Sex and the City has become an unspeakable name among guys. You can't mention it, watch it, and especially not like it. You Man Card is immediately taken away, no questions asked. I felt this way about the show for years, because without every seeing it, I came to loathe it. I knew many other fellows who felt this way, all for the same reason. None of us cared that there existed a show that showed women making a living and craving sex. My generation was raised in an environment which encouraged the talents of boys and girls, and most of us got the message.
No, what made us hate the show was the message it was conveying as seen in the actions of the young women who watched it. When the show was airing, it looked like they walked away from it thinking that life not merely can, but should involve drinking expensive cocktails, buying insanely expensive shoes, and being pampered by themselves and the men they choose to have in their lives. Guys felt threatened, not because of the idea that their girlfriends or wives might out earn them, but because they feared they would never find a wife or girlfriend without being part of the Manhattan-esque upper crust of society.
At this point, you can take my Man Card away. I have watched the show extensively lately, with my fiancee. However, I don't really care if anyone wants it, because I'm glad to have seen it. Sex and the City isn't the best show I have ever seen, but it isn't at all the one it was made out to be.
Okay, it is somewhat the show it was made out to be. But the messages that people are taking from the it are only half the story. You can't bring up how the characters knock back Appletinis and bash men without pointing out that the women aren't portrayed as saints. Some of the things they say are meant to be enlightening, but others are meant to show that they are just as bad as the fellas, either in the same way, or in an equal but opposite fashion. On a whole, its worldview finds the behaviours of both men and women to be frustrating. The gender, and personalities of the main cast are important, I think. It makes us accept the fact that women are here to roll with the boys, and the dynamics of society are now changing. But rather than just stating this as fact, it wants men and women to take a good, hard look at this changing world, and figure out how to live in it, before our own bad tendencies drive us to ruin. The show has always been pitched to me as antagonistic, but I don't see it here. It's about as cooperative a take on modern dating as anything I have read or seen.
I also find that the show's glorification of shopping is exaggerated. I'm not sure if the show changes greatly over the years, but at the very least, the early seasons go to great lengths to show how Sarah Jessica Parker's character can't go buy shoes without maxing out credit cards. Of course, they'll still show her spending again some episodes later, but I wouldn't say that this means the show is ignoring its actions. How many times have you seen a sitcom in which an adult loses a bet, and forks over wads of cash to the child they wagered against. Do we expect the show to remember this next episode? Comedies tend to play fast and loose, and it doesn't stop them from making a point one moment, and moving on to another. Reasonable men and women should be able to watch Sex and the City and understand that the show isn't glorifying spending beyond your means.
Maybe that's the problem, then. The show is a work a fiction, but perhaps not everyone takes it as one. The setting is real, the stereotypes are familiar, and so people take it that this is some sort of accurate depiction of Manhattan socialites. I don't think it is, and even if that were the case, the ratio of Manhattanites to the rest of the nation's population is tiny. That isn't our world, and I don't think the show assumes that it is, or that it will be. It's a good setting for the show's premise and its flavor of humor, and I think it works well. Unfortunately, there is only so much the show can do with a viewer who can't separate fact from fiction, or who cherry pick all the fun things in the show while ignoring the struggles. Sex and the City tries to hold a mirror up to its characters, to get them to change for the better, but I feel it has become warped by an audience who can't help but look into the mirror and admire themselves.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Radiant Historia
My review of Radiant Historia is up. Looking back, I had a ton of fun with it, but I wish it finished stronger. When the going was good, and the game fired on all cylinders, it was an astounding experience. Everything it did just felt right. I never questioned the story, the pacing, or the locations. It all made sense in its own way.
Yet, as I mention in the review, the late game segments become a huge drag. This was bothersome not only because it lowers the game's overall quality, but also because it affected my review. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why the game changed so suddenly, but no answer was satisfactory. The problem, in retrospect, was that I was analyzing the game in a bubble. I assumed that every decision, good or bad, was an intentional effort on the part of the developers.
