User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.6596 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
However, Mariotti seems to be a particularly bad guy. What a horrible way to leave a company that's given him tremendous opportunities over the years. Ebert is spot on with his remarks.
Unfortunately, he'll continued to be employed by ESPN because they specialize in hiring bad columnists for their shows.
Aha, it makes sense to me now. ESPN hires bad columnists to make their their mainstays look better. Seriously, in a world of Jay Mariotti, Woody Paige and Skip Bayless, Stuart Scott is a beacon of good sports journalism.
EDIT: Fixed some crappy sentence construction. No proposal writing today for me.
I don't think Ebert had a problem with Mariotti per se...why would he...he just didn't like how he went out the door.
The link to the full letter, since it doesn't appear to be working at the moment ...
To #7, it doesn't seem as if Ebert thought all that highly of Mariotti ...
Edited to add the article link ...
Still, this has been a rough stretch for the Sun-Times. It's my favorite paper, mostly because their city coverage is so much better than the Trib's, and I'm a huge fan of Telander's. But on the heels of Conrad Black, you've got Ebert's health problems, Novak's retirement, and now Mariotti's exodus. Those are serious blows, regardless of the fact that Mariotti was a welcome departure. That's of course to say nothing of the problems all newspapers are facing. I hope they survive.
On the ESPN thing, Rick Reilly's continuing sinecure has amazed more than any other. Even Bayless or Mariotti. He's just thunderously awful in every way.
Bob Greene with sports.
He's a very thoughtful writer. And based on my very limited interactions with him, a hell of a nice guy.
Eventually I got a bit tired of how he always sticks to the "At most, one sentence per paragraph" format which looks a lot better in newsprint columns than on a website. But he's a good writer.
Well, at least someone liked it. Even if it's the guy who thinks The Run Fairy™ trumps anything in my oeuvre.
Oh, absolutley. I have tons of affection for Telander just because of that show. Great show and he was its best element - sharpest guy on it, the only conservative balance to them, and the interplay with Jauss was great. When he left, it went downhill quickly. It also didn't help that they'd replaced your host and friendly moderator Ben Bentley with the shrill, knee-jerk Lester Munson.
Will Hitler, Stalin or O'Malley get bumped?
Not necessarily his decision.
Jay The Rat
With all this ganging up I'm starting to feel a teensy bit sorry for Mariotti. Should I seek help?
Signed, Time Wounds All Heels
Since he was going with a rat metaphor, as opposed to a snake metaphor (although that would have worked as well), shouldn't he have "scampered" out the door?
My favorite columnist. He's even written some pretty good books. I like the one about losers, titled Complete and Utter Failure.
Since he was going with a rat metaphor, as opposed to a snake metaphor (although that would have worked as well), shouldn't he have "scampered" out the door?
Even good Homer sometimes nods. I would edit to "scuttered," myself, although there are any number of workable verbs.
It seems like in the past, you'd see a canned statement such as, "We regret that our relationship with Jay has come to a close. He has been a valued member of our team for quite some time now, and we wish him the best in his future endeavors."
I just can't get enough of this!
"Skittered" would have also been a good choice.
It seems like in the past, you'd see a canned statement such as, "We regret that our relationship with Jay has come to a close. He has been a valued member of our team for quite some time now, and we wish him the best in his future endeavors."
I just can't get enough of this!
I agree, this is just fun and interesting. rarely is the truth allowed to be let out, but with a sub-human being like Mariotti I guess it's alright to be truthful just this once.
don't they usually have quite a bit more courage in those flicks than the boys do?
So you're saying the one-eyed man is king
What does that make the one-testicled man then?
Surely, surely, Ron Jeremy has starred in a movie of that name.
EDIT: Of course there was an X-rated movie of that name, but there was also a Brit documentary of that name with this plot: The story of Dr Cecil Jacobson, a leading fertility expert who misled women into thinking they were pregnant and fathered 75 children by donating his own sperm. (thanks to imdb.com)
Didn't Marrioti's mom or dad in Pittsburgh lash out at someone a couple of years ago for picking on their poor Jay?
And then it was AWESOME.
