Welcome to Bobby V's Fake Stache, a blog about sports, movies, TV, and other pop culture! We feature the Gibbons & Cote in the Evening podcast, as well as fairly frequent updates on the world of sports & entertainment.
As I finished having breakfast with my family after opening presents on Christmas morning, I realized that there were only 45 minutes left before the tip-off of the NBA season. I rushed through a shower, threw on some clothes, and hurried downstairs just in time to catch the Knicks and Celtics open the 2011-12 season. And boy am I glad that I didn't miss a second of the game.
It was an instant classic between two teams that genuinely seem to dislike each other, and that made the match-up even more intriguing than I was expecting. The game was chippy from the start, and stayed that way until the end, when after missing the potential game-tying jumper, Kevin Garnett (who even Celtics fans think is a somewhat dirty player) and Homeless Bill Walker (I call him Homeless because he looks and plays like someone who has been sleeping on the street) got into a scuffle. Homeless, a former Celtic, exchanged some words with KG, who proceeded to grab him by the throat. The incident was brief, but it summed up the game very well: it was a hard-fought battle that the Knicks eventually won.
Gibbons & Cote in the Evening is back for our last joint show before the Christmas holiday! In this episode, we preview all of the BCS games, as well as a few other bowl games that piqued our interest. It's pretty contentious, since I think we disagreed on all but one pick. Also, if you're interested, we talk a little bit of English football at the end, and preview the end of the world. Happy holidays!!
Generally, I don't follow the NFL as much as I do MLB or the NBA. Professional football begins to pique my interest once the playoff push starts in earnest, and the weather begins to get worse. For some reason, football just doesn't appeal to me as much when it's not freezing cold and snowy outside, but that time is rapidly approaching. The playoff picture is beginning to be sorted out, but there are still a lot of teams in contention for the final few spots in each league. This weekend features multiple big games between serious playoff contenders that may decide who gets in and who is left out once the regular season ends. So, now that the NFL has begun to attract my attention, I figured I might as well make some picks this week. My picks are in bold, and to make it more fun, I picked against the spreads (courtesy of Yahoo).
On our second edition of the Gibbons & Cote in the Evening blurbcast, we break down the Giants/Cowboys game from this past weekend and preview the upcoming Broncos/Patriots matchup. We talk about the Pats' chances of stopping the man, the myth, the legend, the Tebow, as well as discussing the playoff hopes for the two teams atop the NFC East. Take a listen!
Welcome back to another episode of Gibbons & Cote in the Evening. Tonight our guest is friend of the pod and Bobby V's Fake Stache NBA 'expert' Brian O'Connor. We talk all things NBA, including the CP3 trade nonsense, Dwight Howard's possible landing spots, and the absurdity of Mikhail Prokhorov. We also preview every NBA team (unless you are from Toronto, sorry Raps fans), so check us out on Spreaker if you are craving some basketball talk!
Wow… I can’t say that I saw this coming. It is now official that the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim have signed Albert Pujols for 10 years and a staggering $254 million dollars. Even with numerous rumors swirling that the Miami Marlins were courting the slugger, I (naively) assumed that Pujols and the Cardinals would ultimately hash out a deal. Pujols on the Cardinals always seemed right. Pujols is a truly transcendent baseball player and the passionate St. Louis fans are knowledgeable enough to recognize and appreciate this. I originally wanted to write this column about how loyalty in sports has disintegrated, but I will avoid that at risk of sounding like an old, out of touch curmudgeon. A quarter of a BILLION dollars is a lot of money for anybody to turn down. Instead, I think it is more interesting to examine what Albert Pujols has to accomplish over the next ten years to be “remembered” as an Angel. Pujols has spent the past 11 years establishing a legacy with the Cardinals. It will take a lot to replace these memories.
Over here at Bobby V's Fake Stache, we always try to deliver the newest ideas to our followers. Our newest innovation is the blurbcast, a mini podcast in which we discuss one particular topic. Our inaugural edition of the blurbcast focuses on the one and only Tim Tebow. Listen in to hear our thoughts on the most polarizing athlete in the NFL in a quick audio clip!
As I was driving to Saddle River, NJ from my apartment in Brighton, MA, news broke that elite point guard Chris Paul would be traded from the New Orleans Hornets to the Los Angeles Lakers for a package that included Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol. The Hornets would then spin off Gasol to the Houston Rockets for Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Goran Dragic, and possibly draft picks. When I originally heard the news, I was conflicted emotionally; I am a proud New York Knickerbockers fan and Paul was supposed to be the final piece in New York's very own 'Big Three'. However, I have nothing against the Lakers (I love watching Kobe play) and the trade seemed pretty fair to me, as the Hornets gave up one great player for four pretty good players. I liked the deal for all sides, but apparently the NBA, through commissioner David Stern, did not feel the same way. The trade was vetoed by the league (which is totally in their power to do, both as the governing body of the sport and as the de-facto owner of the bankrupt Hornets) late in the evening, and I was flabbergasted. I heard all day about how the deal was basically already done, and all of a sudden it was no more. I didn't understand the reasoning at the time, and I still don't.
