Stan's Blog

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 13

2009-03-02T13:50:00.001-05:00

13. Every person you have ever slept with is invited to a banquet where you are the guest of honor. No one will be in attendance except you, the collection of your former lovers, and the catering service. After the meal, you are asked to give a fifteen-minute speech to the assembly.

What do you talk about?

15 minutes is not a lot of time in most circumstances, but I can guess that it'd seem like an eternity in this situation. I dunno, if I was going to attend something like this, I'd probably go all out, do a chronological slideshow about where I saw myself at the time, and then apologise for whatever stupid thing I did to hurt/sabotage/derail the relationship without having been man enough to say "I'm out, here's why..."

I've also debated on asking for each person to bring any photos that they might have of me on vacations, etc... with the aforementioned exes, as I was never really much of a photo taker back then and, looking back, would really love to have pictures of stuff like that.

I'd be getting a guest-list right? Do I have any say in the seating arrangements? I think it'd be fun to separate the room into three sides, and designate seating arrangements on something like "Still hate his guts", "I'd be friends with him if he asked", and "You'll have to be more specific, Alex-who?" just to see where everyone sits.

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 12

2009-02-05T13:59:00.001-05:00

12. You meet a wizard in downtown Chicago. The wizard tells you he can make you more attractive if you pay him money. When you ask how this process works, the wizard points to a random person on the street. You look at this random stranger. The wizard says, "I will now make them a dollar more attractive." He waves his magic wand. Ostensibly, this person does not change at all; as far as you can tell, nothing is different. But--somehow--this person is suddenly a little more appealing. The tangible difference is invisible to the naked eye, but you can't deny that this person is vaguely sexier. This wizard has a weird rule, though--you can only pay him once. You can't keep giving him money until you're satisfied. You can only pay him one lump sum up front.

How much cash do you give the wizard?

So, really, the question is asking how hard do you try to make yourself more attractive to people?

I notice that Chuck phrases these questions so that it could apply to almost anyone without getting bogged down into the minutae of what one person thinks is, for this instance, attractive, versus what attracts someone else.

The form of this question is really asking: How much improvement do you think you need? The monetary limitation just lets you quantify it in some kind of relative term. I have no idea why he picked downtown Chicago as the only real specific detail in this whole scenario.

I dunno, I'm gonna go ahead and say ten bucks. I'm not unhappy with the way I look (especially since I've recently lost about 10 pounds and looking to shed another 10) and don't really feel the need to be more attractive to others. This spell doesn't make you feel any better about your own self-image, so really, what's the point?

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 11

2009-01-28T07:56:00.002-05:00

You are watching a movie in a crowded theater. Though the plot is mediocre, you find yourself dazzled by the special effects. But with twenty minutes left in the film, you are struck with an undeniable feeling of doom: You are suddenly certain your mother has just died. There is no logical reason for this to be true, but you are certain of it. You are overtaken with the irrational metaphysical sense that--somewhere--your mom has just perished. But this is only an intuitive, amorphous feeling; there is no evidence for this, and your mother has not been ill.

Would you immediately exit the theater, or would you finish watching the movie?

So, basically, do you believe in intuition, especially if the barriers to acting on it are really low (you aren't really loving the movie, etc...) I'm not a big believer in ESP or anything, so I suppose I would probably finish watching the movie (and possibly stop for some Jujee Fruits on the way out.)

The analytical side of me says that, if for some reason, this feeling was affecting my concentration on watching a film I wasn't really into anyways, perhaps I would leave early.

I wish some metaphysical force had gotten me to leave early when I went to see Crank a couple of years ago.

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 10

2009-01-19T13:52:00.005-05:00

This is the opening line of Jay McInerney's Bright Lights, Big City: "You are not the kind of guy who would be in a place like this at this time of the morning." Think about that line in the context of the novel (assuming you've read it). Now go to your CD collection and find Heart's Little Queen album (assuming you own it). Listen to the opening riff to "Barracuda."

Which of these two introductions is a higher form of art?

I'll admit, I have no idea of where Chuck is going with this one. However, that hasn't stopped me from providing critiques on things before.

I'm gonna go with the opening quote over the opening riff. The line grabs you, holds your interest, and makes you want to find out exactly what kind of situation our protagonist has gotten himself into. The fact that it's directed to you in the second person, instead of "Phil was not the type of guy who would be in a place like this..." That's imminently more interseting, as you're kind of interested in how or why the author would have pegged you for that type of person.

Maybe I've listened to too many classic rock radio stations over the course of my lifetime, but Barracuda doesn't really represent much in the way of progressive/high "art" for me.

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 9

2009-01-15T09:53:00.001-05:00

A novel titled Interior Mirror is released to mammoth commerical success (despite middling reviews). However, a curious social trend emerges: Though no one can prove a direct scientific link, it appears that almost 30 percent of the people who read this book immediately become homosexual. Many of these newfound homosexuals credit the book for helping them reach this conclusion about their orientation, despite the fact that Interior Mirror is ostensibly a crime novel with no homoerotic content (and was written by a straight man).

Would this phenomenon increase (or decrease) the likliehood of you reading this book?

Seemingly philosophical, all this question is really asking is: Are you a homophobe? The answer to that is no. The answer to the actual question he poses: would it increase or decrease your likliehood of reading the book, is also no. Commercially successful, poorly reviewed crime novels (like, say, The Davinci Code) are tough to get through, believe me.

I bet the 30% crediting the book for showing them their true self is probably just them saying, after finishing the crappy book, "I don't have time to waste on useless books like that, life's too short, why am I pretending to be straight too?"

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 8

2009-01-07T12:26:00.002-05:00

You meet the perfect person. Romantically, this person is ideal: You find them physically attractive, intellectually stimulating, consistently funny, and deeply compassionate. However, they have one quirk: This individual is obsessed with Jim Henson's gothic puppet fantasy The Dark Crystal. Beyond watching it on DVD at least once a month, he/she peppers casual conversation with Dark Crystal references, uses Dark Crystal analogies to explain everyday events, and occasionally likes to talk intensely about the film's "deeper philosophy."

Would this be enough to stop you from marrying this individual?

Probably not. We're talking about the same person who would be quite happy to quote the entire screenplay from The Hunt for Red October whenever they play it on TNT, regardless of whether or not there are friends or family in the room.

So, I understand that, shockingly, there are probably a few pieces of my personality that people would regard as less-than-desirable.

...and that's the point of this question, right? Are you the type of person who's going to look at the whole picture, or focus on one small character defect. It was basically the premise of every date Jerry had in the final few years of Seinfeld. But in the real world, nobody's going to admit to being so shallow as to not continue a great relationship with someone based on a movie preference...

Then again, I once made a decision to break up with a girl because she yelled "Woo Hoo!" a few too many times at a New Year's Eve party, but that's another story.

What's the shallowest reason YOU ever broke up with someone?

Klosterman's 23 Questions: Question 7

2009-01-03T09:39:00.002-05:00

Defying all expectation, a group of Scottish marine biologists capture a live Loch Ness Monster. In an almost unbelievable coincidence, a bear hunter in the Pacific Northwest shoots a Sasquatch in the thigh, thereby allowing zoologists to take the furry monster into captivity. These events happen on the same afternoon. That evening, the president announces he may have thyroid cancer and will undergo a biopsy later that week.

You are the front page editor of The New York Times: What do you play as the biggest story?

Sasquatch all the way. Here's why: All these events are considered plausible, with the cancer diagnosis being the most likely from a statistical standpoint, and so we should be looking at impact on society as a whole. Sure, the president *may* have cancer, and it *may* threaten his ability to govern, but the US at least has a contingency plan for these events (thank god Palin didn't take that seat, hunh?)

Clearly this can't be the biggest story.

Now on to Nessie: A deep lake in a remote(ish) part of the world could, plausibly, provide the right environment for a prehistoric creature to survive undetected for thousands of years. Longshot, but within the realm of possibility. Now, what happens when it's captured? Man studies it, learns a bit about the Dinosaurs, confirms some suspicions, debunks others, but the impact is minimal since you can't really project the characteristics on all dinosaurs, just ones similar in physiology to Nessie. So, limited impact on society, can't lead with that.

And finally, the Sasquatch: Many feel that this being would be the missing link between primates and the modern human, a physical specimen that demonstrates how we as a species moved out of the animal kingdom into a more evolved state. The potential for learning about ourselves as a species has to outweigh the statistically probable, potentially cancerous president and the statistically unlikely, but limited societal improvement of finding Nessie. This discovery would affect every single human on the planet and could lead to understanding about ourselves that could unlock secrets behind cancer, evolution, and a million other questions we've never been able to confirm.

Something that big's gotta lead, right?

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 6

2008-12-23T09:49:00.002-05:00

6. At long last, someone invents "the dream VCR." This machine allows you to tape an entire evening's worth of your own dreams, which you can then watch at your leisure. However, the inventor of the dream VCR will only allow you to use this device of you agree to a strange caveat: When you watch your dreams, you must do so with your family and your closest friends in the same room. They get to watch your dreams along with you. And if you don't agree to this, you can't use the dream VCR.

Would you still do this?

This is a fairly interesting question, as I don't tend to remember much of any of my dreams. It's really asking: How comfortable are you with showing others the inner-workings of your mind. The easy way to answer would be to make sure you preface anything with "Now, we all know that you can't control what you do in a dream..." and maybe wait until you woke up and remembered something interesting, yet not uncomfortable for folks to watch.

I think the comfort level is probably equivalent to renting a good movie you heard about from others, but know very little about the plot. So, you bring it home and watch it with your parents and siblings, and then, say, about 45 minutes into the flick, there's a hard R-rated scene à la Fatal Attraction which makes everyone uncomfortable and seems to last FOREVER.

But what happens if you had one of those types of interludes in your own dream, and forgot all about it when you woke up that morning? Yeah, pretty awkward.

I think that, since I don't remember much of mine very often, it'd be worth the discomfort. But hey, I'll make sure to pop some popcorn for everyone first. And keep my finger on the "Pause" button just in case.

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 5

2008-12-08T12:57:00.002-05:00

5. You meet your soul mate. However, there is a catch: Every three years, someone will break both of your soul mate's collarbones with a Crescent wrench, and there is only one way you can stop this from happening: You must swallow a pill that will make every song you hear--for the rest of your life--sound as if it's being performed by the band Alice in Chains. When you hear Creedence Clearwater Revival on the radio, it will sound (to your ears) like it's being played by Alice in Chains. If you see Radiohead live, every one of their tunes will sound like it's being covered by Alice in Chains. When you hear a commercial jingle on TV, it will sound like Alice in Chains; if you sing to yourself in the shower, your voice will sound like deceased Alice vocalist Layne Staley performing a capella (but it will only sound this way to you).

Would you swallow the pill?

I guess I'd hope for a caveat that I'd have three years before having to take the pill... I'd load up on all the bands I'd want to see live, make that the focus of every spare bit of time I had, and do some heavy research into lesser-known artists that would be worth checking out before the event. And then I'd take the pill.

My real fear is that that kind of repeated exposure to the same thing would be akin to the old concept of water torture where you just go absolutely bat$hit insane after enough exposure to the same thing over and over at random intervals. Then again, Layne Staley had to hear his own voice for his entire life, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the reason he was found dead in his apartment after his accountant noticed that he hadn't made any withdrawls through his bank for a couple of weeks. so, really, how bad could it be?

But the real complex part is that I have a problem with this question right off the bat (one that I'm sure Forts will also share) - I kinda like Alice in Chains. But I think the point of this choice was to pick a distinctive voice to consider. What if Chuck suggested Nickelback instead? That would make it a much harder choice, but one I would begrudgingly make anyways.

The worst part would be singing christmas carols with the kids. I'm pretty sure Staley never cut a Christmas Album, but I couldn't imagine singing it like:

Ru-dolph. Ruuuuuu-uuuu-uuuuooooooo-ooooeeooo-dolph. Aw, yeahhhhhh...
Ruuu-u-uuuuu-u-u-eeeeeeu.

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 4

2008-12-05T11:40:00.002-05:00

4. Genetic engineers at Johns Hopkins University announce that they have developed a so-called "super gorilla." Though the animal cannot speak, it has a sign language lexicon of over twelve thousand words, an I.Q. of almost 85, and--most notably--a vague sense of self-awareness. Oddly, the creature (who weighs seven hundred pounds) becomes fascinated by football. The gorilla aspires to play the game at its highest level and quickly develops the rudimentary skills of a defensive end. ESPN analyst Tom Jackson speculates that this gorilla would be "borderline unblockable" and would likely average six sacks a game (although Jackson concedes the beast might be susceptible to counters and misdirection plays). Meanwhile, the gorilla has made it clear he would never intentionally injure any opponent.

