Batman v Superman

To paraphrase a scene from Silicon Valley:

"How bad is this? Be honest. Is it Dark Knight Rises bad?"
(Uncomfortable silence)
"It's not Batman Forever bad, is it?"
(Uncomfortable silence)
"Fuck. Don't tell me this is Adam West bad."
"I'm sorry, Zack. It's Batman and Robin bad."

Okay, fine, that's not really fair. Batman and Robin is one of the worst films ever made. A century from now, it will still be one of the worst films ever made. If I can say nothing else nice about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, it's that it's not nearly as bad as Batman and Robin.

Here's the thing, though: Batman and Robin wasn't so much a film as it was a two-hour commercial for action figures and fast food tie-ins. It was a joke, from beginning to end. And while I doubt Warner Brothers and Joel Schumacher intentionally set out to make a bad movie, it's pretty obvious that they weren't even remotely concerned with making a good one, either.

Batman v Superman, on the other hand, clearly strives to be something great. Both on its own merits, as well as a launch pad for WB's entire slate of superhero films over the next decade. It has mixed results in regards to the latter, but the former felt like a complete failure.


Spoilers below...

The Good

-- The soundtrack. Is it a good thing that I'm leading off my list of the best elements of the film with the soundtrack? Probably not. But it's very good. Particularly the piece ("Is She With You?") that plays when Batman finds the picture of Wonder Woman from a hundred years ago, and when Diana looks at the files of the future-Justice Leaguers. In a film that didn't have much organic tension, Hans Zimmer did a great job of manufacturing some.

-- The alternate future. In an already busy story, I'm not entirely sure that the film needed to add on a possible future where Superman's a power-mad despot, to whatever Lex Luthor's plan was AND Doomsday AND the character tease at the end. But I'm glad it did. Seeing the future version of the Flash appear out of nowhere to issue his dire warning to Batman was the probably the purest "comic bookish" part of the entire film. Hence my enjoyment of it.

Crisis on Infinite Earths, Injustice: Gods Among Us, Dark Knight Returns...if you're going to steal, steal from the best, I suppose.

-- Superman's death. I mean, we all know it's temporary. But I appreciated the gesture. Remember how in Batman and Robin, Bane was basically just some random henchman who did nothing of note, let alone, his signature bit of breaking Batman's back? I don't know if using Doomsday here was necessarily a good move. And his changed origin was undeniably stupid. But if you are going to use Doomsday in your movie, he really needs to kill Superman. And he did.

-- Wonder Woman. I honestly didn't think I'd ever see the day where someone managed to pull off a live action Wonder Woman. Even as recently as a couple of years ago, that TV show starring Adrianne Palicki that mercifully never made it on the air, seemed to indicate that no one at WB had any idea what to do with the character. And yet, here she clicks. The casting. The costume. The lasso. I don't really think she needed a sword, but okay, that too. I'm actually looking forward to the upcoming Wonder Woman film, and that's something I never expected to say.


The Bad

--  The Waynes. Oh, were the Waynes killed by a mugger? I HADN'T HEARD. Seriously, we don't need a flashback to their deaths every single time Batman gets rebooted. Not even the condensed version we got here. You can only see the same two people gunned down so many times over the years before you start to wonder whether they might have had it coming. Just show Bruce Wayne brooding. We would've figured out what he was thinking about.

Also, it's a shame that an actor as talented as Jeffrey Dean Morgan was wasted in such a thankless role. Offhand, I can't think of another DC character he might have played down the road, but I'm sure they could have found something for him better than playing perennial corpse Thomas Wayne.

-- Batman. I just wasn't feeling Ben Affleck. Especially a 40-something Affleck. If you're restarting Batman, why begin his story when he's nearly ready for superhero retirement? I mean, Alfred spends the whole film making jokes about his age. Now, just like I don't want to see the Waynes murdered for the upteenth time, nor do I particularly want to see Batman once again just starting out. But a 30 year-old Batman a few years into his career would have been fine.

I didn't hate Affleck in the role. And he was probably better than most of the other actors being mentioned a couple years ago. But he wasn't as good as Bale, Keaton or frankly, even Kilmer.

-- Cameos. Was this a movie or summer camp for bored pundits? I suppose I didn't mind Neil deGrasse Tyson. But Anderson Cooper? Soledad O'Brien? Nancy Grace? Andrew Sullivan? I get the desire for realism, but throttle it back a bit.

-- Minor nitpicks:

1) Lex keeps the servers that contain all of his top secret Justice League files (which he conveniently provided movie poster-friendly logos for), in his house? Well, okay. I guess that makes sense for a paranoid individual. But keeping them in an unsecured room right next to where the catering staff is working during a party? That makes less sense. And when Mercy, Lex's assistant, finds Bruce Wayne hanging out in the server room, she just...leaves him in there? Maybe that sort of gross incompetence is why Lex had no problem sacrificing her.

2) In a departure from the comics, Gotham and Metropolis are virtually right next to each other. That's dumb. If so, then why is crime in Gotham so bad? If Superman can fly halfway around the world in seconds to rescue Lois from terrorists, why can't he patrol Gotham a couple of days a week? And why, after two years of being neighbors, is he only just now interested in tracking down Batman? (Who, after all this time, the local media is still referring to as "the Bat vigilante" for some reason.)

