knicks no matter what. Marv Albert would do that one time in 2004, and he's been working at TNT ever since because Dolan didn't want to hear negativity from one of the biggest play-by-play announcers in the NBA. He fumbled a lot on Detroit Piston legend Isaiah Thomas, which ultimately led to a lawsuit between Thomas and Anucha Browne Sanders regarding sexual harassment. Sanders would win her suit. The way Dolan has handled Phil Jackson has been subpar. There's just a lot of bad things that have occurred.
I don't get why Dolan gets frustrated and says stupid things. The Knicks have been a poor representation of the NBA for the last 15 years. How is that not surprising when he sees fans act that way? When you're that bad for so long, of course the damn fans are going to say to sell the team. He lacks any sort of professionalism. He's never worked hard at getting anything. The same things that are heard every day are going to be that way until he either sells the team (which he probably won't) or passes away.
If he says something even more derogatory or racist, what is commissioner Adam Silver going to do? Give him a slap on the wrist? The foot has to come down eventually, even as all those idiots in Manhattan sell out Madison Square Garden every game. The NBA can't keep dodging this stuff. They have to eventually punish Dolan, whether it's a huge fine or getting rid of the team. If I was in charge, I would get rid of Dolan, his PR guy Jonathan Supranowitz, get rid of their media policy, and try to get someone that is basketball oriented to be the owner instead of a cable TV oriented owner.
Something has to happened soon. Stalling is only going to make things worse. If it doesn't, shame on Silver.
Check out some earlier NBA blogs:
http://sullivanentertainment.blogspot.com/2017/03/tecmo-super-nba-basketball-sega-genesis.html
http://sullivanentertainment.blogspot.com/2017/03/rest-sports-ultimate-decision.html
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Friday, April 7, 2017
Who is the Face of Major League Baseball?
ESPN did a poll on people's top 50 favorite athletes. Within it, it was a mix of current and past players from various sports. Out of a number of unrepresented, baseball was at the bottom. The best one was out of the top 10, and that was Derek Jeter, who hasn't played a game in two and a half years. Out of the rest, only Babe Ruth and Pete Rose made the list. It has caused the big question and the title of this blog. Who exactly is the face of Major League Baseball?
There are a lot of players to consider that are in their prime, young faces that can last a very long time in the league. You can pick a lot of them. One example mentioned on ESPN was Mike Trout of the Los Angeles Angels. He is essentially a five tool player. There's a reason he is a two time MVP. He's got power and speed. There is patience at the plate and averages less than three errors a season since coming into the league in 2011. Unfortunately, one problem persists. Trout is with the Angels. They haven't been putrid during his career, but only one playoff appearance hurts him being one of the premier faces. The American League is a tough one. This year, everybody in the East has a chance. The Cleveland Indians in the Central have a good chance to make it back to the World Series. Detroit might have a chance just to get in the postseason. The West has the Texas Rangers and Houston Astros, two teams that could really make an impact on the season if there isn't any big setbacks. Trout seems like the easy choice, no doubt, but on a team that has been mostly average or mediocre, it's hard to know. The article on ESPN did mention he's not looking to be a face to the sport, but it could change at some point in his career.
As far as American League players go, there's not too many I can think of right off the bat. There's a few Detroit Tiger players. Miguel Cabrera and Justin Verlander are guys you could possibly think as a face of baseball. The downside is that they may have another four to six years left in their careers before they decide to call it quits. One of the Baby Bombers of the Yankees could be one. Boston has Jackie Bradley Jr and Mookie Betts that could last a long time in the MLB. Dallas Keuchel of the Houston Astros could be one if he stays consistent in his career and has no off years. There's a few other players on that team like Jose Altuve, George Springer and a couple others that could really show off the new generation of ball players and give sports a reason to show them as the face of baseball.
The National League has it a little easier, but it's still a difficult task. Instantly, two players come to mind. That is the Washington Nationals' Bryce Harper and the Chicago Cubs' Kris Bryant. Harper has been a very energetic player who can provide enough pop at the bat. However, he has issues that has lead to ejections. Hopefully, he matures to where he can be a little more disciplined and improve on his average a little bit. Bryant has lit up the MLB in his first two years, and winning the World Series is icing on the cake. He has that offensive power despite the high number of strikeouts. His defense could be a little better, and cutting out the errors would help in the long run. He's got an MVP, and Rookie of the Year. This star will keep shining and so will the Cubs for the next five to six years. Bryant might be the guy who can lead baseball into the new generation.
With the rest of the NL, there are some players that I could see as face of baseball. The West has the pitchers in the LA Dodgers' Clayton Kershaw, the San Francisco Giants' Madison Bumgarner, and the Arizona Diamondbacks' Zack Grienke. These guys are tough as nails players that will strike you out looking over and over. Someone on the Mets starting rotation could potentially be one. Giancarlo Stanton of the Miami Marlins could be one if he could stay healthy. Andrew McCutchen of the Pittsburgh Pirates is one of the veterans that reeks of being the face of baseball. There is quite a bit of young players and seasoned veterans that could really shape the sport and be the one that people can think of when they think Major League Baseball.
This may seem fine and dandy, but one of the problems I see is MLB Advanced Media and the MLB website. Depending on where you live, you are stuck with whichever local team or teams you can get on cable unless you watch ESPN and Fox telecasts or pay for a subscription on MLB's website. My personal thoughts is that baseball does not have a strong presence on social media. When it comes to YouTube, Advanced Media is one of the most strict and almost dictator like companies. They take this stuff extremely seriously. Even when they have tried on their own uploading games or clips, it's a mess. Good luck finding anything that hasn't been uploaded, (and probably never will) or isn't a week or so old. You know how the NFL honored the late Dennis Green? Through fan voting, they put up for free the entire Thanksgiving 1998 game of Green's Vikings against the Dallas Cowboys as an effort to show each team's best three games. Major League Baseball will never do that.
The NHL and NBA put up a better presence of YouTube than MLB. There's a channel that has all sorts of hockey fights and they have been on that site since the early days. You can probably find short clips of some great games like Kobe Bryant and his 81 point performance back in the mid 2000s. With MLB, good luck finding a short clip that isn't someone from the fucking stands recording on their cell phone. You really have to weed through the site to find games, and it's not even if I had to guess, two percent of all the games that have telecast since at least the 1940s. Unfortunately, MLB Advanced Media controls everything. They're not putting up an effort for people to watch baseball clips. Nobody is biting to subscribe on YouTube. As of now, MLB only has over 700 thousand subscribers on their channel. The highest for any individual team is the New York Yankees at 12 thousand. That's embarrassingly sad. The lowest is the Cincinnati Reds and San Diego Padres at one point four thousand. People balk at the sport and don't buy into what they are trying to do. They are trying, but very, very barely.
For the NBA, they have a huge presence with a subscriber base that is ten times more than MLB as of 2017. And that could rise more in the future. The Golden State Warriors YouTube channel has nearly 400 thousand, a few hundred thousand away from what MLB has. The NBA knows how big social media is. They are probably one of the more looser sports leagues and allow people to upload clips of stuff like Tracy McGrady and his 2005 comeback against San Antonio. Seeing some of the great dunks can easily be found. This is a league that knows its audience and wants to keep that and make it grow to high levels. Even the NFL has put up a better effort in two years than MLB has in five, six years. They are a little strict, but they don't hate the Internet.
