RE: Thor

A few thoughts of my own:

-I liked it quite a bit myself, not sure exactly where it ranks against the other Marvel Studios films. Ahead of Hulk anyway.

-I was surprised that the movie managed to be funny without being cheesy. I was worried it would slip up in this department, but it managed to not get stupid.

-Ump, what did you think of the costumes? I thought they came out well on screen when they could have looked pretty goofy, but I'm more tolerant of that sort of thing than the average viewer.

-I'd heard it was doing fairly well with women, so it's nice to hear some confirmation of that. I actually thought it needed about two more scenes on Earth to flesh the relationship angle and I wouldn't have minded that at all. Maybe I just wanted more Natalie Portman.

-I think Hemsworth is going to be a star. He seemed to carry the film without any trouble. Also, having good actors makes a huge difference. Anthony Hopkins was great as Odin.

-Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, the guy with the bow, got me psyched for Avengers. I really hope they get him some screen time, which is going to be tough with Iron Man, Cap, and Thor.

-The device at the end was almost certainly the cosmic cube. It gives anyone who holds it the power to turn their thoughts into reality. It's sometimes possessed and often pursued by Captain America villain the Red Skull. I'd be surprised if it didn't show up in Captain America. I also think it's practically guaranteed that Loki and the cube will either be or cause the main threat in Avengers. Loki was the villain in The Avengers #1 way back in 1963.

Thor

Saw it. Good flick. My wife even liked it...it had a love story. She also thought it was pretty funny.

We even stuck around for the crazy end credit scene. I'm getting geeked. Maybe someone could explain their thoughts on what is being talked about at the end credit scene...I don't know comic books as well.

Comic Cover of the Week: Fear Itself #2

Rashard Mendenhall...

...has persuasively made the case for NFL players not being allowed to have Twitter accounts. For example, after tweeting about Bin Laden's death, concerning 9/11 he wrote: "We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style." Sure, he's free to put up whatever he wants, but is that really a good idea? I can't imagine the Steelers front office was thrilled, especially since they released a statement today:

"I have not spoken with Rashard, so it is hard to explain or even comprehend what he meant with his recent Twitter comments. The entire Steelers organization is very proud of the job our military personnel have done and we can only hope this leads to our troops coming home soon."

I don't think it was hard to explain or comprehend, but I guess that's an official statement for you.

What's in a name?

For those of you dealing with naming children, this might be useful: Most Hated Baby Names.

?

So, is 2011 NFL Draft #1 pick Cam Newton going to be a huge bust, or only a minor one?

Comic Cover of the Week: X-Men #10

The Future

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell had an editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that is definitely worth a look. It explains in plain terms what the league will look like if the players win their lawsuits. Short version: No draft, unlimited free agency, no minimum/maximum payroll, no minimum salaries, and no consistency in training camp or substance abuse policies. Does anyone actually believe these things would benefit the league? A major reason the NFL has increased in popularity is because fans believe that any team, even the Lions, has a legitimate chance to be a contender if they play well and make the right personnel moves. The changes described above would blow that away and likely lead to the total destruction of some teams, e.g., Buffalo and Green Bay. Do people understand this?

IX

The New York Times has an article up today accusing many major colleges of deception in reporting numbers of female athletes. A few thoughts:

1. The article reports the "three-pronged test" of Title IX this way:

Universities must demonstrate compliance with Title IX in at least one of three ways: by showing that the number of female athletes is in proportion to overall female enrollment, by demonstrating a history of expanding opportunities for women, or by proving that they are meeting the athletic interests and abilities of their female students.

Problem is, from what I've seen before, in practice the first way is the only way to actually satisfy the requirements of Title IX as decided by the Office of Civil Rights (Think they're ideological at all?). The third would work great if it was actually allowed.

2. Women make up 57% of the college population. You think that puts a strain on a school trying to stay proportional in sports programs?

3. The article takes a shot at football, noting that programs "rarely face cuts." With very few exceptions, to the extent athletic departments are making money, they're making it on football. (I'm sure there's a few men's basketball programs that make money, and maybe the women's at UConn at Tennessee.) Does anyone really think messing with football is going to end up as a plus for female athletes?

What's wrong with wood?

