Saturday, July 11, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
IN WHICH THE SHAMING FUNCTION IS DEPLOYED BY NIGEL LYTHGOE ON NATIONAL TELEVISION: And so we've got ourselves a top ten! (Not that it matters, given that the top ten has functionally become a top twelve.) One big surprise in the bottom three couples, obviously, although those two should be glad it happened, because that solo showed us just how much of a frontrunner one of the guys might be.
As we were told repeatedly last night, the power now shifts to the people. A lot will depend on how the random new pairings go -- as we saw last year with Twitch and Kherington, leaving that comfort zone behind can be hazardous to one's health. Here are my suggestions for how the Sorting Hat should proceed.
Melissa and Kupono: Kupono has a litheness that hasn't been played to full advantage terribly often. Melissa's long lines could elicit something special from him, and Kupono's quirkiness may marry well with Melissa's grace.
Kayla and Ade: I am sold on Ade's greatness, which I never was when he was partnered with Melissa. And I am only somewhat sold on Kayla's, although I remain awed by her work in the addiction routine. So go forth together and bring us some greatness.
Janette and Jason: She's been on a tear lately, but tends toward the cartoonish. He's talented, but could use some more emotion. Maybe together they can form one appropriately demeanored couple.
Jeanine and Evan: I don't know how tall Jeanine is vis-à-vis Evan, but she presents somewhat small, which may make Evan's graduation from Randi somewhat less traumatic. And they each have an actorly dramatic side, which could make for a strong coupling. Regardless of who Evan gets this week, he's got to find a deeper emotional base.
Philip and Caitlin: Opposites attract, right? She's petite and graceful while he's hangdog and dorky, but they're each rubbery in their own way and might bring out something special in each other.
Randi and Brandon: This one is a little bit of a "who's left?" rather than an affirmative inspiration. I worry a bit that putting two chirpy people together might be too noisy. But Randi is the opposite of Janette's high dramatic style, and might give Brandon a chance to take the lead and shine a bit. And Brandon could give Randi a bit of inspirational heft.
And lastly, combining two of our recent obsessions, here's Wade Robson's 2003 tribute to his boyhood friend Michael Jackson. (Wade's only 25, with a not-exactly-mainstream childhood . . . I wonder if he's got potential to develop into Jacko-level oddity.)
As we were told repeatedly last night, the power now shifts to the people. A lot will depend on how the random new pairings go -- as we saw last year with Twitch and Kherington, leaving that comfort zone behind can be hazardous to one's health. Here are my suggestions for how the Sorting Hat should proceed.
Melissa and Kupono: Kupono has a litheness that hasn't been played to full advantage terribly often. Melissa's long lines could elicit something special from him, and Kupono's quirkiness may marry well with Melissa's grace.
Kayla and Ade: I am sold on Ade's greatness, which I never was when he was partnered with Melissa. And I am only somewhat sold on Kayla's, although I remain awed by her work in the addiction routine. So go forth together and bring us some greatness.
Janette and Jason: She's been on a tear lately, but tends toward the cartoonish. He's talented, but could use some more emotion. Maybe together they can form one appropriately demeanored couple.
Jeanine and Evan: I don't know how tall Jeanine is vis-à-vis Evan, but she presents somewhat small, which may make Evan's graduation from Randi somewhat less traumatic. And they each have an actorly dramatic side, which could make for a strong coupling. Regardless of who Evan gets this week, he's got to find a deeper emotional base.
Philip and Caitlin: Opposites attract, right? She's petite and graceful while he's hangdog and dorky, but they're each rubbery in their own way and might bring out something special in each other.
Randi and Brandon: This one is a little bit of a "who's left?" rather than an affirmative inspiration. I worry a bit that putting two chirpy people together might be too noisy. But Randi is the opposite of Janette's high dramatic style, and might give Brandon a chance to take the lead and shine a bit. And Brandon could give Randi a bit of inspirational heft.
And lastly, combining two of our recent obsessions, here's Wade Robson's 2003 tribute to his boyhood friend Michael Jackson. (Wade's only 25, with a not-exactly-mainstream childhood . . . I wonder if he's got potential to develop into Jacko-level oddity.)
