Page 197 of 206

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:33 pm
by triviawayne
ParrotRob wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:12 pm
triviawayne wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:53 pm

I haven't watched since the 1994 strike, but the game has changed so much, so I need to ask: why would a team pull a pitcher if that pitcher hasn't given up a baserunner?
Wow, you really HAVE been away from baseball for a while! In today's game of statistics and hyper-analysis thereof, it's not uncommon at all for managers to change pitchers to gain even the smallest (perceived) advantage - regardless of how the current pitcher is doing. Especially very late in the game and protecting a very fragile lead (e.g. one run lead, tying run in scoring position, etc).

Hmmm... Johnson is up next. He's 5 for 14 lifetime against the guy pitching now, and only 1 for 9 against the guy in the bullpen, time for a change!
This is complicated by managers deliberately staggering lefty and righty hitters in the batting order to try to force the other manager's hand.

Add this all up and a single half-inning can take 20-30 minutes with three pitching changes, pinch hitters, pinch runners, warmups, the commercial breaks that accompany pitching changes, etc. Hello four hour playoff game.
fair enough.

personally i have to wonder how well all that nonsense really works. having pitched in little league, I can say if I was having a hot day, I was having a hot day and that was that; but if I wasn't doing so hot, yeah, pull me off the mound.

Kind of like trying to ice the kicker in football...does it really work, probably not.

full disclosure: this is just personal opinion (as if you couldn't already tell)

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:05 pm
by Volante
triviawayne wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:33 pm
ParrotRob wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:12 pm
triviawayne wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:53 pm

I haven't watched since the 1994 strike, but the game has changed so much, so I need to ask: why would a team pull a pitcher if that pitcher hasn't given up a baserunner?
Wow, you really HAVE been away from baseball for a while! In today's game of statistics and hyper-analysis thereof, it's not uncommon at all for managers to change pitchers to gain even the smallest (perceived) advantage - regardless of how the current pitcher is doing. Especially very late in the game and protecting a very fragile lead (e.g. one run lead, tying run in scoring position, etc).

Hmmm... Johnson is up next. He's 5 for 14 lifetime against the guy pitching now, and only 1 for 9 against the guy in the bullpen, time for a change!
This is complicated by managers deliberately staggering lefty and righty hitters in the batting order to try to force the other manager's hand.

Add this all up and a single half-inning can take 20-30 minutes with three pitching changes, pinch hitters, pinch runners, warmups, the commercial breaks that accompany pitching changes, etc. Hello four hour playoff game.
fair enough.

personally i have to wonder how well all that nonsense really works. having pitched in little league, I can say if I was having a hot day, I was having a hot day and that was that; but if I wasn't doing so hot, yeah, pull me off the mound.

Kind of like trying to ice the kicker in football...does it really work, probably not.

full disclosure: this is just personal opinion (as if you couldn't already tell)
If you want to go further down the rabbit hole, Google LOOGY

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:27 pm
by alietr
Volante wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:05 pm

If you want to go further down the rabbit hole, Google LOOGY
I was wondering how long that was going to take.

As for me, I considered it to be a hot day in Little League when nobody hit a ball anywhere near me.

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:17 pm
by twelvefootboy
triviawayne wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:53 pm
twelvefootboy wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:34 pm
triviawayne wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:03 pm
econgator wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:28 am
Volante wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:26 am
I'm looking forward to the 3 hitter minimum, too (been waiting for it since it was announced). Nothing like rotating in the whole bullpen to kill end game momentum...
That is such a moronic rule.
because in no sport whatsoever does flopping happen.

yeah, rule is pointless the moment pitcher gets signal from dugout to have his arm hurt too much to go on
Easy fix, if they want to: issue a base on balls if the pitcher hasn't given up a baserunner or faced three hitters :). Maybe the teams will find a sense of shame and not pull the fake injury trick. Except the Astros, of course.
I haven't watched since the 1994 strike, but the game has changed so much, so I need to ask: why would a team pull a pitcher if that pitcher hasn't given up a baserunner?

