Great visuals make up for refurbished jokes in The Peanuts Movie

Yesterday I posted an entry that dealt with the planning, strategy development and overall direction a company needs in order to succeed, by explaining the function and responsibility an orchestra director has when performing in a concert. This reasoning applies for films as well, but unfortunately, apparently most Hollywood directors, producers and script writers, have forgot what their job is.

First, the Star Wars failure of remaking the original trilogy and revamping it into a supposedly new film, called The Force Awakens, which as I have stated and proven before, is nothing but a rebooted and redefined unimaginative version of the original trilogy.

And now, we face the same issues with The Peanuts Movie

Oh my... what has Hollywood done this time...

. 

I'm really sorry because, fact of the matter is, I take issue because Peanuts is my favorite cartoon. So this time, Hollywood has crossed the line!

I skipped this movie on its release because after watching the trailer, I immediately knew it was going to be nothing but a rebooted and redefined unimaginative version that collected the most well-known jokes of the original Peanuts Specials. I finally watched it a couple of nights ago, and it turned out to be exactly what I had predicted.

Let me start by saying that, just like The Force Awakens, The Peanuts Movie IS a good movie. That is if, and ONLY IF you remove it from the Peanuts universe (or context, for that matter). Meaning, if you somehow magically have all your Peanuts/Charlie Brown/Snoopy memories erased from your brain (kind of like that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind film), there would be a definitive lauded appreciation for the movie. It's funny, it's witty, it's romantic... it's a good kids film for adults. But... the thing is... like it happened with TFA, the Peanuts Movie features and uses, well, how can I put this... well, the SAME Peanuts characters and jokes we've known all our lives.

See? The same joke told 40 year ago

Original Peanuts Specials were ahead of their time. You never knew what would come next out of their mouths, as jokes were very VERY subtle and sometimes even over the tone of a PG film. Of course, Schulz and Melendez knew how to get away with that. I'll never forget an episode in which Sally and Charlie Brown are walking home together from a school day, and Sally tells her older brother that the teacher sent her to the principal's office because she complained too loudly during class about the difficulty of the assigned homework, which included an unheard of task of drawing a farm, to which Sally defied the entire classroom to "draw a good cow leg". At one point in the conversation with Charlie Brown, Sally says: "So I got sent to the principal's office because I couldn't draw a cow's leg. I'll bet Picasso couldn't draw a cow's leg when he was in the first grade. I'll even bet Bjorn Borg couldn't draw a cow's leg!"

If that isn't subtle joke telling, I don't know what is.

MINOR SPOILERS FOLLOW:

The movie begins with the Linus and Lucy theme. Ok, fair enough, I can live with that. But then it keeps refurbishing the same and same and same and same old peanuts' jokes: 

Charlie Brown being incapable of flying a kite

Pig Pen being, well, Pig Pen

Lucy taking Linus' blanket

Shroeder playing Beethoven's 5th

Patty and Marcy

Lucy as psychiatrist... and STILL charging 5 cents

The Red Baron

and of course, the biggest insult of them all to all Peanuts fans... The Little Red Haired Girl!

The list goes on and on and on. 

You know what would have been really funny and respectful for true fans? Let's take for instance the Lucy Psychiatric help joke. It would have been REALLY funny, if say Lucy charged 5 Dollars instead of 5 Cents, then have Charlie Brown say something like "whoa, last time I was here you charged 5 cents!" and then have Lucy complain or maybe say something about inflation since the last time Charlie Brown visited her, and then have Charlie Brown glance himself in disbelief and have no choice but to deposit a $5 bill in Lucy's can, and have Lucy say something like "I love the sound of Lincoln's, Lincoln's, Lincoln's!!" Of course, the bill wouldn't make any sound because it's paper, but THAT's the way Peanuts' jokes work! They are subtle!

I mean, when you watch this film as a Peanut lover, you cannot get past the reality that every single joke (or scene) in the film, is something you already saw and comes from a past Peanuts film. It's like the director or the script writer said, "ok, we have to make a Charlie Brown film. Let's take the most classic jokes, put them inside a blender and whatever comes out, that's our film!"

Sigh... they even re-used this one

Don't get me wrong. I'm ok with re-using jokes. But not ALL jokes for Pete's sake! Let's take for instance an original Peanuts special. As I write this I just picked one randomly: Bon Voyage Charlie Brown.

In Bon Voyage Charlie Brown, we see Charlie Brown, Linus, Patty and Marcie, flying to Paris as exchange students. Somehow, Snoopy and Woodstock not only manage to join them, but they also somehow become the leaders of the trip. I mean come on, Snoopy flies on first class, he's the one who rents the car, he plays a match at Wimbledon's Centre Court, he goes out partying and drinking at night and he manages to save the Chateau from a fire. In this film, not once, not ONE time do we see Charlie Brown flying a kite, PigPen being PigPen (with the exception of the farewell at the airport), Lucy working as a psychiatrist, Snoopy dogfigthing the Red Baron... and so on. Think about it: Bon Voyage only features four of the main characters (plus Snoopy and Woodstock), yet it's still a very good movie!

I rate all Peanuts specials highly, and Bon Voyage is among the top 5 in my book. Why? Because it's an original film. Humour doesn't come from old refurbished jokes, but instead it comes from the absurdity of seeing infancy being lived as adulthood. Think about it: Charlie Brown and his gang, let Snoopy not only rent, but drive a car in a foreign country! To add more to the absurdity, he causes a major traffic accident by making a complete stop at a highway the second he leaves the rental dealership. He even gets road rage, flees the scene and the gang doesn't feel the slightest contempt for the affected drivers. It doesn't get more bizarre than that!

To this day, I watch this scene and find myself replaying it dozens of times.

THAT is Peanuts' humour. NOT refurbished jokes. 

Let's pick another one, the one most people regard as the best one. Charlie Brown Christmas. Peanuts fans know and are ok, with Lucy sitting on Shroeder's piano. This is like a classic must scene of peanuts, similar to Southpark having the four boys on the bus stop. The beauty of this sequence is that regardless of the context Lucy and Shroeder are in, the specials always manage to do something different in the interaction. Like on this scene:

We know Schroeder ALWAYS plays Beethoven when he sits on the piano and Lucy hates that. But what happens when he plays something different?

