Surprised Scotland's winning margin was so big. Nice to see them doing well this year. An upset against England is not impossible (I did check the odds for Scotland and France but decided not to back either).
I backed Scotland after a rugby-obsessed mate told me they were the dark horse to watch.
Fatherland and Dominion are better alternate WW2 histories than SS-GB, and I like Deighton. They would make superior source material.
I've read Fatherland and SS-GB, and I think they're about the same. They both have similar plots (conflicted cop investigates crime linked to something the authorities want kept secret) and they don't stray far from their genre roots: given the setup you can predict the outcome. The interest lies in the details, and both authors (Harris and Deighton) are good on this. But Deighton is famously industrious on ensuring that dialogue sounds like speech of the period, and I think he edges it.
Vaguely on topic, this week's freakonomics is about vfx industry and why it is all in Canada and the UK.
In terms of UK, cliffs are ludicrously generous tax credits under blair / brown undercut the us market. Industry expert said for harry potter subsidiary was so generous they had to work really hard to find a way to waste a million quid. Canada is a similar story.
All this chatter reminds me of Game of Thrones. Still don't have the fifth series. If the bets turn out nicely and I have enough, I'll use that to get it.
Very hard to argue with any of those assessments, Roger. A far from vintage year summed up by the hilarity of the hugely underwhelming La La Land being up th
MM
I think your comment a few weeks ago that it is the most underwhelming list ever is about right. There really wasn't a film that'll be remembered with the possible exception of one or two of the animations.
I saw '20th Century Women' the other day after I'd sent my list in and I quite liked it. A bit self regarding but in with a chance of 'best original screenplay'. The dialogue was very smart. I didn't see 'Hell or High Water' so I'm not sure and I liked 'Lobster' in the same category but very much an acquired taste.
The film that left me most puzzled was 'Moonlight'. When I saw it I just didn't like it but it gets into your head and several critics think it's the runaway best film. I'm sure it's not that but I've obviously missed something.
'Fences' is interesting and I would certainly have chosen Denzil Washington for best actor but a downtrodden semi alcoholic just wouldn't have had such a perfect set of teeth or that switch on film star smile which in that setting really did get in the way.
Hollywood film-making - global film-making - has been in decline for years. Maybe two decades. There are several explanations, many focusing on the need to please evermore youthful audiences, with simplistic plots, audiences which get smaller by the year, leading to a demand for commercially reliable, imaginatively tedious sequels. And Marvel spin offs.
Clearly, all the creative energy is now in TV drama. A great TV series like Breaking Bad or the Sopranos or Spartacus or The Killing (Danish season 1) utterly eclipses any movie in narrative power and thematic complexity. And the Golden Age of TV arrived just as movies declined. Surely not a coincidence.
Don't also forget the influence of trying to get access to the "new big money" ie the Chinese, when it comes to the blockbuster movies and their plots.
A movie equivalent of breaking bad has bugger all chance of getting past the Chinese moral arbitrors.
That's also true in India, another massive movie market where Hollywood is trying to usurp local production.
Here in the Middle East, as an example, The Wolf of Wall St was 45 minutes shorter than the director intended. Not quite sure how it worked at all with no sex, drugs, drunkenness or nudity! We all downloaded it.
I remember the old joke about the Saudi cut of Thelma and Louise being only 10 minutes long because they cut all the scenes with women driving
Scotland have some great backs, now. Both tries were scintillating.
I wonder if it will be Scotland that stop England achieving that world record run of victories. That would have them dancing in Dundee.
Let's just say that Scotland won't be lacking motivation. Of course they rarely are against England, but this time they may have some confidence and ammunition to go with it.
Not wishing to upstage Roger, but presumably other PBers are allowed to forecast their Oscar winners. Mine are as follows for the 25 awards on offer, showing the best decimal betting odds currently available:
Although I am very confident of having identified over half the winners, this is not on account of my having any specialised knowledge, but rather because of the 25 categories 23 have short odds-on favourites making it virtually impossible to show a profit. In fact I calculate that I would need to be correct in at least 18 categories to at least break even. Accordingly I will NOT be placing any bets from the above list.
Instead, I will be looking for a couple of left field picks from his list at longer odds. I notice that, probably wisely, he has omitted from making selections in a number of categories, whilst having alternative picks in others. This is probably the key to making profits overall, although the tactic is likely to prove unsuccessful should a whole raft of short-priced favourites come in.
Yours is a good list. Hard to argue with any of them. It's a slightly unusual year with too few competitive films
Thanks for your suggestions. In the Oscars the favourite usually wins, but some of your second choices sound worth a punt. a have put a few quid on some of them. I thought the costumes in FFJ worth a token quid too.
Is it a vintage year? sometimes it has to be a year or two before we see what lasts and what doesn't.
TV and Movies are different art forms, and large screen home cinemas are blurring the boundary. I do find the compression required to pack a story into 2 hours a useful discipline in terms of plotting, though perhaps not allowing such nuanced characterisation. It requires a higher level of skill to make a good movie because of the need for that distillation. Too many TV series sprawl like the fat sofa sitters binge eating while binge watching them.
If I had to choose just one long shot it would be 'Arrival' for 'Best Production Design'. I also like the 2 hour length and watching in a cinema and in many cases the money they can spend.The techniques and disciplines for cinema are also different. Films like 'Apocalypse Now' or even 'The Godfather' could never have been made in the form they were shown had they not been made for cinema. TV requires a more compressed vision.
Is it a vintage year? No far from it. One of the worst I can remember and some of the nominations were strange. Two of my favourite films didn't even get nominated which doesn't usually happen.
Very hard to argue with any of those assessments, Roger. A far from vintage year summed up by the hilarity of the hugely underwhelming La La Land being up th
MM
I think your comment a few weeks ago that it is the most underwhelming list ever is about right. There really wasn't a film that'll be remembered with the possible exception of one or two of the animations.
I saw '20th Century Women' the other day after I'd sent my list in and I quite liked it. A bit self regarding but in with a chance of 'best original screenplay'. The dialogue was very smart. I didn't see 'Hell or High Water' so I'm not sure and I liked 'Lobster' in the same category but very much an acquired taste.
The film that left me most puzzled was 'Moonlight'. When I saw it I just didn't like it but it gets into your head and several critics think it's the runaway best film. I'm sure it's not that but I've obviously missed something.
'Fences' is interesting and I would certainly have chosen Denzil Washington for best actor but a downtrodden semi alcoholic just wouldn't have had such a perfect set of teeth or that switch on film star smile which in that setting really did get in the way.
Hollywood film-making - global film-making - has been in decline for years. Maybe two decades. There are several explanations, many focusing on the need to please evermore youthful audiences, with simplistic plots, audiences which get smaller by the year, leading to a demand for commercially reliable, imaginatively tedious sequels. And Marvel spin offs.
Clearly, all the creative energy is now in TV drama. A great TV series like Breaking Bad or the Sopranos or Spartacus or The Killing (Danish season 1) utterly eclipses any movie in narrative power and thematic complexity. And the Golden Age of TV arrived just as movies declined. Surely not a coincidence.
Don't also forget the influence of trying to get access to the "new big money" ie the Chinese, when it comes to the blockbuster movies and their plots.
A movie equivalent of breaking bad has bugger all chance of getting past the Chinese moral arbitrors.
That's also true in India, another massive movie market where Hollywood is trying to usurp local production.
Here in the Middle East, as an example, The Wolf of Wall St was 45 minutes shorter than the director intended. Not quite sure how it worked at all with no sex, drugs, drunkenness or nudity! We all downloaded it.
I remember the old joke about the Saudi cut of Thelma and Louise being only 10 minutes long because they cut all the scenes with women driving
Indeed. However, even if the Lords pass that second amendment, I can't see how May could let it stand. It would have to be sent back up to the Lords, with some implicit or explicit threat.
Not wishing to upstage Roger, but presumably other PBers are allowed to forecast their Oscar winners. Mine are as follows for the 25 awards on offer, showing the best decimal betting odds currently available:
Although I am very confident of having identified over half the winners, this is not on account of my having any specialised knowledge, but rather because of the 25 categories 23 have short odds-on favourites making it virtually impossible to show a profit. In fact I calculate that I would need to be correct in at least 18 categories to at least break even. Accordingly I will NOT be placing any bets from the above list.
Instead, I will be looking for a couple of left field picks from his list at longer odds. I notice that, probably wisely, he has omitted from making selections in a number of categories, whilst having alternative picks in others. This is probably the key to making profits overall, although the tactic is likely to prove unsuccessful should a whole raft of short-priced favourites come in.
Yours is a good list. Hard to argue with any of them. It's a slightly unusual year with too few competitive films
Thanks for your suggestions. In the Oscars the favourite usually wins, but some of your second choices sound worth a punt. a have put a few quid on some of them. I thought the costumes in FFJ worth a token quid too.
Is it a vintage year? sometimes it has to be a year or two before we see what lasts and what doesn't.
TV and Movies are different art forms, and large screen home cinemas are blurring the boundary. I do find the compression required to pack a story into 2 hours a useful discipline in terms of plotting, though perhaps not allowing such nuanced characterisation. It requires a higher level of skill to make a good movie because of the need for that distillation. Too many TV series sprawl like the fat sofa sitters binge eating while binge watching them.
If I had to choose just one long shot it would be 'Arrival' for 'Best Production Design'. I also like the 2 hour length and watching in a cinema and in many cases the money they can spend.The techniques and disciplines for cinema are also different. Films like 'Apocalypse Now' or even 'The Godfather' could never have been made in the form they were shown had they not been made for cinema. TV requires a more compressed vision.
