Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Bloom: Eric Chavez disputes ‘Moneyball’ portrayal

Bah! Just because Blume in Love got nominated for Jack squata’.

“Those are some pretty good players,” Chavez told MLB.com earlier this week. “I saw the movie and it wasn’t a realistic view of what happened there. It’s easy to say you had a formula and it worked. They drafted really well. We were fortunate to have young guys come together at the same time and play really well together. Billy has tried to do it again over the last few years, but it’s hard to duplicate. It’s hard to do. It’s a slippery slope when you start saying you have an equation for success.”

The discussion is germane again because it is Oscar Sunday tonight in Hollywood and “Moneyball” has been nominated for six Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Brad Pitt as Best Actor in the role of Beane.

...Like many observers, Chavez said that Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s depiction of then manager Art Howe couldn’t have been more fictional.

“It was completely opposite,” he said. “Physically, not even close. Demeanor, not even close. Art was very quiet. Not very outspoken at all. I never heard one thing about a contract dispute during that time. The way some of the guys were portrayed in the clubhouse I wasn’t very fond of, either. During the 20-game streak, go back and look at the numbers put up by Tejada and myself. Our number four or five starter went 5-0.”

“Part of Hollywood has to go into a movie to make it interesting for the normal fan,” Chavez said. “I’m happy it was a success. But for somebody who was there, you just want it to be portrayed for what it was.”

Repoz Posted: February 26, 2012 at 06:14 PM | 646 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: athletics, books, movies

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.

Page 7 of 7 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 7
   601. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4074666)

He was also the one who shot Captain Miller, the same Captain Miller who saved his life. I thought that was part of the reason Upham shot him.

I didn't remember that until rewatching the clip posted in #599. But yeah, excellent point.
   602. RJames Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:29 PM (#4074683)
My impression of the disputed shooting was that Cpl. Upham shot for a very specific reason: overwhelming guilt and shame. He recognizes the German but only shoots after the German recognizes him in turn, saying his name. The essence of shame is being identified.



But just prior to that, with Cpl. Upham looking on, it was Steamboat Willie who shot Capt Miller, and a look of disbelief and rage comes across Upham's face. My interpretation was it was the rage that overcame Upham's cowardice, and it was part of the reason he shot SW.

The German says only "Upham" after recognizing Jeremy Davies' character. Nothing else, according to the clip. A second later, Upham fires.


That was the last thing he said, but not the only thing. Watch the clip again. I don't speak German but he must have pissed Upham off with what he said too.
   603. Something Other Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4074731)
@602: Yup--you're right, RJ. Whatever he says makes Upham pause, then he says "Upham" as what sounds like an attempt at a personal appeal. Then Upham fires. I missed it the first time around because the video--typically surveillance quality video--makes it almost impossible to discern that the German soldier's mouth is moving. One thing I can't tell--is it the "Upham" that makes Upham fire? Or is Upham about to fire anyway, and the German soldier saying his name has no effect? What's your reading?

Can we get a translator? That's a critical scene in the film. There has to be a translation somewhere.

edit: after x viewings I'll guess that Upham's tone is accusatory, on the order of,

Upham: "we let you go and you shot my Captain."
German Soldier: "[something like, I was just doing my job!]"
Upham: "you're a low dog [I heard the word schnauzer in there somewhere]
German Soldier, pleading, putting the conversation on a personal footing: "Upham..."
Upham: [Bang]
   604. McCoy Posted: March 05, 2012 at 11:12 PM (#4074738)
The shooting occurs about five minutes in. The German says only "Upham" after recognizing Jeremy Davies' character. Nothing else, according to the clip. A second later, Upham fires.


He didn't just say Upham. Those were his final words that he spoke after they cut to him. But he said something twice before that before they cut to him.

   605. Something Other Posted: March 05, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4074743)
@604: already covered.

where's DiPerna? We need his take on Tom Hanks' career.
   606. McCoy Posted: March 05, 2012 at 11:28 PM (#4074746)
Alas, the script on the internet has a totally different ending than the movie. In the script Hank's character survives along with Ryan and Reiban. Everybody else, including Upham, is killed.

