Tom Carmody has an instant classic piece on Iceman, a quasi-antagonist in Top Gun played by Val Kilmer. Carmody argues that between Maverick (Tom Cruise) and Iceman (Val Kilmer), Iceman is the one you want to work with:

From the beginning of the movie to the end, Iceman seems like the kind of pilot I want operating a fighter plane, whether it’s the Cold War or tomorrow. He’s not concerned with scoring points or showing off. He isn’t going to pose with the enemy. He’s not going to unnecessarily antagonize anybody or raise the geopolitical temperature. He wants to win, and to bring everyone back alive. He’s just really good at what he does.

Maverick, on the other hand — okay, he scratches three MIGs to Iceman’s one in the final dogfight. But he also seems like he might be a self-obsessed sociopath who should probably be in treatment and definitely needs to learn how to act his age.

Hard to argue with that. He also has some other examples of “bad guys” who were actually good guys. The principal from Ferris Bueller, for example. It’s pretty hard to argue that one. He also mentiones everyone trying to get Axel Foley to tamp down in Beverly Hills Cope, which is not only true but also applies to half of the exasperated supervisors and weenie due process people in half of the cop movies ever made (especially when crime was high). He also mentions Walter Peck, the EPA prick from Ghostbusters.

There, of course, I have to draw the line.

He’d have a point if he had intervened sooner, before the presents of ghosts had become so apparent. At that point, yeah I would think that it was a giant con job. Just about everyone would. But once it’s a known thing, a reasonable EPA would be actually spending its time conferring with the Ghostbusters and finding out what exactly it is that they know and developing their own plan. Once you have an EPA task force or something actually doing something about the problem, then maybe you shut the Ghostbusters down. But Peck is so reviled not because the movie tilts against him (as is the case with the other characters) but because his character really is the consummate bureaucrat. There’s obviously a problem, there is no known way of dealing with the problem, and here are people dealing with the problem, but since they’re making a profit off of it and we didn’t expressly allow it we have to shut them down.

Anyhow, here’s a video on a pro-market view of Ghostbusters:

This is pretty wild.

I remember when I first saw the Final Fantasy movie, and how amazing it looked. It actually still looks pretty good at points, though at others it doesn’t.

I was really excited to see that they did an update to Appleseed, which was one of my favorite anime productions back in the day. I was pretty disappointed when I saw that it was crappy CG. Crappy CG is worse than all but the worst animation. Trying and failing miserably (to be realistic, in this case) is way worse than kind of taking something that’s not meant to look real. And attempts to merge the two continue to look odd.

On the other hand, if they can get it to look consistently as good as the above, that would indeed be pretty fantastic. Of course, advances in CG have revealed how silly the physics of regular movies are, and this could have some unfortunate biproducts, too. Indeed, it’s the advances in how CG look that make the movements in Appleseed look so bad.

Anyway, here’s the animated Appleseed:

And the newer one:

A little while ago, Cameron Crowe took some heat for casting Emma Stone in a role for a character with a Vietnamese name. In his (non-apology) apology, he wrote:

Thank you so much for all the impassioned comments regarding the casting of the wonderful Emma Stone in the part of Allison Ng. I have heard your words and your disappointment, and I offer you a heart-felt apology to all who felt this was an odd or misguided casting choice. As far back as 2007, Captain Allison Ng was written to be a super-proud ¼ Hawaiian who was frustrated that, by all outward appearances, she looked nothing like one. A half-Chinese father was meant to show the surprising mix of cultures often prevalent in Hawaii. Extremely proud of her unlikely heritage, she feels personally compelled to over-explain every chance she gets. The character was based on a real-life, red-headed local who did just that.

From the start of this “controversy” I had wondered if this was the case. That the fact that she didn’t look Asian was built in to the character. Since it is, that makes casting a non-Asian actor very appropriate. Which lets Cameron Crowe off the book, at least as far as I am concerned. You could ask “Well, why doesn’t Crowe change the character to match our preferred casting.” Which itself might be reasonable, if the story would be better that way. Maybe so. Haven’t seen it.

This drags us a bit into how frustrating these sorts of conversations almost always are. People point out something that looks like an example of racism or sexism. Defenders say “Hey, sometimes things work out that way.” And sometimes, as in this case, they can actually point to particular circumstances that do justify otherwise awkward casting. Or justify a fifty-seven year old actor with a 20-something female love interest. Or an all-white cast. Or any number of things. Which brings us to Maggie Gyllenhaal:

Maggie Gyllenhaal recently lost a film role because she was apparently “too old” to play the love interest of a 55-year-old man, the 37-year-old actress revealed in a new interview with The Wrap.

