The Myth And Reality Of The Palomino Blackwing 602

As a guy that loves to draw, one of the benefits is that people give me a variety of artistic gifts for Christmas and birthdays. One of these is examples is a lot of different drawing pencil sets, which I have begun using at home, if only at first to get rid of them. However, there are some great pencils out there that are exceptional to sketch with, my two particular favorites being Staedtler and Tombow.

However, lurking in the corners of the internet, I continued to hear one word repeated over and over again. Similar in myth and legend to the sword Excalibur, the word I continued to hear was Blackwing. As in the discontinued Eberhard Faber Blackwing pencil. It’s renowned for being able to produce a dark line with very little effort, thanks to the addition of wax to the pencil. Granted, this isn't a unique approach among pencils. I believe the Sanford Turquoise pencil works along the same principle, and it’s a piece of shit. But this pencil was used by all sorts of people, notably artists, writers, and newspaper reporters. Two of the bigger known names associated with the Blackwing were Chuck Jones and John Steinbeck. It’s regarded to be the best pencil ever made.

So when Eberhard Faber decided to cease production of the pencil in 1998, there was a push by Blackwing devotees to get the company to reconsider. Eberhard Faber declined, and the Blackwing went extinct. People immediately went out and bought all the Blackwings that they could find, and boxes of the original Blackwings on eBay are known to go for premium prices. However, the California Cedar Corporation recognized a need, and decided to create a similar pencil to the Blackwing. More or less replicating the original design, CCC released their new Blackwing under their Palomino brand, to great fanfare. Despite those who immediately took to the new design, others said that it was still too soft and dark to truly be similar to the original Blackwing. So, CCC released another variant, the Blackwing 602. This is regarded to be close enough to the original that many of those that had great affection for the original finally accepted it, although there do remain a hardcore zealot camp of the pencil aficionado group that still regard it as shit. Picky fucking bastards.

I normally wouldn't have spent money on this type of product, because the mark up for nostalgia is about twenty bucks per box. However, I did have an Amazon.com gift card that was burning a hole in my pocket, and didn't have anything else I was going to purchase outside of a book. On an idle hunch, I looked up the Blackwing on Amazon, and sure enough, there was an after Christmas sale, plus free shipping, that dropped the price dramatically. With that in mind, I went ahead and pulled the trigger.

The Blackwing 602 is a very aesthetically striking pencil. It’s gunmetal grey, with gold leaf on the shaft of the pencil, naming the pencil on one side, and proudly proclaiming that its “HALF THE PRESSURE, TWICE THE SPEED” on the other side. It also has the signature wide pencil eraser at the end, which allows for one to be able to replace the eraser when it becomes dull. It’s this replaceable eraser design, and specifically it’s clips that hold the eraser to the eraser harness, that doomed the original Blackwing, since the machine that stamped out the harnesses broke, and the pencil wasn't commercially lucrative enough to repair. The pencil eraser actually works pretty well, and you can buy replacement erasers in black, pink, orange, and blue. However, the huge downside to this eraser design is that it means that it is incompatible with a pencil extender, which many artists use because, well lets face it, pencils are a bit expensive at a dollar to dollar fifty a pop. This makes the Blackwing, at a certain point, useless, or just uncomfortable to use.

However, I'm dancing around the main issue at hand, the one that is most important among all of this pencil worship: how does it write? Well, very well, thank you. It's a very smooth pencil, one that barely offers you any resistance or friction, similar to what you get in the softest of leads. With minimal pressure, you get a nice, darkish line, similar to a HB or B lead, and with more pressure, you can get some really nice, smooth dark lines probably in the 3 or 4B range. It really is a fine writing instrument, and for this reason, I can see why so many artists and writers loved it. Plus, the lead is pretty firm, and doesn't dull very easily, a complaint I've heard about the standard Blackwing. I like this, actually.  I like it a lot.

Do I like it enough to pay the full price for it?

No.

Let's backtrack a bit.  It's a very expensive pencil.  I calculated the average cost of the pencil, with the full price of each box, plus shipping.  You're going to roughly pay about $2 per Blackwing if you are going to be a regular user.  That's a pretty steep price for what is a good, but not transcendent sketching experience.  Plus, this is still a pretty niche pencil, which means you are more than likely not going to find it in your local art supply store.  You're going to have to get it from a third party seller like Amazon or JetPens.  For about .50 cents less, and a lot more convenience, you'd get somewhat similar results from a Staedtler F Lead Pencil, or a Pentel Ebony.  The experience isn't worth the extra coin and work.

More importantly, there's this.  Tools can only go so far.  Granted, there is a difference between spending a good deal of cash on something cheap and actually getting a quality product at a good price.  But what makes the tool most effective is the person using it, not the tool.  You can't teach skill.  Using a Blackwing won't make you into Steinbeck or Chuck Jones.  I've seen people do absolutely beautiful artwork with nothing more than a Number Two pencil.  The Blackwing does add a bit of ease and smoothness into your drawing experience, but it doesn't replace the actual skill of the person wielding it.  I'll probably use up this box of Blackwings over the year, and will do so with great pleasure.  I think even the stub of the pencil that I can't use, plus the unique eraser (it'll be intact, as I rarely use the erasers on pencils) will look pretty sweet in a fedora.  But I'll probably never buy a box again, unless circumstances like what happened occur once again.

