Binge Worthy?

With the rise of streaming services, binge watching has become very popular.  And with Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu starting to put out original content, you no longer have to wait an entire week for the next episode.  You can watch an entirely new season in just a few days.  Past seasons are readily available and you can watch a favorite episode from the first season that was four years ago.  All at the touch of a few buttons.  And it's ruining how we watch everything.

We live in a need it now world.  We don't want to wait in line at the store, so we have self checkouts because everyone thinks they can do it themselves better than the cashier.  We have smart phones and can access the Internet, social media, and email any time we want instead of turning on the computer when you get home.  Hell, I even wrote part of this on my phone thanks to an app.  So once streaming services started producing their own content and releasing it all at once, there was no longer a seven day wait for the next episode.  Binge watching a new season became normal.  Sitting down over the course of a weekend to watch all the new episodes is now typical behavior.  I just don't see how people can do that.  I don't understand how they can keep focused for four or five hours at a time to watch a handful of episodes all at once.  To be honest, I have done this once.  When Netflix released 'Wet Hot American Summer:  First Day' we sat down and watched all the episodes.  It's a little different with thirty minute episodes, which is what it was.  And it was funny and you didn't really have to pay attention to small details or conversations.  Just recently, the new season of 'House of Cards' was released and people were on social media talking about the entire season just a few days after it came out.  Full disclosure:  I haven't watched any of that show, so I don't know how intense or detailed it is.  But still, that has to be tough.

There are shows that I want to watch over a two or three day span.  When 'Daredevil' comes out at the end of the month, I might be tempted.  I watched the first season an episode at a time over a few weeks time frame.  Holding onto the old ways of waiting I guess.  What I have found is that I'm good for two new episodes of dramas or shows that are an hour long.  I have trouble keeping focused after two new episodes.  I get thinking about stuff I could be doing other than watching a show.  Plus, it's going to be there the next day.  But again, with a thirty minute comedy, that's different.  Maybe because it is so short, you feel that it's only an hour if you watch two and you still have the drive to watch more.  Right now, I'm in the midst of the second season of 'Arrow'.  It's good, and as I watch the episodes, I want to watch more than two because character development and action sequences are starting to pick up.  But I've tried watching a third episode.  What ends up happening, if I can get through it, is that I forget what happened.  So I end up re-watching the episode.

There is also the fact that after watching television shows for so long the traditional way, you are use to waiting to see what happens.  You are use to having time to digest what has happened.  One of the drawbacks to binge watching is you don't get that downtime to think about what is happening to the characters or what might happen in the next episode.  You get that instant gratification, but the anticipation of the new episode is gone.  Watching shows like '24' and 'The Walking Dead' they leave you reeling with cliff hangers or character injury/death that you have to deal with for an entire week (or more) before you find out what happened.  I mean, how intense was it wondering what happened to Glenn for those two weeks Walking Dead fans?  How long did you mourn President David Palmer, Tony, and Michelle 24 fans?  It was great.  That is the allure of television.  The waiting and the anticipation of the next episode. 

Some years in the future, the not too distant future the way technology develops, we will look at waiting seven days for the next episode as just plain crazy.  Even now, it's starting to become a relic.  With on demand television, you can miss an episode or two and still catch up on it.  You can wait until the weekend and catch up on all the shows you would have to plan your evenings around.  Is it only a matter of time before cable and network channels stop broadcasting new episodes on a weekly basis?  At what point will we start to see whole seasons of sitcoms being released all at once?  It doesn't feel like it's that far away.  When that happens, that might just be the death of the television station.  Or at the very least, the death of the television station as we know it.  It will become something else.  Something new.  And what that is I am interested to see. 

Soccer Takeaway

I got up early this morning to watch a soccer game.  Like super early.  Well, kind of.  6:00 is early to get up and watch a game isn't it?  Over the past couple of years, I have started to take an interest in soccer.  The reason I was up so early is because the team that I have started to root for, Tottenham Hotspurs, was playing against their rivals, Arsenal.  The North London derby is their big rivalry game.  I don't know how I came to like them, I just watched a handful of games and liked the style of play and that's how it came to be.  Living here in the states, you just kind of pick a team and go for it I suppose.  As I was watching the game, I thought of a few things that would make the four major sports better here in the states.  