3) I guess Snyder got tired of hearing people complain about the high civilian body count in Man of Steel, because whenever there was a huge explosion in the third act, a newscaster could be heard saying "Thank God there was no one in the area!" We get it, Zack. You can drop the passive aggressiveness.

4) So, uh...Superman? That family that's stuck on the roof of their house because of the flooding? The one begging you to rescue them? Are you...I dunno. Going to help? Or just float above them, staring down creepily?

5) Who mails an engagement ring?


The Ugly

-- Branding criminals. Who the hell thought this was a good idea? If nothing else, this seems like the sort of idiotic thought that Affleck, a talented screenwriter and someone who's actually familiar with the character, should have talked Snyder out of. Aside from the sheer impracticality of branding criminals, Batman is apparently cool with them getting murdered inside prison as a direct result of his actions. Sorry. That's not Batman.

-- "He has the power to wipe out the entire human race and if we believe there is even a one percent chance that he is our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty." Yeah, also not Batman. Look, the toys and ass kicking are certainly elements of the character. But he's also one of the smartest men on the planet. I get he was bummed that old dude died at the beginning of the film. But you don't expect Batman to sound like Donald Rumsfeld.

-- Jimmy Olsen. Remember before Man of Steel came out, fans speculated that the character of Jenny might be a female Jimmy Olsen? Jimmy wishes that had turned out to be true! Because then he'd still be alive. Here's what Snyder said about it:

We just did it as this little aside because we had been tracking where we thought the movies were gonna go, and we don’t have room for Jimmy Olsen in our big pantheon of characters, but we can have fun with him, right?

If that's Snyder's idea of fun, that explains a lot about this movie.

-- Lex Luthor. From the moment Jesse Eisenberg was announced as Luthor, the end result was going to be one of two things: Genius outside-the-box casting or a complete and total misfire. It was not genius outside-the-box casting.

Look, I love Jesse Eisenberg. He's one of my favorite actors. And I suppose if you wanted someone to play an evil Mark Zuckerberg, it makes sense to hire the guy most famous for playing Mark Zuckerberg. The problem is, Lex Luthor isn't Mark Zuckerberg.

I'm generally not a huge fan of John Byrne, but the best thing he ever did as a writer was transform Luthor from a generic mad scientist villain into a billionaire industrialist. He was cool. He was calculated. He was ruthless. What he wasn't, was a Millennial with ADD, spouting lines that, not at all coincidentally, sounded like stuff Heath Ledger's Joker might have said. Just think about how much better Bryan Cranston would have been in this role.

-- Lex's plan. It made no sense. Like, even by comic book movie standards. Remember in Superman, how Lex was going to destroy the entire west coast, killing millions, just to turn a profit on real estate? That made more sense than what he was trying to do here. I mean, what was the point? Okay, fine. He wanted to make money. But he already had money. He wanted to protect the Earth from alien invaders. Again: fine. But then maybe don't engineer the death of the one guy who might be able to repel them should they show up. And if nothing else, Lex would want to be the one who killed Superman himself, not outsource the job to Batman. I won't even get into the logic of unleashing Doomsday on the world. Or blowing up Congress. Or really anything he does.

-- The general mood. There's this really great scene in the JLA/Avengers crossover from a while back: The Avengers have been transported from the Marvel Universe to the DC Universe. They appear on a busy street and immediately, people rush towards them. The Avengers prepare for the worst, since on their Earth, superheroes and mutants are viewed with fear and suspicion.

Instead, the Avengers are shocked when the crowd treats them like rock stars. Because everyone on DC's Earth loves superheroes. And that's one of the things I always loved about DC Comics. Marvel had all the heavy allegories about racism, and "With great power comes great responsibility," and so on. In Marvel Comics, being a hero was mostly a burden. But DC made it seem like putting on a garish costume and fighting crime was the most fun thing in the world. And if you could do it with your buddy, even better.

So...I don't know. Maybe that's not the movie that audiences wanted to see. But I would have.

My five Force Awakens nitpicks

Spoilers below, obviously.

1) The First Order

At the end of Return of the Jedi, the second Death Star has been destroyed, the Emperor and Vader are both dead and (in the re-release of the film, anyway) the entire galaxy is seen celebrating the end of the Empire.

If you walked out of a movie theater in 1983 and never heard of the Expanded Universe, you probably just assumed that there was lasting intergalactic peace and everyone lived happily ever after. If you were into the Expanded Universe, you knew that things were still a bit rocky, what with all the Prince Xizor and Grand Admiral Thrawn-types, and Han and Leia's son growing up to be a Sith (hey, that sounds familiar!). But generally speaking, things post-Jedi were much, much, much better than they were pre-A New Hope.

So it was a bit disappointing to find out that nope, not too long after that big party on Endor, everything went right back to shit.