Also, to your easy fix: what if pitcher comes in with 2 outs in the 5th, strikes out first batter, then because it's the National League, is replaced by a pinch hitter. Does the first batter for the other team go directly to 1st base to start off the next inning?
Part 1 - Managers have always played lefty/righty mind games, but it got ridiculous with the bullpen by committee concept (Whitey Herzog of St. Louis Cardinals an early adopter). Much of the blame also goes to the talking heads that will blame the Manager for NOT changing pitchers for even the slightest theoretical edge. The same crap in football applies if the coach doesn't burn both his challenges without fishing for an unlikely reversal. And now they are pissing and moaning because their whimsical challenges are not upheld.

Part 2 - The new MLB rule doesn't require 3 batters if the inning is completed; i.e. if a replacement gets the third out, they are free to go. I claim the same for my proposition ;).
I haven't seen if they've made provisions for medical substitutions, but they surely have thought it through. We know my suggestion :).

I can still watch baseball because of DVR/ time-shifting. But not basketball. The endgame of hacking and free throws is still not watchable, even in real court time.

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:32 am
by trainman
From the Current Events thread...
triviawayne wrote:And that completes the trifecta
Stop this.

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:42 am
by triviawayne
trainman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:32 am
From the Current Events thread...
triviawayne wrote:And that completes the trifecta
Stop this.
So what exactly is the difference between "this" and these:

Bigdogstalfos at the end of page 2, billiej at the top of page 3, my own comment next on page 3, This Is Kirk!'s comment later on page 3, and Robert K S at the bottom of page 3

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:28 am
by morbeedo
I absolutely hate the format of the contestant photos on the jeopardy website:
https://www.jeopardy.com/contestant-zone

why bother trying to remove the perfectly serviceable background from the photos? look at the edges around brooke's hair on thursday. they need to hire better graphic designers!

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:20 pm
by ParrotRob
morbeedo wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:28 am
I absolutely hate the format of the contestant photos on the jeopardy website:
https://www.jeopardy.com/contestant-zone

why bother trying to remove the perfectly serviceable background from the photos? look at the edges around brooke's hair on thursday. they need to hire better graphic designers!
Looks like someone's first-ever attempt at PhotoShop.

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:54 pm
by opusthepenguin
I don't want to clutter up the 2020 news thread with a tangential Oscars question, so I'll ask here. What determines the year of eligibility for a film? E.g. If a film was released in Canada in 1982 but in the US in 1983, could the film have been nominated for either year, or only 1982, or only 1983?

This comes out of some musing on this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-ent ... t-picture/

The writers of the article both agree that Terms of Endearment was the correct Best Picture choice for 1983. But this is preposterous. It would have been better not to give the award at all for that year--and I think an argument could be made.... However, there are two films released abroad in 1982--one in France, the other in Canada--that didn't hit the US until 1983. I saw both of them twice in the theater and remember them to this day. Either film would have been a far better choice than any of the five nominees or any other 1983 movie that comes to mind. 1983 was a terrible year for film.
And the movies are...
The Return of Martin Guerre
The Grey Fox

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:31 pm
by Volante
opusthepenguin wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:54 pm
I don't want to clutter up the 2020 news thread with a tangential Oscars question, so I'll ask here. What determines the year of eligibility for a film? E.g. If a film was released in Canada in 1982 but in the US in 1983, could the film have been nominated for either year, or only 1982, or only 1983?
Los Angeles County* release.
That's how Limelight, which premiered in 1952 overseas, qualified for the 1972 Oscars (held in 1973).

Addendum: Not LA city, but LA county
Actually looked it up. The key points for time:
c.for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County,

d.for a theatrical qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days, during which period screenings must occur at least three times daily,with at least one screening beginning between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m.daily,

e.advertised and exploited during their Los Angeles County theatrical qualifying run in a manner normal and customary to theatrical feature distribution practices
https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/fil ... _rules.pdf (Rule 2)

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:00 am
by davey
opusthepenguin wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:54 pm
I don't want to clutter up the 2020 news thread with a tangential Oscars question, so I'll ask here. What determines the year of eligibility for a film? E.g. If a film was released in Canada in 1982 but in the US in 1983, could the film have been nominated for either year, or only 1982, or only 1983?

