Captain America Civil War: Another Marvel Success

Once again, Marvel has delivered a successful, solid product. The following review will include spoilers, so if you haven't seen it yet, go to your local theater and come back right away.

I rate the film a 9 out of 10, and overall I only have one slight complain, one minor issue and one thing I didn't like.

First thing's first: Is it better than The Force Awakens? Yes. Which brings me to my first point of analysis. If Disney can actually produce a great franchise film from a studio not previously owned by them, that is no excuse for ruining Lucasfilm.

The film is serious, it's a bit dark (only a tiny bit), it sets its plot a bit slowly but securely, and it barely takes liberties to give comical reliefs. It's not like The Force Awakens, where every 5 minutes there was a "smart/dumb" comment or joke thrown in that came out of nowhere, that somehow makes you think whether Star Wars turned into a popcorn comedy. At no time Civil war takes itself as a comical film and stays on track with its adventural genre. Having that said, let's move on.

The performances are top notch. Not one character is sloppy or badley portrayed. It's like the chemistry of these guys keeps improving with every passing film. Robert keeps getting better and better (if that was even possible), portraying a more human and sensible Tony Stark who now stands conflicted between himself, his friends and the law. I think the three-way conflict was extremely well handled and that is something that only Kubrick The Master was able to do to absolute perfection; in Civil War, you see why Robert is easily the best actor of his generation, as he throws in a bit of Chaplin, a bit of Wayne Gayle, a bit of Harry Lockhart, and of course a bit of Robert we hadn't seen before. Chris Evans also aces his role, as the leading man inside the conflict in the Avengers; it's hard to come on top of Robert as leading man, and the main protagonist of the film, and Chris pulls it off nicely, since from minute one I felt the movie centered around Captain America. As for Elizabeth, Paul, Jeremy, Scalett, Sebastian, Anthony, Paul B., Don, Chadwick, they all shine.

I'm always scared when a new director takes over an existing and already successful series, especially taking over from Joss Whedon, however the Russo brothers took off where Joss had left and kept in the same direction. The only slight complain I have -and I wouldn't make too much a deal about it- is that I felt that at times there was a bit too much fighting, specifically the opening scene, but it may just be me. It's just that... well, The Force Awakens, Avengers, Avengers Age of Ultron, they all start with action right away, so I felt it was a bit repetitive to start another action-superhero film with an action scene. But I don't mind it overall. In the end, I'm really ok either way with fighting sequences. I'm also ok with the choreography and the pacing. After all, the film is called "Civil War", right? Other than that, the film is perfectly directed.

Plot-wise speaking, again, a superb job was achieved. Like I said earlier, the film takes its time to build its premise, but once it does, it's quite strong about it. You know what they say about building a good foundation, and that's exactly what the film does with the plot. You may have the usual tiny plothole here and there, but nothing really major. I do have one minor issue and it's the following: when I first watched the trailer, I was blown away when Spiderman made his appearance. It took me by complete surprise and left me speechless. After watching the trailer and having seen the film, I think showing Spiderman in the trailer was a huge mistake. I think it was done because of marketing, in order to build up the hype and attract more viewers, and I completely understand it. But hear me out: you know how in the film we get the surprise of Ant-Man turning into Giant-Man? (well, not only we got it, but also the superheroes got it too!) Well, the way I see it, I think it would have been awesome that just minutes earlier, Spiderman would have shown up unexpectedly -just like he did in the trailer-, appearing out of nowhere, webbing Cap and saying "Hey everyone!" The reason I say this it's because it would have been balanced to have Team Iron Man with an unexpected surprise (an unexpected superhero), and Team Captain America with its unexpected surprise (an unexpected power). Therefore, me, I, would have completely scratched out the whole Tony + Peter Queens scene. I really believe it added nothing to the movie, the plot and in fact, it kind of slowed it down for nothing. Like I said, it would have been way, way more exciting to have Spiderman show up out of nowhere exactly the way he appeared in the trailer. Also, I think he was a bit too young. Don't get me wrong, the Spiderman character was great, his powers awesome and his performance was wonderful... but I feel that he was way too young. I think Spiderman aged 18-19 is the right range for him in movies.

