Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Your failure to mention Leonard Nimoy's portrayal of Spock in the most famous scene in Star Trek lore is unforgivable, especially since you felt the need to mention Kirstie Alley. You're dead to me.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
y'know..............................timschochientologist would explain a lotYour failure to mention Leonard Nimoy's portrayal of Spock in the most famous scene in Star Trek lore is unforgivable, especially since you felt the need to mention Kirstie Alley. You're dead to me.
timschochet
Footballguy
42. My Favorite Year (1982)
Directed by: Richard Benjamin
Starring: Peter O'Toole, Mark Linn-Baker, Jessica Harper
This movie is on this list for one reason: Peter O'Toole. As Alan Swann (loosely based on Errol Flynn, just as Mark Linn Baker's character is based on Mel Brooks and the TV show in question heavily based on The Sid Caesar Show), O'Toole is the ultimate in debonair, yet at the same time drunk, offensive and hilarious. This is one of the greatest characters, for me, in film history, and one of the finest comic performances.
Some of the scenes in this movie have to rank up there with the funniest I have ever watched, particularly the Brooklyn dinner. ("What's this dish?" "Pork and beans!" "Where's the pork?" "You can't! They're Jews!") Well worth watching (again and again.)
Up next: The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.
Directed by: Richard Benjamin
Starring: Peter O'Toole, Mark Linn-Baker, Jessica Harper
This movie is on this list for one reason: Peter O'Toole. As Alan Swann (loosely based on Errol Flynn, just as Mark Linn Baker's character is based on Mel Brooks and the TV show in question heavily based on The Sid Caesar Show), O'Toole is the ultimate in debonair, yet at the same time drunk, offensive and hilarious. This is one of the greatest characters, for me, in film history, and one of the finest comic performances.
Some of the scenes in this movie have to rank up there with the funniest I have ever watched, particularly the Brooklyn dinner. ("What's this dish?" "Pork and beans!" "Where's the pork?" "You can't! They're Jews!") Well worth watching (again and again.)
Up next: The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
41. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
40. The Lord of the RIngs: The Two Towers (2002)
39. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Viggio Mortensen, Sean Astin
I combine all 3 movies here because, unlike traditional sequels, this was all filmed at the same time and meant to be one movie. Epic film making on a scale I've never witnessed before or since (though there are certain episodes of television's Game of Thrones which possibly rival some of the battle scenes). Far better than the books the films are based on. I know that will seem like sacrilege to Tolkien fans. But while he is surely one of the most creative authors ever to live, his writing style is incredibly dry. Consider for instance, Tolkien's description of the battle of Helm's Deep vs. the movie version. In terms of sheer entertainment value, it's not a close contest. And this is an odd admission for me because I generally prefer novels to movies: novels have much greater depth to them. A film version of a novel is usually at best like reading the Reader's Digest condensed version. But there are a few exceptions to this rule where the film exceeds the novel. And in my mind there is no greater example than this trilogy.
Were I to rank the films separately, I would do so exactly as they appear on my list. Fellowship is the least of the 3 for two reasons: first because it lacks the epic battle scenes of the 2nd and 3rd film, and second because it lacks Gollum, perhaps the most interesting character. Return is slightly better than Two Towers because of it's optimism, Shakesperian moments (particularly Aragorn's speech before the final battle, which was basically lifted from Henry V), and terrific battles (though the single greatest battle in all 3 movies is Helm's Deep, due to the tremendous buildup.) The prequel Hobbit films pale by comparison- and it was unnecessary to make 3 of them.
Up next: And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground.
40. The Lord of the RIngs: The Two Towers (2002)
39. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Viggio Mortensen, Sean Astin
I combine all 3 movies here because, unlike traditional sequels, this was all filmed at the same time and meant to be one movie. Epic film making on a scale I've never witnessed before or since (though there are certain episodes of television's Game of Thrones which possibly rival some of the battle scenes). Far better than the books the films are based on. I know that will seem like sacrilege to Tolkien fans. But while he is surely one of the most creative authors ever to live, his writing style is incredibly dry. Consider for instance, Tolkien's description of the battle of Helm's Deep vs. the movie version. In terms of sheer entertainment value, it's not a close contest. And this is an odd admission for me because I generally prefer novels to movies: novels have much greater depth to them. A film version of a novel is usually at best like reading the Reader's Digest condensed version. But there are a few exceptions to this rule where the film exceeds the novel. And in my mind there is no greater example than this trilogy.