My troubles came to an end after reading a few other amateur reviews, one of which pointed out how the game was affected by its low budget. There was the answer, or at least part of it. Budget, like so many other outside factors, can have a huge impact on how a game turns out, yet the thought never crossed my mind. I felt embarrassed, and frustrated, that such a simple explanation went over my head. It was a stark reminder of how much further I have to go as a critic.
It also reminded me of just how much the press has influenced my train of thought. On a podcast, I once talked about "developer intent", the idea that developers have a fondness of using interviews to inform gamers of what their game is all about. This can be done during the preview phase, but is also crops up after the game is out, at which point it becomes a defense of their work. I don't have a problem with this practice in principle. In fact, it should probably be encouraged, so that gamers have a better idea of what they might be getting into whenever they pick up a game. But sometimes, a developer's words serve to (intentionally?) warp reality. There's a difference between telling your audience what you are trying/tried to do, and making a qualitative statement about your product when it is out for all to judge.
I have two examples of what I'm thinking of. The first is Bioware. They consistently talk up the importance of storytelling in games, to the point where some remarks state that a game can't be good with a story. It's a bullshit premise, because we have plenty of evidence of classic games with little to no story. It's made slightly bullshittier when you consider that Bioware has relied on the same core plot for years, and finally, people are starting to take notice. Unfortunately, not quite enough people are noticing, so the developer can continue to parrot the same belief in good storytelling, and gamers continue to believe that Bioware are the ones responsible for said quality storytelling. It's a situation in which they can say one thing, and do another, and no one really gives a damn.
The second example is Harmonix. Ever since they split from Activision to work on Rock Band, they've been hell bent on fulfilling their specific vision of what music games should be like. This vision, in turn, led to some of my biggest gripes with the early iterations of Rock Band. The lack of control over your avatar, its relatively party-unfriendly design, and its disdain for single-player modes were atrocious. I never saw anything resembling an admittance from Harmonix about these flaws. On the contrary, they felt that they were good, necessary enhancements, and that we should like it this way. Plenty of their fans nodded their heads in agreement, but I couldn't. I don't care if developers make mistakes sometimes, but I appreciate when they can at least identify them. Harmonix instead chose to follow their path to its logical conclusion the result of which was Rock Band 3 dropping to $20 faster than games with half its notariety, and with the franchise dropping off the face of the earth at roughly the same time as the dreaded Guitar Hero. I'm not happy to see that happen, but I wonder if it could have fared better if the team (and the players) were a bit more honest with themselves about what the series needed to stay relevant.
To bring this back to Radiant Historia, when I read enough interviews with such bullheaded declarations, I start to forget that game development is so much more than a single talking head with a plan. And if things go great, or horribly, the reasons are going to extend far beyond that one person and that one plan. I know that people like auteur driven entertainment, but it isn't conducive to strong criticism. An important lesson learned, and one I hope not to forget.
Yet, as I mention in the review, the late game segments become a huge drag. This was bothersome not only because it lowers the game's overall quality, but also because it affected my review. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why the game changed so suddenly, but no answer was satisfactory. The problem, in retrospect, was that I was analyzing the game in a bubble. I assumed that every decision, good or bad, was an intentional effort on the part of the developers.
My troubles came to an end after reading a few other amateur reviews, one of which pointed out how the game was affected by its low budget. There was the answer, or at least part of it. Budget, like so many other outside factors, can have a huge impact on how a game turns out, yet the thought never crossed my mind. I felt embarrassed, and frustrated, that such a simple explanation went over my head. It was a stark reminder of how much further I have to go as a critic.
It also reminded me of just how much the press has influenced my train of thought. On a podcast, I once talked about "developer intent", the idea that developers have a fondness of using interviews to inform gamers of what their game is all about. This can be done during the preview phase, but is also crops up after the game is out, at which point it becomes a defense of their work. I don't have a problem with this practice in principle. In fact, it should probably be encouraged, so that gamers have a better idea of what they might be getting into whenever they pick up a game. But sometimes, a developer's words serve to (intentionally?) warp reality. There's a difference between telling your audience what you are trying/tried to do, and making a qualitative statement about your product when it is out for all to judge.