You are commissioner of the NFL: Would you allow this gorilla to sign with the Oakland Raiders?

Oh, good, a sports question. Sort-of.

We all know this would never be up for debate, as no credible league would allow it. But I find a few interesting points to be discussed:

1) Would society allow a self-aware gorilla to participate in anything? I don't think so. There's too much of a fear that instinct would overrule genetic mutation at some point, with tragic consequences. I think Johns Hopkins would be home for the super gorilla for it's entire life, and only really have animal rights activits to worry about.

2) What could the Oakland Raiders do to help their perpetually woeful team? I mean, besides going the super gorilla route? They pretty much have to rebuild this team from the ground up. The defence is serviceable, but they need a quarterback who can get a first down, receivers who can catch and hold onto balls thrown to them, and a good blocking offensive line to allow their running backs to make plays. I think a new coach (they average about one a year) isn't going to be effective so long as the owner keeps interfering. This team will stink until Al Davis steps back or dies.

3) Two pretty useless / unchallenging questions in a row from Chuck. But hey, it keeps me bloggin.

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 3

2008-12-04T15:37:00.001-05:00

Easy one today, but really interested to hear if anyone (besides Dan) would go with the other option.

3. Let us assume there are two boxes on a table. In one box, there is a relatively normal turtle; in the other, Adolf Hitler's skull. You have to select one of these items for your home. If you select the turtle, you can't give it away and you have to keep it alive for two years; if either of these parameters are not met, you will be fined $999 by the state. If you select Hitler's skull, you are required to display it in a semi-prominent location in your living room for the same amount of time, although you will be paid a stipend of $120 per month for doing so. Display of the skull must be apolitical.

Which option do you select?

I don't have any kind of notion that his remains would conjure any kind of thought that I was supporting his ideology. It says that the display is apolitical, and I suppose I could always describe the reasons for it being there. As any animal-owner knows, there are plenty of ways an animal could get sick or die other than neglect. I'm not getting stuck with a $1000 fine just because I didn't wash off the lettuce properly.

Honestly, I don't know where Chuck was going with this one. Perhaps there was a "profiting by bending your moral beliefs" angle, but it's kind of lost on me. Send me my first $120, I'm clearing off a space in my living room right now.

Raising the Roof

2008-12-03T13:19:00.004-05:00

... it's never a good time. Here is the branding we're considering going with for the Anti-Roof Raising Foundation, or ARRF for short.

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 2

2008-12-03T12:51:00.003-05:00

Okay, let's see what the next bizarre question has in store:

2. Let us assume a fully grown, completely healthy Clydesdale horse has his hooves shackled to the ground while his head is held in place with thick rope. He is conscious and standing upright, but completely immobile. And let us assume that--for some reason--every political prisoner on earth (as cited by Amnesty International) will be released from captivity if you can kick this horse to death in less than twenty minutes. You are allowed to wear steel-toed boots.

Would you attempt to do this?

Yikes. That's pretty tough. I mean, this question isn't really about animal rights so much as it is about personal beliefs versus the so-called "greater good". On a completely intellectual level, you could rationalize the relatively small value of a single horse as compared to the release of the many hundreds of wrongfully imprisoned people around the world. The answer is pretty simple in that view.

The real problem lies in actually being willing or able to be the person who had to carry out the beating. Again, clearly on an intellectual level, you'd be almost certain to be able to do it in less than twenty minutes. But what about the personal, emotional trauma that would stay with you for far longer? Could your rational self be enough to help your emotional self cope with the memory of what you'd done? I'm sure there are various personality types in this world, those for whom the intellectual side would easily win-out, or those whose emotional side could cope by pointing to the results.

Me, personally? I couldn't do it. I'd hate to have to go through life coping with the memory of what I'd done, regardless of the greater good it served. Oddly enough, I questioned whether or not I could do it if, instead of freeing prisoners, I was able to cure cancer in a similar number of strangers, and I decided that I probably would.

So what's the difference between the two? I guess I assume that most of the political prisoners in question would be able to keep their lives either way, whereas the illness is likely to have a more immediate impact others' lives. A very thin line there.

Surprised by my answer? What would you do?

Klosterman's 23 Questions - Question 1

2008-12-02T13:16:00.004-05:00

In "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs", Chuck Klosterman provides the reader with a list of 23 questions he poses to new acquaintances to determine if he could possibly stand to be friends with them in the long run. I'm not sure I'd want to be friends with someone who gave out exams on friend-worthiness, but the questions are interesting nonetheless.

So, every day or so, I'm going to post one of the questions, give my own answer, and if anyone actually reads this, I'd ask them to post their thoughts. Although all of the questions are pretty ridiculous, there are interesting philosophical/moral implications in the way he asks them.

The first one, however, is pretty light:

1. Let us assume you met a rudimentary magician. Let us assume he can do five simple tricks--he can pull a rabbit out of his hat, he can make a coin disappear, he can turn the ace of spades into the Joker card, and two others in a similar vein. These are his only tricks and he can't learn any more; he can only do these five. HOWEVER, it turns out he's doing these five tricks with real magic. It's not an illusion; he can actually conjure the bunny out of the ether and he can move the coin through space. He's legitimately magical, but extremely limited in scope and influence.

Would this person be more impressive than Albert Einstein?

I suppose I could start off with the casually-cooler-than-you sentiments that you'd come to expect from CK, but I'd like to tackle this one straight up. I assume that both impressive folks to have been born with their respective talent, and therefore they would be equally impressive to the lay person who could not conceive of creating something like the theory of relativity or of actually making a coin dissappear. Both these guys are on a different level than ordinary you-and-me.

Obviously, Einstein is more impressive because his obsession, personal sacrifice and intellect brought a greater understanding of the truths of our universe, whereas that other guy can just make bunnies appear out of nowhere.

I guess the question is: Does "impressive" need to relate to the concept of "being useful"?

If so, while both individuals would be expanding our understanding of the universe (that you can't travel faster than the speed of light versus magic actually existing), you'd need someone like Einstein to explain/theorize how this other guy is making that coin disappear.

On the other hand: If we're talking about purely "impressing" people, you might want to lean towards the magician. The majority of people on this planet aren't equipped to handle the math and intuition needed to appreciate Einstein's work, but being able to perform magic is something anyone could appreciate.

I'm sticking with Einstein though, he's the one who's got more impact on society in the long run. The guy who can actually do magic doesn't have any kind of legacy to leave behind.

The Dark Knight Review

2008-08-29T14:47:00.003-04:00

As usual, spoiler warning... If you haven't seen it, read no further.

I'm going to basically re-work an email conversation I've been having with some friends about the flick to make this blog entry, so if you're one of the folks who I was chatting with, sorry, nothing new to see here!

If you read my Iron Man review, you know that I ranked my all time favourite comic book movies. After seeing the Dark Knight, BP told me that I was going to have to change my scale. Boy was he right.

I was really impressed with pretty much every aspect of that flick. The writing was complex but easy to follow, Ledger is a lock for a posthumous oscar if they nominate him, I don't think Katie Holmes could have handled the performance that Maggie Gyllenhall delivered, I didn't mind Harvey Dent's character as much as I thought I might when I saw the Two-Face makeup. Nice to see that Scarecrow cameo to link a bit to the first flick, because the look and feel of Gotham was completely remodeled for this flick. Pretty impressive to see that from the same creative team, usually those folks will create a world and then want to keep living in it.

I knew I was going to really enjoy this film, but from the minute the Joker had that scene with the mob guys where he did the magic trick with the pencil, I was completely sold. That movie was 2.5 hours long, and I could have sat there for another 2 if they'd filmed more.

No way will they even attempt to bring the Joker back, that performance was note-perfect, and I can't see anyone taking that role on. "I'm just a wild dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I ever caught one..." Beautiful.

Anyways, I can't find too many flaws with this movie. The bat-sonar-cell-phone-vision thing and Two-Face's makeup were the two warning signs for me, I mean, I'm not worried it's going to go back to Tommy Lee Jones/Uma Thurman/Jim Carrey/Arnie territory, but they seemed a bit jarring with the rest of the feel of the movie. "Look what I did with a few gas cans and some gun powder." Keep it simple for the inevitable number three. As my brother said: It was the Empire Strikes Back of Batman movies. I don't want to see any Bat-woks in the third one. I also don't want to see the Penguin unless they get Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Nor do I think we need another Catwoman. I don't want to ever see Nicholson's performance as Joker again. That's how good Ledger was.

A friend spoke up about not having a problem with Catwoman if they did it well, and speculated that someone like Kate Winslet might be a good choice. We also discussed the fan-made poster that indicated the Riddler's involvement in a Zodiac-Killer kinda way. Here's what my take was:

Bottom line is that Nolan's got my $10, and Winslet would be great in the type of thing that I've proposed in another conversation: What I would like to see, if they do want to do a Catwoman-based story, is to delve deeper into Batman's "detective" side. Bring the scale smaller, make it a real whodunnit, don't have things that he'd need to up the ante for, and have a jewel-thief and/or corporate espionage operative involved who happens to be pretty talented, but with no superpowers or mental instability, just make her a media creation, no pointy ears or tails or whips... But then again, I'm sure the studio will want them to blow up two hospitals and have 4 car chases in this one..."

Here's an idea:
-Maybe have an early encounter with catwoman, perhaps things are going missing from a Wayne Industries subsidiary

-Start seeing a rash of deaths without a clue to who's behind it crop up around the same time

-Falsely start hunting the spy while Riddler still goes about his business of killing folks

-Get a bit more of an idea of what's really happening, start seeing a pattern in the killings

-Find out that Catwoman stole something from a corporation or whatever that's involved in this plot, she's next on the list

-Save her (but of course, she doesn't think she needs saving) and then go after this mystery together...

Obvvvvvviously that would need a bit more fleshing out, but could be a good framework for a workable down-to-earth/gritty version (I used the term Comic Book Verité when talking to my brother about the style) of Riddler/Catwoman without getting into the fear of the curse of the two villians that comic book movies tend to fall into....

Here's the link to that poster:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/08/14/check-this-out-awesome-fan-made-dark-knight-sequel-poster/

I love the idea of a villian whose plan is something other than "I'm gonna blow up Gotham for reason X". A serial killer in the Zodiac style would be great, especially if the series of victims were linked somehow that Batman had to uncover, detective-style (which is/was a major part of his comic book identity)

We got into a discussion about the distraction of Batman's over-angry voice at points in the film. Anecdotally, the opinions were pretty much split, this was my argument:

They did it in the first one, and it was one of the things that I liked *the most* from a sound editing perspective. He was certainly disguising his voice and was certainly ANGRY with that crooked cop that he strung up, and it was perfectly fine by me. They did it a second time when people were under the influence of the Scarecrow gas on the island, and the voice morphed a bit to amp up the feeling of terror because we were hearing it from the perspective of people who had ingested the gas. The problem for this flick is that it sounded closer to the amped-up version all the time now... I get the need for disguising the voice, and maybe it's a mix of the Imax sound system and my not having the same manly set of pipes as Mr. Bale, but it just sounded a little overblown in a couple of scenes.

(Speaking of overblown, what's with the 2 minute advertising piece for Imax before the movie starts? Sounds like they have an inferiority complex or something. I'd hate to be a regular movie goer and sit through that every time: "We have speakers here, here, here, here, and a few really big ones over here. This one goes to eleven. These other ones are placed 2 miles away to provide realistic background noises that are all but undetectable to the human ear...")

I still don't think Penguin's a good villian in the comics or films. Call me a purist, but I don't want to hear from anyone with the last name Cobblepot when you're trying to be more serious with the subject matter.

Then I ran into this article:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a109540/batman-scribe-rules-out-penguin-catwoman.html?rss

...which basically states that they want to try to steer clear of "already-done" villians from previous incarnations of the films. Well, I counted 2 in the Dark Knight (3 if you include Scarecrow from Batman Begins) so they may not be able to stave off the studio's meddling.

Anyways, I give this flick a 9.5/10 and have re-ranked my scale from my last review (old rating in parentheses):

The Dark Knight 9.5/10
Batman Begins 8.5/10 (9.5)
X2 7.5/10 (9)
Iron Man 7.5/10 (8)
X-Men 7/10 (8)
Hellboy 6.5/10 (7)
Spiderman 2 6/10 (7)
Spiderman 6/10 (6.5)
Superman 6/10 (6.5)
Superman II 6/10 (6)
Batman 5/10 (6.5)

Stan's movie Review: Iron Man

2008-06-10T15:59:00.002-04:00

Da, Da, Dadada. Dadadadadadadada da da da.

Spoilers ahead, don't read if you don't wanna know.