This comes out of some musing on this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-ent ... t-picture/

The writers of the article both agree that Terms of Endearment was the correct Best Picture choice for 1983. But this is preposterous. It would have been better not to give the award at all for that year--and I think an argument could be made.... However, there are two films released abroad in 1982--one in France, the other in Canada--that didn't hit the US until 1983. I saw both of them twice in the theater and remember them to this day. Either film would have been a far better choice than any of the five nominees or any other 1983 movie that comes to mind. 1983 was a terrible year for film.
Just from the nominees, I'll take Tender Mercies and, especially, The Right Stuff for my own pantheon...If they'd had 9 nominees that year, they would have had room for Silkwood and Fanny and Alexander, instead of only nominating their directors...

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:20 am
by opusthepenguin
Volante wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:31 pm
Los Angeles County* release.
That's how Limelight, which premiered in 1952 overseas, qualified for the 1972 Oscars (held in 1973).

Addendum: Not LA city, but LA county
Actually looked it up. The key points for time:
c.for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County,

d.for a theatrical qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days, during which period screenings must occur at least three times daily,with at least one screening beginning between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m.daily,

e.advertised and exploited during their Los Angeles County theatrical qualifying run in a manner normal and customary to theatrical feature distribution practices
https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/fil ... _rules.pdf (Rule 2)
Thank you! My Google Fu deserted me on this one. I can't recall what search terms I tried, but nothing led me to a definitive answer such as you provide.

So, good. In that case I'm in the clear. The Grey Fox was by far the Best Picture of 1983, and I'll give Best Foreign Language film to The Return of Martin Guerre. (No, I haven't seen Fanny and Alexander. I doubt it would make me change my mind. In any event, Martin Guerre should at least have been nominated.) Of the nominees, other than the insufferable and interminable Terms of Endearment, I've only seen Tender Mercies--later, as a rental. Nothing really enticed me to see it in the theater rather than going back a second time to see Grey Fox or Martin Guerre. But I wouldn't have minded too much if it had won. Ditto for The Right Stuff, though I can't comment on the merits there. I've been meaning to get around to seeing it. Maybe before it's twice as far in the past to me as the events depicted were to it.

Oh, I just thought of another movie from 1983 that could've been nominated rather than Terms of Endearment or The Big Chill. Koyaanisqatsi. Unconventional pick, sure. But I'd rather see it twice than ToE once--or even certain scenes from ToE. Same goes for Zelig, also released in 1983. And if they'd gone for Zelig in '83, maybe Forrest Gump would have seemed like an inferior rehash on that theme in 1994.

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:03 pm
by Volante
opusthepenguin wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:20 am
Volante wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:31 pm
Los Angeles County* release.
That's how Limelight, which premiered in 1952 overseas, qualified for the 1972 Oscars (held in 1973).

Addendum: Not LA city, but LA county
Actually looked it up. The key points for time:
c.for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County,

d.for a theatrical qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days, during which period screenings must occur at least three times daily,with at least one screening beginning between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m.daily,

e.advertised and exploited during their Los Angeles County theatrical qualifying run in a manner normal and customary to theatrical feature distribution practices
https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/fil ... _rules.pdf (Rule 2)
Thank you! My Google Fu deserted me on this one. I can't recall what search terms I tried, but nothing led me to a definitive answer such as you provide.

So, good. In that case I'm in the clear. The Grey Fox was by far the Best Picture of 1983, and I'll give Best Foreign Language film to The Return of Martin Guerre. (No, I haven't seen Fanny and Alexander. I doubt it would make me change my mind. In any event, Martin Guerre should at least have been nominated.) Of the nominees, other than the insufferable and interminable Terms of Endearment, I've only seen Tender Mercies--later, as a rental. Nothing really enticed me to see it in the theater rather than going back a second time to see Grey Fox or Martin Guerre. But I wouldn't have minded too much if it had won. Ditto for The Right Stuff, though I can't comment on the merits there. I've been meaning to get around to seeing it. Maybe before it's twice as far in the past to me as the events depicted were to it.

