T.V.'s Greatest What-If

Television is at once becoming a defining and seminal art form. Channels like AMC, HBO and Showtime are creating TV shows that rival the scope, quality and budget of most movies. TV characters are entering the realm of household name. The different cable channels have exploited what seems to be every conceivable niche in the market. It is almost to the point where TV is becoming a better creative outlet than Film. When has that ever been the case before? On average people are probably more familiar with The Sopranos, frequent Emmy-winner, than they are with Slumdog Millionaire, The Hurt Locker or The Artist, even if they've never seen an episode. But The Sopranos does not even scratch the surface of another possibility...

For background let me explain two shows: one that was made, and one that was not. The first show is Game of Thrones, which is currently HBO's most epic project and one its most popular shows. The basic premise is an adaptation of George R.R. Martin's fantasy series called A Song of Ice and Fire. Each season adapts one of the books from the series, which are generally in the ballpark of 1000 pages. So far both seasons have been 10 episodes.

This second show never got beyond the brainstorm process, so it doesn't have an actual name. It was a TV series to be based on the bestseller The Da Vinci Code made by the guys that brought you 24. The idea was rejected by Dan Brown, so nothing came of it. The book was later adapted into a largely forgettable--and thus forgotten--movie. 

Now, let's enter a hypothetical universe, which is exactly like ours up to the year 1999. Let's say that other than what I change in this essay everything else happens exactly the way it happened then.

So, the year is 1999. Harry Potter is becoming an international phenomenon. Libraries and bookstores can't keep enough copies in stock. Warner Brothers approaches J.K. Rowling with a big wad of cash and asks to buy the rights to make the series into movies. Up to this point, things are exactly how they happened in real life; with the caveat that I don't know if Warner Brothers literally had a wad of cash with them when they acquired the movie rights.

But let's throw a wrench into things. Let's say J.K. Rowling says no. Maybe she realizes that the books are too long and complex to become a really compelling film. Maybe she wants to finish the whole series before she even thinks about optioning the rights. Maybe she's just content sitting on her millions until the right deal comes along.

So the years pass. Harry Potter stays a purely literary phenomenon. In 2008 J.K. Rowling finishes the final book, and decides that now is the right time to start adapting the books into another form. She has two bidders for the rights. They come to her living room each with a presentation for their plan for the adaptation. Group number 1 is Warner Brothers. They propose exactly the same movies that were made (with the exception that Daniel Radcliffe and the other child actors would not be in it, because they are now too old). They promise huge grosses. Billions of dollars in revenue.

Then in walks Disney. They explain they have a different plan. They remind Rowling that her books are very non-conducive to film because they are supposed to depict a whole school year, with individual happenings and adventures popping up every so often before a big, overwhelming climax. They point out that there are at least 50 characters in each book, and in a film you would have to cut down basically every character that isn't Harry, Ron, or Hermione. And they warn that character development will be non existent in Warner Brothers plan. And then they make their proposal.

Disney will use ABC to make Harry Potter into the biggest TV series of all time. They will buck the American trend of 24 episode seasons, and instead make every film as essentially a mini-series in 1 hour segments. They will put the Disney money behind it, so it will look as credible as an actual film. They'll make it back up in merchandise and in Super-Bowl like ratings. Not one aspect of the novels has to be cut out. They can spend extra time developing the relationships between all the characters (with Rowling's input, of course). They'll get Michael Caine for Dumbledore, and Matthew MacFadyen as Snape (given the fact that the actors who played those roles in our universe are getting on in years, and this is a 7 year commitment). They give her 100% veto power in all creative and casting decisions. For Disney, this creates something that can be a cultural event on Network Television, and keep its dominance over cable channels for the time being.

Let's say Disney can make this happen.

Which is the better plan?

An Ode to a Domer

It is entirely plausible that children of a future age may think of our society's obsession with trophies as mind-boggling and pointless, much as we see rain-dances and human sacrifices. They may point to the controversy they cause, the lack of real closure, and especially the politicking as evidence for the futility of handing someone a trophy every year and calling them "the best".

So now that I've put reason and perspective out there, let me state with absolute certainty: if Manti Te'o does not win the Heisman this year, we deserve whatever is coming to us on December 21.

The Heisman is a tricky award for several reasons. First and foremost is that we're still not entirely sure what its supposed to mean. Is it for the BEST player in college football? The most valuable? The most accomplished? Is there any reason that every winner since 1997 has been a quarterback or runningback? If so, what makes it different than the Davey O'Brien Trophy (for the best quarterback) or the Maxwell Trophy (for best offensive player)? Why do we give this trophy at all?