But according to some sites the German apparently says "I know this man. I know this man". Also the German who killed Mellish is different than the German that kills Capt. Miller and was let go at the radar installation.

   607. McCoy Posted: March 05, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4074747)
@604: already covered.

Thank you for pointing that out.
   608. Something Other Posted: March 05, 2012 at 11:40 PM (#4074751)
You're welcome.
   609. Lassus Posted: March 05, 2012 at 11:57 PM (#4074757)
Alas, the script on the internet has a totally different ending than the movie. In the script Hank's character survives along with Ryan and Reiban. Everybody else, including Upham, is killed.

I thought the movie was above average, but the death of Hanks' character struck me as one of the more contrived and annoying parts.
   610. Something Other Posted: March 06, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4074775)
In real life, the Captain and Sergeant would have been the only survivors. Matt Damon's character would have sh!t his pants (after all, what can you expect from a kid who summons the memory of his brothers trying to gang rape a mental defective when he learns of their deaths?) and taken a German bullet in the back as he tried to bolt from the town. The Captain and Sergeant would have quickly made up some b@llshit story to keep from being court-martialed, on the order of, we were already trapped in the town when we caught up with the kid. Mrs. Ryan would have committed suicide thanks to the f@ck!ng incompetence of an Army that couldn't figure this sh!t out in advance in spite of being in business since the 1770s, and the Captain would have been rendered permanently impotent because he got all his men killed due to his foolishly agreeing to stay in the town. His wife and her garden shears eventually take their business to the high school principal and he dies an unemployed, unloved suicide.
   611. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 06, 2012 at 07:30 AM (#4074815)
But according to some sites the German apparently says "I know this man. I know this man".


German speaking primate to the rescue!

Just watched the clip, and he does say "I know this soldier. I know this man." To which Upham basically responds "Shut your mouth".
   612. Lassus Posted: March 06, 2012 at 08:06 AM (#4074821)
To which Upham basically responds "Shut your mouth".

I trust your translation, but I can't stand "basically". Can you give me something better, even if the literal translatoin sounds goofier?
   613. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 06, 2012 at 08:45 AM (#4074827)
Lit: Hold your snout. It's a fairly common German phrase.
   614. RJames Posted: March 06, 2012 at 08:53 AM (#4074830)
One thing that bothered me about SPR was the incredibly foolish decision by Capt. Miller to charge the machine gun nest protecting the radar tower by frontal assault. Why did he do that? It made no sense. At that point, they had not been discovered, and taking out the machine gun nest was not part of the mission. Besides, if they really felt they had to take it out, they should maneuvered until they found a perch from which to fire and had Jackson take them out from long range. He had a sniper rifle with him. Or they could have approached from behind the radar tower, where they would have had some cover. But they ran right across an open field about 100 yards in a frontal assault on a machine gun. They're lucky they all didn't get killed.
   615. Greg K Posted: March 06, 2012 at 09:01 AM (#4074832)
Lit: Hold your snout. It's a fairly common German phrase.

I had a German prof that always complained of having to pull worms from our noses during seminars. I assume he meant that as some kind of metaphor.
   616. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 06, 2012 at 09:17 AM (#4074839)
But they ran right across an open field about 100 yards in a frontal assault on a machine gun. They're lucky they all didn't get killed that they had Plot Armor.
   617. JPWF1313 Posted: March 06, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4074909)
One thing that bothered me about SPR was the incredibly foolish decision by Capt. Miller to charge the machine gun nest


which is why that decision triggered a near mutiny.

But according to some sites the German apparently says "I know this man. I know this man". Also the German who killed Mellish is different than the German that kills Capt. Miller and was let go at the radar installation.


I've read a few takes on this:
1: They were different actors, Spielberg made a casting mistake in that the two men were too similar looking - but the soldier who killed Melish and the soldier let go at the radar installation were different.
2: Different actors, same character- scenes were shot at different times and the first actor was not available

my take- if it was a different soldier how did he know Upham's name in the last scene?
   618. McCoy Posted: March 06, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4074926)
The actor who kills Miller is the same actor at the radar installation. The actor that kills Mellish is different than him and you don't see him again.