There's an article on ESPN.com from last week about the new metal bats being used in college baseball that I just ran across today. It mentions how MLB scouts love them because power numbers aren't inflated by them the way they were with the old bats. It also notes that the decrease in power is changing strategies and will likely change recruiting. So, if all of these things are good, as the article implies, why didn't they just switch to wooden bats and get rid of metal altogether? Is the danger of broken bats that great?

Comic Cover of the Week: Spectacular Spider-Man #1000

Don't blame the goat.

According to some documents recently acquired by the Chicago History Museum the Chicago Cubs might have thrown the 1918 World Series. So, maybe the curse has to do with cheaters and not a goat? Does that get Bartman off the hook?

Comic Cover of the Week: Deadpool #35

Mobbed

For some reason I've been on a mob kick lately. It started with Goodfellas on Saturday night. It's always been on my list of movies to rent, so I did. Then I watched 12 Angry Men (not necessarily a mob movie, but he does go against a mob of jurors opposing his view). Then I watched Road to Perdition. I own it, but haven't seen it in three years. Of course, bacheloring it right now probably has something to do with it, so I can watch movies with blood and violence again. And some language.

I have until Sunday afternoon, any recommendations? I'm limited to what Videomation might have in their inventory, so if it's a classic, they probably won't have it...like Back to the Future.

Miller Park

It's been a while since I've seen any discussion of ballparks, so I thought I'd link to this review of Miller Park at Right Field. A few things I remember about the trip to Miller Park:

1. The parking lot was large. I do recall many tailgaters.
2. It was probably the nicest weather of any game I've been to.
3. It's the only time I can remember sitting on the left field side.
4. The sausage races weren't quite as entertaining as I'd hoped.

Also, found a pic:

Comic Cover of the Week: Doctor Who Classics: Seventh Doctor #3

Paying College Athletes?

The new sports blog at National Review, Right Field, has an interesting post up about whether college athletes should be paid. There's a number of arguments noted which are mostly familiar, but one was presented that I hadn't heard or thought of previously:

In other words, a significant chunk of top-level FBS programs are losing money. Should those programs be obliged to pay their football and basketball players, even though they aren’t actually producing a net profit? Or should only moneymaking programs be forced to offer player salaries? Would it be “fair” to have a system in which roughly half of all FBS schools paid their players while the other half didn’t? Do we really want blue-chip recruits picking a college based on financial compensation? Wouldn’t the wealthiest programs just scoop up all the best talent?

Meanwhile, would each salaried player on a given team be paid the same amount? If not, who would decide whether the All-American linebacker deserved more money than the All-American wide receiver, or whether the star point guard was more valuable than the star power forward? Would 18-year-olds be negotiating “contracts” with officials in their athletic department? Would they be hiring agents before high-school graduation? And how would all this affect those sports programs that depend on football and basketball revenue to stay afloat?

Can you imagine how much of a mess it would actually be to pay players? What most sports journalists seem to mean when they talk about this is that schools in the FBS should pay their players, possibly major basketball programs too. But how would you end up not paying the women's field hockey team or other equivalent? Can you imagine the mess this would turn into? Granted, that doesn't mean the idea couldn't be considered, but I can't imagine a more unenjoyable drain on college sports than this would surely be.

Liam Neeson

Checked out the movie "Unknown" this weekend. Not sure what it is, but seeing Liam kick tail in every movie just doesn't get old. Speaking of old, he's pushing 60! I don't know what it is, but he's like the cool Chuck Norris. He's way better than Seagal or Van Damme. Again, something attracts me to his movies, maybe it's because he makes me feel I don't have to be young and living in a weight room to know how to handle myself. Or, maybe he can actually act.

Side note: I just looked at his profile on IMDB. He was an uncredited Delta Force member in "The Delta Force" starring...Chuck Norris.

Green Lantern

Stranglehold

Want to see a great example of a reporter trying to be subtly clever in an article? Here's one from the Detroit News about Ted Nugent (emphasis mine): "Rock 'n' roll icon Ted Nugent made the rounds in Lansing on Thursday, meeting with Gov. Rick Snyder and other leaders to make a pitch for loosening regulations he said place a stranglehold on hunters." Nice.

I think Snyder should forget about meeting with Uncle Ted and just appoint him head of the DNR with sole rule-making authority. I'm not sure that's exactly legal, but it ought to be.

Also, video: