This may not come as a surprise to some of you but I’m what some people might call “an opinionated guy”. I tend to take strong stances on an issue and then make a lifetime commitment to stand by that decision no matter what the circumstances.
The reason I do that of course is because I’m almost always right. Seriously, maybe Id be a little less reluctant to change my mind and listen to counterargument if my opinions didn’t turn out to be fact on so many occasions.
If I had to honestly assess the accuracy of my opinions I’d say I’m somewhere between 80 and 85% correct.
Now you could possibly make an argument against the accuracy of my accuracy statistic, (after all 92.8% of all statistics are in fact total fabrications), but you’d be arguing semantics at that point… because again, I’m almost always right.
And it’s for that reason (me being right all the time) that I feel compelled to share with others the few instances when in fact it appears that I may have been wrong about something… Or like in the case I’m about to share with you, I at least might have to rethink my position.
There are actually two positions I’ve decided to rethink right now, but they’re both related to one single issue, and that is, Weather.
You see, I made a decision about 15 years ago that I would never pay attention to weather forecasts. Or at least, I would never actively seek them out.
I came to this conclusion when my father began to obsessively watch the Weather Channel. And despite all his hours listening to “expert” opinion he was no better at predicting the weather than any random idiot stranger on the street that passes by and says things like, “looks like rain!”
My dad usually dropped me off at school in the mornings and as we were leaving the house he always seemed to have some sort of advice about what I should or should not have been wearing that day… “It’s going to be warm today, might wanna leave the jacket behind,” or “are you sure you don’t want to wear something with a hood, it’s supposed to rain this afternoon…” And he was always wrong. Inevitably, I’d be walking home from school in the afternoon carrying an unnecessary rain jacket because he had assured me that I’d need it.
So like I said, my position has always been that I’ll never find myself watching TV and thinking, “Oh I better get to NBC, I don’t want to miss the local weather report.”
And you’ll never catch me checking updates on the internet, or flipping through pages of the newspaper to find out if it’s going to be “partially sunny”, or “partially cloudy”, or whatever it is they say.
I figure that anything big (i.e. snow storm, or a hurricane, or a tornado) is going to be big enough that news of its impending arrival will somehow find its way back to me… Especially with snow… If there is even the slight possibility that we might get some snow and suddenly it’s the only topic for discussion around here… “I heard three inches!”, “Yeah well I heard it only going to be a dusting”, “That’s not true, we’re going to get freezing rain all night and then it’s going to turn to snow just before dawn!”
The other weather related opinion I may need to rethink is the umbrella… I never carry one. As a matter of fact, I’m not even sure if I own one. In my 28 years I can only think of a handful of times where I was totally drenched in rain and wished I’d had an umbrella.
Unfortunately, and this is why I’m suddenly rethinking my position, most of those handful of instances seem to have come within in the past 30 days... I don’t know what’s going on here in our Nation’s Capital but over these past few weeks we’ve been getting some serious rain… I’m talking biblical, drenching rain that doesn’t stop for days… I think the next step is actually frogs… I may even build an arc.
This morning I awoke to water pouring down the drain outside my bedroom window and this has actually become such a familiar sound to my mornings that I didn’t even completely connect that sound with pouring rain until I opened my front door and attempted to step outside. That’s when I got nailed with swollen globs of sideways rain pelting me in the face.
Within seconds I had stepped back into my living room and began reviewing my options.
My hoodie jacket that I normally wear in the rain was sitting at the office because on a similar morning last week I had worn it to work and then left it in the afternoon when things had cleared up… Maybe had I checked the weather yesterday I could have known this was coming and carried the jacket home! Now all I had left to get me through the morning was either a heavy winter coat with no hood or a lighter jacket, also sans hood… and of course, no umbrella.
By the time I got to my office I was completely soaked, and I’m now convinced that my head my head ache may be an early sign of pneumonia from the cold rain pelting my shaved head on my long walk from the metro.
And worse yet, I’m admitting that 2 long standing policies I’ve had may be wrong.
In short, it’s been a shitty morning. I think my position is going to be that I need to start keeping an umbrella in my car and proceed normally with my stance on weather reports… but this position too may change if any frogs land on my head on my walk back to the metro this afternoon.
28 comments:
Any new stance on the prospect of a career revival for DeNiro/Pacino?
P.S. You've opened the floodgates with this post. I can't wait to see what comes out of the woodwork for this one.
This Sensation!
DeNiro... hehehehehehe
Dontrelle Willis sucks. At least Mark Prior's dead.
This is tough for me because Joel can open the Pandora's Box of stupid shit I've said/believed over the years.
He'll even fabricate a few little pieces that probably wouldn't be true, so I'll leave it at that.
