There are only three good reasons for the DVD format to exist.
1. Multiple angles of porno scenes.
2. Blooper reels.
3. Director's commentaries.
I recently watched "Spider-Man 2" while listening the nasally genius that is director Sam Raimi explain every nuance of the film, from the sets to the special effects to why Kirsten Dunst always looks like she just took a massive bong hit. (Okay, he may have avoided that last topic.) But the comments that stuck with me were the ones he made about how he chooses his characters.
Villains, for example. Remember the Batman films, where the story was driven by which Special Guest Star would be portraying the villain (or villains)? The actual "plot" of "Batman and Robin" couldn't fill the commercial break between the kickoff and the first offensive play in a NFL game. But who needs such literary burdens like "storyline" when you have the Governor of Cauliflower as Mr. Freeze? ("Kill da heroz! Firz Gotdem, Den Da Wuhrld!")
Raimi, bless his Evil Dead heart, doesn't operate like that. His movies start with the "whys" for characters, not the "whos." The Big Bad in a "Spider-Man" movie is going to be someone who ties in with whatever it is Peter Parker is going through in the particular film. The Green Goblin had a relationship with Peter through his son Harry, and served the plot about the father-figure vacuum in Peter's life.
Doctor Octopus was the antithesis of Spidey: a man of reason and compassion who is given great power and chooses a different, more destructive application for that power. The villain of the next "Spider-Man" film will undoubtedly tie into what Peter's latest life obstacle is. (Perhaps it will be "The Optometrist," as Peter struggles with the fact that his girlfriend always looks like she just took a major bong hit.)
The point is that the "Spider-Man" films could have been pop art crap, full of bells and whistles and CGI and MTV and what have you. Instead, both movies have a powerful heartbeat that propels the story. We care more about the journey of the characters than we do the action or the aesthetics.
One look at the NFL, and you get what Raimi's talking about. Football is football; if you've seen 20 games, chances are you're not going to see too many variations on what you've already seen. What brings us back week after week are the players and their teams. They aren't pieces on a chess board; they are living, breathing, bleeding beings whose triumphs and troubles we share.
(Let's not confuse characters with character. This isn't another essay about the sad state of citizenship in professional sports. But when you're watching a movie or reading a comic book, the foremost task is to find a reason to care about the characters, then the situation they're in, and then you can start dissecting their impecunious morals and personality flaws.)
Is there a more compelling athlete in professional sports today than Brett Favre? Am I the only one who will drop everything to watch a Packers game, because I know I'll see a player who will put his well-being on the line to lead his team to victory?
Donovan McNabb and Terrell Owens aren't for everyone, but I'm watching them. Same for Chad Johnson, Peyton Manning, Ray Lewis, Priest Holmes, Tom Brady (begrudgingly), Michael Vick (happily), Chad Pennington, Steve McNair, and that kid in Pittsburgh with all the Rs and Ss and Ls in his name.
We see these athletes placed in increasingly volatile situations, and actually care to see how they'll react to them. Same goes for coaches. I'm watching the Cowboys on Thanksgiving, and the entire time I'm begging for more shots of the Tuna as he watched Drew Henson play like a JV quarterback taking his first snaps. When the Colts play the Pats in the playoffs, I want to see a shot of Bill Belichick after every Manning pass, complete or incomplete. I care about these people in a way I'll never care about, say, Mike Martz. Hence the Cowboys and the Patriots will always be more compelling than the Rams.
I'm not saying the coaches and players are sole reason the league is so damn successful. I'm not a shill for the NFLPA, and I think we all know it's more about brand loyalty, gambling, and fantasy sports than it is about Drew Brees. But the singularity of these players, and their imperious nature, draws us in instead of pushing us away.
The same can't be said about the players of the NBA, a league that seems more dedicated to turning off its customers than Max Bialystock.
Remember that slogan: "The NBA ... it's FAN-tastic?"
Now we've got: "The NBA ... Shut yer mouth and take the punch, dickweed."
The problem isn't that the NBA has players like Ron Artest going into the stands to fight a fan. The problem with the NBA is that it has players like Ron Artest.
A player whose only intriguing virtues are those that would land most people in a pair of handcuffs.
Starting in 1984, when David Stern began the NBA's rapid growth into an international juggernaut, he put the focus on the players. Smart move. Think about how much the attendance at your home arena would double or triple when Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson or any of a dozen other legends came to town. They gave us a reason to watch, gave us a reason to care.
Today's stars are suggestions, not individuals. A player like Artest or, before him, Kenyon Martin, filled the malcontent role. So did Barkley and Rodman. Is it just that the latter two were significantly more talented, or is it that their actions were made more noteworthy by the content of their character (or lack there of)?