I have two examples of what I'm thinking of. The first is Bioware. They consistently talk up the importance of storytelling in games, to the point where some remarks state that a game can't be good with a story. It's a bullshit premise, because we have plenty of evidence of classic games with little to no story. It's made slightly bullshittier when you consider that Bioware has relied on the same core plot for years, and finally, people are starting to take notice. Unfortunately, not quite enough people are noticing, so the developer can continue to parrot the same belief in good storytelling, and gamers continue to believe that Bioware are the ones responsible for said quality storytelling. It's a situation in which they can say one thing, and do another, and no one really gives a damn.
The second example is Harmonix. Ever since they split from Activision to work on Rock Band, they've been hell bent on fulfilling their specific vision of what music games should be like. This vision, in turn, led to some of my biggest gripes with the early iterations of Rock Band. The lack of control over your avatar, its relatively party-unfriendly design, and its disdain for single-player modes were atrocious. I never saw anything resembling an admittance from Harmonix about these flaws. On the contrary, they felt that they were good, necessary enhancements, and that we should like it this way. Plenty of their fans nodded their heads in agreement, but I couldn't. I don't care if developers make mistakes sometimes, but I appreciate when they can at least identify them. Harmonix instead chose to follow their path to its logical conclusion the result of which was Rock Band 3 dropping to $20 faster than games with half its notariety, and with the franchise dropping off the face of the earth at roughly the same time as the dreaded Guitar Hero. I'm not happy to see that happen, but I wonder if it could have fared better if the team (and the players) were a bit more honest with themselves about what the series needed to stay relevant.
To bring this back to Radiant Historia, when I read enough interviews with such bullheaded declarations, I start to forget that game development is so much more than a single talking head with a plan. And if things go great, or horribly, the reasons are going to extend far beyond that one person and that one plan. I know that people like auteur driven entertainment, but it isn't conducive to strong criticism. An important lesson learned, and one I hope not to forget.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Thoughts - 5/12/11
Apple's dominance in the market is due in part by their products, but I have to say, it's hard to argue that isn't also due to the terrible synergy between their practices and their user base. Apple doesn't want to talk about their inner workings? No problem; their users aren't interested in knowing. They managed to make a faulty product? Fire the bastards behind it, because every Tom, Dick and Harry wants top shelf gizmos, and in their minds, clearly those developers weren't top shelf enough. Apple is, in most ways, no better or worse than any other massive tech company, but they can get away with it all with much fewer stains on their reputation, and in some cases, their fans become so defensive that they're willing to go on the offensive in their efforts to trash other companies.
I've been reading about the shutdown of iFlow Reader, the iOS ebook reader app who claims that the new rules in place for in app purchases have destroyed their business model. A lot of the responses from iOS users have been something along the lines of "They signed the contract, so they knew what they were getting into." This is the kind of ignorance that allows Apple to dick around in ways that Google or Microsoft would be slammed for. The iFlow folks certainly agreed to a set of rules when they first started; the problem is those rules are changing in such a way that pretty much every option I've seen these people recommend, are in fact going to be outlawed by Apple.
And those same new rules are going to affect google and Amazon in a short amount of time. All of this information is clear as day in many of the news pieces covering the shutdown, which of course means that people are willing to simply scream at Apple detractors without even bothering to read. Par for the course on the Internet, but it hurts to see it happen to a company who at the very least seemed to have a belief behind the app they were making. If I had to make a criticism against them, I would ask them whether they had to make their business rely on the sale of ebooks, and if they had to resort to an Adobe DRM scheme for said books. Looking at the current state of ebook sales, neither of those seem like good ideas for a small company. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Apple's new rules for ebook sales allow them to act as an extra middleman on top of the middlemen like iFlow, Amazon or Google, and I wouldn't be surprised if even a few tweaks to iFlow's business model wouldn't be enough to save them.
I don't expect any rapid change, but I wonder how long they can keep this increasing stranglehold without someone deciding it's worth looking into. Or maybe I shouldn't - if Apple were slammed with an antitrust case, the resulting apologist editorials might make me sick.