The interaction within our heroes is smooth and contagious. You can definitely feel that despite them being superheroes, they are also humans with emotions and feelings, for and against each other. I also enjoyed their power usage. The scene in witch Scarlett Witch confronts The Vision while being rescued by Hawkeye is the best example of their struggle between their inner and outer powers. The climatic airport scene, in which we basically see a free-for-all, is extremely well handled, with direction concentrated in one battle at a time, while letting us know that they were all happening at the same time. I really enjoyed Scarlett Witch displaying her full powers. She's a force to be reckned with. I also enjoyed Ant-Man both as solo and acting along with Hawkeye. And of course, the final battle of Iron Man vs Captain America was superb.

Finally, the one thing I didn't really like: the post credits-scene. I really feel they didn't make any sense. They didn't add anything to the overall phase 3 environment, other than telling us that Black Panther and Spiderman will get their own films. Really?? Do we really need a post credits scene for THAT?? You know, we have the internet, youtube, IMDb.com, Twitter and hundreds if not thousands of resources to find that on our own. This setup method worked in Deadpool, because IT'S DEADPOOL, but it shouldn't have been used in Civil War. In this era, to waste precious film time to toss in a post-credits scene to let your audience know that there will be a follow up film, is kind of like going on a trip to Europe with your GoPro/iPhone/Samsung S6, but use your old Polaroid Kodak camera. Or... it is like watching The Force Awakens and believe that the entire First Order vs Rebellion conflict ended for good and forever.

With all the stuff that's going on outside the Earth, regarding Thor trying to find out what's the deal with the Infinity Stones, or Hulk dissappearing from the Avengers, or Thanos conspiring to retrieve the stones himself, or even bringing up a new character, like the Celestials or The Living Tribunal, I was really shell shocked that not one but BOTH post-credits scenes aimed to promote Black Panther and Spiderman films. This was completely out of order and unnecessary. The post credits scene should have been something with Thor in another realm, something with Thanos, something with an unseen character, or... you know what? Maybe throw in a plot-twist showing that Zemo's wife was actually alive and he had been talking to her over the phone all along -or something along those lines-. Either way, post credits scenes should keep the trend of setting up what is coming that we haven't forseen, and not set up what's coming that we ALREADY know. Period.

All in all, Captain America is a very tasty film that leaves you satisfied and may even exceed your expectations. It's no doubt the best superhero showdown ever filmed and it's among the top 5 best Marvel films done to date.

9 out of 10.

PS. After seeing the preview for the 2904th time, I have a hunch that X-Men Apocalypse won't be nowhere near as good as Civil War. In fact, I have a strong feeling that X-Men Apocalypse will barely be a 6 out of 10... maybe even a 5 out of 10. I hope it's not as bad as The Force Awakens.

Before Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad, there was Firefly: The Best TV Show of All-Time

Today's article is completely Spoiler Free.

A couple of days ago a friend of mine asked if I had finally watched the film "Serenity". I gave him the same answer I've been giving for years: "I'm doing my best effort to avoid watching it, for as long as I can."

Best Show Ever. Period.

As many of the hundred of thousands of cult-followers that Firefly has gained over the years, I came across the series after reading several online websites that praised it as "The Best TV Show of All-Time." I wondered how or why I hadn't heard from this show that was constantly rated 10/10 in every single spoilers free review I read. It was 2007 -five years after the show had been cancelled-, when I finally got a hold of the series and kept them in dark corner in my living room. I still waited for another 6-8 months to watch it, still a bit skeptic of all the praise the show kept receiving. Normally I'm very skeptical when series and films are extremely overhyped and overrated, and to think that there was a perfect TV show, way, way better than anything else around, was kind of a high toss.

One evening I finally pulled myself together to watch episode one. Next thing I knew, I found myself watching the end of episode fourteen -the last of the series-. It was the next day, the Sun had risen and I was late for work. But it didn't matter, because I had just seen The Best TV Show of All-Time.