What was even the point of the Rebellion fighting back against an overwhelming force like the Empire if their only reward was getting to do it all over again against The First Order? Not only have none of the main characters from the original trilogy moved on, they've actually regressed. Leia is once again hiding out in crappy rebel bases. Han and Chewie went back to smuggling. Luke is again in exile, though at least this time, he picked a nicer planet than Tatooine.

It just makes the whole struggle from those first films seem a bit futile, you know? Happy endings in movies are always fleeting when there's a sequel, but I'm not sure it should feel quite that fleeting.


2) The Starkiller Base

If there's one main criticism against Return of the Jedi that's hounded the movie since its release, it's that the story is basically just a rehash of A New Hope in regards to the climax once again revolving around the destruction of the Death Star.

So what did JJ Abrams and company do when they got their shot to write a new Star Wars film after having thirty years to think about what they'd do? Introduce yet another Death Star! Sure, it had a different name. And it seemed to be somewhat more efficient at blowing up planets than either of the first two. But it was still a Death Star, complete with a convenient structural weakness that could result in its complete destruction.

And, I mean, look: Apple has hundreds of engineers who are constantly hard at work on the iPhone, designing every new version and correcting the flaws of each previous one. You're telling me that no one in the First Order can come up with an ultimate weapon that can't be taken out by a plucky group of X-Wing pilots? If the answer is no...well, okay, fair enough. Steve Jobs wasn't perfect, either. But then maybe it'd make sense to guard the base's shield generator with, say, 1,000 troops instead of just a couple dozen? You know those rolling robots with shields that the Trade Federation had in The Phantom Menace? Even just a few of those would have gotten the job done!

Roughly 42% of Star Wars films have ended with the destruction of a Death Star or Death Star-like weapon. That's enough. No more. Next time, please come up with something original.


3) Han's death

Even if you weren't spoiled ahead of time, I think lots of Star Wars fans expected Han to die in The Force Awakens. Harrison Ford famously wanted Han killed in Jedi, and never really seemed enthusiastic about reprising the character. Maybe at this stage in his career, it was being reduced to doing films like Morning Glory or Cowboys & Aliens that changed his mind, but it seemed unlikely that he'd want to do an entire new trilogy.

But the moment Han called out to Kylo Ren on the catwalk, I suspect even those who had never seen a Star Wars film before, knew what was about to happen. In my theater, anyway, there were certainly no surprised gasps, or any discernible reaction, when one of the most iconic and beloved film characters ever got impaled by a lightsaber and fell to this death.

I'm fine with Han dying. I imagine Harrison Ford is really fine with Han dying. But it would've had so more dramatic effect if it had happened suddenly and without warning instead of the cliche of the parent thinking he'd gotten through to a villainous child, only to get killed for his trouble.


4) Rey

I feel I need to begin with a disclaimer, because holy shit, people on Twitter are pissy about this.

I love Rey. I think she's a fantastic character. I love Daisy Ridley. I'm amazed that, per her IMDB page, just two years ago she was just doing guest spots on British TV series. I wouldn't be surprised if she ended up being the next Jennifer Lawrence.

Currently, there's a bit of debate about whether or not she's a "Mary Sue." Do I think she is? Not especially. But I also don't think it's a completely out there suggestion, and I'm surprised by people's eagerness to shut down even the conversation about it. I get that the reaction from some idiots to Furiosa in Mad Max: Fury Road left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths in regards to fan treatment of female genre characters, but I'm also not sure that lashing out at a fairly mild critique of another female genre character is the right response, either.

To the extent I have a problem with Rey--and I think this is where those who do consider her a Mary Sue are coming from--it's not that she's a strong, capable female character. It's great she's a strong, capable female character. In Episode IX, if Jedi Master Rey ends up fighting Kylo Ren and the clones of Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine and Darth Maul, and wins, fantastic. I'd happily watch that movie.

But...she's not there yet. Nor should she be. It's just the first film in the trilogy.

Bear this in mind: The events of The Force Awakens take place over just a few days. In that time, Rey, who obviously has latent Force abilities, but has never consciously used them before the movie begins, is able to resist Kylo Ren's use of the Force to obtain information from her. She's able to Jedi Mind Trick a Stormtrooper. She's able to effectively wield a lightsaber in a fight and defeat a far more experienced opponent.

That's not supposed to be the starting point for a Jedi. Any Jedi. Male or female. And yeah, I'm really hoping there's a good reason why Finn was able to use a lightsaber so well, too. I don't imagine Storm Troopers get much sword training in the First Order.

The biggest issue I had with JJ Abrams' Star Trek reboot was how Kirk went directly from Starfleet Academy cadet to captain of the Enterprise at the end of the film. When we first meet James T. Kirk (the original one, I mean), he's young, but he's obviously had plenty of experience before he wound up in command of a starship. Abrams skipped over all that boring stuff just so the film could end with Kirk in the captain's chair.

We all know Rey will probably end up being a great Jedi Knight. And just like we did with Luke, we have three films in which to get to that point. There was no need to rush it right off the bat. By doing so, it may not make her a Mary Sue, but it's not exactly great character development, either.

It's entirely possible that we'll learn something in the next film that will cause all of this to make sense. But until then, I don't think anyone can be blamed for basing their judgment on just the facts that we have to go on.