“There are things that are really disappointing about being an actress in Hollywood that surprise me all the time,” Gyllenhall said. “I’m 37 and I was told recently I was too old to play the lover of a man who was 55. It was astonishing to me.”

While she declined to identify the project’s name—because Gyllenhall is all class—she said she was eventually able to laugh off the rejection.

“It made me feel bad, and then it made me feel angry, and then it made me laugh.”

It’s hard to assess whether this decision was appropriate to the story or not, without knowing what the story was. There are times when it might indeed be appropriate to cast two characters of differing ages. I mean, it wouldn’t have quite worked if Mrs Robinson had been the same age as Ben Braddock in The Graduate (though, notably, Mrs Robinson is not who the Ben Braddock ended up with). And with any single example, a decision can be justified. It’s when the decisions create a pattern that the complaints take on significance, and even if every single instance can be justified because that’s sometimes how things happen, patterns should not be ignored.

Now, the answer to this could be “That’s just capitalism, baby!” Which is the answer you usually hear when the pattern is pointed out. Or when people complain about the lack of minorities, female leading parts, or whatnot. (It’s certainly something I hear whenever I talk about how TV shows overwhelmingly take place in a handful of places, or Trumwill’s Law.) And depending on the subject, I sometimes believe it’s true (and other times believe it’s mostly a product of the creators being white, male, urbanite, liberal, etc.)

In the case of racial casting, though, and the sexism/ageism thing, it’s not entirely clear to me whether it’s capitalism or not. I mean, I’m inclined to say “Not entirely” on the first and “Mostly” on the second. That’s guessing, and I think the impetus should be on Hollywood to better demonstrate that it’s not actually them because I have a general suspicion. But whether it’s Hollywood or Hollywood pointing a mirror back at the paying public, it is worth talking about and I believe a lot of people are entirely too dismissive.

Priceonomics has an article about the end of the one-hit wonder:

From 2005 to 2010, the fraction of songs by artists that never made the chart again hit an all-time low. It’s important to keep in mind that these numbers are conservative, as several of the bands that generated these possible one-hit wonders could still hypothetically produce another hit someday. In other words, UGK still has a chance to write another “International Players Anthem” and scale the charts again (note: as one reader points out though, this particular chance is extremely unlikely).

This is part-and-parcel of a larger phenomenon that they talk about, which is the increasing conservatism of the radio in general. My favorite story is when a conglomerate purchased a very popular radio station in Colosse that was known for introducing new artists to the nation. They decided that the station would be even more popular if they declined to play any single that hadn’t been on the radio for at least a month. Within a year, they seemed to have changed formats and were playing techno and dance music. But for the same reasons that the radio stations are not keen on playing new music, they’re also less keen on taking a chance on any new artists. Which means that they’re less likely to run across that otherwise mediocre band with that one great song. Or more favorably, it could be described as giving artists with that one hit much more investment, helping to assure that they will have follow-up hits.

It’s an interesting article, and you should read it.

According to the chart of one-hit wonders, the nineties were a watershed year for them. I mean, sure enough if I look through the list there are a lot of songs there that I like. The nineties were the prime of life as far as listening to new music, so of course they would ring familiar. The top song on the list is Duncan Sheik’s “Barely Breathing” which holds a particular sentimental value. Also holding some sentimental value is Deep Blue Something’s “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” Unlike “Barely Breathing” that I like through and through I am relatively indifferent to the song itself, but some time after its release I met Porky, and it informally became our song. Which if you remember the song, is kind of odd because it’s a song about a relationship falling apart and seems about as sincere as a snake.

—

Some of those on the list I was surprised to see, mostly because I remember followups that I thought were as good as the initial release. For instance, after “Sonny Came Home,” Shawn Colvin released “You and the Mona Lisa” which I consider far more memorable. And while I consider “The Freshman” to be the best Verve Pipe song, I thought “Hero” was a pretty solid follow-up.

—

—

When I got Rhapsody in 2004, I actually started listening to some of the CDs of a lot of one-hit wonders from the 90’s. And… well for a lot of them there was a reason that they only had that one hit. This was not news to me. Everybody’s taken a chance on a CD only to discover that either they poured their heart out into the one song, or it was the one song that they didn’t write themselves. One of the biggest surprises, though, was Marcy Playground, whose “Sex and Candy” makes the list towards the bottom. It turned out, they were a band that I liked through-and-through.

—

—

—

Of course, good music stopped coming out around 2011, which coincidentally is when I turned 33:

When you reach 33 years or older, you will stop discovering new music, according to a new online study. New research, based on U.S. Spotify users, concludes that 33 is the average age when people stop listening to new music.

“While teens’ music taste is dominated by incredibly popular music,” the study says, “this proportion drops steadily through peoples’ 20s, before their tastes ‘mature’ in their early 30s.”