THAT is Peanuts' humour. NOT refurbished jokes. 

Even the Saturday morning Peanuts offered original jokes, despite not being as top quality as the specials. Take for instance this Peppermint Patty + Charlie Brown interaction:

Another fine mess you got me into Chuck!

THAT is Peanuts' humour. NOT refurbished jokes. 

I also couldn't get why did Snoopy need a narrator most of the time he was onscreen. Since when does Snoopy need a narrator? Did the director forget that Sometimes Peanuts don't even need to speak to deliver a timeless classic joke because the jokes come from the subtle context where they are set, as in this scene from the Thanksgiving Special:

Snoopy fighting a beach chair

Or in this one, where Snoopy gets drunk on Root Beer. THAT's the joke! Snoopy, a dog, goes to a local bar to hang out with Woodstock, plays some big band music on the jukebox, and keeps ordering root beer after root beer. I was a kid when I first watched this and I KNEW he was actually drinking beer, because Hello? The glass may say root beer but the content doesn't have to be root beer! And if not, then why would a dog go out drinking beer. And if it's root beer, then how can a dog get drunk on root beer. Either way Chares Schulz wins and one kept wondering whether if Snoopy was really drinking beer or root beer. THAT's the joke! And not one word is spoken!

Snoopy getting wasted on root beer while listening to big band music

and of course who could forget the Christmas Dance. Schulz and Melendez knew what they were doing. Count how many times the kid with the orange shirt is shown, against say the other characters:

So, if the Thanksgiving Special had an original unique song, and the Christmas Special had one too, and Bon Voyage had one too, and Life is a Circus had one too... then WHY did The Peanuts Movie did NOT have one?

Having that said, I am completely clueless as of why did The Peanuts Movie had no other choice but to compile the most overused and typical jokes from all its history to make a film. Once again, Hollywood has delivered a product that insults the fan community of a classic franchise, and has brought a product that aims to mass appeal with little to zero substance. It's like Hollywood producers have lost respect for the art of filmmaking and for the identity their own world had.

Oh... I also have one question. Who was the project manager for this film? How is it that this movie cost $99 million Dollars if most of its content was refurbished?

And don't get me started on the Little Red Haired Girl.

H

The Importance of Developing a Business Strategy

A couple of nights ago I was having dinner with a few friends and one of them raised the question to me of what is the job of an orchestra director. More specifically speaking, "what does he do during the concert waving his hands back and forth." I gave him the following explanation:

An orchestra director is the most important element in an orchestra. First of all, what you see in when you go to a concert is the result of hours, days and weeks of rehearsals. In other words, what you see is the result of developing and implementing a strategy. In case of an orchestra, he deals with how loud is the horn section going to sound, how soft will the strings play a certain passage, when will the musicians hold a silence, and with how much intensity they will play. Not only he does this, but also he assigns importance to the musicians, like who leads and who follows. He also rewards when he has to and he fines when he has to as well. Then you have his role as representative of the orchestra, meaning that he does public relations, he speaks for the group, and all those responsibilities. In essence, he's the face of the orchestra.

At a live concert, an orchestra normally employs around 50 musicians, all of them playing the same piece at the same time. If one of those musicians falls out of tune, or say, loses his tempo, he has to follow a leader who is setting the direction of the piece. He certainly (normally) wouldn't follow the guy sitting next to him, because that guy may have lost the tempo as well. He also wouldn't follow the guy sitting to the other side, the guy infront or the guy behind for the same reason. If he did, and that guy was out of tempo, then they would create a dissonance (a horrible sound), which would make the rest of the musicians lose their tempo or worse, lose their concentration altogether. That's why, they follow the director, because among other things, his hand-waving is keeping the tempo of the piece. Musicians always follow the director.

Another example is protagonism. Let's say the oboe player has a duet at one point in the piece with a clarinet player, but he feels he should be playing louder than the clarinetist. However, since it's the director who's in charge, the oboist cannot simply start playing louder just because he feels so. Instead, he suggests his thought to the director, who either approves or rejects it. That's because, the director is the one in charge. It's his orchestra and it's his interpretation of the piece. That's why they follow the director, because his hand-waving expresses the sentiment the orchestra must bring to the piece. Musicians always follow the director.

So as you can see, an orchestra director, develops and implements a strategy. Sets a mission and works that every one in the orchestra is on board to execute it flawlessly. Companies work the same way, whether they have a CEO, President or General Manager. Normally companies with a good director (CEO, Prez, GM) perform well. If you don't have one, then you may be living the same decline Yahoo is facing.

Since 2012, Yahoo's orchestra director is Marissa Mayer, former Senior VP of Products at Google, known for her behavior of being a perfectionist and keen attention to detail. Unfortunately these solid characteristics haven't been enough to turn Yahoo's decreasing revenue, net-profits, market share and other key performance indicators. Today Marissa faces being let go by the companies' board of directors, an announcement that would bring a seventh CEO in less than ten years, which brings me to the title of my entry:

After all these years, has Yahoo truly developed a business strategy?

Personally, I don't think so. Looking at Yahoo's main page, I don't even know what to make out of it. The first thing that pops into my mind, is that it's like an orchestra playing a classical piece with a no orchestra director. I glance at the site for minutes and I ask to myself:

1. Is this a news website? If so, what kind of news does it specialize in? Like, all kinds?
2. Is this a mail website? If so, why are there so many news on it?
3. Is this some sort of failed version of Twitter? If not, then why do they have "Trending" like Twitter does?
4. Why are there so many options on the left bar? Sports? Autos? Finance? Shopping? They have nothing to do with each other, they have nothing in common... at all.
5. Why is there so much stuff of everything on this webpage? What is this, 1995?
6. And more importantly... why is it that the former SVP of Google Search and Products, the woman who supposedly came up with the idea of having Google's main page feature nothing but a search box and Google's logo, and who had long and heated discussions with all the other top Google executives fighting them to keep Google's main page as clean as possible, who is now CEO of this Yahoo website, has so much stuff of everything on the company's main page, featuring exactly everything she stood against with on her former job?