Whatever the answers the fact is that the Heisman Trophy, like the Oscar or Nobel Prize, forever defines its winner. We never introduce Tom Hanks as the Golden Globe Winner. Only a handful of people remember that Drew Brees won the Maxwell award. Most trophies begin to fade the second they are handed out. Not the Heisman. Whether the recipient goes on to NFL stardom or obscurity, Heisman Winner has now become their prefix. Ask Gino Torretta. Ask Doug Flutie.

So in some sense, that's why I'm writing this letter to the ether. If we accept that Heisman is an award that shapes the narrative, rather than reflects it--this is how last season became the year of RG3, rather than the year of Andrew Luck--than we must admit that the winner should say something important about this year.

So what has happened this year? Notre Dame is having its best season in decades, while rotating quarterbacks and without a star on offense to speak of. They say if you have two quarterbacks you have none. Well, the Gold Domers have no quarterback and they are closing in on a perfect season. Why? Because of one of the most dynamic defenses in recent memory.

The Notre Dame defense is unique because it isn't loaded with first round picks, the way Alabama has been recently. If anything, there seems to be only one sure fire NFL starter on the roster: Te'o. The defense can't rely on simple athleticism. They don't have a vastly superior scheme a la Bill Parcells in the 80's. Technically speaking, they play the conventional wisdom defense that everyone plays. And they play it better than anyone else.

The defense has a knack for playing even better when the game is on the line. Te'o exemplifies that. When quarterbacks have a knack for stepping up when the game is one the line we call them legends and give them trophies. Linebackers deserve similar respect. Look at the numbers Te'o puts up. A veritable tackling machine. He can seemingly be by the ball at the end of every play. He makes his teammates better. Offenses account for Te'o first, leaving openings for the other gutsy players to make big plays.

Te'o is a traditional linebacker who excels in coverage. This is an increasing rarity, and pass rushing backers have become en vogue. he has 5 interceptions on the year. A free safety or corner with 5 interceptions would get All-America consideration. From a middle linebacker that number is absurd.

If you consider that Te'o is a similar size and speed to most quality inside linebackers, and on top of that, typically covers a similar area as most LB's, then the only explanation for his high number of picks is that he makes plays on balls that other LB's do not. Again if a quarterback was playing against a defensive back that had a rep for picking off passes, he would not throw to that side of the field unless he was very confident that said DB couldn't make a play on the ball. This is how offensive coordinators plan. But the fact that Te'o keeps making this pick can mean two things. Quarterbacks throw to receivers Te'o covers because normally LB's in that position can't pick off the ball. Or, Te'o has a knack for intercepting broken up passes in a way that, say, college age Patrick Willis could not.

Right now, most predictors have the award going to Collin Klein of Kansas State. Some have predicted Kenjon Barner of Oregon. No doubt, both are having great seasons and putting up great numbers. I stand, however, in the camp that the Heisman should not simply be a numbers game. Chris Weinke had great numbers and got the Heisman. He was also 28 at the time, and choked in the two biggest games of the year (Miami and Oklahoma). Now the connection of the words "Weinke" and "Heisman" is met with general derision. Had the award gone that year to a quarterback who put up lesser numbers, but lead his school--which was by no means a powerhouse--to the Rose Bowl in a very memorable season, the year 2000 winner would bolster the trophy's credibility, rather than tarnish it, as Weinke has. Oh yeah, the aforementioned Rose Bowl QB was named Drew Brees.

Collin Klein is a unique player, who runs his system well. Kenjon Barner is a beneficiary of a unique system that allows him to put up ungodly numbers. Neither will be long term fixtures in our memories, whether they win the Heisman, or not. They would go the way of Torretta, Weinke, Salaam, Jason White, and half a dozen others in the past 20 years that take some of the shine off the trophy.

We WILL remember Te'o. We WILL remember this defense. This is all likelihood will be remembered as the year of Alabama and Notre Dame. The Heisman Trophy should align itself with that narrative. 

Why Today Should Be The Last Holy War...

UNPOPULAR OPINION ALERT

Today at 8:00, I will go down to the SUU lounge area (which has become my football watching headquarters). Despite the fact that SUU will be playing its home opener at that time and my professor/father figure Peter Sham will be honored at half time, my attention will be fully settled on the final (for now) showdown between the University of Utah and the Brigham Young University. And lets face it, Peter will probably get honored at another halftime some time in the near future. Its not like Cedar City is swimming with people they need to honor. Cody Judy is set to be honored when we play Northern Colorado.