Is it a vintage year? No far from it. One of the worst I can remember and some of the nominations were strange. Two of my favourite films didn't even get nominated which doesn't usually happen.
What were those 2 unnominated films? I saw Son of Saul after you recommended it. It was the most powerful film I saw all year.
Vaguely on topic, this week's freakonomics is about vfx industry and why it is all in Canada and the UK.
In terms of UK, cliffs are ludicrously generous tax credits under blair / brown undercut the us market. Industry expert said for harry potter subsidiary was so generous they had to work really hard to find a way to waste a million quid. Canada is a similar story.
That was a really interesting read. I wonder if the new "America First" president, with all that he will see the wrath of the movie industry tomorrow night, might be prepared to look at taxing CGI work done abroad subsidised by foreign governments. If so that could affect the UK film industry quite significantly, although the recently fallen pound would be in our favour.
Blimey .... Hitler only managed Denmark and Norway with Finland as allies !!
I went to Copenhagen last year and loved it. Stockholm next, but wanted to take the ferry to Finland, possibly via the Aland islands, then onto Estonia.
Any PBeres have any advice on spots? planning just public transport, no panzers or stukas...
So that film was faked. I don't know it might well have been but I apply Occam's Razor to a situation. I assume you don't deny that Ivan Watson was in Turkey? There is plenty of film of him in crowds in Turkish streets that would have required the budget and extras of Ben Hur to fake. And I assume you accept that the film of the American Destroyer? It was there at that time. Again pretty difficult to fake a particular a Destroyer and that background. And why bother if it was there? Why not just film it. And if you are going to do that why not just put Ivan Watson on the front of the boat you are using to film it. Not difficult to get a boat and go out and do it. If he wasn't on that boat then someone else had to film it and then get to a studio and then build a fake front of a boat for him to stand on to fake it very quickly to get the news out that day. Why? Why? Why? What is the point? Just film it for real.
Re point about wind, spray, sea legs and swaying camera - Well you can see from the sea that the wind speed is under a force 3 so little wind and no spray. Also you can see from the destroyer and even the power boat that nothing is being thrown over the bow. However there is a small swell which over the distance of the camera to Watson will cause movement.
Honestly this is cult stuff. It may well be faked but provide proper evidence. This is the same as other links. Just the other day was the convoluted anti antisemitism conspiracy. Again I could believe the Democrats could be up to this but no evidence was provided whereas the most logical conclusion is that in a two party system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.
You are just believing everything you are being fed.
Hollywood film-making - global film-making - has been in decline for years. Maybe two decades. There are several explanations, many focusing on the need to please evermore youthful audiences, with simplistic plots, audiences which get smaller by the year, leading to a demand for commercially reliable, imaginatively tedious sequels. And Marvel spin offs.
Clearly, all the creative energy is now in TV drama. A great TV series like Breaking Bad or the Sopranos or Spartacus or The Killing (Danish season 1) utterly eclipses any movie in narrative power and thematic complexity. And the Golden Age of TV arrived just as movies declined. Surely not a coincidence.
Don't also forget the influence of trying to get access to the "new big money" ie the Chinese, when it comes to the blockbuster movies and their plots.
A movie equivalent of breaking bad has bugger all chance of getting past the Chinese moral arbitrors.
That's also true in India, another massive movie market where Hollywood is trying to usurp local production.
Here in the Middle East, as an example, The Wolf of Wall St was 45 minutes shorter than the director intended. Not quite sure how it worked at all with no sex, drugs, drunkenness or nudity! We all downloaded it.
I remember the old joke about the Saudi cut of Thelma and Louise being only 10 minutes long because they cut all the scenes with women driving
LOL!! They are actually about to open cinemas in Saudi - there are none there now - so it will be interesting to see what allowed and what isn't. The UAE censor pretty much works to a UK 12 rating as the maximum allowed, but the Saudis will probably be limited to animated Disney movies.
So that film was faked. I don't know it might well have been but I apply Occam's Razor to a situation. I assume you don't deny that Ivan Watson was in Turkey? There is plenty of film of him in crowds in Turkish streets that would have required the budget and extras of Ben Hur to fake. And I assume you accept that the film of the American Destroyer? It was there at that time. Again pretty difficult to fake a particular a Destroyer and that background. And why bother if it was there? Why not just film it. And if you are going to do that why not just put Ivan Watson on the front of the boat you are using to film it. Not difficult to get a boat and go out and do it. If he wasn't on that boat then someone else had to film it and then get to a studio and then build a fake front of a boat for him to stand on to fake it very quickly to get the news out that day. Why? Why? Why? What is the point? Just film it for real.
Re point about wind, spray, sea legs and swaying camera - Well you can see from the sea that the wind speed is under a force 3 so little wind and no spray. Also you can see from the destroyer and even the power boat that nothing is being thrown over the bow. However there is a small swell which over the distance of the camera to Watson will cause movement.
Honestly this is cult stuff. It may well be faked but provide proper evidence. This is the same as other links. Just the other day was the convoluted anti antisemitism conspiracy. Again I could believe the Democrats could be up to this but no evidence was provided whereas the most logical conclusion is that in a two party system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.
You are just believing everything you are being fed.
Plato can say some nutty things, but she's got a point here (and she had insights into Trump that escaped others)
That film does look incredibly fake. It just does. It's like one of those comically bad rear-window backdrops of people "driving in a car" in 50s movies.
I have no idea WHY they would fake this (for all the reasons you state). But it does look weirdly bogus.
Isn't it just using the blue screen that weather presenters use?
So that film was faked. I don't know it might well have been but I apply Occam's Razor to a situation. I assume you don't deny that Ivan Watson was in Turkey? There is plenty of film of him in crowds in Turkish streets that would have required the budget and extras of Ben Hur to fake. And I assume you accept that the film of the American Destroyer? It was there at that time. Again pretty difficult to fake a particular a Destroyer and that background. And why bother if it was there? Why not just film it. And if you are going to do that why not just put Ivan Watson on the front of the boat you are using to film it. Not difficult to get a boat and go out and do it. If he wasn't on that boat then someone else had to film it and then get to a studio and then build a fake front of a boat for him to stand on to fake it very quickly to get the news out that day. Why? Why? Why? What is the point? Just film it for real.
Re point about wind, spray, sea legs and swaying camera - Well you can see from the sea that the wind speed is under a force 3 so little wind and no spray. Also you can see from the destroyer and even the power boat that nothing is being thrown over the bow. However there is a small swell which over the distance of the camera to Watson will cause movement.
Honestly this is cult stuff. It may well be faked but provide proper evidence. This is the same as other links. Just the other day was the convoluted anti antisemitism conspiracy. Again I could believe the Democrats could be up to this but no evidence was provided whereas the most logical conclusion is that in a two party system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.
You are just believing everything you are being fed.
Plato can say some nutty things, but she's got a point here (and she had insights into Trump that escaped others)
That film does look incredibly fake. It just does. It's like one of those comically bad rear-window backdrops of people "driving in a car" in 50s movies.
I have no idea WHY they would fake this (for all the reasons you state). But it does look weirdly bogus.
Isn't it just using the blue screen that weather presenters use?
Did he actually say anything misleadingly?
I don't think weather presenters are trying to pass off that they are somehow flying above the UK.
Blimey .... Hitler only managed Denmark and Norway with Finland as allies !!
I went to Copenhagen last year and loved it. Stockholm next, but wanted to take the ferry to Finland, possibly via the Aland islands, then onto Estonia.
Any PBeres have any advice on spots? planning just public transport, no panzers or stukas...
I note you don't rule out naval forces .... sneeky you LibDems - Estonia via U1906 or pocket battleship Barchart !!
So that film was faked. I don't know it might well have been but I apply Occam's Razor to a situation. I assume you don't deny that Ivan Watson was in Turkey? There is plenty of film of him in crowds in Turkish streets that would have required the budget and extras of Ben Hur to fake. And I assume you accept that the film of the American Destroyer? It was there at that time. Again pretty difficult to fake a particular a Destroyer and that background. And why bother if it was there? Why not just film it. And if you are going to do that why not just put Ivan Watson on the front of the boat you are using to film it. Not difficult to get a boat and go out and do it. If he wasn't on that boat then someone else had to film it and then get to a studio and then build a fake front of a boat for him to stand on to fake it very quickly to get the news out that day. Why? Why? Why? What is the point? Just film it for real.
Re point about wind, spray, sea legs and swaying camera - Well you can see from the sea that the wind speed is under a force 3 so little wind and no spray. Also you can see from the destroyer and even the power boat that nothing is being thrown over the bow. However there is a small swell which over the distance of the camera to Watson will cause movement.
Honestly this is cult stuff. It may well be faked but provide proper evidence. This is the same as other links. Just the other day was the convoluted anti antisemitism conspiracy. Again I could believe the Democrats could be up to this but no evidence was provided whereas the most logical conclusion is that in a two party system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.
You are just believing everything you are being fed.
Plato can say some nutty things, but she's got a point here (and she had insights into Trump that escaped others)
That film does look incredibly fake. It just does. It's like one of those comically bad rear-window backdrops of people "driving in a car" in 50s movies.
I have no idea WHY they would fake this (for all the reasons you state). But it does look weirdly bogus.
Isn't it just using the blue screen that weather presenters use?
Did he actually say anything misleadingly?
I don't think weather presenters are trying to pass off that they are somehow flying above the UK.
I have no idea of the context, but it may just have been a producer trying to add interest to what would otherwise be a dull talking head shot.