I've been reading about the shutdown of iFlow Reader, the iOS ebook reader app who claims that the new rules in place for in app purchases have destroyed their business model. A lot of the responses from iOS users have been something along the lines of "They signed the contract, so they knew what they were getting into." This is the kind of ignorance that allows Apple to dick around in ways that Google or Microsoft would be slammed for. The iFlow folks certainly agreed to a set of rules when they first started; the problem is those rules are changing in such a way that pretty much every option I've seen these people recommend, are in fact going to be outlawed by Apple.
And those same new rules are going to affect google and Amazon in a short amount of time. All of this information is clear as day in many of the news pieces covering the shutdown, which of course means that people are willing to simply scream at Apple detractors without even bothering to read. Par for the course on the Internet, but it hurts to see it happen to a company who at the very least seemed to have a belief behind the app they were making. If I had to make a criticism against them, I would ask them whether they had to make their business rely on the sale of ebooks, and if they had to resort to an Adobe DRM scheme for said books. Looking at the current state of ebook sales, neither of those seem like good ideas for a small company. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Apple's new rules for ebook sales allow them to act as an extra middleman on top of the middlemen like iFlow, Amazon or Google, and I wouldn't be surprised if even a few tweaks to iFlow's business model wouldn't be enough to save them.
I don't expect any rapid change, but I wonder how long they can keep this increasing stranglehold without someone deciding it's worth looking into. Or maybe I shouldn't - if Apple were slammed with an antitrust case, the resulting apologist editorials might make me sick.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Meet the Mets?
I know, I know - far too early in the season to make any judgements. Still, last night's win against the Phillies, in Philly? That felt good. Real good.
It had all the hallmarks of a feel good win. They beat the stuffing out of our rivals. in their stadium. And we did so by beating one of their "ace" pitchers, who at one point called the Mets "choke artists", which is one of the few things athletes tend not to gravitate towards during trash talk. Hell, They didn't just beat him - they took him out after less than three innings.
Again, none of this is a portent for the full season. But last night, in addition to the Marlins series, showed a much more fiery, much more aggressive Mets club. They're trying to steal, they're fighting at the plate, and for the most part, playing decent defense. Terry Collins has done something to remind these players of who they are, and what they can do, and it just feels good to see guys like David Wright hit the ball like he should, and to see someone like Chris Young or Willie Harris remind the league of how good they can be.
The Phillies (as well as their little minions on the Marlins) have been trash talking the Mets for so long, while the rest of the league has had no qualms with letting them be the butt of every joke. That's what pushed this latest win over the top. It won't silence anyone - we need at least a sweep for that- but it still looked amazing to me.
It had all the hallmarks of a feel good win. They beat the stuffing out of our rivals. in their stadium. And we did so by beating one of their "ace" pitchers, who at one point called the Mets "choke artists", which is one of the few things athletes tend not to gravitate towards during trash talk. Hell, They didn't just beat him - they took him out after less than three innings.
Again, none of this is a portent for the full season. But last night, in addition to the Marlins series, showed a much more fiery, much more aggressive Mets club. They're trying to steal, they're fighting at the plate, and for the most part, playing decent defense. Terry Collins has done something to remind these players of who they are, and what they can do, and it just feels good to see guys like David Wright hit the ball like he should, and to see someone like Chris Young or Willie Harris remind the league of how good they can be.
The Phillies (as well as their little minions on the Marlins) have been trash talking the Mets for so long, while the rest of the league has had no qualms with letting them be the butt of every joke. That's what pushed this latest win over the top. It won't silence anyone - we need at least a sweep for that- but it still looked amazing to me.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Funimation Channel
So I've been spending a week or so housesitting, at a place which has Verizon Fios cable, and thus gets the Funimation Channel. I've had it on for several chunks of the weekend, and the results haven't been convincing.