But I I have one final thought to those that might decry this Blackwing as still inferior to the original.  Just use this new one.  Regardless of whether or not it is a true successor to the original, outside of a garage or estate sale (and I look, trust me) or a eBay auction, the original has gone the way of Tasmanian Tiger.  You more than likely won't ever find the original ever again, barring Eberhard Faber suddenly deciding to reverse course and market this as a limited edition premium pencil, which will likely be more expensive.  Plus, I'm willing to gamble that much of the opinion about the original Blackwing is merely perception, as if a way of maintaining the cult status of what was a beloved, but unappreciated pencil, whose disappearance and mythology has only increased as our memories fade and the feel of the original disappears from our hands.  If you must have a Blackwing in your paws while you create, than at least give what is out there a chance.

Sources

• Fortune Magazine's Blackwing Article
• The Blackwing Pages
• Pencilpedia's Blackwing Article

Flick Review: Gangster Squad

Gangster Squad

Starring:  Josh Brolin, Sean Penn, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Robert Patrick

Gangster Squad was one of the movies I was most jazzed about seeing this year, although it was originally supposed to be released last year, but due to the violence in the film and the fact that it was originally going to be released in September, only a few weeks after the Aurora shootings, the film got bumped into January of this year.  This is unfortunate, as I do believe that the postponement will likely hurt it's overall box office total, especially with many of the nominated films for the Academy Awards seeing a bit of an uptake in interest.  However, it's a really good, fun film that you should probably go see if you get a chance.

Gangster Squad takes place in post-World War II Los Angeles, where east coast mobster Mickey Cohen (a real life mobster, btw), has managed to consolidate all of the vice trade in the city, and has enough crooked police and judges in his pocket to protect his empire.  Now, Cohen seeks to break away from the Chicago Outfit, and create his own mob empire on the pacific coast.  Determined to stop the mobster before he completely takes over Los Angeles, the chief of police tasks Sgt. John O'Mara, a war veteran and an honest cop, to put together a task force with the sole purpose of destroying Cohen's operation, though doing it outside of the law.  The task force, dubbing themselves the Gangster Squad, hit Cohen hard, destroying illegal gambling operations, prostitution rings, and causing mayhem to the mobster's bottom line.  As Cohen prepares for his boldest plan to ensure a steady stream of income and power to cement his hold on Los Angeles for good, the Gangster Squad has both be able to stop the mobster for good, while trying to protect their themselves and their loved ones from Cohen's retribution.

The movie is visually striking, with director Ruben Fleischer (who also directed Zombieland and 30 Minutes Or Less) making use of the a variety of objects, props, and wardrobe to make the movie feel authentic. Many of the buildings from 1940’s Los Angeles are still in existence to this day, and are still in their original form, allowing the on location areas to look genuine instead of like they were shooting in front of a blue screen. The wardrobe department did a bang up job on this film, matching many of the styles, both in terms of men and women, for the outfits, hair, and accessories. Even the advertising for some of the products is authentic, down to the Pepsi bottles and the Schlitz beer packaging.

The two main principles of the film are Mickey Cohen, played by Sean Penn, and John O'Mara, played by Josh Brolin.  We'll start with the bigger name in Penn, who looks like this film was probably a blast for him.  He plays up the role of Cohen very well, making him absolutely loathsome, starting with the beginning of the film, to establish your dislike from him and them expand on it, like an everwidening circle of hate.  He's sinister, calculating, and funny as hell when he goes off on a tear.  I like him.  Penn should play more villains more often.  He's great at it.  As for Brolin, he's a very likable character, almost the complete opposite of Penn, which is probably the biggest problem for his character.  He's too good, too devoted to the law, too much of an ideal cop.  Brolin's O'Mara is very much a throwback to the classic lawman characters of the old school gangster flicks, and he gets overshadowed by both Penn and Ryan Gosling, who steals the show.  Gosling's character, Jerry Wotters, is much more fun and realistic, showing a sense of humor and jadedness to his job, but also maintaining an overall dedication to a noble cause, and a willingness to fight for it when needed.  He's charming, debonair, a drunk, lecherous, and overall just kick ass.  Very much like myself.  The other big name in the film, Emma Stone, is lovely in this film, but she is very much just window dressing for the film, looking gorgeous as a damsel in distress with enough endearing, corny dialogue to make you take notice.  This is a shame, as Stone herself is capable of playing much more than this, but for this film, she's sadly just another pretty face.

The rest of the cast is great too.  The rest of the Gangster Squad is made up of Robert Patrick, playing Max Kennard, the old veteran of the group who is also hilarious and near unrecognizable in his makeup.  Giovanni Ribsi is excellent as Conwell Keeler, the groups tech expert and their moral compass, while Anthony Mackie and Michael Pena round out the squad, adding muscle and some great one liners.  Overall, it's a great mix of characters, and they all play off each other very well.

So, in the end, is the movie worth seeing?   Well, that depends.  If you are looking for something that is meant to be Oscar worthy, then no, you probably shouldn't.  It's not a great film, but it is a very good one.  If you're looking for something fun, both in terms of entertainment and in terms of watching some really good actors have a ball on screen, then by all means, go see it.  It's a great homage to the classic gangster films, with a modern twist to it.  It's good fun, and worth your Hamilton for your ticket.

