Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Reid backs McNabb, does McNabb back Reid? Bar-right-arrows



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).

Star-divide

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 | Comment 191 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
It's always sunny reference.

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
See this whole diary starts off with a bad premise: heavy weight = fat.  Much too simplistic.

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.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 18, 2008 10:48 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
do you think the same guy would have the stones to say fausto had bad teeth if he visited there today?

by Brick. on Mar 18, 2008 11:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
He did more or less acknowledge the speciousness in the intro. Still, it would be nice to see the whole thing re-done using body-mass index or something of that nature, which at least corrects for height differences even if nothing else.

by Jay on Mar 19, 2008 1:19 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Doesn't BMI consider Lebron and Kobe obese?  I understand what you're saying, and I think stein knew going in this was more for fun than anything else, but I think when you're dealing with pro athletes -- at least pro athletes in team sports like baseball, basketball, or football -- you have to use an entirely different type of scale, or more likely none at all because the majority of them are so far to end of the bell curve.
Il faut d'abord durer.

by CU Adam on Mar 19, 2008 1:30 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Well, we don't have to pay attention to the labels, we can just use the numbers so that we're comparing weight relative to height.

by Jay on Mar 19, 2008 10:09 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Although its a different sport it ain't helped by the image of guys with huge guts playing American Football professionally....even if it is their job to be big and in the way.

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

http://www.on-the-bench.blogspot.com - an irreverant take on EPL football (that's soccer!)

by Luis (Tribe Fan in London) on Mar 19, 2008 5:03 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Completely agree with all points.  I thought of using BMI, but I had a girlfriend in college who was obsessed with BMI even though she was a twig because she thought she was too fat, so I didn't think the extra work of calculating that would lead to better results (plus this was just a bored day at work).  Using 'Fat' was just a label - being 6'4" and 230 lbs is probably pretty damned fit for a pro athlete.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
New results using BMI (League avg is 26.73) :

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
I do genuinely admire the effort.  That took a lot of work.  However, slicing-and-dicing bad data, then comparing those bad data points, is a complete non-starter for me.  Maybe some trend analysis can be justified, but not comparing this guy to that guy, knowing their acknowledged weights are likely wrong to begin with. The outliers, (low or high) are most likely the obvious culprits, so it's dicey comparing them and drawing conclusions.  

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
My point exactly.  Besides I think it's pretty much irrelevent.  What conclusions can you draw?  Fielder has the highest BMI along with CC.  So you want humungous pitchers and first basemen?  What would you do with a Ron Guidry or Cecil Cooper?  

BTW, do you really find Cruise and Sandler "entertaining"?

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 19, 2008 1:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
"You eat pieces of noun for breakfast?"

by mrich on Mar 19, 2008 4:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
My Lord, people are getting uptight around here.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I guess I'm showing corporate wounds, having been roped countless times by reports and analysis based on sketchy data. I used to hear this one from people "Yeah, yeah, I know the data is bad, but you can't ignore the conclusions..."  If you stopped people before they got started, you saved a lot of anguish later on.

by Bogalusa Bomber on Mar 19, 2008 6:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Again - I agree.  I didn't feel that I made any points and I mentioned that the data was not exactly accurate, but it was the best I could easily get my hand on.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I'm not saying one can't draw some conclusions, if you did have the correct data. But you have to start with correct data first and foremost.  I mean, if one found that 10 out of 11 humongous first basemen had knee problems and were cooked by age 32, that'd be important to know from a GM's perspective on what kind of contract to offer them.  Or if you tracked a shortstop or second baseman's weight, you might be able to compare it to how many groundballs they reached (or didn't).  The Indians may have done just that to Peralta as he showed up slimmer in 2007 than in 2006.

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
Oops, meant my comment as a follow-up to Chucks.

by Bogalusa Bomber on Mar 19, 2008 2:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Baseball Reference has Jhonny at 180 pounds and Cal Ripken at 225.  Who do you think's got the better range?  But you're comment on knee injuries is spot on.  Compressive weight is a good indicator or future injury.

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.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 19, 2008 3:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Ripken was known for his height but not his range.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Not 'Eyes wide Shut'?