Moving on to the MLB website, it's a convoluted mess. Odds are you're not going to find anything unless it's less than 24 hours old. Even finding older stuff is next to impossible. The thing is Advanced Media wants you to go to that site. Without anywhere else to go to, you really have no choice. Regarding players being the face of baseball, you don't hear much from them unless you watch SportsCenter highlights of stuff that is older than a day. You don't see commercials of baseball players often unless you're on the local cable channel that covers the specific team. You can easily see NBA players on TV all time promoting the latest footwear or food. There's NFL players with stuff like State Farm Insurance. Even NASCAR has drivers like Kevin Harvick promoting products on channels when a race isn't going on. MLB has none of that. There might be a commercial here and there, but there's nothing major. I've seen pretzels at grocery stores with Mike Trout's face on it and that's it outside of baseball cards and video games.
Unless you follow MLB overall or a specific team and/or player, you're not going to find much on Twitter or other sites unless they did something good or blew a game. If baseball wants to get recognized again, it's going to have to do a lot of things. The front offices need to realize social media is a big deal. They really need to figure this out quick. MLB Advanced needs to really put an effort to show that they care on YouTube, but I doubt they ever will. They got to let people be confident in showing clips of great plays over the years and get used to the idea of people wanting that form of media. There can't be any laziness, which can easily be seen the last six to seven years.
MLB needs to get out of the early to mid 2000s. Their archaic approach is not a good one, and they really need a new generation of followers considering a lot of the baby boomers are going to pass away in the next year to 20 years. I know it means they have to get out of their comfort zone, but in today's world, it means more than just money and ratings. If they can't do that combined with the overpaid salaries of players and executives, MLB might not exist in another lifetime or generation, depending on how their luck runs. Perhaps they should look at how the NBA does things. It could set up a blueprint for how to be a top sports league on the Internet.
There are a lot of players to consider that are in their prime, young faces that can last a very long time in the league. You can pick a lot of them. One example mentioned on ESPN was Mike Trout of the Los Angeles Angels. He is essentially a five tool player. There's a reason he is a two time MVP. He's got power and speed. There is patience at the plate and averages less than three errors a season since coming into the league in 2011. Unfortunately, one problem persists. Trout is with the Angels. They haven't been putrid during his career, but only one playoff appearance hurts him being one of the premier faces. The American League is a tough one. This year, everybody in the East has a chance. The Cleveland Indians in the Central have a good chance to make it back to the World Series. Detroit might have a chance just to get in the postseason. The West has the Texas Rangers and Houston Astros, two teams that could really make an impact on the season if there isn't any big setbacks. Trout seems like the easy choice, no doubt, but on a team that has been mostly average or mediocre, it's hard to know. The article on ESPN did mention he's not looking to be a face to the sport, but it could change at some point in his career.
As far as American League players go, there's not too many I can think of right off the bat. There's a few Detroit Tiger players. Miguel Cabrera and Justin Verlander are guys you could possibly think as a face of baseball. The downside is that they may have another four to six years left in their careers before they decide to call it quits. One of the Baby Bombers of the Yankees could be one. Boston has Jackie Bradley Jr and Mookie Betts that could last a long time in the MLB. Dallas Keuchel of the Houston Astros could be one if he stays consistent in his career and has no off years. There's a few other players on that team like Jose Altuve, George Springer and a couple others that could really show off the new generation of ball players and give sports a reason to show them as the face of baseball.
The National League has it a little easier, but it's still a difficult task. Instantly, two players come to mind. That is the Washington Nationals' Bryce Harper and the Chicago Cubs' Kris Bryant. Harper has been a very energetic player who can provide enough pop at the bat. However, he has issues that has lead to ejections. Hopefully, he matures to where he can be a little more disciplined and improve on his average a little bit. Bryant has lit up the MLB in his first two years, and winning the World Series is icing on the cake. He has that offensive power despite the high number of strikeouts. His defense could be a little better, and cutting out the errors would help in the long run. He's got an MVP, and Rookie of the Year. This star will keep shining and so will the Cubs for the next five to six years. Bryant might be the guy who can lead baseball into the new generation.
With the rest of the NL, there are some players that I could see as face of baseball. The West has the pitchers in the LA Dodgers' Clayton Kershaw, the San Francisco Giants' Madison Bumgarner, and the Arizona Diamondbacks' Zack Grienke. These guys are tough as nails players that will strike you out looking over and over. Someone on the Mets starting rotation could potentially be one. Giancarlo Stanton of the Miami Marlins could be one if he could stay healthy. Andrew McCutchen of the Pittsburgh Pirates is one of the veterans that reeks of being the face of baseball. There is quite a bit of young players and seasoned veterans that could really shape the sport and be the one that people can think of when they think Major League Baseball.
This may seem fine and dandy, but one of the problems I see is MLB Advanced Media and the MLB website. Depending on where you live, you are stuck with whichever local team or teams you can get on cable unless you watch ESPN and Fox telecasts or pay for a subscription on MLB's website. My personal thoughts is that baseball does not have a strong presence on social media. When it comes to YouTube, Advanced Media is one of the most strict and almost dictator like companies. They take this stuff extremely seriously. Even when they have tried on their own uploading games or clips, it's a mess. Good luck finding anything that hasn't been uploaded, (and probably never will) or isn't a week or so old. You know how the NFL honored the late Dennis Green? Through fan voting, they put up for free the entire Thanksgiving 1998 game of Green's Vikings against the Dallas Cowboys as an effort to show each team's best three games. Major League Baseball will never do that.
The NHL and NBA put up a better presence of YouTube than MLB. There's a channel that has all sorts of hockey fights and they have been on that site since the early days. You can probably find short clips of some great games like Kobe Bryant and his 81 point performance back in the mid 2000s. With MLB, good luck finding a short clip that isn't someone from the fucking stands recording on their cell phone. You really have to weed through the site to find games, and it's not even if I had to guess, two percent of all the games that have telecast since at least the 1940s. Unfortunately, MLB Advanced Media controls everything. They're not putting up an effort for people to watch baseball clips. Nobody is biting to subscribe on YouTube. As of now, MLB only has over 700 thousand subscribers on their channel. The highest for any individual team is the New York Yankees at 12 thousand. That's embarrassingly sad. The lowest is the Cincinnati Reds and San Diego Padres at one point four thousand. People balk at the sport and don't buy into what they are trying to do. They are trying, but very, very barely.
For the NBA, they have a huge presence with a subscriber base that is ten times more than MLB as of 2017. And that could rise more in the future. The Golden State Warriors YouTube channel has nearly 400 thousand, a few hundred thousand away from what MLB has. The NBA knows how big social media is. They are probably one of the more looser sports leagues and allow people to upload clips of stuff like Tracy McGrady and his 2005 comeback against San Antonio. Seeing some of the great dunks can easily be found. This is a league that knows its audience and wants to keep that and make it grow to high levels. Even the NFL has put up a better effort in two years than MLB has in five, six years. They are a little strict, but they don't hate the Internet.
Moving on to the MLB website, it's a convoluted mess. Odds are you're not going to find anything unless it's less than 24 hours old. Even finding older stuff is next to impossible. The thing is Advanced Media wants you to go to that site. Without anywhere else to go to, you really have no choice. Regarding players being the face of baseball, you don't hear much from them unless you watch SportsCenter highlights of stuff that is older than a day. You don't see commercials of baseball players often unless you're on the local cable channel that covers the specific team. You can easily see NBA players on TV all time promoting the latest footwear or food. There's NFL players with stuff like State Farm Insurance. Even NASCAR has drivers like Kevin Harvick promoting products on channels when a race isn't going on. MLB has none of that. There might be a commercial here and there, but there's nothing major. I've seen pretzels at grocery stores with Mike Trout's face on it and that's it outside of baseball cards and video games.