Is there a director's commentary option with the DVD?
   619. Lassus Posted: March 06, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4074931)
I have always taken it - in viewing and memory - that the character who killed Mellish vanished from the film once he passes the interpreter on the stairs; and then out of anger and frustration the interpreter kills the soldier he convinced Hanks to let go earlier, who - along with the character who killed Mellish - was with the germans fighting everyone in the last scene.

EDIT: As McCoy says, cokes, etc.
   620. RJames Posted: March 06, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4074932)
which is why that decision triggered a near mutiny.


But what was disconnecting was that the scene was framed in a way that it was made to seem the only options were to charge the nest or bypass it. The soldiers who objected didn't suggest an alternate attack plan. Any other plan would have been preferable to the one they actually tried. Any moron knows you don't charge a machine gun emplacement across 100 yards of open ground. That scene made Capt. Miller appear inept, when everything else in the film suggested he was a very capable tactical officer.
   621. Greg K Posted: March 06, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4074963)
While we've got the history nerds in here.

What's up with Paradox's "Pride of Nations"? Is it a part of the Victoria franchise? Or is it a separate game entirely...and if so is it worth having both it and Victoria II?
   622. McCoy Posted: March 06, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4074966)
From what I have read Spielberg knows that some of the scenes were not tactically sound but he made the decisions he did because it looked good on film or for expedience.


But it wasn't just a crazy mad dash up the hill. Miller had a plan. He split the group into three groups and as the MG was firing at one group or changing barrels the other two would advance.
   623. Swoboda is freedom Posted: March 06, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4074988)
But it wasn't just a crazy mad dash up the hill. Miller had a plan. He split the group into three groups and as the MG was firing at one group or changing barrels the other two would advance.

Why not work aroung the side and come from the rear? Or do the mad dash at the same time after 2 guys worked around from the rear?
   624. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: March 06, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4075064)
that the character who killed Mellish vanished from the film once he passes the interpreter on the stairs


IIRC, Steamboat Willie is simple Werhmacht wearing a standard grey uni, the soldier who kills Mellish is wearing a) a different style (camo) uniform jacket, with b) SS collar tags.

You can see the tags clearly at 1:49 of this clip.



   625. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: March 06, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4075172)
From what I have read Spielberg knows that some of the scenes were not tactically sound but he made the decisions he did because it looked good on film or for expedience.

Must've been expedience here, then. Because you can't tell at all WTF is going on during that machine-gun-nest-charge scene.
   626. RJames Posted: March 06, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4075254)
But it wasn't just a crazy mad dash up the hill. Miller had a plan. He split the group into three groups and as the MG was firing at one group or changing barrels the other two would advance.


There was only about 7 of them. The machine gunner could have cut them all down with 3 short bursts, well before the barrel would have heated up enough to require changing.

I understand what you say about literary license. It's just that Spielberg put in so much effort for verisimilitude in other areas to gather credibility, only to punt it away when it came to Miller's tactical decisions. IIRC, they didn't bring a radio with them either.
   627. phredbird Posted: March 06, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4075355)
Plot Armor


so that's why i'm still here!
   628. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 06, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4075398)
Plot Armor

so that's why i'm still here!


*cough*Tempting Fate*cough*
   629. phredbird Posted: March 06, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4075420)
Plot Armor

so that's why i'm still here!


*cough*Tempting Fate*cough*



oh, not to worry. nothing exciting ever happens here.
   630. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: March 06, 2012 at 11:42 PM (#4075596)
You can see the tags clearly at 1:49 of this clip.
That ranks way up there with the most disquieting death scenes on film. For me anyway. The combination of the longish struggle, the fact that Mellish seems to briefly think they're going to stand down, and the way the German sortof whispers him to sleep as he slides the knife in.
   631. RJames Posted: March 07, 2012 at 12:19 AM (#4075612)
Yeah, I'm assuming he didn't kill Upham when he was walking down the stairs was because he was so unnerved by the struggle, he didn't have it in him to kill anybody else.

Afte rthat scene, I was wondering of the emotional health prognosis for Upham. It's bad enough he witnessed the horror up close and personal but to feel responsible for a fellow soldier dying in such a pitiless way...
   632. Something Other Posted: March 07, 2012 at 08:51 PM (#4076430)
That scene made Capt. Miller appear inept, when everything else in the film suggested he was a very capable tactical officer.
Circle, come in from the back. Don't these guys carry grenades?

