Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: LennG on June 17, 2017, 12:30:04 PM
Last night we watched the latest in an never ending list of super heroes movies, 'Wonder Woman". The movie  just opened and was doing great at the box office and I can see why. It should appeal to just about every teenager in the world who loves these type of movies. Lots of action, lot s of things blown up and a real looker as Wonder Woman. So what did I think--- I could have lived an entire life and never missed this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451279/

My take, as I have said many times, I am usually not a fan of these type of super hero type movies. It really has to be something special to make me like it and this one wasn't. I don't know if there have been other Wonder Woman movies, but I certainly remember Lynda Carter as Wonder woman on TV. She was a God to many of us growing up. Myself, I don't know if there is a particular story of how Wonder Woman started, like superman or Batman, there is a specific story as to how they became their characters. In this case there is a story of how she became Wonder Woman so I'll leave it at that. Story wise, (????) we are in the final stages of WWI, Germans are about to sign the armistice, but wait, certain Germans are developing a new weapon that can save German and win the war. So Wonder Women, believing that this 'mad' German is really the God of war--Ares, who she has vowed to slay, figures if she kills him, the German will surrender and the war will be over. Got all that. Obviously, you know how it will end, so now half the kids in America will believe Wonder Woman actually won WWI. (as they did believe Captain America won WWII). And we wonder why kids know nothing about history.

Anyway, for ME, the movie was just plain silly. Lot's of Special effects, some are dazzling, but just too many explosions and no substance. After all, it was made for kids and teens and it is a summer blockbuster, so of that's what they want to see, give it to them. It surely is made for the entire family, even for young kids. No scary creatures, just a silly plot and good looking people..
If I had to rate it, 2 stars, just for some real great special effects. If there is ever a Part II, I pass.

I haven't seen it (and won't unless it's on TV someday and my grandkids want to watch it), but I read an interesting tidbit on the movie concerning Gal Gadot, the Israeli actress who played Wonder Woman. She was 5 months pregnant with her second child while doing some of the most intense battle scenes. She had quite a baby bump so the producers put a green triangular cloth on her protruding belly so they could doctor the scenes via computer trickery after the shoot was done.

Having had a wife who gave birth to my four children, I can honestly say that I think that is amazing in itself. I don't think I could watch the movie without thinking about that every time she was in a scene.

I haven't seen the movie, but I read "The Shack". The story reminded me of Bunyon's "Pilgrim's Progress", which is basically an allegorical story of the personal life of a Christian who deals with all the unfair trials of life and the mental struggles of trying to live a Godly life. "The Shack" is just as you say, a tragedy in the family causes the father to lose faith in God and in fact, blames God. I can relate to this somewhat as I too have lost a child and my sister lost three of her children and husband when hit head on by a drunk driver. My sister's husband was the pastor of a Baptist Church and Christian Academy. I watched my sister go through a terrible ideal questioning God as to why if He was a loving God, He would allow such a thing to happen to innocent children and a devoted Christian father.

I think this movie (if it follows the book) is meant for a target audience of Christians who understand the everyday trials and tribulations they face during their path through life. The Shack is a feel-good story because it actually allows a fictional individual to finally have the opportunity to get answers to questions with no logical answers. I am going to watch it at some point and more than likely, compare it to the book (in my mind anyway) as that's what I always do when a movie is based on a book that I've read. Spoiler alert: the movie is NEVER as good as the book - LOL

Quote from: LennG on May 27, 2017, 10:15:26 PM
It's funny. We all have our fav actors  nd actresses. For some reason Kate Hepburn was never a fav of mine. Some times I even go out of my way to avoid watching her movies. I know she was a great actress, but there was just something about her that I never liked. So the African Queen, though a great movie and I've seen it many times, just isn't my fav Bogie movie.

If you are a fan of Bogie, have you ever seen The Treasure of the Sierra Madre? Maybe Bogies best role EVER. Just a wonderful movie and has one of the best lines in movie history towards he end.

I never cared for Katharine Hepburn either - she seemed stuffy to me with an air of faux superiority. Now Audrey Hepburn, that's a whole other story. Loved her.

