Showing posts with label Sounds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sounds. Show all posts

Sunday, 12 August 2012

It Sounds Like Braves Broadcaster Joe Simpson Wants To Beat Up Someone On Twitter [Video]

Aug 11, 2012 9:16 PM  

It Sounds Like Braves Broadcaster Joe Simpson Wants To Beat Up Someone On Twitter A Joe Simpson was arrested earlier this week for DUI. A Joe Simpson is the color analyst for Atlanta Braves games on SportSouth. These are different people, albeit both celebrities in some way. It seems an individual on Twitter mixed the two up, taking the Hollywood Joe Simpson's offense and attaching it to the baseball Joe Simpson's name.

This made baseball Joe Simpson very angry.

He launched into a seething rant during the third inning of tonight's Mets-Braves game from Citi Field, appearing to issue a challenge to meet the "idiot tweeter" at the next Braves home game where "some tickets will be punched." Well, then! Lesson to social media users: don't fuck with Joe Simpson (the baseball one).

h/t to @TheDoucheHarper

Update (9:30 p.m.): As our friend Adrian notes below, it appears this is the tweet that got Joe so riled up:


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Friday, 10 August 2012

Won't Someone Please Sign Plaxico Burress? He Sounds Very Sad And Bored. [Plaxico Burress]

Won't Someone Please Sign Plaxico Burress? He Sounds Very Sad And Bored.Every morning, the fine folks at Sports Radio Interviews sift through the a.m. drive-time chatter to bring you the best interviews with coaches, players, and personalities across the sports landscape. Today: Plaxico's "please give me a job" tour continues in Houston.

Plaxico Burress joined KILT in Houston with Josh Innes and Rich Lord to discuss the lack of interest in him, why he thinks he's not on a roster at this point, if off-the-field issues have led to this, how he's doing financially, what he learned in prison and what kind of physical shape he's in.

There was a story out this morning that you are willing to take the league minimum. How surprised are you in the lack of interest to sign you?
"I think my agent and I, I think we were a little surprised, a little frustrated at times, but this is a new league and new things are happening. For myself, for me to go out and do some of the things I was able to do last year, being away from the game for two years, I kind of thought that was enough to set myself up leading up to this year, to have an even better year. The crazy thing about it is nobody's even see me or seen the kind of shape that I'm in. I just want to get out on the football field and get back to dominating my position and everybody's just going to go, ‘Wow.'"

Why do you think you're not on a roster at this point?
"A lot of these teams want younger, but you have to have veteran guys around if you want to get the younger guys to get to the level that I'm at and to win a championship. For myself, I feel great, man. I'm not really concerned about being able to play football at a high level because I know I can do that. I'm just looking for the right situation for me to go into. You're talking about going into a situation down in Houston where there's a Hall of Fame wide receiver in Andre Johnson, Arian Foster - one of the top three backs in all of football - and a great quarterback in Matt Schaub. It's a situation I would die to be in, but we'll see what happens."

Do you think your problems off the field have led to this situation?
"I was young at one time. I've made some mistakes. Like I've been saying, I've made some mistakes in my life and I've moved on from them and I wish that everybody would, also. I've put those things behind me and I'm just focused on being a better person and moving forward in life. … If I don't play football, let it be because I can't perform physically, not because of what my past has been or what somebody has said."

There's a story out there that you owe about $60,000 in back taxes. Is that true?
"Not at all. I don't know how that story or where it came from. They say it was in '07, but I was in New York playing in '08 and we went back last year and we have no idea how something like that could happen or if somebody is just trying to kick me a little bit more. … We've been trying to see how these things come up and where they're coming from. … I'm doing just fine. I'm getting along. I went through what I went through and I came home and everything was still intact and I got back to playing football."

What did you learn in your time spent in prison?
"I would say first and foremost you learn more about yourself as a person. And secondly you learn more about the people around you and in society and things like that. You go through your situations and you persevere through it and it only makes you stronger mentally and spiritually. I dealt with a lot of emotions over that time and it's made me who I am today. I can't change my past; I can't run away from it. It's part of me."

You're about to turn 35 years old. Can you still run?
"I think I showed that last year. My legs were so up and down with how I was feeling. I didn't have that strength, didn't have a chance to put that muscle back on that I had been playing with for so many years. When I was away, I lost like 16 pounds and I came out and trained for like three weeks and I was on a football field. So I really had no chance to get myself together. … That's all I've really been doing, getting my speed back, being able to explode and all those things. Then when I get out on the football field, I won't have to say anything."