5) General Hux

Isn't he a little young to be in charge of the entire military operation? Grand Moff Tarkin was, like, 70. If the First Order can promise this level of career advancement potential to new recruits, no wonder the Rebellion is so badly outnumbered.

Brutality and business

Whenever a professional athlete does something for the good of his career that's likely to be seen in a less-than-favorable light by his team's fans, he's quick to point out that ultimately, sports is a business and he's just doing what's best for him and his family. And you know what? Fair enough.

When Ian Desmond turned down the Nationals' offer of a shitload of money for a new contract last season because it wasn't a SHITLOAD!!! of money, he said that he had an obligation to honor the sacrifices that the players who came before him in MLB had made, as well as look out for the financial well-being of those who will come after him. Fair enough.

When Matt Harvey expressed doubts about pitching over 180 innings this season, despite his team being in a pennant race and an energized fan base that's already putting down deposits on playoff tickets, he explained that he needed to think about his future earnings, which could be endangered if he ignored his doctors' advice, blew out his elbow and required a second Tommy John surgery. Fair enough.

And throughout the years, in every sport, in every city in America, athletes have routinely made decisions that are based on money, not intangible things like loyalty, team pride, winning, and so on, that we, as fans, like to believe are more important.

Again: Fair enough.

Now, are these rationalizations somewhat self-serving? Kind of. MLB free agency wouldn't have crumbled if Desmond had decided to give the Nationals a hometown discount and play out his career in D.C. Harvey's arm probably isn't going to fall off the moment he pitches his 181st inning (or for that matter, his 200th). But that's their business. It's their money. It's their health. Do whatever you want, guys. Godspeed.

Now that we've established that sports is a business, I do wonder, though: Shouldn't that work both ways?

Yesterday, the Nationals hosted the Mets in what was inarguably the most important game the Nats have played all season. As of Monday morning, the Nats were four games behind the Mets in the NL East. With a sweep, they would have been just one game back. Even taking two out of three would leave them in good shape, and yesterday's game was widely seen as the easiest for them to win.

If you've bothered to read this far, you probably know how the game went: The Nats were behind quickly. Then they pulled ahead. Then the game was tied. Then the Nats fell behind. Then the Nats really fell behind. Game over. Nats lose.

And aside from the usual next-day D.C. sports talk radio panic, that would have been that, except that Bryce Harper was asked about the fan atmosphere in the stadium after the game, and responded, "I mean, they left in the seventh, so that's pretty brutal. I don't know. Whatever."

Brutal indeed. I'm sure it wasn't fun for the players to be in the dugout and see fans streaming for the exits. It probably made them feel discouraged and maybe thinking that playing for the Yankees might not be a such a bad idea after all. And I like these players, so I'm genuinely sorry that happened.

Except...if sports is a business, weren't fans just being rational actors?

People came to Nats Park to see their favorite team beat a division rival and boost their chances of getting into the playoffs. Once it became apparent that likely wasn't going to happen, why not leave early to beat the crowds to the Metro, or grab a beer, or find a good Labor Day picnic, or whatever tickled their fancy more than watching the Nats implode?

I'm not saying it's what I would have done. I'm not saying it was the "right" thing for people to do. But one of the first lessons in economics we learn when we're kids is the concept of opportunity cost. If you believe watching your team blow a lead in an excruciating fashion is less fun or fulfilling than something else you could be doing, why not do that other thing? Why sit and be miserable on a hot day out of a sense of duty? Why do athletes get to play the "It's just business" card, but fans can't?

Pro athletes aren't paid lots of money because their ability to throw touchdowns or hit home runs or make fifty foot jump shots have any intrinsic value. They're paid that much because fans are willing to pay their money to see them do those things. When athletes do them poorly, fans stop coming. Fans leave early. And if you want to make fun of D.C. fans' fair-weather nature, well, okay. But compare the crowds at Citizens Bank Park in the supposedly die-hard sports town of Philadelphia when the Phillies were NL East champions every season, versus now. It's not a D.C. sports fan thing. It's a human nature thing. It's just business.

As far as Bryce goes, I'm fine with him calling out fans. I like it. It shows he cares. But I'll also point this out: Last winter at NatsFest, he was supposed to appear, as did every other player on the team. Take photos. Sign autographs. All that good stuff. Except at the time, he and the team were embroiled in a tiff over money. Not even a lot of money. The kind of money that frankly, the Nats were stupid not to just pony up if it would keep their star player happy. But they didn't, which displeased Harper's agent, Scott Boras. And to show his displeasure, he advised Harper to pull a no-show at NatsFest. Which he did.

Who did this hurt? Matt Williams or Mike Rizzo? If they each made a list of their top 10,000 priorities in life, I very much doubt NatsFest would be on it. (Also apparently not making that list: A functioning, well-utilized bullpen.) The Lerners? With or without Harper, NatsFest was a success. Crowds were big. Merchandise was sold. Season ticket plans were bought. I'm sure they weren't displeased.

Nope. The fans were the ones who got screwed. Nationals fans. Bryce Harper fans. Pretty much everyone who paid money to show up. I mean, the fans at the game yesterday may have left early, but at least they came out in the first place. Can Harper say the same in regards to the one day a year specifically set aside for him to show his appreciation to his fans?