So, besides the "Big List", a couple of movies that I should put on my watch list early on are: "The Maltese Falcon" and "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" - got it. The two biggest challenges for me will be to find them (without buying a DVD on Amazon or eBay) and then finding the time to watch them. With Direct TV I can search for the movies and if they are listed at some point in the future, I can tag them to be DVR'd. A lot of stuff that I'd like to watch is broadcast at 1:00 in the morning or some other strange time when I won't be awake or around. Love the DVR.

I've seen a few of those movies in your list. It would take me a few years to get through them.

Out of curiosity, are there any streaming sites that actually make those older movies available? I have Hulu and Amazon to compliment my DirectTV.

Quote from: LennG on May 22, 2017, 01:09:03 PM
JBG

I fully agree with Jim. We love to talk movies, so jump right in.

If you read thru some of the pages, I usually try to see one fairly recent movie a week and write w review of it. I won't go into how many other movies I watch during he weeks. Like yourself, I love to flip thru the stations and see a movie that I just cannot turn off. I agree about My Cousin Vinny, I always seem to say, I'll watch a piece I enjoy and end up staying for the entire movie. So many other movies like that for me. The other day I found Gladiator, and I just love that movie. I had to stay till it ended, same for movies like Braveheart, and the oldies like Casablanca, High Noon, and my favorite all time movie, The Maltese Falcon (Bogie is my fav actor).

That's funny that I've never watched "The Maltese Falcon". If it's your favorite, I must give it a shot. I too love Bogie and because I'm a genealogist, I know that him and I are distant cousins (8th cousin, once removed). My parents also loved Bogie so as a kid growing up in the 50's-60's I can't tell you how many times I watched "The African Queen" (which took priority over all other shows when it was on TV) and I still hear Katharine Hepburn's heavy accent saying, "are ve goin to shoot the rapids?" and I have a permanent memory of leeches that I wish I could erase from my memory when there are so many good memories that no longer exist in my brain. Also, the whistling soldiers from "The Bridge on the River Kwai" (my Dad's favorite movie) is forever burned into my brain. I enjoyed those movies and they must be pretty good as I can still remember parts that I haven't seen in over 40 years. I guess any movie in which scenes and words remain in your memory bank atop your shoulders must be good or the memories wouldn't be there.

Quote from: jimv on May 21, 2017, 11:09:06 PM
JBG, I'm really glad to hear that you love a GOOD movie.  Lenny & I  are definitely movie buffs; not afficianados (I don't like that term).  If you're not one of those guys who can't watch a B&W movie, we'll have to introduce you to the REAL Hollywood of filmmaking; the 1930s!  Especially, 1939, the GREATEST year in Hollywood history (although 1967 comes up at # 2).  I can give a list of movies that I think will meet your requirements.

My biggest problem with watching movies is that if there is a Yankee game on, or a Syracuse Orange game on, or a football game, or pretty much any sport - I choose to watch the sports. My DVR gets loaded during the baseball season because I end up checking the score of the Yankee game and find I can't stop watching.

Regardless, I've watched quite a few B&W movies and don't miss the color. Casablanca, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Roman Holiday, It's a Wonderful Life, etc., are all good and I've watched them multiple times.

I can't remember a movie released in the last couple of years that I would rewatch. And as much as I like dramas, I find it hard to rewatch an intense movie that I've already watched and know the outcome (Django, the Hateful Eight [or any Tarantino film for that matter, although I've watched Pulp Fiction more than once],  Taken, etc.). I will rewatch adventure films, comedies, and romance flicks. Comedies because it doesn't require a whole lot of attention and makes me laugh. Adventure the same way - I've rewatched "Red" and "Red II" several times, usually as I'm channel surfing. "Red" and it's sequel combine all three elements: adventure, comedy, and romance. Maybe that's the key for me.

I'm a big time reader and like thrillers, mysteries, etc. I was extremely disappointed in "Reacher" having read all the Lee Child's books and I understand why Hollywood chose Tom Cruise to portray Jack Reacher, but he is NOT Jack Reacher. I'm excited to see the upcoming movie "American Assassin" based on my favorite author Vince Flynn, but I doubt they can cast the movie in such a way as to capture the essence of Mitch Rapp. Dittos with the new series based on Daniel Silva's books and hero Gabriel Allon. Maybe they'll nail it, but I doubt it.

Quote from: LennG on May 21, 2017, 09:11:58 PM
Glad to have you join us here. Are you a movie aficionado also?