Were I to rank the films separately, I would do so exactly as they appear on my list. Fellowship is the least of the 3 for two reasons: first because it lacks the epic battle scenes of the 2nd and 3rd film, and second because it lacks Gollum, perhaps the most interesting character. Return is slightly better than Two Towers because of it's optimism, Shakesperian moments (particularly Aragorn's speech before the final battle, which was basically lifted from Henry V), and terrific battles (though the single greatest battle in all 3 movies is Helm's Deep, due to the tremendous buildup.) The prequel Hobbit films pale by comparison- and it was unnecessary to make 3 of them.
Up next: And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground.
wormburner
Footballguy
coyote5
Footballguy
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Let's watch 12+ hours of movie to be rescued by not one but TWO Deus Ex Machina moments!
I really dislike the LOTR movies.
I really dislike the LOTR movies.
Quint
Footballguy
Jeremy
Footballguy
First book was mostly boring. 2nd book was pretty good. 3rd one was fantastic.
I would probably agree with Tim's ranking of the movies. Sam carrying Frodo to the finish line was best part of the books and the movies, IMO.
scoobus
Footballguy
The ghost army and what else (not saying you're wrong, I just don't remember)? The eagles?
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Andy Dufresne said:
I can't stand them either.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
38. Hoosiers (1986)
Directed by: David Anspaugh
Starring: Gene Hackman, Dennis Hopper, Barbara Hershey
Most everyone has seen this movie so I don't need to describe what happens in any detail, but I'll just offer a couple of thoughts: this is one of those films where the musical score really makes a huge contribution to its success. Hoosiers features one of Jerry Goldsmith's best scores (though he would surpass it in another David Anspaugh film coming up shortly).
Spike Lee, a huge fan of the movie, nonetheless wrote that it's popularly was in large part due to white Americans yearning a return to a mythical time in sports (the 1950s) which they think existed but really didn't- he referred to it as a "Father Knows Best" of basketball. I get the point he's making, and indeed there remains a prevalent fantasy that American society was somehow better and somehow cleaner back in the 1950s before all the social (and racial) upheaval; this feeling even played a role in the latest Presidential election IMO. But I think it's simplistic of Lee to place the popularity of the film on that quality alone. The movie doesn't capture just one era, but instead the whole very American theme of the underdog, obviously better than any film outside of Rocky.
Up next: Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.
Directed by: David Anspaugh
Starring: Gene Hackman, Dennis Hopper, Barbara Hershey
Most everyone has seen this movie so I don't need to describe what happens in any detail, but I'll just offer a couple of thoughts: this is one of those films where the musical score really makes a huge contribution to its success. Hoosiers features one of Jerry Goldsmith's best scores (though he would surpass it in another David Anspaugh film coming up shortly).
Spike Lee, a huge fan of the movie, nonetheless wrote that it's popularly was in large part due to white Americans yearning a return to a mythical time in sports (the 1950s) which they think existed but really didn't- he referred to it as a "Father Knows Best" of basketball. I get the point he's making, and indeed there remains a prevalent fantasy that American society was somehow better and somehow cleaner back in the 1950s before all the social (and racial) upheaval; this feeling even played a role in the latest Presidential election IMO. But I think it's simplistic of Lee to place the popularity of the film on that quality alone. The movie doesn't capture just one era, but instead the whole very American theme of the underdog, obviously better than any film outside of Rocky.
Up next: Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Hey guys, I've decided to take a break from the FFA for a while. No particular reason other than I have some personal issues in my life I need to pay attention to. Nobody chased me away.
I love nearly everybody here and I'll certainly be back. Have a happy new year.
I love nearly everybody here and I'll certainly be back. Have a happy new year.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Nick Vermeil
Footballguy
Time to furlough a few of the FBG hamsters that keep this place powered. They won't be needed until The Return (TM).
whoknew
Footballguy
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
See ya tomorrow 
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
The announced hiatus, my favorite of them all.
Prob not in the office until 1/3, he'll try to hold out for a little while due to the post - I'd set the O/U around 1/9 or 1/10 tops. I'd take the under too.
Happy New Years Tim
Prob not in the office until 1/3, he'll try to hold out for a little while due to the post - I'd set the O/U around 1/9 or 1/10 tops. I'd take the under too.
Happy New Years Tim
Gr00vus
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Last visited 3 minutes ago...short break
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/profile/29701-timschochet/
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/profile/29701-timschochet/
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
Last visited 3 minutes ago...short break
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/profile/29701-timschochet/
squistion
Footballguy
Sorry to hear that Tim, although with the new policy that restricts political discussion to single issue threads, there really isn't the same opportunity for input that there used to be, unless it is narrowly tailored to what is deemed acceptable to discuss. I imagine it will decrease overall forum interest and participation, but the powers that be have made this site a successful business with good decisions over the years (for the most part) so they probably know what they are doing.
Anyway, I hope you are able to work out the personal issues and can rejoin us sometime in 2017.
Best of luck and happy new year to you.