Fifteen Movies In 2013 That I'm Jazzed About

As a movie buff, I have a ton of flicks that usually catch my interest, in a passing sense.  However, there are very few films that I really get absolutely jazzed up to go see.  Usually, this starts with a trailer, although there are a great deal of movie sites and magazines that also direct me to a film that I might decide to watch.  With that said, there was a list of 15 movies that I was really psyched up to go see this year, and here are my thoughts about each one, from what I've seen on the trailers or researched on the internet.  Hope you are entertained.

Gangster Squad

The first movie I was psyched up over was Gangster Squad, which has a great top billing, with Josh Brolin, Sean Penn, Ryan Gosling, and Emma Ston, among others.  It's the story of a secret police unit that is formed to take on L.A. Gangster Mickey Cohen, and their efforts to bring him to justice.  The movie looks great, with a prohibition gangster type feel (even though it's set just after World War II).  The wardrobe looks phenomenal, and it looks have have enough cleverly cheesy dialogue and action to keep one entertained. This movie is already out, and will be seeing it this weekend.  Yeah-ya!

Warm Bodies

What can only be described as girl meets boy-zombie, I'm really jazzed about this film.  We have very few zombie comedies that work, with Shawn of the Dead and Zombieland being the only two that come to mind so far.  And the trailer looks funny, so hey, why not?

Pacific Rim

This definetely appeals to the Sci-Fi nut inside me.  Pacific Rim deals with Aliens that have somehow managed to come to Earth, via what appears to a dimensional crack in the middle of the Pacific.  To combat this, the nations of Earth create several giant sized robots to combat the menace, with each one remotely controlled by pilots in a VR simulator.  This movie looks great, and is a bit of an homage to the giant monster movies of the past, made famous by Toho.  It also looks almost like a direct copy of the anime series, Neon Genesis Evangelion, only with the robots resembling the ones from Robot Joxx, and not the biomechanical machines from the series.  Will that deter me from seeing the film?  Hell no! 

Man Of Steel

I'm not the biggest Superman fan in the world, although I do respect his place in comics history, and do love some of the stories that he does appear in with Batman at times.  However, I will admit that I loved the original Superman film, which a good superhero film and was the standard by which such films were made until the release of the original Batman film with Michael Keaton.  However, the character itself has been in a bit of a rut since the original Reeves films were made, and that franchise itself went south once Richard Donner was unceremoniously axed from the second film.  Even the most modern entry, Superman Returns, tried to continue the Reeves' films storyline, to no avail.  This new film with Henry Cavill in the iconic blue and red tights, looks quite good, and plays to the strengths of the character: a near godlike figure with the humility of a saint and the desire to do good tries to make the best use of his gifts in the world.  There hasn't been much in the form of details about the plot leaked out, which makes us have to continue to guess as to what the film is about, but so far, it looks like the Man of Steel will be getting the proper film treatment that he deserved.

Star Trek Into Darkness

The new Star Trek franchise, directed by J.J. Abrams, did something that not many people ever thought could be done with the franchise:  reinvent it, and yet keep the essence of the original intact.  Rather than have it serve as an epilogue for a T.V. series, Abrams instead took the series in a new direction, making it it's own standalone universe that makes it relatively fresh, but also familiar.  The casting is spot on, and each cast member makes sure to pay homage to their predecessor, while doing their own thing.  This new film looks dark, with the potential for it to be nearly as epic as the original second Star Trek film, The Wrath Of Kahn.  Details are still sketch, but so far it looks like Trekkies were right to keep the faith.

Oz The Great And Powerful

I'm surprised that we haven't had a sequel or prequel to the Wizard of Oz sooner, with the only real contender to this being Return To Oz back in 1985.  However, while that movie is regarded to be an unofficial sequel, and also frightening and nightmare inducing, this new entry by Sam Raimi looks to be an actual prequel to the original 1939 Film that is regarded to be one of the greatest films ever made.  James Franco is in the flick as the aforementioned Oz, and overall, it looks to be a visual feast, with enough references to the original film to make a fan like myself happy.  I might actually pay to see this one in 3D.

Iron Man 3

I'm not going to lie, aside from Scarlett Johansson, I was very disappointed with Iron Man 2.  The heart and humor that made the original film so enjoyable were gone in this one, and it seemed that the film's purpose was less based on continuing the story of the character as opposed to further setting up the Avengers film that was coming down the pipeline.  Now that the Avengers has come and gone, the franchise appears to be going back to the personal approach of the first film, with more focus on Tony Stark, the man inside the machine, and his own desire to move from what he was to what Stark really wants to be.  The trailers look good, although I'm not a fan of the newest armor.  But we'll see. 

The Lone Ranger

I was a big fan of the Lone Ranger, and have longed to see a modern take on the Ranger to this day.  I partially got this with Dynamite Entertainment's Lone Ranger comic book series, which is one of the best comics available on the market to this day.  Gone is the lily white sensibilities of the original radio and TV programs, and instead we get a realistic, harsh look at what the west really was, as well as how a figure like The Ranger and Tonto would have survived in it.  This new film, however, looks to be a compromise between the two, with a darker Ranger, but one not completely given over to the harshness of what the west was.  Armie Hammer looks good as the Ranger, and Johnny Depp looks absolutely insane as Tonto, although I'm loving the look, to be honest.  This film has been pushed back several times, but it looks like it's coming out guns blazing in the summer.  Can't wait.