It just doesn't add up to me. You see, twenty years ago when we were just discovering the internet, it didn't really matter whether if your main page had tons of stuff or not. Yahoo, Excite, Altavista and many others, had their main pages filled with dozens of options. But then Google came in and prooved that keeping it simple was the way to go. Billions of Dollars later in revenue, they rest their case pretty easily.

Yahoo on the other hand, seems like stuck in time, failing to realize this undeniable fact, and meanwhile settling with having no direction whatsoever or no strategic approach to their business model. Needless to say, I believe that after four years Marissa has done a few things here and there product wise speaking and even internally, HR-wise speaking. But other than that, the clock is ticking faster for her to apply what she should have done in the first place when she sat on her CEO desk at Yahoo: Develop a Business Strategy.

Today, Yahoo is dozens of things offering dozens of products, and arguably succeeding in none of them. More importantly, it lacks direction. At the end of the day, Facebook is still a social network. Twitter is a quick interacting network. Google is a search engine. Bloomberg is a business news resource. It is as simple as that, companies have stuck to their core competencies. Yahoo, hasn't. It's 2016 and if you ask me what Yahoo is, I would respond the same way I responded back in 1996: it's some website.

Never let your company sail without a business strategy, that tells you and your employees what the company is, what it does and what is its core focus. And of course, always have a director for your company's orchestra. A good director.

Quality products vs Quality marketing

The Masterpiece

Today's entry deals a little bit with business strategy, entrepreneurship, my teenage years and video games. I will go back to the past 25 years ago to visit one of the best products I have ever laid my hands on, as well as a monumental achievement of what us humans and corporations can do, when we set ourselves to produce a unique masterpiece: Super Castlevania IV.

25 years ago Konami was established as one of the few producers of great video games in the late 1980s. It had already developed major titles for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), such as Contra, Super C, Gradius, Life Force, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and of course a vampire-hunting side scroller known as Castlevania.

It's oldest brother, and
the one that started it all 

Castlevania I (or simply Castlevania) was Konami's first video game for the NES and it was released in 1986. As my fellow gamers may recall, it featured Simon Belmont in the XVII Century, who battled his way through vampires, hunchbacks, medusa-heads, bats, skeletons and other monsters -including the Grim Reaper aka Death himself-, to defeat Dracula. It was a great game, highly regarded back then and highly regarded today as a classic in the NES library. It was followed by Castlevania II: Simon's Quest, which featured a few changes in the storyline, shifting towards a more RPG orientation which recieved equal amount of praise than the original (discounting the Angry Nintendo Nerd of course), despite some minor flaws in the gameplay and the legendary difficulty of its puzzle solving. A third installment closed the trilogy for the NES, Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse, which some consider arguably as the best of the NES series, featuring multiple playable characters -a novelty for the NES- and multiple routes towards Dracula's castle.

As I stated, all three NES Castlevania's are hailed as classics. They did have minor flaws in their gameplay though. The control movement controlling the main character was a bit choppy at times, meaning it wasn't perfectly smooth. But then again, the vast majority of NES games were like that and only minor exceptions come up in my head, such as Mario, Contra and Super C, and Blaster Master. In other words, back then players didn't really care the controls were a bit choppy because we used to take it as challenge of the game itself: you just had to deal with it, especially if all three games had the same issue.

One of the first preview images I saw from SC4.
I remember thinking to myself:
"How am I supposed to control him hanging
by his whip, which I know is stiff and choppy"
Little I knew... little I knew... 

When 1991 arrived, Nintendo released their 16-bit console, the Super NES, which very quickly demonstrated it was well worthy of the "Super" adjective. The leap the Super NES achieved with jumping from Mario Bros to Super Mario World, from Metroid to Super Metroid, from Ghosts and Goblins to Super Ghols 'n' Ghosts -to name a few- was monumental. In late 1991, magazines began publishing articles announcing Castlevania was going to make its transition from NES to the Super NES, in a new title called Super Castlevania IV. Every single magazine I came across hailed SC4 as "The Perfect Game", already earning reputation as a candidate for "Best Video Game of All time". While I had little doubts Konami could be able to produce such a game, I was bit skeptic on calling it a "Perfect game", much less labeling it as "Best Game of all time", because well, trailers and previews always hype products better than what they really are.

I wasn't fortunate enough to get SC4 on its release in December 1991, as I got my SNES in june 1992, and was able to get SC4 in october 1992. As soon as I popped this game on my SNES I just couldn't believe my eyes and ears. The qualifications of Perfect and Best video game of all time, were spot on.

Taking a leap and jumping forward while whipping diagonally southwards?
Come on, you got to be kidding me. Well, they weren't joking at all.

Super Castlevania IV took the Castlevania franchise to a whole new level of glory. The first thing that blew my mind was the graphics, followed by the game's music. The orchestral sound was haunting, sublime, chilling, sensational, magestic... I was at a loss of words. Graphically speaking the attention to detail was exquisite. Water, air, fire, wind, earth, everything was accounted for; the graphics give an outstanding demonstration of the capabilities of the Super Nintendo and what it could do with its color palette and the three-dimensional Mode 7. But more importantly than anything, Super Castlevania IV improved every single flaw the previous NES Castlevania trilogy had.

In Stage 4-3, SC4 featured Simon Belmont travelling through a spinning room that gave you
a 3D sensation never felt before in any video game or console. Simon -as seen in this pic- could whip
in diagonal direction, which was a huge novelty at the time.