Unless you follow MLB overall or a specific team and/or player, you're not going to find much on Twitter or other sites unless they did something good or blew a game. If baseball wants to get recognized again, it's going to have to do a lot of things. The front offices need to realize social media is a big deal. They really need to figure this out quick. MLB Advanced needs to really put an effort to show that they care on YouTube, but I doubt they ever will. They got to let people be confident in showing clips of great plays over the years and get used to the idea of people wanting that form of media. There can't be any laziness, which can easily be seen the last six to seven years.
MLB needs to get out of the early to mid 2000s. Their archaic approach is not a good one, and they really need a new generation of followers considering a lot of the baby boomers are going to pass away in the next year to 20 years. I know it means they have to get out of their comfort zone, but in today's world, it means more than just money and ratings. If they can't do that combined with the overpaid salaries of players and executives, MLB might not exist in another lifetime or generation, depending on how their luck runs. Perhaps they should look at how the NBA does things. It could set up a blueprint for how to be a top sports league on the Internet.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Shutting Down Schools: What Gives?
Yesterday, I listened a little bit to The Michael Kay Show where the title host and Don La Greca talked a little bit about a Catholic school shutting down because of inefficient funds to keep it running. The school, St. Anthony in New Jersey, was home to many basketball championships over the years, including some recent ones. It got me back to thinking about the issues about my elementary school shutting down. The place I went to from 1997-03 was ending after 70 plus years. Where does the problem lie as far as closing?
Really, it's more than just one factor, and it amplifies as the years go on. I think one is where you live. Certain parts of the United States are friendly to families. If they can't find a job and/or can't deal with taxes that are high due to possibly tuition or school costs, they might scurry out. That was a thing that La Greca and Kay talked about. The costs were too much for ones that wanted to go to St. Anthony. By the time I graduated in my school district, there was between 70 and 80 students of my year. I think the number has dwindled down a little bit. I've had cousins who graduated with 40 students. People don't want to deal with all sorts of bullshit that occurs.
I hate to be a downer, but where I live, it's slowly becoming a ghost town. There are still a lot of people, but not enough children. Another problem is renovation. My district has three schools. Two are elementary, which both are planning to close, and a high school. I don't remember there being any issues with the elementary schools. I know in high school whenever there was pretty bad rain storms, there would be leaks to certain parts of it to where buckets were used to catch the leaks. All three were looking at very high costs. Unfortunately, they took the easy way out instead of fixing things.
For my town, we really don't have much beyond the elementary school. We have a couple gas stations, a post office, convenience store, a small park with baseball fields, a basketball court, and a pool for the summer. There's a couple churches, a small ice cream eatery on the outskirts of town, some car repair areas. The list goes on. It does help we get truckers who are looking to rest a little bit after a long day or night driving on the road. At the end of the day, I really don't know if the town could potentially go bankrupt.
It sucks to see a school go away. Any school, really. The wheels go into motion and it hurts the people who live in an area that closes a school. It's a shame.
Check out this school related blog:
http://sullivanentertainment.blogspot.com/2017/03/snow-stories-and-buffoonish-schools.html
Really, it's more than just one factor, and it amplifies as the years go on. I think one is where you live. Certain parts of the United States are friendly to families. If they can't find a job and/or can't deal with taxes that are high due to possibly tuition or school costs, they might scurry out. That was a thing that La Greca and Kay talked about. The costs were too much for ones that wanted to go to St. Anthony. By the time I graduated in my school district, there was between 70 and 80 students of my year. I think the number has dwindled down a little bit. I've had cousins who graduated with 40 students. People don't want to deal with all sorts of bullshit that occurs.
I hate to be a downer, but where I live, it's slowly becoming a ghost town. There are still a lot of people, but not enough children. Another problem is renovation. My district has three schools. Two are elementary, which both are planning to close, and a high school. I don't remember there being any issues with the elementary schools. I know in high school whenever there was pretty bad rain storms, there would be leaks to certain parts of it to where buckets were used to catch the leaks. All three were looking at very high costs. Unfortunately, they took the easy way out instead of fixing things.
For my town, we really don't have much beyond the elementary school. We have a couple gas stations, a post office, convenience store, a small park with baseball fields, a basketball court, and a pool for the summer. There's a couple churches, a small ice cream eatery on the outskirts of town, some car repair areas. The list goes on. It does help we get truckers who are looking to rest a little bit after a long day or night driving on the road. At the end of the day, I really don't know if the town could potentially go bankrupt.
It sucks to see a school go away. Any school, really. The wheels go into motion and it hurts the people who live in an area that closes a school. It's a shame.
Check out this school related blog:
http://sullivanentertainment.blogspot.com/2017/03/snow-stories-and-buffoonish-schools.html
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Three Times the Charm... Stephen Piscotty
Over the course of a baseball season, you see freakish things happen. What occurred to Stephen Piscotty last night is one of those things. Unfortunately, it would end with him being evaluated for a head contusion.
Entering this season, Piscotty played part of 2015 and enjoyed a decent full season last year. He signed to a big contract with the St. Louis Cardinals to stay with them. It started midway through the game in the bottom of the 5th. Against the Chicago Cubs, Cub pitcher Jake Arrieta plunked him in the arm. He shrugged it off and went to first base. A pitch a couple batters later from Arietta gets away from the catcher Willson Contreras and Piscotty heads off to second. He slides down and gets hit again in the other arm. You would think it would end at that point, but it didn't.
A short hit leads to a few miscues from the Cubs infield to get the guy out at first. Noticing Piscotty heading for home, they throw to home and hit him in the helmet. While it gave the Cardinals a run, it was a costly one. The team got him off the field and sent him for evaluation for the head contusion. The early reports have been said that he has been evaluated for a concussion and is able to get back on the field, which won't be today because of all the thunderstorms and tornadoes occurring in the Midwest and South.
What a price to pay for last night. Usually managers worry about getting hit three times in a month, not in an inning. Thank goodness for the helmet. Some of the National League teams have gone the length of protecting faces following the wake of Giancarlo Stanton getting plunked in the face back in 2014. We have come a long way to ensure the safety of not just the players, but the fans, too. That being said, fans do have to keep eye on the action even with stuff like protective netting at home and the corners.
For as much as I hate the Cardinals, that shouldn't have happened. Hopefully, it doesn't again.
Entering this season, Piscotty played part of 2015 and enjoyed a decent full season last year. He signed to a big contract with the St. Louis Cardinals to stay with them. It started midway through the game in the bottom of the 5th. Against the Chicago Cubs, Cub pitcher Jake Arrieta plunked him in the arm. He shrugged it off and went to first base. A pitch a couple batters later from Arietta gets away from the catcher Willson Contreras and Piscotty heads off to second. He slides down and gets hit again in the other arm. You would think it would end at that point, but it didn't.
A short hit leads to a few miscues from the Cubs infield to get the guy out at first. Noticing Piscotty heading for home, they throw to home and hit him in the helmet. While it gave the Cardinals a run, it was a costly one. The team got him off the field and sent him for evaluation for the head contusion. The early reports have been said that he has been evaluated for a concussion and is able to get back on the field, which won't be today because of all the thunderstorms and tornadoes occurring in the Midwest and South.
What a price to pay for last night. Usually managers worry about getting hit three times in a month, not in an inning. Thank goodness for the helmet. Some of the National League teams have gone the length of protecting faces following the wake of Giancarlo Stanton getting plunked in the face back in 2014. We have come a long way to ensure the safety of not just the players, but the fans, too. That being said, fans do have to keep eye on the action even with stuff like protective netting at home and the corners.
For as much as I hate the Cardinals, that shouldn't have happened. Hopefully, it doesn't again.