There are a lot of things I really enjoyed about this flick, so get set for a pretty positive review.
Right from the start, they do a great job of setting up Tony's personality. From the get-go, you're seeing a boozing playboy who likes his lifestyle and apologizes for nothing. The whole ambush scene feels a little staged, but it has a few tense moments. Then they cut to the title card, which was awesome.

They pull the same "36 hours earlier" schtick as I talked about in my Michael Clayton review, but I still think it's a narrative device that works well to pull the audience in, engage them with some action, and get them thinking "who is this guy, and how'd he get pulled into this mess?".

The part where they're giving Tony an award is a pretty effective way of dealing with his backstory as well as introducing a few more key characters.

At this point, we know his attitude and personality, and I think they go a step too far. Him sleeping with the reporter only to be gone the next day and having Pepper throw her out was fine, it sets up Gwyneth's role pretty well, but showing the Austin Powers-level "Sexy Stews" with the pole on the plane to Afghanistan was way too over the top.

And if that was over the top, how can I describe the character of James Rhodes or his portrayal by Terrence Howard? Howsabout: Underwhelming. He's a pretty pivotal figure in the comics, and Howard just plays him like a limp set-piece instead of part of the story. Maybe that was Favreau's call, or they're setting up for a big character change in the next film, but I was really unimpressed with his performance. ANYONE could have played that role.

OK, so it's hard for me to gauge the setup for creating the suit because I read the original comics (that had Stark captured in Vietnam and forced to build a powerful weapon, etc...) so I was pretty accepting of this part of the storyline. Any non-comic geek's reaction to this part would be very welcomed.

Here's where the film falters for the first time - Why wouldn't they have someone in the room watching instead of using the closed circuit cameras? You've just given all this weaponry and ammunition to a genius who's one skill is to build super-weapons, and then you watch him on a bank of 6-inch screens? I dunno, it seems like they were inviting trouble there.

Anyone else get a little tired of the product placement? The BK cheeseburger was the most obvious, but there were quite a few times when they placed stuff without much interest in being subtle. I wonder if Marvel was hedging a bit and wanted to make sure they made their production costs back before the premiere?

Speaking of production, I thought the CGI in this flick was pretty great. Now, the imporant thing is, you're getting computers to render metallic suits and stuff, so it's naturally going to be a lot better than when they try to render humans (Spidey and the Hulk look way too rubbery in their respective flicks). I was really impressed with the first night-time test flight, and it also did a good job setting up the freezing issue for the final battle.

Favreau did a great job with the pacing overall. It's gotta be tough to find situations for Paltrow where it doesn't seem tacked-on, and I thought that the power-supply changing scene was pretty well done. You could definitely see a connection between the two, and the humourous portions "It's like Operation... just don't touch the sides" really worked well.

What I thought worked, um, less-well was all the testing time where Tony is talking to his robots. He spends too much time setting up the fire extinguisher gag, and it seems a little forced. Maybe it was for the kids, you know, before cutting back to another tense war scene.

I think the screenwriters did a great job asking themselves "what kinda problems would a new superhero have?". The part where he comes back from another flight, and decides to land on his roof, only to discover he's WAY too heavy for the structure to hold him was very entertaining and helped show more depth in this universe we're asked to believe in.

Another case of Austin Powers syndrome was when they revealed that Obidiah was the big-bad and that he needed Tony's powersource to make the Iron Monger suit functional. I mean, if this guy is so ruthless, and already was willing to hire the warlord to kill Stark, why not slit his throat while paralyzed?

Instead, he goes all Dr. Evil, and just leaves the room and just assumes everything goes according to plan. Too bad Scott Evil wasn't there "I've got a gun, in my room, I'll go get it, we'll shoot him together." Although, they *could* have been trying to show how this guy needs to hide behind other people or things to do his dirty work (the warlord, the board of directors, and finally, the Iron Monger suit), but that didn't come through too clearly.

The final battle was a good set-piece, having the lower-capacity cell to take on the bigger, badder suit was a nice way to ratchet up the tension. I really liked the "so, how'd you solve the ice problem? / Yeah, you should look into that" quip. He's basically upstaging the one-liners that audiences should have expected from Spiderman, but were never delivered. The rest was pretty much by-the-numbers, I like seeing heroes in less than invulnerable positions, so I appreciated it when Stark lost one of his gloves and eventually, his helmet. It was a pretty decent final battle.

The final press conference gave a good twist on the old "put glasses on Clark Kent and you'll never guess he's Superman" comic device. I wasn't expecting him to just say "screw it.. I'm Iron Man". I hope that's the thing that causes him trouble in the next flick, just to underscore why heroes try to conceal their identities.

Final analysis: Despite some classic bad-guy blunders, and an underwhelming sidekick, Iron Man delivers a fully-realized character with a purpose and a personality, and more than a few great action sequences. They put a lot of thought into how this guy would live his life in these circumstances, and I think the audience really benefits from this attention to detail.

I'm pre-sold for any sequel, so long as they keep up the standards they set in this one.

8/10

Where it ranks in Stan's personal comic book movie list:

1) Batman Begins (9.5/10)
2) X2 (9/10)
3) Iron Man (8/10)
X-Men (8/10)
5) Spiderman 2 (7/10)
Hellboy (7/10)
7) Batman (6.5/10)
8) Spiderman (6.5/10)
9) Superman (6/10)
Superman II (6/10)

That was an UPGRADE?

2008-05-28T11:30:00.002-04:00

If you've seen my Facebook status this week, you'll have deduced that I had a bit of trouble with my computer recently. Here's a little journal of what happened, and a stark reminder to everyone that you should have all your data backed up on disc/DVD/CD/USB Drive.

Last week, Windows XP gave me a helpful reminder that Service Pack Three was available for download. It has all the latest security and device driver updates to keep windows safe and humming along with all the stuff you have plugged into it. I wasn't noticing any particular problems with how my machine was functioning, but I figured better safe than sorry.

It took about a half hour to download and install, but once it was done, it needed to reboot to finish the installation.

Funny thing: When the computer came back on, all I got was a beep and a DOS screen saying "No system disk was detected". Not good.

I rebooted again, and same deal. Now, at this point, I remembered this happening previously and how I solved it. I had an old hard drive with a working operating system, plugged them both in, and copied all my files over.

Problem 1: I can't find that old hard drive. It took about 3 hours of searching every box in my storage closet to find my original hard drive (the one that was giving me problems was actually number 3 since I built the machine in 2001). But I did manage to get it hooked up.

Problem 2: The system booted fine on the old HD, but couldn't "see" the drive that I just recently updated.

So, now I'm screwed. I can't gain access to the data (which I know is still there) directly or through another HD. After visiting every Ben I know to borrow their PCs to hook the HD into, and finding out that their machines use a different connection method than my old-school drive, I figured I was in big trouble. See, we have all our digital photos on there, and only about 75% of them were backed up (and that, only by chance because Kerri's parents have a digital photo frame and like to include all the pics we take of Finn.)

I called a PC repair / Data Recovery specialist in the yellow pages, and he was pretty sure he could get it back. After 4 days, he stated that he figured the HD was physically broken, and he couldn't get anything off of it.

Wait: So, I'm the unluckiest computer owner ever? The hard drive chooses the EXACT moment that I install a new operating system update to develop a physical problem that renders everything unusable? I don't think so. The guy was very nice, and didn't charge me for anything, which was a nice surprise, but I still couldn't accept his diagnosis. He also offered the name of a company that takes HDs apart, and rebuilds them. The estimated cost for that: $600.

But what happens if he was wrong about the hardware issue, and they rebuild the HD only to have a brand-spanking-new HD that presents the exact same symptoms as before?

So, while I'm waiting for him to give me the verdict, I bought a new laptop over the weekend. I figured, at the very least I'd have to get a new OS and HD to resurrect my current PC, so why not spend a couple hundred bucks more for something we were thinking about getting anyways.

I think it was a wise investment. I started doing some research on my specific problem, and found a half-dozen recommended data-recovery tools to try out. I learned all about the types of problems that can arise, and the ways in which they can be solved.

Which brings me to last night. I created a self-booting rescue disk complete with a tool called NTFS Reader by Lsoft Technologies. They boasted the ability to recover data with a bootable CD. I certainly hoped that was the case. After about 2.5 hours of scanning, it returned the verdict I was hoping for: The drive's in excellent condition, and it found 50,000 files.

So, now my stress level is on it's way back to normal levels. For a mere $79, I'm going to upgrade the recovery software, copy everything over to another HD, and start the process of backing thing up properly, both on the laptop AND to some DVDs to be stored elsewhere.

Another neat sidebar: The company that makes this recovery tool is based in Mississauga! Next time I'm down that way, I may stop by to give them a hug.

The moral of the story is: Make backing up your digital files part of a regular routine! If this type of problem can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. Plus, there're the random fire, flood and other natural disasters that could happen at any time. Better safe than sorry.

An addendum to this story for all the geeks out there:

The reason this happened is that when I installed this hard drive a few years back, I cloned it with a utility called XXclone. It's a great piece of software that lets you preserve all the stuff on your failing hard drive and even copies the volume signatures and unique hash identifiers that helps Windows ensure you're not pirating their software. It's a lot more convenient than reinstalling all your programs from scratch.

However, when you make upgrades to the operating system at a later date, you run the risk of overwriting these signatures, as I did, making the operating system unusable and putting me in this situation in the first place.

So, if you found this page through google because your xxclone cloned hard drive failed after installing Windows XP Professional service pack 3 (sp3), give Active NTFS Reader a try, you may save yourself a lot of hassle figuring out how to get your data back.

Well That's Enough of THAT!

2008-04-24T09:18:00.002-04:00

Day 31: I stayed up all night drinking a mini-keg of Heineken and required a triple espresso just to get up and go to work this morning. But the hangover cure is already in the works: a Big Mac, 20 Chicken McNuggets, and a small diet cola should do the trick.

Just kidding, BP.

I didn't feel the need for a coffee this morning, even though my original plan allows me to, but I'll probably enjoy a beer tonight after my continued reno and massive house cleanup chores are done for the evening. Most likely during the hockey games and/or Lost.

So, the final tally: I lost 15 pounds by curbing the booze, overhauling my diet and avoiding snacks or eating when I wasn't hungry. Pretty simple, actually! Someone mentioned to me how hard it must have been to cut out booze completely, especially at social functions. In truth, I replied, it sucked not having a beer at the Keg while waiting for a table, and a nice glass of red wine would have been the perfect complement to the meal, but it didn't ruin my evening or anything. When asked for a tip, I just said "Make a decision not to drink, plan what you're going to have instead, and stick to it". "Easy for you to say" was the reply I got. Actually, yeah, it was easy once I'd made up my mind to do it. And I'm pretty sure that anyone else could do it if they really want to.

Echoing something RBP said in an earlier post: It's good to know that, if I ever needed to, I've got the willpower to radically change my habits and stick to it.

...and echoing something SBP said a hundred times: I'm going to keep the philosophy in place for the most part, hopefully maintain a balanced calorie intake and keep myself healthy.

Thanks for everyone's support over the last month and for mentioning that you noticed the weight loss. It was a great motivator to stick with the plan.

-Stan

Stan's Summer Movie Preview

2008-04-22T08:56:00.003-04:00

Summer's here, and while I don't have the free time to see flicks in the theatre anymore, these are the ones that stand out this season. They might be worth a look if they get good reviews:

Dark Knight: Nolan, Bale, Ledger. I'm there, no reviews required.

Iron Man: Great casting, script and director are tight, it's a lock.

Tropic Thunder: I don't like comedies that much these days, but this could be a classic. Is this the summer of Downey Jr.?

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of The Crystal Skull: I guess this is a must-see based on everyone's love of the franchise. I just hope it's not too cutesy. The trailer showed WAY too many nods to the other films, and any involvement by Lucas scares the bejeeezus out of me.

Redbelt: I love my David Mamet, and am REALLY intrigued what he wants to do with the world of mixed martial arts. And Ricky Jay is in it, so it's pretty much a can't miss.

The Happening: You never know, THIS might be the one that brings M. Night Shamalyamadingdong back to the limelight. But the reviews will have to be spectacular.

Incredible Hulk: I've got a soft spot for "auteur" Ed Norton, but this flick has to be good, not just "better than the first one".

Get Smart: I heard the script blew, but I like Carrell and I'm still hoping the end result is a positive nod to a classic series. Hopefully they won't miss it by thaaat much.

Love Guru: I think everyone's tired of Myers' act after the last Austin Powers, and all the jokes seem the same from the trailer.. But hey, the Leafs are in it!

Wall-E: I'm not interested, but people go ga-ga over Pixar. Apparently a lot of the flick is dialogue-free. If anyone can do this well, my money's on these guys.

Hancock: I like Berg as a director, and the casting is pretty good. A solid 8/10 across the board would get me into theatres I suppose.

