The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I've been having some conversations with a buddy in LA about Andruw Jones being fat. So I decided to take a look at the fattest listed weights in the game - I pulled my info from ESPN.com rosters as of 3/14, and it is not the full 40-man, but is above 25, so most teams have around 35 people listed (1,006 total players). I recognize that listed weights aren't that accurate, and that this is more trivial than informative, but I found it interesting anyways:
(1) CC is tied for fattest listed weight in the league, along with Jonathan Broxton, at 290. Wow. The saving grace for Charleston Chew is that he has 3 inches on Broxton.
(2) The White Sox are the fattest team in the majors (avg wt = 221), followed by the Yankees (219). This couldn't have turned out any better, IMHO.
(3) The general numbers between AL and NL by position are pretty similar, except that at CF, AL is 10 lbs heavier than NL (202 v. 192). The next largest variance of any position is RF 7 lbs (214 v. 207), and then 5 lbs LF(204 v. 209), with NL being heavier. Given that there are 8 people named as DH in the AL (avg wt = 235), it surprises me that AL outfielders are also much heavier.
(4) All three AL divisions are heavier, with avg wt of W (210) / C (210) / E (208) on average, than NL divisions, C (208), W (205), E (204). AL (avg wt = 209) is heavier than NL (206).

Position breakdowns (min 100 ABs in 2007):
(AL / NL )
Catcher
Skinny: I Rodriguez, DET (190) / J Flores, WAS (180)
Fat: T Hall, CHW (255) / R Paulino, PIT (245)
Tribe Note: Victor's 210 is below Catcher AL avg of 214
1B
Skinny: R Gload, KC (190) / R Aurilia, SF (190)
Fat: R Sexson, SEA (240) / P Fielder, MIL (270)
Tribe Note: Garko 225 is right on 1B AL avg of 223
2B
Skinny: AstroCab, CLE (170) / M Fontenot, CHC (160)
Fat: M Cairo, SEA (208) / R Weeks, MIL (213)
Tribe Note: Asdrubal tied with new teammate Carroll for lightest AL at 170, soaking wet
3B
Skinny: M Izturis, LAA (170) / C Counsell, MIL (179)
Fat: S Rolen, TOR tied Miggy Cabrera, DET (240) / T Glaus, STL (240)
Tribe Note: Blake's 210 is close to 3B AL avg of 207
SS
Skinny: J Lugo, BOS (175) / J Rollins, PHI (168)
Fat: J Uribe, CHW (225) / M Tejada, HOU (213)
Tribe Note: Jhonny's chubby face and lack of range belie his weight of 210, tying him for third fattest SS in MLB
LF
Skinny: R Johnson, TOR (180) / E Chavez, NYM (165)
Fat: R Ibanez, SEA (225) / A Dunn, CIN (275) WOW!
Tribe Note: Delucci edges out Michaels for skinny honors, 205 to 206 - right on LF AL avg of 204
CF
Skinny: Ichiro, SEA (172) / W Taveras, COL (160)
Fat: M Byrd, TEX (245) / E Dukes, WAS (220)
Tribe Note: Grady is at 200 even, a little less than the AL CF avg of 202
Side Note: Turns out Andruw Jones LISTED weight is 210, which is far from Marlon Byrd territory. I think actuals would give a lot closer competition.