(Once the dispute was settled amicably just a few days later, Boras indicated that Harper would do something special for fans to make up for him not showing up at NatsFest. As far as I know, he hasn't. I mean, yeah, there's the MVP-caliber season. But I don't think that's what he meant.)

Anyway, yes, sports is a business. But it's a business for fans, too. Players get paid to be at games. Fans don't. All they have is their time. If they would rather spend that elsewhere than at the stadium watching the former presumptive 2015 World Series champions bumble their way out of the playoffs, that's their right. I'm sure it was indeed brutal for Bryce Harper to see fans leave early. It was also brutal for fans to see Bryce Harper strike out three times.

So....I don't know. Maybe let's just agree that yesterday wasn't either party's finest hour and move on.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Comic-Con trailer

1) This wasn't in the trailer, but was mentioned at the San Diego Comic-Con panel, so I'll throw it in here: I don't especially like the idea of Metropolis and Gotham City being neighboring cities. I think you need to have a little geographic distance between the two. Otherwise, the entire point of Batman is diminished.

Suppose the Joker is threatening to poison the Gotham reservoir. If you're the GCPD, do you wait until night time, turn on the Bat-Signal, wait for Batman to decipher whatever clue the Joker has left as to his whereabouts, then track him down using a combination of detective work and various underworld sources...or do you call in Superman, who can just fly over to Gotham and probably find the Joker within ten minutes?

2) During the Schumacher film era, when people were fantasy casting future Bat-sequels, Jeremy Irons' name was often mentioned as a possible Ra's al Ghul. Hearing his voiceover here makes me sorry that never came to pass. (Although I guess if it had, it would have meant more Joel Schumacher Batman films. Never mind.)

Speaking of actors with cool voices, Lawrence Fishburne saying "Nobody cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman," was pretty awesome.

3) Between Jonathan Kent telling Clark that maybe he should have let a busload of kids drown in Man of Steel, and now Martha telling him that he doesn't owe the world a thing, I'm starting to wonder how Clark turned out as well-adjusted as he did. I like my Kents nice and wholesome, thank you.

4) Most of my concerns about Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor remain. The dialogue sounds right ("Devils don't come from hell beneath us. They come from the sky."), but it comes off as...smarmy. Luthor is a lot of things. But he isn't smarmy. I'm assuming the hair will come off eventually. But the real question is, why does he need to have it in the first place?

5) "He has the power to wipe out the entire human race. And we have to destroy him." Even acknowledging that they've given Bruce Wayne a really good reason to have a grudge against Superman, by having him be in Metropolis when half of it was destroyed, does this sound like something Batman would say? Over the years in the comics, the Joker has shot and crippled Batgirl, beat Robin to death with a crowbar, and racked up a body count somewhere in the four digits, and Batman's never vowed to destroy him. In fact, Batman seems oddly content to keep locking him up, despite knowing he'll eventually escape again.

6) Do we really need yet another flashback to the Waynes getting shot? Couldn't they have just shown Bruce Wayne sitting in a chair brooding? I think we all would've figured out what he was thinking about.

7) To the extent that it's possible for the Wonder Woman costume not to look absurd on-screen, I guess Gal Gadot pulls it off. It seems like WB was in a no-win situation here. If they changed it, fanboys would've cried foul. If they kept it largely similar to the comics, non-fanboys would've called foul. Even now, the former are criticizing the color scheme and the latter are criticizing the lack of coverage. I guess the lesson is, you can never please everyone, so why even try?

8) I don't know what's going on here, but Batman's disguise skills need work.

The Baseball Fan's Guide to Coveting Bryce Harper

 

Ever since Bryce Harper was drafted by the Nationals, it seems like baseball fans have been asking one question: When is Bryce Harper going to leave the Nationals?

To an extent, I get it. For the first several years after coming to D.C., the team was at best, a bunch of lovable losers. (Or in the case of guys like Lastings Milledge, Elijah Dukes and Nyjer Morgan, just losers.) At worst, it was a complete joke of a franchise. How many teams lose a GM because he's the subject of a federal investigation? How many teams sign a free agent (Adam Dunn) who says he only came here because he had no other options? How many teams have their manager quit mid-season? How many teams can't even correctly spell its own name on its star player's jersey?

Things have obviously gotten much (much, much, much, much, much, much, much) better since then. The team's gone from a perennial last place squad and playing in a stadium nicknamed Citizens Bank Park South, to a perennial World Series favorite. But despite this, there's still a perception that Washington is just a way station for Harper before he goes on to bigger and better things.

As a baseball fan, you yourself may be wondering where your favorite team stands in the Bryce Harper Sweepstakes (should said sweepstakes indeed end up taking place). Do you have a chance at getting him? Was that caller on your local sports talk radio station correct when he listed a bunch of reasons why Harper would be playing in your city in 2019? Let's find out!

If You're a Yankees Fan

1) The Yankees will simply buy Bryce Harper

The Good News: Yup, the Yankees will have the money to sign Bryce Harper. Because they're the Yankees.