X-Files: I Want To Believe: I want to believe that it's gonna be a good movie, and it very well could be.

Chuck Palahniuk's Choke: Clark Gregg, a great character actor and Mamet fave, adapted and directed this flick based on the novel by the author of Fight Club. Sam Rockwell's in it (another Mamet alum). I hear it did well at Sundance... I'm intrigued. I think I'll read the book and then decide.

Couldn't Resist...

2008-04-15T13:28:00.004-04:00

...payback to all the Sens fans who send me Leafs crap all year long...

Day... 22? : Countdown begins!

2008-04-15T10:31:00.006-04:00

Okay, so I didn't learn anything about myself or my metabolism that I couldn't figure out by giving it 5 minutes of thought...

- Stop drinking beer, remove caffeine (most notably when found in chocolate desserts), and change your other dietary habits and you're gonna lose weight. I'm approximately 12lbs lighter than when I started this experiment.

- Your body will adjust to the lack of caffeine, and rebound by creating all the endorphines, etc... it needs to function on a daily basis. I haven't needed a jolt of anything for weeks now, getting up is a snap in the mornings and my squash game (such as it is) hasn't suffered.

- People think you're crazy to do something like this without a real "reason". I've had many people ask if it's for medical reasons or simply didn't comprehend my thought process of "just to see if I could do it".

So, with all that in mind, this Thursday's going to be tough to handle, as the forecast calls for it to be the official first day of patio season (20+ degrees and sunny). A cold brew on a patio somewhere would normally be calling my name, but I'll stick with the original plan. Heck, I've managed to go to The Keg without having a nice glass of red wine with my steak, I've done full days of reno work without the obligatory celebratory beer when the work's been completed, and I ushered in the first baseball games of the year with a gingerale, so this won't be any different... I hope!

Stan's Movie Reviews

2008-04-01T10:31:00.004-04:00

SPOILER WARNING!
I discuss the endings/major plot points of each of the three films I review here, so be warned if you haven't seen 'em.

I enjoy this time of year: All the flicks that were held until "Oscar Season" are finally coming out on DVD, so I feel like I get to catch up on all the flicks that friends have seen in the theatres over the past 6 months.

No Country for Old Men
I don't get it. I like the Coens. I really do. I also don't have a problem with a story that takes its time and gives a rich backdrop and colourful characters. But frankly, I guess I missed the point of this movie. I liked all the main characters, the innovative weapon of choice that "Sugar" used was interesting, but on the whole, this film didn't live up to my expectations. And it's not just because the "good guy" didn't win in the end, it just didn't bring anything particularly innovative or new to the "guy finds a bag full of money" story.

Then I got to thinking about it, and tried to find a little more subtext. The best I could come up with (and I haven't googled other reviews or anything, so this could be a fairly widely-held point) is that Tommy Lee Jones' character represents God/Life and that Sugar was Death (but not "the devil"). The argument for this would be that TLJ didn't want to get involved more than was necessary with the whole murder scene, and while compelled to seek out our hero's wife to warn her, he only kind of offered a parable with advice instead of taking her by the arm and bringing her to safety. As for the Sugar-as-Death viewpoint, that's pretty easy. Anyone who sees him doesn't make it very long, by the flipping of the coin with the gas counter guy, he shows that he makes decisions arbitrarily, and everyone he's about to kill "always says the same thing", namely "you don't have to do this".

Anyways, it was well crafted and the dialogue was well written, so I'm not saying I hated it, but at the same time, it didn't blow my white socks and cowboy boots off.

6.5/10

Michael Clayton
I'm glad Clooney decided he still wants to act, as opposed to the 24-hour party that seems to be the driving force behind those Oceans 11/12/13 flicks. This is a great story, well-told and makes a better-than-average effort to really give the audience a sense of what this guy's life was like. Unlike my sentiments in my "No Country" review, I feel they did a great job in putting a good spin on the "one man takes down a bad corporation" story. By making Clooney the guy who's one-step-behind and one-step removed, we see the real reasons why someone would do this and how it affects the people caught up in it. We're not watching the whistle-blower here, we're watching the guy who's watching the whistler-blower. And it's a great way to tell a story, because it kind-of puts Clooney's character into the seat beside us and we all get to discover the story together. I liked how they showed the present day, then went back a few days earlier. TV has been doing this for a while (it's a JJ Abrams favourite), but I thought it was well-used in this film to give us an idea of what Clooney's job was before all the plot came into view. Tom Wilkinson was great, not over-the-top crazy, and I liked how they drew Tilda Swinton's character, and made it clear that she wasn't "evil" so much as just driven, misguided, ambitious, amoral and naive.

8/10

Into the Wild
Having read the book, I was worried about how they could possibly make a movie that does this young man's story justice, and I was even further concerned that Director Sean Penn was going to spend half the time taking longing looks at Alaskan scenery. All fears were turned aside once the film got going, and they put together quite a solid telling of Chris McCandless/Alexander Supertramp's journey. I wasn't even put-off by Vince Vaughn's performance, which is what I was fearing the most. Emile Hirsch (as I'm sure has been reported widely) reminded me of a young DiCaprio with this performance. He's going to be seen next in Speed Racer, which seems like a bad choice to me, however, he get's to put "Worked with The Wachowski Brothers" on his resume, so maybe it's a prudent career plan. He certainly showed more acting chops than when I saw him in (the underrated flick) Girl Next Door. Hal Holbrook's performance was high-calibre as well, and seeing his eyes well up when he was saying goodbye was really powerful. The music was note-perfect, Eddie Veder was a great choice to bring Chris' earnest journey to it's conclusion.

The same theme struck me watching the end of the film as it did when I read the book: When would he have been satisfied? I think only in his last moments, when writing that "happiness can only be felt when shared" was a revelation he never would have come to unless he was on death's-door. But as his journey shows us, he wasn't able to fit in or feel satisfied with any of the lives he lived on his way to his ultimate fate, and I hazzard to say that, had he survived the summer and returned to any one of his "families" that he met along the way, he would have still felt the emptiness and lack of substance that bothered him from the start. This wasn't some kid going to Europe to find himself after graduation, it was someone who spent a lot of time trying to find a place where he belonged, but couldn't reconcile it all in his own mind and spirit.

8.5/10

Day Eight: I thought I was supposed to be healthier!

2008-04-01T09:36:00.003-04:00

I spent the whole weekend sick with a cold. So, no squash or weigh-in at the RA Centre, unfortunately. However, it did probably serve me well in that it broke up my regular routine a bit. A weekend routine that would have normally called for coffee in the mornings and beer at night, so I guess it's a good thing.

I assume all headaches I had were a result of the sinus issues and not caffeine, so it appears that all "withdrawl" symptoms are gone. I'll be better able to assess things when I completely kick this cold, but on-the-whole, I feel pretty good about the process. I should be able to cruise to the 30-day mark based on how I'm feeling right now.

As for my diet over the weekend, I must've drank 5 litres of decaf herbal teas (none of which I was actually able to taste) and ate sparingly. I know, you're supposed to "feed a cold", but I didn't really have the appetite. I'll go back to the meat, veggies and rice tonight and try to get back into the routine I had going last week.

Day Four: Steady as she goes...

2008-03-28T09:53:00.002-04:00

Not much to report on Day Four so far, although there were a few items from yesterday that're worth mentioning:

1) Squash: I was surprisingly "up-fer-it" last night. Suprising since I usually need to slam back a diet Pepsi on the way to the RA Centre. So, I won one, lost one and tied one (we got kicked off the court before we could finish it). I even felt pretty good after the game and this was the first night where I didn't have an impromptu nap on the couch, so it's pretty clear that getting some regular exercise will definitely help the energy levels.

2) Aches and pains: Even before the squash game, I felt pretty achey in my legs for some unknown reason, but it seems to be a bit better today. I think it might've just been because I hadn't played squash since the previous Tuesday and my routine was getting messed up a bit. It could also be because I'm old.

3) Supper: I had roasted veggies with low-fat feta and some greek pita bread for supper, which was pretty tasty and fairly good health-wise. I usually enjoy some red wine with this meal, so it felt like something was missing! Again, this experiment's turned into a diet of sorts, so I'm going to try to keep portion control and fat percentages in mind when choosing my meals.

4) Headaches: Pretty much gone, I had a hint of one last night before bed, but nothing so far today. I'm glad to see that reduced...

Day Three: A breakthrough!

2008-03-27T08:45:00.003-04:00

Okay, not as exciting as the title makes it out to be, but I feel pretty good this morning. I had a decent sleep of about 7.5 hours and I feel much better than I did the last two mornings. Supper last night was the same ol' chicken and rice routine, and had dessert/snack of granola, yoghurt and fruit around 9-ish. I fell asleep on the couch again, but hey, who doesn't enjoy a nap when they can get away with it?

As I mentioned in the last post, this experiment's kinda turning into a diet as well, but I'm not going to make the mistake of weighing-in every 20 minutes to see if the scale's got a nicer number for me. So, the plan will be to get a post-squash Saturday morning weigh-in at the RA-Centre scales and compare it to the week before. Hopefully a downward trend will emerge.

Oh, and last night's dream had a fun little sequence where I was lamenting the fact that a friend had suggested a beer I should try and then I opened the fridge and there was a case of it sitting there. Freud wouldn't have had much of a time figuring that one out - I like beer!

Just to say I could...

2008-03-26T11:37:00.005-04:00

I decided to quit caffeine. Not sure why, perhaps I was moved by the change in season and wanted to do my own Spring Cleansing, but I'm currently on Day Two of the experiment.

The plan is to go 30 days without Caffeine or Alcohol, and to keep other toxins and fatty foods out of my system at the same time. I suppose I should be adding some extra workouts or something in there, but I think the regular squash routine will have to be enough for now.

I read somewhere that drinking lots of water helps with some of the side-effects from quitting Caffeine, so I'm taking in about 4L of water or so a day now.

Day 1: Not too bad an experience foregoing the coffee this morning, I was a little groggy and hungrier than usual, but the V8 and lots of water pretty much handled that. Veggies, chicken, crackers and cheese was my lunch choice, and I'll probably continue on with that all week. I was quite tired when I got home, and even fell asleep on the couch around 8PM, but it's been better than I expected so far. Supper was steamed chicken breasts, frozen veggies and some uncle ben's tomato-infused rice. Dessert was a delicious mix of strawberries, pineapples and melon with vanilla yoghurt as a dip. I certainly felt full after all that, but got a bit peckish around 9pm or so. I had a headache develop close to 10PM, so I took a couple of ibuprofin and went to bed... and dreamt of eating a bowl of chocolate ice cream! This started out as a cleansing thing more than a diet, but it's got all the signs of one.

Day 2: So far, so good. Still missing the initial jolt of my morning coffee, but I'm such a creature of habit that a few days of this should get me used to the new routine. A slight headache is forming, but might be from it being so close to lunchtime. The real test will be tomorrow when I have to play squash after work! The only thing I have to find is a new after-work/evening beverage that isn't caffeinated or mixed with booze. I'm thinking a decaf green-tea might do the trick.

UPDATE @ 16:00: Hmmm, forces are conspiring against me. The deli place where I usually get my veggie-tray for lunch has conspicuously raised it's price a whole dollar overnight?! I'll still pay it, I suppose, but that's pretty poor timing! Anyways, lunch was good and my second 2L of water went down pretty easy, so much so that I find I'm actually thirsty at the moment...
-A

Your First Album

2008-02-28T14:08:00.013-05:00

FYI: Today's blog is 100% sports-free!

I saw this through one of my regular entertainment blogs, and really liked it. So, full credit to Joshua Blankenship's blog for putting this idea forward. Much cooler than figuring out your porn name. Send me your first album details and I'll photoshop 'em for you!

- Alex AKA "Marbles Albert"

Band name: Kishi
Album Title: "...will eat him last." from the quote by Winston Churchill "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Pic credit: d10b Q8

Here's Forts' entry. I agree with his assessment, pretty freaky that those all came about randomly!

Band Name: War Games
Album Title: "fear of being hurt." Taken from a quote by Thomas Merton "The truth that many people never understand, until it is too late, is that the more that you try to avoid suffering, the more you suffer, because smaller and more insignificant things begin to torture you in proportion to your fear of being hurt."
Pic credit: jesstheex

Here's Kerri's version, pretty good picture to work with!

Band Name: Antai
Album Title: "Out of My Lunch" Taken from a quote by WC Fields "Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch. "
Pic Credit: Mr_Moog

And BP said it, his album cover does kinda suck...

Band Name: Tortilla Flaps
Album Title: "To Make a Living" Taken from a quote by Lynn Johnston "You don't have to die in order to make a living"
Pic Credit: B.Wilson

Pretty edgy album from Parker:

Band Name: Bentveld

Album Title: "Gives a bountiful crop" Taken from a quote by Ovid "Take rest; a field that has rested gives a bountiful crop."