Apparently, Stern was swayed by the protests of many small-market owners who did not want Paul going to a big media market to help the Lakers continue their historical dominance of the Western Conference. The most vocal owner opposing this deal was Cleveland Cavaliers boss Dan Gilbert, who sent this email to the league office regarding the deal. Please take the time to read the email, because I'm sure it'll make you as angry as it made me. First of all, Mr. Gilbert should really stop sending out strongly worded letters/emails; they make him look a like a jerk (which he probably is). Second, he had no right to try and block the trade, as Commissioner Stern expressly stated that Hornets' GM Dell Demps had the full power a normal GM has and could trade as he saw fit to help the franchise. That's exactly what Demps did: he got a good deal for a star that was guaranteed to walk away for nothing at the end of the season. He also helped avoid his own version of the 'Melo-Drama' that really hurt Denver's chemistry for half of the season last year. By all accounts, Demps made the right move to help his struggling franchise stay competitive. Finally, Gilbert's question at the end of the email was absolutely outrageous. He said, "When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?" I find this quote ridiculously stupid for many reasons. Just because stars are choosing to play in larger markets than Cleveland and New Orleans, it doesn't mean that the other "25" teams have no shot to compete for a title. The Heat's Big Three lost the title last season, and the small-market Memphis Grizzlies & Oklahoma City Thunder each had a great shot at representing the West in the NBA Finals. I also dislike the connotation that the Washington Generals comment implies: the NBA is rigged. With the massive Tim Donaghy scandal already hurting the NBA's credibility in the fairness department, the league doesn't need any more observers thinking the results are fixed.
Through listening to Gilbert and the other small-market owners, David Stern and the NBA made a big mistake by not allowing this trade to go through. Let me explain. Chris Paul is GONE at the end of the year, no matter what happens with the Hornets this season. He does not want to play in a small market, and I don't blame him. He has the right to opt out of his contract, and should be able to choose where he wants to play. Since free agency was won by MLB players in 1975, after breaking the reserve clause system (which was almost like indentured servitude), players in all American sports have had the right to move freely between teams and cities when their contractual obligations were satisfied. Paul's contractual obligations will be satisfied at the end of the season, and he will leave. By not allowing the Hornets management to make a trade that betters their team and sends Paul somewhere he would like to go, the NBA is toeing a fine line. If Paul brings suit, as he is strongly considering doing, the NBA's anti-trust exemption and the brand-new collective bargaining agreement are up for challenge and could be eliminated. The NBA does not want this, and I think they should have known that their actions would lead to something like this.
The NBA has also irreparably harmed the future of basketball in New Orleans. The team was already bankrupt and owned by the league (a huge conflict of interest, by the way) and buyers weren't exactly lining up to purchase the franchise. The NBA is continuing to say that buyers will not be interested in the Hornets without Chris Paul. I agree. Unfortunately for the league and the Hornets, that will be the reality at the end of the season. Trading Paul for the best possible package of assets, both players and picks, would be the only way to salvage any hope of a buyer making an offer and keeping the team in New Orleans. This was not allowed to happen. At first, Stern said that the deal was vetoed because of basketball reasons, but now he is changing course and saying that it hurts the 'value' of the Hornets. I'm sorry, but the Hornets have no value; they are a team that is perennially mediocre with Chris Paul and would be much worse if he left for nothing. Nobody is jumping at the chance to own a team that consistently loses money in a market with few available corporate sponsors and fans that are unable to afford the skyrocketing ticket prices that would be required to break even. By vetoing this trade offer, which was fair and probably the best package that the Hornets could hope for, Stern has set a dangerous precedent. Now he will not be able to accept a deal in the future for Paul without making the league look like a rigged game. This means that Paul is going to walk away at the end of the season and sign with whatever team he chooses, leaving the Hornets with nothing in return. I think this will effectively kill basketball in New Orleans, whether it leads to an owner buying the team on the cheap and moving them to a more profitable location, or the outright contraction of the Hornets.
As bad as this situation is for the Hornets, Lakers, Rockets, and the NBA as a whole, I am ecstatic as a Knicks fan. Chris Paul's number one destination has always been my favorite team, but the Knicks have no one to trade for him. By not allowing the Hornets to trade Paul, the league gave the Knicks another chance at him through free agency. And I can't wait to see what happens.
This past weekend I saw The Muppets in theaters and it was fantastic. As a big fan of the muppets, I had high expectations for the movie, and it did not disappoint. I plan on writing a full review of the film in a future post.