The choppyness and stiffness of the main character, being unable to jump obeying the will of the player in the NES games, was gone. Now the main character could jump at my will. Moreover, the character was able to attack in any direction as pleased, compared to just one direction (forward) in the NES trilogies. The levels... well, let's just put it this way: there were no two levels alike. I don't know how they achieved it, but I felt that evey new level, I was playing a different game. It is hard to explain the feelings I experienced when I played Super Castlevania IV back in 1992, but I think I can resume it the following way: I thought and held, that SC4 was the best SNES video game I had ever played, until I played A link to the past, and to this day I still hold my position. Had A link to the past not be released, SC4 would be the best SNES game ever. I consider SC4 as Konami's epitome and zenith in all their games ever developed.

So why do I bring this up and what does it have to do with Quality Products vs Quality Marketing?

A marketing teacher once taught me the following: if you are a company in the verge of releasing a new product which you label as great, that means the expectations of the consumer will be greater than what you think, which means, the closer you are able to meet the expectations of your consumer, the better perceived your product will be. However, only if your product exceeds your customer's expectations, then you have developed a product that you can rightly label as great. If you have a so-so product, with a strong marketing plan behind it, you may still be able to get away with some success.

Super Castlevania IV was a product that surpassed expectations of all gamers. It seems that it is a product where the Konami team sat down and said: "ok, we are now going to develop a legenday video game, and we will not release it until every single issue is fixed, and we feel we have reached the legendary status. In other words, this game has to be perfect"

The leap into the new generation

A few years later, PlayStation was dominating the video game industry and Castlevania once again made the leap into a new console -this time developed by Sony's system- in the form of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.

SOTN brought a new approach to the Castlevania series. First, you played as Alucard (Dracula's son) instead of the Belmont's -or any non Dracula blood-related character-. Next, unlike all previous installments, this time the whole game took inside Dracula's castle, so one could say that theoretically there were no levels -no different levels, for that matter-. Next, there was no whip as main weapon, but instead a sword and dozens of power ups and special attacks. One could say Castlevania had evolved. The way I see it, it did evolve, but it also changed its essence.

Most critics and reviewers rate SOTN as the best Castlevania, placing it above SC4 which normally ranks second. Only a handful of lists place SC4 as #1 on top of SOTN. My position is the following: SOTN is a better game than SC4. However, SC4 is the better Castlevania game.

The masterpiece, Symphony of the Night

My reasoning comes from SOTN being different in the essence Castlevania has. I enjoyed playing through forrests, cemeteries, waterfalls, ancient greek temples, and so on. SOTN took that feeling away. Therefore, removed from the Castlevania series context, SOTN is a way, way better game than SC4. However in my opinion, within the Castlevania series context, SOTN took a bit too many liberties. Not too much, but quite a bit to send the series to a whole new context.

Sorry, but I still can't get over the Sith fighting
a Janitor and a teen female hero who learned
about the force eight hours ago

Star Wars The Force Awakens suffers from the same fate of SOTN. Yes, I know... I'm bringing up Star Wars The Force Awakens issue once again. I just can't get over the fact how is this movie hailed as great Star Wars film when clearly, it is NOT. Three months after its release, it still holds unexplainable high ratings in most websites and reviewers, despite having thousands -if not millions- of fans expressing dissapointment on several issues, goofs and plot holes the movie had. I am starting to believe, that including the monumental marketing effort done by Disney prior to its release, there has been another monumental effort following its release, getting reviewers and critics to praise the film in order to increase sales, battling the large number of negative reviews from fans.

I can proove this and you can back me up on this.

Go to IMDb's Star Wars TFA page here.

If you scroll down to almost the bottom, you'll find the Users reviews section. I promise you, I browsed through all 3,500 user reviews and I can assure you I couldn't find more than 40% of reviews rating it with a score of 6 out of 10, or higher -and that's throwing 40% as a safe number-. I'm sure that if I survey and quantify all reviews, at the end I will get something like 65 or 70% negative reviews for the movie. Yet, it holds an 8.4 out of 10. I invite you to do so and browse through all 50 pages of reviews. Complaints, dissapointments and griefs are all over the place. How is this possible?

One of many negative -and realistic- reviews of TFA on IMDb's website

In my opinion, because TFA is not a quality product. It's a decent product, with quality marketing.

The differente between SOTN's case to being superior than SC4, against TFA with the SW series, is that while to some SOTN may not be a "true" Castlevania, it actually is great game. More importantly, some may consider that SC4 is a remake -or a reboot- of Castlevania I. While that point is valid, one also must acknowledge that SC4 is a masterpiece in its own right.

That doesn't happen with TFA. TFA is a bad copy/rebook/remake of ANH (Star Wars Ep IV: A new hope).

Earlier in the week I watched ESPN's First Take -which ironically is also a property of Disney-, and in this week's episode, Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless discussed Maria Sharapova's suspension after having tested positive in a drug test, as I posted in a previous entry as well.

If you watch the 12-minute clip, you'll see Stephen A. making a very good and interesting point: he brings up that Maria Sharapova is the highest female paid athelte in the world, which he considers outrageous especially when you consider Serena Williams has beaten her eighteen consecutive times -in fact Sharapova hasn't been able to beat Serena since 2004-, plus, Serena Williams has been #1 player in the world for more time than Sharapova, and Serena has won 21 Grand Slam tournaments against Maria's 5. Moreover, Stephen A. raises the question that in a hypothetical scenario, Serena Williams' treatment and scrutiny, had she been the one who tested positive in the drug test, would have been way more drastic than what the press, officials and fellow sportsmen have been giving to Maria.

Need to say more about who's the better player?

I do acknowledge Stephen A. at times brings up some issues with black ahtletes against white athletes, sometimes a bit strategically referring to race and sometimes leaving the viewer wondering if he brought it because of race or because of the nature of the athlete, regardless of his/her race, creed or inclination. I hope that in this case Stephen A. brought it up because it is the latter and not the former, however Skip Bayless took it as it was the former and not the latter.

Regardless of why Stephen A. brought the subject up, like SOTN is rated higher than SC4 thanks to quality marketing, and like TFA has been receiving overwhelming positive critical reviews thanks to quality marketing, Maria Sharapova has been a way, way, way, WAY more marketable athelete than Serena Williams, despite the fact that like her or not, and like it or not, Serena is arguably the best female tennis player of all time and Maria is not.