Fox On The Map: Married... With Children at 30
Last year was 30 years of the Fox Network. When they started out, they really had nothing in October 1986 and would continue that way the first few months of 1987. That would change on April 5th of that year when they introduced a few new shows on Sunday nights that would help take them seriously. Along with The Tracey Ullman Show and a week later with 21 Jump Street, Married... With Children paved the way for Fox. It's approach to comedy might be primitive today, but back then, it was a fresh change from what was seen in 87. I'm not sure if this show could exist today.
The biggest comedy and sitcom at the time was The Cosby Show, which was near the end of its third season on NBC when Married...With Children started airing. Other big sitcoms like it were Family Ties, and Growing Pains. A typical episode has something happen and the characters learn their lesson. These families were successful and could do many great things in the future. However, the Bundy family was the complete opposite of all that. They were crude. Life was miserable. And yet, they still were together along with their neighbor.
Without it, there is no The Simpsons, no NFL, nothing. And it starts off with the characters. I would say Al Bundy, played by Ed O'Neill, is one of the most famous characters of that decade and the 90s. He is a misogynistic shoe salesman. Most of the time, he deals with obese women and hurls a few insults that you wouldn't think were possible. Depending on the episode, he may show displeasure or be proud of his family, usually the former. He would get involved in certain schemes to get richer or and have it backfire most of the time. The same is said for some revenge tactics. For as much as he can't stand his wife, he never attempted to cheat on her, which showed he still loved her, even if it isn't the best. It is a shame O'Neill was typecast as Al until his current role in Modern Family. Even when the show was still airing, people expected him to still be the funny man in other projects.
Married... With Children not only saw the rise of O'Neill. It also saw actress Katey Sagal become a leading lady for TV shows over the years with programs like Futurama and Sons of Anarchy. Her character, Peggy, was the housewife. Unlike the typical character at the time for television, she was the opposite of Clair Huxtable. She was lazy. She didn't clean, didn't look for a job. She would rather shop, eat bon bons, and watch TV. One of the show's biggest gags was her sex drive and constantly wanting to have sex or just love Al, which he would say no to or some sarcastic remark. Some episodes would feature Peg as someone that is competent at doing something right or good, only to revert back to her normal way of living life. And you thought your parents were horrible.
Like some of the 80s sitcoms, the kids shown were teenagers. The Bundy family had the really dumb blonde Kelly, played by a young Christina Applegate, and the smart but can never score with girls Bud, played by David Faustino. It played out like your typical sibling rivalry. They couldn't stand each other and most of the time didn't want to see the other achieve at anything. Individually, both had their flaws. Kelly is the definition of stupid and simple minded, but easily gets guys if they don't get beaten up by Al or anyone else. She has a few shining moments, but that is often thrown to the side. Bud was the brains of the Bundys but seemed to lack any real effort to get girls. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree considering he always had schemes like Al and most of the time would result in something horrific happening to him. That being said, the family does stick together despite the dysfunctional aspects of them. And when push comes to shove, they'll fight back whatever is oppressing them.
Then there is the neighbors. As the show began, it had Steve and Marcy Rhoades, with David Garrison and Amanda Bearse as the young couple. They seemed pretty innocent and gullible, not knowing how psychotic the Bundys were. After the first few seasons, they became frustrated at them, causing pain and destruction that was brought forth by the family. Garrison would leave the show midway through the 1989-90 season, and would make a handful of appearances after that from 1992 to 95. Within the next season, the writers would have Marcy married again, but to a new character, Jefferson D'Arcy, played by Ted McGinley. Unlike Steve, he was more like a combination of Al and Peg. He loved to get involved in schemes that Al would cook up. He had a pretty face and body, but lazy like Peg. Even Marcy addressed that in an episode late in its run saying it was like being married to her. The character would stay for the rest of the shows run to its final episodes in 1997.
You can go back to those early episodes and really see how much Married... With Children changed over time. They feel very down to earth despite the fact it was the polar opposite of The Cosby Show. You can look at this show, Roseanne, The Simpsons and a few others to see the kind of realism they were going for back in the late 80s. Then, it got into a groove that garnered a lot of controversy. If it aired in this present time, it would be cancelled immediately. A housewife did not like the content, particularly with Al, and protested for the show to be taken off the air. Instead of driving people away, it got people to gravitate towards Fox and get huge ratings. It would be made fun of in a late episode. Speaking of which, one episode was filmed, but didn't air on Fox due to the content being questionable. For the typical sitcom, certain things could be tackled, but writers had to be discreet on the subject. Even Seinfeld's Contest episode in 1992 was very risque despite the discreetness and being completely different from other sitcoms. The episode, I'll See You in Court, was kept off the airwaves until FX, who got Married... With Children for syndication in the 2000s, aired it.
Some of the stuff that was seen was very taboo. As the show progressed, it got very cartoon like depending on the episode and repetitive. You can only do realism for so long. Two episodes come to mind. One was Wabbit Season from 1990. Al goes to war against a rabbit who steals his carrots from his vegetable garden. He floods Marcy's home, shoots his own foot and sets fire to his own foot and the fence between the Bundys and Rhoades homes. It ends with him planting an explosive in the rabbit hole not realizing as Bud warned him about putting it near a gas line, causing an explosion and obliterating both homes. It is very funny the stuff that occurs, but the change was noticeable. The other was How Green Was My Apple, where a fight between an apple tree causes tension between the Bundys and D'Arcys. Some noticeable stuff include Marcy getting electrocuted in a pool, the D'Arcy house being tilted off its foundation, and the Bundy house getting blown up.
Even with that, people still wanted to see what occurred on Married... With Children. Fox was on the fence of whether to cancel or renew and decided to end it in 1997. It may not be heralded as much, but it gave rise to two things. One was the rise of the dysfunctional family and pushing the envelope that you didn't see back then for the non-Cosby like shows. As mentioned before, it put Fox on the map. Without it, there's no Simpsons or anything. Who knows if the network would have survived past the 90s if it didn't have the shows that changed the way we viewed television.
Would this show air today? For as funny as it is, probably not, unfortunately. With the all the stuff that went on, especially Al and Bud, there would be huge protests. Not to the level of criticism that happened to The Simpsons early in its run, but enough to get possibly cancelled. It's a product of its era, which can be said for a number of shows. Assume your Fox viewing positions whenever you get a chance to watch Married... With Children. You'll get a good laugh at a lot of the antics.
Stop by the blog on April 19th, where I'll review the first ever appearance of The Simpsons as it turns 30.
The biggest comedy and sitcom at the time was The Cosby Show, which was near the end of its third season on NBC when Married...With Children started airing. Other big sitcoms like it were Family Ties, and Growing Pains. A typical episode has something happen and the characters learn their lesson. These families were successful and could do many great things in the future. However, the Bundy family was the complete opposite of all that. They were crude. Life was miserable. And yet, they still were together along with their neighbor.
Without it, there is no The Simpsons, no NFL, nothing. And it starts off with the characters. I would say Al Bundy, played by Ed O'Neill, is one of the most famous characters of that decade and the 90s. He is a misogynistic shoe salesman. Most of the time, he deals with obese women and hurls a few insults that you wouldn't think were possible. Depending on the episode, he may show displeasure or be proud of his family, usually the former. He would get involved in certain schemes to get richer or and have it backfire most of the time. The same is said for some revenge tactics. For as much as he can't stand his wife, he never attempted to cheat on her, which showed he still loved her, even if it isn't the best. It is a shame O'Neill was typecast as Al until his current role in Modern Family. Even when the show was still airing, people expected him to still be the funny man in other projects.