World War Z

World War Z, based on the book by the same name, comes out near my birthday, and I'm stoked for it.  While I'll be beginning the year with a zombie film, this is the main course that I've been waiting for.  Brad Pitt will be playing Gerry Lane, who is traveling the world to try and find the cure or at the very least, the answer, to a zombie pandemic that is sweeping the world.  I'm currently reading the book right now, and I'm loving it so far.  As such, I'm hoping that this film will meet the challenge of at least coming close to it. 

Despicable Me 2

I loved the original film, which was smart, funny, and had enough sarcasm and cruelty in it to appeal to my rather warped sense of humor.  I haven't seen much for this film, but you better believe I'll be in line to get my share of Gru and the minions once again.

47 Ronin

When I took a course on the History of East Asia, one of the stories that I did read as part of the assignment was the story of the 47 Ronin.  It was a story about how a band of 47 loyal samurai waited and plotted to avenge the death and honor of their master, after three years and much plotting.  There is going to be some liberties taken with the story, as it will center around the story of Kai, a half Japanese, half British warrior, played by Keanu Reeves, rather than the traditional story based on Kuranosuke Oishi.  This has the potential to be a epic movie if it is done correctly, and with a great deal of care and attention to detail.  It also can be a beautiful movie to look at, if the standard shown by The Last Samurai is followed.  Appropriately, as the 47 Ronin story is usually told around that time, it will be released on Christmas Day.  You're damn right I'm going to be there for it.

Sin City:  A Dame To Kill For 

I loved the original Sin City, as it was perhaps one of the only films based on a comic book to come absolutely the closest with it's original source material.  Robert Rodriguez (when not making absolutely shitty kids films) was a student of the original content, and the result of this intense attention to detail and Rodriguez' own knack for creating beautiful violence.  This film has been pushed back several times, but rumor has it that it's finally going to start shooting soon, and that it should be in our hot little hands in the fall.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but I'm also not going to get my hopes up.  Rodriguez and Co. have done this before.

The Hunger Games:  Catching Fire

I wasn't the greatest fan of the Hunger Games, and Suzanne Collins' writing style makes me want to dig my eyes out of my skull with a spoon, but the film itself was entertaining enough to make me interested in the sequel.  I'm interested in the concept, in which the surviving contestants from each district are forced to team up and take each other on, and look forward to seeing how the remaining characters from the first film progress from what was an unanticipated ending to the games in the first film. 

Note:  No idea if this is what the poster will be.  Goddamn Internet.

300:  Rise Of An Empire

 The prequel to the film 300, this new entry will instead focus on Themistocles and Artemisia, who took on Xerxes, from the first film, at the Battle of Salamis.  Wikipedia also speculates that the Battle of Marathon may also play a part, which will be cool.  However, this new 300 will also delve into Xerxes' backstory, and explain how he became King.  Not much of the cast from the first film will be returning, but the early production stills and videos on the web make this flick look pretty sweet.  It's very much a man movie, although I suspect that, much as the first, plenty of women will be there for the male eye candy as well.  August is gonna rock.

The Hobbit:  The Desolation Of Smaug

My 2012 ended with a viewing of the first part of The Hobbit, so it's only fitting that 2013 will likely end with the next part of the trilogy.  Anyhoo, I'm looking forward to this, not just to see what some memorable characters such as Smaug, Beorn, as well as seeing how the Battle of Five Armies is depicted, but also seeing how Peter Jackson takes his new emphasis on the rise of the Necromancer in this next portion of the book, which apparently will have a larger role in the events of the film.  It should be a fun ride.

So with that said, 2013 is looking to be a pretty sweet movie season, and my expectations are sky high so far.  I'm hoping that I'll catch enough intriguing indie films that will make the movie going experience to be a rewarding one, and that I'll get what I pay for.

Flick Review: Django Unchained

Django Unchaimed (2012)

Directed By:  Quentin Tarentino
Starring:  Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington, Walton Goggins, Quentin Tarentino

Django Unchained is a movie I've been wanting to see since I saw the bootleg footage of the trailer from San Diego ComicCon.   Being a fan of Tarentino in general, I probably would have seen it anyhow, but I'm also a huge fan of the western genre, which goes back to my childhood.  As such, I made sure to see this flick within a week of it's released.  I had high hopes for it entering the theater.  It did not disappoint.

Django Unchained follows the story of Django (Foxx), a slave who is rescued by a German Bounty Hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Waltz), He reveals that that he freed Django because he can identify a gang that he is hunting, the Brittle Brothers, due to their prior work as overseers at Django’s former plantation. Schultz, who is opposed to slavery personally, comes to an agreement with his new charge; in exchange for his assistance, Schultz will give Django his freedom. The two successfully find their quarry, during which Schultz hears the sad tale of how Django was separated from his wife, Broomhilda (Hilde).  Moved by the story, the two strike an accord; in exchange for Django continuing his working arrangement with Schultz throughout the winter, the two will combine forces in locating Hilde’s current whereabouts.  After a search in the auction records, the duo find that Hilde has been sold to Calvin Candie (DiCaprio), a charming, but loathsome figure who owns one of the largest and heavily fortified plantations in the South.  With the stakes raised, the two must find a way not only to rescue Hilde, but also find a way to ensure that her freedom will be both permanent, and legal, as well as ensuring that they all live to tell the tale.

Just as he did in Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds, Tarentino pays homage to a genre film in his own manner, the spaghetti western this time around. It’s very much the same as the Clint Eastwood films I remember watching as a kid, from the panoramic and at times desolate environments, the slightly dramatic, slightly cheesy instrumental music, and even down to the ludicrous and slightly hysterical opening scene theme. Some of the music is original, although I did detect the theme from the Clint Eastwood flick, Two Mules For Sister Sara in the film as well.