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Eyes Wide Shut was easily Stanley Kubrick's worst movie.  Panned by the critics, box office flop, notable only for lots of boobs and a big party orgy scene performed by people wearing nothing but masks, iirc.  Reminiscent of a Grisham novel meets Dan Brown.
Sportsman of the year, 1991

by BostonWahoo on Mar 19, 2008 4:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
That's a pretty devestating review.  Guess it doesn't warrant a reappraisal.  I remember a couple scenes like you describe.  I couldn't follow the plot because I was pretty baked.

by jhon on Mar 19, 2008 5:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Interesting that you say it's his worst movie, and your evidence is ...

  • Panned by the critics
  • box office flop
  • notable only for ...

... none of which has anything to do with why an individual viewer would or should find it to be good or bad.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
If you want individual reasons:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

But its just my opinion.  Its not evidence.  Your milage may vary.
Sportsman of the year, 1991

by BostonWahoo on Mar 19, 2008 6:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I more or less agree with every point, I just wanted to make sure you actually had some.  I don't like secondhand reviews, and I personally have a lot of kind words for a lot of unsuccessful movies.

by Jay on Mar 19, 2008 7:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Not to quibble, but "box office success" != "fine job" to this humble consumer.

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.

Sportsman of the year, 1991

by BostonWahoo on Mar 19, 2008 4:02 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I thought Cruise was bordering on riveting in War of the Worlds, and mostly, I understood his character, and that person felt real to me (as these things go).

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Let me make sure I got this right.  You think that The Wedding Singer, The Waterboy, and Big Daddy were worth 3 hours of your time, let alone the $7.50 to see 'em?  Jay, I gotta worry about your taste in flicks.

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.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 19, 2008 4:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
chuck, my wizened ol pal ... you are slipping.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I really don't know how much CGI was used in Top Gun but if you're implying that '84 was too early for CGI to be a factor I'm pretty sure you're wrong.  Wasn't that seminal work "Star Wars (I)" done in '77 and "Westworld" done in '73?

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.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 19, 2008 4:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Ok, back up for a second.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Look, I'm probably overstating the CGI thing, but you know what I mean.  The geewhiz factor of hurling through space or bullets passing through bodies or what have you.  It's gratuitous - like much of the nudity and sex - and the graphics become the reason to see the movie, not the plot or the characters.  I guess it comes with the medium, but you must admit it's beginning to lose it's appeal.

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.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 19, 2008 5:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
While I agree a lot of todays movies have overdone the special effects/CGI thing, (just to do it because we got $$ to burn), certain movies require having CGI play a vital role.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Straw man.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
There's a pretty good argument that Lucas was (almost) a one-hit wonder.   If he doesn't hire Kasdan and Kershner to write and direct the sequel, Star Wars probably ends up about as culturally significant as The Matrix.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
then why was Lord of the Rings so much more successful as a trilogy than The Matrix anyway

To quote my favorite Baltimorean, H. L. Mencken: (because) "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 20, 2008 9:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
+1 Serenity.

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.

Sportsman of the year, 1991

by BostonWahoo on Mar 19, 2008 6:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I own the Serenity DVD.  Nice flick.  Wish they'd make another one.

by Bogalusa Bomber on Mar 19, 2008 9:56 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I pretty much love CGI, but I've found the best examples of it in advertising.  You can't really make a car commercial without it.  I don't really have an aptitude for it, but some of my architect buddies are getting pretty good at rendering their designs in a CG environment.  

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
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.

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)

Only a handful of directors have made a consecutive pair of movies as good as anything on this list, and few if any have two such pairs, let alone three, let alone seven.  Make particular note of his 2002 films, which show just how high the bar is for this guy at this point.  He makes two borderline masterpieces in the same year, and people barely even notice.  Like Tiger Woods, nobody is surprised by anything he does anymore, and he just keeps going.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Sorry, not to nitpick or anything ...