The study reports one reason for people’s transition away from popular music:

“First, listeners discover less-familiar music genres that they didn’t hear on FM radio as early teens, from artists with a lower popularity rank. Second, listeners are returning to the music that was popular when they were coming of age — but which has since phased out of popularity.”

The research also suggests that “men and women listen similarly in their teens, but after that, men’s mainstream music listening decreases much faster than it does for women.” While people with children tend to stop listening to new music earlier than their peers.

I actually started stopping well before 33. Mostly. Every now and again I will fire up Pandora and find some new artists. But country, which was one of my staples, started shifting away from what I enjoy. The local music scene – and its general flavor – that fueled a lot of my listening kind of died. Alternative and a lot of pop speaks rather specifically to a phase of life I’ve passed. So the primary use of that genre is to take me back to a different time, and old music does that better because it was there with me. Also, I listen to less music of any stripe.

Another factor that could have hastened the decline of my interest in new music was is the collapse in price for exposure. Which sounds wrong, but near the tail end of the phase of my life where I listened to new music, Rhapsody occurred. And then, suddenly, it was all there. In an alternate timeline, I would have had to buy CDs one at a time and would have had to try new things and give them a chance. Remember when you were young, your resources were limited, and you got that new CD? How you listened to every track? These days, apart from the audiobooks I listen to in lieu of music, I no longer have to listen to a song for long enough to really absorb it. I’m not as invested. In that sense, those who argued against the availability of music may have had more of a point than I realized.

Either that, or really it just all went downhill in 2011.

The first song starts at about 1:19, or click here.

A rockin’ song about living the reckless life:

A somber song about loves lost:

A song about moving on:

One more:

And another video:

If you have any inclination towards country – or at least not allergic – here’s a guy named Terrell Nedrow playing a couple of songs by two great Oklahoma songwriters (Jason Boland and Brandon Jenkins):

Proud Souls is the ultimate “sittin’ alone and feelin’ sorry for yourself” song. If you want a more polished version, you can listen to the original Jason Boland version here, and Cross Canadian Ragweed has a version here.

Finger on the Trigger is another kind of downer of a song, written by Brandon Jenkins and recorded by him and Bleu Edmondson. Whereas Proud Souls is rather general – and applicable to whatever reason you find yourself feeling glum – Finger on the Trigger has more of a narrative. (Sadly, no YouTube for a studio version from Jenkins. Link goes to a performance.

… now the water’s wide and deep and brown, she’s crossing muddy waters”

This is a pretty great rendition of the John Hiatt classic you’ve probably never heard.

The song is from the point of view of someone left – with a child – behind by their significant other, with the implication of suicide as the method of exit. It makes me think of my wife’s uncle, who was left behind with a daughter and a son. The entire Corrigan family is success story after success story, except him. The next generation of Corrigans is similarly positioned to be successful in their endeavors… except the daughter who was left behind. Not that their failures, but they mostly seem to be just getting by. And in his case, oscillating between a fight against and a submission to alcoholism.

Here’s John Hiatt singing the song:

Kavitha Davidson writes about the NFL holding San Diego hostage as they try to extort a football stadium out of the city. The threat, of course, is Los Angeles.

The fight over a new team in Los Angeles shows that teams are incredibly calculated in their strategy of holding their existing cities hostage. The Chargers, Oakland Raiders, and St. Louis Rams are all competing for the chance to move to Los Angeles, or at least publicly threatening to do so to see just how much they can squeeze out of their local governments. And they’re getting a boost from their compadres at other organizations, with various owners stating that football in Los Angeles is a foregone conclusion. “It’s not a matter of ‘if’ now, but ‘when,’ ” Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay told the San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco 49ers chief executive Jed York explained that the franchises’ current cities haven’t made enough of an offer to keep their teams in town. “I think L.A. is much further along than any of the home markets at this point,” he said.

The quirky thing here is that all three teams used to play in Los Angeles, though the Chargers for only one season. The particularly funny thing about the Chargers were the leading voice to keep an NFL team out of Los Angeles the last expansion. They wanted Southern California to themselves. Houston, instead of LA, got the team. There’s a good chance if Houston hadn’t gotten the team they would simply be threatening to move the programs to Houston instead of Los Angeles, but Houston is a bit less threatening in that regard.

What is so ridiculous about this is that the NFL is acting like there is some market force at play here. As though it is some natural state of affair that there be 32 football teams. The threat of Los Angeles only exists because they won’t expand. There really isn’t much doubt that St Louis, Oakland, and San Diego have the fan base to support a team. There’s really no reason that they can’t all have a team, along with Los Angeles and maybe San Antonio, and everybody’s happy. Except, of course, not everybody’s happy, because the billionaires want a new stadium, and would prefer not split the money more ways than they have to (this is where the NFL’s pinko-commie model is a hindrance).