RF
Skinny: Gootz, CLE (190) / S Victorino, PHI (180)
Fat: J Dye, CHW (245) / A Kearns, WAS (245)
Tribe Note: Franklin checks in almost 25 lbs lighter than AL avg of 224, as he truly represents a CF playing the corner
DH - only 8 listed as full-time DH
Skinny: J Vidro, SEA (200)
Fat: F Thomas, TOR (275)
Tribe Note: Pronk holds his own with the big boys, checking in at 240 against the DH avg of 235
P - did not separate relief v. starter
Skinny: F Cabrera, BAL (170) / W Rodriguez, HOU (160)
Fat: C.C., CLE (290) / J Broxton, LAD (290)
Tribe Note: I'll stick to starters - Fausto (230), Westbrook (215), Byrd (190 with HGH, 189 without), Lee-Laffey-Sowers (190-180-180) are mostly far from the AL average of 211. And JoBo, despite looking and pitching like Wickie, is listed at 215 somehow. Like his ERA, his belly must be inflated from a few bad trips to the all-you-can-eat buffet
So general reaction is that Tribe is right around league average, maybe even a little light, with the obvious exception. No clue how that projects to performance, but I'm going to say it is positive (less injury risk?)
--> Full data set of 1,000+ players can be viewed at google docs
0 recs |
191
comments
Comments
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I see what you did there...
by MikeCP on Mar 18, 2008 10:22 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202922.html
by supermarioelia on Mar 18, 2008 10:29 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I was in London a few years back and picked up the Times and there was one of those typical cheeky British articles about the Indians and Jacobs field. Most of the article centered on the high calorie food being served at the park and how obese many of the fans looked - all true enough. But then the punk "reporter" went on to comment that even the players were fat and sited the 240 pound/14 stone Jim Thome as an example of a "fat" player. We all know that this is just sloppy. No one would describe the 230 pound Albert Pujolz as "fat" whereas "fat" certainly describes Ronnie Belliard at 197 pounds. Jeez I just noticed, are you saying that Fausto at 230 is "fat"?
Anyway, I'm sure you knew this before I pointed it out. Let's just call your whole premise specious and let it go at that.
by mauichuck on Mar 18, 2008 10:48 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by Brick. on
Mar 18, 2008 11:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by Jay on
Mar 19, 2008 1:19 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by CU Adam on
Mar 19, 2008 1:30 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by Jay on
Mar 19, 2008 10:09 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I agree that the breakdown needs to give at least some concession to height (ie BMI), but I appreciate that that isn't particulary scientific, but would at least give it another angle.
Still, nice write up steincat and definitely interesting
by Luis (Tribe Fan in London) on
Mar 19, 2008 5:03 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I was more searching for "above average weight" or "below average weight" and trying to see if anyone stood out as way off. I really didn't find that, other than Adam Dunn being awfully big for an outfielder.
If today is a slow day again, maybe I can rework it.
by steincat on
Mar 19, 2008 7:52 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Prince Fielder blows everyone out of the water with BMI of 37.65. Top 5:
(1) P Fielder, MIL (37.65)
(2) J Broxton, LAD (35.30)
(3) B Jenks, CHW (34.37)
(4) C Delgado, NYM (32.99)
(5) Y Brazoban, LAD (32.98)
On the other side, there are a surprising number of people at the bottom of the list who are either relief pitchers or bench players - which just goes to show that if you don't juice, then you're gonna be an also-ran.
by steincat on Mar 19, 2008 12:46 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
But you do bring up a good issue. I wish there was a site that had the true weights and heights of pro athletes (and even entertainers...that could be Tom Cruise or Will Smith or Adam Sandler). What is up that pro sports can't be candid about this stuff?
by Bogalusa Bomber on Mar 19, 2008 1:18 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
BTW, do you really find Cruise and Sandler "entertaining"?
by mauichuck on
Mar 19, 2008 1:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by mrich on
Mar 19, 2008 4:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
We can certainly survey imperfect data and find it interesting. Nobody is drawing specific conclusions or claiming scientific validity.
by Jay on
Mar 19, 2008 5:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by Bogalusa Bomber on
Mar 19, 2008 6:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
By the time I played around with it, I realized that it was informational, but not informative (if that makes sense).
I don't think I tried to draw any conclusions, and maybe it was a waste of space because of that. I guess I just thought it was interesting to see the outliers at some level.