Blimey .... Hitler only managed Denmark and Norway with Finland as allies !!
I went to Copenhagen last year and loved it. Stockholm next, but wanted to take the ferry to Finland, possibly via the Aland islands, then onto Estonia.
Any PBeres have any advice on spots? planning just public transport, no panzers or stukas...
I note you don't rule out naval forces .... sneeky you LibDems - Estonia via U1906 or pocket battleship Barchart !!
I was thinking more Viking Ferry, but can be a real booze cruise I hear, full of drunk Finns and Swedes.
So that film was faked. I don't know it might well have been but I apply Occam's Razor to a situation. I assume you don't deny that Ivan Watson was in Turkey? There is plenty of film of him in crowds in Turkish streets that would have required the budget and extras of Ben Hur to fake. And I assume you accept that the film of the American Destroyer? It was there at that time. Again pretty difficult to fake a particular a Destroyer and that background. And why bother if it was there? Why not just film it. And if you are going to do that why not just put Ivan Watson on the front of the boat you are using to film it. Not difficult to get a boat and go out and do it. If he wasn't on that boat then someone else had to film it and then get to a studio and then build a fake front of a boat for him to stand on to fake it very quickly to get the news out that day. Why? Why? Why? What is the point? Just film it for real.
Re point about wind, spray, sea legs and swaying camera - Well you can see from the sea that the wind speed is under a force 3 so little wind and no spray. Also you can see from the destroyer and even the power boat that nothing is being thrown over the bow. However there is a small swell which over the distance of the camera to Watson will cause movement.
Honestly this is cult stuff. It may well be faked but provide proper evidence. This is the same as other links. Just the other day was the convoluted anti antisemitism conspiracy. Again I could believe the Democrats could be up to this but no evidence was provided whereas the most logical conclusion is that in a two party system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.
You are just believing everything you are being fed.
Plato can say some nutty things, but she's got a point here (and she had insights into Trump that escaped others)
That film does look incredibly fake. It just does. It's like one of those comically bad rear-window backdrops of people "driving in a car" in 50s movies.
I have no idea WHY they would fake this (for all the reasons you state). But it does look weirdly bogus.
Here's the unedited version. The initial camera pan makes it look much more convincing.
I have no idea of the context, but it may just have been a producer trying to add interest to what would otherwise be a dull talking head shot.
What was said that was fake or wrong?
True, but people do get flak for photoshopping themselves into photos, see Nuttall's library for example. Not sure why the media have a free pass on that front.
So that film was faked. I don't know it might well have been but I apply Occam's Razor to a situation. I assume you don't deny that Ivan Watson was in Turkey? There is plenty of film of him in crowds in Turkish streets that would have required the budget and extras of Ben Hur to fake. And I assume you accept that the film of the American Destroyer? It was there at that time. Again pretty difficult to fake a particular a Destroyer and that background. And why bother if it was there? Why not just film it. And if you are going to do that why not just put Ivan Watson on the front of the boat you are using to film it. Not difficult to get a boat and go out and do it. If he wasn't on that boat then someone else had to film it and then get to a studio and then build a fake front of a boat for him to stand on to fake it very quickly to get the news out that day. Why? Why? Why? What is the point? Just film it for real.
Re point about wind, spray, sea legs and swaying camera - Well you can see from the sea that the wind speed is under a force 3 so little wind and no spray. Also you can see from the destroyer and even the power boat that nothing is being thrown over the bow. However there is a small swell which over the distance of the camera to Watson will cause movement.
Honestly this is cult stuff. It may well be faked but provide proper evidence. This is the same as other links. Just the other day was the convoluted anti antisemitism conspiracy. Again I could believe the Democrats could be up to this but no evidence was provided whereas the most logical conclusion is that in a two party system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.
You are just believing everything you are being fed.
Plato can say some nutty things, but she's got a point here (and she had insights into Trump that escaped others)
That film does look incredibly fake. It just does. It's like one of those comically bad rear-window backdrops of people "driving in a car" in 50s movies.
I have no idea WHY they would fake this (for all the reasons you state). But it does look weirdly bogus.
Isn't it just using the blue screen that weather presenters use?
Did he actually say anything misleadingly?
I agree with Sean - It does look odd, but I think that is all it is. If it were fake I don't care if he didn't say anything misleading it would still be fake because of the mocked up bow. So that is not a good enough excuse.
You also have to ask yourself wouldn't someone have leaked something. For instance what happened to the film without him in it. What about the clock? If that went out live with him in front of a screen you are just asking for trouble. Anything could have gone wrong and they would have been exposed big time. If not live then it would be so easy to show that the time shown didn't tie in with the position of the ship. There is so much that can go wrong for no benefit.
Hollywood film-making - global film-making - has been in decline for years. Maybe two decades. There are several explanations, many focusing on the need to please evermore youthful audiences, with simplistic plots, audiences which get smaller by the year, leading to a demand for commercially reliable, imaginatively tedious sequels. And Marvel spin offs.
Clearly, all the creative energy is now in TV drama. A great TV series like Breaking Bad or the Sopranos or Spartacus or The Killing (Danish season 1) utterly eclipses any movie in narrative power and thematic complexity. And the Golden Age of TV arrived just as movies declined. Surely not a coincidence.
Don't also forget the influence of trying to get access to the "new big money" ie the Chinese, when it comes to the blockbuster movies and their plots.
A movie equivalent of breaking bad has bugger all chance of getting past the Chinese moral arbitrors.
That's also true in India, another massive movie market where Hollywood is trying to usurp local production.
Here in the Middle East, as an example, The Wolf of Wall St was 45 minutes shorter than the director intended. Not quite sure how it worked at all with no sex, drugs, drunkenness or nudity! We all downloaded it.
I remember the old joke about the Saudi cut of Thelma and Louise being only 10 minutes long because they cut all the scenes with women driving
LOL!! They are actually about to open cinemas in Saudi - there are none there now - so it will be interesting to see what allowed and what isn't. The UAE censor pretty much works to a UK 12 rating as the maximum allowed, but the Saudis will probably be limited to animated Disney movies.
Good choice - they should go for Hunchback of Notre Dame, Frollo singing about his lust for Esmerelda and how if she won't sleep with him he'll burn her alive. For the kids
Damn I can't deal with this Quote stuff when it gets too long - Need lessons!
I agree with Sean - It does look odd, but I think that is all it is. If it were fake I don't care if he didn't say anything misleading it would still be fake because of the mocked up bow. So that is not a good enough excuse.
You also have to ask yourself wouldn't someone have leaked something. For instance what happened to the film without him in it. What about the clock? If that went out live with him in front of a screen you are just asking for trouble. Anything could have gone wrong and they would have been exposed big time. If not live then it would be so easy to show that the time shown didn't tie in with the position of the ship. There is so much that can go wrong for no benefit.
Really? .... despite the Premiership position you are a 1-0 home win from the QF's of the Champions League.
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
Delusional stuff from Leicester
The analytics show that their title win was due to every bit of luck going their way, an over performance that could only realistically mean a crashing thud back down to earth. Yet the owners have got carried away
Still one of the best movies I've seen in years. The audiobook is very good too.
The book is better than the film
Eh, I go back and forth on that. The book has more detail to make the level of peril more visible and difficult, but there were a few too many to include in a movie to keep it from getting too long or repetitive. I think it would not have worked to include all of it on film, so it was as good an adaptation as you can get, both great for the medium they were presented in.
Really? .... despite the Premiership position you are a 1-0 home win from the QF's of the Champions League.
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
Yes, and I am sad, but the football has been poor, and each match follows the Labour trajectory, defeat after defeat even against pathetic opposition, and getting worse after each one. There seems to be no performance floor.
Last year is history, and history is in the past.
Claudio erred by getting rid of the fitness trainer and sports psychologist. The players are unfit and with a losing mentality. It had to change. It is kinder to sack Claudio before rather than after relegation.
On a silver lining note, I have been topping up on Leicester being relegated since Nov at 12-19, so have a free season ticket next year to ease the pain.
Eh, I go back and forth on that. The book has more detail to make the level of peril more visible and difficult, but there were a few too many to include in a movie to keep it from getting too long or repetitive. I think it would not have worked to include all of it on film, so it was as good an adaptation as you can get, both great for the medium they were presented in.
Maybe my enjoyment of the film was coloured by the fact I watched Interstellar just before it.
Matt Damon, alone on a distant planet, waiting for rescue...
On a silver lining note, I have been topping up on Leicester being relegated since Nov at 12-19, so have a free season ticket next year to ease the pain.
Eh, I go back and forth on that. The book has more detail to make the level of peril more visible and difficult, but there were a few too many to include in a movie to keep it from getting too long or repetitive. I think it would not have worked to include all of it on film, so it was as good an adaptation as you can get, both great for the medium they were presented in.
Maybe my enjoyment of the film was coloured by the fact I watched Interstellar just before it.
Matt Damon, alone on a distant planet, waiting for rescue...
Is that a metaphor for the labour party under corbyn?
Really? .... despite the Premiership position you are a 1-0 home win from the QF's of the Champions League.
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
Delusional stuff from Leicester
The analytics show that their title win was due to every bit of luck going their way, an over performance that could only realistically mean a crashing thud back down to earth. Yet the owners have got carried away
I confess to not being either a football fan or even armchair expert (the rampant cheating, feigning of injury and abuse of officials are appalling) but the treatment of Ranieri has been shabby in the extreme.
