CosmicBills

You keep linking articles that undercut your point. It's kind of funny.

It's not a conspiracy theory. The Owners don't want to open the books because they don't want the embarrassing truth about how they run their franchises to come out. It's really that simple. Whether it's above board or shady, there are deals that they don't want Joe Public to know about because it will paint them in a bad light. If you doubt that, just look at the fiasco with the Dodgers. Frank McCourt's books were forced open in the divorce trial and what did we discover? Shocking abuse of power. Paying his kids 200k+ a year of DODGER payroll to do nothing. Funneling MILLIONS of dollars into a "think tank" designed to help the Dodgers when in reality it was all going into Frank's own tax-free slush fund. While I'm not going to say every Owner in the NFL operates this way, you better believe that they do NOT want to be raked over the coals like Frank has been for their own shady deals. Look at any NFL teams breakdown of front office personnel. You will find, in almost every one, someone related to the Owner working in a mysterious position like "quality control supervisor". You won't see their salary though. And if you did, you'd cry. Is it the owner's rights to do this? Sure, it's their business they can hire who they want. Hiring your retarded nephew and paying him 10x the amount in salary you would pay someone outside your gene pool is one thing. Being called out in public for doing so is another thing entirely. It would open the doors to all sorts of other legal problems that have nothing to do with the CBA but you better believe the NFLPA would use it against the owners in the court of public opinion. That's the reason the NFL doesn't want to open its books. They want to avoid embarrassment. That's all. Well said.

Well then, friend, we must agree to disagree. The players would continue to play today under the old CBA, the one where owners made record breaking profits, if the owners hadn't opted to back out of the deal. That's not an interpretation of the facts. That's just a fact. Did the owners have a right to back out? Sure. But at the end of the day the reason why there is no football right now is because the owners are choosing not to play. That's not an opinion. That's not something you can agree with or disagree with. That's just how it is. And why did the Owners take this path? Because no games = no game checks which = a weaker union and thus a better CBA for the Owners. It's not a mystery. It's all a negotiation. Let me put it to you another way, even though the NFL is NOT a traditional employer/employee relationship (and never has been), let's hypothetically assume you were a member of a union. Then let's say your boss came to you and said, despite the fact you generated record breaking profits for your company with the work YOU did, he was going to ask you to take a pay cut so he could put more dollars into his own pocket (not the company's). Would you just accept that as the cost of doing business and go on your way happy to just have a job? No !@#$ing way. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it. If it were you, you'd reach out to your union and make a stink. If you didn't, you're not only naive but spineless. So how can you possibly expect the players to roll over and take it without putting up a fight when no one else on this board would do the same thing if you were in their position? Why shouldn't the players have a right to fight for what's fair? Oh, right. Because they're athletes, the majority of whom are African American men in their 20s, who are paid to play a game. I forgot. Fug 'em. It's their fault. Sony studios still claims that Spider-man 2 lost money. Even though it made well over 1b world wide, they still claim it lost money. Why? Because too many people had deals that paid them back end points (profit sharing) and if they admit it made money, then they'd have to fork out more cash to those lousy actors, writers, producers and directors. And why should they get paid? They did nothing to make that film successful. It was the big faceless studio that did all the work, put up all the money -- why should they have to share it even if they're contractually obligated to do so?

Apparently you didn't understand my post ... the Hunts, Wilsons and Rooneys were not included for a reason. Those men did risk their own financial futures to build the league into what it was. But they are the minority. The majority of NFL owners bought into the league in the late 80s, early 90s when the NFL was already the biggest thing in the entire entertainment business (ie: as close to risk free as a 300-600m investment can be). The stadium debt load is just that. A load. It's a bull **** scare tactic at best considering the rate of return on an individual NFL franchise more than covers that debt over the life of the franchise regardless of the CBA. Those owners secured the funding for those stadiums and calculated the debt load under the "bad" CBA -- and even with that deal in place there was more than enough profitability within each franchise to nullify that debt load. If you read that article you cite, it makes that point crystal clear. The only way that debt load becomes an issue (and a hypothetical one at that posed by Forbes) is if there's a work stoppage. Which, guess what, there is. Thanks to the Owners. In other words, the "proof" you're offering for the need for the owners to cause a work stoppage is actually proof of the opposite. It's proof that what they are doing is an unnecessary risk. Or, in simpler terms, a stupid risk. Are the odds in their favor? Sure. But look at the downside. What if the courts decide to intervene in their business? No one has more to lose in that scenario than the Owners themselves. The decision to lock the players out at this juncture is nothing more than a stupid business decision driven by pure greed and arrogance on the part of 31 very rich, very white, very out of touch men. At best they get a couple more million for themselves. At worse they cost the league billions in future revenues. That's not smart business. Yet there are so many people here who are determined to make this some sort of battleground for capitalism over socialism. They celebrate the Owner's right to operate their business as they see fit without thinking whether or not it's the SMART move. It's not. I've NEVER said the players are blameless in how they've handled the lock out. But at the end of the day, the players want to play the owners don't. If the players had their way, there'd be football in 2011 and beyond. As a fan, that's all I care about.