I'M JUST A GIRL, STANDING NEXT TO A GUY, HOPING HE WON'T FART: Can we hit 100 #1stdraftmovielines by noon? Then again, hope is a bad thing, maybe the worst of things, and many such things fall short ...
Thursday, July 9, 2009
SO YOU'RE PRETTY STRONG WITH BASEBALL? You'd think we were done with the trials and tribulations of Moneyball, but it seems we are not. Sony's bringing in yet another scribe to rework the screenplay. This one has a little bit of experience of writing about sports--in fact, 44 episodes worth of a little show called Sports Night--apparently with an eye toward credits like "Screen Story/Adaptation by Steven Zaillian, Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin." This could get very interesting.
THIS IS HOW OUR ROBOT OVERLORDS WILL GET THEIR COLLECTIVE FOOT IN THE DOOR: Over the last few years, there has been a quantum leap forward in baseball knowledge as a result of PitchFX, a system installed now in every major league park that tracks every pitch with incredible accuracy. By measuring and plotting location at every point between release and the plate (or contact), PitchFX shows how much a pitch breaks (both vertically and laterally), when it breaks, and how much a pitcher's fastball "hides" his breaking ball (i.e., what is the difference between the arc of different pitches, and when can a batter start to distinguish those arcs?). PitchFX's algorithm will even tell you, based on trajectory and speed, what kind of pitch it is, and will associate every pitch with a result, letting you aggregate data in an infinite number of ways. Because the Internet is awesome, you can even go over to Brooks Baseball and play with the tool yourself. (Coming soon, as I may already have mentioned: HitFX, which will track the speed, location, and trajectory of batted balls.)
Modern technology is now much more accurate than Questec, the old new technology that baseball used (or maybe uses?) to evaluate its umpires. It is capable of giving us accurate, instantaneous information about whether a pitch is a ball or strike. Dave Cameron at Fangraphs and Jeff Sullivan at Lookout Landing, among probably millions of others, are now asking: why do we still have umpires calling balls and strikes? Inconsistency among umpires, unnecessary error rates, players and managers getting thrown out for arguing, and different strike zones depending upon the prior success of the guy on the mound -- what about that is worth defending? Or, as Sullivan quotes Tom Tango as asking, if baseball started with a system that provided 100% accuracy on balls and strikes, would we now advocate junking it in favor of the present system?
Modern technology is now much more accurate than Questec, the old new technology that baseball used (or maybe uses?) to evaluate its umpires. It is capable of giving us accurate, instantaneous information about whether a pitch is a ball or strike. Dave Cameron at Fangraphs and Jeff Sullivan at Lookout Landing, among probably millions of others, are now asking: why do we still have umpires calling balls and strikes? Inconsistency among umpires, unnecessary error rates, players and managers getting thrown out for arguing, and different strike zones depending upon the prior success of the guy on the mound -- what about that is worth defending? Or, as Sullivan quotes Tom Tango as asking, if baseball started with a system that provided 100% accuracy on balls and strikes, would we now advocate junking it in favor of the present system?
NAILED: That frequent ALOTT5MA bête noire Lenny Dykstra now claims less than $50,000 in assets compared to $20-50MM in debt in his bankruptcy petition is not the interesting part -- no, it's the delusional open letter to his fans that compelled me to post again:
Although I am saddened and a bit embarrassed that I had no choice but to resort to this action, at least I am in good company. . . .
Two of our greatest presidents, Thomas Jefferson (filed several times) and Abraham Lincoln, were able to restructure their lives through bankruptcy and went on to do great things such as helping to establish the University of Virginia and abolishing slavery.
Ulysses S. Grant went bankrupt after leaving office when a partner in an investment-banking venture swindled him. (I can certainly identify with this one.)
William McKinley filed for protection while serving as Ohio's governor in 1893 ...
I'LL FOLLOW HIM AROUND THE HORN, AND AROUND THE NORWAY MAELSTROM, AND AROUND PERDITION'S FLAMES BEFORE I GIVE HIM UP: From the first chapter of the upcoming Finding Calvin and Hobbes, it is unclear whether the author succeeded in securing an interview with the most important and talented literary recluse of the 20th century. But the introduction to this sort-of biography of Bill Watterson and Calvin and Hobbes - which you can get free from the author (ping him at lookingforcalvinandhobbes@gmail.com) - sure makes me hope he succeeded.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)