But I want to get this out before the game so my opinion cannot be written off as being a sore loser/wanting to quit while I'm ahead. I'm writing this with no idea what is going to happen tonight. Because I want to talk about something off the field.

Last week at a CES fireside, LDS Apostle and former BYU President Jeffrey R. Holland told a story of being disgusted at the disparaging treatment an LDS basketball player got at the hands of many fans of an opposing team, who were also LDS. He was further disgusted when a fan suggested that when it came to sports, he "checked his religion at the door." Elder Holland was addressing bigger issues than fan relations, yet he touched on a subject previously spoken of by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf in October of 2010. President Uchtdorf said the following:

Perhaps there is no better laboratory to observe the sin of pride than the world of sports. I have always loved participating in and attending sporting events. But I confess there are times when the lack of civility in sports is embarrassing. How is it that normally kind and compassionate human beings can be so intolerant and filled with hatred toward an opposing team and its fans?

I have watched sports fans vilify and demonize their rivals. They look for any flaw and magnify it. They justify their hatred with broad generalizations and apply them to everyone associated with the other team. When ill fortune afflicts their rival, they rejoice.

Brethren, unfortunately we see today too often the same kind of attitude and behavior spill over into the public discourse of politics, ethnicity, and religion.

My dear brethren of the priesthood, my beloved fellow disciples of the gentle Christ, should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard? As priesthood bearers, we must realize that all of God’s children wear the same jersey. Our team is the brotherhood of man. This mortal life is our playing field. Our goal is to learn to love God and to extend that same love toward our fellowman. We are here to live according to His law and establish the kingdom of God. We are here to build, uplift, treat fairly, and encourage all of Heavenly Father’s children.

This rivalry is different from Auburn-Alabama or Ohio State-Michigan. BYU is a religious school; and in contrast to Notre Dame, TCU or Marquette, it is the only Division I school in the country that represents the Mormon Church. People would never assume to paint all Catholics under the same brush as the Gold Domers. Nor do all Methodists feel responsible to answer for recruiting violations of the 80's. In its inseparability with its religion, BYU is truly a one of a kind.

And thus, how sad is it that this game engenders so much ill will towards the school? Half the state (give or take) supports the other team. Name calling, taunting and unfortunate soundbites become ammunition on both sides. How is an athlete coming from out of state to play for Utah supposed to view Mormons when the Mormon school is his sworn enemy? Even to us outside of the arena, the game is locally divisive, in a time where unity should be paramount. The game harbors feelings of persecution on both sides, and digs up old grudges.

Is the game great? Its fantastic, passionate and utterly spellbinding. I haven't been disappointed with the game itself (independent of outcome) in 15 years. But is it really building Zion? Is it making a better world? Is it spreading the Gospel of Christ?

I'm a Utah fan, guilty of much negative feelings toward the other fan base. I'm also an active Latter-Day Saint. The BYU athletic department can do a lot of good. It can promote values and teach valuable lessons. The Brandon Davies saga was a great example of an institution sticking to its policies and not showing favoritism towards a prized athlete, and also a young athlete showing humility and character by being honest, serving his punishment and working for redemption. If I wasn't a Utah fan, I could admit I find much to admire at BYU, especially in Dave Rose's basketball program.

But anyway, GAME ON, mutha-------s!

The Ute Fan Laments

I stumbled into my apartment last night in mourning. When I walked in my roommates greeted me.

"How was the game?"

Bad. Very bad. I watched in horror as the Utes stubbed their toe up in Logan, upending order in the universe as we know it.

"How did that happen?"

A few dumb plays by the Utes. A few great plays by the Aggies.

"Well, that's pretty classy of you. Normally people just say it was rigged or the refs screwed us."

Well, there was a call here, and a no call there. That's frustrating. But no one would say the Utes should have won that game. And here I am to pick up the pieces of my Friday night.

Because my apartment does not have cable I watched the whole game at an SUU campus lounge area (side note, I'm latching on to Notre Dame this year, because their the only team I can consistently watch at home). I coped on my way home by buying a chimichango from Roberto's drive-thru and renting a funny movie. Oh, and I ate some of my roommates cake. Wait, Nate, aren't you going to be wrestling on the Adams Theater without a shirt on in less than a month? Shouldn't you be avoiding deep fried foods and desserts? Shut up, conscience, you're not my mom. Losing puts me into a state so low I can only describe it as alcohol-free alcoholism. I just want the pain to go away.