I guess you are addressing me seeing I wrote the previous post.

I like a good movie, but seldom find one anymore. I like a good plot that makes me actually think and I like surprises. I'm more of a reader than a movie buff. I'm a readaholic and read mystery/thrillers as well as a lot of history books.

A good comedy is really hard to find in movies anymore. They can't really compete with half hour sitcoms where personalities get well established. Although, Christmas Vacation still kills me with laughter even though I can probably quote half the movie from heart. And I'm still waiting for a western that can hold my attention as well as Tombstone although Purgatory came close. I don't even mind romance movies as long as they have a good plot and move me like Return to Me, or mixed with adventure like The Thomas Crown Affair (although, it might have more to do with the fact that I have the hots for Renee Russo). I watch a fair share of movies on TV and sometimes I get a good chuckle. For whatever reason, when I'm channel surfing if I come across My Cousin Vinnie I have to stay on that channel no matter how many times I've seen it (again, I also have the hots for Marisa Tomei and she was especially hot in that movie). I also seem to land on Meet the Millers a lot and that makes me laugh.

I guess the answer to your question is that I don't consider myself an expert in movies at all. I don't keep up with the latest movie that's being released and supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I read Jurassic Park and couldn't put the book down. I was so enthralled with it that I actually waited in line at the theater for the first showing and was really disappointed that they had turned the entire story into chase scenes and barely escaping with their lives. Huge disappointment. Haven't gone to an early showing of a movie since.

Quote from: LennG on May 21, 2017, 11:10:52 AM
Jim

We were watching some movie on TCM and Ben Mancowitz (SP) came on afterwards and said something I really thought was great. He said that in Hollywood's 'Golden Age' movies had to  have a great story,great writing and great acting as they didn't have anything to blow up.

So really true.

That made me laugh because it's so true. Today all you need is - near death experience, car chase, hot woman shows up, fist fight with overwhelming odds, car chase, something blows up, motorcycle chase, hot woman shows some serious skin, another near death experience, car chase....

I really enjoyed that and it's nice to get a better feel for the guys on this message board. All of you did an excellent job of analyzing the drafted (and undrafted) players and where the team is headed. And I appreciated the optimism in everyone's tone. Super job.

Quote from: Bob In PA on May 02, 2017, 02:49:07 PM
ceri: How about the "other half" of MP's point, that Tomlinson isn't the type of knifing or penetrating presence Spags wants next to Snacks?  That has been raised by some of the "experts and gurus" and although you and I agree about Tomlinson, I was wondering if you saw anything in his film that would lead you to believe there is a dimension to Tomlinson's game that would allow him to stay on the field in passing situations.  Bob

I know this was addressed to Ceri, but I'd still like to take a shot at it.

Tomlinson spent his senior year at Alabama getting double teamed and he still got some sacks. There is no way they can double team him on the Giants line. They already do that to Snacks and have their hands full with JPP on one side and OV on the other. The guy who will draw the least amount of attention on that line is the new kid. I suspect he's finally going to get to manhandle single coverage and get into the backfield. Having that wrestling background makes him already inclined to use an opponents weight and strength against themselves. I think he'll have a heyday because Snacks will be getting what he got in college so that others get single coverage.

This is going to be one nasty defensive line. I doubt your going to see many RB's go up the middle - that's if they even bother trying. We got a serious wall on that side the trench

I didn't research DT's like I did many other positions (in particular, OT's, TE.s and QB's) so when the pick came in, I was neither excited or unhappy. I went to work finding out all I could. What I discovered is an incredible talent built on a foundation of being a  three-time "state heavyweight wrestling champion" (that takes a combination of strength, agility, lightning quickness, and mental perseverance) as well as a goalie in soccer (requires great reflexes and the ability to move laterally or vertically in a heart-beating nano-second). Then I saw that he turned down a free ride at Harvard (who does that?). Found out he's a powerful run stopper who can play the 1 or 3-tech position and had limited sacks due to getting constant double teams which in turn allowed Jonathan Allen to shine, not to mention he played defensive end on the strong side on occasion. In fact, the other guys on the d-line said they couldn't have had the year they had if not for Dalvin, who required zero glory for doing the dirty work. And then reading his life story made me realize this guy is super intelligent, very humble, and has incredibly high character...and of course, we had a hole in the defensive line after big Hank left us. I felt we got a steal here. Love the pick and love the guy.