So that film was faked. I don't know it might well have been but I apply Occam's Razor to a situation. I assume you don't deny that Ivan Watson was in Turkey? There is plenty of film of him in crowds in Turkish streets that would have required the budget and extras of Ben Hur to fake. And I assume you accept that the film of the American Destroyer? It was there at that time. Again pretty difficult to fake a particular a Destroyer and that background. And why bother if it was there? Why not just film it. And if you are going to do that why not just put Ivan Watson on the front of the boat you are using to film it. Not difficult to get a boat and go out and do it. If he wasn't on that boat then someone else had to film it and then get to a studio and then build a fake front of a boat for him to stand on to fake it very quickly to get the news out that day. Why? Why? Why? What is the point? Just film it for real.
Re point about wind, spray, sea legs and swaying camera - Well you can see from the sea that the wind speed is under a force 3 so little wind and no spray. Also you can see from the destroyer and even the power boat that nothing is being thrown over the bow. However there is a small swell which over the distance of the camera to Watson will cause movement.
Honestly this is cult stuff. It may well be faked but provide proper evidence. This is the same as other links. Just the other day was the convoluted anti antisemitism conspiracy. Again I could believe the Democrats could be up to this but no evidence was provided whereas the most logical conclusion is that in a two party system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.
You are just believing everything you are being fed.
Plato can say some nutty things, but she's got a point here (and she had insights into Trump that escaped others)
That film does look incredibly fake. It just does. It's like one of those comically bad rear-window backdrops of people "driving in a car" in 50s movies.
I have no idea WHY they would fake this (for all the reasons you state). But it does look weirdly bogus.
Here's the unedited version. The initial camera pan makes it look much more convincing.
Thanks Stark Dawning. That is much clearer. It looks like it was deliberately edited to take out the bit that showed it was real. Cynical stuff to feed the believers. Why do it?
Hollywood film-making - global film-making - has been in decline for years. Maybe two decades. There are several explanations, many focusing on the need to please evermore youthful audiences, with simplistic plots, audiences which get smaller by the year, leading to a demand for commercially reliable, imaginatively tedious sequels. And Marvel spin offs.
Clearly, all the creative energy is now in TV drama. A great TV series like Breaking Bad or the Sopranos or Spartacus or The Killing (Danish season 1) utterly eclipses any movie in narrative power and thematic complexity. And the Golden Age of TV arrived just as movies declined. Surely not a coincidence.
Don't also forget the influence of trying to get access to the "new big money" ie the Chinese, when it comes to the blockbuster movies and their plots.
A movie equivalent of breaking bad has bugger all chance of getting past the Chinese moral arbitrors.
That's also true in India, another massive movie market where Hollywood is trying to usurp local production.
Here in the Middle East, as an example, The Wolf of Wall St was 45 minutes shorter than the director intended. Not quite sure how it worked at all with no sex, drugs, drunkenness or nudity! We all downloaded it.
I remember the old joke about the Saudi cut of Thelma and Louise being only 10 minutes long because they cut all the scenes with women driving
LOL!! They are actually about to open cinemas in Saudi - there are none there now - so it will be interesting to see what allowed and what isn't. The UAE censor pretty much works to a UK 12 rating as the maximum allowed, but the Saudis will probably be limited to animated Disney movies.
I remember watching a French film on Saudia Airlines where they extensively pixelated bad language in the embedded English subtitles but didn't touch the French soundtrack.
Really? .... despite the Premiership position you are a 1-0 home win from the QF's of the Champions League.
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
Yes, and I am sad, but the football has been poor, and each match follows the Labour trajectory, defeat after defeat even against pathetic opposition, and getting worse after each one. There seems to be no performance floor.
Last year is history, and history is in the past.
Claudio erred by getting rid of the fitness trainer and sports psychologist. The players are unfit and with a losing mentality. It had to change. It is kinder to sack Claudio before rather than after relegation.
On a silver lining note, I have been topping up on Leicester being relegated since Nov at 12-19, so have a free season ticket next year to ease the pain.
To my mind the sacking of Ranieri provided an opportunity for the players to show that most Premiership footballer are not class one shi*ts.
They should have to a man publicly backed him, demand his immediate reinstatement or all seek a transfer at the end of the season. This would have got huge fan and public backing and provide a bunker mentality and impetus for the rest of the season.
All you have presently is a worsened situation and drift.
Really? .... despite the Premiership position you are a 1-0 home win from the QF's of the Champions League.
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
Delusional stuff from Leicester
The analytics show that their title win was due to every bit of luck going their way, an over performance that could only realistically mean a crashing thud back down to earth. Yet the owners have got carried away
I confess to not being either a football fan or even armchair expert (the rampant cheating, feigning of injury and abuse of officials are appalling) but the treatment of Ranieri has been shabby in the extreme.
In Tennis terms, Leicester 15/16 made 95% of their attempted winners and no unforced errors all season
Really? .... despite the Premiership position you are a 1-0 home win from the QF's of the Champions League.
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
Delusional stuff from Leicester
The analytics show that their title win was due to every bit of luck going their way, an over performance that could only realistically mean a crashing thud back down to earth. Yet the owners have got carried away
Yeah, but we did lift the title, and are still in a better position in the CL than all English clubs apart from Man City (and I think Monaco may well put them out).
On paper stats Arsenal should win each year, unfortunately the game is played on grass!
(Incidentally if Chelsea keep Kante, they will win the CL next year. He is that good)
Hollywood film-making - global film-making - has been in decline for years. Maybe two decades. There are several explanations, many focusing on the need to please evermore youthful audiences, with simplistic plots, audiences which get smaller by the year, leading to a demand for commercially reliable, imaginatively tedious sequels. And Marvel spin offs.
Clearly, all the creative energy is now in TV drama. A great TV series like Breaking Bad or the Sopranos or Spartacus or The Killing (Danish season 1) utterly eclipses any movie in narrative power and thematic complexity. And the Golden Age of TV arrived just as movies declined. Surely not a coincidence.
Don't also forget the influence of trying to get access to the "new big money" ie the Chinese, when it comes to the blockbuster movies and their plots.
A movie equivalent of breaking bad has bugger all chance of getting past the Chinese moral arbitrors.
That's also true in India, another massive movie market where Hollywood is trying to usurp local production.
Here in the Middle East, as an example, The Wolf of Wall St was 45 minutes shorter than the director intended. Not quite sure how it worked at all with no sex, drugs, drunkenness or nudity! We all downloaded it.
I remember the old joke about the Saudi cut of Thelma and Louise being only 10 minutes long because they cut all the scenes with women driving
LOL!! They are actually about to open cinemas in Saudi - there are none there now - so it will be interesting to see what allowed and what isn't. The UAE censor pretty much works to a UK 12 rating as the maximum allowed, but the Saudis will probably be limited to animated Disney movies.
I remember watching a French film on Saudia Airlines where they extensively pixelated bad language in the embedded English subtitles but didn't touch the French soundtrack.
Blimey .... Hitler only managed Denmark and Norway with Finland as allies !!
I went to Copenhagen last year and loved it. Stockholm next, but wanted to take the ferry to Finland, possibly via the Aland islands, then onto Estonia.
Any PBeres have any advice on spots? planning just public transport, no panzers or stukas...
Helsinki is boring.
In Tallinn, avoid Olde Hansa, it's the country's biggest tourist trap. Get out of the capital if you can, there's plenty of other places that have virtually no tourists.
Really? .... despite the Premiership position you are a 1-0 home win from the QF's of the Champions League.
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
Delusional stuff from Leicester
The analytics show that their title win was due to every bit of luck going their way, an over performance that could only realistically mean a crashing thud back down to earth. Yet the owners have got carried away
Yeah, but we did lift the title, and are still in a better position in the CL than all English clubs apart from Man City (and I think Monaco may well put them out).
On paper stats Arsenal should win each year, unfortunately the game is played on grass!
(Incidentally if Chelsea keep Kante, they will win the CL next year. He is that good)
No on paper/stats Arsenal shouldn't win the title every year.
I am not making a partisan point, I was happy to see Leicester win the title. But the analytics on Shots on target, XG, shots conceded etc for Leicester show that they performed at a level inconsistent with their ability for almost the whole season. Too many shots went in, not enough shots conceded resulted in goals, it was a statistical freak, and the regression to mean was quite foreseeable.
Really? .... despite the Premiership position you are a 1-0 home win from the QF's of the Champions League.
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
Delusional stuff from Leicester
The analytics show that their title win was due to every bit of luck going their way, an over performance that could only realistically mean a crashing thud back down to earth. Yet the owners have got carried away
I confess to not being either a football fan or even armchair expert (the rampant cheating, feigning of injury and abuse of officials are appalling) but the treatment of Ranieri has been shabby in the extreme.
In Tennis terms, Leicester 15/16 made 95% of their attempted winners and no unforced errors all season
Is there an idiots guide on using the forum please. In particular when the post is getting too long and I want to remove some of the previous quotes but keep the structure. In others being able to respond without getting your post is too long message.
When I used to post in the early days it was a different format.
Really? .... despite the Premiership position you are a 1-0 home win from the QF's of the Champions League.
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
Delusional stuff from Leicester
The analytics show that their title win was due to every bit of luck going their way, an over performance that could only realistically mean a crashing thud back down to earth. Yet the owners have got carried away
I confess to not being either a football fan or even armchair expert (the rampant cheating, feigning of injury and abuse of officials are appalling) but the treatment of Ranieri has been shabby in the extreme.
In Tennis terms, Leicester 15/16 made 95% of their attempted winners and no unforced errors all season
Impossible over a 38 game season, plus the consecutive 9 games of tbe great escape.
There is something wrong with your analytics. They are missing something out. A team is not just individual performances, it far exceeds the sum of its parts. Hence Chelsea being runaway champions this year despite being pants most of last season with the same players.