The Bad News: The era of George Steinbrenner collecting elite players the way an obsessive compulsive guy collects baseball cards appears to be over. Hank and Hal Steinbrenner seem a lot more fiscally responsible than their dad. That's not to say they wouldn't love to throw a ton of money at Harper. Obviously, they will, if given the opportunity. But do you really get the sense that these guys have the same...entitled, arrogant, reckless, whatever you want to call it...attitude of "I don't care what it takes...sign him!" that their dad did? I don't.

More importantly than that, here's a fun fact that most Yankees fans seem to either be unaware of or conveniently choose to ignore: Ted Lerner, the owner of the Nationals, is rich. Like, really rich. I don't mean rich like, say, Jeff Loria, who's worth a paltry $500 million. Or John Henry, who at $1.6 billion, is just sort of rich. I mean really, really fucking rich. 

Yeah. Richer than the Steinbrenners. 

Now, just to be clear, no one is arguing that the Nationals are a more valuable franchise than the Yankees. But in terms of their respective owners' personal wealth, it's not even close. Forbes lists the Steinbrenners' current net worth as $3.1 billion. The Lerners are listed at $4.8 billion.

Does this mean that the Lerners are a lock to re-sign Harper? Of course not. All I'm saying is, if money is going to be your central argument as to why Bryce Harper in pinstripes is a preordained inevitability, make sure you have all the facts. There's not going to be a repeat of that scene from Moneyball where Brad Pitt sadly watches them take down the banners of all the players he couldn't afford to keep. The Nationals gave Jayson Werth stupid money just to make a point to the rest of the league. They signed Max Scherzer to an absurd contract when they already had the best rotation in baseball. You really think they won't spend to keep Harper?

2) Well, even still, the Nationals can't afford to keep all their impending free agents and Bryce Harper!

The Good News: You're right! They can't.

The Bad News: The Nationals are willing to let most or even all of them go, or else Mike Rizzo is bluffing like crazy.

Ian Desmond didn't think $90 million was enough? No problem. Rizzo went out and traded for Trea Turner. Bye, Ian.

Jordan Zimmermann would rather play closer to home? Fair enough. The Nats will just pencil in Lucas Giolito for a June 2016 debut. Also, that Joe Ross kid seems pretty good.

Denard Span is great. But so is Michael Taylor for a fraction of the salary.

Stephen Strasburg is going to cost a fortune? Probably, but if I had to bet right now, I'd say that'll be some other team's problem.

Additionally, just as Yankees fans enjoy listing all the bad contracts that'll be off the books by the time Harper hits free agency, Werth's contract will be history and Ryan Zimmerman's will be close to it, leaving Scherzer as the only National (as of now) with a crazy salary.

In other words, there should be plenty of money available. Plus, the whole MASN dispute will undoubtedly be resolved by then, most likely in a way favorable to the Nationals. So there'll be even more. Also, did I mention the Lerners are really rich?

3) The Yankees were Bryce Harper's favorite team when he was a kid

The Good News: You know, I've never been entirely clear on why this is relevant, but Yankees fans really seem hung up on it, so I'll just smile politely and nod.

The Bad News: So let me get this straight: When he was a child, a professional baseball player had a favorite baseball team. One that's different than the baseball team he currently plays for. That's amazing.

Look, I like Harper. But he's always come off as very much a bandwagon sports fan. (Which, to be fair, might well be expected of someone who grew up in a city without any professional teams.) Besides the Yankees, his other favorites growing up were Duke, the Cowboys and the Lakers. It doesn't get more bandwagony than that. I don't know if he was a soccer fan as a kid, but if he was, I imagine he liked whoever David Beckham was playing for at any given time.

Sentimentality is nice, but as athletes are always quick to remind us when it's contract negotiation time, sports is a business. LeBron grew up in Ohio. Didn't stop him from taking his talents to Miami when he decided that was best for his career. Ultimately, Harper will most likely sign with whatever team offers him the best combination of money and winning potential. The Nationals should be in a position to offer both in 2019.

4) Bryce Harper and Matt Williams don't get along

The Good News: There was a period in 2014 where this was most likely true.

The Bad News: You know what baseball players who don't get along with their managers don't tend to do? Compliment them a lot and perform special high-five rituals with them after hitting home runs.

Last season, Matt Williams, for whatever reason, did something dumb. He thought it would be a good idea to assert his authority over his new team by benching his star player for not hustling during a routine out, thus causing Harper a fair amount of public embarrassment. Other Nationals players said they supported the move. This was probably true. Mike Rizzo said he supported the move. I suspect this wasn't entirely true. Harper said he supported the move. This was most assuredly a lie.

It's telling that despite numerous instances since then of Nationals players not hustling, making mental errors, or just plain fucking up, no one else has ever been benched during a game. So either Williams realized his original approach to management wasn't a productive one or he was advised (ordered) by someone higher up to chill out. Regardless, it's been peaceful at Nats Park since then.

And let's be honest: In a battle between the coach and the star player, the coach never wins. If the team truly believes that Matt Williams is a serious impediment to re-signing Harper, he'll very quickly be found day drinking in that same bar Jim Riggleman was seen at after he quit.  