On a side note, I am glad that it somehow sparked a movie review discussion that was entertaining.
by steincat on
Mar 20, 2008 10:23 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Guilty, I do like Cruise and Sandler, in the right movies.
by Bogalusa Bomber on Mar 19, 2008 2:31 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by Bogalusa Bomber on
Mar 19, 2008 2:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Re: Sadler and Cruise - it's the "right movie" that's the tough part. I liked the job Kevin Costner did in "The Big Chill". Cruise or Sadler wouldda been perfect for that role too. Other than that, I can't imagine what else they'd be good in.
by mauichuck on
Mar 19, 2008 3:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Movies in which Tom Cruise did a pretty fine job: Risky Business, Rain Man, The Firm, Interview With The Vampire, Jerry Maguire, Magnolia, Minority Report, Collateral, War of the Worlds.
Sandler's list: The Wedding Singer, The Waterboy, Big Daddy, Punch-Drunk Love, The Hot Chick, Spanglish, and we can assume "Untitled Judd Apatow/Adam Sandler Project" is going to be pretty good, too.
Like many actors who've had wild box office success, they've figured out what kinds of movies work for them (according to audiences) and mostly made those movies.
by Jay on
Mar 19, 2008 3:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I actually can't rememeber what the heck it was about. Isn't it supposed to be pretty good?
by jhon on
Mar 19, 2008 3:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by BostonWahoo on
Mar 19, 2008 4:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by jhon on
Mar 19, 2008 5:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
- Panned by the critics
- box office flop
- notable only for ...
It clearly isn't a good movie, but there's a lot of good stuff in it, even aside from the nudity. Provocative and interesting stuff.
In all these respects (except the nudity), not unlike A.I., Kubrick's would-be last movie that got made by Spielberg.
by Jay on
Mar 19, 2008 5:43 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
- The character development was nonexistent. I actually hated Nicole Kidman more as the movie went on. She was neither a compelling lead nor someone I found worthy of empathy.
- The script and dialogue weren't up to Kubrick's other works. The level of conversation that you find in Kubrick's other work isn't there, but some of that may be due to the fact that he died before the final edit was in the can.
- The overall tone of the movie was... opaque? I don't know if that is the right word to describe it. I never felt pulled in. I felt like I was watching a puppet show through my neighbor's closed window. The atempt was ceratinly made to be immersive, and Kubrick pulls it off in other movies, esp (to me) 2001, but he totalled missed here.
by BostonWahoo on
Mar 19, 2008 6:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by Jay on
Mar 19, 2008 7:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I thought his 90-minute freakout in War of the Worlds was classic Cruise, but he never made me want to root for him one iota. Dakota, sure, but she's a little girl.
Collateral I'll give you, he oozes slimy-psycho, probably from all of the brain probing.
And I may be in the minority here, but I hate hate hate Magnolia. His part in it was a lot of the reason, but I think it was poorly conceived and poorly executed.
As for Sandler, for every Waterboy, there are a small horde of Click, Bulletproof and Airheads. I think his hit rate for picking good parts, and playing them well, is about 25%. I guess that's above the Mendoza line, though. I do have high hopes for the Jewish commando movie coming out. I think he's trying to rediscover his roots in funny faces and goofy voices.
by BostonWahoo on
Mar 19, 2008 4:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I like Magnolia but don't love it. I don't pass judgement on those who hate it, the filmmaker is obviously not working very hard to make it liked, and yes, I do mean that as a criticism.
I never said Sandler had a high batting average, but doesn't .333 get you into the Hall of Fame eventually? Nobody bats 1000 except John Cazale, and he only pulled it off by dying.
by Jay on
Mar 19, 2008 5:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Risky Business - just for Rebecca DeMorney - is worth seeing. Cruise is OK in it, I guess. Rain Man was just another buddy movie with the autism twist and besides, that was Dustin Hoffman chewing the scenery for three hours - boring. I'll give you Jerry McGuire, but do you really believe that Cruise was a better choice than Michael Keaton? As to Top Gun and War of the Worlds, I hate any flick that relies on CGI to drive the story.