I know that I am guilty of making long posts. I am "concision challenged". If someone asks me the time, I explain the concept of time and how a watch works. If someone asks the score of last night's baseball game, I tend to recap every inning. I apologize in advance for droning on more than I should. Everyone tells me I should have been a teacher because I explain my every thought. Or maybe they are hinting that I'm boring, who knows

I think Avery Moss is going to surprise a lot of people. He would have gone a lot higher in the draft if not for some dumb things he did early in his career. I've watched some video of him discussing how he changed his life and he seems very sincere. He certainly has the size and the tools to be a highly disruptive and nasty DE. We should probably be happy that he screwed up as a kid or he might have been off the board by the 2nd round. I think he is going to be really good.

Quote from: JoeP on March 19, 2017, 10:25:28 AM
Best Player Available

These three words get tossed around endlessly. What do they mean to you, exactly?

What factors do you use, or not use, to determine who you think is the BPA?

Excellent question because I'm sure it means different things to different people. For me, it's all about each team's private and highly secretive grading system. And the formula most definitely has a calculated "weight factor" for each position, the highest being a QB, the lowest a punter, long snapper, gunner, etc. That "weighting factor" is probably similar across the board for all teams, but each team weighs positions a little differently and their weighting factors vary from team to team.

The NFL (well, whoever runs NFL.com anyway) uses a precise grading system, but I believe without a positional weighting formula. Example, they grade out Myles Garrett as a 7.63 out of a perfect score of 8.0. I'm not sure any player has ever graded out as 8.0, but that's neither here nor there.  Their (NFL.com) grading system differs from individual teams' grading system so every team evaluates players differently using their own criteria and no one outside the trusted inside team knows what that is or how the formula works.

This is how the "weighting factor" works. Take a player like Malik Hooker, a safety that grades out as 6.7 (NFL.com rating) as compared to Mike Williams, a WR who grades out as 6.3. If a team has a weighting factor for each position such as Safety (.65) and WR (.79), the weighting factor will actually give Williams a higher grade than Hooker when the numbers are crunched.

No one knows what the weighting factor for each position is for individual teams. I suspect the Giants have a weighting factor for LB's just a bump ahead of a punter, but that's neither here nor there. I just don't think the Giants are as enamored with LBs as they are with defensive linemen (in particular: edge rushers, as well as corner backs, and wide receivers. My insight to this is based on previous drafts.

Now in some cases, the Giants will take a player that grades out slightly less than another player (even after the weighting factor is applied) if there is a specific hole in their team that desperately needs to be filled. But they won't take a TE with a grade of 5.85 over a DE with a grade of 6.1. However, they might take an OT with a grade of 5.93 over a safety with a 6.12 grade.

All this xxxx gets sorted out in the war room on draft day. Months of hard work by scouts and other personnel have carefully graded several hundred players that will be available in the draft and they have a number attached (and it probably isn't 1-8 like NFL.com, but we'll never know. I doubt there is much disagreement in the war room when a player clearly grades out higher than the next in line and I'm sure when the Giants saw Collins still on the board on day two a couple of years ago, they were looking at a safety with a grade in the mid-7s (assuming NFL.com's grading system) and the next player on their list was in the high-5's or low 6's and it was a no-brainer to trade up to get him, especially considering the Giants also were in desperate need of a safety.

Regardless - that is how I see it. The "BPA" the Giants pick might not be the actual BPA, but is the highest rated player on their particular board and even though they will say that "need" is not a factor, it is ALWAYS a factor and may even be a secondary weighting factor in their grading formula. "Need" might not be enough to persuade them to pull the trigger, but "need" will be in the discussion in the war room, you can guarantee that. We need a good OT this year, but if Myles Garrett is available (this is purely hypothetical and will never happen) and the Giants have to pick between him and Ramczyk, Garrett would end up wearing Blue and having a helmet with the letters "NY" on them.

My guess is that the Giants' are just doing their due diligence and checking out all the players who are highly rated. And sometimes they're actually interested in another player on the team and sometimes it might be a smokescreen to screw with the heads of other teams to lead them astray of their real intentions come draft day. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it means much.