There is some wonderful dialogue in the film, with plenty of witty back and fourth, incredibly quotable lines, and some wonderfully comedic and dramatic sequences.  It's this complexity and thought that is placed into the writing that is the ultimate hallmark of a Quentin Tarentino flick.  You're guarantee to hear or see something new or unique, and crafted to perfection.

The movie is beautifully shot.  There are some wonderful snow and mountain scenes, and the action sequences are pure Tarentino, filled with bloody, beautiful chaotic action.   The costumes are near accurate for the times, and rather tasteful for the most part (I love Jamie Foxx's hat, and and looking for a similar one as we speak).  The film isn't completely historically accurate, but the movie is a work of fiction, and thus this isn't a major problem.

There are a host of memorable and wonderful characters in the film, but for the sake of simplicity, I’ll only be covering the major players in the film. We’ll start with Jamie Foxx, who plays Django. Apparently, from what I’ve read, Foxx was not the first choice for the role, as Tarentino wanted Will Smith at first to play the lead. However, after viewing the film, and some thought, I think the right actor was casted for the role. Both Foxx and Smith are excellent actors, but Foxx is able to inject a certain menace and humor to the role that I don’t think Smith would have been able to. Foxx is able to come off as slightly arrogant and haughty at a point of the film when his character is incognito. Smith, in my opinion, wouldn’t have been able to do that, as his characters are at best incredibly likable or sorrowful, almost messianic figures. Christoph Waltz returns to Tarentino’s works as Schultz, who is a complete 180 from Waltz’s previous Tarentino role of Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds. Like Landa, Schultz is a charming, humorous energetic individual who commands your attention when he is on screen. Unlike Landa, Schultz is a kind hearted man with a strong sense of moral justice, which we see from his first encounter with Django to his eventual role in the mission to Candyland. As he did with Landa, Waltz takes the role and knocks it out of the park.

DiCaprio is the role of a villain for one of the few times in his career, and suffice to say, he absolutely rocks it.  DiCaprio looks every bit the part of the Southern Dandy that his character is, but combines this with an almost loathsome charisma and a overbearing smarmy sort of arrogance that makes you almost root for his demise.  And the funny thing is, he's far from the most evil character in the movie.  That goes to Samuel L. Jackson, who plays Candie's head slave, Stephen.  He is so obnoxious, so calculating, and embodied with a unpleasantness that progresses to being outright loathsome by the end of the film that you wish that he would suffer the most excruciating demise possible for him in the depths of Tarentino's mental chamber of horrors.  It takes a great actor to play great villains, and both do it perfectly.

All in all, Django Unchained was worth the wait since I saw that first grainy trailer.  It's arguably Tarentino's second best film (Inglorious Basterds remains my all time favorite), and it definitely holds up to multiple viewings, from what I've heard.  I'd advise you to see it, and if necessary, see it alone if you have to.  It's good enough to withstand the shame of seeing a flick alone.  After the first five minutes, you won't care that you did.

2013 Baseball Hall Of Fame Ballot Thoughts

I love baseball.

Unlike most of my family, who love football and basketball, respectively, I tended to fall more towards the spectrum of baseball.  I enjoy the game, the strategy that is employed, the scouting and evaluation side of it, and just the fact that I can go to a ballpark, watch a game, and have a conversation with a relative of friend while watching the game.  When I first began blogging, it was primarily as a sports blogger, which I maintained for almost three years before finally giving it up a couple of years ago.

However, one thing I did do, and this goes back to my first blog post, is keep track of the baseball hall of fame voting.  It was my first time ever offering an analysis on a subject, and since then, I've kept up the tradition of posting my thoughts on the ballot, as well as trying to guess who might make it.   So, in that vein, here are my thoughts about the ballot, starting with the fuckers that shouldn't be on the ballot.


Todd Walker (INF), Jose Mesa (RHP), and Roberto Hernandez (RHP) - LOLZ!   Average to fringe contributors, but really, why are they even on here?  It just gives people the opportunity to chuckle for a moment before moving onto the next name.

Tim Raines (DH) - No.  Raines really is a guy that should be in the Hall of Fame.  He was a prodigous hitter, and was probably the second best leadoff man behind Ricky Henderson, who is already in the Hall of Fame.  He was an underrated stolen base thief, a skill that often goes unnoticed by those who analyze his game.  However, Raines' early drug use, as well as the fact that he was mostly a Designated Hitter, are what hurt his candidacy among some voters, even though advanced metrics do show that his performance does rank among many players who are already in the Hall.  It's unfortunate, but I doubt that he'll ever get in, barring a massive change amongst the voters.

Jeff Bagwell (1B) and Craig Biggio (2B/OF/C) - Not This Time, and Strong Possibility.  The original Killer B's, and for almost two decades, the faces of the Houston Astros, both players are well regarded as good people, great players, and likely Hall of Famers.  However, both are going to have some roadblocks along the way.  For Bagwell, it's that there are rumors that he might might have tried the juice at some point in his career, as well as the fact that he didn't reach 500 dingers in his career.  In the case of the former, I'm sure that you'll find rumors about everyone, but in the later, it's important to know that Bagwell played in one of the most home run suppressive parks in the Astrodome, where homers went to die.  As for Biggio, while he does have 3000 hits, it's the end of his career, which people saw as him holding on simply to reach that milestone, that hurts him, although I think the juice stigma on some guys will help his cause.  Still, both will likely get in in time, although I hope that they get in together, much as they did throughout their careers.