This post, written by Eric Schmoldt, appears courtesy of Sports Radio Interviews. For the complete highlights of the interview, as well as audio, click here.

More from Sports Radio Interviews
• Marc Gasol says Spain didn't lose to avoid facing the US.
• David Garrard plans to be Miami's week 1 starter.
• Matt Flynn and Terrell Owens are going to build something "special."


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Thursday, 2 August 2012

A Very Obsessive Guide To Sight & Sound's Greatest Films Poll [Grierson & Leitch]

A Very Obsessive Guide To Sight & Sound's Greatest Films PollYesterday was heaven for film lovers and list fanatics as Sight & Sound unveiled its once-a-decade poll of the greatest films of all time. There are actually two separate lists—one for critics, one for directors—and the big news was that, after topping the poll since 1962, Citizen Kane had been replaced by a new No. 1 in the critics' list, Vertigo. (The directors' list, which has only been going since 1992, also had a new No. 1: Yasujiro Ozu's Tokyo Story.) What else has changed in the past 10 years?

1. The polls were less exclusive this time around.

In 2002, 145 critics voted, and 108 directors participated. This time around, 846 critics contributed, including me, and 358 directors voted. This is important to point out from the beginning because it suggests that a bunch of new voices entered the conversation that hadn't been part of the poll before. Also, more voters means fewer ties than in past years.

2. Orson Welles took it on the chin.

If Sight & Sound was a presidential debate, with CNN and FOX News discussing all the "winners" and "losers," all the commentators would pick Orson Welles as one of the poll's losers. It wasn't simply that Citizen Kane fell from No. 1. (It's at No. 2.) But in the critics' Top 50, what's striking is how poorly Welles' other films did in comparison to 2002. Back then, Touch of Evil was tied for No. 15, and The Magnificent Ambersons was tied for No. 35. Neither of them made the Top 50 this time. Even movies that simply starred Welles suffered: The Third Man (previously tied for No. 35) was nowhere in the Top 50.

3. Restored/re-released films polled well.

There are always going to be complaints by some that Sight & Sound is too "stodgy," that the poll only honors "old" films. But while it's true that the critics' Top 50 favors films from before 1980 (more on that in a second), some older films got a boost thanks to being rediscovered. Two examples that immediately spring to mind are Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, which was brought back in a new print (and a new Criterion release) a few years ago, and Late Spring, which hit Criterion in 2006. Neither film was in the Top 50 (which, because of ties, was actually the Top 60) in 2002; this time around, they were No. 35 and No. 15 respectively. The same rediscovery process could have helped Touch of Evil 10 years ago: Welles' noir was re-released in 1998 in a re-edited form. For all the whining that "new" movies aren't being shown enough love in the poll, older films are being embraced and reevaluated when they return in new prints or DVDs.

4. The last 30 years of cinema aren't having much of an impact—or are they?

In the Top 50, there are only six films released since 1980: Shoah, Close-Up (I guessed the wrong Abbas Kiarostami when I put together my '90s predictions), Sátántangó, Histoire(s) du cinéma, In the Mood for Love and Mulholland Dr. If you take a look back at the 2002 poll, there were nine films from 1970-2000 that made the Top 60. That would suggest that critics aren't as interested in newer films for the new poll. But in 2002, a movie needed all of five votes to crack the Top 60. In 2012, to hit the Top 50 (or 52, thanks to ties) required 29 votes. In other words, it takes a lot more agreement to make an impact in the poll, so the presence of six post-'80 films doesn't seem too stodgy.

5. Coppola's "greatest film" is up for debate.

In 2002, Sight & Sound allowed multiple films to count together as one film, which is why The Godfather and The Godfather Part II collectively came in at No. 4. This time, though, the publication asked that every film be counted separately, and The Godfather tied for No. 21 and The Godfather Part II tied for No. 31. Consequently, neither of those is Francis Ford Coppola's most popular film among polled critics: Apocalypse Now (which wasn't in the Top 60 in 2002) landed at No. 14. Did the release of Apocalypse Now Redux in 2001 sway voters to its greatness? (That definitely seemed to be the case for Roger Ebert, who put the film on his ballot after its re-release.) As Matt Singer points out, if the two Godfather films had remained together, they would have ended up at No. 7. The bottom line is that among major directors, Coppola is the one guy whose "best film" is in dispute. Everybody else—Hitchcock, Welles, Kubrick, Fellini, Ford—has always polled strongest with one particular film. Which leads me to...