The phrase "Greek Tragedy" couldn't be a better suit for Firefly's story. Which will probably make you wonder...

Superb, exquisite, detailed, stunning visuals are the weakest aspect of the show. Yes I know what you're thinking.
I'll say that again: Superb, exquisite, detailed, stunning are THE WEAKEST aspect of the show.

Firefly was produced, filmed and aired during fall in 2002. Its creator was Joss Whedon, who at the time had already been the successful creator of two great shows: Buffy The Vampire Slayer and its spin-off, Angel. Whedon of course as you may know, is the one guy who today rides the glory surfboard of success with Marvel's Avengers films. 

Firefly's cast starred a relatively unknown number of actors, but make no mistake: the unknown factor was inversely proportional to their performances on-screen. The plot was perhaps the most original, inventive, creative and unique idea seen on TV till that point, and -in my humble opinion, hold true even to this day. Everything else surrounding the show's production was nothing short of perfect. The attention to detail was particularly exquisite. Simply put, Firefly is The Best Show of All Time. So why did it fail?

My answer is simple: Firefly is Perfect.

In 2002, FOX Executives thought otherwise of what everyone thinks nowadays. Apparently, they didn't understand the premise of the show and didn't buy the idea of having an extremely detailed and well-paced show with deep character development, kind of like we have today with Game of Thrones. Next, they probably couldn't understand the mixture of scenarios in a futuristic world that divided society and classes, kind of like we have today with Game of Thrones. Then, they probably couldn't grasp the complex language spoken throughout the episodes and the implication (or lack thereof) that each line had, kind of like Breaking Bad. Then, they probably couldn't deal with the amount of suspense associated with it, kind of like combining Game of Thrones + The Walking Dead + Breaking Bad. Then, they probably couldn't deal with the fast paced sections in some episodes, where the characters are racing against the clock in order to survive, kind of like 24.

I could go on...

Game of Throne's deep character development is heavily based and influenced by Firefly's visionary approach to TV Shows

So when Firefly first aired, the FOX Network Executives setup a plan to ruin Firefly's success write from the beginning. Instead of airing the show's first episode, they aired the second episode. The following week, they aired episode #3, which was followed by episode #6. I kid you not.

In summary, this is how FOX aired Firefly:

September 20, 2002: Episode #2

September 27, 2002: Episode #3

October 4, 2002: Episode #6

October 11, 2002: -

October 18, 2002: Episode #7

Octobre 25, 2002: Episode #8

November 1st, 2002: Episode #4

November 8, 2002: Episode #5

November 15, 2002: Episode #9

November 22, 2002: -

December 9, 2002: Episode #10

December 13, 2002: Episode #14

December 20, 2002: Episode #1

Now, I'm definitely no TV Executive, but I do know that when you air the show's Pilot/First episode last, your premier episode is the actual second episode, you skip two weeks or airings, and you simply air the episodes in whatever order pleases you, you're pretty much setting up for a huge monumental failure. How is your audience supposed to understand a plot-followed show, that one week features something that the following week makes no sense whatsoever? Imagine if in Breaking Bad, Walter White was already killing the main antagonist during its second episode, or if Greg was already dead by the third episode of The Walking Dead.

That is for starters, now for the kicker.

In addition to the episode airing disaster, FOX barely marketed the show... and the few commercials about the show gave the impression that Firefly's theme was action/comedy, whereas Firefly's real theme is Sci-Fi/Adventure/Drama. Close your eyes for just a second, and imagine if Game of Thrones marketing campaign and TV commercials were selling the premise of the show as "Action/Comedy." Seriously, who would watch a show about a blond girl with three dragons that is marketed as "Action/Comedy" ? Or, imagine if Walter White's Heisenberg was sold as an "Action/Comedy" character instead of the serious drama protagonist he is. 

I'm quite sure nobody would have watched Breaking Bad, had this been its marketing campaign

Needless to say, Firefly ratings were as bad as any Public Access TV Show (into the low 90s on Nielsen's).