I guess I'm just tired of pop "culture" in general - Tom Clancy, Speilberg, Tolkien, the PD Sport Section, Fox News, Yani, Harry Potter, Time, SI, ESPN, Kenny G, ............
I guess the last good movie I saw - one that kept my attention any way for the entire movie was The Queen with Helen Mirren.
As to audiences size as a measure of artistic worth. All I gotta say is that Lawence Welk sold a lot more albums than Billie Holiday.
by mauichuck on
Mar 19, 2008 4:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
As to Top Gun and War of the Worlds, I hate any flick that relies on CGI to drive the story
Exactly how much CGI was done in Top Gun when it was filmed in 1984???
And Tolkien is NOT pop culture. Until Peter Jackson made his masterpieces (and yes with excellent CGI), anybody who was a Tolkien fan was considered a nerd, not part of pop culture.
Funny you should name Spielberg (who is a modern master) and not Lucas? Lucas was the mastermind behind a lot of Spielberg driven movies as well. Oh, and another tidbit for you, if Lucas hadn't made Star Wars IV, he was originally scheduled to film Apocolypse Now instead of Coppola.
by talonk on
Mar 19, 2008 4:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Speilberg's all over the map now - shlock then something "artistic" but always heavy handed. About as subtle as a punch in the face. It's just boring and insulting.
I can't imagine how bad a Lucas "Apocolypse Now" wouldda been. But as it was I thought "The Deer Hunter" handled the subject matter much better.
Here's the bottom line, Hollywood in the '90s and 00s is like Detroit in the '70s and '80s. The visionaries that built their industry have been replaced by bean-counters who think they've found a "formula" for success. What they've really found is a formula for disasster. In 20 years Hollywood's gonna look like Detroit does now - and no Jay, I don't have a CI for this. They'll probably be makin' most of the box office stuff in New Dehli or Hong Kong.
by mauichuck on
Mar 19, 2008 4:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
The 1977 Star Wars is Episode IV, not I (it was the first made and released).
Secondly, yes this was a "seminal" film for special effects, NOT CGI. CGI was not really a huge factor until the Jurassic Park timeframe. Of course Skywalker Ranch did play a role in developing CGI.
What little CGI there was in Top Gun was probably the flight simulator sequences the cadets watched while mocking each other. There may have been plenty of special effects, but I highly doubt there was much CGI at all to those "shots"
by talonk on
Mar 19, 2008 5:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
And forgive me if I can't keep track of all the Star Wars episodes and the chronologic order. To me it's all a steaming pile of Sith.
by mauichuck on
Mar 19, 2008 5:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
There is no way Lord of the Rings would have looked as fanstastic as it did without the CGI. Without it, we would have been stuck with hokey H R Puffenstuff looking scenes.
I believe the good directors will use CGI as necessary (to flesh out the story) rather than tell the story.
SO, to get back to the main point, your initital comment way back of the thread should have read SFX, not CGI, since that is what were truly complaining about.
by talonk on
Mar 19, 2008 5:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Chuck, you might be surprised to hear then that most Star Wars fans would agree with you. That is, many of us who love Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back think that Lucas's interests started to turn towards purely gratuitous FX and idiotic "jokes" with Return of the Jedi (although it is still pretty decent). But the prequel trilogy is indeed almost entirely unwatchable, save the last one, which is merely bad.
I am clearly pretty nerdy have a lot of very nerdy friends (I think it's safe to say I'm in good company here). We all love movies, sci-fi included. And I've never heard anybody say they were going to see a movie just because of the special effects.
Do yourself a favor and rent the movie "Serenity". There's a darn good story in there, with great characters and great writing and hey what do you know -- it just so happens to have some spaceships in it.
by mrich on
Mar 19, 2008 5:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Certainly Lucas has directed no good movies since Star Wars and produced very little that's any good since Empire -- and no, I don't give him much credit for the Indiana Jones films. Give me Harrison Ford and Spielberg at the peak of their powers, and I bet I could "produce" two really good movies in three tries, too, possibly without ever showing up.