Now to be fair, I recognize that this is the very definition of a deep cable channel. In that regard, I think the station has some decent looking promotional ads and bumpers. However, they aren't used very well to inform you of what programming the channel has. Over the course of the two days, I saw the ads for Phantom and Oh Edo Rocket multiple times. In contrast, I saw exactly two ads for Hetalia, and zero for Sengoku Basara. If you want to know just what Funimation shows are on the station, you're not going to know without watching it for a full twelve or so hours. That's a bit problematic in my eyes.
Furthermore, the channel doesn't seem to have any themed programming blocks (or, if it does, they again aren't well promoted). It'd be easier if there were action or comedy blocks of some sort.
I'm also not sure why there was such an odd frequency of reruns. The episodes of Kenichi and Tsubasa showing on Saturday morning were the exact same ones showing on Sunday morning. It isn't uncommon for the day's episodes for a show to be repeated at night as an encore, but tow do so over the course of two days? It doesn't make sense. You'd think the shows would advance, especially considering that another show, Soul Eater, didn't repeat itself in the afternoon.
What I'm trying to figure out is how much Funimation cares about this effort. What they have made is undeniably slick, and yet the programming makes it look as if someone just threw shows on there so there would be something to show. If you wanted to use the Channel to actually watch a show through its entirety, I couldn't guess how long it would take you. I get the impression that Funi doesn't want fans to use it as a companion to DVD's and streaming. But if that is the case, then what the hell is the point? Near as I can tell, the company is still going strong, but they might not want to repeat the mistakes of ADV, which fucked around so much with The Anime Channel. Funimation Channel should be a great way to let people eat up the more stale shows, but right now, it doesn't make it easy.
Now to be fair, I recognize that this is the very definition of a deep cable channel. In that regard, I think the station has some decent looking promotional ads and bumpers. However, they aren't used very well to inform you of what programming the channel has. Over the course of the two days, I saw the ads for Phantom and Oh Edo Rocket multiple times. In contrast, I saw exactly two ads for Hetalia, and zero for Sengoku Basara. If you want to know just what Funimation shows are on the station, you're not going to know without watching it for a full twelve or so hours. That's a bit problematic in my eyes.
Furthermore, the channel doesn't seem to have any themed programming blocks (or, if it does, they again aren't well promoted). It'd be easier if there were action or comedy blocks of some sort.
I'm also not sure why there was such an odd frequency of reruns. The episodes of Kenichi and Tsubasa showing on Saturday morning were the exact same ones showing on Sunday morning. It isn't uncommon for the day's episodes for a show to be repeated at night as an encore, but tow do so over the course of two days? It doesn't make sense. You'd think the shows would advance, especially considering that another show, Soul Eater, didn't repeat itself in the afternoon.
What I'm trying to figure out is how much Funimation cares about this effort. What they have made is undeniably slick, and yet the programming makes it look as if someone just threw shows on there so there would be something to show. If you wanted to use the Channel to actually watch a show through its entirety, I couldn't guess how long it would take you. I get the impression that Funi doesn't want fans to use it as a companion to DVD's and streaming. But if that is the case, then what the hell is the point? Near as I can tell, the company is still going strong, but they might not want to repeat the mistakes of ADV, which fucked around so much with The Anime Channel. Funimation Channel should be a great way to let people eat up the more stale shows, but right now, it doesn't make it easy.
Friday, April 01, 2011
MLB At Bat '11
Another Year, another season of baseball. That means it is time for MLB At Bat, the handiest way to listen to live games.
I'll admit, by the end of last season I pretty much stopped using the app, partly because the Mets were awful, and partly because the both the app itself and my home internet connetion had troubles staying connected. This year, it seems that some work was done to help alleviate this problem. The connection has dropped occasionally, but each time the app managed to reestablish it on its own, within just a few seconds.
At Bat has a few new features as well. There is one feature which apparently can be used at ballparks, though I'm not sure what it does. It also doles out the occasional free video feed from mlb.tv.
In regards to video, technically this version of At Bat is improved, but it still lags behind the version made for iOS devices, which have full mlb.tv integration. I understand that the popularity of iOS means that it will be the premiere platform, but Android handsets have made huge strides since last spring, both in features and in sheer numbers. If the NFL and Verizon can whip up a decent Android app for free, then I hope that MLB is able to sneak in some more goodies during the season.