And here I sit, the next day. There is certainly much for the Utah fan to ponder. Why did we refuse to hand the ball off to John White when it was 1st and goal at the 6 yard line? Why do we put our freshman pocket passing quarterback in for the wildcat when he is neither fast or powerful? Why don't we just throw the kicker out there? How did Utah State get such a significantly better quarterback than us? Utah State? How?

Here's the problem. The Quarterback quandary is blowing up worse than Westeros after Robert Baratheon's death (its not my fault you don't watch Game of Thrones). Jordan Wynn not only is injury prone, he's also apparently not good. Injury prone + not good = bowl game in a cold weather city. While there's no word yet on the extent of his injury, he should probably not start another game at Utah. There is no building for the future as long as he's in the equation. Sad, especially given his brilliant play early in his career.

So the choice lies between Jon Hays and Travis Wilson. Now at this moment I would like to point out that Devonte Christopher and Luke Matthews are now seniors and have yet to find a consistent quarterback to throw them the ball. Their talents are almost completely wasted. It is paramount that we find an answer to this pronto, or we will be saying the same thing about Dres Anderson and Kenneth Scott. Which is why Wilson MUST be the starter.

At this point, Hays could potentially eke out a win or two more than Wilson. But why focus only on this year?  If job security was gold, Kyle Whittingham would be jumping into a pool of coins that Scrooge McDuck-style. What people want is a Pac-12 champion. They're probably not getting one this year. So maybe Jon Hays could get us to 8-4 or 9-3. But what good does that do us? There's clearly not a huge drop off right now to Wilson. And if he plays from this point forward, he'll be better than Hays by the end of the year. There's also little to no tape on him, so you may even catch BYU or USC's coordinators by surprise a la the Brett Ratliff phenomenon.

Take a look at our under performing offensive line. At least they'll get better with time, right? But as it stands right now we are starting 3 seniors and 2 juniors. So with a line made up entirely of upperclassmen, we are flailing miserably. This is a trickier situation, because you legitimately need your best offensive line out there, or someone could get hurt (rhymes with shmuarterback). But you seriously have to consider the fact that we are very thin on the line yet can go 8 deep at wide reciever (all 8 of whom are being marginalized by bad line and quarterback play). Kyle needs to sign a whole offensive line this year, from high school. Juco's are band-aids, you can't build your program off them. Maybe by the time Travis Wilson graduates he'll have a decent offensive line in front of him.

Look, maybe I'm a bit reactionary. After all, 3 out of Utah's 4 best defensive players were out from USU's last two touchdowns. But come on, guys, don't make me go Gold Domer this year.   

Quarterback Mysticism

It's all about your quarterback. Bill Belichick was a sub-.500 coach before Tom Brady. He was 5-11 in 2000, and 0-3 in 2001. Then Bledsoe gets hurt, in comes Tom Brady. Super Bowl Champions. Is Bill Belichick a great coach or is he a good coach, who got lucky?

 -Colin Cowherd

Yesterday's Radio Show

This must be what it feels like to be an atheist. Every flimsy bit of evidence people throw at you sticks in your craw. But I'm not an atheist. I'm simply not a member of Quartbackism: the newest superstition on the block with its most devout sect being the Tebowists. The primary dogma of these zealouts is that the Quarterback is more than an athlete, a symbol or even a man. He somehow connects everyone on the football team to the same line of thinking and ability, and can--through sheer force and will--turn losses into wins. They worship at the alters of "Fourth Quarter Heroics" and "Gutsy Plays". Their devotion leads them to the unassailable conclusion that the Holy Trinity consists of Favre, Brady and Montana (with Tebow playing a Virgin Mary-like role). You see, its only logic. Who wins championships? FRANCHISE QUARTERBACKS, that's who.

Walk down the halls of memory lane and you will see the images of these noble knights of football hoisting the Vince Lombardi trophy: the Manning brothers, Brees, Brady, Big Ben, Aaron Rodgers, the list goes on. You see, that's why you can't trust the 49ers this year. They don't have a franchise quarterback. They've got Alex Smith, and a very conservative offense. And you can't win without a franchise quarterback. Unless you're the 2000 Ravens with Trent Dilfer, but that was a decade ago, and this is a quarterback league.

Though lets go through the history shall we? Let's examine the Lords of Legends from the first Superbowl I watched start to finish: 1998 match up between the Packers and Broncos. This is where John Elway jumped up an echelon to become a Superbowl winning quarterback. He'd been there three times, but kept losing. Some how he summoned up enough guts in that 38 year old body of his to will his team to victory.

Without throwing for a single touchdown.