Last year we had the sprit of champions, this year that has gone. There are a number of reasons why, and it is not all Claudio's fault, but he is part of it and the only bit that can be changed at this point in the season. He had to go.
Is there an idiots guide on using the forum please. In particular when the post is getting too long and I want to remove some of the previous quotes but keep the structure. In others being able to respond without getting your post is too long message.
The quote appears as HTML text so you can just delete bits of it EDIT: As long as you leave the tags intact. If the tags are nested you can just leave the outside pair for the last quote
Plato can say some nutty things, but she's got a point here (and she had insights into Trump that escaped others)
That film does look incredibly fake. It just does. It's like one of those comically bad rear-window backdrops of people "driving in a car" in 50s movies.
I have no idea WHY they would fake this (for all the reasons you state). But it does look weirdly bogus.
No, she hasn't got a point.
I've had a quick look with the magnification turned up. The resolution's too low to check for aliasing, but there's no spill, his skin tone's about right, his clothes are the wrong colour for blue screen, and as for the size issue, the gull that flies behind him is about the right size.
I now have to unbox my Virgin Hub 3.0 that the nice delivery man has just delivered to me, so don't be surprised if I'm offline for...thinks...the next month
Blimey .... Hitler only managed Denmark and Norway with Finland as allies !!
I went to Copenhagen last year and loved it. Stockholm next, but wanted to take the ferry to Finland, possibly via the Aland islands, then onto Estonia.
Any PBeres have any advice on spots? planning just public transport, no panzers or stukas...
Helsinki is boring.
In Tallinn, avoid Olde Hansa, it's the country's biggest tourist trap. Get out of the capital if you can, there's plenty of other places that have virtually no tourists.
I was thinking Turku rather than Helsinki, but the ferry goes to Talinn.
Plato can say some nutty things, but she's got a point here (and she had insights into Trump that escaped others)
That film does look incredibly fake. It just does. It's like one of those comically bad rear-window backdrops of people "driving in a car" in 50s movies.
I have no idea WHY they would fake this (for all the reasons you state). But it does look weirdly bogus.
No, she hasn't got a point.
I've had a quick look with the magnification turned up. The resolution's too low to check for aliasing, but there's no spill, his skin tone's about right, his clothes are the wrong colour for blue screen, and as for the size issue, the gull that flies behind him is about the right size.
I now have to unbox my Virgin Hub 3.0 that the nice delivery man has just delivered to me, so don't be surprised if I'm offline for...thinks...the next month
Is there an idiots guide on using the forum please. In particular when the post is getting too long and I want to remove some of the previous quotes but keep the structure. In others being able to respond without getting your post is too long message.
When I used to post in the early days it was a different format.
Thanks.
You need to make sure that the blockquote tags match otherwise the HTML throws a wobbly. I try to either snip out one at a time - or everything except the last two comments.
Is there an idiots guide on using the forum please. In particular when the post is getting too long and I want to remove some of the previous quotes but keep the structure. In others being able to respond without getting your post is too long message.
When I used to post in the early days it was a different format.
Thanks.
You need to make sure that the blockquote tags match otherwise the HTML throws a wobbly. I try to either snip out one at a time - or everything except the last two comments.
Alternatively just delete text between the blockquotes.
Really? .... despite the Premiership position you are a 1-0 home win from the QF's of the Champions League.
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
Delusional stuff from Leicester
The analytics show that their title win was due to every bit of luck going their way, an over performance that could only realistically mean a crashing thud back down to earth. Yet the owners have got carried away
I confess to not being either a football fan or even armchair expert (the rampant cheating, feigning of injury and abuse of officials are appalling) but the treatment of Ranieri has been shabby in the extreme.
In Tennis terms, Leicester 15/16 made 95% of their attempted winners and no unforced errors all season
Impossible over a 38 game season, plus the consecutive 9 games of tbe great escape.
There is something wrong with your analytics. They are missing something out. A team is not just individual performances, it far exceeds the sum of its parts. Hence Chelsea being runaway champions this year despite being pants most of last season with the same players.
Last year we had the sprit of champions, this year that has gone. There are a number of reasons why, and it is not all Claudio's fault, but he is part of it and the only bit that can be changed at this point in the season. He had to go.
Not my analytics, it isn't me that does them. There are many people who use OPTA stats/pro zone etc and break them down to forecast events/which players to keep an eye on
It is almost impossible to do what a team as limited as Leicester did last season, that's why it was so unexpected, that's why it was 5000/1 and also it is why they have regressed to the mean this season. The players over achieved all over the park to a ridiculous degree and this season they are under achieving. They are a lower mid table Prem club who had a season where they over achieved that coincided with the best team under achieving.
Really? .... despite the Premiership position you are a 1-0 home win from the QF's of the Champions League.
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
Delusional stuff from Leicester
The analytics show that their title win was due to every bit of luck going their way, an over performance that could only realistically mean a crashing thud back down to earth. Yet the owners have got carried away
I confess to not being either a football fan or even armchair expert (the rampant cheating, feigning of injury and abuse of officials are appalling) but the treatment of Ranieri has been shabby in the extreme.
In Tennis terms, Leicester 15/16 made 95% of their attempted winners and no unforced errors all season
Impossible over a 38 game season, plus the consecutive 9 games of tbe great escape.
There is something wrong with your analytics. They are missing something out. A team is not just individual performances, it far exceeds the sum of its parts. Hence Chelsea being runaway champions this year despite being pants most of last season with the same players.
Last year we had the sprit of champions, this year that has gone. There are a number of reasons why, and it is not all Claudio's fault, but he is part of it and the only bit that can be changed at this point in the season. He had to go.
Not my analytics, it isn't me that does them. There are many people who use OPTA stats/pro zone etc and break them down to forecast events/which players to keep an eye on
It is almost impossible to do what a team as limited as Leicester did last season, that's why it was so unexpected, that's why it was 5000/1 and also it is why they have regressed to the mean this season. The players over achieved all over the park to a ridiculous degree and this season they are under achieving. They are a lower mid table Prem club who had a season where they over achieved that coincided with the best team under achieving.
"I think you guys know the gambit by now: sky high conversion rates on both ends of the pitch which were rare for a team without the glut of talent that the likes of Manchester City have had, alongside both shot and xG numbers which were mostly pretty decent, When it came to generating big chances, they were quite proficient at it but it was still nothing that resembled a traditional title winner. Since the 2009-10 season, Leicester’s scoring% ranked the 6th highest during that time span and their save% 16th highest. Even the most optimistic of Leicester fans would concede that won’t happen again. A penalty differential of +9 is the second best mark that I could find on record in the PL over the last decade, with only Chelsea from 2012-13 beating it. There was a stretch of games in the second half of the season where it felt like opponents couldn’t buy a goal:
Add that all into a pot alongside great injury luck, no European football and that’s a potent blend that somehow went from 5000-1 odds to win the title. Leicester were a fine enough team if you remove the crazy variance going their way and they did improve as the season went on but there’s still little to suggest that they could replicate much of this and make another go at a CL"
Blimey .... Hitler only managed Denmark and Norway with Finland as allies !!
I went to Copenhagen last year and loved it. Stockholm next, but wanted to take the ferry to Finland, possibly via the Aland islands, then onto Estonia.
Any PBeres have any advice on spots? planning just public transport, no panzers or stukas...
I note you don't rule out naval forces .... sneeky you LibDems - Estonia via U1906 or pocket battleship Barchart !!
I was thinking more Viking Ferry, but can be a real booze cruise I hear, full of drunk Finns and Swedes.
I've never done that ferry, and indeed it used to have that reputation, though less so nowadays as all drivers are breathalyzed as they come off the ferry.
@ThreeQuidder says "Helsinki is boring". Well, maybe. It depends what you like. The harbour market, near where you disembark the ferry, is colourful and lively. If you're interested in design and modern architecture you can find plenty, including some oddities like the church in a rock (Kalliokirkko). Lakes and forests and are the natural sights, but no mountains.
So that film warty system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.
You are just believing everything you are being fed.
Plato can say some nutty things, but she's got a point here (and she had insights into Trump that escaped others)
That film does look incredibly fake. It just does. It's like one of those comically bad rear-window backdrops of people "driving in a car" in 50s movies.
I have no idea WHY they would fake this (for all the reasons you state). But it does look weirdly bogus.
Here's the unedited version. The initial camera pan makes it look much more convincing.
Weird. It looks much more convincing at first, but then there's a new bit at the end where it looks EVEN more fake.
My guess is that it's a mixture of real footage and doctored footage, and the producers doctored some footage simply because the presenter fluffed some lines - and they couldn't go back and reshoot that precise sequence with the battleship? Who knows.
Either way I don't see a huge conspiracy. At most, some fairly innocent legerdemain in the CNN studio.
New story, please.
It's so obviously fake. The guy says the ship is 'steaming', when it's obvious that it's a diesel.
Seriously though; it doesn't seem fake at all. They even have the boat he's on moving when it encounters the wake from the US ship.
MPEG artefacts have washed out much of the detail, which is exactly what you'd expect from a live broadcast on a limited bandwidth link. The way the camera pans, the shadows, all look legit to me. I reckon the reporter's boat slowed, or stopped, at about the time the wake hit, causing it to wallow.
Participants tell the Guardian that they were struck by the contrast between McMaster’s worldview and that of the president, who has repeatedly used a phrase that Muslims in the US and globally feel portrays them as threats to be confronted.