After showing only 11 episodes, Firefly was cancelled. To add more cruelty, FOX aired the remaining three episodes in July-August of 2003. After that, Firefly was definitely out of TV forever. Its legacy, is now carried on by 24, Breaking Bad, Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Game of Thrones, and even The Big Bang Theory.

Joss Whedon had planned Firefly to run for about Seasons, which makes absolute sense after seeing the ill-fated only season, season #1. It's was a show so ahead of its time that only today in 2016, millions of fans are now able to deal with Game of Thrones' profound complexity and variety of plots. I mean, after watching GOT's Season #1, you know that you are watching a show that will likely last 7 or 8 seasons. Imagine watching GOT's Season #1 and having HBO cancel the show after the execution of Eddard Stark. Well, that exactly how every single person who have watched Firefly feels.

Firefly is such a perfect show, that it even eclipses the demographic barriers on any other TV show seen, before or ever since. I know people who love Game of Thrones and I know a few people who dislike it, or simply wish not to follow it. I know people who love The Walking Dead and I know a few people who dislike it, or simply wish not to follow it; or Breaking Bad, or Lost, or whatever show you can think of.

I have yet to meet a single individual who has watched Firefly and doesn't like it.

Kaylee, my favorite Firefly character. 

There are several reasons why every single person who watches Firefly, unavoidably rates the series a 10 out of 10. Apart from the plot, the high production values with careful attention to detail, there are many implicit and explicit motives to get hooked by the show. Even despite having way, way less main characters than GOT or TWD, the deepness and complexity of Firefly's characters is uniqued and so incredibly appleaing, that anyone will and can find one to relate to.

For several months, Joss Whedon fought bravely and negotiated with several networks to try to keep Firefly on the air and of course, air it correctly, but nobody listened to him. Tens of thousands of fans sent letters to FOX and other networks in an effort to try to revive the show, but no network wanted it (as far as I know, only Family Guy managed to achieve this). 

Tired of struggling, three years later Joss Whedon released a film called "Serenity", which is supposed to be the somewhat transition/season #1 finale of Firefly, as a final resource to try to revive the series. The movie is rated highly by most fans who have seen it, however it comes with a terrible side-effect: 

If you have the pleasure of watching Firefly, IN ORDER, at the end of episode #14, you are left with a huge ambiguous ending that makes Inception's ending look as clear as crystal water; plus you are also left with at least 294 unanswered questions and overall wonderings of in which direction the show (and its characters) will head next. I have read that Serenity "tries" to clear up the ambiguous ending of episode #14; it also "tries" to answer at least 81 of the 294 unanswered questions; and it also tries to sort of give the viewer a glimpse into which direction Firefly would have headed as a TV show.

Why did she do that? We'll never know...

The cruelty of watching Firefly (like I said, in order) is that as each episode goes by, you think things are getting clearer and you are understanding the show better, only to find out that as each episode goes by, the plot deepens more heavily and you are left wondering what will happen next. Knowing that the show was cancelled after 14 episodes, your subconscious can't help but to do a mental countdown and beg that things end up in a satisfying manner (plot-wise speaking), only to realize that every episode that goes by has your mind and your heart begging for the inevitable: the series not to end.

That's why I haven't seen Serenity and it's going to take a huge effort for me to see it.

So remember, whatever you do after reading this review, trust me, DO NOT watch Firefly, unless you want to be left with a huge open chapter in your life, and wish to spend your life wondering what would have happned to Mal, Zoe, Wash, Inara, Jayne, Kaylee, Simon, River and Book, had Firefly continued through all its seasons as Joss Whedon intended.

There are many, many things in life I don't and probably won't ever understand:

• Why are corrupt Presidents free?
• How come drug lords are rich and impossible to catch?
• How come we invest so much money in war, instead of investing on science and space exploration?
• and so on...

However one thing that stands above them all and that I will never ever understand is, How the hell and Why was Firefly, The Best TV Shof of All-Time, cancelled and was never revived?