Lee Smith (RHP) - No.  Smith was the all time saves leader, but this was seen as more of a product of Smith's exceptionally long career than any sort of dominance.  With some truly exceptional closers coming up on the horizon in Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera, it's safe to say Smith is kinda screwed.

Allen Trammel (SS) - No, and this is a shame.  Trammel was an offensive shortstop who had the misfortune of playing right before a revolution in the way shortstops hit and defended arrived in the league with the arrival of Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Nomar Garciaparra, Miguel Tejada, and others.  As such, the change in the position from one of defense to offense made his numbers look quite pedestrian in comparison, although the position has now turned back to one of defensive value rather than offense.  Such a change of philosophy will come too late from Trammel, who will likely never be enshrined ever.

Jack Morris (RHP) - NO!  NO!  HELL NO!!! Morris is probably one of the more divisive Hall Of Fame candidates out there. Those against him call him an average pitcher, a compiler, someone who was a workhorse, but never dominant. Those for him call him an ace on winning teams, a man that pitched to the score and battled to get the win. The truth might be in between, but trends more to the former, rather than the later. Morris was one of the most durable pitchers in his generation, but looking back at his more advanced stats, Morris only was much better than the league average pitcher in six of his 18 seasons, and was below average for four. Morris was rarely among the league leaders in strikeouts, and his command for much of his career was average at best. And while many will lionize Morris for willing to take the ball and be willing to pitch until he ended up the winning pitcher, that isn't a measure of dominance, but rather remarkable durability. Ultimately, what really is the only factor that gets so many people willing to throw their support behind Morris is Game Seven of the 1991 World Series, which is regarded as one of the best games ever played. It’s only because of that one singular event that so many sports writers are so willing to support Morris. And that’s fine. But ultimately, it’s misguided.  Morris might squeak in this year, as there appears to be quite a bit of animosity toward many of the steroid era players, but I doubt it.  But I've been wrong before.  He'd easily be, based on the stats alone, one of the worst ever inductees to make it into the Hall of Fame (Jim Rice is also up there.)

Edgar Martinez (DH) - No.  Much like Tim Raines, Martinez is also going to be stigmized by the fact that he was a DH for most of his career, and didn't play the position.  It's unfortunate, because Martinez was really good, and would be a borderline candidate if he were a left fielder or first baseman, rather than just strictly a DH.

Rafael Palmeiro (1B/3B) - Not A Chance In Hell.  Palmeiro is one of the only members to be in the 3000 hit club and 500 homer club, and the only one that will never get enshrined.  He was arguably one of my favorite players growing up, and seeing him go to the Orioles after he played for my favorite team, the Texas Rangers, killed me as a kid.  However, Palmeiro's candidacy went down the tubes when he 1) made his infamous statement to Congress and 2) became the first high profile player ever to be caught under the new steroid testing policy.  People haven't forgotten, and judging by how long he's been on the ballot, I don't think anyone ever will.

Dale Murphy (OF) - No.  Murphy had a nice enough peak during which he was one of the better outfielders in baseball, but nothing certainly worthy of Hall of Fame consideration.

Bernie Williams (OF) - No.   Williams was part of the core four Yankees that came up in the farm system during their dynasty period in the mid to late 90's (along with Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, and Mariano Rivera), and was the first of the four to retire.  He was a solid player for a time, but wasn't a great one by any means.  His also didn't have much of a decline period, as his production, ability to play center field, and durability jumped out the Empire State Building once he turned 34.  Still, it's a great career, and one that might get him enshrined in Monument Park, but not anywhere else.

Fred McGriff (OF) - No, and it's a shame.  The Crime Dog was a exceptional hitter in his time, hitting for power and showing exceptional patience at the plate.  The biggest reason why McGriff hasn't been inducted, and it's a stupid one, is that he didn't reach the 500 home run plateau, which is kind of the standard for hitters, much like 3000 strikeouts and/or 300 wins is for pitchers.  It's more likely than not that McGriff will fall of the ballot, which is a crying shame.

Barry Bonds (OF) and Roger Clemens (RHP) - Not this time.  The two biggest names of steroid era likely won't get into the Hall right off the bat, as many will refuse to vote for them out of principle.  That's stupid, and the Hall of Fame will be incomplete without the era's greatest hitter and it's greatest pitcher in it.  They'll make it in time, as I do believe public opinion will soften over time, but the hardline stance that some writers have over the use of PED's, as well as the fact that both were/are colossal pricks will hurt their causes in the short term.

Mike Piazza (C) - Yes.  One of the greatest catchers in Baseball History, Piazza hit for power, was a capable defender, and was generally an asset to the teams that he played for.   He might have held on for a bit too long, and his career does have the usual steroid rumblings, as much of the era's best players do, but there is no reason why he shouldn't be in.

Curt Schilling (RHP) - Not this time.  Schilling was one of the more dominant pitchers in the late 90's, early aught's, although it did take him sometime to turn his talents into production.  He was one of the biggest big game pitchers of all time, and the owner of one of the more memorable post-season moments of all time, Schilling will probably make it into the Hall of Fame in time, provided he doesn't get tossed into the can for the shenanigans with his video game company first.

