Spinning of from other people's posts
Jan. 12th, 2009 07:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redfiona99First, James's about remarks re: the all-star team in the ice hockey. I find myself agreeing, even though ice hockey isn't my sport, because no one gives defenders enough credit in anything. It really annoyed me when I played grass hockey (I was a goalie) when, if we won, the attackers won it, and if we lost, I lost the game. Ah, high school hockey, how I strangely miss you despite that. It annoys me in professional sports too, because Zidane shouldn't have won the Best Player at the 2006 World Cup, either Buffon or Cannavaro should have. It's not that I'm not a Zidane fan, there is a reason why he's the player on my football icon, it's just that those two were so excellent (2 goals conceeded in 7 matches, one was a penalty and one was an own goal). At least Buffon got a shiny for best goalie, but it's not enough. I want more recognition for defensive players.
The one goalie who does get the credit he deserves is Shay Given. Oh Shay, how I wished that you played for a better team. How I love that Juventus are chasing after you. Amusingly, he let in 7 goals over two games over Christmas and was still being praised to high heaven, and that was, and this is no hyperbole, because most other goalies would have let in 20 in those two games. Newcastle are terrible.
Secondly, Twig's about Leverage and their reasons for doing their thing. Only I'm not going to be talking about Leverage (see this is why I do spin-off posts). Basically, the discussion was about motivation and how one of them is a retributor, but are the others?
Which leads me into caper films, and heist films and that kind of thing. Because I like them. It's the plotting and preparation, I think. And I like a film which gives them a reason for it. They can be robbers who do it because it's their thing (the original Ocean's 11), robbers who do it because it's their thing and because they have a particular reason for pulling off this job (the remake of Ocean's 11), because it's their job (Sneakers), because they steal from the rich to give to the poor (Robin Hood, etc) and so on. My favourite caper film "How to Steal A Million" has a guy and a girl doing it for love, well, kind of, but what matters is that the characters are true to themselves.
Which was always my problem with "Hustle". Because of the whole "you can't con an innocent man", which is bullshit, and this whole thing of 'we're the good criminals, honest', which they don't ever back up. I think the BBC were stuck in a situation where they couldn't have them being 'bad guys' but couldn't really pull of something like Leverage, where they use illicit means for a good purpose.
Thirdly, nhw's post on Starship Troopers (http://nhw.livejournal.com/1151943.html). Which I haven't read, nor have I seen the film (much to the disgust of my housemates). My housemates did try to get me to watch but were most confused by my enjoyment of the school disection bit.
When it normally comes up is when my friend, L, uses it to explain his belief that voting shouldn't be a right and should be a reward for services rendered to the state. Not in a military sense, mostly because, while he disagrees with me re: uselessness of 9/10th of wars, he accepts that mine is a well-thought out, immovable position, and that I am not alone, plus he, rather sensibly, thinks that stuff like teaching, firefighting and policing etc are just as worthy as military service.
I'm not sure I agree, my view normally being that you then almost self-select the electorate, and they will vote for what they think is best for the country, but it might not be, and you'd get a much better picture of what is possibly best for the country, in the views of most people, if you give everyone the vote.
The one goalie who does get the credit he deserves is Shay Given. Oh Shay, how I wished that you played for a better team. How I love that Juventus are chasing after you. Amusingly, he let in 7 goals over two games over Christmas and was still being praised to high heaven, and that was, and this is no hyperbole, because most other goalies would have let in 20 in those two games. Newcastle are terrible.
Secondly, Twig's about Leverage and their reasons for doing their thing. Only I'm not going to be talking about Leverage (see this is why I do spin-off posts). Basically, the discussion was about motivation and how one of them is a retributor, but are the others?
Which leads me into caper films, and heist films and that kind of thing. Because I like them. It's the plotting and preparation, I think. And I like a film which gives them a reason for it. They can be robbers who do it because it's their thing (the original Ocean's 11), robbers who do it because it's their thing and because they have a particular reason for pulling off this job (the remake of Ocean's 11), because it's their job (Sneakers), because they steal from the rich to give to the poor (Robin Hood, etc) and so on. My favourite caper film "How to Steal A Million" has a guy and a girl doing it for love, well, kind of, but what matters is that the characters are true to themselves.
Which was always my problem with "Hustle". Because of the whole "you can't con an innocent man", which is bullshit, and this whole thing of 'we're the good criminals, honest', which they don't ever back up. I think the BBC were stuck in a situation where they couldn't have them being 'bad guys' but couldn't really pull of something like Leverage, where they use illicit means for a good purpose.
Thirdly, nhw's post on Starship Troopers (http://nhw.livejournal.com/1151943.html). Which I haven't read, nor have I seen the film (much to the disgust of my housemates). My housemates did try to get me to watch but were most confused by my enjoyment of the school disection bit.
When it normally comes up is when my friend, L, uses it to explain his belief that voting shouldn't be a right and should be a reward for services rendered to the state. Not in a military sense, mostly because, while he disagrees with me re: uselessness of 9/10th of wars, he accepts that mine is a well-thought out, immovable position, and that I am not alone, plus he, rather sensibly, thinks that stuff like teaching, firefighting and policing etc are just as worthy as military service.
I'm not sure I agree, my view normally being that you then almost self-select the electorate, and they will vote for what they think is best for the country, but it might not be, and you'd get a much better picture of what is possibly best for the country, in the views of most people, if you give everyone the vote.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-12 09:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-12 10:30 pm (UTC)Basically, it goes like this. An old con artist (played really well by Robert Vaughan) and his protege (Adrian Lester, who has been far better in other things) recruit a team to perform some long cons. The rest of the team are a tech expert (Ash) and Stacy (Jamie Murray's character). They also gain a tag-along kid (played by Marc Warren, who is probably one of the best actors working today) who wants to learn how to run long cons but doesn't have the patience or the knack.
They run long cons, mostly on rich business men who we, previously or duringly, learn are corrupt and/or mean, nasty pieces of work.
The con is set up. It runs. Things go off the rails a little. Team show great ingenuity. Con is pulled off.
The problem is we never get a reason why, other than they want money. Which would be fine if it were just Robert Vaughan's character and Marc Warren's character, because they're both career criminals who admit it. Only, and I think it's partly because it's BBC based, you can't have the criminals winning, so quite often they 1) run the con, and get the money, but have it taken from them, 2) run the con, find out the mark has no money, 3) decide that this teaches the mark enough of a lesson and let him keep the money or 4) don't end up with the money for some other reason.
So there's this really odd split, like it can't decide whether it wants them to be cool bad guys or modern day Robin Hoods, so it lands between the two stools and makes them look a bit arsey, like how DX did on their last run when they're not cool enough to get away with their dickishness and not bad enough to be cool. Well, Adrian Lester and Jamie Murray's characters anyway. The rest are all either crims through and through, or Ash, who is adorable.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-12 11:09 pm (UTC)LOLOLOLOL <33333333333333333333
God, I love wrestling analogies, because that right there made me COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. And yeah, that paints a clearer picture, thank you. That does sound like a problem, and I wouldn't like lack of motivation either. At least on Leverage, you get a sense of purpose.