A participant, paraphrasing McMaster, said: “He said he doesn’t want to call it radical Islamic terrorism because the terrorists are, quote, ‘un-Islamic’.”
McMaster, the participant said, indicated that the phrase castigates “an entire religion” and “he’s not on board”.
At the meeting, multiple sources said, McMaster discomfited White House staffers who view the terrorist threat in those religious terms and who were said to have exchanged awkward looks with each other.
At other points in the meeting, McMaster laid out a vigorous defense of the post-second world war liberal order, calling it a guarantor of peace and economic prosperity. Staffers inferred that McMaster was signaling to professional staff on the National Security Council that he subscribed to longstanding US foreign-policy goals, which Trump has attacked as yielding a chaotic world.
One source said McMaster was “very clear” that he viewed Russia “as an adversary”, a position not shared by Trump and which is at the center of a Washington firestorm – one which brought down McMaster’s predecessor, Michael Flynn.
So that film warty system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.
You are just believing everything you are being fed.
Plato can say some nutty things, but she's got a point here (and she had insights into Trump that escaped others)
That film does look incredibly fake. It just does. It's like one of those comically bad rear-window backdrops of people "driving in a car" in 50s movies.
I have no idea WHY they would fake this (for all the reasons you state). But it does look weirdly bogus.
Here's the unedited version. The initial camera pan makes it look much more convincing.
Weird. It looks much more convincing at first, but then there's a new bit at the end where it looks EVEN more fake.
My guess is that it's a mixture of real footage and doctored footage, and the producers doctored some footage simply because the presenter fluffed some lines - and they couldn't go back and reshoot that precise sequence with the battleship? Who knows.
Either way I don't see a huge conspiracy. At most, some fairly innocent legerdemain in the CNN studio.
New story, please.
It's so obviously fake. The guy says the ship is 'steaming', when it's obvious that it's a diesel.
Seriously though; it doesn't seem fake at all. They even have the boat he's on moving when it encounters the wake from the US ship.
MPEG artefacts have washed out much of the detail, which is exactly what you'd expect from a live broadcast on a limited bandwidth link. The way the camera pans, the shadows, all look legit to me. I reckon the reporter's boat slowed, or stopped, at about the time the wake hit, causing it to wallow.
What's the bit you think looks fake near the end?
When did French rugby get so crap and boring?
Seems like they go back and forth on that every few years now.
Easiest way to make money these days is to come up with a fake news video that you know millions of people will get "outraged" about, and rake in the profits from the YouTube adverts. 3 million people have watched the London cycle video which has been outed as fake.
@Isam - I'm not a huge fan of football statistics. I suspect the statistics show that Mesut Ozil is a better footballer than Alex Hleb was. But I'd pick the latter over the former every time because of the way the team played around him.
I always think you can only get a really good feel for what a team is like by seeing them live. I saw them twice last season (home and away v Arsenal). In the first, Leicester were fantastic going forward in the first half and could/should have been out of sight. It was a hot and sunny afternoon that definitely played into Arsenal's hands in the second half, but nevertheless I knew we'd gotten away with it despite the 5-2 win.
What struck me about the game at the Emirates was just how well organised Leicester were. They had that thing Chelsea have had over the years when I just could not see how we could get through to score. They still seemed to have that in the game at Leicester back in August, but from I've seen on TV, Leicester's defending has been very poor the last few months.
It must be such a come down from last season for the players and losing Kante was a massive blow. I'm in two minds about Ranieri. It seems harsh but then sacking Pearson was harsh. I hope they do stay up because it would be a sad way for the story to end (and it's a decent away trip!).
Blimey .... Hitler only managed Denmark and Norway with Finland as allies !!
I went to Copenhagen last year and loved it. Stockholm next, but wanted to take the ferry to Finland, possibly via the Aland islands, then onto Estonia.
Any PBeres have any advice on spots? planning just public transport, no panzers or stukas...
I note you don't rule out naval forces .... sneeky you LibDems - Estonia via U1906 or pocket battleship Barchart !!
I was thinking more Viking Ferry, but can be a real booze cruise I hear, full of drunk Finns and Swedes.
I've never done that ferry, and indeed it used to have that reputation, though less so nowadays as all drivers are breathalyzed as they come off the ferry.
@ThreeQuidder says "Helsinki is boring". Well, maybe. It depends what you like. The harbour market, near where you disembark the ferry, is colourful and lively. If you're interested in design and modern architecture you can find plenty, including some oddities like the church in a rock (Kalliokirkko). Lakes and forests and are the natural sights, but no mountains.
It's pretty enough, but having been for a day trip from Tallinn we didn't find any reason to go back.
@Isam - I'm not a huge fan of football statistics. I suspect the statistics show that Mesut Ozil is a better footballer than Alex Hleb was. But I'd pick the latter over the former every time because of the way the team played around him.
I always think you can only get a really good feel for what a team is like by seeing them live. I saw them twice last season (home and away v Arsenal). In the first, Leicester were fantastic going forward in the first half and could/should have been out of sight. It was a hot and sunny afternoon that definitely played into Arsenal's hands in the second half, but nevertheless I knew we'd gotten away with it despite the 5-2 win.
What struck me about the game at the Emirates was just how well organised Leicester were. They had that thing Chelsea have had over the years when I just could not see how we could get through to score. They still seemed to have that in the game at Leicester back in August, but from I've seen on TV, Leicester's defending has been very poor the last few months.
It must be such a come down from last season for the players and losing Kante was a massive blow. I'm in two minds about Ranieri. It seems harsh but then sacking Pearson was harsh. I hope they do stay up because it would be a sad way for the story to end (and it's a decent away trip!).
Hleb! The controversial pick in my Arsene XI! What a mad player he was.. the assister of assists
His influence on my game was that I stopped shooting and tried to find a clever pass instead!
On your first point, a bloke I know that used to win thousands on horseracing by looking at speed ratings started losing money when he got the racing channel!
Easiest way to make money these days is to come up with a fake news video that you know millions of people will get "outraged" about, and rake in the profits from the YouTube adverts. 3 million people have watched the London cycle video which has been outed as fake.
Easiest way to make money these days is to come up with a fake news video that you know millions of people will get "outraged" about, and rake in the profits from the YouTube adverts. 3 million people have watched the London cycle video which has been outed as fake.
@Isam - I'm not a huge fan of football statistics. I suspect the statistics show that Mesut Ozil is a better footballer than Alex Hleb was. But I'd pick the latter over the former every time because of the way the team played around him.
I always think you can only get a really good feel for what a team is like by seeing them live. I saw them twice last season (home and away v Arsenal). In the first, Leicester were fantastic going forward in the first half and could/should have been out of sight. It was a hot and sunny afternoon that definitely played into Arsenal's hands in the second half, but nevertheless I knew we'd gotten away with it despite the 5-2 win.
What struck me about the game at the Emirates was just how well organised Leicester were. They had that thing Chelsea have had over the years when I just could not see how we could get through to score. They still seemed to have that in the game at Leicester back in August, but from I've seen on TV, Leicester's defending has been very poor the last few months.
It must be such a come down from last season for the players and losing Kante was a massive blow. I'm in two minds about Ranieri. It seems harsh but then sacking Pearson was harsh. I hope they do stay up because it would be a sad way for the story to end (and it's a decent away trip!).
Hleb! The controversial pick in my Arsene XI! What a mad player he was.. the assister of assists
His influence on my game was that I stopped shooting and tried to find a clever pass instead!
On your first point, a bloke I know that used to win thousands on horseracing by looking at speed ratings started losing money when he got the racing channel!
What's your Arsene XI? Mine would be (signings he made): Lehman, Eboue, Mertesacker, Koscielny, Monreal, Gilberto, Cazorla, Ljungberg, Hleb, Pires, Henry.
I have you read/seen Moneyball? Baseball's not my game but I could very much relate to the question of "what makes a good player?" So many people in the Oakland As were concerned with aesthetics - what does a player look like when they swing the bat? But all the Jonah Hill character cares about is "does he get on base?"
The problem is that football is a strange game. I hear people talk about passes completed in the final third. I'm sure that a useful metric, but you also need to know ask "what does that player do to help you spend time in your opponent's final third?"
@Isam - I'm not a huge fan of football statistics. I suspect the statistics show that Mesut Ozil is a better footballer than Alex Hleb was. But I'd pick the latter over the former every time because of the way the team played around him.
I always think you can only get a really good feel for what a team is like by seeing them live. I saw them twice last season (home and away v Arsenal). In the first, Leicester were fantastic going forward in the first half and could/should have been out of sight. It was a hot and sunny afternoon that definitely played into Arsenal's hands in the second half, but nevertheless I knew we'd gotten away with it despite the 5-2 win.
What struck me about the game at the Emirates was just how well organised Leicester were. They had that thing Chelsea have had over the years when I just could not see how we could get through to score. They still seemed to have that in the game at Leicester back in August, but from I've seen on TV, Leicester's defending has been very poor the last few months.
It must be such a come down from last season for the players and losing Kante was a massive blow. I'm in two minds about Ranieri. It seems harsh but then sacking Pearson was harsh. I hope they do stay up because it would be a sad way for the story to end (and it's a decent away trip!).
Hleb! The controversial pick in my Arsene XI! What a mad player he was.. the assister of assists
His influence on my game was that I stopped shooting and tried to find a clever pass instead!
On your first point, a bloke I know that used to win thousands on horseracing by looking at speed ratings started losing money when he got the racing channel!
What's your Arsene XI? Mine would be (signings he made): Lehman, Eboue, Mertesacker, Koscielny, Monreal, Gilberto, Cazorla, Ljungberg, Hleb, Pires, Henry.
