@The Count of Monte Fisto: I find him so hot I actually wouldn't care if his chin was surgically attached to his neck. Maybe he'd give an Old like me a chance if he was physically deformed.
i can't wait for the day when these two are merely a quaint pop-culture footnote who will only ever been seen again on 'I Love the 00s'. Oh time machine! Salvation be thy name!
@hhpeterson13: Didn't MM mention during his kick-A performance on Rock 'n Roll Jeopardy that his mother had been pregnant with him when SHE was a contestant on the original Jeopardy. I thought that was the best "fun fact to know and tell" of the entire show.
If I was a high school teacher, I would take Mr. Kristof's weekend piece and make it part of my discussion. He's over there. This is what he sees. I would offer some background to the topic/geography involved and then I would ask the hard question. What would YOU do to make it better?
He lives my dream and he offers his adventures to the rest of us to make of it what we will. And he really, really is a good man. He tries to right the wrongs. There is only good in that.
A rare problem in the movie business, but a problem unique to it all the same: Both Zaillian and Soderbergh are accomplished craftsmen who have earned the right to have their instincts trusted by others. When they clash, though, you can't just assume either one is right. And then you're left trying to evaluate words on a page according to how they would look dramatized on film.
The movie business is a tough one, folks. This is just one reason why.
Also, holla for Schizopolis. [crickets] OK, that one's just me then.
I'm with Michael Lewis on this. I loved Moneyball, but cannot imagine turning it into a movie. His football book, Blind Side, has waaaaaaaaaaay more potential in that sense, although it's not as good a book as Moneyball.
Moneyball is numerative, not narrative. Those changes the screenwriter made sound like solid additions to help the story move.
@The Cajun Boy: There's a section in Blind Side that actually made me cry. And I don't give a rat's ass about football. It was one paragraph, describing four steps a player took during one game, and sketching out his entire life within those four steps.
Michael Lewis is a genius. I am in awe of his talent, and I don't say that very often.
@The Cajun Boy: I ask you to consider that Moneyball is the more compelling story because it's about the dawning of a completely new way of conducting operations in an otherwise furiously entrenched business (professional baseball).
While The Blind Side simply illustrates one of the oldest ways of doing business in college-football recruiting: Getting outstanding athletes adopted by families that, in the absence of the kid's talent, would be unlikely ever to encounter him, much less have anything to do with him.
Both are great stories, I agree. But one is about changing the game, and the other is about business as usual. The former actually has much deeper conflicts to dramatize -- although whether they're actually dramatizable is a key question.
@skahammer: That's exactly the question, though. "I've found a new algorithm, team," isn't exactly the St. Crispin's Day Speech.
Blind Side does have it's game-changing point, the rise of the Refrigerator-type, but Moneyball was a more interesting book, just far less narrative. Hollywood likes personal stories, not mathematical ones. And Blind Side has far more interesting, fully-developed characters, in part because Lewis was personally acquainted with everyone in that book.
@raincoaster: But "I can do this job better than anyone, even though everyone else in the entire business thinks I'm wrong (due in part to my spectacular flameout when I tried to play the game myself)" offers a boatload of possibilities, I would think.
In The Blind Side -- and I'll say it again, it's a riveting book -- I just don't see dramatizable conflicts at work. Freakish natural talent sweeps the field and renders social barriers meaningless -- that's the best I can do with that book, unless you're really going to try to illuminate some kind of hypocrisy in the Tuohy family (tough sledding there). Who are your antagonists -- the poor undersized Christian-school kids forced to play nose tackle against this unholy behemoth? (And frankly I thought the NCAA lady who got treated so dismissively by Lewis was actually one of the good guys. I have a soft spot for bureaucrats, I guess.)
09/13/09
Also, he is fug.
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
07/10/09
He lives my dream and he offers his adventures to the rest of us to make of it what we will. And he really, really is a good man. He tries to right the wrongs. There is only good in that.
07/09/09
07/01/09
07/01/09
The movie business is a tough one, folks. This is just one reason why.
Also, holla for Schizopolis. [crickets] OK, that one's just me then.
07/01/09
Moneyball is numerative, not narrative. Those changes the screenwriter made sound like solid additions to help the story move.
07/01/09
07/01/09
Michael Lewis is a genius. I am in awe of his talent, and I don't say that very often.
07/01/09
While The Blind Side simply illustrates one of the oldest ways of doing business in college-football recruiting: Getting outstanding athletes adopted by families that, in the absence of the kid's talent, would be unlikely ever to encounter him, much less have anything to do with him.
Both are great stories, I agree. But one is about changing the game, and the other is about business as usual. The former actually has much deeper conflicts to dramatize -- although whether they're actually dramatizable is a key question.
07/01/09
Blind Side does have it's game-changing point, the rise of the Refrigerator-type, but Moneyball was a more interesting book, just far less narrative. Hollywood likes personal stories, not mathematical ones. And Blind Side has far more interesting, fully-developed characters, in part because Lewis was personally acquainted with everyone in that book.
07/02/09
In The Blind Side -- and I'll say it again, it's a riveting book -- I just don't see dramatizable conflicts at work. Freakish natural talent sweeps the field and renders social barriers meaningless -- that's the best I can do with that book, unless you're really going to try to illuminate some kind of hypocrisy in the Tuohy family (tough sledding there). Who are your antagonists -- the poor undersized Christian-school kids forced to play nose tackle against this unholy behemoth? (And frankly I thought the NCAA lady who got treated so dismissively by Lewis was actually one of the good guys. I have a soft spot for bureaucrats, I guess.)
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
02/05/09