You know who had an epic day? Brett Favre, who tossed three touchdowns, and for twice the amount of yards than Elway. If Quarterbacks win Superbowls, Favre would have won that day and ESPN would have rioted like Detroit after a Pistons Championship. But somehow Elway's guts won the day.

You know, that and 157 yards from Terrell Davis, the most dominant running back at the time, with significant help from a superb offensive line and Mike Shanahan's zone blocking scheme that would produce 1000 yard rushers like Harvard produces millionaires. And his defense stopped Favre on the last drive to save the victory.

But clearly that game made Elway one of the greats. Which he was, anyway. And he did have a great game in the next Superbowl, where he threw for over 300 yards. But even if he'd retired after the Packers Superbowl, we'd still have him on the same level of greatness. Of course, if he'd retired before the Packers game, he'd be a level down. Because then he wouldn't have been a "Superbowl Quarterback".

That's the kicker. We count out the Niners before this season because we don't think Alex Smith is a "Superbowl Quarterback". Which is right. But before the Rams 1999 championship run, Kurt Warner was not a "Superbowl Quarterback", he was a "Back-Up Quarterback" and "Former Grocery-Store Cashier". But he was able to put up big numbers all season (with a team including Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce, and Torry Holt; Adam Sandler could have tossed for 4000 yards with those guys).

2000 was our supposed anomaly year, where Trent Dilfer and a great defense won out over the Giants (opposing quarterback: Kerry Collins. Least. Intriguing. Matchup. Ever.) 

2001 was the aforementioned year in which Tom Brady saved Bill Belichick's career. Of course, they got to the Superbowl in much the same style as the Ravens the year before, extremely conservative offense, with stifling defense and, as all Raiders fans can attest, a few lucky breaks. Brady would go on to great numbers, but he was very pedestrian that year, throwing for under 3000 yards, 18 touchdowns to 12 interceptions. Those numbers actually reflect Alex Smith's numbers before Harbaugh.

He also managed 20 points against a porous Rams' defense. Oh, and somehow his defense held The Greatest Show On Turf to 17 points.

2002. Brad Johnson. Not a Hall of Famer by any stretch of the imagination. Oh, and a terrific defense. Pattern?

2003. Slightly better Brady. The team is still a conservative offense, and again wins on a last second field goal, leading Reed Smith to loudly argue that if Jim Kelly had Tom Brady's kicker, we'd all have to bow down to him too.

2004. Ok, MVP level Brady. And a great defense. They went 14-2 and were hands down the best team, walked away with the Superbowl. Ironically despite this being his best season, this is the one time Brady was NOT Superbowl MVP. See, there was a time when we used to give the award to the biggest impact player, not simply the Quarterback of the winning team. (Silence as Justin Tuck stares bullets at Eli Manning).

2005. BIG BEN. Only completed 9 passes. He was only in his second year, so Bill Cowher played things pretty close to the vest, and the defense really won the day (OMG, its like defense is important or something).

2006. After years of shootouts, the Colts defense buckles down for 4 games and wins Peyton Manning his only ring. So aside from this year and Brady's third Superbowl, all our Superbowl Champions since 1999 have started the season with a Quarterback that was not a consensus Hall of Famer. Kudos Peyton, on being the exception to the rule.

2007. Much-maligned Eli Manning snatches certain victory from the MOST DOMINANT TEAM OF MY LIFETIME. Brady threw for 50 touchdowns that year, yet the Giants D held him to only 14 points. But Eli's fifth-string receiver caught a ball on his head, so he's the MVP. This convinces nobody, and as late as last summer analysts refused to call Eli an "Elite Quarterback".

2008. Big Ben enters season generally thought to be in the top 10 QB's in the league. By the end he's clearly in the top 5. A good example of someone improving their stock through winning the Superbowl.

2009. THE YEAR OF THE QUARTERBACK. Colin Cowherd and all Quarterbackists finally see a match up of Franchise Quarterbacks. So who needs defense? One year some team won on offensive fire power, so lets ignore the past 10 years.

2010. Look, I was on my mission for the entirety of this season, so I don't really know. When I left Aaron Rodgers was thought of about like Matthew Stafford is today. So he won a Superbowl. Great.

2011. The season of HYPOCRISY. I saw only the Superbowl this year, yet I got enough of the coverage to know that when Eli Manning asserted before the season that he was an elite quarterback he was laughed at harder than Monty Python's killer rabbit. Before the playoffs NOBODY called him elite. Going into the Superbowl NOBODY thought he was a future hall of famer. Then the Giants won, because Wes Welker dropped a wide open pass that would have clinched the game.