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
The technical achievements of companies under Lucas' leadership are monumental, no doubt.  There's a difference between being a talented executive and a talented artist.  Lucas' choices of pursuits suggest some awareness of relative talents, and in particular his delegating the directing of the sequel to Star Wars is kind of incredible if you think about it.  If only he'd done the same for the directing (and writing) of the three later films.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
John Williams.  Now there is a giant hardly anybody knows about. No one knows his name, but can probably whistle 15 of his compositions while walking to work in the morning.

by Bogalusa Bomber on Mar 19, 2008 10:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Oh Christ Charlie, I sat through one of those "Boston Pops with John Williams" extravaganza's - oy my head hurts just thinking of it.  I'd rather listen to Michael Bolton butcher Ray Charles tunes.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 20, 2008 3:09 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I'd rather listen to Michael Bolton butcher Ray Charles tunes.

Sometimes you go too far, Chuck.  Too far.

by Jay on Mar 20, 2008 8:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Of course I've got a competitor for the crown - it's John Ford.  I'll give you Schidler's List, and Munich both compelling plot and character driven masterpieces.  And I like Empire of the Sun - quirky, original and a story I never heard before.  But even your boy raided some pretty threadbare plots with the Indiana Jones stuff.  He's good - real good.

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?

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 19, 2008 8:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Here's a good nuanced film you'd like.  Three Days of the Condor with Robert Redford.  Lots of layers. Suspenseful.  Thoughtful.  Doesn't pander. Makes the audience work a bit. It's one of my all time favorites.

The Searchers looks great on a big screen.

by Bogalusa Bomber on Mar 19, 2008 10:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Loved Three Days of the Condor  Faye Dunaway was great as was Redford.  Of course it was based on the novel "Six Days of the Condor", but I imagine they hadta cut it down to fit inside the 2-3 hour model.

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".

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 19, 2008 11:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
That sounds like bait.  I may have to stew on that particular conundrum for a bit, but I bet you $5 I can come up with a half dozen moves <20 years old that match Condor, including another Redford spy movie.

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.

Sportsman of the year, 1991

by BostonWahoo on Mar 20, 2008 8:42 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I had great hopes for Spy Game, but in no way, shape or form does it match up to Condor.  I do like Redford and Pitt in those roles too, it just didn't seem to click.  I'd like to hear the five you've got in mind.

by Bogalusa Bomber on Mar 20, 2008 10:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
It wasn't that I had already identified others, I'm just betting that I can find some.  Still looking.
Sportsman of the year, 1991

by BostonWahoo on Mar 20, 2008 11:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Since I was a TribeFanStuckInBoston during college, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt :-)  But I think you'll be hard pressed to find similar films that are as good.  But I'd like to hear about them because I'd love to find more.

by Bogalusa Bomber on Mar 20, 2008 1:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Well it wasn't meant to be bait plus I think you misunderstand me.  It's not Three Days I'm talking about.  What I'm asking is, has there been a movie made in the last 20 years - hell has there been a movie ever made - that treats its audience with as much respect and expects so much of its audience as "The Wire"?  This should be easy.  You should be able to come up with dozens of movies.  But for the life of me I can't.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 20, 2008 1:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I don't think you can even compare movies with a show like The Wire.  Movies simply don't have the opportunity to be novels in the same way.

by Jay on Mar 20, 2008 9:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I'm not talking about a one-on-one comparison.  I'm talking about the attitude of the director/writer about his audience.  When was the last time you went to a movie and had the same response as you did watching "The Wire"?  You know, I learned something, it wasn't heavy handed, it seem real/plausible.  You know what I'm asking.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 20, 2008 1:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
I don't think any film could demand of its viewers what The Wire did, because no film could ever be that vast or complex.  No film could ask you to remember who Poot was, 20 hours of story after his last appearance.  No film could keep you wondering for eight hours if they were ever going to figure out where all the murders went (in the boarded up housing).

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
Haven't seen Lord of the Rings don't plan to either.  It's the "Swords and Sorcery" thing I can't get past.  Kinda like East Indian art and sushi.  I just don't get the appeal.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Mar 20, 2008 8:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
The appeal is story and characters.  Duh.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Re: The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo
You're not the only one if I count. But many of my friends are the same way. They wouldn't sit through Serenity because they don't like sci-fi and couldn't look past the spaceships. I just don't understand. The characterization and writing in that movie (and Firefly, of course) is both a delightful rehash of old west characters and refreshingly original, and definitely worth watching. They missed out.

by Voltaire on Mar 21, 2008 2:15 AM EDT to parent up