And Jason Jennings sucks.
mike- why would I want to rethink that before the results are even in?
If you recall, your position on our Pacino/DeNiro debate, which almost ended in fisticuffs, was that neither of them would EVER play a SIGNIFICANT role in a SIGNIFICANT move, again... and of course the agreement was that we wouldn't be petty and difficult about the definition of significant, we would just know if it when it happened...
Now... we came close with "The Good Shepherd" but the movie turned out to be slightly disappointing, through no fault of De Niro's.
I'll be the first to admit that so far, true, it's not looking good for me... but I knew it wouldn't start well for me coming into this argument... however, it only takes ONE good movie for the argument to be won, and we ARE talking about two of the finest actors in the history of cinema! Certainly one of them will come through for me.
Right now we have the bomb that is "88 Minutes", BUT we've got "Righteous Kill" coming up in September which of course stars BOTH of them, together again for the first time since "Heat".
Judging from the trailer I've seen, I'm not holding my breath, but I certainly won't condemn it before it hits theaters either.
And of course, deep down you already KNOW you're going to lose this debate because as we speak the script for Frankie Machine is being reworked and the director that is committed to the project is Michael Mann!!! That's right, YOUR favorite director. And Miami Vice aside, we know he won't let us down.
Of course, you've admitted on multiple occasions in the past that you actually WANT to lose this argument (Mike loses the battle but we all, as movie fans, win the war), but that's actually what got me SO angry during the original argument... of all the "movie" people I know, you are BY FAR the biggest Pacino-De Niro guy I know... and yet despite the fact that they have given you SO much in the past, you steadfastly refuse to admit that they could ever give you something in the future... and that almost stands as an insult to the great gifts they've given us over the years.
Moe- you're right... you don't want to go there.
moe greene insists that the coors light commercials are not made by editing in old interviews with the coach, but by getting them to reenact their famous lines with oscar worthy accuracy.
I will kindly remind you that the statement in question was made prior to the release of the "famous" press conferences. Unless, of course, you remember the Bill Walsh/Dick Vermiel press conferences from 1988?
Secondly, I stand by my original comment stating that Bill Walsh had no business wearing suits to press conferences immediately after games.
...and unlike Joel, I admitted I was wrong.
Moe- did you not just read my entire post devoted to my being wrong about umbrellas?
You're thinking about checking the forecast. I got $20 that says you get hammered by rain within a week.
The ocean called, they're running out of shrimp.
Moe- I'm thinking about the forecasts thing, but I'm conceding the umbrella... I don't think I'll be hammered by rain with my trusty umbrella that I plan on owning.
I will remain silent on the Foxboro Hottubs issue.
Forgive my late response, but allow me to address the DeNiro/Pacino issue.
Joel is pretty accurate with the terms of the wager, but his wording may be a bit misleading. I am by no means ever going to claim that DeNiro and Pacino no longer have the ABILITY to turn in a great, career-highlight-caliber performance. I just think that the stars are no longer in alignment for them. The movie scene has changed, and they're no longer in the spotlight.
Filmmakers and audiences nowadays generally treat them like old familiar relics they'd like to bring down from the attic and look at once in a while. I will never understand why, but they just don't get the kind of respect they deserve anymore. I think it's this overly commercial environment plus their age (older protagonists are harder to come by) that is contributing to their twilighting careers more than their ability.
I'll say it again: I hope I'm wrong. But I've got to be honest about the situation. If I had been driving the titanic, we'd have cruise ships the size of Manhattan by now. For whatever reasons completely outside of the two of them, their ships are sinking, and the odds of rescue are not getting any better with time.
ALSO... How was the Good Shepherd's failure not DeNiro's fault? He fucking directed it, you cocksucker. And have you even watched it? Last I remember you hadn't. If you have, then we need to talk about that sometime, too. I'll agree that there's lots of little things wrong with the movie, but how can you not blame the guy behind it all?
mike- wow, that's the first time I've ever been called "cocksucker" on this blog, and I've got to admit, it made my day.
anyway, nobody, and by nobody I mean me, is debating 'why' their careers are going the way they're going... we are "in agreence" on that... I just think that based on the law of averages, something will come up where they get the right opportunity at the right time and bam, we've got what we're looking for.
As far as Good Shepherd goes, I thought your opinion was that the film's main flaw was that Damon, although a fine actor, wasn't suited for the role... And as you know, I've never seen Good Shepherd once through in it's entirety, but I think I've seen it all through the bits and pieces I've seen... although I will admit that I had forgotten that De Niro directed it, so yeah, I'm an idiot on that one... of course it was one small throw away comment that had little to do with my argument, but yeah, had I remembered that De Niro was the director I would have avoided bringing the movie up entirely.