Pic Credit: Pairadocs

Finally, we can agree...

2008-02-25T11:16:00.003-05:00

... Leafs suck.

And by that, I mean that all the guys exercising their no-trade clauses in a misguided effort to show team loyalty and probably derailing any chance of getting the number 1 or 2 pick in this year's draft. Not to mention the picks/prospects they could acquire for these players' services.

I hope MLSE at least realizes that they need a new plan, and one that includes a no no-trade-clause policy in all contract negotiations.

I also think Mats is going to retire after this season, which at least frees-up some coin for the free agent market this summer.

I think they should waive Kubina and Tucker, trade McCabe to the Islanders, and resign Kaberle to an extension and tell him we're rebuilding around him. Then use the money freed up by the waivings and Mats' retirement to go after some RFAs with offer sheets and start rebuilding that way.

No sense in firing Maurice, he's going to be stuck largely with the same team as this year, so it doesn't make sense to get a new coach to run the same personnel that Paul failed with.

Anyways, I'm still a Leafs fan, no bandwagon jumping happening here. I just hope they realize the mess they've gotten themselves in and that they have a plan to get themselves out of it.

My Life in Six Words - A Tulipblog

2008-02-08T13:32:00.000-05:00

Rather than start my own Blog... I figured I'd just hijack Stan's blog from time to time, when the mood to write strikes and when the rare opportunity presents itself.

According to an online article in the LA Times, Ernest Hemingway was once challenged to write a novel in only six words. He wrote as follows: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

Taking their cue from Hemingway, the authors of the L.A. Times article challenged their readers to write an autobiography in just six words. They got some amazing contributions and they are published in the article. My personal favourite was the one submitted by Iron Chef Mario Batali: "Brought it to a boil, often".

Anyhow, I've provided a link to the article which I believe is an enjoyable read. I also wish to challenge you all to write your own autobiography in six words and share the results.

Here is my own entry:

"Studied hard and learned my lesson."

Good luck!!!

Kerri (aka Tulip)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-smith5feb05,0,6325139.story?page=1

Toronto 4, Montreal 2

2008-02-08T12:54:00.000-05:00

Darn. I was hoping this was going to cement the skid and push Fletch to commit to trading assets.

I've seen quite a few Canadiens games lately because of scheduling, and I've been pretty impressed with Kovalev's level of effort in those games. There were a few times in last night's tilt where they let him gain speed in the neutral zone and he looked unstoppable once his teammates caught up. But then again, lots of forwards look unstoppable when faced with the Leaf's D.

I'm trying to look on the bright-side here: Maybe they need to put in a few good performances to showcase some of their trade-bait. Perhaps a strong showing against Detroit on Saturday could prompt GMs in the West to say "Well, we're going to have to go through Detroit, maybe some of these guys could help".

Boy, is Ottawa happy to have Heatley back, or what? Spezza finally gets to give up the ill-fitting role of leader, and gets rewarded with 3 assists. Heater was definitely the difference against Florida, and they would most likely have lost that game without him. With Alfie coming back soon, hopefully this'll keep all the whining on The Team restricted to the goaltending (and possibly Wade Redden).

Emery wasn't to blame for a lot of those goals, the flukey bounce off the boards and a lot of screening were responsible for most of his troubles. His D needs to clear bodies out a bit better though, I saw a lot of standing around whenever I switched over. However, Ray still delivered a save percentage under .900 and let in 4 goals. So, on paper at least, his struggles continue. Not that I expect Gerbs to have done any better in that spot.

I'm kinda convinced that, while neither of them have earned it, Emery should probably be named number one and see where it takes them. There isn't room for more goaltender salaries on this team, and the two existing guys are pretty much untradeable, so its Ray or Gerbs for the playoff run... and (on the ice, at least) Ray is probably the more proven quantity when the pressure's on.

Blue Team Rejeuvenation Watch

2008-02-07T10:40:00.000-05:00

To be honest, I don't care for the abject hatred displayed by Steve Warne from the Team 1200 when he does the Blue Team Elimination Watch. I can understand a rivalry, the animosity manufactured by the Battle of Ontario, and the history between the two clubs, but I never got why someone should rejoice when the Leafs lose to say, Florida. If it's an Ottawa game, go ahead and cheer, but why rub it in a fan's face when your own team isn't even involved?

As a fan of the Leafs and hockey in general, I can easily admit that I don't hate the Sens. I don't want to see them lose to other teams, nor do I rejoice when they do so. So I never understood why others take so much pleasure in seeing another team suffer losses and hardship. If anything, you're just inviting the same type of reaction when your own team, oh, I don't know, goes on a huge losing streak and is in danger of falling off the top spot in the East.

Anyways, my answer for Leafs fans in Ottawa is the Blue Team Rejeuvenation Watch.

After the 4-2 win over Ottawa, I got nervous. I was worried that Leafs ownership and management would say to themselves "Hmmm, we just beat the best team in the East, and we're not completely out of the race yet, maybe we *could* turn this thing around. Maurice thinks this is the most talented club he's coached, he said so at the start of the season... Let's hold off on this rebuilding talk for a week and see what happens."

Well thankfully, what happened was an eight-nothing drubbing from the Florida Panthers. I can only assume that this brought everyone back down to earth and reinforced the need to blow this team up, replenish the ranks with prospects and draft picks, and work towards making this team better for the future.

The first step in the rejeuvenation process is getting value in a trade of Mats Sundin. Mats has stated that he wants to remain a Leaf, and may not waive his no-trade clause this season. Perhaps he's still torn about what it might mean for his career. Garry Galley suggested that the only reason this decision could be so hard on Mats was that he didn't want to be a rental player, and would probably not return to the Leafs if he was traded at the deadline this year.

While I'd love to see him win a cup and return to the Leafs next year, I still see the long-term success as the more important goal for this hockey club. Any true Leaf fan would forgive Mats for his decision to stay away, and I think we'd all still consider him one of the greatest captains and players the Leafs franchise has ever seen.

So, what should he command if a trade did happen? I'd like to see a high first-round pick, a prospect and perhaps an low-priced established player in return. Or possibly even a mitt-full of picks and prospects from a club that's been stockpiling. I guess it depends on the clubs that are interested, what they're prepared to give up for Mats' services, and what Leafs management are prepared to accept. The trade deadline is fast approaching, so I hope the market is going to heat up in the next week or so and give us an idea of what we're looking at.

At the end of the day, despite his illogical hatred of another team, Steve Warne and I now have something in common: We both want to see the Leafs continue to lose this season.

Cue up Kool and the Gang, but we'll be celebrating for different reasons.

It all comes down to this...

2007-12-28T10:44:00.000-05:00

...the most unpredictable week of the NFL season, where gamblers stay away almost as much as starters who've clinched their playoff position.

I need your help!

I'm currently tied for 3rd in a large weekly pick'em pool, and need to finish strong to stay in the money. If you know anything about football, can you take a minute to post who you think will win outright - no need to worry about the spread. The favourites are listed in bold, and the current vegas line is also there.

Your help is much appreciated! I'll post my picks once they're sent off to the commish.

Cheers,
Stan

New England	14
@ NY Giants

Buffalo
@ Philadelphia	7.5

Carolina	2.5
@ Tampa Bay

Cincinnati	2.5
@ Miami

Detroit
@ Green Bay	4

Jacksonville
@ Houston	6.5

Seattle	1
@ Atlanta

San Francisco
@ Cleveland	10.5

New Orleans	2
@ Chicago

Dallas
@ Washington	9

Pittsburgh	3
@ Baltimore

Minnesota	3
@ Denver

San Diego	8
@ Oakland

St. Louis
@ Arizona	6.5

Kansas City
@ NY Jets	6.5

Tennessee	6.5
@ Indianapolis

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

2007-12-27T15:05:00.001-05:00

Well, it's been a while since I last posted, and the Leafs' troubles have roller-coastered their way to pretty much the same spot as when I last discussed things. They've lost McCabe to a broken hand, lost a few games they really should have won, and have cornered the market on fans who can only say "Well, at least they got one point out of that game".

So, how bad is it? Let's look at the numbers:

1) If the season finished today

1	Ottawa	36	24	8	4	52
2	New Jersey	36	20	13	3	43
3	Carolina	38	19	16	3	41
4	Montreal	36	17	13	6	40
5	Boston	36	18	14	4	40
6	NY Rangers	37	18	15	4	40
7	Buffalo	35	19	15	1	39
8	NY Islanders	35	18	15	2	38
9	Pittsburgh	36	18	16	2	38
10	Toronto	37	15	14	8	38
11	Florida	36	17	16	3	37
12	Atlanta	37	18	18	1	37
13	Philadelphia	34	16	14	4	36
14	Tampa Bay	37	15	19	3	33
15	Washington	37	14	19	4	32

Well, the Leafs'd be in 10th place, they'd've fired their coach for guaranteeing a spot in the playoffs, and the GM would also probably be out the door.

2) If the points-per-game was pro-rated to 82 games

POS	TEAM	Projected
1	Ottawa	118
2	New Jersey	98
3	NY Islanders	89
4	Buffalo	91
5	Montreal	91
6	Boston	91
7	NY Rangers	89
8	Carolina	88
9	Philadelphia	87
10	Pittsburgh	87
11	Florida	84
12	Toronto	84
13	Atlanta	82
14	Tampa Bay	73
15	Washington	71

Okay, so doing a bit of math, you can see what the current records would stretch out to over the course of 82 games. Leafs would now be in 12th place, same fate for the coach and GM, no effect on the rosters' tee times.

3) BUT - If you take the last 10 games as a weighted predictor of their current performance

POS	TEAM	Projected
1	Ottawa	130
2	Buffalo	105
3	Florida	92
4	New Jersey	103
5	Pittsburgh	93
6	Toronto	92
7	NY Islanders	90
8	Montreal	86
9	Washington	86
10	Atlanta	82
11	Boston	81
12	Carolina	76
13	NY Rangers	76
14	Philadelphia	65
15	Tampa Bay	65

HOLY COW! Leafs in 6th place! Even if you ignore that fact, really, any predictive mathematics that puts the Florida Panthers into a division leading position has to be flawed, right?

As for me, I'm pretty sure they're going to end up around 10th, miss the playoffs, and will have lost at least their coach, and possibly the GM before the start of the playoffs. I just hope it all happens fast enough so that Mats Sundin can waive his no-trade clause, go to Detroit, and win himself a Stanley Cup before he retires. He has NOTHING to worry about from Leaf Nation, he's been the only legitimate star on the team for quite some time, and has cemented his reputation amongst all the true fans.

We'll miss you Mats. Thanks for the memories.

Blow it up

2007-11-16T13:08:00.000-05:00

I've had it. The Leafs are going NOWHERE, and despite Paul Maurice's assurances, they're almost certainly not making the playoffs. Let's examine the team and see what needs to be done.

GM
Woof. John Ferguson Jr. may be a nice guy, but I wouldn't have him manage a Denny's, much less an NHL franchise. He's gotta go, and they need to bring in someone who can identify talent, work deals with other GMs, and put this team in a position to compete in a few years. What a sight it would have been if those Scotty Bowman rumours had been at all legitimate. The strategy of backing into the playoffs isn't any better than missing them altogether. It should be seen as a failure, and the ownership should recognize that change is required. Speaking of which...

OWNERSHIP
Some people say that the Pension Fund that owns the majority of the Leafs just doesn't care about winning so long as the ticket sales are solid. Well, guess what, ticket sales will always be solid in this town, I contend that a rebuilding year or two will do nothing to affect that. And the bonus will be that future profits will rise once the team gets back on track to be a contender. But to do that, they need...

COACHING
I like Paul Maurice. I really do. And I think with the right pieces, he could coach a team to contend in the East, even with the conference being dominated by Ottawa at the moment. Unfortunately, I think that the combination of missing the playoffs last year, the team's record this year, and his silly proclamation that they'd make the playoffs is enough to sink him. Trouble is, even cleaning all the front office issues isn't enough to change things on the ice. That responsibility rests with...

THE TEAM
Mats, sorry we couldn't do anything more for you at this stage of you captaincy, buddy. You've had a great career and will go down in history as one of the best Leafs captains of the modern era. I love your heart, skill and loyalty, but if you really want to help this team, you'll let us trade you to a contender. Look at it as win-win. You get a chance to compete for the Cup before you retire, and we get to find a few more pieces to the puzzle in the rebuilding years ahead.

So, what's the answer? As the title indicates: We gotsta blow it up. Trade who we can before the deadline for picks, prospects and young talent. Drop contract dollars when they expire for some guys, and even consider eating salary by sending some underperformers down to the Marlies so they don't count against the cap. If you need 'em later, trust me, you won't have to worry about Gill clearing waivers.