I would go with "skulked." Rats skulk, right?
Back was it was on SportChannel years ago, and the show's total budget was apparently $10, and cigar smoke filled the air...
"Get on your hog, Jauss" instantly became one of our elementary school catchphrases.
That is a very superficial analysis.
Wow, I think that Ebert has fought tooth and nail to lift film criticism to a much higher level, even though with the direction film in general is going, it seems to be a losing battle. He's the only major critic I know of who seems to understand films relation to life and why it is so vital.
I think this is what someone says who only knows Ebert casually as the thumbsy television personality. As opposed to his mountain of top-notch written work...
I've read his work. He's a charismatic writer, has a very good sense of humor, can be deliciously nasty at times, etc. But generally speaking his ideas aren't very interesting, but because he has done a good job of reaching a mass audience (and this is where the television show has really played a part), he has a big influence on the content and form of current film criticism. He is/has been more a reviewer than critic throughout his career. Compare him to a Pauline Kael or Andrew Sarris and it's like a match-up between this year's Rays and this year's Yanks.
Two thumbs up! :)
Personally, I liked Siskel better but he could be spectacularly wrong sometimes. He blew it bigtime on Gladiator, Apocalypse Now and Miller's Crossing.
I'd be willing to give Siskel a pass on Gladiator, what with him being kind of dead when it came out.
I loved his raccoon thing.
My bad. I just watched this review the other day and confused it with something else.
It was Ebert this time who blew the review.
Does anyone like Mariotti? Anywhere?
Why not kick him when he's down?
That's like arguing that Hamlet would be better if it was more like Scooby Doo. I generally like Ebert but that review is hilarious. Its almost like he expected History of the World and was pissed when Mel Brooks didn't appear.
I have the best example of writers getting in the way of a great story.
Seabiscuit. Which could have been a 100 times better if they had just TOLD THE STORY AS IS.
Easy example:
When Seabiscuit headed east while folks were talking about a match race he was entering races and winning. And to make it fair they kept adding weight. And he kept winning. I think at one point he got to something like 20 more pounds than the competition which in horseracing is a LOT.
That's amazing.
And the movie never bothered.
Gah!!
Until one day, when Stern pointed out that Ebert had given Godfather 2 a 3-and-a-half-star rating in 1974, then gave Godfather 3 a 4-star rating in 1990. And suddenly, the high-pitched laughter of Siskel was heard in the background, followed by "He gotcha, Roger! He gotcha!"
HW: My favorite example of the writers getting in the way of the story is Titanic. Now, I acknowledge no one in the film business is going to argue against the $$$ that movie made, but I just want to see a movie about the drama, intelligence and ingenuity, and arrogance that went into the construction of that boat, its sinking, and the heroism and viciousness on the water. I don't need Leo diCaprio pretending to be an illustrator, a makeout scene in a car, and the implication the ship might have sunk b/c a lookout was distracted by ass.
The Titanic would have sunk if I were a lookout and Kate Winslet's ass was anywhere in the vicinity.
I like the fact that Ebert would give thumbs up to adventurous movies with flaws that Siskel would dismiss. Like Dark City for instance.
That's one small thumb down for one man, one giant middle finger extended straight up for mankind.
Precisely. One of the things I admire most about Ebert is his approach to negative reviews. In these snark-filled days, there are so many critics who take such joy in trashing movies, who seem to live for the opportunity to really tear something apart. As entertaining as many of his bad reviews are, Ebert doesn't do that. With the exception of the occasional broadside against a Rob Schneider, there's no joy in his negative reviews. Rather, what almost always comes through is a sense of disappointment that the film didn't succeed, and the consistent hope that the next one will be better.
Having a somewhat deep knowledge of statistical analysis of baseball and a somewhat superficial knowledge of cinema, I think this comment is quite in the same spirit of criticisms of Rob Neyer's columns. If you want to write for more than a very small audience, you've absolutely got to leave out the details. The problem is not Ebert, it's the people who think that his criticism should be mimicked and passed off as a deep analysis of cinema.
??? Kate Winslet showing her tits was the best part of that movie. All the rest was a souped up English class/manners movie.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main