We all agree that because Eli has now won two Superbowls, he's a great quarterback. Even though none of us thought that before the most recent game he's played.

My point: don't count out the Niners. Defense wins Championships.

And Bill Belichick is the best coach of the past 20 years and that goes way beyond Tom Brady. 

Batman vs. The Law of Diminishing Returns

Your first Cadillac will probably be your favorite. Its something new, fancy and exciting. You'll always remember it. The next one may even top it if you're lucky. The third one? Now its just excessive. Ladies and Gentlemen, the law of diminishing returns.

The same law applies to movies. It has become increasingly rare to see a sequel top the original. The statistics are probably worse than even we think. There are the occasional Godfather Part II and Toy Story II's, but lets not forget, someone once made a sequel to The Whole Nine Yards. But success does happen occasionally. But riddle me this: has any trilogy's third installment been its best movie? Off the top of my head the only one that seems to be even plausible is The Return of the King, though I still contend The Fellowship of the Ring was the superior film.

Enter Christopher Nolan, who has been defying all sorts of laws since 2000's Memento violated the law that indie movies must be dripping with contempt for its audience. He's made a realistic super hero movie, a better sequel and then a Best Picture-worthy flick out of what could have been the premise for a 1985 Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. So yeah, he's pretty good. And he just made Batman 3.

So here's what he was up against:

1. Third movies in trilogies almost always suck (Shrek 3, Godfather 3, Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Carribean 3, Meet the Fockers, the list goes on...) This largely is because the writers run out of compelling plot lines for the same characters, and equally have a hard time advancing the characters past what they were in the first movie.
2. The Joker was a phenomenon and pushed everything up a notch and he's, uh, absent from this movie.
3. Bane can be hard to understand.
4. Batman can be hard to understand.

Well, somehow he pulled it off. By now we are all pretty sure that the film exceeded expectations. He did it by taking it in a different direction. I remember after The Dark Knight came out and Heath Ledger died, most people I talked to assumed that the Riddler or the Penguin would be the next villain. Those would have been the easy way of doing things. They're both better known than Bane. But the Riddler is essentially Joker-lite, and would have made the movie Dark Knight-lite. Bane is nothing like the Joker. He's not particularly charismatic, but he inspires extreme loyalty from his followers. He's not funny. He also doesn't seem to be completely evil to the core.

On that note, I believe I've previously noted how it seems like all of Spider-Man's villains become villains accidentally. Some villains develop out of spite, or justify their actions to the audience (or like in the 1979 B-Classic The Warriors where the villain explains his motive for an assassination "No reason, I just like doing stuff like that"). The League of Shadows seem to play out like tragic heroes. They believe they are fixing the world. So while Bane seems supremely violent and malignant, his first action to our chronological knowledge of the plot is to protect a child at the cost of himself.

Anne Hathaway was a lot better than I was expecting. Come to think of it, though, I'm not totally sure what I was expecting. Anne Hathaway just doesn't seem like an action star, she seems like a fairy tale princess or Mary Poppins. The performance does get a little too femme fatale for my taste at parts; but like Christian Bale's annoying Batman growl, I can overlook it.

Christopher Nolan always seems to cast movies like I cast movies in my mind. I just think of a familiar actor for every role, whereas real casting directors wade through piles of screen tests, especially for bit parts. But Christopher Nolan tends to cast people we've seen before: Matthew Modine and Brett Cullen in this movie, Anthony Michael Hall and Eric Roberts in the Dark Knight, Rutger Hauer and Ken Watanabe in Batman Begins. It works surprisingly well. Modine certainly competes for a SOAB award in this movie (Smarmiest of all Bastards), which is especially saying something considering Aiden Gillen was also in this movie. Talk about bringing your A-Game.

There are the plot hole questions we all can rehash: How did Batman escape the Bat? What money is he living on with Catwoman? Does he just become a stay-at-home husband, while she brings home the bacon, presumably by stealing it? How many times did he go to that restaurant waiting for Alfred? The most troubling is Why does someone who has the name Miranda Tate have a French accent? That name sounds pretty Anglo-Saxon to me. Shouldn't that have been the first clue she wasn't who she said she was. Why not give her a French name? This is the troubling trend clearly started by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the man with most grotesque German Accent of the 80's. His character's names: Douglas Quaid... Jack Slater... John Kimble... HOWARD LANGSTON... JERICHO CANE... ADAM GIBSON!!!

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to watch and do nothing.

Oh, and this is probably the best original three-quel I've seen to date.

