Rate the latest movie you've seen.

[SGOS]

I have not read the book nor seen the movie.  Why?  Did not feel the need since I already knew what Beane was doing prior to the book or movie.  So, it seemed it would be 'old hat'.  But now, because of your and Shoe's take on it, I will have to see it.

Most of what you pointed out was covered in the movie.  Much of it came in those printed addendums that scroll by during the credits, but they were all news to me.  James Green was given credit in a couple of flash back scenes, but never having heard of him, I didn't pay much attention or even notice the scenes the first couple of times I watched the movie.  The movie portrayed Green as some disregarded kook that worked in a bean canning factory.  The movie played up the competition between the intuitive guys around the recruiting table vs the impartiality of computer data, making it seem like the "experts" of the time didn't think much of Green (or Billy Beane either).  The professional relationship between Beane and Peter Brand (if there was such a person) has a visceral quality about it that is unforgettable.

[Mike Cl]

Most of what you pointed out was covered in the movie.  Much of it came in those printed addendums that scroll by during the credits, but they were all news to me.  James Green was given credit in a couple of flash back scenes, but never having heard of him, I didn't pay much attention or even notice the scenes the first couple of times I watched the movie.  The movie portrayed Green as some disregarded kook that worked in a bean canning factory.  The movie played up the competition between the intuitive guys around the recruiting table vs the impartiality of computer data, making it seem like the "experts" of the time didn't think much of Green (or Billy Beane either).  The professional relationship between Beane and Peter Brand (if there was such a person) has a visceral quality about it that is unforgettable.

I have always been a big fan of the new stats.  I am fascinated by the history and development of the baseball stats.  The push-pull of tradition and the new cutting edge is fun to watch and listen to.  Will have to get the movie.

[drunkenshoe]

Baseball makes a good background for the plot, especially since fans make such a big deal about statistics, probably more than other sports.  What's odd is that this paradigm shift hadn't happened earlier, because the stats have always been there.  I think it's partly because computers have become the "now."  The movie, being from Hollywood, no doubt tends to de-emphasize some things and emphasize others to make the plot more dramatic.  Stats have always had a place in recruiting.  How could they not?  And I'm sure there is still a lot of useless jabber in round table discussion that use ambiguous phrases like, "The boy's got heart," or "Yeah, but he's got a good swing."

Like, Pitt who needed a role like this, Jonah Hill did a stellar job, and needs to put this film in the file he takes to interviews.  I never paid much attention to Jonah Hill before, but his true versatility really shows up in Moneyball.

It seems to me that in baseball, there are more place for players' individuality. Also while they need to do four specific things, they can be really good in one and suck the other but can contribute. In other team games, it is always one thing done in different ways. Human character has a lot of to do with being good at ctaching or throwing, batting or running. May be I am being too romantic.

Oh I am sure the talk is still the same. Even in the other team sports talk. It's fine too. Exactly, how cold they not? I would, lol.

I like Jonah Hill from the beginning, he is talented. I've first seen him in Superbad, LOL. I always like that type of actors, they are usually the real ones. But men like Pitt will be always too clean cut and handsome for me. I don't like handsome, too famous actors, men or women. I don't want to remember the actor when watching the movie. I feel same with Dicaprio, though I like few of his jobs.

[drunkenshoe]

Hard to find a bigger baseball fan than I am--followed it from '58 on.  And I love stats--that's what drew me to the sport in the first place.  Anyway, as odd as it seems, I have not read the book nor seen the movie.  Why?  Did not feel the need since I already knew what Beane was doing prior to the book or movie.  So, it seemed it would be 'old hat'.  But now, because of your and Shoe's take on it, I will have to see it.

Why is the baseball establishment so slow in accepting these 'new' stats?  If nothing else, baseball is tradition.  It is mom, apple pie and the flag.  Baseball is riddled with scores of 'unwritten' rules and customs--just like our society.  As an example the stat batting average(BA) was one of the first to be used and that was in the late 1800's.  It was the gold standard.  That was so until Branch Rickey developed some different ones in the in the '40's.  But BA was still golden.  The new type of stat, called 'sabermetrics' was introduced in the early 70's by Bill James.  These measurements were slow to catch on, but their intent was to determine what stats really reflected on winning games.  It attempted to answer questions about what the components of a win are and which are more important.  Bill James now works for the Boston Red Sox and his 'sabermatrics' has taken over; Billy Beane was on of the first to use these new (and constantly improving) stats to drive his assessment of 'true' baseball skills.  And it worked and now just about every team uses those type of stats.  The BA is no longer golden--it really does not have much of a bearing on winning.  Yet there are managers and players who still think it matters--it is tradition.  There is still a hue and cry about the breaking down of tradition.  The trouble is, that stats connect us with the old, old version of the game--it gives the illusion that the game is the same as it was back in the early 1900's.  Tradition is the reason baseball is slow to change.  And Beane was the first to really and openly use the new brand of stat.  And it is still working for him.

That explains a lot, thanks.