One of the high points of the movie features the whole cast singing one of my favorite songs “The Rainbow Connection.” The original Muppet Movie, back in 1979, opens with Kermit the Frog, sitting on a log, playing the banjo and singing this beautiful song. Many of you may be familiar with the song, but are unaware of just how brilliant it really is. It’s a catchy song and “the lovers, the dreamers and me” is a very memorable line, but what is the rainbow connection?
I must preface this post by saying The Rainbow Connection is kind of an emotional song for me. I’m not sure why, but something about it chokes me up. Maybe it’s a lot of nostalgia, as The Muppet Movie has always been one of my favorite films. I remember a photo of myself, probably about five years old, reading what I think is the booklet from inside the Muppet Movie VHS which I had just gotten for Christmas. Now seventeen years later, a muppets calendar hangs above my desk as I write this. As so much has changed in my life, the things that stay the same become all the more powerful. And as I grow, the song takes on new meaning. It’s far too deep for any five year old to understand.
Let’s focus on the lyrics:
Why are there so many songs about rainbows
And what's on the other side
Rainbow's are visions, but only illusions
And rainbows have nothing to hide
So we've been told and some chose to believe it
But I know they're wrong wait and see
Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection
The lovers, the dreamers and me
Who said that every wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that and someone believed it
And look what it's done so far
What's so amazing that keeps us star gazing
What so we think we might see
Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection
The lovers, the dreamers and me
All of us under its spell, we know that it’s probably magic
Have you been half asleep and have you heard voices
I've heard them calling my name
Are these the sweet sounds that called the young sailors
I think they're one and the same
I've heard it too many times to ignore it
There's something that I'm supposed to be
Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection
The lovers, the dreamers and me
It’s profound.
The first two lines ask: who cares about rainbows? Why should we care about rainbows? “The other side” represents the unknown. If rainbows are only illusions, what do they matter? The first couple lines sound as if the singer is disparaging interest in the rainbow, but he turns it all around with “I know they’re wrong, wait and see.” We’ve been told that rainbows are just illusions, and while most people accept it as common knowledge, the singer does not. It’s a powerful profession of faith with no facts to support it. Emotion can’t be rooted in fact, why does belief have to be rooted in fact? But the final discovery has yet to be made (“someday we’ll find it”).
The next stanza asks: how did the belief in wishing upon stars begin? I think wishing on stars here is a metaphor for prayer, religion, superstition, or any other acts of putting faith in the supernatural. “Somebody thought of it and someone believed it” shows that its inception needed only one personcreating and one personfollowing, showing the simplicity of faith in the supernatural. The next line “and look what it’s done so far” is brilliant because it’s completely open ended. While religions have caused wars, pain and discrimination, belief in a God continues to bring healing, meaning and hope to the lives of people all over the world. Again, we haven’t found it yet, but someday we will. We’re all under its spell, it’s probably magic. It’s not real, but it’s probably something far, far greater and more powerful than that.
The final stanza is about finding and answering your personal calling. While the lyrics talk about hearing voices calling your name, it has to be a metaphor for something calling you in life. The sweet sound calling the young sailors creates an image of sailors, slowly navigating open waters, following a sound that invites them.
I think the next two lines finally explain what the rainbow connection is: “I’ve heard it too many times to ignore it. It’s something that I’m supposed to be.” The rainbow connection is your calling in life, what your existence is supposed to be all about. What is your purpose? Why do you exist? I don’t know. Nobody knows, really, but we have to keep searching for it and someday we’ll find it. Someday we’ll find it, the rainbow connection, the lovers, the dreamers, and me.
The lovers are people who think with their heart. The dreamers are people who think with their mind. This leaves the singer (me) somewhere in between, not categorized. In order to find your life’s meaning, you must combine the two: emotion and intellect.
I just want to remind those of you who are still reading that this is the opening of The Muppet Movie! We’re talking about a song sung by a puppet frog playing the banjo. But it’s incredibly profound. The end of the movie supports the meaning of The Rainbow Connection, as well. *Spoiler Alert* Just when the Muppets finally achieve their goal of making it to Hollywood and filming their movie, everything falls apart. Disaster strikes the set and almost all the equipment and scenery are destroyed, when a rainbow emerges from the sky. In the last lines of the song, the muppets sing:
Life’s like a movie, write your own ending,
Keep believing, Keep Pretending,
We’ve done just what we set out to do.
Thanks to the lovers, the dreamers and you.