Kenny Lofton (OF) - No.  Kenny Lofton was sort of like the Shasta version of Ricky Henderson.  Both were speedy outfielders who got on base and functioned as above average leadoff men.  Both had some pop in their otherwise tiny frames, although Henderson had a slight edge on him.  However, Lofton wasn't quite as effective as he began to lose his speed, and towards the end of his career, he was miscast as a starter when it was obvious he needed to be a bench player.  Good player, but not hall worthy.

Sammy Sosa & Mark McGwire (OF) - Not a chance in hell.  Sosa and McGwire will forever be linked by the '98 Home Run Chase, which saw McGwire hit 70, breaking Roger Maris' long standing home run record.  However, they'll also both be linked as the poster children of the steroid era.

Steve Finley (CF) - No.  A very good player, who was a solid lead off man, and a excellent centerfielder for some time.  However, his peak years were good, but not great, and both the beginning and the end of his career weren't exactly pretty.  So, no.

Don Mattingley (1B) - No.  Mattingley's career can essentially be told in two parts.  From 1982-1989, Mattingley was often the lone bright spot of some truly wretched Yankees squads, which George Steinbrenner micromanaged into the ground before his temporary banishment from baseball allowed then general manager Gene Michael to rebuild the franchise in time for their mid to late 90's dominance.  If any grade school kid was asked who his favorite player was in the 80's, more often than not it would be Mattingley.  However, after '89, Mattingley's back would betray him, and the result was that Donnie Baseball would be robbed of much of his power and durability for the remainder of his career, which ended in '95, after his one and only appearance in the post-season.  Mattingley isn't a Hall of Famer, but his lingering on the ballot is as much a testament to his continued popularity as it is a dreaming of what could have been.

Julio Franco (INF) - No.  A solid contributor for a long time, and he certainly had one of the longest careers ever to be enjoyed.  But the only way Franco will be enshrined in the Hall of Fame is as a medical exhibit.

Reggie Sanders (OF) - No.  Sanders was an average player, hit for some power, got on base at times, but never did anything exceptionally well.  He was far from a star, but he had some very good years where he was an asset for some squads, in particular the 2001 Diamondbacks team that won the championship in such  dramatic fashion.

Jeff Cirillo (3B) - LOLZ, No.  Cirillo had a couple of good years, but overall was an average third baseman.  They shouldn't have even listed him, but I suspect he'll get one or two pity votes.

Larry Walker (OF) - No.  Walker is a borderline guy, but his late career injury woes are combined with a discounting of his numbers due to the fact he played much of his career in Colorado.  I figure him to get more consideration in a few years.

Ryan Klesko (INF) - No.  Klesko was a useful enough player in his time, and had some burn as a guy who could hit for some power and fake a number of positions on the field.  However, he was nothing special and played for a bit too long than he should have, although the fact major league teams were willing to throw money at him longer after his usefulness ended shouldn't be held against him.

Woody Williams (RHP) - Awww, Hell No!  Woody Williams had a long career, that's for certain, and was useful for a period of time from 1997 to 2004 as a guy who could eat up innings in the back end of your starting rotation.  But let's be honest: he wasn't a dominant pitcher, and much of his success was the result of pitching not only in the National League, but also behind some great outfield defense and spacious ballparks. The amount of homers he gave up each year alone would were enough to make a case for an All Star spot if they were somehow collected into a single humanoid construct.   So yeah, I'd have to vote a big no on him.

Rondell White (OF/DH) - No.  His brightest years were with the Expos, a team that no longer exists, before he spend much of the aught's watching his career decay into a crawling, pitiful mess, much like the zombie that Rick Grimes first meets in The Walking Dead.

Aaron Sele (RHP) - Ha Ha!  Nope! Sele's continued employment in baseball was due to two factors: A) he could pitch a ton of innings and B) he could pitch marginally well enough to avoid throwing up on himself. The highlight of his career was probably winning a World Series in 2002 with the Angels.  The bad news is that he was hurt, and thus never got to pitch for them.

Sandy Alomar Jr. (C) - No.  Sandy was an excellent defensive catcher who mostly was a backup, although he did at times have some periods as the full time starter.  Great guy to have on a team, and is generally on the short list of guys who will become a future manager.  But, no.

Royce Clayton (SS) - No.  A very good defensive shortstop, but not really much of a hitter or anything more than a average regular or stopgap option.  Clayton did play for a good long time, but he's probably know more for his appearance in the film Moneyball than for his playing career.

Jeff Conine (OF/1B) - One of the first real players to be identified with the Florida Marlins, (indeed, his nickname was Mr. Marlin) Conine wasn't anything really special.  He hit for a high average and had some pop, but wasn't anything special.

Mike Stanton (LHP) - Nope.  Stanton was probably best known as serving as a part of the set up corp to Mariano Rivera during the Yankee dynasty, but he enjoyed a good, long career in his time.  Set up men don't make the Hall of Fame, however, but Stanton can take solace in the fact that he has some nice championship jewelry (although 1999 is gaudy as hell), and the fact that he does have a steady gig on MLB Network Radio.