We know LeBron James is a basketball prodigy, but are the Cavaliers "must-see TV" like Orlando was when Shaq was in his second season? Of the top 15 scorers in the NBA right now, only six could be honestly labeled the kind of player you'd make to time to watch or buy a ticket to see: Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, LeBron, Dirk Nowitski (a stretch), Kevin Garnett, and Tim Duncan (another stretch).
The NBA is flailing (don't confuse that with "failing") because the very commodity its success was built upon — the players — isn't bringing a high enough return for the investment. It's a dangerous problem for the NBA when fans get the sense that the players they're paying to see aren't actually there to play, but to use the league as a means to put out a rap album or get on MTV's "Cribs."
I'm pretty sure Hakeem Olajuwon never aspired to achieve either.
With its characters in a state of discord, the NBA is a lot like a Michael Bay film: action over substance, style over heart. The pinnacle of the league's success came when the characters fueled the story; now, all we're left with are some nifty highlights and the occasional one-off storyline (like Shaq vs. Kobe).
Over in the NHL, the problem for years has been a tangled marketing jumble. It can't decide what it's trying to sell.
The action? If that's the case, why ratchet down the very violence that drew a dedicated fan base to the sport in the first place, especially at a time (the 1990s) when violence was selling everything from football to wrestling to video games?
The players? If that's the case, why put all of your (limited) marketing might behind players on teams that already sell themselves, like the Flyers, Avalanche, Red Wings, and Ranger$? If the league is going to thrive, shouldn't the focus be on the one or two stars on less popular teams like Columbus? Would a NBA fan give a damn about the Nuggets if it weren't for Carmelo Anthony, the push the league gave him?
(Furthermore, the NHL has always fumbled the way it markets defense. If you're taking goalies and defensive defenseman off the promotional radar screen, you're sending 50% of your top stars to the bench. Imagine if the NFL didn't market Ray Lewis, Warren Sapp or Deion Sanders? Me, neither.)
Football, basketball, and hockey are entertaining sports in and of themselves. What elevates the games are compelling characters. The NFL has them, and continues to dominate the sports world. The NBA is losing them, and is slowly sliding in popularity. The NHL has never known how to develop them, and may be locked out until the next ice age.
Maybe hockey should dump Gary Bettman, and bring in Stan Lee.
Excelsior!
Random Thoughts
Well, I guess the San Francisco Chronicle has finally revealed what baseball fans had suspected for years:
Jeremy Giambi was on steroids...
Actually, Jason's brother may have provided the most unintentionally hilarious moment of the BALCO grand jury transcripts the Chronicle reported on this week. Jeremy told the jury that trainer Greg Anderson described something called "the cream" as an undetectable alternative to anabolic steroids.
"For all I knew," Jeremy Giambi said, "it could have been baby lotion."
Baby lotion?
You don't think that one lonely night on a long road trip, alone in his hotel room, reading a Glamour Magazine, that he...
Let me be as clear as I can be to our friends at ESPN:
KEN JENNINGS LOSING ON 'JEOPARDY' IS NOT SPORTS NEWS.
I nearly spewed my coffee when I saw a headline on ESPN.com about the game show android finally taking an 'L' this week. I'll put up with the New York Times putting the Westminster Dog Show in the sports section. I'll tolerate ESPN2 filling 95 percent of its broadcast day with No Limit High Stakes Texas Hold'em. But I will not now, nor will I ever, consider some dude losing on "Jeopardy" as a sports story.
I will concede that "Wheel of Fortune" and "The Price is Right" are, however, both sporting events, because they involve spinning a large wheel. Which makes them more athletically rigorous than golf...
Word of advice: get drunk and go see the Spongebob movie. I'm tellin' ya, they should pass out beer goggles for that flick ... it's the best...
Former Tiger Cecil Fielder is suing the Detroit News for libel after the paper claimed he was in hiding from his family, had a gambling addiction, and was $47 million in debt.
He's asking for $25 million in damages ... which, according to the Detroit News, will leave him $22 million in the hole...
"Super Size Me" director Morgan Spurlock is going to produce a series on FX called "30 Days," in which a person is placed in a situation that is completely at odds with his or her "beliefs, upbringing, religion, or profession."
The first season will reportedly follow Ron Artest after his trade to the Utah Jazz...
And finally, George Lucas has donated $100,000 to California State University, Long Beach, for film department scholarships and equipment.
Great, just what we needed: entire graduating classes financially proselytized into continuing the adventures of Jar-Jar Binks...
Greg Wyshynski is also a weekly columnist for SportsFan Magazine. His columns appear every Saturday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Greg at [email protected].
Leave a Comment