A running clock is a great thing.  You know that each half is going to be about forty five minutes.  I say about because there is always stoppage time, but it's only ever between one and five minutes.  Including half time, you know that the game will be over in two hours.  Now take a look at sports here in the states.  You have football games that go for three and a half hours.  Baseball is about three hours.  Same goes for hockey.  I'm not sure about basketball because I don't watch it.  I'll guess three hours again.  And with the exception of hockey, the pace of play is slow.  Hockey is always moving, and the rest of the sports have periods of slow to no action.  Obviously there is no clock in baseball, but they have been toying with a pitch clock as well as keeping batters in the batter's box to speed things along.  I love baseball, so I don't notice the slow pace, but apparently that is a common complaint.  The games are no longer than football games.  A running clock in the slower sports like football and basketball would be great.  I know that there are substitutions, but you can do that without stopping play.  Look at hockey.  Line changes happen on the fly and basketball could do that.  There's enough time in between plays in football where guys can run off the field.  Maybe at a certain point in the game, if the score differential is so large, you just don't stop the clock. 

A great example of a running clock scenario:  I just stopped on ESPN and West Virginia and Baylor are playing right now.  There's 1:06 left in the game, West Virginia is up by 12.  They have stopped play to review if the ball went out of bounds and who touched it last.  This game is already over.  Teams can't score twelve points in a minute.  Let the clock run, if a team is up by fifteen or more with five minutes left in the game.  Baylor is continually fouling West Virginia players so they have to shoot free throws and Baylor will get the ball back.  Another option is if a team is down by fifteen and continually fouls the other team to get the ball back, the team that is winning gets to keep the ball after shooting the free throws.  The game has now ended and that last 1:06 of play time lasted about six minutes.  It shouldn't take that long.  That is the glory of the running clock.  

Relegation is wonderful.  Instead of having every team at the same level, you have two leagues and two championships.  Although, would it be a good thing to be the best of the worse league?  I'm not sure, but at least you've won something?  You have division one which has the best teams and division two which has teams that are not as good.  At the end of each year, the worst teams from the top division are relegated to the lesser division and the best of the worst are transferred up.  Make sense?  That's the basic concept of it.  I think that one thing that it would help is teams wouldn't tank as often.  You see teams tanking to get higher draft picks, but if you are trying not to get relegated to the lower division, you would have something to play for.  The teams that are in the lower division would then get higher draft picks and could continue to develop their team and talent.  All the while, the top teams could continue to win and keep their fans happy.  Think about how boring it is to watch the best teams continue to beat up on the worst teams because they are in the same division.  Now, imagine if just the best of the best of your favorite sport played each other more each year.  The competition would be better.  The games would be more exciting.  It's not really fun to watch a weekend baseball series when a team playing for the playoffs goes up against a team that was out of contention at the end of July.  Relegation would make games more meaningful throughout the course of the season, not just once or twice because the team in second place comes into town against the top team and it's the last series of the regular season.  Professional athletes are egotistical, and I doubt anyone would want to be relegated to a lesser league.  

Those are just two thoughts I had while watching the game today.  It would add some intrigue to our favorite sports.  The sports that have hit a rut and from time to time, as much as we love them, can bore us.  I don't even watch basketball and even I know that the Golden State Warriors have a 98% chance of winning the NBA championship.  We all know that in the NFL, the Super Bowl is going to come down to about three or four teams.  Baseball is the same.  The Royals, the Nationals, the Giants are all safe bets when it comes to the World Series.  Hockey is a little bit more of a crap shoot, but you can't go wrong thinking the Blackhawks, Capitals, or Rangers have the best chance of winning the Stanley Cup.  I know that pace of play is a big topic among fans of sports right now, but one could make an argument that talent and competition are an even bigger topic that should be explored.  Another topic for another day is contracting teams to make the sport better.  But that's a whole other post. 