Seriously, Who wouldn't buy this?

The conclussion I would like to bring therefore, is the simple fact that you may have a masterpiece elite product, and achieve success due to the product and what it delivers, brings to the plate and how it meets or exceeds customer's expectations. You may also have a good product -which is not legendary, masterpiece, or elite- with a powerful perfect marketing plan execution, and achieve even more success.

Think about it.


H

Unbreakable sports records

Twenty years ago, in the 1995-96 season, the Chicago Bulls accomplished what no other team had done before in the NBA: winning 70 games in a season. They pushed it a bit further and finished with a 72-10 record. Today, the Golden State Warriors sitting with a 59-6 record are threatening to break what at one point seemed to be an impossible record to break.

But is the 72-10 Bulls' record, really that impossible to break?

Personally, I don't think so. Moreover, I think that sports are blessed to have records that truly are impossible (or almost impossible) to break. Some of them follow in the next lines.

1. Baseball - Ty Cobb stealing home: 54 times in his career

Ty Cobb. The most notorious stealer ever

Why it is breakable: Well, the objective of playing baseball is to score runs. If you have a fast runner on 3rd, he might as well take a chance at stealing home.

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. Paul Molitor, the Hall of Famer who retired in 1992 stole home 10 times. Before him, Rod Carew, who retired in 1985, stole it 17 times. MLB players simply do not steal home these days. Other than them, every other player is from the "dead ball" era. But as of today, there are no active players who have stolen home at least ten times.

Why it is hard to break: Let's put it this way. Rickey Henderson, the greatest base stealer of all time, stole home four, yes FOUR times in his career. But let's put that aside. Stealing home requires A LOT of factors that don't depend on the player, like for instance, the ball game has to allow the player to reach third base. This sounds simply but it's tricky. Trickier than one might think. Then of course, you have to do this, 55 times in your career.

2. Baseball - Ty Cobb Stealing second base, third base and home in the same inning: 5 times in his career

Why it's breakable: Come on. It's just steal three bases, and five times in your career. How hard can it be?

Who are the closest active players: Miami Marlins' second baseman Dee Gordon actually achieved this rare fact once in 2011. Jayson Werth, an outfielder who plays for Washington also achieved it one time in 2009. All they have to do is, do it five more times.

Why is it hard to break: Apart from Gordon and Werth, and of course Cobb's five, stealing second, third and home in the same inning has only been done FIFTY times in all MLB history, by a total of 44 players. Of those 44, only FOUR players have done it more than once. Also and similar to the home stealing record, it depends on too many factors. Anything can happen in the game that can prevent the player from stealing the three bases. More importantly, in order to break it you have to do it... six times.

Here we go again !! It's GONE!!

3. Baseball - Fernando Tatis Two grand slams in the same inning (plus, 8 RBI in the same inning).

Why it's breakable: Any MLB team can get into a rally of hitting and hitting, letting the same player bat twice in the same inning, with the other team begging for the third out. The entire roster can bat and load the bases with no problem. What's the big deal?

Who are the closest active players: Any MLB player who bats a grand slam at any given time, automatically becomes a candidate to tie and break Tatis' record.

Why is it hard to break: This one combines the external variables mentioned in Ty Cobb's records, and adds on another complicated factor as well. The team has to load the bases, not twice, but three times. And the player has to hit home runs on each three of his at-bats, to break the record. Think about it this way. If I'm a pitcher and a guy of the rival team has hit two grand slams in the same inning (to either myself or the previous pitchers), screw that... I'm intentionally walking the guy!

Pistol Pete. The Greatest

4. Tennis - Pete Sampras finishing the season as #1 player in the world, for Six straight years.

Why it's breakable: You just have to finish the year as #1 player for Seven straight years. That's all you have to do.

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. Roger Federer, who holds the most Grand Slam titles in tennis, could only finish #1 for four straight years. Novak Djokovic, current #1 player starts 2016 having been ranked #1 for two straight years. He still has a long way to go.

Why is it hard to break: As you can infer, to tie the record, you have to finish the year as #1 player for six straight years. To BREAK the record, you have to finish the year as #1 player for SEVEN straight years. That's all you have to do.

5. Baseball - Babe Ruth hits 54 home runs, more than the combined players of a team (in fact, he hit more home runs than all teams, except the Philadelphia Phillies who hit 64).

Why it's breakable: All you need is a good slugger and a crappy team with weak players.

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. But if it helps, in 2011 the Houston Astros hit 135 HR  That year Jose Bautista led the league with 43. Had he hit 93 more, he would have broken it.

Why is it hard to break: I guess hitting more than 100 HR in a single season doesn't come up handy, does it?

6. Baseball - Ty Cobb's .367 career batting average.

Why it's breakable: Just hit some ++.370 seasons, while not hit under .360 through your career and you're fine

Who are the closest active players: Actually, there are many active players who have a chance on this one. Miguel Cabrera has .321, Ichiro Suzuki has .313, Joe Mauer and Albert Pujols both have .312. They just have to hit over .500 in their next 8 seasons.

Why is it hard to break: When you look at the names of great MLB legends (not players, LEGENDS) who fell short to Cobb, you kind of have to give in on the fact that this record is HARD. To put it in perspective, the second highest average belongs to Rogers Hornsby, and with .358, he's 8 points below Cobb. Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived (and the last guy who hit over .400), batted .344. Babe Ruth .342. Tony Gwynn, the greatest hitter of the last 50 years, hit .338. This is one of those records that not even Jesus could break!

The Fischer Juggernaut

7. Chess - Bobby Fischer's 20 consecutive wins in a World Candidates Cycle.

Why it's breakable: Because 21 comes after 20.

Who are the closest active players. Nobody. Period. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Why is it hard to break: Beating a top ranked Chess player with a clean sheet of six wins, no losses and no draws (6-0-0) is something that simply put, doesn't happen. Let alone, beat three consecutively! For non-chess players, the equivalent would be a baseball team beating three teams up 100-0. Or a basketball game between NBA teams ending up 200-0. Or beating a boxing heavyweight champion with one arm tied behind one's back. Or Germany beating Brazil 30-0, in Brazil's World Cup, then beating Argentina and Netherlands 30-0 as well.