The anti-CGI crowd, by the way, is suspiciously just like the anti-stathead crowd, embarassingly prone to condemning movies they've never seen over faults they often don't have. "Maybe you should get your head out of the CGI and go to an actual screenplay once in a while!" And just to bring the discussion full circle, if story and characters didn't matter in big-budget effects films, then why was Lord of the Rings so much more successful as a trilogy than The Matrix anyway?
by Jay on
Mar 19, 2008 5:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
To quote my favorite Baltimorean, H. L. Mencken: (because) "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
by mauichuck on
Mar 20, 2008 9:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Equal parts Western and Sci-fi. Not very fancy on the Fx side, but Joss Whedon knows how to put together a great story.
If you're inclined, the movie was just a continuation of the TV series "Firefly" which I love.
Love love. Hearts and bows.
by BostonWahoo on
Mar 19, 2008 6:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by Bogalusa Bomber on
Mar 19, 2008 9:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I keep an archive of commercials. And I'd be happy to present them to anyone who cares. If you think long and hard about the mathematics of animation, you'd be pretty awed.
by jhon on
Mar 19, 2008 5:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Dean, I hate to break it to you ...
Funny you should name Spielberg (who is a modern master) and not Lucas? Lucas was the mastermind behind a lot of Spielberg driven movies as well.
See below for the dumping on Lucas. Lucas is a hack. Spielberg is the most successful and significant filmmaker ever. Consider, one of the hardest things for any director to do is to make two really good movies in a row. Here are some of Spielberg's best consecutive pairs of movies (and one trio):
- Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (75-77)
- Raiders of the Lost Ark, E,T. (81-82)
- The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (85-89)
- Jurassic Park, Schindler's List (93)
- Amistad, Saving Private Ryan (97-98)
- Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can (02)
- War of the Worlds, Munich (05)
His resume as a pure producer dwarfs Lucas's as well. Hell, if you take away Indiana Jones, I'll take Animaniacs and Band of Brothers over Lucas' entire producing resume.
by Jay on
Mar 19, 2008 6:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I am not denying Spielberg is a better director than Lucas. As you've shown, he has the resume to prove it.
Just because Lucas chose to not direct anymore does not make him a hack (somehow everone forgets American Graffiti). He had others direct so he could focus on other aspects of the films. I see nothing wrong with that.
When Lucas ended up with the financial windfall from Star Wars (due to his and his lawyers foresight I might add), he chose to go into a different direction. Skywalker Ranch, THX sound systems etc. He decided to pursue other aspects of fimmaking to improve. (Do you think Pixar would be where it is today without Lucas?)
Without his technological advances, moviemaking would not be what it is today (good or bad, we know chuck's opinion). Spielberg (and a slew of others) has dervied a lot of financial windfall from Lucas whether by joint producing, writing, special effects, etc.
Spielberg has also done a lot of personal films, more power to him because he can.
To just paint Lucas as a hack is completely unfair.
by talonk on
Mar 19, 2008 6:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
The idea that Spielberg has profited from association with Lucas, however, is beyond ridiculous. Take away his Spielberg-related projects, and Lucas' best project since 1980 is Tucker. The same obviously cannot be said for Spielberg's projects without Lucas, which would include 9 of his 10 best and/or most successful films. Truth is, neither man owes much of his respective immense fortune to the other.