6. Having only one masterpiece helps your Sight & Sound chances.

Four directors have more than two movies in the Top 50: Coppola (3); Andrei Tarkovsky (3);  Carl Dreyer (3); and Jean-Luc Godard (4). With the exception of Dreyer (The Passion of Joan of Arc), none of them has a film in the Top 10. Every director with a movie in the Top 10 is well-respected, beloved, a titan, etc., but also benefits from having one singular film that critics point to as the film. A consensus around a particular masterpiece allows voters to pick both a film and a director they admire in one fell swoop.

7. Comedy is in short supply.

Every once in a while, someone will write a piece arguing that the Academy Awards overwhelmingly prefer dramas to comedies and that a Best Comedy prize should be awarded. (Everyone reads that piece, shrugs, and then moves on with their life.) But it's true in the critics' poll as well that dramas perform much, much better than lighter fare. By my count there are only five films outright comedies: Singin' in the Rain, The General, Some Like It Hot, Play Time, and City Lights, which tied for No. 50. Singin' was No. 10 in 2002; now it's at No. 20, the highest comedy on the list.

8. The list is mostly inclusive...with a few exceptions.

It would be a mistake for Sight & Sound voters to feel that they "have" to include films from directors of all races, genders, creeds, nationalities, and sexual preferences on their ballot. (Great movies should be great movies, period.) But only one female director, Chantal Akerman, made the Top 50. There are no African-American directors in the Top 50. Other than that, you do have a healthy mix of Asian, European, and American filmmakers.

9. Certain "beloved favorites" didn't make the cut.

Lawrence of Arabia, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, and It's a Wonderful Life are the sort of film-library staples that everybody owns and everybody loves. But they don't make the critics' Top 50, opening the door to criticism that the voters willfully turn their nose up at popular favorites. Be that as it may, none of these movies cracked the Top 60 in 2002, either—with the exception of Lawrence of Arabia, which tied with a bunch of other films with five votes at the bottom of the Top 60.

10. The directors' list is pretty fun.

The directors' poll is enjoyably unpredictable from decade to decade. This is only the third time Sight & Sound has conducted a directors' poll, and their new No. 1, Tokyo Story, was nowhere to be found in the Top 10 in 2002 or 1992. (Ten years ago, it was tied at No. 16.) There's simply no rhyme or reason from one decade to the next, which makes this list constantly surprising. (Unlike the critics, the directors have decided to change which film from a certain beloved director is his masterpiece: substituting Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey for Dr. Strangelove, and now preferring Scorsese's Taxi Driver to Raging Bull.) It's entirely possible several of their Top 10 slots will change again in 2022. For those who wish the critics' list wasn't so similar each 10 years, the directors list will be more your speed.


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Vin Scully Trying To Describe The Twitter Sounds Exactly What You'd Expect It To Sound Like [Vin Scully]

Vin Scully Trying To Describe The Twitter Sounds Exactly What You'd Expect It To Sound LikeI love Vin Scully, and he deserves all kinds of credit for doing his darnedest to keep up with the times at age 84. That said, I'd also love to hear how his producer tried to describe Shane Victorino's tweet when the producer suggested Scully ought to read it on the air, which Scully does in the video below. I imagine their exchange went something like this:

Producer: Mr. Scully, Shane Victorino used Twitter to tell Matt Kemp and Hanley Ramirez how excited he is to be a Dodger. You should mention that during the broadcast.

Scully: Mention what now?

Producer: Victorino's tweet.

Scully: His what? Wait. There are kids listening. I can't say words like...

Producer: No, no, no. He sent a tweet. On Twitter. It's sort of like a short note that everyone can see on the internet. And he directed it at Kemp and Ramirez.

Scully: So he sent a Twitter.

Producer: Well, not exactly. He sent a tweet.

Scully: A twit?

Producer: Tweet.

Scully: I thought you said it was a Twitter?

Producer: Well, no. He used Twitter to send a tweet...

Scully: A tweet? You kids really say that?

Producer: Yep.

Scully: OK. I'll give this a shot sometime in the third inning. That's a good time to talk about the Twitter, right?

Producer: Yeah, sure. But you should really say...

Scully: OK, then.

Producer: ...tweet.

Scully: Say what?

Producer: Never mind.

RELATED: Watch Charlie Manuel Read Phillies Players' Tweets Out Loud

[MLB]


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.