Guy would rather die before being struck out

8. Baseball - Joe Sewell strikes out Three times in a season (503 at-bats).

Why it's breakable: Actually this one is really easy. All you have to do is... just don't swing your bat... well... just try to hit balls close to the strike zone, but please hit them, well ... just... well...just... don't...

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. Ichiro Suzuki, regarded as the greatest hitter in current times, who rarely strikes out, struck out 51 times last season (438 at bats).

Why is it hard to break: If you have been struck out twice all through season, you're pretty much done for it.

9. Baseball - Johnny Vander Meer back-to-back no hitters.

Why it's breakable: All you have to do is throw three straight no hitters. Seems fair enough.

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. Period.

Why is it hard to break: After achieving the notoriously rare and quasi-impossible feat that is throwing back-to-back no hitters, all you have to do is throw a third one.

10. Hockey - Wayne Gretzky's 2,857 career points.

The Great One

Why it's breakable: All you have to do is get one more point that Gretzky.

Who are the closest active players: Actually there is one active player who has a chance. Florida Panthers' Jaromir Jagr is REALLY close. He has 1,851 points! Considering he has scored in average 77 points per season (and he has played 25 seasons in the NHL), he just has to score 1,007 points the next season... if he plays.

Why is it hard to break: Did you not get the sarcasm in the previous paragraph? They don't call Gretzky "The Great One" for no reason. This record is so ridiculous, I had to wash my face and clean my eyes when I was doing research on it. If you open this link you'll notice that the list of players with highest point goes something like:

1. Wayne Gretzky 2,857
2. "some guy" 1,887
3. Jaromir Jagr 1,851
4. "some guy" 1,798
5. "some guy" 1,771

you might as well re-write the article and phrase it this way:

1. Wayne Gretzky 2,857
2. .....
3. .....
4. .....
5. .....
6. .....
7. ......
8. .....
9. .....
10. .....
11. .....
12. "some guy" 1,887
13. Jaromir Jagr 1,851
14. "some guy" 1,798
15. "some guy" 1,771



11. Basketball - Oscar Robertson 1961-62 Triple Double Season

Why it's breakable: Well, you know what they say, "Records exist so we can break them", right?

Who are the closest active players: Nobody and not by long shot. Not even by 1,000 miles. To put it in perspective, LeBron James, the best player in the NBA in recent years, doesn't even have a "Double-Double" -if the term applies.

Why is it hard to break: Like Gretzky's, this is another ridiculous record. Achieving a Triple Double in ONE (1) NBA game, already is an incredibly difficult, hard, rare and monumental achievement. This guy (Robertson) achieved it during an entire season.

The Ryan Express

12. Baseball - Nolan Ryan Seven no hitters.

Why it's breakable: MLB pitchers start in average between 600 and 800 games in their lifetime. All you have to do is throw eight (8) no hitters in your career. Just... eight. And there is no pressure of throwing them consecutively, just do it whenever it pleases you.

Who are the closest active players: There are about ten active MLB pitchers with one no-hitter. There are three with two (Max Scherzer, Justin Velander and Tim Lincecum). I wish them the best of luck.

Why is it hard to break: I kind of have mental breakdowns and seizures when I think that Sandy Koufax is second to Ryan in the no-hitter list with four, and only three pitchers (Cy Young, Larry Corcoran and Bob Feller) have three.

555 consecutive wins...

13. ALL SPORTS (Squash for that matter) - Longest winning streak ever (in ANY sport). Jahangir Khan -squash- 555 consecutive wins

Why it's breakable: This record has the benevolence of allowing ANY sportsman practicing ANY sport, to try to break it.

Who are the closest active players: My best friend beat me 38 straight times consecutively in Mortal Kombat X. We had to call it a night so I could come and write this article.

Why is it hard to break: I can't imagine what could go in one's mind once you reach 278 consecutive wins (which is half of the record).

276 losses...

14. Boxing - Reggie Strickland losing 276 professional fights (or, the other side of the coin to Khan's record)

Why it's breakable: If it's true that you learn more from a defeat than a victory, then all you have to do is set yourself the goal of becoming the smartest man on the planet.

Who are the closest active boxers: Some British guy called Peter Buckley lost 256 fights. He recently retired though. Other than him, Floyd Mayweather Jr could be a candidate, metaphorically speaking.

Why is it hard to break: Oh man, I can't really pull myself together to think that someone in his sane mind would like to go to the grave holding the title of biggest loser in history.

Only the Yankee Clipper

15. Baseball - Joe Di Maggio hitting consecutively in 56 games.

Why it's breakable: I can't get over how ridiculously easy it sounds to hit for 57 consecutive games. All you have to do is HIT THE BALL.

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. There are several players who have hit yesterday. Let's see how they do today.

Why is it hard to break: When you think that Pete Rose got as close as 44, Ty Cobb had previously managed 40, Paul Molitor got to 39, and many others have fallen short at 35 or less, you know that a record is HARD.



Finally, as you may have thought, I left out some records that are notoriously hard to break as well. Most notably, I left out the ones that are truly impossible to break, because the sport has changed and is not played the way it was played when the record was established. For instance, Cy Young's 511 wins is impossible to break. Pitchers back then used to pitch with three, two and even next day notice. Pitchers today have five days of rest, making it mathematically near-impossible. Think about it this way: Greg Maddux started 744 times in his career.

I also left out records that seem impossible but I do in fact consider they can be broken, like Michael Schumacher's seven F1 titles, or Pele's 1,000 goals.

Cheers !

H

Best Marvel Movies

Effective today, "Hey everyone!" has officialy become the best quote of the year.

Captain America: Civil War trailer #2 has unveiled the most expected (or unexpected) appearance in any superhero movie -Marvel or DC- to date. Many believed he wasn't going to be in the film, while some others were skeptical on whether he would join. Thankfully, Spiderman is now among them.

I'm so pumped up!!