Yeah, I'm assuming he didn't kill Upham when he was walking down the stairs was because he was so unnerved by the struggle, he didn't have it in him to kill anybody else.
On the stairs was a weird scene, not at all what I expected, and it worked terrifically well. Score one for Spielberg. Strangely enough, he underplayed it, too.
   633. McCoy Posted: March 07, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4076481)
Isn't the back of the hill the same as the front of the hill? How do we know that where they came from wasn't the "back of the hill"? If anything the evidence would appear to point to that being so. The Americans were able to charge half way up the hill before they were even exposed to the MG nest.
   634. Something Other Posted: March 09, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4077982)
So... if they were able to get half way up the hill before being exposed, why did they charge before being exposed? Doesn't make sense.



SPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
I cannot ####### believe they killed Dale. Granted the various directors kept letting him overact, to the point where I was beginning to think his eyes bulging out of his head where his "at rest" expression, but killing off one of your better actors and the group's conscience isn't the best use of resources. I did think the previous episode, bookended by Shane watching the solitary zombie make his slow, shuffling way through a field, was excellent, as good as any episode since the first of season one. Exactly the integration of action with philosophical issues the show's been struggling to accomplish all season long.
   635. McCoy Posted: March 10, 2012 at 12:15 AM (#4078024)
Well, Dale died in the comic book as well. Hell, only 4 characters from the original band (+1 from the farm) actually make it through to the current issue and only one of them (possibly two) have a story that stays current through out the series. I think for the most part Dale's story was finished on the TV series. If they kept him around it would just be repetitive. What else could he really add to the show?


As I said before the show is a character study without characters. The comics, IMO, suffers from the same problem. They repeatedly cover ground they already covered numerous times and it seems they are doing the same thing on the show.
   636. Something Other Posted: March 10, 2012 at 01:22 AM (#4078046)
Good points--I don't think Kirkman is a good or interesting enough writer to do more than just repeat the same themes without increasing the depth or pitch of the characters or of the discussion. The tv show's writers, on the other hand, might be. On a third hand, the current showrunner, Glen Mazzara, in the couple of interviews I've seen, doesn't impress me. I think the quality of writing is going to be somewhat hit and miss.

Okay--let's say, in keeping with the spirit of a dangerous post-zombie apocalypse, one of the major characters had to bite it. I'm not so sure I'd want to "spend" one of my major characters in order to give a minor character, here Carl, a guilt complex. While I think they handled advancing Carl's character wonderfully well in that episode--tracking him through Daryl's encampment and to the zombie stuck in the river bank's mud where he threw rocks at it just like any boy following a zombie apocalypse would was very nicely handled, and avoided the usual cliches of dialogue and character that have dogged the show--unless they're planning on making Carl a major character, the narrative would have been better served by one of two things, by either having Shane kill Dale as part of their ongoing conflict and using that to bring the group's issues with Shane to an irreversible head, OR, having Dale's call for mercy for the imprisoned boy result in Dale's death at that boy's hands. Building up characters over time gives you narrative currency to spend. I think they spent it poorly here. Dale's character arc was involved in two very specific things--conflict with Shane, and the group's retaining the qualities of civilization and mercy. His death had nothing to do with either, and that was a real mistake.

Either of those create a much richer arc than what is ultimately going to be a rather predictable, minor plot thread, of Carl eventually admitting that the river zombie escaped in part because of his foolishness, and roamed free because Carl was afraid to tell anyone about his part in it.

By the way, I thought Carl was supposed to have a gun? Wasn't that what all the carrying on was about, a few episodes back, when Andrea demanded the right to bear arms? The decision was made at the time to also teach Carl to shoot. If they're going to let the kid wander around unsupervised, what the hell is the point of teaching him to shoot if he's not going to carry a weapon? It's contradicts a huge point of an earlier episode, and the entire rationale of violating the integrity of an earlier theme is to leave Carl unarmed at a critical moment. That's very sloppy work.