Lucas' history as a Spielberg collaborator shouldn't be overstated just because he happens to also be the Star Wars guy. Spielberg has possibly a dozen other people who have been more frequent or significant collaborators in his career, but you're not going to hear people bleating about how much he owes to Janusz Kaminski, Frank Marshall and John Williams.
by Jay on
Mar 19, 2008 7:45 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by Bogalusa Bomber on
Mar 19, 2008 10:05 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by mauichuck on
Mar 20, 2008 3:09 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Sometimes you go too far, Chuck. Too far.
by Jay on
Mar 20, 2008 8:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
But how about this: the Searchers - arguably one of the finest, most nuanced films of its time. And Stagecoach - with a plot device that's been used over and over - you could say run into the ground by now. But at the time it was seen as novel. The Informer is another great flick. And ya gotta love "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" just for Lee Marvin's over the top, cartoonish villain. Couple the light entertainment stuff with some socially significant movie like "The Grapes of Wrath" and I think that Spielberg and Ford are at least in a dead heat. Plus he made Sex Hygiene, an Army training film that's been the talk of the nation since it was first screened.
And he even topped that. In the middle of the McCarthy BS when Cecil B. DeMille was petitioning the Directors Guild of America to require every card caring member of the guild to sign a loyalty oath, Ford said the following to a meeting of all of the guild members;
"My name's John Ford. I make Westerns. I don't think there's anyone in this room who knows more about what the American public wants than Cecil B. DeMille - and he certainly knows how to give it to them. But I don't like you, C.B., and I don't like what you've been saying here tonight."
Can you're boy Spielberg match that?
by mauichuck on
Mar 19, 2008 8:40 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
The Searchers looks great on a big screen.
by Bogalusa Bomber on
Mar 19, 2008 10:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
BTW, can you think of a movie made in the last twenty years that matches "The Wire" for nuance, substance and treats its audience like adults? I recognize that you can be more expansive when you've got 40-50 some hours to work with, but "The Wire" is truly remarkable. I might throw in "Rescue Me" and "The Sopranos" too, but they're not on the same plane as "The Wire".
by mauichuck on
Mar 19, 2008 11:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
1. Spy Game
It might not have the suspense inherent to it that Condor has, but it makes up for that slight failure with a very well written script and a more plausible story line, along with some awfully clever plot devices.
I'll watch them both today here at work and give some notes later.
by BostonWahoo on
Mar 20, 2008 8:42 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by Bogalusa Bomber on
Mar 20, 2008 10:57 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by BostonWahoo on
Mar 20, 2008 11:13 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by Bogalusa Bomber on
Mar 20, 2008 1:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by mauichuck on
Mar 20, 2008 1:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by Jay on
Mar 20, 2008 9:36 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by mauichuck on
Mar 20, 2008 1:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
So it's really hard to compare, because that kind of novelistic complexity is possibly the main separator between The Wire and other great TV shows; The Sopranos was less complex, had fewer characters that were truly central, was more episodic and sometimes relied on flashbacks. But The Wire in the end was that much more real/plausible than The Sopranos and more than a few times was kind of heavy-handed -- most egregiously with the cartoon-villain newspaper editors, but there were other examples, too.
So what I'm getting at is, the novelistic complexity was the main separator, and it's just not possible in films. Some Altman films were as broad and sweeping, but they tended to be deliberately anti-coherent. The Wire, huge as it was, was also deeply coherent, which is why it was so rewarding to watch closely.
You know what was really huge and complex, with an enormous cast of well-drawn characters, extremely coherent, and masterfully told with lavish attention to detail? Lord of the Rings. Too bad you can't sit through the CGI.
by Jay on
Mar 20, 2008 8:37 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
by mauichuck on
Mar 20, 2008 8:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Am I, like, the only person who actually enjoys and appreciates movies that aren't necessarily "my kind of movie?" Because I don't like swords and sorcery movies either, and I don't like heartwarming movies about aliens, or a half dozen other types of movies we've discussed. But I appreciate great filmmaking when I see it, and I'd rather see that then whatever "my kind of movie" is.
And by the way, my kind of movie is Hudson Hawk.
by Jay on
Mar 21, 2008 2:10 AM EDT
up
0 recs