Ths brings me to today's entry: I would like to rank all Marvel's movies filmed so far, as we brace ourselves to enter phase 3 of the MCU.

Without furthe adieu, let's take a look at my review in chronological order.

Scenes like this are the reason why I like that this movie.
It feels realistic... Tony feels realistic

Iron Man (2008). Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges. Director: John Favreau

Post-credits scene: introduction of Nick Fury. Avengers Setup.

What I liked: This is the first MCU movie and it started off with a great foot. RDJ is both Tony and Iron Man. I just can't picture anyone else on the role. The plot development was good, the evolution was terrific, the villain was well setup, the flaws were properly handled, but more importantly, it all looked believable. The ending -"I'm Iron Man"- is maybe the best ending of any comic movie, period.

What I didn't like: There wasn't a single thing I didn't like in this movie. It's still one level under Batman Begins, but that's because you can't compare Goodfellas with The Godfather. Begins is simply the best comic movie ever made.

Ranks at: #2

Edward Norton doing what he does best

The Incredible Hulk (2008). Edward Norton. Liv Tyler. Director: Louis Leterrier

Post-credits scene: Tony Stark/Iron Man following up the Avengers initiative.

What I liked: Edward Norton as usual, shines. Hulk is closer to the comics. The story was good but not great. Overall a good setup for the Hulk.

What I didn't like: first of all, kudos to Mark Ruffalo for taking over and holding his own, but it just sucks that Edward Norton couldn't agree with Marvel to film the other MCU movies. Then, the movie kind of lacks drive. I don't know how to put it, but it felt a bit tedious at times, I think because some of the characters felt two-dimensional. It was like there was no motivation to push the plot forward.

Ranks at #11

For some reason, this just didn't work for me

Iron Man 2 (2010). Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Mickey Rourke. Director: John Favreau

Post-credits scene: introduction of Mjolnir. Thor Setup. Best post-credits scene of MCU. When I saw that hammer, man I got scared...

What I liked: The post-credits scene is the best end scene of all MCU so far. The only other good thing was the introduction of Natasha Romanoff and Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper character.

What I didn't like: Eveything, except Agent Romanoff and Pepper. One of the worst, if not the worst films of the MCU. The main plot of Tony struggling to live was good, but the side plot of both villains was just terrible. Mickey Rourke is just wasted in this one. The Monaco Race scene was terrible. The final battle gave me a headache. Oh and the post-credits scene.

But, this did.

Ranks at #12




Thor (2011). Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston. Director: Kenneth Branagh

Oops !!

Post-credits scene: introduction to the tesseract and Loki's ability to mind control people at will. Avengers setup.

What I liked: great premise, great acting from main stars and support actors as well, great plot. You can't go wrong with Kenneth.

What I didn't like: this movie suffers the same spell Iron Man did. You can't really mention anything that wasn't likeable, but you just can't label it as a classic either.

Ranks at #7





Captain America: The First Avenger. Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving. Director: Joe Johnston

The First Avenger

Post-credits scene: Nick Fury setting up the Avengers movie. Best pump up post-credits scene.

What I liked: once again and similar to Iron Man, the choice of Chris Evans to play Captain America is simply perfect. The post-credits scene is awesome as well... it gets you so pumped up!

What I didn't like: This is one of those movies like TRON (1982) where you can't really say what happened or what was wrong, but for some reason you know it is not good. However there is still hope it will become a cult-following film, just like TRON did. In CATFA, I particularly felt that maybe the movie needed more: more action setpiece, more drama, more acting. Something seems missing and nothing makes it really stand over any of the other films.

Ranks at #10






The Avengers (2012). Ensemble cast. Director: Joss Whedon

Perfect

Post-credits scene: introduction of Thanos.

What I liked: everything. This is a movie that can rival with Batman Begins (or The Dark Knight for that matter). Of course, it gets a lot of help from its individual setup movies for each superhero, regarding that it doesn't need major character development for anyone. But still, just because you have a dream team, doesn't mean that you will win a gold medal. That's when one must give all credit to Joss Whedon.

What I didn't like: Agent Coulson dies. Also, the post-credits scene. I think they could have done something better. The post-post credits scene was hillarious.

Ranks at #2




Iron Man 3 (2013). Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Guy Pearce. Director: Shane Black

Oh come on man, I had just finished cleaning!!

Post-credits scene: Tony thanking Bruce for listening to his story.

What I liked: Tony appearing as human and as humble as he can be. Guy Pearce as usual shines.

What I didn't like: Mostly eveything. This movie is not bad per se. My issue with it, is that it should have been called "TONY STARK 3" instead of Iron man 3. The movie is all about Tony and there is barely any Iron Man in it. There are like 829 suits, none of them worn by Tony -well except for the famous #24, and the final battle is won by Pepper. It just kind of lost me when Killian kidnapped the President. Also, the Mandarin was wasted, completely wasted in this. I will repeat: it's a good movie, but it doesn't honor the name Iron Man 3.

Ranks at #8




Thor: The Dark World (2013). Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman. Director: Alan Taylor

"You know, my ex-husband was a Jedi Knight!"

Post-credits scene: introduction to The Collector. Setup for Guardians of the Galaxy.

What I liked: Thor and Jane Foster.

What I didn't like: The film has no substance. It's all style but the inside is just empty. Some of the dialogue is cheesy and at times it feels like the movie is running on autopilot, meaning it's completely predictable. Malekith was wasted and there is no character development; he ends up coming across as one-dimensional. It seems like there was little to no effort or thought put in filming this.

Ranks at #9




Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Chris Evans, Scarlett Johanson. Director: Joe Johnston

"Before we get started, does anyone want to get out?"

Post-credits scene: Avengers Age of Ultron setup. Introduction to Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch.

What I liked: It's a  sequel better than the original. You don't see that pretty often. Captain's character development grows even more -if you couldn't think that possible- and you can definitely understand why he has such a huge role in the Avengers, arguably the most important role, even over Nick Fury. Chemistry with Black Widow as a teammate, also grew up substantially. The plot is great, the thrill that passes by every minute is fantastic, and you can really feel the sense of being a hero that Steve Rogers has. This film raises the bar in the MCU.