I have you read/seen Moneyball? Baseball's not my game but I could very much relate to the question of "what makes a good player?" So many people in the Oakland As were concerned with aesthetics - what does a player look like when they swing the bat? But all the Jonah Hill character cares about is "does he get on base?"
The problem is that football is a strange game. I hear people talk about passes completed in the final third. I'm sure that a useful metric, but you also need to know ask "what does that player do to help you spend time in your opponent's final third?"
I understand why some fans, like you, support the decision, but to the neutral, it feels wrong.
Two weeks ago, he received the full support of the board (yes, I know). At about the same time, he admitted he'd been too loyal to some of the players. I suspect they pricked their ears up at that. Straight to the owners for a whinge.
I know they're only spoilt children, but even so ...
They've acted like a school class who one year get excellent teaching and instruction, work hard and do really well in the end-of-year exams. It goes to their heads, and next year, they start to think how clever they are. They neglect their studies, they don't do their homework and look likely to fail their exams this year. So they go and complain to the Local Education Authority about the headmaster and the teachers, Result the LEA sack the teachers.
If I were a Leicester fan, I might turn up at the next home game and throw things at my own team. I fully expect the team to play well against Liverpool in their next match. If they do, the fans have a right to question their previous application and morality.
The advantage of being neutral is that I can have these opinions.
@Isam - I'm not a huge fan of football statistics. I suspect the statistics show that Mesut Ozil is a better footballer than Alex Hleb was. But I'd pick the latter over the former every time because of the way the team played around him.
I always think you can only get a really good feel for what a team is like by seeing them live. I saw them twice last season (home and away v Arsenal). In the first, Leicester were fantastic going forward in the first half and could/should have been out of sight. It was a hot and sunny afternoon that definitely played into Arsenal's hands in the second half, but nevertheless I knew we'd gotten away with it despite the 5-2 win.
What struck me about the game at the Emirates was just how well organised Leicester were. They had that thing Chelsea have had over the years when I just could not see how we could get through to score. They still seemed to have that in the game at Leicester back in August, but from I've seen on TV, Leicester's defending has been very poor the last few months.
It must be such a come down from last season for the players and losing Kante was a massive blow. I'm in two minds about Ranieri. It seems harsh but then sacking Pearson was harsh. I hope they do stay up because it would be a sad way for the story to end (and it's a decent away trip!).
Hleb! The controversial pick in my Arsene XI! What a mad player he was.. the assister of assists
His influence on my game was that I stopped shooting and tried to find a clever pass instead!
On your first point, a bloke I know that used to win thousands on horseracing by looking at speed ratings started losing money when he got the racing channel!
What's your Arsene XI? Mine would be (signings he made): Lehman, Eboue, Mertesacker, Koscielny, Monreal, Gilberto, Cazorla, Ljungberg, Hleb, Pires, Henry.
I have you read/seen Moneyball? Baseball's not my game but I could very much relate to the question of "what makes a good player?" So many people in the Oakland As were concerned with aesthetics - what does a player look like when they swing the bat? But all the Jonah Hill character cares about is "does he get on base?"
The problem is that football is a strange game. I hear people talk about passes completed in the final third. I'm sure that a useful metric, but you also need to know ask "what does that player do to help you spend time in your opponent's final third?"
No Vieira?
Not technically a Wenger signing! Okay, he probably should be instead of Cazorla. Or maybe with Petit, but Gilberto was an amazingly good signing given he played every minute of Brazil's world cup win in 2002!
@Isam - I'm not a huge fan of football statistics. I suspect the statistics show that Mesut Ozil is a better footballer than Alex Hleb was. But I'd pick the latter over the former every time because of the way the team played around him.
I always think you can only get a really good feel for what a team is like by seeing them live. I saw them twice last season (home and away v Arsenal). In the first, Leicester were fantastic going forward in the first half and could/should have been out of sight. It was a hot and sunny afternoon that definitely played into Arsenal's hands in the second half, but nevertheless I knew we'd gotten away with it despite the 5-2 win.
What struck me about the game at the Emirates was just how well organised Leicester were. They had that thing Chelsea have had over the years when I just could not see how we could get through to score. They still seemed to have that in the game at Leicester back in August, but from I've seen on TV, Leicester's defending has been very poor the last few months.
It must be such a come down from last season for the players and losing Kante was a massive blow. I'm in two minds about Ranieri. It seems harsh but then sacking Pearson was harsh. I hope they do stay up because it would be a sad way for the story to end (and it's a decent away trip!).
Hleb! The controversial pick in my Arsene XI! What a mad player he was.. the assister of assists
His influence on my game was that I stopped shooting and tried to find a clever pass instead!
On your first point, a bloke I know that used to win thousands on horseracing by looking at speed ratings started losing money when he got the racing channel!
What's your Arsene XI? Mine would be (signings he made): Lehman, Eboue, Mertesacker, Koscielny, Monreal, Gilberto, Cazorla, Ljungberg, Hleb, Pires, Henry.
I have you read/seen Moneyball? Baseball's not my game but I could very much relate to the question of "what makes a good player?" So many people in the Oakland As were concerned with aesthetics - what does a player look like when they swing the bat? But all the Jonah Hill character cares about is "does he get on base?"
The problem is that football is a strange game. I hear people talk about passes completed in the final third. I'm sure that a useful metric, but you also need to know ask "what does that player do to help you spend time in your opponent's final third?"
Hmm I have never picked a Wenger signings XI.. I always bung TA in there!
You are right about Vieira.... Although he is widely quoted as saying he only signed because rioch was getting the sack and knew wenger was his replacement.
You are right about Vieira.... Although he is widely quoted as saying he only signed because rioch was getting the sack and knew wenger was his replacement.
I think Vieira was an AW signing.. same day as Remi Garde. Rioch was long gone by then, and they were bought because Wenger asked for them
I understand why some fans, like you, support the decision, but to the neutral, it feels wrong.
Two weeks ago, he received the full support of the board (yes, I know). At about the same time, he admitted he'd been too loyal to some of the players. I suspect they pricked their ears up at that. Straight to the owners for a whinge.
I know they're only spoilt children, but even so ...
They've acted like a school class who one year get excellent teaching and instruction, work hard and do really well in the end-of-year exams. It goes to their heads, and next year, they start to think how clever they are. They neglect their studies, they don't do their homework and look likely to fail their exams this year. So they go and complain to the Local Education Authority about the headmaster and the teachers, Result the LEA sack the teachers.
If I were Leicester fan, I might turn up at the next home game and throw things at my own team. I fully expect the team to play well against Liverpool in their next match. If they do, the fans have a right to question their previous application and morality.
The advantage of being neutral is that I can have these opinions.
The advantage of being a neutral is not having to watch the crap that I have had to over recent months!
Monday will be edgy, but fans support effort and if the players put it in, the fans will be behind the players even if they lose. That is what fans do.
Nobody's hands are clean in this, players, manager, owners. That's football.
Comments
SSSCCCOOOTTTLLLAAANNNDDD!!!
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/no-hollywood-ending-visual-effects-industry/
But thanks again for this Roger.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/25/kansas-shooting-injured-man-suspect-visas
Is it a vintage year? No far from it. One of the worst I can remember and some of the nominations were strange. Two of my favourite films didn't even get nominated which doesn't usually happen.
Any PBeres have any advice on spots? planning just public transport, no panzers or stukas...
There had to be a change. Sorry Claudio.
Re point about wind, spray, sea legs and swaying camera - Well you can see from the sea that the wind speed is under a force 3 so little wind and no spray. Also you can see from the destroyer and even the power boat that nothing is being thrown over the bow. However there is a small swell which over the distance of the camera to Watson will cause movement.
Honestly this is cult stuff. It may well be faked but provide proper evidence. This is the same as other links. Just the other day was the convoluted anti antisemitism conspiracy. Again I could believe the Democrats could be up to this but no evidence was provided whereas the most logical conclusion is that in a two party system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.
You are just believing everything you are being fed.
They are actually about to open cinemas in Saudi - there are none there now - so it will be interesting to see what allowed and what isn't. The UAE censor pretty much works to a UK 12 rating as the maximum allowed, but the Saudis will probably be limited to animated Disney movies.
This is what they're up against, clerics who live several hundred years in the past. If they don't reform they're in real trouble as the oil runs out.
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/saudi-mufti-warns-of-depravity-of-cinemas-and-concerts
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/blue-screen.htm
Did he actually say anything misleadingly?
What was said that was fake or wrong?
The attacker, who was believed to have been armed with a knife, was shot and injured by police in a brief standoff after fleeing the scene on foot.
His motives are unclear, but terrorism is not suspected and he is thought to have acted alone, police say.
Heidelberg car attack injures three
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39091858
Leicester City have gone from many football fans second favourite team to hoping you get relegated.
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/03/07/exp-nr-vo-watson-russia-ukraine-ships.cnn
Re point about wind, spray, sea legs and swaying camera - Well you can see from the sea that the wind speed is under a force 3 so little wind and no spray. Also you can see from the destroyer and even the power boat that nothing is being thrown over the bow. However there is a small swell which over the distance of the camera to Watson will cause movement.
Honestly this is cult stuff. It may well be faked but provide proper evidence. This is the same as other links. Just the other day was the convoluted anti antisemitism conspiracy. Again I could believe the Democrats could be up to this but no evidence was provided whereas the most logical conclusion is that in a two party system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.
You are just believing everything you are being fed.
Plato can say some nutty things, but she's got a point here (and she had insights into Trump that escaped others)
That film does look incredibly fake. It just does. It's like one of those comically bad rear-window backdrops of people "driving in a car" in 50s movies.