The Doha Oil Freeze Talks (Not)

A couple of days ago, the eyes of the world were turned to the city of Doha in Qatar, where the majority of oil producer countries met, allegedly to reach an agreement on freezing production in order to boost oil prices.

It didn't go well.

Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi was strong to call out the freeze agreement 

Two days before the meeting day, Iran announced they would not attend the meeting (despite being invited in advance). This supposedly triggered a Saudi Arabia boycott on the agreement that had been pre-arranged between Russia, Qatar, Venezuela and themselves, and was to subsequently include the rest of the OPEC countries. I can only begin to imagine what it must felt for the remaining countries to take a flight to Qatar and go back home empty handed haven't achieved anything.

Oil prices followed suit on the monumental failure of the Doha meeting, and fell below $40 per barrel once again. This hurts the Saudis, but it hurts the other countries even more.

The oil pipeline has taken a huge hit these past months

Without taking any sides, I like how Saudi Arabia imposes as necessary condition to agree on the freeze, that all countries must join the pact. It pretty much emphasizes the nature of OPEC and what it is meant for: to be and act as a cartel. Let's remember that OPEC was founded to be and act as a cartel, after the United States had been dominating (and sort of imposing) oil prices throughout the 20th Century. After the creation of OPEC, it was now up to them to dominate oil prices from tne 1970s to our present time. But things may now be behaving differently, and perhaps, yes perhaps, we may see (or we already seeing) the US controlling oil prices again. And... the failure of this meeting can be labeled as monumental, considering the agreement was including non-OPEC countries. That's why Saudis were aiming for the "All-In" scenario.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal

This article in which Maria Bartiromo interviews Saudi billionaire businessman Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, gives the best insight I have read so far regarding the aspiration of seeing a $100-a-barrel oil ever again. It shows why Saudis are the best at what they do (that is, the oil business of course), and their vision regarding crucial elements of the oil market, including the four key pillars of any business: sales & marketing, operations, human capital and finance. In other words, this is a top executive management Master's class. How will the output of my decision affect each of my key pillars?

The Saudis are smart: they have learned valuable lessons from past mistakes (from themselves and other nations) and they are adamant to any decision that may result in them repeating the same mistake. Their argument is quite simple, as it results from a combination of those four key pillars. They don't want to lose market share. As long as they maintain their market share in the industry, they have a privileged position, so why give it away? Doing so would be like Apple agreeing with all cellphone manufacturers to freeze production of smartphones, hence freezing the production of iPhones, but not including Samsung in the deal. It's basically the same thing than digging your own grave. Saudis 1, Rest of the World 0.

Keep in mind Saudi Arabia is the top oil producer in the world, pumping over 12 million BPD. Only Russia and the US at 11 million BPD and 9 million BPD, can come close to their figures... but hey... it's Russia and the US we're talking about. All the other countries don't even make it past 5 million BPD, so to them have Saudi Arabia and Russia freeze production is a huge helpout. Do you want another key factor? Saudi Arabia has the one of the lowest barrel production costs of all countries. While it costs $11 in Russia and $16 in the US, the Saudis' produce at a cost of $8 per barrel. All the other countries costs vary between ($10 and $25). Saudis 2, Rest of the World 0.

Way better than $4 per gallon...

What about the US? At this point I think they could't care less whether if OPEC countries freeze production or not. Of course, income is affected and revenue is nowhere near two years ago, but keep in mind that the US government doesn't own any oil companies. Meaning it's not THAT big a deal for the American economy, compared to say Iran, Russia, Qatar, Venezuela and the other countries whose primary source of income is oil, and on top of that, having the fact that most oil companies are state owned in those countries. Why do you think Saudi Aranco is going public? Saudis 3, Rest of the World 0.

Game, set and match, Saudi Arabia.

I'm telling you, those Saudis know their thing.

In conclussion, dealing with business is no easy task, but it pays huge dividends to know your terrain, know who you're sitting with, know you you're sitting against, know the implications of your decisions and have a past-history of results that can back you up. A hunch can go a long way in a Las Vegas Casino, but in the business world, we are talking about costs, revenue and income. Sitting down on a table hoping for the best with no previous preparation of the meeting you will be attending, can send you on a terrible path of failure. Being well documented, can put you on the path to success.