What I didn't like: Nothing, but it's no Avengers or GOTG

Ranks at #6



Guardians of the Galaxy (2014). Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Dave Bautista. Director: James Gunn

Post-credits scene: The Collector "collecting" himself at his office after the explosion, including a cameo appearance by Howard The Duck.

The Best Marvel Film so far

What I liked: The perfect MCU movie.

THIS is the film that Star Wars: The Force Awakens should have been.

When you have five complete random characters, played by five random actors, mold together, blend together, come together and pull off such a hillarious, well developed, clever and overall, well done film, you know you have done the perfect MCU movie.

It's funny, it's witty, it's robust, it took liberties only when needed and left unanswered questions only when it made sense (contrary to The Force Awakens, that consisted of a 2-hour movie that kept leaving unanswered questions, interrupted by some Harrison Ford cameos).

The chemistry was superb, the villain was incredible, the script was terrific. Heck, it's so good, it's better than The Avengers! Even the post-credits scene is perfect!

What I didn't like: Nothing.

Ranks at #1





The Avengers (2015). Ensemble cast. Director: Joss Whedon

Avengers! A...... (What was Cap going to say?) 

Post-credits scene: Thanos vowing he will collect the infinity stones himself.

What I liked: A great sequel. Deep character development, while also increasing the tension between them that justifies both the need of a new Avengers team and the conflict that will arise in the next film. The movie carries on the MCU theme from phase 2 to phase 3, in a perfect way.

I like the way they brilliantly coped with their struggles and how the team felt "forced", leading to each member kind of running away on their own, with Hulk simply taking the plane to who knows where, Hawkeye staying with his girlfriend, Thor heading back to Asgard again, Quicksilver dying. They may be heroes but they have emotions and feelings. This humanization was wonderfully executed (not sure if the term applies for Thor... is he human?)

What I didn't like: Again, the post-credits scene. I think they could have done something better. Seems that Joss Whedon is not goot at post-credits scenes.

Ranks at #4





Ant-Man (2015). Michael Douglas, Paul Rudd. Director: Peyton Reed

Post-credits scene: Captain America setting up Civil War.

Kudos to both of them. Well done, master/mentor and student

What I liked: What a great film. When I read Paul Rudd had been cast as Ant-Man, and that Hank Pym (played by Michael Douglas) was NOT going to be Ant-Man, but instead handing Ant-Man to Scott Lang (Rudd), I thought to myself something along the lines of: "ay ya-y-ayy...." However the risk paid off very well, and Rudd surprisingly stole the show as Ant-Man while Douglas -as fresh as ever- stole the show as Dr Hank Pym. Evangeline Lilly was a terrific addition to the cast as well.

What I didn't like: While I rate Douglas' performance as Dr. Hank Pym at a solid 9/10, the reason why I don't give him the perfect score, is because I think they could have done more with his character, regarding his intelligence. Let's remember that according to several consensus, Hank Pym is the second most intelligent character in the Marvel Universe, even smarter than Tony Stark! I felt this should have been developed a bit more and make Hank Pym really show off his brilliance skills and abilities as a scientist.

Ranks at #5


Final Ranking:

#1: Guardians of the Galaxy
#2: The Avengers
#3: Iron Man
#4: Avengers Age of Ultron
#5: Ant-Man
#6: Captain America: The Winter Soldier
#7: Thor
#8: Iron Man 3
#9: Thor The Dark World
#10: Captain America: The First Avenger
#11: The Incredible Hulk
#12: Iron Man 2


SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.

Spiderman films

Great actor, but terribly miscast in my opinion.

Five Spiderman films in less than ten years (with a sixth one announced for 2017) doesn't speak to good of how well has Spidey been treated by Hollywood and built up as a character. I like Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, and I think their S1 and S2 films rank as #1 and #2 respectively. Andrew Garfield also made a good effort. However, I still can't really buy neither Tobey nor Andrew as either Peter Parker or Spiderman, the same way I buy RDJ as Tony Stark/Iron Man, or Chris Hemsworth as Thor, or Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America, or... Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Bat Man. For some reason, something simply doesn't add up and I believe the main reason is because the main character, Spidey our hero has simply been miscast.

Ranking of Spiderman films:

#1: Spiderman
#2: Spiderman 2
#3: Amazing Spiderman
#4: Amazing Spiderman 2
#5: Spiderman 3

(with Spiderman being a bit better than Iron Man 2)



Fantastic Four films

Suffer the same fate than the Spiderman films, with the added bonus that at least Spiderman movies had a decent script with somewhat of a decent plot. All three FF films have neither. The main error in FF films is the cast. Reed Richards, the brightest mind, the most intelligent character in the Marvel Universe comes across as a huge joke. Jessica Alba as the Invisible Woman simply does not work. Only the Human Torch (played brilliantly by Chris Evans) and The Thing pull this one together. Other than that, it's a monumental flaw. As you can imagine, I am only referring to the first two FF movies. The latest reboot, is a huge piece of ...

Ranking of Fantastic Four films:

What a piece of....

#1: Fantastic Four
#2: Fantastic Four Rise of Silver Surfer
....
....
....
....
#2984298: Fantastic Four (2015 reboot)

(with Fantastic Four being toe to toe with Iron Man 2)



Ranking of the Best Marvel Movies:

#1: Guardians of the Galaxy
#2: The Avengers
#3: Iron Man
#4: Avengers Age of Ultron
#5: Ant-Man
#6: Captain America: The Winter Soldier
#7: Thor
#8: Iron Man 3
#9: Thor The Dark World
#10: Captain America: The First Avenger
#11: The Incredible Hulk
#12: Spiderman
#13: Iron Man 2
#14 Spiderman 2
#15: Amazing Spiderman
#16: Amazing Spiderman 2
#17: Spiderman 3
#18: Fantastic Four
#19: Fantastic Four Rise of Silver Surfer
....
....
....
....
#2984315: Fantastic Four (2015 reboot)



Cheers,

H