Married... With Children not only saw the rise of O'Neill. It also saw actress Katey Sagal become a leading lady for TV shows over the years with programs like Futurama and Sons of Anarchy. Her character, Peggy, was the housewife. Unlike the typical character at the time for television, she was the opposite of Clair Huxtable. She was lazy. She didn't clean, didn't look for a job. She would rather shop, eat bon bons, and watch TV. One of the show's biggest gags was her sex drive and constantly wanting to have sex or just love Al, which he would say no to or some sarcastic remark. Some episodes would feature Peg as someone that is competent at doing something right or good, only to revert back to her normal way of living life. And you thought your parents were horrible.
Like some of the 80s sitcoms, the kids shown were teenagers. The Bundy family had the really dumb blonde Kelly, played by a young Christina Applegate, and the smart but can never score with girls Bud, played by David Faustino. It played out like your typical sibling rivalry. They couldn't stand each other and most of the time didn't want to see the other achieve at anything. Individually, both had their flaws. Kelly is the definition of stupid and simple minded, but easily gets guys if they don't get beaten up by Al or anyone else. She has a few shining moments, but that is often thrown to the side. Bud was the brains of the Bundys but seemed to lack any real effort to get girls. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree considering he always had schemes like Al and most of the time would result in something horrific happening to him. That being said, the family does stick together despite the dysfunctional aspects of them. And when push comes to shove, they'll fight back whatever is oppressing them.
Then there is the neighbors. As the show began, it had Steve and Marcy Rhoades, with David Garrison and Amanda Bearse as the young couple. They seemed pretty innocent and gullible, not knowing how psychotic the Bundys were. After the first few seasons, they became frustrated at them, causing pain and destruction that was brought forth by the family. Garrison would leave the show midway through the 1989-90 season, and would make a handful of appearances after that from 1992 to 95. Within the next season, the writers would have Marcy married again, but to a new character, Jefferson D'Arcy, played by Ted McGinley. Unlike Steve, he was more like a combination of Al and Peg. He loved to get involved in schemes that Al would cook up. He had a pretty face and body, but lazy like Peg. Even Marcy addressed that in an episode late in its run saying it was like being married to her. The character would stay for the rest of the shows run to its final episodes in 1997.
You can go back to those early episodes and really see how much Married... With Children changed over time. They feel very down to earth despite the fact it was the polar opposite of The Cosby Show. You can look at this show, Roseanne, The Simpsons and a few others to see the kind of realism they were going for back in the late 80s. Then, it got into a groove that garnered a lot of controversy. If it aired in this present time, it would be cancelled immediately. A housewife did not like the content, particularly with Al, and protested for the show to be taken off the air. Instead of driving people away, it got people to gravitate towards Fox and get huge ratings. It would be made fun of in a late episode. Speaking of which, one episode was filmed, but didn't air on Fox due to the content being questionable. For the typical sitcom, certain things could be tackled, but writers had to be discreet on the subject. Even Seinfeld's Contest episode in 1992 was very risque despite the discreetness and being completely different from other sitcoms. The episode, I'll See You in Court, was kept off the airwaves until FX, who got Married... With Children for syndication in the 2000s, aired it.
Some of the stuff that was seen was very taboo. As the show progressed, it got very cartoon like depending on the episode and repetitive. You can only do realism for so long. Two episodes come to mind. One was Wabbit Season from 1990. Al goes to war against a rabbit who steals his carrots from his vegetable garden. He floods Marcy's home, shoots his own foot and sets fire to his own foot and the fence between the Bundys and Rhoades homes. It ends with him planting an explosive in the rabbit hole not realizing as Bud warned him about putting it near a gas line, causing an explosion and obliterating both homes. It is very funny the stuff that occurs, but the change was noticeable. The other was How Green Was My Apple, where a fight between an apple tree causes tension between the Bundys and D'Arcys. Some noticeable stuff include Marcy getting electrocuted in a pool, the D'Arcy house being tilted off its foundation, and the Bundy house getting blown up.
Even with that, people still wanted to see what occurred on Married... With Children. Fox was on the fence of whether to cancel or renew and decided to end it in 1997. It may not be heralded as much, but it gave rise to two things. One was the rise of the dysfunctional family and pushing the envelope that you didn't see back then for the non-Cosby like shows. As mentioned before, it put Fox on the map. Without it, there's no Simpsons or anything. Who knows if the network would have survived past the 90s if it didn't have the shows that changed the way we viewed television.
Would this show air today? For as funny as it is, probably not, unfortunately. With the all the stuff that went on, especially Al and Bud, there would be huge protests. Not to the level of criticism that happened to The Simpsons early in its run, but enough to get possibly cancelled. It's a product of its era, which can be said for a number of shows. Assume your Fox viewing positions whenever you get a chance to watch Married... With Children. You'll get a good laugh at a lot of the antics.
Stop by the blog on April 19th, where I'll review the first ever appearance of The Simpsons as it turns 30.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
PETA and the Virtual Cows
This story will be almost a week old by the time this blog comes up, but it came the day before April Fools. It has got to be one of the most stupid things to really go after and why animal rights groups are a joke. The sad thing is that this isn't the first time the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has gone after this company. Let's get into it.
Last month, Nintendo released their brand new Switch system. So far, it has done well, but it is a wait and see scenario. It could fail or pass depending on how the company plays its cards. One of its launch games was 1-2-Switch. I don't own the system but looking at this title, it looks very awful and not worth 60 dollars. This should have been a pack in game to showcase as a tech demo. However, the mixed reception is not the reason for this blog. PETA went after Nintendo for a mini-game called Milk. In it, you act like you are grabbing the utter of a cow, trying to get more milk than your opponent. The link is from a YouTube user who has done some Switch videos. Go to the 33:34 mark of the video. That's where the milk part is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZJeH8pcOkg&t=2474s You be the judge on whether you think this is even worth complaining.
This was in response to a challenge Nintendo accepted from a group called Billings Farm and Museum. They were skeptical that it was that easy to milk. After Nintendo accepted the challenge, this competition is set to happen sometime this month. Combined with the mini-game, it is what set PETA off with really a half-assed response. It's why I have waited a few additional days to respond about this because you would think this is a joke. It is not. And if you look at the video link, I don't see anything that shows any harm to a cow. There's not even a cow. What you see is two people with Switch controllers acting like they are milking.
As I said, this is not the first this animal rights group has gone after the Big N. Back in November 2011, they went after the Tanooki Suit when Super Mario 3D Land came out for the 3DS. The suit was first seen in late 1988 in Japan, early 1990 in the U.S., and late 1991 in Europe with Super Mario Bros. 3. It got pretty severe when PETA created a flash game, Super Tanooki Skin 2D. In it, you are a Tanooki who tries to get its skin back from Mario. The lengths they took to criticize a video game is not only bad, but severely stupid. It's a fantasy video game. It's not like you're forced into using the some of the animal powerups, but they are useful.
Groups like PETA and the Ad Council wonder why they get so much hate. It's because of stuff like Nintendo that hurts any credibility they have in making criticism over something that quite frankly, shouldn't have been newsworthy in the first place. This isn't a McDonalds flash game (yes, it actually exists, and plays like a Theme Park or Tycoon game) where you are killing cows. Hell, Pac-Man 2 on the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo had an objective where you you had to milk a cow to get milk for Pac-Baby. Unless I'm seeing something different from these morons, there's nothing to criticize.
When it comes down to it, it's all desperation to stay relevant. That's the goal of PETA. It is very ridiculous to criticize a video game that doesn't involve actual animals. May the day come that groups like these die off. They are about as useless as the National Enquirer.