If DeNiro had not had an acting role in "Good Shepherd" and it had turned out to be an awesome movie that he directed (which looked like it was going to be the case before it came out), I would have conceded defeat in the argument.
If DeNiro or Pacino can direct something great that you can clearly point to and say: "that was all Pacino/DeNiro", that's enough for me. However, it doesn't look like that's likely to ever happen either.
DeNiro has also directed "A Bronx Tale", which basically sucked. I think it's safe to say that while he can act, he may not have the best eye for casting.
And then there's Pacino, who has directed a few things I'm not even sure you can call "movies". They've certainly never been released in theaters.
I'd love it if one or both of them pulled a Ben Affleck and pleasantly surprised me from the director's chair, but it doesn't look like the odds are too great.
I don't think either of them have the humility to put forth the effort it takes to direct a movie well (I say that as if I know what it takes).
whatever you want to say about Affleck, at least he has never taken himself that seriously.
You're right on Bronx Tale, although on this very same blog I had a reader insist to me that it was a good movie... but that kid he had playing the leading role was awful... he should have been jailed for that performance... and of course, he's now really in prison so justice really was served in the end... you gotta love this country!
I'm confused the comments on this post don't seem to be related ?
Also 14 comments on a post the day it was posted seem a aweful lot.
Hope all is well and I've never thought of you as opinionated, honest, lol.
ps: think it was me that liked Bronx Tale if I remember, ok the acting wasn't great but I liked the film.
Speaking of actor's careers going the way of the swan...
When is Kevin Spacey going to appear in something we actually want to watch?
On a RELATED note, I'm also considering paying people not to see "The Incredible Hulk". I'm going to be disappointed if Edward Norton appears in Hulk 2.
I hear Ironman wasn't bad. Could we be so lucky that somehow The Incredible Hulk won't suck, too?
I'm not ready to talk about John Doe.
I understand you want Hulk to be good so that Norton isn't in yet another disappointing film. But think of it as an investment. If the Hulk tanks, they'll give up on making sequels and free up his time to make other movies that we might look forward to more than: "man, I hope this doesn't absolutely blow."
Who am I kidding? We both saw the preview. It's going to be a trainwreck.
"I think the next step is actually frogs… I may even build an arc."
While I'm sure you meant to write "ark", one of the reasons I love your blog is that you are so very good at creating a story arc. It's what captures a reader's imagination and makes your blog so entertaining. Keep it up!
mick- yes if I remember correctly you were that Bronx Tale Fan... to your credit I will say that the plot is fantastic, but that's actually what frustrates me the most... Had De Niro come up with a decent cast, and put himself in the role of the mob guy, we're looking at a classic... instead we got mediocrity... as far as the run away comments go, with my friends every subject eventually works its way back to our Pacino-De Niro argument.
moe/mike- besides Hulk, we also have to be prepared to be ashamed of Pride and Glory... not only for the Colin Farrel aspect, but look how long the studio has been sitting on that movie! It's been in post production for over a year now and yet still isn't scheduled for release until 2009... that CAN'T be a good sign.
hector- as long as you've been reading this blog I'm sure you're well aware of how awful my spelling is, but 'arc' is actually the classic example of my spelling issues... I almost always spell the word correctly, it's just not always the correct word! and of course there is no spell check for that... at this point I'd like to believe that my quirky spelling adds to the character of this blog... but regardless of whether or not that's true, I'll do my best to keep creating great story arks!
Colin Farrell has officially become what I always feared Orlando Bloom would be. He's a shitty actor that happens to get cast in good movies we care about and ruins them. He's racked up some impressive kills. Here's a quickie resume:
2004 - Starred in "Alexander" (Directed by Oliver Stone) --- Stone is no stranger to epic films about important events or people in history (See "Platoon", "JFK", "Nixon", etc.) A movie about Alexander the Great should have been a slam dunk. Instead, it was one of his worst films ever (ranked 18th of 20 on IMDB). It's hard to blame everything on the lead actor, but it's tempting here. I aslo haven't seen much of the film, so my best source of information is the reviews, which all say he was terrible.
2006 - Starred in "Miami Vice" (Directed by Michael Mann). Mann did most of the things he does best here; the city is gorgeous and the subject matter is interesting. The story was a bit lacking at times, but the worst parts were always the most Farrell-centric. The only thing worse than Farrell's acting was his accent, which was truly something spectacular to behold.
Those are two major kills. I'll just summarize the rest with some highlights:
Anyone who saw "Phone Booth" can tell you that Farrell is not the guy you want doing almost all of the talking in a movie that's basically one long scene. He pretended to cry. He pretended to repent. I pretended to enjoy it.