It's about necessary risks versus unnecessary risks. The NFL Owners are taking an unnecessary risk right now. They are in no financial jeopardy (as your yourself indicate), the league is more popular and making more money for everyone than ever before despite a horrific economy and a "bad" CBA. The future outlook for the league is brighter than it ever has been before. Yet, the Owners, ruled by greed and arrogance, are willing to risk all of that to put more money in their pockets. Is it their right? Absolutely. Is it good business? Nope. Best case scenario for the Owners is if the players crumble and sign a new CBA that gives the Owners an extra couple million. The worst case scenario is the 2011 season is lost, the federal court system takes control of the NFL's business model and forces them to change it causing irreparable damage to the league's financial future which could cost them billions of dollars in future revenues. Does that sound like a good risk to you? Of course not. It's a stupid risk to take by a bunch of greedy, white, uber-rich men -- the majority of whom did NOTHING to build the league and instead have jumped on the backs of the men who built the league and now are demanding more. That's all this is. You can celebrate it all you want as some sort of capitalistic vs socialist enterprise -- but that just shows how ignorant and senseless your opinions are on this matter because it's not that simple. The NBA owners on the other hand have no choice in the matter. Their business is failing. It's failing in part because the owners overestimated their ability to expand the league. It's also failing because the league never recovered from the fan revolt it suffered when the players forced an unnecessary strike that resulted in a shortened NBA season. Both the players and owners dug their own graves in the NBA. The only way to fix it now is to not only re-do the CBA, but contract 2 to 4 teams. The NFL Owners are risking the future of the league unnecessarily. The NBA Owners are doing what is necessary to survive. There's a difference.

The NBA and NFL situations are totally different, thus it's silly to compare the two. One has nothing to do with the other. In the case of the NBA, they have over expanded their league for years, resulting in a watered down product that is failing to drive fans to the games. They cannot sustain 30 NBA teams in this economy. Realistically they need to contract 2 to 4 teams to become what they once were -- if its even possible to get back there. As such, the NBA players HAVE to take a pay cut. They will put up a fight because they cannot just roll over, but the owners in the NBA are locking out the players (or will be) for just cause and the players know it. They have shown proof -- though to be fair all you really needed to do to prove it is point to the half empty stadiums in over half the league for 82 games. The NFL on the other hand is making money hand over fist. Despite a "bad" CBA, despite a horrid economy, the league, owners AND players have all generated record levels of revenue. No one disputes this. The owners made this move out of greed, not necessity. The owners know it. The players know it. And so do most reasonable fans. Comparing the NBA and the NFL is not apples and oranges, it's apples and atom bombs. The only way you can really compare the NBA and the NFL is if you were to use the NBA as a divining rod for the NFL. The NBA's last major work stoppage forced the league into a tailspin for over a decade (the NBA owners exacerbated this nose dive through poorly planned expansion). The NBA used to be one of the most dominate sports leagues in this country but they still haven't recovered from the unnecessary work stoppage (caused by the players) in the 90s. The NFL owners have locked themselves into a foolish and dangerous game of chicken by forcing the issue at this juncture. It was a bad business move, a bad PR move, and could potentially harm the long term future of the league itself. It's not much of a stretch to imagine the NFL suffering the same sort of fall out the NBA has endured if this lock out takes away the 2011 season. Just my two cents.

Come on, Tom, we both know that's not true ....

No.

He doesn't mean a traditional narrator. What he's talking, and for the most part this happened in season 1 and a few scattered times in season 2, is when at the end of the episode (before the tag) whoever is being interviewed (whether it be Phil, Claire, or Jay) sums up what the episode was about while we watch a montage of the family doing whatever it is that the character is talking about. For example, when they had the family picture episode in the season 1 finale ... During the mud fight we're listening to Claire come to terms with the fact that she can't have the perfect picture and in fact that makes it better. So you hear Claire talking (almost like a narrator) while watching the family happily throw mud at one another. It's just repeating the "point/message" of the episode but one of the characters actually says it out loud. No subtext, just right out there. At times it gives it a very melodramatic/sappy feel for an otherwise very hip show. It's a device that feels very 70s/80s that they leaned on heavily in season one but not as much in season 2.

Until I moved here I would have agreed with you, but this just isn't true. There are plenty of nights where both the Dodgers and Lakers have home games and the traffic is just fine (at least in terms of LA standards). A downtown stadium would be well received and well supported -- but the team would have to win. Just like the Clippers -- no one here really supported them until they showed signs of life this year. This is a huge football town. HUGE. USC, like any national powerhouse, is virtually a professional franchise in terms of how the players are treated and how rabid the fan base is. Football will succeed in LA without question. That said the safe money is still on the Chargers moving to LA.