Check out my thoughts on the Switch before it launched:
http://sullivanentertainment.blogspot.com/2017/02/nintendo-switch-last-hurrah-or-comeback.html
Last month, Nintendo released their brand new Switch system. So far, it has done well, but it is a wait and see scenario. It could fail or pass depending on how the company plays its cards. One of its launch games was 1-2-Switch. I don't own the system but looking at this title, it looks very awful and not worth 60 dollars. This should have been a pack in game to showcase as a tech demo. However, the mixed reception is not the reason for this blog. PETA went after Nintendo for a mini-game called Milk. In it, you act like you are grabbing the utter of a cow, trying to get more milk than your opponent. The link is from a YouTube user who has done some Switch videos. Go to the 33:34 mark of the video. That's where the milk part is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZJeH8pcOkg&t=2474s You be the judge on whether you think this is even worth complaining.
This was in response to a challenge Nintendo accepted from a group called Billings Farm and Museum. They were skeptical that it was that easy to milk. After Nintendo accepted the challenge, this competition is set to happen sometime this month. Combined with the mini-game, it is what set PETA off with really a half-assed response. It's why I have waited a few additional days to respond about this because you would think this is a joke. It is not. And if you look at the video link, I don't see anything that shows any harm to a cow. There's not even a cow. What you see is two people with Switch controllers acting like they are milking.
As I said, this is not the first this animal rights group has gone after the Big N. Back in November 2011, they went after the Tanooki Suit when Super Mario 3D Land came out for the 3DS. The suit was first seen in late 1988 in Japan, early 1990 in the U.S., and late 1991 in Europe with Super Mario Bros. 3. It got pretty severe when PETA created a flash game, Super Tanooki Skin 2D. In it, you are a Tanooki who tries to get its skin back from Mario. The lengths they took to criticize a video game is not only bad, but severely stupid. It's a fantasy video game. It's not like you're forced into using the some of the animal powerups, but they are useful.
Groups like PETA and the Ad Council wonder why they get so much hate. It's because of stuff like Nintendo that hurts any credibility they have in making criticism over something that quite frankly, shouldn't have been newsworthy in the first place. This isn't a McDonalds flash game (yes, it actually exists, and plays like a Theme Park or Tycoon game) where you are killing cows. Hell, Pac-Man 2 on the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo had an objective where you you had to milk a cow to get milk for Pac-Baby. Unless I'm seeing something different from these morons, there's nothing to criticize.
When it comes down to it, it's all desperation to stay relevant. That's the goal of PETA. It is very ridiculous to criticize a video game that doesn't involve actual animals. May the day come that groups like these die off. They are about as useless as the National Enquirer.
Check out my thoughts on the Switch before it launched:
http://sullivanentertainment.blogspot.com/2017/02/nintendo-switch-last-hurrah-or-comeback.html
NCAA Men's Basketball Championship Recap 2017
For most people, a championship game of any sport is great when it moves with a great flow. It has plays that become unforgettable, and feels clean for the most part. An effort is put up on both sides and there is confidence to be in the clutch and make those plays count. I did not see any of that with last night's NCAA Championship game between the Gonzaga Bulldogs and the North Carolina Tar Heels. That game has got to be one of the worst games I have ever seen of any sport. For me, this rivals the Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos Super Bowl game and a Monday Night Football game between the Jacksonville Jaguars and Baltimore Ravens in 2011, though those two games were for different reasons.
I'll try to keep it short, but that first half was okay. There was some mediocre shooting, but there was a flow to it. North Carolina should have been up and had more than 32 points at halftime. So many in and outs, one would wonder if they could get a shot off that would swish into the basket at certain points of the game. The refs called it a little tight, but they let that first half go and allowed both teams to play through without responding to a bunch of ticky tacky fouls. You would think with the second half there would be a little more effort, but that never happened.
When one team was cold, the other was hot and vice versa for those first five minutes of the second half. Gonzaga played very poorly. They couldn't make a shot to save their life, yet they were still in it until the final minute. North Carolina was extremely poor in three point shooting the entire game, and it showed with only a few actually going in late in the half. What killed this game, however, was the referees. It got so tight that by the time there was 10 minutes left in the game, there was nearly 20 fouls. Some fouls had to be called, but there was quite a bit of ticky tacky calls that it ruined the flow. Even the CBS announcers noticed the frustration of fans and mentioned the foul calling a few times. An NBA game has a better flow than this, even when there are a lot of fouls with two minutes remaining in the fourth quarter.
I went to a JV basketball game at my high school around either 2009 or 2010. By the time that game was finished, there had been nearly or at 50 fouls committed by both sides. Roughly 45-50 fouls were called for this championship game. About 30 were in that second half alone. The refs are going to be roasted and rightfully so. When you have NBA veterans criticizing them for the numerous calls, you know you screwed up. I can't think of any time in any sport where refs or umpires dictated a game by being so tight that anything can be called.
The NFL has endured a lot of criticism about refs and their poor calls. It can be said as well for the NBA depending on certain situations. For MLB, it depends on the umpire and if they have notoriety like Joe West. This NCAA Championship game outrivals a lot of the poor calls in those three sports and a lot of other sports. I'll end by saying that while these referees are human, they should not be the X factor to a game. Changes have to be made to ensure things like this last night (or tonight, depending on the time region), don't happen again. These referees are going to catch a lot of hell from now until November when the next season approaches.
I'll try to keep it short, but that first half was okay. There was some mediocre shooting, but there was a flow to it. North Carolina should have been up and had more than 32 points at halftime. So many in and outs, one would wonder if they could get a shot off that would swish into the basket at certain points of the game. The refs called it a little tight, but they let that first half go and allowed both teams to play through without responding to a bunch of ticky tacky fouls. You would think with the second half there would be a little more effort, but that never happened.
When one team was cold, the other was hot and vice versa for those first five minutes of the second half. Gonzaga played very poorly. They couldn't make a shot to save their life, yet they were still in it until the final minute. North Carolina was extremely poor in three point shooting the entire game, and it showed with only a few actually going in late in the half. What killed this game, however, was the referees. It got so tight that by the time there was 10 minutes left in the game, there was nearly 20 fouls. Some fouls had to be called, but there was quite a bit of ticky tacky calls that it ruined the flow. Even the CBS announcers noticed the frustration of fans and mentioned the foul calling a few times. An NBA game has a better flow than this, even when there are a lot of fouls with two minutes remaining in the fourth quarter.
I went to a JV basketball game at my high school around either 2009 or 2010. By the time that game was finished, there had been nearly or at 50 fouls committed by both sides. Roughly 45-50 fouls were called for this championship game. About 30 were in that second half alone. The refs are going to be roasted and rightfully so. When you have NBA veterans criticizing them for the numerous calls, you know you screwed up. I can't think of any time in any sport where refs or umpires dictated a game by being so tight that anything can be called.
The NFL has endured a lot of criticism about refs and their poor calls. It can be said as well for the NBA depending on certain situations. For MLB, it depends on the umpire and if they have notoriety like Joe West. This NCAA Championship game outrivals a lot of the poor calls in those three sports and a lot of other sports. I'll end by saying that while these referees are human, they should not be the X factor to a game. Changes have to be made to ensure things like this last night (or tonight, depending on the time region), don't happen again. These referees are going to catch a lot of hell from now until November when the next season approaches.
Monday, April 3, 2017
NCAA Hates the East Coast?
The NCAA has an interesting championship game for tonight when Gonzaga faces off against North Carolina. One could say it should favor the Tar Heels, but with the way the Bulldogs have played, they might have a chance. This begs the question, however. Why does the NCAA hate the East Coast? As usual, the game begins at 9:20 PM for anyone that lives in that part of the United States.