Also, one thread didn't ring true at all for me. Two episodes ago Glen choked during a gun battle and hid behind a dumpster. Following that Herhsel decides to give Glen his pocket watch in acknowledgment that Glen is the right man for his daughter? No. Something that meaningful could only follow on an act of bravery, or ongoing heroism and fidelity. Not on the heels of freezing at the moment Glen was needed most.

***

Speaking of the things Spielberg doesn't do well, the end of Catch Me if You Can is awful. The camera slowly dollies back from a close two shot of Frank and the Hanks character who's been chasing him for most of the movie until they're lost in a long shot of this hideous, open, fluorescent lit office space full of identical desks and identically dressed functionaries bent on chasing down the interesting guys who are doing the more obvious stealing.

The bizarre screen text tells us that Frank has settled down and is making millions of dollars turning in the guys he used to be. He's been bought, corporatized. The fight for freedom and slipping into identities he was qualified to slip into, circumventing the idiot raft of paper qualifications even running a hair salon or replacing your own toilet now requires, is dead. And this is what the end of the film celebrates.

Speilberg didn't even understand his own movie to the point of publicizing it badly. The poster is too clever by half. The two figures, one chasing the other, are blurred. That's amusing, because we don't really need to be able to identify them. The stars' names, dicaprio and hanks, are more than enough. Except, in the film, one character's identity is slippery, blurred. The other's identity is just the opposite; he's a straight, unwavering, g-man, who never slips into a moment's real doubt wrt what he's doing, never slips into envy of this guy he's chasing, this guy who gets to be everything, to try on every identity, while Hanks plods along dully behind him. Yuck.
   637. Every Inge Counts Posted: March 10, 2012 at 01:52 AM (#4078056)
Just saw John Carter. Really enjoyed it, thought it was better than say Avatar.
   638. cardsfanboy Posted: March 10, 2012 at 02:05 AM (#4078061)
Just saw John Carter. Really enjoyed it, thought it was better than say Avatar.


I hope it does better than industry experts are predicting.
   639. Every Inge Counts Posted: March 10, 2012 at 02:09 AM (#4078063)
I saw it in IMAX 3D, pretty full theater but not a sell-out either (6:30 show).
   640. cardsfanboy Posted: March 10, 2012 at 02:20 AM (#4078065)
according to google news, they are predicting it to lose somewhere between 100mil and 165 mil(I didn't read the article--so not sure where they are coming up with the numbers as it set records in Russia, and is obviously going to do well outside of the U.S.)
   641. Lassus Posted: March 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4078172)
I have watched a lot of episodes of the Walking Dead, and the endless one-syllable names still make it difficult for me to follow written descriptions of what's going on in an episode I haven't seen. Glen, Carl, Shane, Dale, Daryl, Rick, John, Paul, George, Moe, Shep, Frank, gah. I suppose the characters being interesting might help.


Someone at Disney needs to be not just fired but run out of town for the John Carter promotional/PR disaster. From the naming of the film to the release.
   642. Something Other Posted: March 11, 2012 at 03:00 AM (#4078444)
Are the figures I heard, of the budget for John Carter being around one quarter of a billion dollars, correct?

As for TWD, let's see if you're right. I'll take a crack at it as it's the only show I watch regularly:

Shane is a damned interesting character, routinely put in positions it's impossible to get out of with a whole, moral skin. Well acted if occasionally slightly over-acted. Vigorously rubbing your shaved head is not the subtlest expression of frustration.

Glen is an interesting character, with a strong arc, but not particularly well acted. The actor who plays him does nervous uncertainty well, but appears to have no capacity for evincing a growing inner strength.

Dale was pretty one-note, and Jeffrey DeMunn's nearly hysterical portrayal of him didn't give needed nuance to his role as the group's conscience.

Andrea has had the wildest swing, and the actress handled convincingly every emotion from desperately suicidal to utterly terrified to violently defensive. The scene where she's alone in the RV and has to kill the zombie she's trapped with was the cherry on top of the brilliant and exciting freeway scene.

Rick is well played by Andrew Lincoln. Strong, violent when necessary. Plays especially smartly in scenes where he's required to be committed to his own uncertainty over how to proceed. Lincoln doesn't quite have the physicality the role requires, but he's close.