I've broken the team roster down into three categories: Trade, Keep and Dump.

TRADE
Sundin - Clearly our biggest asset and best trade-bait opportunity. His no-movement clause is a factor, but I think he's smart enough to see how it'd be beneficial to him and the team he's so loyal to. I think he's worth a young player, and a high draft pick.

McCabe - He's having a rough season, but he's been a great performer in the past and is definitely of value to a team looking for a top 4 defenseman who can help on the powerplay down the stretch and in the playoffs. We may only get 75 cents on the dollar, but if the Islanders or Rangers are hurting for D and look to be in contention for 4th in the East, they could do worse than picking up McCabe.

KEEP

Nik Antropov - Not a star by any means, but still has years, size and skill enough to contribute.

Alexei Ponikarovsky - Basically playing the role of another Nik Antropov.

Matt Stajan - Part of the youth movement started a while back, hopefully rounding into form.

Alexander Steen - Another capable young guy who needs stability to put it all together.

Kyle Wellwood - Struggling, but possibly has the most upside of all the guys on the team.

Jiri Tlusty - showing promise, and could really blossom in the right environment.

Johnny Pohl - Utility guy, but reliable most times.

Simon Gamache - Has a shot at finding some chemistry and working on the second line sometime in the future.

Boyd Devereaux - Fine for a checking line, a better set of guys around him might get that plus-minus up a tad.

Pavel Kubina - Overpaid, but still a solid play when healthy.

Tomas Kaberle - Great offensive talent and a solid powerplay guy.

Staffan Kronwall - Safe, solid D-man. We need more of this type of player.

Andy Wozniewski - Needs a system to exploit his size and cut down on mental errors.

Ian White - Only as a backup to Kaberle's powerplay time, he's not a solid choice for top four.

Anton Stralman - Has potential to be a top-four guy if he puts on some size and keeps working on the defensive side of things.

DUMP

Jason Blake - Between the health issues and his lack of chemistry with anyone lately, I think his stats from last year were just a blip. Let him ride out his contract and see if he improves.

Chad Kilger - Never lived up to his high draft pick cred, and is on the ice for way too many opposition goals.

Darcy Tucker - Energy guys are fine when there's skill to balance the load. His chippy style doesn't fit with the way this team should be going.

Wade Belak - Questionable value in 2001, definite liability in the new NHL.

Kris Newbury - Not working out, might be better as a Marlie.

Mark Bell - Must I write anything here? Upside in skill doesn't balance out with downside in discipline.

Bates Battaglia - The party's over Bates, looks like the last wheel's fallen off Maurice's reclamation project.

Hal Gill - Overpaid and can't skate. Has decent skill, but his huge contract represents the best area for cost-savings.

At the end of the day, we all know what will happen - they'll just keep cycling people through the front office, behind the bench, and on the ice until such time as they hit on the right combination to win a few games, and then they'll say "See, we told you we had a plan!"

PS - I can't talk about goaltending here, as they can't be evaluated objectively while playing poor team defence all the time. But I will say that I don't think either Raycroft or Toskala are the answer. Anyone got any better suggestions?

Because anything can happen...

2007-11-06T17:12:00.000-05:00

I started my pro-line season four weeks ago to very successful results, and had three losing weeks in a row after that, decimating my bankroll and bringing me down to my last $10 of "house money" (AKA profit from my first win). I think the reason is that betting on hockey is just plain dumb. There's WAY too much variance and even a backup goalie and a crappy team can steal a game in this league. The only advantage here is that a win is a win, whether it's in OT or the shootout, so there's some relief for the beleagured wagerer.

I've been pretty standard with the approach: Two hockey games and two football games.

The hockey: Well, with the exception of one week when they weren't playing, I've picked Saturday night wins for Ottawa and Toronto. And they've always come out on top, which was a good start to the weekend. The one week they weren't playing, I bet against Boston and Chicago, both of whom were heavy underdogs to Dallas and San Jose. And both of the dogs won their games. Damnit. Conversely, BP said I was nuts to back Toronto for any game, and even crazier to back 'em against a hot Canadiens team last Saturday, but the boys in blue came through and kept the ticket alive this weekend, setting things up for...

The Football: You may not be aware, but Pro-line reserves the right to take any game off the board in which the spread is way too high for their liking. Consequently, you haven't been able to bet on the Patriots since Week Two because they've simply CRUSHED anyone who's taken the field against them this year. That is, until this week's game against the Indianapolis Colts, in which the Colts opened as a mere three-point dog against the Pats. This line moved over the course of the week as everyone was putting their money on Brady. The line moved to 6.5 in some places, but that's irrelevant for pro-line purposes.

A win in football is any game in which your team wins by 4 points or more. So, those last second field goals to break a tie and cement a win in the NFL actually is still considered a tie on Pro-line.

Anyways, if you're still reading this, you probably know that the Pats rallied in the fourth quarter and engineered two touchdowns in the space of four minutes to win by... FOUR POINTS! Again, preserving my ticket's potential payout. Now all I needed to do was keep the faith for Monday Night and...

THE PITTSBURGH STEELERS. God bless Big Ben Roethlisberger exploiting the Ravens' corners ALL. NIGHT. LONG. Actually, it wasn't all night long, as they were up by 4 TDs just before the end of the first half. I went to sleep confident that I'd won the last of my games and could cash in my winning ticket before starting to mull over the coming week's picks.

They held on to win 38-7, and the only bad news is that I'm going up against Paul this week in fantasy football, and he's got Big Ben and Santonio Holmes in his lineup. Hopefully they've exhausted all their passing TDs and will stick to the ground game next week against Cleveland.

I'm going to have a weekly picks feature on the blog, discussing the games I'm looking at, and invite feedback on what you think the smart money is doing.

This coming weekend, I see a few games that might be worth a wager (picks in bold, lines indicated where available):

Canadiens AT Senators: Please give me a reason, even with Spezza's groin, why you'd ever bet against a team that's 12-1 to start the year. STANLINE - YUP.

Rangers AT Leafs: Sentimental pick of course, but I think they have what it takes to beat the Rangers, who've been struggling out of the gate this season. STANLINE - MAYBE (possible Win-Lose-Draw scenario, I'll explain below)

Coyotes AT Sharks: Good team at home against bad team. Logically, this is a no-brainer. However, as stated at the start of this blog, this is one of those trap games where Phoenix explodes for 5 goals or something crazy like that. In weeks where there is good value in the NFL, I might stay away from more than one hockey pick. STANLINE - MAYBE.

Colts (-3.5) AT Chargers: Just because they're no longer unbeaten doesn't mean they can't start a new win streak. I can't believe the line's this close, especially when San Diego struggled against Minnesota last week. Expect this line to move further over the course of the week. STANLINE - STRONG MAYBE.

Jaguars (OFF) AT Titans: Not sure why this one's OFF, I thought the Jags had a good chance to put up a fight against Tennessee in this matchup. The more I think of it, the more it scares me though. Maybe the oddsmakers are doing me a favour. STANLINE - PROBABLY NOT.

Rams AT Saints (-12): Saints are on a roll and the Rams, regardless of the return of Steven Jackson, their first string RB, just plain stink. The 12 point line and the fact that I have Brees in my fantasy league kinda helps as well. STANLINE - YUP.

49ers AT Seahawks (-10): San Fran's having a horrible season, their passing and running corps are all banged up, and they're playing a decent (but by no means should that be confused as me saying "good") team in Seattle. I'm going mostly on the line here, and I'm wary that the 'Hawks might lay another egg like they did against the Steelers a few weeks back, but this is the 49ers we're talking about. STANLINE - STRONG MAYBE.

WIN LOSE DRAW - I learned this one from a few guys working for the city, happy having money in their pockets. Since betting on a tie is worth a larger payout, you take two "sure-things" and then buy three tickets. The first has the sure things plus the hockey tie which has huge odds if it comes through. The other two tickets require that you to pay more for the wager on the straight win or loss of the third team so that the overall win covers the cost of the other two tickets you bought. So long as your two "sure things" come through, you could end up holding two winning tickets (one for the winning team, and one for the tie if it goes to OT), or at least break even with the win or loss of your hockey pick. The downside is that if one of your two sure things tank it, you lose on all three tickets. This is best played with the house's money, and I just happen to have some this week. I'm looking at:

Ticket One - SENS, SAINTS, TOR/NYR TIE
Ticket TWO - SENS, SAINTS, LEAFS
Ticket Three - SENS, SAINTS, RANGERS

Sports Fandom

2007-11-05T10:41:00.000-05:00

Okay, I've been listening to the Team 1200 lately, not sure why, but my two drivetime CBC hosts are just getting too annoying for me. So I figured if I was going to be annoyed by the radio, I'd rather the subject be sports-related.

Anyways, the Team has a new contest for Leafs fans to give up on the Leafs and "cheer for a winning team for once".

I have both a moral and a logical complaint about this.

From a moral standpoint: IT'S YOUR TEAM! What on earth would make you want to switch allegiances at this point? It's not like you play for them, or have any other kind of influence on how they do in the standings. There's some reason or other that got you to cheer for them at one point, and there shouldn't be much that would change that. It's not like you were given a written guarantee that the team would perform well throughout the course of your lifetime or anything. Either it was your parent's team when you were growing up, or you liked a player at one point, or just enjoyed the excitement that a certain team's style always brought to the games.

Whatever the reason, the first time you said "We" and meant "you and that particular sports organization", you're now officially a fan.

Back to the contest - In the promo reel, they say Clancy, a staff writer for the station, came here 7 years ago from Toronto, and he's finally made the move to become a Sens fan. Weak. Basically, he's tired of supporting a team that's missed the playoffs the last two years running and wants to cheer for a winner. He probably cheers for the Cowboys, Yankees and Lakers too (but is seriously considering becoming a Pats, Sox and Spurs fan). I could understand it if his team folded or if he changed in the first year of moving to Ottawa, but after 7 years, he's not coming out as a closet Sens fan, he's coming out as an opportunist.

And that brings me to the logical argument: The prize is Sens jerseys and a box seat to a Sens/Leafs game. Why would Sens fans want these fickle, wishy-washy so-called fans on their side in the first place? What'll happen in a couple years if the team stumbles out of the gate and doesn't perform as expected? They've already shown that they don't have any scruples, and might jump onto another bandwagon.

People (mostly those who don't know anything about sports, hockey or the Ottawa Senators - but have been taught that they're supposed to hate Leafs fans) often ask why I'm a Leafs fan, and my response is simple: Because that's my team. Sometimes I make a comment about how they suck or their woeful lack of defensive discipline, and someone'll muse about how I'm a fairweather fan, or I should have more faith.

Here's the thing: I'm a fan, I'll always be a fan, but that doesn't preclude me from making observations about their current lineup and how they're faring. I *hope* they win every game, but unlike the Sens, I don't think that's likely.

Here's a background on my sports fandom, the teams I root for, and the story behind how I became a fan of each:

I only really starting getting into watching sports in University. I was a casual hockey and baseball fan, but never really paid much attention as a kid. I found more and more that I was missing out on the conversation when it would turn to sports (as it always seemed to) and I decided to spend some time seeing if there was something there for me. I remember asking friends what a double-double was, or what, exactly, was "The Trap". I got better, learned a lot from watching games and participating in the conversation...

The Leafs: A friend of mine was a Hartford Whalers fan and when I started watching hockey seriously, I figured they were as good a team as any to root for. Then they folded and moved to Carolina. Didn't seem like a real hockey hotbed down there, so I used the opportunity to support a Canadian team (preferably in this time zone.) At the time, Leafs games were exciting, fast paced affairs with plenty of goals and free-wheeling hits. Seemed like a good place to start, especially when I found Ottawa's system flat and uninteresting.

The Jays: Like most, I enjoyed the back-to-back World Series wins, but never really watched the sport very much. I took it up when I came back from England, and really started to get an appreciation for all the strategy and gamesmanship involved. Now I'm at the point where I actually enjoy listening to it on the radio during a long car ride. Not many folks can claim that these days.

The Raptors: I still don't really like the NBA, but since Canada's got a team, I'm happy to root for 'em. And against VC and the Nets. I watched their playoff performance last year, and was impressed with their lineup. Can't say I'd be too interested in watching an 80-game season, but I think I'd like to take in a live game this season or next and see how it is in-person.

The Steelers: Oddly enough, the reason I chose 'em was Kordell Stewart. I was starting to watch more NFL games, played a few sundays of QB1 and was looking for a team to cheer for. One night while watching Letterman, Kordell was on, and he was really funny, humble, and just looked genuinely happy to be there and playing football. They brought him to the roof and he threw at a target across the street, which was pretty fun to watch. I thought: Hey, good enough for me, Go Steelers! I think I found out that my friend Paul was a big Steelers fan the next year, which was nice to have someone else to talk with about the team on a completely biased level.