The population has grown, but the number of NFL teams haven’t. There are fewer teams per-capita than there have been since the NFL-AFL merger in 1970. As of a few years ago, when I had a handy spreadsheet, there were between 7-10 cities (depending on things like whether you count San Jose as a new market) that are larger than the five smallest existing markets. Plus, New York could hold a new team (imagine a New York team that actually played in New York!). They could expand to as many as 40 teams and still not be overextended. Expanding by two, or even four, doesn’t strike me as reaching too hard. You wouldn’t even have to go to London.

I’ve actually come around to the notion that it might actually be something less than ridiculous that cities are footing the bill for stadiums for billionaires. I think there is a logic to it, just as there can be a logic to paying off any extortionist. The problem is the extortionist, and that congress let’s them do this and keep their broadcast anti-trust exemption. There is a screw there to be tightened, if they were so inclined.

In other news, the NFL is going to be making the extra point more difficult, by requiring that it be kicked from the 15 yard line. Benjamin Morris of 538 says that it won’t actually be that much harder, while James Brady is citing safety concerns.

Personally, what I don’t like about it is that it removes fakes from the equation, more or less. It basically requires teams to declare whether they will be converting or kicking. Fakes are one of the few interesting things that happen during PAT’s.

What I would personally like to see is a third option. They can kick a PAT from the 15, they can go for a 2-point conversion from the 2-point spot, or they can go for X-points by trying to score from the fifteen. X would need to be determined mathematically, but I’m figuring about four points. It would definitely make things more interesting if a team could score 10 points on a single drive, and we wouldn’t know exactly what they were doing when they line up at the 15.

One of my pet peeves is people who complain that college football is just NFL-lite and then proceed to complain about all of the ways college football is different (no/small playoff, unpaid players, too many teams, teams lose money…). I thought about that when I read the complaints of Tom Cable, a line coach for the Seattle Seahawks:

“I’m not wanting to offend anybody, but college football, offensively, has gotten to be really, really bad fundamentally,” Cable said Tuesday on 710 ESPN Seattle radio. “Unfortunately, I think we’re doing a huge disservice to offensive football players, other than a receiver, that come out of these spread systems.

“The runners aren’t as good. They aren’t taught how to run. The blockers aren’t as good. The quarterbacks aren’t as good. They don’t know how to read coverage and throw progressions. They have no idea.”

As Costa Tsiokas says…

then start an #NFL D-League for players to bypass NCAA || College Spread Offenses Are 'Really Bad Fundamentally' http://t.co/udJ5s6J2e9

— Costa Tsiokos (@CostaHere) May 12, 2015

That teams without the “fundamentals” are winning championships suggest that the “fundamentals” aren’t that fundamental at that level.

College football is not actually there to prepare players for the NFL. The vast majority of players have no NFL career ahead of them. The vast majority of them know it.

On the other hand, a fair number of players are hoping for a shot to play on Sundays. It is entirely possible at some point that those players will start defaulting to programs that will make them more desirable to NFL teams, if those teams start discriminating during the draft.

And it’s not entirely the job of college football coaches to prepare players for the NFL. Or, at least, that job is secondary to actually winning games. And the rise of the spread has occurred as a bottom-up phenomenon, with lower conferences and lower teams in major conferences using it for their competitive advantage. It managed to rise because it was relatively effective, putting programs like Baylor on the map. If other programs need to adapt in order to win games, they’re going to do that. Because one of the reasons for its success is that it has allowed teams with inferior talent to beat teams with superior talent.

For now, at least. There are a lot of fads in offenses that last only as long as it takes for defenses to catch up with them. There used to be the Veer, and then the Run and Shoot, and both of those went down as defenses adapted. Will that happen with the Spread? History suggests it will, but it’s been a while and it hasn’t yet.

So anyway, Costas is correct. If the NFL wants a development program, they need to pay for one. Of course, I would say that, as I’ve been saying for a while that we do need to better differentiate between student athletes and those preparing for a career.

I discovered the Mother Goose Club when looking for some YouTube videos for Lain. Moreso than even with Dora, Lain just lights up when they start and is extremely interactive with them. Interactivity is one of the main things I look for. I recommend it for anyone who has similarly-aged little ones.

They’re well done, and a lot better than a lot of the alternatives, but man do they get stuck in your head. Many are familiar Mothers Goose rhymes, though not all. some are animated, some are kids in costumes signing, and some are adults singing out of costume.

I prefer Fraggle Rock, but it doesn’t animate Lain to the same degree that these songs do.