I get that it's tradition and all, but this really needs to stop. If it were a Saturday night game, there wouldn't be too many issues. Monday night is pretty bad for anyone that has to go work that starts anywhere from six to nine in the morning, give or take. Not to mention any children that have to get to school the next day. They can't even watch the entire first half. I understand getting ratings, but wouldn't it make more sense to start the game at 8:15 PM or maybe 7:30 PM for that matter?
Major League Baseball received a lot of criticism for their World Series coverage in the 2000s. The big complaint was games starting after 8:30 at night. They have tried to address it, but problems still arise. Some from MLB, and other times, the teams who turn a three hour game into a three and a half, maybe four hour game. I do not see a daytime World Series working. At the very least, starting at 7:00 PM would certainly get people to at least watch most of a game. They should be lucky that last year's Series between the Cleveland Indians and Chicago Cubs actually got more than 40 million viewers for Game 7. That's lightning in a bottle that probably won't be replicated again.
I'd say the Super Bowl is the only championship game in all sports that starts at a decent time. The NFL knows exactly when to start and knows that the audience will be there, no matter what, until the last play of the game. For NCAA Football, it's not the best with their time choice, but not as bad as basketball. It should go for at least a 7:30 PM game. I'm not even sure that the NHL is worth criticizing since it isn't a ratings juggernaut. However, 8:00 PM is not a horrible timeslot to begin a game. Depending on penalties, shootouts, and other calls like off sides, it shouldn't take that long.
Much like the MLB, the NBA has endured a lot of criticism for its still current approach to scheduling Finals games. With exceptions of Sunday games, their games begin at 9:00 PM. That is the sweet spot if you were a TV show like Cheers or the original CSI. Much like last year's World Series, it has been lightning in a bottle the last few years for the Finals. Seeing the Cleveland Cavaliers and Golden State Warriors duke it out for six, seven games has seen big numbers since the Michael Jordan years. NBC struggled after Jordan retired for a second time, and ABC had a hard time early on attracting audiences since getting the rights for the NBA for the 2002-03 season.
For them to get the rights in 2002, ABC struggled. Their first five years saw some pretty bad numbers in 2003 and 2007 for the Finals. Sandwiched in between were series that had notable teams and players, but saw some declines that were noticeable until the last few games of a Finals that went more than five games. It was still not as good as NBC ratings for the NBA. Starting with the 2008 Lakers and Celtics Finals, it has seen a steady growth in ratings due to the growth in a lot of big name players and teams that hadn't won or had the makings of a championship team.
Anyway you slice it, sports like the NBA can justify starting late at night because of the growth. The NCAA had its best ratings for the Final Four in over a decade and could rise following. It hurts anyone that lives on the eastern or even central time. But if it is a close game towards the end, the networks and leagues know everyone is going to watch. Those last few innings in the World Series last year was very intense and had the ultimate drama.
Is it really hating the East Coast? I don't know. I feel like it is, especially when lots of people have to get up to go to work or school. Until the numbers see a huge decrease (which seems very unlikely), networks and leagues can keep justifying starting late. Greed can sometimes not be a happy thing.
I get that it's tradition and all, but this really needs to stop. If it were a Saturday night game, there wouldn't be too many issues. Monday night is pretty bad for anyone that has to go work that starts anywhere from six to nine in the morning, give or take. Not to mention any children that have to get to school the next day. They can't even watch the entire first half. I understand getting ratings, but wouldn't it make more sense to start the game at 8:15 PM or maybe 7:30 PM for that matter?
Major League Baseball received a lot of criticism for their World Series coverage in the 2000s. The big complaint was games starting after 8:30 at night. They have tried to address it, but problems still arise. Some from MLB, and other times, the teams who turn a three hour game into a three and a half, maybe four hour game. I do not see a daytime World Series working. At the very least, starting at 7:00 PM would certainly get people to at least watch most of a game. They should be lucky that last year's Series between the Cleveland Indians and Chicago Cubs actually got more than 40 million viewers for Game 7. That's lightning in a bottle that probably won't be replicated again.
I'd say the Super Bowl is the only championship game in all sports that starts at a decent time. The NFL knows exactly when to start and knows that the audience will be there, no matter what, until the last play of the game. For NCAA Football, it's not the best with their time choice, but not as bad as basketball. It should go for at least a 7:30 PM game. I'm not even sure that the NHL is worth criticizing since it isn't a ratings juggernaut. However, 8:00 PM is not a horrible timeslot to begin a game. Depending on penalties, shootouts, and other calls like off sides, it shouldn't take that long.
Much like the MLB, the NBA has endured a lot of criticism for its still current approach to scheduling Finals games. With exceptions of Sunday games, their games begin at 9:00 PM. That is the sweet spot if you were a TV show like Cheers or the original CSI. Much like last year's World Series, it has been lightning in a bottle the last few years for the Finals. Seeing the Cleveland Cavaliers and Golden State Warriors duke it out for six, seven games has seen big numbers since the Michael Jordan years. NBC struggled after Jordan retired for a second time, and ABC had a hard time early on attracting audiences since getting the rights for the NBA for the 2002-03 season.
For them to get the rights in 2002, ABC struggled. Their first five years saw some pretty bad numbers in 2003 and 2007 for the Finals. Sandwiched in between were series that had notable teams and players, but saw some declines that were noticeable until the last few games of a Finals that went more than five games. It was still not as good as NBC ratings for the NBA. Starting with the 2008 Lakers and Celtics Finals, it has seen a steady growth in ratings due to the growth in a lot of big name players and teams that hadn't won or had the makings of a championship team.
Anyway you slice it, sports like the NBA can justify starting late at night because of the growth. The NCAA had its best ratings for the Final Four in over a decade and could rise following. It hurts anyone that lives on the eastern or even central time. But if it is a close game towards the end, the networks and leagues know everyone is going to watch. Those last few innings in the World Series last year was very intense and had the ultimate drama.
Is it really hating the East Coast? I don't know. I feel like it is, especially when lots of people have to get up to go to work or school. Until the numbers see a huge decrease (which seems very unlikely), networks and leagues can keep justifying starting late. Greed can sometimes not be a happy thing.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Patience Needed on Super Troopers 2
I'll try to keep this short if I can. I listened to a podcast from Broken Lizard guys Kevin Heffernan and Steve Lemme a week or so ago. They had one of their Lizard members Jay Chandrasekhar, who was promoting his new book Mustache Shenanigans, on it. A quick update was given on Super Troopers 2 and that they hope 20th Century Fox tells them when the movie will hit theaters. They mention that some fans are frustrated about the fact that it hasn't been out and are demanding a refund. Here are my thoughts on it.
Right now, this is out of Broken Lizard's hands. They can't make the choice on when it goes into theaters or even trailers if a decision has been made. It kind of is a studio movie. The thing is, the group has had issues with Fox over the years about making another Super Troopers, something they have said before a number of times on other podcasts and videos. When you think of some of the company's biggest to modestly successful movies to get sequels, you think of stuff from the last 50 years. Stuff like Planet of the Apes, Revenge of the Nerds, Die Hard, Home Alone, Independence Day, Ice Age. The list goes on. You can't blame them on not being confident in a sequel to a huge cult hit that caught on to DVD.
Then again, it's not a huge risk considering Fox didn't even give Broken Lizard any money. A little more than four million from the crowdfunding in 2015 is not something to sneeze at, but it's better than the 1.2 million for the original. Not to mention it's under the Fox Searchlight label. I don't see any reason to be afraid of a comedy troupe film. Sure, their audience is mostly young adults and college kids, but it can't be a bad thing, can it? There's a hunger for another Super Troopers. Fox has to realize that and look beyond the box office numbers.