5) Scott Boras always lets his clients reach free agency, at which point the Yankees will pounce

The Good News: This is almost always true.

The Bad News: The key word there is "almost." It's not like Boras considers this to be religious dogma. He's said himself that it's not a hard and fast rule. If the Nationals offered Harper a better contract than the one the Marlins gave Giancarlo Stanton, you think Boras wouldn't drive Harper down to Nats Park himself to sign it?

A lot can happen between now and when Harper's a free agent. Harper could be seriously injured. He could regress. He could, against his agent's wishes, decide to sign a team friendly deal that gives the Nationals more flexibility to sign other players. So there are incentives not to wait and jeopardize what will undoubtedly going to be a record deal. Even if he does sign a huge contract now, he would still conceivably be in line for another one while still in his prime.

All it'll take is Ted Lerner waking up one morning, saying "Screw it," and deciding to write Harper a really, really big check. Probable? Not especially. But not completely nuts, either.

If You're a Red Sox Fan

The Good News: Simply in terms of payroll capability, I suppose you deserve to be part of the conversation.

The Bad News: If you want him, you're going to have to break the bank and outbid both the Nationals and the Yankees and God knows who else. Not somehow acquire him in a trade for Henry Owens and Allen Craig.

If You're a Dodgers Fan

The Good News: For now, this is just baseless speculation, but if it's not the Nationals and it's not the Yankees, it seems like the Dodgers would make the most sense. First and foremost, they have the money from the obscene TV deal they signed, and they're clearly not afraid to spend it on players. Second, the situation would seem to suit Harper's needs well: A team in a big media market that's poised to win a title, but also without a clear team leader, allowing him to slide into that role. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Los Angeles can offer something neither the Nationals or Yankees can: Proximity to home. Harper may like D.C. well enough, but shortly after every season ends, he's on a plane to Las Vegas. I'm not really sure what he does all winter since he doesn't gamble. But he seems to love it there.

The Bad News: Even the Dodgers' resources have limits. Getting into a bidding war with the Nationals and the Yankees seems insane. And it's not like the Dodgers aren't already competitive without him.

If You're a Rays, Blue Jays, Orioles, Royals, Twins, Tigers, White Sox, Indians, Astros, Rangers, Angels, Mariners, A's, Mets, Braves, Marlins, Phillies, Cardinals, Cubs, Pirates, Reds, Brewers, Giants, Padres, Diamondbacks or Rockies Fan

The Good News: Regardless of where he ends up playing, you'll be able to watch Bryce Harper on TV.

The Bad News: But he won't be signing with your team.

If You're a Nationals Fan

1) The Lerners Are rich, right?

The Good News: Very rich. I think I covered this.

The Bad News: There's a difference between having money and choosing to spend it. If there's a bidding war for Bryce Harper where both sides are fully engaged, I think the Nationals win. The Yankees will want him. The Nationals will need him.

And yet, something happened last winter that should have sent a chill down the spine of every Nats fan. The team and Scott Boras disagreed over whether Harper was eligible for arbitration and with it, a relatively small raise. The team played hardball. So did Harper and Boras, with Harper skipping NatsFest to make his point, which caused Rizzo to get uncharacteristically pissy. Both sides made up soon afterwards, but the damage was done.

I'm sure the team and Harper/Boras honestly each thought they were in the right. But if you're the Nats...who gives a shit? If you can make the cornerstone of your franchise happy by giving him a slight bump in pay, you do it.

The downside to Ted Lerner being filthy rich is how he came to make that money. He's a developer. Which means he reflexively tends to fight for every penny, even when he shouldn't. When Nats Park opened, the team refused to pay rent to D.C. for weeks because it found a few minor problems. A couple of years ago, when Lerner wanted to put a roof on the ballpark, he didn't go to Mayor Gray to talk logistics or ask permission to pay for it himself. He went looking for a $300 million taxpayer handout. For anyone else, these would be examples of insane behavior. For a developer, it's just another Tuesday.

It's possible that the Lerners will decide that they don't need Harper and let him go rather than pay him the hundreds of millions it would take to keep him. It's a scary thought and would defy all logic and reason. But if we're being honest, the possibility can't be discounted. Much has been written about the 89 year-old Ted Lerner wanting to win a World Series before he shuffles off this mortal coil. One wonders if the Nats doing so in the next year or two would make it more or less likely that he'd consider keeping Harper to be a priority.

2) He seems pretty happy here

The Good News: Every time Harper tweets a photo of him hanging out in D.C. (admiring the monuments, dropping by Sugar Shack on his way to the stadium, etc.) I get a nice fuzzy feeling. Some players have really embraced the community since coming here. Werth. Gonzalez. Scherzer. Span. Then you have guys like Strasburg, who seem indifferent, if not anxious to leave. So far, Harper seems to be more of the former than the latter.

The Bad News: You never really know. Some athletes grow to love their cities so much, they don't ever want to play anywhere else. I wouldn't say that Harper is among them. (Yet!)

3) Bryce Harper's said he wants to play for one team for his whole career

The Good News: He sure did! Yay, us!