Keep searching for your rainbow connection. The Rainbow Connection is a song about hope. There is hope that there really is a calling for each of us, a reason why we are here. It’s a song about faith. We have to have faith that there is a greater reason for our existence, though there is little fact to support it. Thinking back to the photo of five year old Matthew reading the VHS booklet (studying and analyzing the lyrics to this song, I’m sure), there’s no way he knew what that this song was about. All he knew was a singing frog playing the banjo made him happy. Since then, I’ve only grown older and smarter (I intentionally didn't use "wiser"). If ignorance is bliss, then knowledge must mean unhappiness, and as I’ve gotten older, I’ve certainly gotten more cynical and skeptical. At times, I find it hard to believe in a greater reason for my existence. Logic and reason do nothing to support its existence. But this song gives hope. Someday we’ll find it. Not today, probably not tomorrow, but someday. It’s a lot more powerful than just a singing frog playing the banjo and it makes me happy, too.
Oklahoma St. fans celebrating their berth in the BCS Championship...oh wait...
Gibbons & Cote in the Evening is back! For our first of (hopefully) many December podcasts, we talk MLB hot stove, conference championship weekend in college football, and the return of the National Basketball Association. And of course, we analyze Bobby V's move to the Red Sox, as well as his claim to have invented something we all know and love. Listen to us on Spreaker!
I've been writing a lot of sports-related articles recently, and I wanted to go in a different direction with this post. Movie of the Week will be a recurring column that rotates writers and will span all genres. This week, in the inaugural edition of the MotW, I ventured into my favorite film genre: action movies. So, without further adieu, here's my take on Collateral Damage, a 2002 Arnold Schwarzenegger flick.
Until today, I had never seen Collateral Damage in its entirety. I'm a huge fan of action movies of all sorts, as those of you who know me can attest, but this movie was pretty underwhelming. Ahnold is a great action movie actor, partially because he is such a poor actor in general, and generally mediocre acting is (at least for me) an action movie staple. But the Governator (who actually didn't become Governor of Cal-ee-four-nyeah until a year later, in 2003) seemed disinterested and aloof in his portrayal of firefighter/hero Gordy Brewer. Campy acting is good in action flicks, but this was more in the category of careless acting, which is never a good thing. The rest of the cast is similarly lacking in ability, and don't really convince as their fairly cliched character archetypes. John Leguizamo plays an annoying Latino stereotype, who thankfully is dispatched via headshot about halfway through the film. The main bad guy, a Colombian terrorist named the Wolf, is lacking in inspiration and really doesn't make me feel any emotions about him whatsoever. I love action movie villains in the vein of Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) from Die Hard or Russian terrorist Ivan Korshunov (Gary Oldman) of Air Force One. Those characters, and their fantastic portrayals, elicited a reaction from me, whether it was 'Oh man, that guy is such a badass' or 'He is really an evil dude', but the Wolf just made me tune out when he was on screen.
This guy sucks.
Enough about the acting, though. Nobody (in their right mind) watches an action movie like Collateral Damage solely for the acting ability of the people involved; we watch for the explosions, gunfights, and epic set pieces that are the cornerstones of any good blockbuster action movie. The movie delivers on some of these aspects, but flops spectacularly in others. There are very few large action scenes in this movie, and they are pretty overdone with explosions and unimpressive special effects, but not in a good way. There are movies that overdo the special effects to campy levels (e.g. The Expendables), which I love, but Collateral Damage seems to take itself too seriously. Many of the scenes involving any sort of excitement are smaller, one-on-one type of fights or hit-and-run terrorist attacks, which aren't always well-done. Arnold carries the fight scenes by (as usual) defeating fairly overwhelming odds, and literally biting a man's ear clean off his head, a Mike Tyson patented move. The violence is very tame for an R rated film (I really have no idea why it's not PG-13), but I think much of that is due to the subject matter of the movie and the fact that the film was slated to come out less than a month after 9/11. The release was pushed back until February 2002, so I'm sure they cut out some particularly eerie scenes (like the one where Sofia Vergara is supposed to hijack a plane) to make it more palatable for audiences. I don't fault the studio for doing what they had to do, but the movie suffers as a result.
The action is really only a symptom of a larger problem: the plot of this movie is ill-conceived and honestly quite poorly explained. There is minimal backstory given to any of the characters, other than the requisite 'Ahnold watched his wife & kid blow up so now he's mad' opening scene. The terrorist's main motivation is really not fleshed out, so whenever he is on screen he seems more like the director's 'deus-ex machina' tool to serve as a barrier for Ahnold than as a separate and distinct character on his own. The idea that a Colombian narco-terrorist is bringing the war against drugs to the good ole' US of A is a decent starting point for a movie, but there needs to be some kind of extra level built on top to make the film a successful one. Collateral Damage just seemed to me like a house that had a solid foundation, but was completed with cardboard and boring personalities. The movie lacks in a key dramatic aspect of the action movie: the constant building of intrigue and intensity. There are definitely scenes where the director tries to build this necessary drama, but he fails time and time again to do anything of the sort. What results is a film that is severely wanting in story and utterly flounders when it comes to keeping the audience involved and on the edge of their collective seats. And isn't that what action movies are really for?