A Few Thoughts On Immigration

Did you know there are Mexicans in Arkansas? Tons of them. Guatemalans, too. Even a few people from El Salvador and Honduras here and there. Did you know that? I didn't in 2009, when I opened a manila envelope that sent me there for two years to be a missionary. I don't know why, but I had always thought Hispanic immigrants stayed in the Southwest, or the areas around. I didn't expect to find apartment complexes almost completely rented out to immigrants in the Dirty South. I also didn't expect to have my mind changed about so many things.

I had never felt good about the immigration situation. I won't pretend I was ever in favor of mass deportations or aggressive crackdowns. But Arkansas (and by extension, Tennessee) was where my mind was really changed. A mission is an interesting thing, because for the first time in, at least, my life, I walked a mile in someone else's shoes. I can't speak to numbers, or statistics. I can't say much by way of hard, fast facts about the issue. All I have is my own experience among undocumented immigrants. I would say I became acquainted in two years with 1000-2000 Hispanic immigrants over the course of two years. As such, I feel like I had a fairly diverse sample size.

I was involved in 25 baptisms as a missionary. Five of those were teenagers born in the United States, the rest were immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras. None of them were documented. All but two of them were gainfully employed. In my whole mission, I don't believe I ever seriously taught anyone with papeles. If you are a believer in the divinity of missionary callings, you must at least admit that I was sent specifically to teach "illegal" immigrants.

First, understand: it is extremely difficult to get a green card. We place quotas on how many Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans etc. we let in. For many there doesn't seem to be any other way than either a. coming with a temporary visa and overstaying it or b. crossing the border on foot. It isn't the easy way out of Mexico. For many its the ONLY way out of Mexico

To me, there seems to be a problem whenever you limit the potential on a group of people. Different limits are placed on these immigrants than are placed on citizens. In reality, an undocumented high school student has little if any hope of going to college. In fact, because of employment difficulties, many of them end up doing the same thing their parents did: construction, housecleaning and other manual labor. Even though they speak English, and maybe even have a diploma, they are relegated as second class citizens.

I ask you, what effort would you have put forth in high school if you already knew where you were headed? We may complain that such immigration creates poverty, and yet it us that put them there and keep them there.

I wouldn't say I'm proud to be an American. I'm not ASHAMED. I love this country, and I appreciate all that has been given to me. But all I did to become an American was be born; so what is there to proud of? We should be proud of what we do as Americans; what we build. And why shouldn't we include anyone that wants to be a part of it. In my opinion, if someone wants to come to America and work hard, why should we discourage them?

I understand that border security is important. I agree we need to keep track of who comes in. But do you think if it was conceivable to come legally so many would brave the border? To my knowledge, many pay coyotes as much as $8,000 to get across. We would put a big dent in the drug cartels income if we made it unnecessary for would-be immigrants to pay them.

We should  screen for criminals.We should deport those that come and cause trouble. Keep the country safe. But America wasn't built to be exclusive. It should be exactly the opposite.

The Case for the new Spider-Man

I had myself a good time last night. I went to the midnight showing of "The Amazing Spider-Man". The first thing that came to my mind was that I was surrounded by high school kids. This isn't a bad thing per se, but it does make one feel a bit out of place, and more importantly, judge whether one has made the right choice in seeing this movie at such a late hour. As I walked in to the theater, the ticket taker and I had the following exchange.

"Would you like a free Spider-Man premiere t-shirt?"
"No thanks, I haven't decided if I'm going to tell anyone I was here."

And yet, despite less than inspiring previews beforehand, (the movies previewed before a show are a good indicator of whether you fall into the target audience; last night's previews included the new Twilight movie and a Nickelodeon production starring the girl from "Victorious") I realized this movie was a perfectly acceptable movie for a 22-year old, straight, bearded male to see; even one who's never cracked open a comic book in his life. The casting was good, the dialogue was decent and the love interest was not "wet-blanket-y". Though how much longer will we as Americans accept Martin Sheen in the role of a wise and effective father-figure? He's responsible for the tutelage of Charlie Sheen. I don't like to judge, but I think we can agree that Old Man Sheen could take a few pointers from Uncle Ben and Irish-American-cop-from-the-Departed-whose-name-escapes-me-at-the-moment.

And yet questions persist: was this reboot really necessary? What was wrong with the Tobey Maguire version? A Spider-Man! A Spider-Man! We have a Spider-Man and we need no more Spider-Man.