I know what you're saying, but Modern Family stopped using that technique ... It pops up every now and then, but the majority of season 2 they got rind of that device.

You're missing out ...

Good point! I need to lay off these

I appreciate your logic and your point. It's 100% valid. But at the end of the day, Fitz's chemistry with this team amounted in 4 wins, the 28th ranked scoring offense, 24th ranked passing offense and the 25th ranked offense. And, over the last four games the team averaged 10 points per game. Chemistry is important. But talent trumps all.

That's not saying much ...

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. When I first saw American Beauty I was blown away by it. Maybe it was my age at the time, but it just struck me at the right moment. It was one of the movies that really cemented home the fact that I was going to be a screenwriter for a living. It's one of the more literary mainstream American films in the past two decades. The entire movie was rife with symbolism, subtext and social commentary. However, upon seeing it in subsequent viewings, it has not held up for me. What I found inspiring and refreshing when I first saw it seemed ham-fisted now (none more so than Wes Bentley's character). It comes off as a movie trying to be daring without taking any actual risks. Of course this is a problem I have with most of Ball's subsequent stuff. Still, the fact that you can have this sort of debate about a film 11 years after its release only proves how terrific the film actually is.

You sir, make an excellent point.

I think that's what Darren Aronofsky was going for too. It's not a movie as much as it's art. If everyone loved it I think he'd say it didn't turn out the way he wanted. There are very few people that can get away with walking that line and still being relevant in the studio system -- which is why I think he didn't stick as the director for Wolverine. He's talented enough to do the big budget tent pole movies, but I don't think he has the desire to have to compromise his vision as he would inevitably be forced to do on a big studio picture. He wouldn't have nearly as much control or freedom as either Jackman, or the the producers or the studio would hold all the creative leverage. Some can walk that line though and do the "one for me, one for them" mentality, but I don't think he's one of em.

I don't think it's an issue of the paychecks being too big (though I am sure James and Sandler did well with that flick) I think it's more a weird byproduct of success. By that I mean the industry here is designed to say no to people. Literally thousands of scripts are written and submitted each year yet only around 200 movies are made a year (if that). While a large percentage of those thousands of scripts are dreadful, there are plenty that are great. However they get passed over because whoever wrote it either doesn't have enough credits or there is not enough heat attached to the project. But then, once you become established as a moneymaker things change. Suddenly everything you write or do is read with less scrutiny. Suddenly it's easy for people to say yes, even to so-so scripts because they know the project will make money based on who's attached. Not saying that's what happened with Grownups ... But I think it's probably the result of the studio wanting to make a Sandler summer comedy regardless of the state of the material. Which means there's was probably less development done (sometimes this is a great thing) and it was more of a "write by numbers" approach. Could be wrong though.

:worthy:

I saw it ... I kind of have to see most flicks for work. And I certainly don't claim that it's a great movie or even a very good one. But it certainly is a drama and a dark one at that considering that the main plot revolves around a mother wanting to spend her last Christmas with her family before she passes away due to breast cancer (a relapse which she has thus far kept hidden from her children) . But the only thing they advertised was the rom-com elements with SJP and what's his face. Which, was not even the B plot of the movie. The town is coming back though, a lot more original material is being bought and put into production. I had a meeting this week where the exec and I talked at length about how producers are starting to reach out for more original material because they have money again to risk. For the past four years the spec market (original scripts) has been stagnant. No one, not even Oscar winning writers, could sell an original spec outside of the indie markets. That is starting to change and should result in some more original fare.

To be fair, Family Stone is a product of piss poor marketing more so than it is a bad movie. It was marketed as a family comedy for the holidays which is what everyone expected when they went to the theater. But it's a drama, and a fairly dark one at that. It's just tough to sell a dark drama at Christmas unless is has a big VFX budget ... Not saying it's a great movie, but it's not the worst. This is a fun thread though. You peeps are harsh. Love it.

It's going to be as good as the original. Which ain't saying much. Last I heard the plot was something to do with China.

Where is the risk in a realistic sense? Show me a single NFL team that has lost money in the past decade. In the past TWO decades. Despite the worst economic crsis the country has faced since the 40s and despite a CBA that favored the players the owners wewre making record breaking profits. The TV contracts alone cover every owner's nut before a game is played. That doesn't even factor in the money made from ticket sales, psls, concessions, or merch. Seems to me the only risk to the owners comes when they decided that making money hand over fist wasn't good enough. It seems to me the only risk involved came when the owners risked exposing their unique business model to the meddling of the federal court or to the ire of the fans of the product they provide because they wanted even more money. That's just greed and stupidity. But celebrate it if you want.