Carol as the abused wife who uses her ability to take punishment as a way to open up Daryl emotionally makes for a fascinating character. I think she's particularly well played Melissa McBride.

Don't get me started on Carl. I don't have much use for child actors and he doesn't bring any depth to the role.

Daryl has been extremely well played by Norman Reedus. From outsider at the mercy of his vicious older brother to a man who found some of his humanity and connection to the group by his relentless search for Sophia, to that same man back on the outside after Sophia was discovered in the barn, it's been a touching and intelligent portrayal of a brute who is almost but not entirely lost.

Skeltor, as my niece calls Sarah Callis, has only been remotely appealing in the last few episodes, when we saw her terror in the overturned car, he renewed commitment to her husband as Lady MacBeth, practically urging Shane's murder, to her nursing of Hershel's daughter.

Hershel is serviceably played by Scott Wilson. Maybe a little better than that.

God only knows what the point is of Irone Singleton's character. He's not a half-bad actor, but he exemplifies the term "token".

I give the characters and the actors playing them mixed reviews, but the majority of them are interesting to me. Rick, Shane, Glen, Andrea, and now Hershel are plagued by uncertainties, real, character-based conflicts, and inner demons. That's pretty good for a series only seventeen episodes long.
   643. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4079159)
Speaking of TV shows, I've heard references to "The Killing" being a disaster of epic proportions. Though I don't know anything about it so precise meaning of "pulling a The Killing" is lost on me. Is there a Reader's Digest version of why it failed so spectacularly?
   644. McCoy Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4079162)
Extremely "slow burn" story development with a promise that the killer would be revealed at the end of the season. Episodes went nowhere with silly plot twists that time after time would lead one down a blind alley.
   645. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4079166)
Extremely "slow burn" story development with a promise that the killer would be revealed at the end of the season. Episodes went nowhere with silly plot twists that time after time would lead one down a blind alley.

Ah, that doesn't sound particularly enjoyable. I've been having a long-running argument with a friend where I try to convince him this isn't what "Lost" is. Though it's hard to call it an argument as he hasn't seen the show.
   646. JPWF1313 Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4079187)
The bizarre screen text tells us that Frank has settled down and is making millions of dollars turning in the guys he used to be. He's been bought, corporatized. The fight for freedom and slipping into identities he was qualified to slip into, circumventing the idiot raft of paper qualifications even running a hair salon or replacing your own toilet now requires, is dead.


The fight for freedom

Frank was a THIEF
slipping into identities he was qualified to slip into

Oh, he was qualified to run an emergency room?
the idiot raft of paper qualifications even running a hair salon or replacing your own toilet now requires

1: I don't know where you live but you do not need any paperwork to replace your own toilet where I live.
2: Oddly enough he was likely qualified to do somethings, like being a HS French teacher, or a lawyer in Louisiana (he passed the bar exam there)

He was rootless, on the run, no family, no friends, that why he kept calling Hanks' character- sure he appeared to be taunting Hanks, but it was Hanks who was taunting him- and doing it far more effectively too.
Page 7 of 7 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 7

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(444 - 12:56pm, Oct 21)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(45 - 12:55pm, Oct 21)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(278 - 12:50pm, Oct 21)
Last: Merton Muffley

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(19 - 12:49pm, Oct 21)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(153 - 12:47pm, Oct 21)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2839 - 12:46pm, Oct 21)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(3 - 12:43pm, Oct 21)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(75 - 12:23pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jesse Barfield's Right Arm

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(97 - 12:17pm, Oct 21)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(24 - 11:51am, Oct 21)
Last: Bourbon Samurai

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(18 - 11:29am, Oct 21)
Last: GuyM

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(845 - 11:16am, Oct 21)
Last: TFTIO is familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda

NewsblogSo You’re About to Pitch to Pablo Sandoval | FanGraphs Baseball
(1 - 10:50am, Oct 21)
Last: boteman

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(99 - 10:36am, Oct 21)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogCould the Yankees ever be Royals? Young and athletic K.C. is everything that Bombers are not - NY Daily News
(33 - 9:58am, Oct 21)
Last: Nasty Nate

Page rendered in 0.3247 seconds
52 querie(s) executed