The funniest thing is that after not attending the meeting, Iran sends a cable recommending all the other countries to go ahead with the freeze output as it was planned.

H

Barcelona sinks faster than the Titanic or Kodak

To win, when you feel you have already won: is it easy or is it unmeasurable pressure? As we have seen in the past weeks, for FC Barcelona, it's definitely the second.

FC Barcelona have gone from riches to rags in just four weeks

One of the best coaching books I have read is Brad Gilbert's Winning Ugly. In one of its chapters, Gilbert claims that throughtout all his tennis experience as teenager, pro and coach, he discovered that there is an emotional behavior called the "Achievement Effect", which makes tennis players lose more matches than you can imagine.

Gilbert explains that in tennis, the achievement effect happens when you're halfway through a tennis match with a winning score and you have gained a sufficient advantage, that makes you feel like you have already won the match. Like for instance, in a best of three, say you are up a set and an early break in the second set, like 6-2 / 2-0. Gilbert claims that the player who at this point in the match is the one losing, still has a very good chance of turning things around, making a comeback and win the match. He gives two reasons for this:

1. The hurt bear: which means at this point the losing player will change his strategy and begin playing more aggressively.
2. The achievement effect: which is the one I will talk about in today's post.

One month ago, FC Barcelona had a 9 and 12 point advantage over their closest followers, Atletico Madrid and Real Madrid in Spain's La Liga. They were also #1 favorites to win this year's UEFA Champions League, having trounced Arsenal in the round of 16. Today, Barcelona and Atletico are tied at first place, with Real Madrid just one point behind. And, they were eliminated from Champions League by Atletico after being defeated 2-0 last wednesday.

Barcelona hasn't celebrated in quite some time...

Most football pundits would say: "there's no way that happened." Well, it did.

After achieving a streak of 32 consecutive wins through the season, Barcelona somehow lost their compass (and their ability to score at will) and in just four weeks, they tied Villareal 2-2, then lost to Real Madrid 1-2 as hosts, then lost to Real Sociedad 0-1, then lost to Atletico Madrid in the Champions' Quarterfinal match 2-0, then today, they lost to Valencia 1-2, also at home.

So how did this happen? I believe Gilbert's theory claimed another victim.

I believe that at some point between the start and the finish line of a race, when you find yourself as the leader, your mind and your body become relaxed and both of them feel like they have conquered the objective of becoming "number 1". It is at this point when the mind apparently forgets that becoming #1 is not the same as finishing as number 1, and eventually lets your body's guard down a little bit. As your body relaxes, you lose rythm, tempo, motivation, strength, will, and several other positive factors that are in charge of taking you to the finish line in first place. The pack behind you -who aren't on first place- haven't lost any of these factors, and eventually catch up with you and pass you. At this point you freak out because you can't turn your body on back again, because mentally you had already "cashed out" of the game. Next thing you know, you lose.

This is why people can say whatever they want about LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and more recently Steph Curry. To me, the list of 100 greatest NBA players of all time consists of Michael Jordan at #1, followed by 99 other guys.

Jordan dunked on Magic... and never looked back

After struggling during his first years, finding his place as a team player and not a solo-act player in the Chicago Bulls, then battling (and losing against) the Detroit Pistons for three straight years, Jordan got to the finals in 1991 and won his first title against the Los Angeles Lakers. After winning his first title, Michael never looked back, meaning he never knew what it meant to be on the losing side ever again. He never lost at anything again. He never lost at all, again. Once MJ got used to winning, his mind never relaxed or let himself down.

As most of you may know, Michael won the 92, 93, 96, 97 and 98 finals. Six finals, six wins. Oh and yes, he was also named MVP of all six finals. No other player in the NBA has achieved this. No one.

Here's another interesting stat: Michael Jordan never lost a series when having home court advantage. And, to be more exquisite, he never let a best of seven finals reach game seven. How can one interpret these two stats?