Overall, I'm happy with the improvements made, and I've already used the app more per day than I did last year. With some luck, we may get more updates as the season goes on.
Now let's go Mets!
I'll admit, by the end of last season I pretty much stopped using the app, partly because the Mets were awful, and partly because the both the app itself and my home internet connetion had troubles staying connected. This year, it seems that some work was done to help alleviate this problem. The connection has dropped occasionally, but each time the app managed to reestablish it on its own, within just a few seconds.
At Bat has a few new features as well. There is one feature which apparently can be used at ballparks, though I'm not sure what it does. It also doles out the occasional free video feed from mlb.tv.
In regards to video, technically this version of At Bat is improved, but it still lags behind the version made for iOS devices, which have full mlb.tv integration. I understand that the popularity of iOS means that it will be the premiere platform, but Android handsets have made huge strides since last spring, both in features and in sheer numbers. If the NFL and Verizon can whip up a decent Android app for free, then I hope that MLB is able to sneak in some more goodies during the season.
Overall, I'm happy with the improvements made, and I've already used the app more per day than I did last year. With some luck, we may get more updates as the season goes on.
Now let's go Mets!
Sunday, March 13, 2011
NFL Lockout
I became interested in baseball some time around 1996, meaning that as a fan, I am entirely a product of the post strike League. As a result, there were times when I struggled to understand why fans much older than me expressed such negative emotions when thinking about the strike, and I especially couldn't believe that it would sour some people on baseball entirely. As I grew older, I began to understand them a little more, at least on principle. Now, I know exactly how they feel. I'm not sure what will happen with the current NFL lockout fiasco, but it has already question whether I'll come back to the game.
The gut reaction among many is that there is no reason why a bunch of millionaires can't figure out how to share their millions (actually billions) at a time when many people's financial outlooks are grim. I understand this sentiment, and agree with it to a certain extent, though I think it is important to remember that not every player is making massive, multi-million dollar wages.
Personally, my gut anger stems from the same issue which bothered me all last season - that the NFL is devious and hypocritical in regards to its treatment of concussions and their concern for overall player health. There are a lot of measures the League could be taking to better protect players, and most of them are things which still aren't in effect. Not to mention that no matter how much marketing money they spend to promote their initiative, it is impossible to ignore just how much big hits are celebrated by commentators and fans (keep in mind that those commentators tend to tow the party line for the League, in case of any future coaching positions). I used to scoff at anyone who considered football to be a bloodsport, but it is getting harder to ignore not only how violent it is, but just how much that violence is celebrated. How many other sports leave former players with such a strong potential to be a husk of a body? The first one to come to my mind is boxing, and it too has been the subject of huge controversy over the decades. But unlike boxing, football is the nation's most popular sport. Any calls for real change will be drowned out by cheering spectators.
Deep down inside, the NFL knows that people like the carnage. They know that the players have been trained to deliver it with greater and greater force over the years. They've gone down this path, and they know there's no chance of trying to reverse it. Players will get more and more protective gear, and rather than keeping them safe, it'll convince them that they can get away with more powerful hits. We have already seen many old players who, regardless of the money they made, are in shambles thanks to all the hits and concussions they suffered. We already know the League never gave two shits about their retirement, and I shudder to think as to how some of today's current stars might look in thirty years. Even with millions of dollars (which, again, they don't all have), there's only so much medicine can do to help a person with a broken body.
But it isn't just the players who are treated like garbage. Fans too have been slowly and systematically screwed over by the NFL. The blackout rules exist to try and get people to go to the stadium if they want to see the game. At the same time that ticket prices continue to rise, and homefield advantage dissolves as stadiums are instead filled with people who treat a football game as a place to be seen. If your team isn't blacked out, you might be able to see them on TV, but if all you have is basic cable, who knows what you'll get. Thanks to the League's TV deals, someone like me, just a 25 minute drive from the DC metro, can't be certain that the Redskins will be on TV (and as a Giants fan, I gave up on seeing the game every week). Of course, you could spring for a pricey NFL package, which can (and probably will) get even pricier over time. Or you could go to the bar, where you can't hear yourself think, let alone hear any of the calls on the field. With all of today's wonderful technology, I think it is actually getting harder to watch football. The League certainly wants my time money, but they also want to demand how I give it to them.