Reasons for Ratings

Comic book movies are all the rage right now.  After they worked out the kinks that were 'Daredevil', 'The Punisher', 'X3', and 'Spider Man 3', the movie studios got the right actors, the right directors, and the right screenplay writers.  The 'Avengers' universe has a film timeline that goes into 2020 I believe.  All the different movies will tie together.  It's a great way to get people into the movie theaters.  Even the 'X-Men' franchise is set up to go on for a while.  Which, to be honest, I'm more excited about than the other movies.  Mainly because it's not going to branch into a hundred other movie spin offs.  Then there's 'Deadpool'.  The actual comics are hilarious and graphic from what I'm told.  There is more swearing, more blood, and more well....everything.  It's everything that other comics aren't.  It's more adult.  And they made a movie recently.  And of course it's rated R because they wanted to be true to the comics.  And of course younger people wanted to see it because it's a comic book movie.  Even my eleven year old nephew said he wanted to see it.  We told my sister that it's an adult comic book movie.  Not that she wouldn't have checked it out before because she's insanely responsible when it comes to her kids.  

My wife and I went to see 'Deadpool'.  Ryan Reynolds is hilarious and is the perfect actor for the part.  One thing we were excited about was the fact that it was rated 'R' so we knew there wasn't going to be a bunch of annoying kids in the theater.  Well, you wouldn't think so because reasonable adults wouldn't bring their kids to see a movie that was made for adults.  And there weren't any kids in our particular theater.  There was a small group of teenagers that looked like they were in high school.  And they were all decked out in 'Deadpool' clothes so they knew what was going to be on screen.  It was funny.  There were just a ton of pop culture references.  He breaks the fourth wall which was amazing.  There was plenty of action.  And a set up for sequels!  

However, I have seen several posts on social media blasting parents that had brought younger (I'm talking eight to ten) kids to the movie and storming out.  They were expecting a typical comic book movie.  Some explosions, violence, or maybe the word damn or hell, maybe even shit.  I saw one, and I'm paraphrasing here, that said 'I wish I had known Deadpool was going to be an adult movie.  The theater should post something by the ticket counter!'  To which someone responded 'oh, you mean like the 'R' rating it has?'.  It was pretty funny.  

If, IF, you do decide to bring a teenager to this movie, be prepared to deal with, and maybe have to explain, the following:

• teabagging
• a montage of sex scenes spanning several holidays (seriously, it goes on for like five minutes)
• masturbation scenes
• strip clubs
• tons of swearing
• why he references the book 'Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret' when he gets his hand cut off and blood splatters EVERYWHERE.  Actually, that could be a good jumping off point for you and your daughter(s) to have that talk....(sorry/not sorry)

and those are just the things that I remember seeing and thinking 'I wouldn't want my kid to see until they're in high school.'.  We were talking about it after we left the theater and were driving home, and thought that if you had a kid that was a sophomore or junior in high school, they could deal with everything that was in the movie.  Younger than that, and you are on that bad parenting fence where some would shame you for taking a kid to see it.  

But what do I know?  I don't have any kids.  Do whatever the fuck you want.  Scar your kids, I don't care.  But be ready to discuss things you might not be comfortable discussing at this particular time.  I mean, if I watch a movie with my parents and there's a sex scene, I still get uncomfortable.  And I'm in my mid-30s.  Imagine sitting next to your dad and there's like a five minute montage of all these different sex acts and positions.  Uncomfortable yet? 

Mishmash

One thing that is the worst is knowing that you have ideas to write, but can't come up with enough content to make a full on post.  Every time I start to write, I get a few paragraphs on, run out of coherent thoughts, and it just sits in the drafts pile until I get frustrated and delete the whole thing.  Well, NO MORE!  For I have decided to just throw a few of them together and make a mishmash of a post.  Here are a few random topics that I started and never finished.