Oh, I just thought of another movie from 1983 that could've been nominated rather than Terms of Endearment or The Big Chill. Koyaanisqatsi. Unconventional pick, sure. But I'd rather see it twice than ToE once--or even certain scenes from ToE. Same goes for Zelig, also released in 1983. And if they'd gone for Zelig in '83, maybe Forrest Gump would have seemed like an inferior rehash on that theme in 1994.
Further drilling down, The Return of Martin Guerre was nominated for Best Costume Design in the 83 Oscars (which aired in 84). The Grey Fox only got some Globe nominations (for 83, airing in 84).

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:36 pm
by davey
Volante wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:03 pm
opusthepenguin wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:20 am
Volante wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:31 pm
Los Angeles County* release.
That's how Limelight, which premiered in 1952 overseas, qualified for the 1972 Oscars (held in 1973).

Addendum: Not LA city, but LA county
Actually looked it up. The key points for time:
c.for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County,

d.for a theatrical qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days, during which period screenings must occur at least three times daily,with at least one screening beginning between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m.daily,

e.advertised and exploited during their Los Angeles County theatrical qualifying run in a manner normal and customary to theatrical feature distribution practices
https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/fil ... _rules.pdf (Rule 2)
Thank you! My Google Fu deserted me on this one. I can't recall what search terms I tried, but nothing led me to a definitive answer such as you provide.

So, good. In that case I'm in the clear. The Grey Fox was by far the Best Picture of 1983, and I'll give Best Foreign Language film to The Return of Martin Guerre. (No, I haven't seen Fanny and Alexander. I doubt it would make me change my mind. In any event, Martin Guerre should at least have been nominated.) Of the nominees, other than the insufferable and interminable Terms of Endearment, I've only seen Tender Mercies--later, as a rental. Nothing really enticed me to see it in the theater rather than going back a second time to see Grey Fox or Martin Guerre. But I wouldn't have minded too much if it had won. Ditto for The Right Stuff, though I can't comment on the merits there. I've been meaning to get around to seeing it. Maybe before it's twice as far in the past to me as the events depicted were to it.

Oh, I just thought of another movie from 1983 that could've been nominated rather than Terms of Endearment or The Big Chill. Koyaanisqatsi. Unconventional pick, sure. But I'd rather see it twice than ToE once--or even certain scenes from ToE. Same goes for Zelig, also released in 1983. And if they'd gone for Zelig in '83, maybe Forrest Gump would have seemed like an inferior rehash on that theme in 1994.
Further drilling down, The Return of Martin Guerre was nominated for Best Costume Design in the 83 Oscars (which aired in 84). The Grey Fox only got some Globe nominations (for 83, airing in 84).
The Grey Fox, a Canadian production, received the Canadian Academy Award (so to speak), the Genie, for Best Picture in 1983. Seems fitting. I'm glad that Richard Farnsworth had those chances to shine (he got an Oscar nomination for his last picture, David Lynch's The Straight Story), but I admit I've never seen this one.
Zelig got Academy Award nominations for Cinematography and Costume Design.

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:47 pm
by opusthepenguin
davey wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:36 pm
The Grey Fox, a Canadian production, received the Canadian Academy Award (so to speak), the Genie, for Best Picture in 1983. Seems fitting. I'm glad that Richard Farnsworth had those chances to shine (he got an Oscar nomination for his last picture, David Lynch's The Straight Story), but I admit I've never seen this one.
And unfortunately it's not currently possible. I mean, you can hunt down an old 4:3 VHS copy. I believe it was released in 4:3 on Laserdisc as well, but the torrent I downloaded purporting to be from Laserdisc was muddy and dark. This is a film with gorgeous shots of the Canadian Rockies, steam trains coming around the bends of mountain passes, attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, you name it. And in the middle of that is Richard Farnsworth's finest work in a role tailored to his unique gifts and look.

I don't know if the movie is languishing in rights hell or just hasn't got a champion who wants to present it properly. I hope some day we'll get a high-def widescreen transfer. Even better would be seeing it in the theater again, but I know that won't happen.