So if everyone is being treated like shit, when can we expect the tables to turn? I have no idea. Because despite everything the NFL has done, they still have everyone feeding out of their hand. They could screw over the next season royally, and people will still come back. Baseball didn't die from its strike, and I imagine that football will take little, if any, damage. And on top of all of this, I haven't forgotten that if the sport does go away, a lot more people are going to be jobless.
It really has become a fucking circus. I don't look forward to the end result.
To me, the lockout says so many things, not just about football, but the current cultural climate in general.
The gut reaction among many is that there is no reason why a bunch of millionaires can't figure out how to share their millions (actually billions) at a time when many people's financial outlooks are grim. I understand this sentiment, and agree with it to a certain extent, though I think it is important to remember that not every player is making massive, multi-million dollar wages.
Personally, my gut anger stems from the same issue which bothered me all last season - that the NFL is devious and hypocritical in regards to its treatment of concussions and their concern for overall player health. There are a lot of measures the League could be taking to better protect players, and most of them are things which still aren't in effect. Not to mention that no matter how much marketing money they spend to promote their initiative, it is impossible to ignore just how much big hits are celebrated by commentators and fans (keep in mind that those commentators tend to tow the party line for the League, in case of any future coaching positions). I used to scoff at anyone who considered football to be a bloodsport, but it is getting harder to ignore not only how violent it is, but just how much that violence is celebrated. How many other sports leave former players with such a strong potential to be a husk of a body? The first one to come to my mind is boxing, and it too has been the subject of huge controversy over the decades. But unlike boxing, football is the nation's most popular sport. Any calls for real change will be drowned out by cheering spectators.
Deep down inside, the NFL knows that people like the carnage. They know that the players have been trained to deliver it with greater and greater force over the years. They've gone down this path, and they know there's no chance of trying to reverse it. Players will get more and more protective gear, and rather than keeping them safe, it'll convince them that they can get away with more powerful hits. We have already seen many old players who, regardless of the money they made, are in shambles thanks to all the hits and concussions they suffered. We already know the League never gave two shits about their retirement, and I shudder to think as to how some of today's current stars might look in thirty years. Even with millions of dollars (which, again, they don't all have), there's only so much medicine can do to help a person with a broken body.
But it isn't just the players who are treated like garbage. Fans too have been slowly and systematically screwed over by the NFL. The blackout rules exist to try and get people to go to the stadium if they want to see the game. At the same time that ticket prices continue to rise, and homefield advantage dissolves as stadiums are instead filled with people who treat a football game as a place to be seen. If your team isn't blacked out, you might be able to see them on TV, but if all you have is basic cable, who knows what you'll get. Thanks to the League's TV deals, someone like me, just a 25 minute drive from the DC metro, can't be certain that the Redskins will be on TV (and as a Giants fan, I gave up on seeing the game every week). Of course, you could spring for a pricey NFL package, which can (and probably will) get even pricier over time. Or you could go to the bar, where you can't hear yourself think, let alone hear any of the calls on the field. With all of today's wonderful technology, I think it is actually getting harder to watch football. The League certainly wants my time money, but they also want to demand how I give it to them.
So if everyone is being treated like shit, when can we expect the tables to turn? I have no idea. Because despite everything the NFL has done, they still have everyone feeding out of their hand. They could screw over the next season royally, and people will still come back. Baseball didn't die from its strike, and I imagine that football will take little, if any, damage. And on top of all of this, I haven't forgotten that if the sport does go away, a lot more people are going to be jobless.
It really has become a fucking circus. I don't look forward to the end result.
To me, the lockout says so many things, not just about football, but the current cultural climate in general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)