Michael Jordan never lost when he was expected to win.

Six finals, Six Championships, Six MVP titles.

Barcelona's downfall experienced in the past weeks raises several questions regarding what caused the team to lose when expected to win. After all, they had a nine (potentially twelve) point advantage over second place in their domestic league and were overwhelming favorites in European Champions League.

Many fans believe the team was tired given the grueling schedule of domestic, european, cup and international matches. I disgree with this affirmation. In 1991, when Jordan and his Bulls won his first NBA title, the team played 82 regular games, plus at least 18 more play-offs and finals games -a total of 100 games-. The following season, they had to go through the same schedule. And again the season after that to conquer their first three-peat. And again from 1995-96, through 96-97 and 97-98, including a season in which they set a record of 72-10. So were the Bulls not as tired as Barcelona? I really don't think so.

Atletico Madrid won fare and square against a totally unkown Barcelona team

Others point to hail the performance of their rivals. I'll give you that Villareal, Real Madrid, Atletico Madrid, Real Sociedad and Valencia played well against Barcelona. They really did, but they didn't really blow them away off the field. It was a combination of their rivals playing well and Barcelona not. Every time Roger Federer plays (and loses) to Rafael Nadal, Roger plays to the best of his abilities, but he simply can't beat an opponent who plays better than him. It's as simple as that. It's not like Roger doesn't play well enough, it's just that Nadal is too good for him.

Others bring up the debate of either poor defense vs poor offense. In those most recent four matches, Barcelona has allowed nine goals and have only scored four (two of them against Villareal). Whichever way you put this, it only spells blood-loss, as Barcelona has been riding the wave of having three of the best forwards in the world, Messi, Suarez and Neymar.

To me, the main reason behind Barcelona's disaster is none other than the "Achievement effect". By two thirds of the season, the team "felt" they had won their domestic league. By the time they had reached the quarter-finals of the Champions League, the team "felt" they had already won the trophy.

Which brings me to Jordan and his Bulls... and another key figure that must be mentioned: Phil Jackson.

Arguably, the two main forces driving behind the Bulls' Six Championships

Like I have stated before, once you achieve the feat of winning, it's really hard to keep up with that mindset since there is nothing that goes on top of winning. I mean once you get to that champion or #1 rank, the only thing left to do, is to /defend keep the trophy or rank. Phil Jackson understood this more than anybody (well, maybe second after Jordan) and as a coach of the Chicago Bulls he endured a day-and-night marathon of being the chief strategist and leader of a group of players who were used to win.

Simply put, Phil Jackson's job was to prevent the Chicago Bulls to lose their status of champions, contrary to what happened with major corporations like Kodak and Blockbuster early in the 21st Century. And that is what a great leader does.

In Barcelona neither Luis Enrique nor Barca's Jordan's equivalent, Lionel Messi were able to brush off the "Achievement Effect" from last season, and the results of the last four weeks prove it.

When you find yourself running a business and you're CEO or President of your company, whether if you are on the rise to become best at your market segment, or if you already are on top, you must always strive to keep that hunger for winning. And you must make sure that your leaders and the rest of your key players are also hungry for winning.

Even if you have already won.

H

The Black Mamba says goodbye

Kobe Bryant played his last NBA game two days ago, putting an end to a 20-year career that places him in the legends league of NBA History.

Thanks for everything Kobe.

In a previous post where I addressed the NBA top players of all time, I ranked Kobe at 10th and that was as high as I could place him, considering the 9 fellas that are ranked higher than him are, well... better.