Flick Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit:  An Unexpected Journey (2013)

The Lord Of The Rings, when it first came out several years ago, was rather revolutionary at the time.  It took source material that was regarded to be difficult to adapt as a live action film, and was able to turn it into a film that not only appealed to the fans of the books, but also to a mainstream audience.  It catapulted several stars, such as Orlando Bloom and Viggo Morenstein, into stardom, won a bunch of awards, including Best Picture for Return Of The King, and made billions of dollars in merchandise and movie sales.  The entire trilogy is regarded to be a modern masterpiece.  But for some of the fans of the original Tolkien novels, the films felt incomplete, because of the omission of the first book, and the prequel of the series, The Hobbit.  It seemed odd to have Bilbo's story, how he got the ring, as well as some of the references made to in during the series, to not be told.  However, these fears were abated when Peter Jackson did announce that he did intend to eventually turn the book into a film.  I just didn't expect the book to be stretched into a trilogy.

The story follows Frodo Baggins' (who makes a cameo in the film) uncle Bilbo, a hobbit who has led an rather quiet life until he encounters the wizard Gandalf The Grey.  Almost unexpectedly, Bilbo finds that he has been enlisted by the wizard into the quest to reclaim the lost Dwarven Kingdom of Erebor, which fell to the dragon Smaug years ago.  Although he initially refuses to participate, Bilbo has a change of heart and joins the company of thirteen dwarves, led by Thorin Oakenshield, the heir to Erebor's throne. The journey is filled with danger, as the company encounters Orcs, Wargs, Goblins, as well as the presence of some dark power rising in the woods, as they attempt to make their way back to the Lonely Mountain to challenge Smaug.  Also, something else lies in the journey, waiting for Bilbo to find it:  a mysterious object that will affect not just Bilbo's life, but also the fate of all of Middle-Earth itself...

For the sake of full disclosure, The Hobbit was actually my favorite of the LOTR series. I enjoyed the characters more, it's entire narrative was contained in a single volume, and had enough visuals to make it a feast for the imagination. The biggest fear I had, going into the film, was what the film makers decided to do in order to extend the narrative. At the most, I thought the Hobbit could be extended into two movies, but not three. As with the Lord Of The Rings, Jackson remedies this by using some of the other supplementary material that exists to help flesh out the story, as well as pursue some of the other plotlines that exist in the original novel.  The most notable of this is the presence of the Necromancer, which was only mentioned in a few passages in the original book, but in the film is now turned into a very real and imminent danger.

Jackson also takes time to tell some backstory as well, going into the story of how the Dwarves were expelled from their homeland, as well as the source of their dislike of the Elves, which is evident at times in the relationship between Gimli and Legolas in Lord Of The Rings.  There are also some other sequences made in order to tie this trilogy in with that of The Lord Of The Rings films.  All of these additions are nice, and do serve a purpose to explain the story.  However, they do tend to drag, which when combined with The Hobbit's own slow start, does result in the film being a bit slow in the beginning.

The visuals in the film, as all LOTR's films, are stunning.  There are some beautiful panoramic shots of the New Zealand countryside.  Rivendale, the Elventown close to the Misty Mountains, returns in all of it's dreamy, ethereal majesty, and a couple of new settings, the Goblin caves as well as Erebor itself, also look absolutely stunning.  Other memorable sequences from the books, such as Bilbo's encounter with Golem, the Dwarves' frantic escape from the Goblins, and finally, the rescue by the Eagles, are all brilliantly done, much as we have come to expect from Jackson's prior work on Tolkien.

The cast is exceptional, also as we have come to expect.  Martin Freeman, who is famous for his wonderful portrayal of Dr. Watson from the BBC Sherlock series, is Bilbo.  Much as his Watson, Freeman's Bilbo comes off as likable, although prone to the occasional awkward outburst.  He's brave, loyal, and has a noble quality to him that makes you take an instant admiration and liking to him.  These are qualities that were similar to the qualities that the four hobbits had in the prior film series, except all rolled into one.  However, Bilbo's character is not strictly contained to the book, as Jackson has Bilbo choosing to be a much more active agent in his fate, as opposed to the book, where he was at first kind of just along for the ride.  This, along with other changes to the narrative that Jackson has added, show Bilbo as being With this change, there result in other additions to the narrative, give Freeman a chance to show Bilbo at his best, and he does so wonderfully.

The dwarf company replaces the Fellowship in this trilogy, and the casting is fairly dead on.  Richard Armitage plays Thorin, who is every bit as serious, noble, stubborn and unyielding as he was in the novel.  Ken Stott plays Balin, who was probably my favorite dwarf of the novel, although he's much older in this movie than he was in my memory.  Other notable dwarves are Fili (Aidan Turner), who will likely be this film's bit of eye candy, much as Legolas was in the prior film, while James Nesbitt plays Bofur, who has a small role, but somewhat fun role as an early friend to Bilbo.  I'm sure all of the other dwarves will have greater roles in time, but at the moment, the movie merely sets up the new universe, while also trying to introduce multiple new characters at one pop.

Returning the series are Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, Cathe Blantchett, and Christopher Lee, as Gandalf the Grey, Elrond, Lady Galadriel, and Sarumon, respectively.  Gandalf is what we expect at this point, an advisor to the dwarves, as well as a protector to the hobbits in the journey.  Unlike the Gandalf in the Rings trilogy, this Gandalf is much more of brawler, due to his powers not yet achieving the strength that they would in the later films.  Sarumon and Galadriel are in the film to possibly set up the future conflict with the Necromancer, as well as serve as another tie-in to the prior trilogy, while Elrond's role in the book was minor, but important.

In closing, the first Hobbit film is a great film, and one that you should see.  It does take a while to get started, and it is overly long in some places, but all in all, it's a movie worth the price of the ticket.