Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Olympic Highlights
I don't quite get the charge out of the Olympics that I used to. For one thing, it's hard for me to get on board with the "only the U.S. matters" feel that most of the broadcasting has. That's always been the case, but either I'm more sensitive now or the coverage is more one-sided now. But here are some thoughts and observations.
Last night the main gymnastics announcer went to the sports cliche about how "one of the most difficult things to do in sports" is to "win when you're expected to." I hear this a lot, and I think it's ridiculous. Usually the people who are expected to win, do. Sometimes they don't. This is because the hard things to do are
1) To win when you're the favorite and
2) To win when you're not.
In other words, it's hard to win a championship. That's why we make a big deal out of it. Being the favorite doesn't make it hard: it's just a hard thing to do.
I don't want to watch a qualifying heat for any race. I'd rather watch the championship round between two countries I couldn't find with an atlas in a sport I don't understand than see a runner or swimmer qualify to be in the actual race.
Generally, I'm not much for races. My taste in sports is for athleticism and real-time, interactive strategy. Most races don't have much strategy, and even to the extent they do, it's hard to detect it. I'd rather see volleyball or basketball or judo or something where the game is partially about how you adapt to what your opponent is doing.
Along the same lines, I'm not much for sports where you compete against the judges, like gymnastics and diving. It can be impressive to watch those people do what they do--I enjoy the athleticism there--but it's mostly listening to announcers nit-pick minute stuff and then complain that the judges got it wrong. If I want that, I'm a teacher: I can grade stuff and be told I'm wrong and get paid for it.
I'm apparently in the minority in just wanting the Olympics to introduce me to a wider range of sports and concentrate on the sports. I change the channel when they start doing one of their "human interest" bio-documentaries. I tried to watch fencing the other day while Jill was grading, but couldn't enjoy it because they didn't bother to explain what was going on.
And to all sports announcers everywhere: I don't care if it's a blowout or a meaningless game, you are paid to call the game. So call it. Tell me what happened, why that was a penalty, who got hurt, what the ruling was, who made the shot. I don't want to hear about who you had dinner with or what that athlete does during the offseason while the game is still going on.
Finally, I wish that anybody who talked about the Olympics would recognize what an achievement it is just to get there and quit acting like a silver medal is some kind of blight or humiliating character flaw. Those medals don't actually mean much in the big scheme of things, but to the extent we celebrate them, we shouldn't act like it's gold or nothing.
Last night the main gymnastics announcer went to the sports cliche about how "one of the most difficult things to do in sports" is to "win when you're expected to." I hear this a lot, and I think it's ridiculous. Usually the people who are expected to win, do. Sometimes they don't. This is because the hard things to do are
1) To win when you're the favorite and
2) To win when you're not.
In other words, it's hard to win a championship. That's why we make a big deal out of it. Being the favorite doesn't make it hard: it's just a hard thing to do.
I don't want to watch a qualifying heat for any race. I'd rather watch the championship round between two countries I couldn't find with an atlas in a sport I don't understand than see a runner or swimmer qualify to be in the actual race.
Generally, I'm not much for races. My taste in sports is for athleticism and real-time, interactive strategy. Most races don't have much strategy, and even to the extent they do, it's hard to detect it. I'd rather see volleyball or basketball or judo or something where the game is partially about how you adapt to what your opponent is doing.
Along the same lines, I'm not much for sports where you compete against the judges, like gymnastics and diving. It can be impressive to watch those people do what they do--I enjoy the athleticism there--but it's mostly listening to announcers nit-pick minute stuff and then complain that the judges got it wrong. If I want that, I'm a teacher: I can grade stuff and be told I'm wrong and get paid for it.
I'm apparently in the minority in just wanting the Olympics to introduce me to a wider range of sports and concentrate on the sports. I change the channel when they start doing one of their "human interest" bio-documentaries. I tried to watch fencing the other day while Jill was grading, but couldn't enjoy it because they didn't bother to explain what was going on.
And to all sports announcers everywhere: I don't care if it's a blowout or a meaningless game, you are paid to call the game. So call it. Tell me what happened, why that was a penalty, who got hurt, what the ruling was, who made the shot. I don't want to hear about who you had dinner with or what that athlete does during the offseason while the game is still going on.
Finally, I wish that anybody who talked about the Olympics would recognize what an achievement it is just to get there and quit acting like a silver medal is some kind of blight or humiliating character flaw. Those medals don't actually mean much in the big scheme of things, but to the extent we celebrate them, we shouldn't act like it's gold or nothing.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Dark, perhaps. Knight? Not so much.
Some spoilers may occur in this blog entry. Plus, if you're like 99.993% of the general populace, you're going to disagree with me. This entry is not intended to cure or treat any condition.
I didn't like the new Batman movie.
Yes, Heath Ledger gave a good performance. Yes, there's some other good stuff to say about it. But on the whole, it didn't make much sense. And most of all, it's not a very good superhero story.
I'm kind of old-fashioned on this, because I think that superheroes should be (1) super and (2) heroes. Batman isn't much of either. He's pretty good at beating up thugs, and he's got some (disturbing) high-tech toys. But he doesn't do much that's impressive in the movie. He never does anything very clever, although he is somehow capable of getting a fingerprint off of a bullet that's been smashed.
He certainly isn't very heroic. I realize that the film wants to explore territory beyond the hero of flawless virtue, and that's fine. I like superhero stories with that kind of complexity. But it doesn't really do that. It gives the Joker the whole movie. There's really no realistic attempt to offer any kind of counter view to the Joker's twisted philosophy. And in the end, Batman decides that deceiving the public is the only way to give them hope. Ugh. And Batman acts like a big martyr to be treated as an outlaw, when in fact he absolutely IS an outlaw. "Reckless endangerment" is his M.O. through the whole thing. I just didn't like him, and I didn't care to root for him.
Also, the seven consecutive endings annoyed me. I thought they wasted Two-Face after setting him up well.
I could go on, but instead here's someone who said it better: Dark Knight review
I didn't like the new Batman movie.
Yes, Heath Ledger gave a good performance. Yes, there's some other good stuff to say about it. But on the whole, it didn't make much sense. And most of all, it's not a very good superhero story.
I'm kind of old-fashioned on this, because I think that superheroes should be (1) super and (2) heroes. Batman isn't much of either. He's pretty good at beating up thugs, and he's got some (disturbing) high-tech toys. But he doesn't do much that's impressive in the movie. He never does anything very clever, although he is somehow capable of getting a fingerprint off of a bullet that's been smashed.
He certainly isn't very heroic. I realize that the film wants to explore territory beyond the hero of flawless virtue, and that's fine. I like superhero stories with that kind of complexity. But it doesn't really do that. It gives the Joker the whole movie. There's really no realistic attempt to offer any kind of counter view to the Joker's twisted philosophy. And in the end, Batman decides that deceiving the public is the only way to give them hope. Ugh. And Batman acts like a big martyr to be treated as an outlaw, when in fact he absolutely IS an outlaw. "Reckless endangerment" is his M.O. through the whole thing. I just didn't like him, and I didn't care to root for him.
Also, the seven consecutive endings annoyed me. I thought they wasted Two-Face after setting him up well.
I could go on, but instead here's someone who said it better: Dark Knight review