To me, Kobe was a great individual player who succeeded through a combination of hard work, dedication, discipline, ethics, commitment to the game, and several other positive qualities. His first five years with the Lakers he averaged 7.6, 15.4, 19.9, 22.5 and 28.5 PPG, which reflect that while he may have started a bit low-profile, he kept getting better and improving with each passing season. He won his first NBA Championship in 1999-00, in a team in which he was second fiddle to Shaquille O'Neal's prime and dominance of the paint. The partnership followed suit with two more rings in 00-01 and 01-02, until tensions between Shaq and Kobe dismantled the team after a traumatic 4-1 loss against the Detroit Pistons in the 03-04 finals. After teaming up with Spaniard center Pau Gasol, Kobe -now in the role as team leader- returned to the glory podium winning back to back rings in 08-09 and 09-10. As for our country, Kobe was part of the USA teams that won two gold medals (2008 and 2012) and the 2007 FIBA Championship.

Some of Kobe's career highlights also include:

• 33,464 points (3rd all time, after Kareem's 38,387 and Karl Malone's 36,928)
• 2xNBA Finals MVP (09 and 10)
• 18x All-Star 
• 2008 season MVP
• 11x NBA First Team, 2 times Second Team and 2 times Third Team
• 9x NBA First Defensive Team, 3 times Second Team
• 25,0 PPG career average (12th of all time)
• 25.64 PPG Playoff average (12th of all time)
• 1,944 steals (14th of all time)

Say what you will about the Black Mamba, but Kobe retires demonstrating that he was one of the greatest players of all time.

Once again, thank you Kobe.

Panama Papers claim their first victim

A few days ago I was browsing through my regular news feed, when one of the most recent posts read that there had been a leak in information about offshore investments involving several world figures. I was a bit skeptic at the beginning but when I started to dig into it, I saw this was the real thing.

Vladimir Putin, Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, David Cameron, Mauricio Macri, Jackie Chan, Lionel Messi, and several other worldwide personalities had relationships with the Panamenian firm Mossack Fonseca, supposedly with the intent of hiding wealth and avoiding taxes -among other things-.

My question here is: these are supposed to be world leaders, the people that represent and vow for the people. What is going on here?

I was immediately taken back to my childhood years, when primary teachers lectured you over and over again, about stealing is bad, killing is bad, lying is bad, and so many other morally incorrect actions and behaviors. I am no saint, I'll give you that, and most people around the world aren't as well. Everyone has something on them if you look at them under a microscope. But come on, world leaders hiding wealth in offshore investments?

Iceland's Prime Minister, Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson resigned earlier today after pressure coming from protests that attracted thousands of Icelanders angered by the crime their leader commit. Other world leaders have either dismissed or act with indifference to the accusations.

On a different note, Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff faces impeachment on accusations of a mislead public accounting scandal. Former President Luis Ignacio Da Silva is being accused of corruption. Then we have Venezuela, the country with one of the largest inflation around the world, that is run by a former bus driver with no college whatsoever and who never got past seventh grade.

What is going on with our world?

At what point did world leaders began this unavoidable spiral of corruption and poor qualifications, and got placed in a power position to look over the welfare of their citizens?

Shouldn't countries be run by honest, hard-working people who made their way through the steps of meritocracy to reach the pinnacle of politics?

People who are not qualified to be president, just simply can't be president. It's as simple as that.

World leaders who are vaguely suspected of any accusation, facing investigation on corruption or any other crime, should step down from their position until proven innocent. It's as simple as that.

Say what you will about Barack Obama, but the guy has nothing under himself to hide and has never been accused of defrauding the anything to benefit himself or increase his personal wealth. You can accuse Obama about anything, but corruption. That's why I also don't have a problem with Donald Trump being a candidate. You can say anything you want about Trump, the guy is a successful businessman. Now, on the matter of him becoming president, that's another matter.

Why do we keep finding over and over again new cases of corruption that have been going for years -if not decades- and no justice is brought to them?

I'm quite sure Bill Gates is no saint either, but I sincerely doubt that the richest man on the planet made his fortune by means of corruption, stealing, hiding wealth or getting involved with unethical accounting. Moreover, I'm quite sure he became and held the position of CEO because he was capable of doing so, both academically, intelectually and professionally. Same goes for guys like Richard Branson, Larry Page, Mark Cuban, Elon Musk and many others.

It just boggles my mind that uncapable and corrupt people are running countries. That's not the way it should be.

Something must be done.

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