Pete Rose bet on baseball.  Betting on baseball is illegal if you play.  He was banned for life.  Every once in a while, he petitions the commissioner to reinstate him.  Each of them refuse to let him in.  Because of his gambling, Pete Rose is kept out of the hall of fame.  But does he deserve consideration?  Technically the baseball hall of fame is not run or owned by MLB and he was only banned by the MLB.  So he could get in if the veteran's committee voted him in.  Which I don't think they'll ever do.  Fox drags him out occasionally for televised events, but I think he is terrible at analysis.  Just like with any player that tests positive for PEDs, I think Pete Rose should be left out of the hall of fame.  I know he didn't cheat, but he broke the rules and got caught.  If, IF, they ever let him in, and his plaque doesn't have an asterisk explaining why he was banned, that would be a total disgrace.

--

My goals for this year are going okay so far.  I have finished two books and am halfway through another one.  It's now the end of February so I think I am on track for my ten books.  I have eight books lined up for the rest of the year.  I got some for Christmas, some I bought with money from my birthday.  They are three comics (Daredevil collections),  a three fantasy books, a sports book, and a Stephen King short story collection.  As far as music, I have a few new albums.  I bought Adele's '25' for my wife for Christmas.  I put it on the computer for her and have it on my phone now.  It's a very good album, very enjoyable.  Sad music, not surprisingly, but it's so good.  I also bought Kendrick Lamar's 'To Pimp a Butterfly'.  It's good.  So good.  So, so good.  It covers subjects I have little to no insight on, so it's really outside my comfort zone.  But that's what I wanted to do.  I wanted to find new music.

--
 
The outdoor NHL game has lost it's allure.  I think the main reason is because they have saturated the market.  When they first started doing the outdoor game, it was once a year.  On New Year's Day.  It was fun and exciting because it was just that one time a year.  Now, they have the Stadium Series in which they have a few more games.  The two they had this year had teams I have some interest in:  Minnesota and Detroit.  Minnesota because this is where we live now, and Detroit because that's where we're from.  The Detroit/Colorado game was good.  It was close until the very end.  The Minnesota/Chicago game was not.  Surprisingly, Minnesota thumped Chicago.  As fun as it was to see the teams I wanted to win, win, there just wasn't the same buzz as there was when it was only one game a year.  Part of it, I think, is because the fans are so far away.  Seriously, the ice is in the middle of a baseball stadium and the fans are so far removed from the game that it takes away.  We all know the sound of drunk fans slamming the glass and that was one thing that was missing.  

--

I spent my birthday lazing around do a whole lot of nothing.  Just how I wanted it.  I watched the 'Star Wars' trilogy, went out for lunch and a beer, came back home and cooked dinner.  Usually we go out, but my wife worked late and we ended up going out a few nights later.  As an adult, I never really wanted to have big birthday parties for myself nor did I want a big party thrown for me.  We had a friend who threw a surprise birthday party for his wife when we were living down in Wichita, and she was so surprised and it was fun.  I told my wife that if she ever did that, I would turn around and walk out and go home.  That's just not my thing.  I'm all for a good party, but I don't want it to be all about me.  That's not who I am. 




So there you have four posts crammed into one because I couldn't come up with enough content.  And hey, it's February 29th.  LEAP DAY!  I always thought that it would be cool to have a birthday on the 29th.  Would you celebrate it on the 28th or the 1st on non Leap Years?

Rivalries Needed. Apply Within.

One thing that seems to be missing in most sports right now is rivalries.  Not just rivalries, but heated rivalries.  Rivalries filled with so much hate and anger that it carries over from one game to the next, one season to the next.  Heated rivalries makes the stadium or arena buzz with both excitement and anxiety.  Each play can add to the hatred. 

The last GREAT heated rivalry that lasted for years has to be the Red Wings and Avalanche.  Each time the teams took the ice after Claude Lemieux boarded Kris Draper, you never knew what was going to happen.  It had everything.  Players calling each other out in the media.  Full on brawls.  Goalie fights.  GOALIE FIGHTS!  At center ice.  It made you hate another team.  It made them the enemy.  It was the game you could circle on the schedule and look forward to an intense game.  Sure, the fights took away from the game itself, but if you could get players like Peter Forsberg and Igor Larionov to drop the gloves, you know it was a hatred that was on the next level.  