I have no idea WHY they would fake this (for all the reasons you state). But it does look weirdly bogus.
Isn't it just using the blue screen that weather presenters use?
Did he actually say anything misleadingly?
I agree with Sean - It does look odd, but I think that is all it is. If it were fake I don't care if he didn't say anything misleading it would still be fake because of the mocked up bow. So that is not a good enough excuse.
You also have to ask yourself wouldn't someone have leaked something. For instance what happened to the film without him in it. What about the clock? If that went out live with him in front of a screen you are just asking for trouble. Anything could have gone wrong and they would have been exposed big time. If not live then it would be so easy to show that the time shown didn't tie in with the position of the ship. There is so much that can go wrong for no benefit.
Damn I can't deal with this Quote stuff when it gets too long - Need lessons!
I agree with Sean - It does look odd, but I think that is all it is. If it were fake I don't care if he didn't say anything misleading it would still be fake because of the mocked up bow. So that is not a good enough excuse.
You also have to ask yourself wouldn't someone have leaked something. For instance what happened to the film without him in it. What about the clock? If that went out live with him in front of a screen you are just asking for trouble. Anything could have gone wrong and they would have been exposed big time. If not live then it would be so easy to show that the time shown didn't tie in with the position of the ship. There is so much that can go wrong for no benefit.
The analytics show that their title win was due to every bit of luck going their way, an over performance that could only realistically mean a crashing thud back down to earth. Yet the owners have got carried away
Last year is history, and history is in the past.
Claudio erred by getting rid of the fitness trainer and sports psychologist. The players are unfit and with a losing mentality. It had to change. It is kinder to sack Claudio before rather than after relegation.
On a silver lining note, I have been topping up on Leicester being relegated since Nov at 12-19, so have a free season ticket next year to ease the pain.
Matt Damon, alone on a distant planet, waiting for rescue...
800/1...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39072331
They should have to a man publicly backed him, demand his immediate reinstatement or all seek a transfer at the end of the season. This would have got huge fan and public backing and provide a bunker mentality and impetus for the rest of the season.
All you have presently is a worsened situation and drift.
Very excited to go and see it.
Thought it was absolute pants.
On paper stats Arsenal should win each year, unfortunately the game is played on grass!
(Incidentally if Chelsea keep Kante, they will win the CL next year. He is that good)
Huzzah .... for the latter, of course ..
In Tallinn, avoid Olde Hansa, it's the country's biggest tourist trap. Get out of the capital if you can, there's plenty of other places that have virtually no tourists.
I am not making a partisan point, I was happy to see Leicester win the title. But the analytics on Shots on target, XG, shots conceded etc for Leicester show that they performed at a level inconsistent with their ability for almost the whole season. Too many shots went in, not enough shots conceded resulted in goals, it was a statistical freak, and the regression to mean was quite foreseeable.
When I used to post in the early days it was a different format.
Thanks.
There is something wrong with your analytics. They are missing something out. A team is not just individual performances, it far exceeds the sum of its parts. Hence Chelsea being runaway champions this year despite being pants most of last season with the same players.
Last year we had the sprit of champions, this year that has gone. There are a number of reasons why, and it is not all Claudio's fault, but he is part of it and the only bit that can be changed at this point in the season. He had to go.
I've had a quick look with the magnification turned up. The resolution's too low to check for aliasing, but there's no spill, his skin tone's about right, his clothes are the wrong colour for blue screen, and as for the size issue, the gull that flies behind him is about the right size.
I now have to unbox my Virgin Hub 3.0 that the nice delivery man has just delivered to me, so don't be surprised if I'm offline for...thinks...the next month
It is almost impossible to do what a team as limited as Leicester did last season, that's why it was so unexpected, that's why it was 5000/1 and also it is why they have regressed to the mean this season. The players over achieved all over the park to a ridiculous degree and this season they are under achieving. They are a lower mid table Prem club who had a season where they over achieved that coincided with the best team under achieving.
http://www.espn.co.uk/football/english-premier-league/23/blog/post/2905160/leicester-may-regret-that-jamie-vardy-did-not-join-arsenal
https://deepxg.com/tag/jamie-vardy/
<blockquote>and second to last
</p></div></blockquote>oops, ignore those extra p and div tags there!
https://twitter.com/jonocabron/status/834888222501003266
Add that all into a pot alongside great injury luck, no European football and that’s a potent blend that somehow went from 5000-1 odds to win the title. Leicester were a fine enough team if you remove the crazy variance going their way and they did improve as the season went on but there’s still little to suggest that they could replicate much of this and make another go at a CL"
http://statsbomb.com/2016/08/leicester-city-201617-season-preview-what-comes-next/
@ThreeQuidder says "Helsinki is boring". Well, maybe. It depends what you like. The harbour market, near where you disembark the ferry, is colourful and lively. If you're interested in design and modern architecture you can find plenty, including some oddities like the church in a rock (Kalliokirkko). Lakes and forests and are the natural sights, but no mountains.
Seriously though; it doesn't seem fake at all. They even have the boat he's on moving when it encounters the wake from the US ship.
MPEG artefacts have washed out much of the detail, which is exactly what you'd expect from a live broadcast on a limited bandwidth link. The way the camera pans, the shadows, all look legit to me. I reckon the reporter's boat slowed, or stopped, at about the time the wake hit, causing it to wallow.
What's the bit you think looks fake near the end?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?424411-1/dnc-meets-elect-new-party-chair
Participants tell the Guardian that they were struck by the contrast between McMaster’s worldview and that of the president, who has repeatedly used a phrase that Muslims in the US and globally feel portrays them as threats to be confronted.
A participant, paraphrasing McMaster, said: “He said he doesn’t want to call it radical Islamic terrorism because the terrorists are, quote, ‘un-Islamic’.”
McMaster, the participant said, indicated that the phrase castigates “an entire religion” and “he’s not on board”.
At the meeting, multiple sources said, McMaster discomfited White House staffers who view the terrorist threat in those religious terms and who were said to have exchanged awkward looks with each other.
At other points in the meeting, McMaster laid out a vigorous defense of the post-second world war liberal order, calling it a guarantor of peace and economic prosperity. Staffers inferred that McMaster was signaling to professional staff on the National Security Council that he subscribed to longstanding US foreign-policy goals, which Trump has attacked as yielding a chaotic world.
One source said McMaster was “very clear” that he viewed Russia “as an adversary”, a position not shared by Trump and which is at the center of a Washington firestorm – one which brought down McMaster’s predecessor, Michael Flynn.
Very interesting.
I always think you can only get a really good feel for what a team is like by seeing them live. I saw them twice last season (home and away v Arsenal). In the first, Leicester were fantastic going forward in the first half and could/should have been out of sight. It was a hot and sunny afternoon that definitely played into Arsenal's hands in the second half, but nevertheless I knew we'd gotten away with it despite the 5-2 win.
What struck me about the game at the Emirates was just how well organised Leicester were. They had that thing Chelsea have had over the years when I just could not see how we could get through to score. They still seemed to have that in the game at Leicester back in August, but from I've seen on TV, Leicester's defending has been very poor the last few months.
It must be such a come down from last season for the players and losing Kante was a massive blow. I'm in two minds about Ranieri. It seems harsh but then sacking Pearson was harsh. I hope they do stay up because it would be a sad way for the story to end (and it's a decent away trip!).
http://theposthorngallop.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/time-to-say-goodbye_25.html?m=1
His influence on my game was that I stopped shooting and tried to find a clever pass instead!
On your first point, a bloke I know that used to win thousands on horseracing by looking at speed ratings started losing money when he got the racing channel!
I have you read/seen Moneyball? Baseball's not my game but I could very much relate to the question of "what makes a good player?" So many people in the Oakland As were concerned with aesthetics - what does a player look like when they swing the bat? But all the Jonah Hill character cares about is "does he get on base?"
The problem is that football is a strange game. I hear people talk about passes completed in the final third. I'm sure that a useful metric, but you also need to know ask "what does that player do to help you spend time in your opponent's final third?"
Can see that odd things happen when you chop bits out. I can see where mine has been chopped in later posts I appear to say:
'So that film warty system each side will get support from some undesirables from the far fringes. So what.'
Just wondering what a 'film warty system' is. I definitely didn't post that!
I understand why some fans, like you, support the decision, but to the neutral, it feels wrong.
Two weeks ago, he received the full support of the board (yes, I know). At about the same time, he admitted he'd been too loyal to some of the players. I suspect they pricked their ears up at that. Straight to the owners for a whinge.
I know they're only spoilt children, but even so ...
They've acted like a school class who one year get excellent teaching and instruction, work hard and do really well in the end-of-year exams. It goes to their heads, and next year, they start to think how clever they are. They neglect their studies, they don't do their homework and look likely to fail their exams this year. So they go and complain to the Local Education Authority about the headmaster and the teachers, Result the LEA sack the teachers.
If I were a Leicester fan, I might turn up at the next home game and throw things at my own team. I fully expect the team to play well against Liverpool in their next match. If they do, the fans have a right to question their previous application and morality.
The advantage of being neutral is that I can have these opinions.
So...
Lehman
Lauren Campbell Koscielny Clichy
Vieira Petit
Pires Hleb Overmars
TH
Cesc should really be in there somewhere (if he counts as a signing?)
Ditto Bellerin for Lauren
Monday will be edgy, but fans support effort and if the players put it in, the fans will be behind the players even if they lose. That is what fans do.
Nobody's hands are clean in this, players, manager, owners. That's football.