Newcastle United: The easiest explanation - I used to live there. They have cool uniforms. Frankly, I'm not going to watch a lot of soccer over the course of the year, but I'll tune into a Magpies match if it's on TV.

So, thanks to all my friends who started me on this path to sports fandom, and supporting this habit with hockey and football pools, trash talk about how my teams all stink, and stiffling guffaws when I was still pronouncing all the european players' names worse than Don Cherry when drafting them back in the mid-nineties.

Rolling the dice with the new TV season

2007-10-24T10:35:00.000-04:00

Does anyone watch TV anymore? I mean, aside from a few popular entries, does anyone even try to invest some time in new shows? More and more, the networks seem to pull the plug on a show after as little as one or two episodes.

Kerri tells me not to get my hopes up when I talk about a new show, and statistically, she's right. Here's a few thoughts on the new shows this season, which is by no means exhaustive, so I'll just talk about the ones I've seen.

Viva Laughlin: Okay, I never actually watched this, as it was described as a musical/whodunit produced by Hugh Jackman, I pretty much knew it was DOA. CBS gave it all of two airings before pulling the plug in favour of a new season of The Amazing Race. I guess they should call it Mortis Laughlin.

Bionic Woman: Upon reflection, it seems like I'm quite the fan of female-lead shows that ultimately get cancelled (Alias, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Veronica Mars). I really wanted to like this show, too. Especially since it was produced by the folks who did the Battlestar Galactica remake, but it's really, really tiring to watch. The main character isn't really that interesting, we've been given almost no reason to care about the secret organization, and while the bad guy is suitably evil-looking, I don't see any hint of a master plan, or bigger picture. There are ZERO twists and turns, and they spend too much time focusing on Jamie's home life trying to raise her little sister angle. Yawn. I've given it three episodes, and I've taped one more. That's going to be the make-or-break on whether or not I continue watching.

Dirty Sexy Money: Love Peter Krause. Intriquing title. Love the premise of him being a fish-out-of-water lawyer taking care of a super-rich family's dirty deeds. The first episode had a lot of promise, and then it just nosedived. There's a fundamental problem with building a show around a bunch of spoiled, self-centered rich folks that are supposed to be wacky and idiosyncratic. Mainly, that audiences generally don't care about mean people that don't have redeeming qualities. And then they also sandbag us with turning the show into a murder mystery that's hard to get invested in because we never met the victim, the prime suspect, or know of any reasons why either of them were put in the situation. They need a little bit of dramatic irony to make it engaging, but all we get are more shots of William (Billy) Baldwin drunk and fooling around with a transvestite. NOT good TV. We shut it down after 4 episodes.

Life: I like cop shows. I got tired of Law & Order and CSI long ago, but I'll always give a new one a chance, mainly because I'm interested in seeing how they managed to greenlight something that isn't either of those two brands. Damian Lewis (Winters from Band of Brothers) plays a cop who was framed for murder and spent 7 years in prison. His case gets overturned on new evidence and he's freed, given a huge monetary settlement and demands a job back with
the force. He's a little messed up from having been subject to constant pain inside (they don't like cops in prison, apparently) but he's good at his job. He also spends his time trying to figure out who framed him and why, which is a good device to build a weekly narrative around. They do a faux-documentary type thing throughout the show where people who were invovled personally or professionaly when he was convicted talk about how they treated him, what happened, etc... I like it, and hope the show gets picked up.

Journeyman: If you were a fan of Quantum Leap or Early Edition, this show's for you. The premise is that this journalist gets a headache and then finds himself flashing (Leaping?) into the past "putting things right that once went wrong" (oh, wait, that's from Quantum Leap too). Along the way he finds out his long dead fiancée didn't die and that she's somehow involved in the time travel too. His home life is being ruined by this problem, yadda, yadda, yadda. Seemed interesting, the main character has some acting chops, but I can't see how it's ever going to last.
Side note: Global blew me away when they mentioned, while going to commercial, that the lead guy played Tommy in Trainspotting. Makes me want to go back and watch that movie again over spending any more time on this time-travelling train-wreck.

Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares: The UK version of this show was great, he came in, told people they were stupid and unprofessional, begged the owners to fire the chef/manager/staff, completely changed the menu and décor, and then came back in a month to see how they did. The US version seems over-produced. Too many voiceovers, sound effects and camera tricks. But at the end of the day, he's still entertaining, and we've come up with a potential drinking game for whenever Chef Ramsay swears at someone, and you have to chug your drink when he takes his shirt off (which happens inexplicably, in EVERY EPISODE!) He's being sued over allegations that they set-up some of the patrons and coached people to be extra-disgusted by the food.

Carpoolers: Awful, Awful, Awful. I watched ten minutes of it. Not funny, not interesting, and for a show that's supposed to take place mostly in a car, the greenscreen is really weak.

K-Ville: I heard it got some good preview buzz, but it quickly faltered. I thought maybe they'd do something decent with the post-Katrina angle, but I guess I was asking too much from a Fox-based network show that ends up being a standard buddy-cop show. I'm surprised they haven't cancelled it yet.

That's all I've got for now, I guess I'll leave you with the list of returning shows that'll still get my viewing time:

The Office - Don't know about those hour-long episodes, seems to make some of the storylines a bit stale.
Lost - I almost jumped ship last year, but they pulled me back in, and I loved the way they ended it. Can't wait to see how the "gamechanger" affects the show's next season.
24 - Last season was the worst yet. They're blowing up the premise, but I'm not sure the new one will be any better. Tony Almeida comes back this year, so that'll be promising.
Battlestar Galactica - Can't wait for the mini-series and the final season to start in the new year. Glad they're ending the show before the storylines get too thin.
House - Everyone's blowing up their structure lately, I love the contest format of this year, hopefully it stays this fresh all season.
Heroes - Starting off SLOWLY, but it's earned a ton of goodwill with me. AND they added Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars) to the cast, so it's definitely got blue-chip status.
Deadliest Catch - No matter how many times I see it, I can't believe that crab fishing remains interesting to me.

The case for Fantasy Sports Leagues

2007-10-23T10:19:00.000-04:00

Want to get into a new sport or re-ignite your passion for the old favourites? Then a fantasy league is a must.

I got into NFL football about 10 years ago by playing QB1. It's one of those radio-control bar games where you watch a game and get points for correctly guessing every play that the offence is going to run (Run vs. Pass, short vs. long, gamebreakers, etc...) If you could find a place that still has these, I'd highly recommend it, as you really get a flavour for how each series goes in the course of a game.

The problem with QB1 is that you may not be able to find it available in your area, and it only lets you focus on one game at a time. You may not know that a certain team has a high pass-to-run ratio, and scratch your head when they line up in the shotgun on first and ten, second and two, and third and inches.

So, how is a fantasy league better?

More participants
A standard league will have anywhere from 8 - 12 managers, and you play a different matchup each week, which leads to the possibility that every single game on the NFL schedule that week could have an impact on how you do against the competition.

Multiple Teams to Support
Now, you don't pick a team to follow, you draft players from all 32 teams at different positions (Quarterback, Running Back, Wide Receiver, etc...) and field a team each week to compete against your scheduled opponent and his best guesses. Cheering on multiple teams is usually shunned (for instance, you'd make fun of someone who says they like the Sens AND the Leafs) but in fantasy football, it's a must.

Nobody Knows Anything
Sure, the experts can draft better players with more potential, but at the end of the season, there are always injuries, suprise performers and slumping elite players. This means that every week, you have a chance to win and get one step closer to the playoffs.

Interactivity
One of the things that bugs me about traditional hockey pools is that you usually pick your players and then check back in March to see how you did. With Fantasy Football, you select about twice as many players as you have roster spots for, so each week offers a new challenge to pick the players who will perform the best for you based on injuries and the skill of the team they're playing against. This really allows you to pay attention to the entire league and get an appreciation for the sport, even outside of a fantasy draft context.

My hockey draft made some changes this year to increase the interactivity. We created a waiver wire which allows folks to drop underperforming or injured players up to 7 times over the course of the season. Even that small amount of control has done wonders for our collective interest in how our teams are faring (even if I'm blowing the doors off of everyone at this particular moment. Gotta love an early lead that's destined for a fall.)

Online Popularity
You can do fantasy drafts for almost any sport. Golf, NASCAR, Baseball... you name it. Although I recommend partaking in a live draft with your friends, if you can't organize enough people, the online version works well enough, it just means your trash-talk won't be as personal at the end of a good week.

So, if you want to get into (or back into) a sport and aren't sure where to start, I highly recommend putting some money on the line, taking a few risky picks and enjoy the season!

RSS to the RSScue!

2007-10-22T09:55:00.000-04:00

Okay, lame title. And if you're Internet savvy already, this won't be that interesting a topic. HOWEVER, I figured I'd take a few minutes to talk about an easy way to manage all the content that's posted on your favourite websites more efficiently. You'll never use your "Favorites" menu in your browser again!

First of all: THIS IS NOT HARD! Don't get frightened, RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication, and it really is really simple.

So, now that your fears are gone, let's talk about what I'm proposing.

RIGHT NOW: You have a list of websites you read on a regular basis for news, sports, weather, entertainment, blogs, etc... You probably have them saved in your favorites folder at work and maybe some or all of them at home as well. When you're looking for something to read, you click on each site, one by one, and then scan the pages to see if there's anything new or interesting. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't, and you move on to the next one.

THERE'S A BETTER WAY: Why not make the computer do the work for you? If you use an RSS reader instead of your favorites menu, you can get a list of updates that have been made on *all* of those sites since the last time you checked them, all in one place. Not only that, but it'll tell you the title and a description of what the story's about even before you visit the site. Don't have time to read it now? No problem. You can also mark it to read later.

This information is all stored in an online account, so when you get home you can pick up where you left off at work or vice versa.

HOW DOES IT WORK?
Easy. Every time a website publishes a new article on ANYTHING, they put a link, title and description in a small RSS file on their server. This is known as an RSS Feed. To take advantage of these updates, you need to use an RSS Reader.

A Reader is basically a webpage that acts like an interactive version of your favorites folder by keeping track of all the pages and sites that you're interested in. You tell it which sites you want to monitor, and it does the rest (this is known as subscribing to a feed.) Every time you go to your reader, it goes out and gets the title, description and link of any new stories since the last time you visited and flags them as new, unread stories.

WHAT DO I USE?
Well, there are a few different options available, but my favourite is Bloglines.com. It's a simple interface that makes it easy to manage, add, edit or delete feeds without too many complications.

HOW DO I DO IT?
I've written out some easy, step-by-step instructions:

1) Go to http://www.bloglines.com/

2) Create an account (I suggest you select the option of staying signed in). Bloglines may offer a whole list of feeds that you might like, feel free to select any of those.

3) To add your own personal favourites, check your personalized page at http://www.bloglines.com/myblogs

4) At the top-left, you'll see a tab that says "Feeds", and underneath that "Add". Click "Add".

5) You'll see a page that asks you to type in the URL of the site or blog you want to add. If you just type the website address of a certain site (say TSN.ca), it will come back with ALL of the different feeds you might be interseted in (NFL, NHL, NBA, News, etc...)

6) Select the feeds from the list it provides and click "Save".

7) You'll notice that the site you just subscribed to is now listed on the left-side menu. Whenever a new story arrives, the site name will be in bold and it will indicate the number of new stories available.

You'll only have to subscribe once, and if you log in at work and at home, you'll never have to do it again. I've made bloglines my default homepage, as that's the easiest way to stay on top of all the news and updates at all times.

Let me know if you find this useful, or if you have any problems setting this up! I've included a couple of screen-shots to give you an idea of what it all looks like.

Put that Ipod down!

2007-09-06T14:09:00.000-04:00

Okay, I'll be the first to admit that I haven't been to that many concerts, but every single concert I've been to has changed my perspective on the band/performer in question. And usually for the better.

I know there are a lot of people just happy to fill their ipod and enjoy the canned, studio versions as "they were meant to be performed", but there's something so great about seeing a band you admire play their songs live. To watch 'em try something different, and enjoy the sounds of multiple instruments share the same space instead of some studio tech blending tracks on his iMac.

But guess what: It's even better when you see bands you're unsure-of play their stuff live. I'll illustrate with a few scenarios:

The complete turnaround: I'll come clean: I *hated* Arcade Fire when I first heard their album. Friends told me they were saving rock and roll, and I was thinking I was going to save the CD the next time I needed a coaster. But I saw them open for U2 a couple years back and was blown away by the passion, energy and musical talent on that (crowded) stage. Now whenever I listen to their CD, I'm reminded of their gig and I can honestly say I enjoy what they do.