It's nice to have a respectable rivalry like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, but there's no real drama that stems from the rivalry.  They shake hands at the end, say good game, and go to the locker room.  How much better would it be if one of them stepped up to the microphone and said 'I hate that guy' or 'I hate that team because they play dirty.'  It is nice to have rivalries where each team holds the other in high regard, it shows that the players are human after all and not just there for our entertainment.  But wouldn't it be nice to have Brady say something like 'look at the head to head record, not much of a rivalry if you ask me.'? 

You see heated rivalries pop up every now and then.  Think Pistons/Pacers after the Malice at the Palace.  The hatred was there but wasn't sustained.  The rivalry lasted all of two season (I'm guessing, I'm not big into basketball).  So why wasn't this a big a rivalry as Wings/Avalanche?  One thing that sustains rivalries is players and success.  If you have the same players on the teams, they learn to hate each other.  If you have players traded or they sign with another team, part of the rivalry goes with them.  If Lemieux has been traded away or retired the same year he boarded Draper, would the rivalry been as angry as it was?  I don't think so.  If you take an element like hatred out, you might have an overall rivalry because the two teams are at or near the top of the sport, but it won't be as angry a rivalry if you keep a hated player on the roster.  You wouldn't have an enemy, you would just have competition.  

If you have two teams that go in different directions and one is successful while the other team struggles, it never seems to be much of a rivalry.  If you have a team that is doing poorly and they start to get physical with another team that is doing well, the bad team is seen as goonish.  Like they are trying to hurt the other team's players because they are succeeding.  However, if you have the two teams that are playing at a higher level, or I suppose if both teams are struggling, and they play with hatred it's seen as okay because they both risk the same thing.   

The era that sports are in right now lends to the rivalry decline.  Players, no matter what sport, sign with or get traded to, any team.  You don't see a player saying that they would retire rather than play for a team that they considered a life time rival.  The reason Jackie Robinson retired a Dodger is because he wouldn't play for the Giants (then the New York Giants) because he played for the Brooklyn Dodgers.  Or so the legend goes.  With players going to several different teams throughout their playing careers, they start to make more friends.  So when they end up on a rival team, are they going to brush the batter back off the plate?  No.  Are they going to take them harder into the corner once they passed the puck?  No.  That's because, even if they are on a traditionally rival team, they still know and might even like the guy that is their 'rival'.

Reading back on the Ruben Tejada/Chase Utley incident during last year's playoffs makes my point that heated rivalries are fading fast.  Chase Utley BROKE THE DUDE'S LEG on a dirty slide to break up a double play.  And here's a few quotes I'm pulling from an ESPN article.

"That's not a slide. That's a tackle."  Michael Cuddyer, Mets outfielder

"We're losing our starting shortstop now for the rest of the playoffs.  He's got a broken fibula. It cost us potentially this game. And we don't have anything to show for it."  Kelly Johnson, Mets second baseman

After the Wings/Avalanche series in which Draper was injured was over, Dino Ciccarelli famously said 'I can't believe I had to shake that guy's (Lemieux) hand.  That pisses me off.'  You know what's missing from the Mets players' quotes?  Anger.  Animosity.  Hatred.  I couldn't find a quote from a Mets player after that game about any sort of retaliation.  I found some slightly veiled comments from the manager and the next game's starting pitcher.    I'm not calling for injuring another player, what I'm looking at is that if this is going to be a rivalry, how are Tejada's teammates not outwardly angry?  Is it because they haven't player with Tejada for a number of years?  Is it because the Mets/Dodgers aren't much of a rivalry because they are on opposite sides of the country and for a long time the Mets have struggled to win 70 games a season?  Perhaps a mixture of those elements.  But when you have guys coming and going on teams, you don't have the history against an opponent.  And that is the one thing that makes rivalries have less of an edge to them.