[SGOS]

James Green?  Bill James?  I'm not sure how I made James Green out of Bill James.  I guess I need to watch the movie again, but I'll wait a couple of weeks.

[Munch]

I watched Batman Hush yesterday.

I usually prefer the dc animated movies more then their live action because they always seems a lot more faithful to the comics then the live action spectacles.

I hadn't however read any of the batman comics about the character Hush and who he is, but I read some notes about it, seemed like an intresting villain for batman to go up against that doesn't get the kind of stronger appeal, similar to the court of owls.

However, this movie was.. questionable in its approach. The animation was fine like the action sequences, however some of the still moments of them talking was very rigid, suffering from the anime problem of flapping mouth syndrome.
And the story felt pretty rushed, for a movie with just an hour and 20 minutes tried to push in a lot of plot that could have been done better in something like an animated series over several episodes.

[spoiler]Catwomans reform, mysterious assassin targeting batman and those he cares about, poison ivy controlling superman, other batman villains thrown in including joker which felt forced since he wasn't much to do with anything. The biggest plot hole in the end was revealed that Hush, who in the comics was known as Thomas Elliot, and we're meant to think the character Thomas Elliot in this movie would be revealed as Hush, it turned out Hush wasn't Elliot all along, but was instead the Riddler, Edward Nygma, and his reasons for becoming Hush was because after developing a brain tumor, Nygma wanted to find a cure, and looked to the lazarus pit to cure him, which ended up driving him nuts but also increased his intellect so much it allowed the riddler to deduce bruce wayne was batman, and so took his revenge on batman as bruce wayne.
[/spoiler]

The plot felt like there should be a much broader story to all this since the character Hush as been in several comics, so just revealing who Hush really was in the end made it feel like this movie was self contained and didn't leave anything open for further story to be continued.

Overall I'll give the film 6/10, good animation, action, voice acting and some fun moments, but I've seen better dc animated movies.

[Mr.Obvious]

I have. Free cinema ticket I have to use by tonight.
It part 2 of once upon a time in hollywood?
Suggestions welcome
Aim to see the other in October, but my brother wanted to watch 'it part 2' then and my sister wanted to go watch the Tarantino flick then. S o I'll have to choose. Neither can make it tonight.

[SGOS]

I have. Free cinema ticket I have to use by tonight.
It part 2 of once upon a time in hollywood?
Suggestions welcome
Aim to see the other in October, but my brother wanted to watch 'it part 2' then and my sister wanted to go watch the Tarantino flick then. S o I'll have to choose. Neither can make it tonight.

I liked Once Upon a Time very much.  I haven't seen It Part 2.  Not knowing anything about Once Upon a Time would be the best way to see it, because the story unfolds and has surprises.

[Mr.Obvious]

I enjoyed once upon a time.
Glad I knew who Sharon tate was though. As not everybody who I know does.
I wish I'd known in advance exactly who's been her murderers rather than just knowing it was the Manson family. But even with my bare bones knowledge of the murders, spaghetti western bfilms and 60's Hollywood it was swell. Think I missed a treasure trope of nods and Easter eggs though.

[SGOS]

I enjoyed once upon a time.
Glad I knew who Sharon tate was though. As not everybody who I know does.
I wish I'd known in advance exactly who's been her murderers rather than just knowing it was the Manson family. But even with my bare bones knowledge of the murders, spaghetti western bfilms and 60's Hollywood it was swell. Think I missed a treasure trope of nods and Easter eggs though.

There were a lot of players in the actual murders, and it's hard for me to remember them all.  I don't think I had ever heard of Sharon Tate until she was murdered, and I wondered if the movie would be of much interest to Europeans.  I was thinking it didn't seem like a Tarantino film at all until they visited that ranch in the desert and Brad Pit met that girl named Squeaky.  Who would forget a name like that?  It was at that point where I knew it was going to be more than just a buddy film about two actors.

[Baruch]

There were a lot of players in the actual murders, and it's hard for me to remember them all.  I don't think I had ever heard of Sharon Tate until she was murdered, and I wondered if the movie would be of much interest to Europeans.  I was thinking it didn't seem like a Tarantino film at all until they visited that ranch in the desert and Brad Pit met that girl named Squeaky.  Who would forget a name like that?  It was at that point where I knew it was going to be more than just a buddy film about two actors.

Is everyone fascinated by the degeneracy in Hollywood, the drugs, the affairs, the tragedies?  Not me.  I was too young to know who she was too.  Squeaky later tried to assassinate President Ford ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynette_Fromme

[Blackleaf]

https://youtu.be/vZ3THjjZqjA

I'm really confused about what's going on with DC's extended cinematic universe. Are they giving up and just making standalone films now, or are some of them canon and others not?

[Unbeliever]

So, if movies about superheroes aren't making enough money, let's glorify the super villains. What could possibly go wrong?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, if movies about superheroes aren't making enough money, let's glorify the super villains. What could possibly go wrong?

Star Wars was a supervillain series. Only interesting character in the movies was a bad guy.

[Hydra009]

Star Wars was a supervillain series. Only interesting character in the movies was a bad guy.