The confirmation: Here's a quote I heard when I mentioned that I was going to see Coldplay last year: "I can't imagine wanting to pay a hundred bucks to watch Chris Martin hump a piano for 2 hours". I wasn't sure how to respond, as I knew next to nothing about their live shows. After the concert, all I could say was that he humped that piano better than I could have hoped. Again, it was his energy that really sold the rest of the experience for me. I can't say I like their music any more than I already did (my favourites of theirs tend to be the songs that *aren't* released as singles), but it confirmed to me that they were more than just a polished machine that aims to get the most top-40 airplay.

The grudging respect: I hate The Tea Party. Nothing will ever change that. I'm not saying they're poor musicians or anything, but I just can't stand their whiny faux-rock and only Rush makes me change the radio station faster than them. However, I saw them as part of Edgefest in Nineteen Ninety-Something and can honestly say I was impressed with how well they reproduced their (crappy) sound in a live, outdoor venue. While Collective Soul (or maybe it was Soul Asylum, I can't tell those two bands apart) finished their set with an awful cover of Crazy Train, I thought that the worst was yet-to-come. I was surprisingly entertained by how well technically they were able to play on the same stage after the last act had crapped that very same metaphorical bed.

The exception to the rule: I've never seen The Tragically Hip live. I've had plenty of opportunities, but it just never was well-timed. Then I started hearing about how Gord dicks around on stage and really frustrates audiences every once in a while. Like most Canadian rock fans my age, the Hip are an essential part of a music collection, but I'm afraid I'll just end up being mad at 'em for ruining a part of my high school and university memories. I also haven't really enjoyed any of their stuff since Phantom Power (Gord's gotten into a whiny phase, I keep hoping it'll pass), so I also don't want to pay to hear three songs I'm going to like...

Speaking of being mad...

The perfect storm: Don't see a moody artist at an all-ages venue if you want to hear an encore; or not hold a grudge against the guy for years and years. I used to love Matthew Good's music. Still enjoy a few of his MGB stuff, but after seeing him whine like a baby that someone threw something on stage, quickly finish the set and refuse to come back for an encore, it's pretty much over. I don't care when he comes to town, I don't know when his new album's being released, and I'm not sure who I'd root for if he and Raine Maida got into the fistfight that they both seemed to want so bad in the late-nineties.

Anyways, I'm sure everyone has good and bad stories to tell about their live concert experiences, here's hoping you get the same level of satisfaction for live music that I have.

[I now realize that none of my top 5 concert experiences are even listed in this article, maybe that'll be a future topic for discussion]

Best TSN Anchor

2007-08-15T11:21:00.000-04:00

Inspired by RBP's favourite half-hour program, I decided to run down the top 5 current TSN personalities. I'd do a top 10, but frankly, I'd hate to have to consider putting Russ Anber into a top-anything list.

Number 5: Rod Black

Until recently, I would have referred to him as "The 'Stache", but it seems like TSN brass has mandated a no facial hair policy - although in Chris Schultz's case, it's a definite improvement. Anyways, Black's been around the block more times than the thimble in a heated game of Monopoly, he's been a commentator on every sport that TSN has seen fit to broadcast. He always at least seems *interested* in the event, even if he's not knowledgable about it. Then again, he seems pretty excited when the Canadian boys nail their short programs in figure skating... Still, he seems to know his role and delivers in a professional, if not exactly side-splitting, form.

Number 4: Pierre McGuire

Obviously, this list is based on "entertainment factor", and Pierre definitely fits the bill. Mostly, it's UNintentional comedy that he's best at. I can't stand the number of times he uses the term "Monster" over the course of a hockey broadcast, but at least he's passionate about the game we're watching. The powers that be have gone to great lengths to showcase his unique brand of enthusiasm, between the "McGuire's Monsters" segments to the ice-level position he gets for certain games, they want to give him as much airtime as possible (or possibly as much rope as he'd need to verbally hang himself.)

Number 3: Darren Dutchyshen

He's got years of experience, a well-timed wit, and a voice that lets sports fans from coast to coast enjoy pretty much anything he covers (ie. when he pronounces things like "theeee Cheee-cah-go Blackhawwwwwwks"). I've always enjoyed his comedic timing and ever-changing neck-size, and he definitely gets props for his longevity.

Number 2: James Duthie

Another guy with tons of airtime under his belt, many would argue that he deserves the first place position on this list, especially since he's from Ottawa. He's accomplished enough to land the hosting gig for TSN's hockey broadcasts, or maybe it's some form of punishment as he's got to share the stage with Tie Domi and Glenn Healy at least 40 times over the course of a season. He's also the name most dubiously associated with Maggie the Monkey, not sure if that's a step up or down from Tie and Glenn. He's funny, and a lot of his best stuff comes unscripted, but there's something forced about him that stops me from putting him in the number one spot. I can tell that TSN wants him to be the Canadian version of ESPN's Sports Guy, but I gotta say that (much like this one) his blogs just aren't that interesting. I can't really recall him being a breakout star when he was doing CJOH's sports, but he's definitely better than most.

Number 1: Jay Onrait

Some peole think he's just trying to channel the wacky/deeply sarcastic ESPN commentators from the last decade, others might accuse him of watching Ace Ventura: Pet Detective too many times, but whatever your opinion, he's got the Sportscentre formula down. Regardless of the type of news day or the co-host he's working with, he's always got a few gems that make me chuckle out loud. Then again, his career path hasn't exactly reached it's zenith yet, he's gone from Saskatoon, to Winnipeg, to the 2am slot on Sportscentre. Still plenty of upward mobility there, Jay.

Honourable mentions:
Jennifer Hedger, Gord Miller, Vic Rauter (Canada's voice of curling!)

TV Review: Burn Notice Vs. MacGyver

2007-08-07T15:58:00.000-04:00

I just stumbled across a new show on the USA Network called "Burn Notice". It's about a guy who work(ed) for the CIA, and got his walking papers (or burn notice, hence the title) right in the middle of a job. Much action and wry humour follows in setting up the plot for the series: He's stuck in Miami trying to figure out who burned him while helping others as a side gig.

Now, you can't actually see the episodes on network TV in Canada yet, but if you've got some Internet savvy, you can get ahold of 'em online. Anyways, I was probably destined to love this show since it's about espionage and co-stars Bruce Campbell. There are some cheesy moments, some of the story lines hold up better than others, and if it gets picked up, I can't imagine how they're going to stretch the show into multiple seasons. But I realized that it does have one thing going for it: It's a heck of a lot like an updated version of MacGyver.

I figured I'd break the two shows down (I'm blatantly ripping off this style from Bill Simmons, who freely admits to ripping off Dr. Jack Ramsay, so I feel it's okay) and see where Burn Notice stands against one of TV's most memorable heroes from the 80's.

Name: Angus "Mac" MacGyver vs Michael Westen

Well, they're both pretty unique (according to the US census stats, less than 1250 people have the last name Westen and NOBODY has MacGyver). And while I can see the advantages of having a nondescript name in the spy biz, there's no way people 25 years from now are going to say "I Westen-ed it with some duct tape and a zippo". Plus, the final season of MacGyver revealed that his first name was Angus - How do you even compete with that?
Edge: MacGyver

Love Interest: Penny Parker (Teri Hatcher) vs Fiona "Fee" Glenanne (Gabrielle Anwar)

Tough, tough choice. Say what you will about Teri Hatcher's resumé, she's the perennial go-to girl for female vixens in television (MacGyver, Lois and Clark, an unforgetable Seinfeld cameo, and Desperate Housewives). However, Penny wasn't in many episodes and was sometimes just used as a plot device. Gabrielle, on the other hand, made a splash with her tango role in Scent of a Woman and then killed her career by taking bad parts in small movies and reteaming with Chris O'Donnell in the AWFUL Three Musketeers. Then again, she was memorable enough for me to exclaim "Hey, Gabrielle Anwar!" when I saw the pilot. Neither have really showed me a huge wealth of acting chops, they both captured the public's imagination at one time or another, and I'll give the producers of BN credit for having Fee dump the Irish accent after the pilot.
Edge: EVEN

Sidekick: Jack Dalton (Bruce McGill) vs Sam Axe (Bruce Campbell)

A great battle of the "Oh, That Guy!"s. McGill's face and voice are instantly recognizable and (according to IMDB) has starred in 116 productions, including Animal House, but unfortunately he's up against Bruce F-ing Campbell playing a guy named Sam Axe. I don't care that he starred in a few episodes of Xena: Warrior Princess, he's Ash from Evil Dead and that's all there is to it. Besides, Jack was always just a way to get Mac into trouble, whereas Sam (wouldn't be surprised if Bruce was responsible for the name himself) is a drunk ex-spy who lives off the grace of the rich lady-friend du jour and offers intel and support for Michael's missions. Too easy. (And that's without talking about Bubba Ho-Tep: the flick where Bruce plays Elvis in a retirement home and fights mummies alongside a black JFK.)
Edge: Burn Notice

Vehicle: Jeep Wrangler vs Dodge Charger

Wow, that's a hard one. Two classic macho vehicles built by the same company that suit their own storylines perfectly. Mac's vehicle can off-road, he's able to pack light as he'll inevitably find all the things he needs in whatever room the bad guys lock him in, and it probably influenced more than one Jeep purchase during the run of the series. The Charger's equally suited to driving in back alleys of Miami as it is ferrying Michael to the next hot-spot bad-guy hangout. The storyline of his deceased father willing the car (that's always breaking down) is a cute metaphor for their implied relationship. You could never get away with constant breakdowns on MacGyver, obviously, as Mac probably got 400 miles per gallon on a solution of amonia and hydrogen.
Edge: EVEN

Location: Los Angeles vs Miami

I guess the hardest part of doing this comparison is that MacGyver had many different locations depending on the episode, but was supposedly based in California. The only problem is that they filmed in Vancouver and you could really tell at times that this wasn't L.A. Given the fact that he spent a few episodes in Minnesota as well, the cool factor just isn't there. Whereas Burn Notice films on-location in Miami and does a great job of varying the urban, rural and exotic locales that south Florida has to offer. The locations definitely hold their own, which is especially relevant when you consider how high Miami Vice set the bar 20 years ago.
Edge: Burn Notice

Weapon of choice: Pocket Knife and Household Items vs Firearms and Household Items

Well, this is what first got me to compare the two shows: They both create a fun scene when solving problems using common items they find around them. BN doesn't do as much straight science as MacGyver, but they both use narration and humour to get through those particular parts of the episode. One BN episode has Westen in the middle of the road waiting to carjack someone with an older model car because there won't be an airbag to slow him down after he rams head-on into the hit-man he's chasing. That's pretty hard-core. However, every kid who ever watched MacGyver wanted a swiss army knife (I own 3), I can't expect to say that about Westen's 9mm (because let's face it: 10 year olds with 9mms probably aren't watching TV on Saturday nights).
Edge: MacGyver

Personal Style

Well, to be honest, there's a bit of identity theft going on in both shows. If I described a guy in the late 80's wearing a leather jacket and used something other than a gun as his weapon of choice, most people would say I was talking about Indiana Jones. Still, it was a cool look, especially when coupled with the Jeep. However, Mac started growing a pretty mean mullet after season 3, and frankly, that got real distracting. As for Michael, he's the spitting image
of Guy Pearce in the film Memento, and I know for a fact that this isn't a coincidence. I looked it up. Matt Nix, the creator of this show, is credited early in his career for directing a pot-themed satire called... Mementoke. Still, I just can't get that mullet out of my head.
Slight Edge: Burn Notice

Longevity

You know you've made it when they make fun of you in The Simpsons, so MacGyver's 6 seasons are pretty much a lock. Even though the show was filmed and produced in Canada, it was (and in some ways still is) a permanent part of North American culture. Burn Notice has a bit bigger challenge as it only airs on the USA Network in the summertime. I know it's seeing some good ratings, I'm hoping I haven't invested my time in yet another show that gets canned before it
sees a second season.
Edge: MacGyver

Final Word

Do you know the feeling you get after watching a really good car chase scene in a movie, and then you find yourself driving faster than normal on the way home from the theatre? That's the same kind of feeling I get from Burn Notice. I don't know if I'd handle the heat in Miami wearing a full suit, but this show makes me want to be a secret agent. My wife warned me not to get too attached to yet another show that'll probably get cancelled after 10 episodes, but I just can't help but see the potential in it for continued success. It'll never be as popular or long-lived as MacGyver was, but it's a refreshing change to the cop/procedural shows that dot the landscape these days.

[UPDATE: August 9th - USA just announced a second season order of 13 more episodes! Sweet! Now I don't have to worry about watching each episode as if it's the last!]