I hope they announce something very soon. Development hell is not something Broken Lizard doesn't want to see again after a very long length of time. If it comes around August or September, then it shouldn't frustrate too many. If Fox doesn't, who knows when it will come out or if refunds become more demanding than seeing the film.
Check out the previous blog I have done regarding Super Troopers 2.
http://sullivanentertainment.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-super-troopers-2-is-important-for.html
Right now, this is out of Broken Lizard's hands. They can't make the choice on when it goes into theaters or even trailers if a decision has been made. It kind of is a studio movie. The thing is, the group has had issues with Fox over the years about making another Super Troopers, something they have said before a number of times on other podcasts and videos. When you think of some of the company's biggest to modestly successful movies to get sequels, you think of stuff from the last 50 years. Stuff like Planet of the Apes, Revenge of the Nerds, Die Hard, Home Alone, Independence Day, Ice Age. The list goes on. You can't blame them on not being confident in a sequel to a huge cult hit that caught on to DVD.
Then again, it's not a huge risk considering Fox didn't even give Broken Lizard any money. A little more than four million from the crowdfunding in 2015 is not something to sneeze at, but it's better than the 1.2 million for the original. Not to mention it's under the Fox Searchlight label. I don't see any reason to be afraid of a comedy troupe film. Sure, their audience is mostly young adults and college kids, but it can't be a bad thing, can it? There's a hunger for another Super Troopers. Fox has to realize that and look beyond the box office numbers.
I hope they announce something very soon. Development hell is not something Broken Lizard doesn't want to see again after a very long length of time. If it comes around August or September, then it shouldn't frustrate too many. If Fox doesn't, who knows when it will come out or if refunds become more demanding than seeing the film.
Check out the previous blog I have done regarding Super Troopers 2.
http://sullivanentertainment.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-super-troopers-2-is-important-for.html
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Politics: The Unavoidable Annoyance
There is a line in the game L.A. Noire that really should be taken and spoken to. Early in the game, Cole Phelps tells his partner on the force, "Friends who want to stay friends don't discuss religion or politics." You would think some people would get the message, but nope. Which brings up the topic of politics. You try to avoid it. No matter how hard you try, it keeps being brought up by some people. It's constantly seen on cable news with whichever news personality on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC. There's the late night crew, which is basically liberal central. It is completely unavoidable, and it gets ultra annoying.
I have been on Facebook for six years now. There have been a lot of people that are friends with me and still are. Some of them had to be unfriended because of constant spamming of their posts or whining like a soap opera about their life. It's a difficult choice, but sometimes the trigger has to pulled to click on unfriend. In the case of politics, I have never seen people so divided into this past election where the constant spamming of who they view as the bad guy, good guy. Constantly sharing things from the politicians that hoped to elected. You hope that it's just for the election and hopefully things calm down as time goes on for whoever becomes President. That message was never clear to a few.
When you try to goad someone who has an opposite view you can't stand by tagging that person, you are a piece of shit. That's what happened with someone I unfriended. I know everybody is different, and we all have different emotions with certain things. However, with the kind of mentality I saw, it is so stupid to even do that to ones you know. A definition of low blow. Another person was constantly spamming about what was going on with the President and the constant berating. If someone doesn't like Trump, I can get that and understand. It wasn't like the choices were any good last year. But if it's all you post about, there's not much choice.
Then there's unfriending my own cousin. I got nothing against family. You may not necessarily agree with certain things, but it's not anything worth arguing or talking about. She is a big supporter for Bernie Sanders, and it was constant spamming throughout the election of this guy. As mentioned, you hope things calm down after the election. That was not the case. An occasional photo of her child was seen, but it was basically sharing Sanders post this, Sanders post that. It wasn't an easy choice to unfriend, but I'm not gonna deal with four years of the same crap.
At this point, my grandfather is one of those people who speaks on his mind. Unfortunately, he doesn't grasp the concept that others will see what he has written and that there are certain things you can't say in a public area. He has recently been constantly in Facebook Jail, arguing with strangers regarding politics. Coming back, he whined about the First Amendment. Part of me wants to tell him that you can't say certain things, but I don't think he would ever get the message and understand it. It's a lost cause.
Twitter is a little different. It's less on people you know, but more so celebrities who constantly Tweet their thoughts, and as it's shown the last year or so, their political thoughts. With the way Hollywood has been recently, you don't feel bad if you have the opposite view of some of these actors, directors, etc. I get everybody has a voice to show displeasure or something good, but when you destroy your career the way NFL player Colin Kaepernick did, there's no recovering. There might be ways to improve the image a little bit, but it's not going to be enough. It doesn't help either when a lot of people listen to buffoons like Anderson Cooper, Bill O'Reilly, or Rachael Maddow who fit their political orientation on television.
You try to avoid it, but you can't as long as it's constantly plastered to various forms of media. I'll end by saying you can find ways to avoid the constant spamming of political posts and topics on certain sites. May your health be a good one and stress free one in an age of social media armchair politicians.
I have been on Facebook for six years now. There have been a lot of people that are friends with me and still are. Some of them had to be unfriended because of constant spamming of their posts or whining like a soap opera about their life. It's a difficult choice, but sometimes the trigger has to pulled to click on unfriend. In the case of politics, I have never seen people so divided into this past election where the constant spamming of who they view as the bad guy, good guy. Constantly sharing things from the politicians that hoped to elected. You hope that it's just for the election and hopefully things calm down as time goes on for whoever becomes President. That message was never clear to a few.
When you try to goad someone who has an opposite view you can't stand by tagging that person, you are a piece of shit. That's what happened with someone I unfriended. I know everybody is different, and we all have different emotions with certain things. However, with the kind of mentality I saw, it is so stupid to even do that to ones you know. A definition of low blow. Another person was constantly spamming about what was going on with the President and the constant berating. If someone doesn't like Trump, I can get that and understand. It wasn't like the choices were any good last year. But if it's all you post about, there's not much choice.
Then there's unfriending my own cousin. I got nothing against family. You may not necessarily agree with certain things, but it's not anything worth arguing or talking about. She is a big supporter for Bernie Sanders, and it was constant spamming throughout the election of this guy. As mentioned, you hope things calm down after the election. That was not the case. An occasional photo of her child was seen, but it was basically sharing Sanders post this, Sanders post that. It wasn't an easy choice to unfriend, but I'm not gonna deal with four years of the same crap.
At this point, my grandfather is one of those people who speaks on his mind. Unfortunately, he doesn't grasp the concept that others will see what he has written and that there are certain things you can't say in a public area. He has recently been constantly in Facebook Jail, arguing with strangers regarding politics. Coming back, he whined about the First Amendment. Part of me wants to tell him that you can't say certain things, but I don't think he would ever get the message and understand it. It's a lost cause.
Twitter is a little different. It's less on people you know, but more so celebrities who constantly Tweet their thoughts, and as it's shown the last year or so, their political thoughts. With the way Hollywood has been recently, you don't feel bad if you have the opposite view of some of these actors, directors, etc. I get everybody has a voice to show displeasure or something good, but when you destroy your career the way NFL player Colin Kaepernick did, there's no recovering. There might be ways to improve the image a little bit, but it's not going to be enough. It doesn't help either when a lot of people listen to buffoons like Anderson Cooper, Bill O'Reilly, or Rachael Maddow who fit their political orientation on television.
You try to avoid it, but you can't as long as it's constantly plastered to various forms of media. I'll end by saying you can find ways to avoid the constant spamming of political posts and topics on certain sites. May your health be a good one and stress free one in an age of social media armchair politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)