Last edited by a moderator:
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Happy New Year, tim. Best of luck.
Reginald Cornsilks
Footballguy
See you tomorrow
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
GL, tim - take a nice break. never understood why you ever tried to make sense to the yobbos & yahoos, but this last year has changed you. they have no idea how much they'll miss the one person who took them all seriously. find other ways to make sense of things and don't come back til you're your good ol passive-aggressive self. happy new year -
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
GL Tim. We can only hope your stalkers also use this opportunity to take a break. Their existence has little purpose here if the object of their obsession is gone.
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
Just think of all of the poor "real life" people that will now have to put up with Tim's stream of consciousness.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Binky The Doormat
Footballguy
You campin' out in here Timbob?
rockaction
Footballguy
It's too bad. I honestly was just reading this today, and thought of tim.
It's an article in the New Left Review by a man named Marco D'Eramo that traces the history and usage of the words 'people' and 'populism' in democratic societies. It ends thusly:
Here ends the parabola of ‘populism’, at the historical moment when the developed world is advancing into an oligarchical despotism, and the opposition between oligarchs and plebs has returned; when anti-popular policies are imposed just as the word ‘people’ is erased from the political lexicon, and anyone opposed to such policies is accused of ‘populism’. The democlastic frenzy is such that Umberto Eco now accuses even Pericles (495–25 BC) of populism. [42] Yet one reason why more and more movements are coming to be characterized as ‘populist’ is that anti-popular measures are multiplying. You want health care for everyone? You are a populist. You want your pension linked to inflation? But what a bunch of populists! You want your children to go to university, without carrying a life-long burden of debt? I knew you were a populist on the quiet! Thus the oligarchy’s court jesters denounce any popular demand. And even as they void democracy of any content, they accuse anyone opposed to this hollowing out of having ‘authoritarian instincts’, just as the unarmed victims of eviction are accused of being Nazi persecutors.
The inflated use of the term ‘populism’ by the optimates thus reveals a covert anxiety. Just as the adulterous spouse is always the one most suspicious of their own partner, so those who eviscerate democracy are the most inclined to see threats to it everywhere. Hence all the to-do about populism betrays a sense of uneasiness, smacks of overkill. The faintest murmur of dissent is turned into an alarming sign, heralding the ominous rumble of thunder that threatens to erupt into the hushed salons of the powerful, who believe themselves safe, but still anxiously peep out from behind the curtains for any signs that the people may be stirring: ‘Vade retro vulgus!’ Or as they say these days, ‘Get back in line!’ - D'Eramo
Worth a read: https://newleftreview.org/II/82/marco-d-eramo-populism-and-the-new-oligarchy
It's an article in the New Left Review by a man named Marco D'Eramo that traces the history and usage of the words 'people' and 'populism' in democratic societies. It ends thusly:
Here ends the parabola of ‘populism’, at the historical moment when the developed world is advancing into an oligarchical despotism, and the opposition between oligarchs and plebs has returned; when anti-popular policies are imposed just as the word ‘people’ is erased from the political lexicon, and anyone opposed to such policies is accused of ‘populism’. The democlastic frenzy is such that Umberto Eco now accuses even Pericles (495–25 BC) of populism. [42] Yet one reason why more and more movements are coming to be characterized as ‘populist’ is that anti-popular measures are multiplying. You want health care for everyone? You are a populist. You want your pension linked to inflation? But what a bunch of populists! You want your children to go to university, without carrying a life-long burden of debt? I knew you were a populist on the quiet! Thus the oligarchy’s court jesters denounce any popular demand. And even as they void democracy of any content, they accuse anyone opposed to this hollowing out of having ‘authoritarian instincts’, just as the unarmed victims of eviction are accused of being Nazi persecutors.
The inflated use of the term ‘populism’ by the optimates thus reveals a covert anxiety. Just as the adulterous spouse is always the one most suspicious of their own partner, so those who eviscerate democracy are the most inclined to see threats to it everywhere. Hence all the to-do about populism betrays a sense of uneasiness, smacks of overkill. The faintest murmur of dissent is turned into an alarming sign, heralding the ominous rumble of thunder that threatens to erupt into the hushed salons of the powerful, who believe themselves safe, but still anxiously peep out from behind the curtains for any signs that the people may be stirring: ‘Vade retro vulgus!’ Or as they say these days, ‘Get back in line!’ - D'Eramo
Worth a read: https://newleftreview.org/II/82/marco-d-eramo-populism-and-the-new-oligarchy
Last edited by a moderator:
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
TheAristocrat
Footballguy
Reginald Cornsilks
Footballguy
Neat thread. A race to jack tim off opening with "I never understood the Tim haters". Don't trip over each other you sanctimonious mongrels
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