Fools! Know ye not that there is more than one way to skin a cat? (Credit this Mormon in-joke to Nephi-via-Joseph Smith)

First off, the Tobey Maguire-Kirsten Dunst iteration was dead. Embalmed. Buried. DEAD. Spider-Man 3 was so bad that it's become the high water mark of terrible trilogy wrap-ups. And I never thought that title would be taken so quickly from Attack of the Clones. Or Godfather Part III. Anyway, let us also remember that Tobey Maguire isn't a kid anymore. And I'm not positive Kirsten Dunst is still a working actress; or alive for that matter. If she's not I apologize for insensitively calling that trilogy "dead" and will edit that to say "done" or "leased out". Nobody was interested in seeing mid-thirties Peter Parker become a hipster and jam out to a soundtrack of Bon Iver and the Shins.

So, what to do if you're Sony (and I'm not saying you are), and you've got the Avengers breathing down your neck, and yet, still hold the rights to the third most popular super hero in American Culture behind only Superman and Batman (don't argue with me on this nerds; there's no AP poll on this. It is as I say it is for the purposes of this column). Spider-Man is a super compelling character. He appeals to the middle ground between Superman (Alien-Genetic Freak with invincible powers) and Batman (rich muggle with awesome car). He's at once given special powers and yet earns his abilities. This especially comes with a change in this recent movie with Peter Parker developing his own webbing device, rather that producing it out of his wrist with a magic hand gesture. He's got the spider abilities, but he finds better ways to harness them.

And here's my last point. Remake or reboot, we don't need to paint over the Mona Lisa with different colors. A remake should take something that has room for improvement and make a better product, rather than simply rehash something perfect with middling results. Casablanca should not be remade. Neither should  Citizen Kane, Dr. Stangelove, Platoon or Apocalypse Now. These are movies which reached Nirvana. You know what we can remake? Things that weren't as good as they should have been, The Outsiders, say, or American Gangster.

Lets not over reverence the Sam Raimi Spider-Man. In 2002 and 2004, the first and second movies were considered to be among the best Superhero movies out there. But guess what happened? Batman Begins, that's what! Paradigm shifts, possibilities change, and we all realize what a D-Bag James Franco is. So why not make a Spider-Man movie in the era of Christian Bale and Robert Downey Jr carrying large acting loads and playing alter egos as interesting as the hero themselves. The Raimi Spider-Man's don't hold up particularly well. Tobey Maguire doesn't seem as realistic. The villains are perhaps less interesting. James Franco is James Franco, and freaking whiny to boot. Kirsten Dunst can be emotionally exhausting to watch.

So here we have Andrew Garfield, a sparsely known British actor, playing a pretty realistic teenager, and in my opinion much more charismatic than his predecessor . Emma Stone being this generation's Julia Roberts (I stole this comparison from Grantland.com, I'll admit it). Better special effects making the action more compelling. You know what? This movie told the story 10% better than the 2002 version, and it will make 200 million dollars because Spider-Man is still bankable. I actually see this as a more ethical move for Hollywood.

If you're going to reboot something, make it better than the original.

General Ramblings and Musings

Some things take years to be shaped. Some people spend years trying to chisel an idea into perfection before pumping it out into mass production. There's a reason for that. The "shoot from the hip" style has a high flame out rate, just ask Howard Dean (does anyone remember that guy? If I had really planned this post out, I would have had a better example handy.) But it's 3 o'clock on a Friday afternoon, and I'm sitting in the anything-but-hipster pizzeria owned by my father. So while other posts should be better organized and executed, this first one is going to be a tad more impromptu.

It also bears mentioning that a lot of writers also have reasons for writing what they do. Maybe they're fighting social injustice, or God told them to, or ESPN insisted on showing the Euro Cup all day and they didn't feel like watching a "Supernatural" rerun. I tend to fall in the third camp. Who knows, maybe I can hone my skills to the point that I can fight social injustice or accept a writing assignment from The Big Guy (he of all people knows how open my schedule is right now). So it is what it is: a place for me to throw some verbal spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.

I wanted to call this blog "The Moses Reaction" because my friend Jordan has been talking about naming a band that for 5 years now to no avail. It seemed like too slick of a title to gather dust on the bookshelf. But apparently somebody has already claimed that. So I'm using a line from my favorite monologue of my favorite play (King Lear (V, III, 8) "Come, let's away to prison and we two alone will sing like birds i' th' cage"). And yes, technically the name should be "Birds i' th' Cage" but that would be beyond pretentious, and let's face it, I'm on thin ice in that department.

So that's it. That's the first post. I'm officially on the scoreboard. Stay tuned for my take on the liberal war on Christmas.