He ruined a recent Al Pacino movie that didn't have to suck as much as it did (The Recruit).
He's made his biggest splash in movies like "S.W.A.T." and "Daredevil". How is he still taken seriously?
He's got 4 starring roles in movies slated for 2009 alongside the likes of Ed Norton and Johnny Depp. Farrell's become the poison I always thought Orlando Bloom would be. Orlando ruined a Cameron Crowe film and that did him in. Why is Farrell still here?
I'm not sure why there is so much anxiety and dread over Ed Norton becoming the Hulk. A decent pop corn movie could get Ed a little more clout to do whatever project he pleases, so this really could turn out for the best. It doesn't even have to be a decent movie, it just has to make a load of cash and then he'll be in a great position.
I have a little faith in this Hulk remake. For one, Ang Lee won't be anywhere near this picture. Louis Letterier is directing, and while the Transporter certainly wasn't Oscar worty, there is no doubt the guy can do fast paced action pretty damn well. Also, our boy Ed rewrote the screen play to his liking. Shouldn't that count for something?
After doing some reading into it, it would appear that a sequel is already being planned. This looks like a franchise for Ed, so I'm just hoping for the best.
The franchise is exactly the scenario I want to avoid. Even you're not projecting "The Incredible Hulk" to be anything better than possibly a "decent popcorn movie". You claim that if this movie succeeds then Norton stands to gain the influence necessary to do other things, but then you also note that a sequel is already being planned to include him.
I'm going to assume by your comments that you're expecting "Hulk" to contend for monetary success as opposed to critical success. If that's true then I would agree with you. There's lots of evidence to support this: a summer release, an action director, a big green CGI monster, etc. My question is, if you're expecting this movie to potentially be just another summer fluff moneymaker, why would you want this franchise to continue imprisoning a great dramatic actor?
Ed did do some screenplay work for this, which may or may not be a good sign. But I think that's kind of a moot point now that we've seen the trailer and we know what kind of movie it's trying to be. Yes, Batman was a great summer movie with substance that had a great dramatic actor, but it also wasn't directed by Bret Ratner.
The only good I can see coming out of this situation is if the movie fails financially and they scrap the sequel. I suppose Norton could also leave the project, but I have no idea what kind of contract he's under or whatever the deal is. Also, track records for that sort of thing aren't great. Tobey McGuire said after the first Spider-Man that he didn't want to do it again. He did it twice more. He also got lots of fame from it and used it to be in all those other good movies that you and I can't name or remember.
Tobey Maguire is actually the specific example I've been afraid to mention... He went from exquisite work like The Cider House Rules, to being Spider-Man riding Sea-Biscuit across summer movie screens...
...I need a drink.
Just because he's involved in a franchise doesn't mean he can't do anything else. Daniel Craig is doing lots of other projects aside from Bond, Christian Bale is in other things aside from Batman, Hugh Jackman found some time to do the Prestige and win a Tony award. He is by no means trapped by this.
And let's not pretend that Toby was doing nothing but spectacular art house films before Spidey. Cats and Dogs, Wonder Boys, and Pleasantville.
I really think that Hulk succeeding can only lead to good things for Norton, and in turn us, as fans of his. A sequel would occupy him for several months, but thats it. The movie failing might free him up to do other projects, but I wonder what kind of projects they would be after a colossal failure.
I disagree that Hulk can help Norton's career in any meaningful way, at least for us. Will it help him land more commercial leading man roles? yes... but that's not what we want.
He already has the freedom to take lead roles in the kind of stuff we want to see.
But here is where I can agree with Eric... to an extent...
I don't think I want this to be a colossal failure... I don't want to see this become a franchise either, but if it totally bombs I can see a scenario where it could potentially prevent him from getting the roles we want him to take.
maybe the writers and casting directors sitting on top of meaty scripts will say "that fucker tried to sell out and failed miserably... why would we want him?"
I'm not saying that would definitely happen, but maybe... you never know... just as I don't see how Hulk can help him get movies we want, I can't see how a totally failure could do anything but hurt him.
As far as Toby Maguire's pre-Spider Man roles go, I've actually always had a soft spot for Pleasantville... Not only does it involve Joan Allen and William H Macy, but I actually saw it for the first time when I was temporarily locked away in the Mental Ward at FMH... To say it was the perfect setting to watch a movie like that would be quite the understatement!
I keep an umbrella in my car for those very rare times when it actually rains in LA. As for sweaters, I usually keep one on hand or in the car (unless its a 90-100 degree day) 'cause the evenings get kinda cold.
Post a Comment