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:51 pm
by opusthepenguin
Volante wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:03 pm
Further drilling down, The Return of Martin Guerre was nominated for Best Costume Design in the 83 Oscars (which aired in 84).
Well-deserved. But its neglect in other categories is all the more puzzling because of this. Art Direction would've been another obvious nomination. That plus the Costume Design combined to make a movie that looked like a Brueghel painting come to life.

Image

Image

Image

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:26 pm
by opusthepenguin
Volante wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:31 pm
Los Angeles County* release.
That's how Limelight, which premiered in 1952 overseas, qualified for the 1972 Oscars (held in 1973).

Addendum: Not LA city, but LA county
This makes me curious if there's ever been a film for which that distinction made a difference. It's possible to dream up scenarios of course. A rap-related movie premieres on New Year's Eve in Compton. Beverly Hills Cop [X] does the same in its eponymous city. The movie reuniting the cast of The Big Bang Theory gets a gala rollout in Pasadena. That kind of thing. But somehow I bet there aren't any real-world examples. If Hollywood were a separate city, there might be.

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:26 pm
by Volante
opusthepenguin wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:47 pm
davey wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:36 pm
The Grey Fox, a Canadian production, received the Canadian Academy Award (so to speak), the Genie, for Best Picture in 1983. Seems fitting. I'm glad that Richard Farnsworth had those chances to shine (he got an Oscar nomination for his last picture, David Lynch's The Straight Story), but I admit I've never seen this one.
And unfortunately it's not currently possible. I mean, you can hunt down an old 4:3 VHS copy. I believe it was released in 4:3 on Laserdisc as well, but the torrent I downloaded purporting to be from Laserdisc was muddy and dark. This is a film with gorgeous shots of the Canadian Rockies, steam trains coming around the bends of mountain passes, attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, you name it. And in the middle of that is Richard Farnsworth's finest work in a role tailored to his unique gifts and look.

I don't know if the movie is languishing in rights hell or just hasn't got a champion who wants to present it properly. I hope some day we'll get a high-def widescreen transfer. Even better would be seeing it in the theater again, but I know that won't happen.
https://www.facebook.com/KinoLorberStud ... 5173336041

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:36 pm
by MarkBarrett
I'll play the 1983 movie game. For age reference I was 19 & 20 that year.

Best Picture Nominees (for 1984 ceremony)
The Big Chill
The Dresser
The Right Stuff (B)
Tender Mercies (B)
Terms of Endearment

(Home viewing) I have only seen 3 &4 and I liked Tender Mercies more. Part of my problem with The Right Stuff was the movie (a rental) was so long it was on two VHS tapes and my friend put the second part in first. It was a room full of friends and none of us caught on to the mistake until well into the movie. We ended up with our own version of a "director's cut" watching in three mixed up segments.

1983 movies (using Google & IMDb for reminders) I saw in a theater and/or drive-in:
Spoiler
WarGames (F)
Bad Boys (F)
Risky Business (F)
Flashdance (B)
The Dead Zone (F)
A Christmas Story (F)
Christine
Cujo
Never Say Never Again
Uncommon Valor
Easy Money
Jaws 3-D
My Tutor
Sudden Impact
Private School
10 to Midnight
Home viewing only:
Spoiler
Scarface (B)
Trading Places (B)
Twilight Zone the Movie
Superman III
Blue Thunder
Star Chamber
Strange Brew
Sleepaway Camp
Zelig
The Day After
There is a difference between favorite (ones I really like) and best (at least some award eligible qualities) and I marked five of each with an F & a B.

I should have added an S for "sucks" for some of them.

Re: Reretaken Down

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:43 pm
by opusthepenguin
Wow! I really hope they're not just yanking my chain again. Some company maybe 8 years ago was advertising a DVD release and then... nothing. But, maybe for real this time? The search box at the web site for Kino Lorber Studio Classics doesn't turn up anything, which is troubling. Googling "Kino Lorber" and "Grey Fox" takes me to a page on Kino Lorber's site where I can request a booking for the movie. Interesting. I'll keep checking and pre-order if and when that option becomes available. Thanks for the heads up.