The Bad News: Remember before when I questioned the idea that just because Harper liked the Yankees as a kid, that somehow mattered? Unfortunately, the same logic more or less holds true here.

Athletes say weird stuff that they don't necessarily mean all the time. Or that they do mean at the time, but later change their minds. I don't doubt that Harper would ideally like to be the same type of player as Derek Jeter, Chipper Jones and Cal Ripken Jr., and stay with one team for his entire career. But then again, Pablo Sandoval said he wanted to retire a Giant literally just days before he signed with the Red Sox. If the Lerners get cheap or don't field a championship caliber team, will Harper decide that modeling his career after players who were on multiple teams may not be so bad after all? Of course he will.

Wrapping Up

Ultimately, Harper will sign with the team that provides him the best total package of money, winning, and opportunities to leverage his star power. That may sound simplistic, but based on the number of Yankees fans who believe that it's just about money and Nationals fans who hope that Natitude will be enough to keep him, it seems like something that needs to be pointed out.

As a Nats fan, I obviously want Harper to stay in D.C. And ultimately, I think he will. The Lerners may have an annoying petty streak that leads to things like the arbitration debacle and getting into pissing contests with local government, but they're also smart businesspeople. Baseball has finally reached a place in Washington where the team is both popular and profitable. But that can change really quickly. The best way to ensure that the team keeps winning and that the fans keep showing up is to keep Harper in Washington, no matter what it takes.

And if they don't, if they decide that it's simply not worth it to keep a player who may very well be one of the greatest of his generation...well, it's not like D.C. sports fans don't already have plenty of experience with terrible owners destroying their teams.

 We'll cope.

Aloha

In every really bad movie, there's usually one defining moment where it suddenly hits you that you're watching a really bad movie. That moment in Aloha comes in the first minute. Based on the reviews, I knew there was a very good chance that it was going to be a disappointment. I just didn't think the disappointment would come quite so fast.

The fact that it's a bad film is unfortunate on a couple of levels.

First, it's a Cameron Crowe film. When your resume includes Say Anything, Jerry McGuire and Almost Famous, you're allowed the occasional misstep (which he already had with Elizabethtown and, to a lesser degree, Vanilla Sky), but you're not supposed to stumble this badly. The closest analogue to this situation is M. Night Shyamalan, who was doing just fine through The Village, bombed horribly with Lady in the Water, and crossed the Rubicon with The Happening. Aloha isn't Lady in the Water-bad, but like that film came to define Shyamalan, to use a line that was in Aloha's trailer but was cut out of the film, Crowe is going to wear it like Flava Flav wears a clock.

Speaking of the trailer, that's the second thing that felt like a letdown. I really liked the trailer. Was it corny? A bit. But it hit all the right buttons for me. Characters saying inspiring, Crowe-ish dialogue, Bill Murray doing Bill Murray things, and a fantastic song, "First" by Cold War Kids.

As it turns out, the trailer is something of a misrepresentation of the actual product. It's implied that the first scene in it is what sets off Brian's exile to Hawaii. That scene is actually towards the very end of the film. In the full context of the film, the snippets of dialogue don't work nearly as well. Bill Murray's character isn't as warm and cuddly as he appears to be. And so on. I guess trailers don't need to be 100% accurate, but nor should they attempt to portray an entirely different story.

So in general, it's safe to say that Aloha isn't a good film. But there were several specific things that really drove me nuts. Things that were not just bad, but actually insulting to my intelligence as a moviegoer. And bear in mind, just a few weeks ago, I watched a film where Vin Diesel drove a car through a skyscraper. So I don't think I'm being overly-picky here.

I could probably come up with a top ten list, but in the interest of time, I'll stick with the five worst parts of Aloha:

1) It's been 13 years since Brian and Tracy last saw each other. Tracy's and Woody's daughter, Grace, is 12 years old. Anyone who's seen any movie ever immediately realizes what that means, and to the film's credit, when Tracy tells Brian that Grace is his daughter, it's not presented as a big dramatic reveal.

But how stupid does that make Woody? Did he and Tracy start dating literally the moment after she and Brian broke up? Because otherwise, she would've been several weeks pregnant when they began seeing each other. It's later revealed that Woody does indeed know that Grace is Brian's, but it's unclear if he's always known or realized it when he saw the two of them together. Tracy certainly seemed to be under the impression that he's completely oblivious.

2) Other than the demands of the plot, why was Allison assigned to Brian as a liaison in the first place? He seems to know as much, if not more, about Hawaiian culture than she does. And in an amazing coincidence, he's even close friends with the Hawaiian king who he needs to negotiate with. So she never gets around to doing all that much liaising.

One of the critics' biggest knocks on the film is that Emma Stone was cast as someone who's a quarter Hawaiian and a quarter Chinese. This is actually one of the few things about Aloha that didn't bug me, if for no other reason than that Emma Stone is the one consistently bright spot in the whole film. But from a plot perspective, wouldn't it have made more sense to assign Brian an administrator who's 100% Hawaiian instead of a fighter pilot?

But here's what I really don't get: Why is Allison staying in the hotel room right next to Brian's? She lives there. In Hawaii. She works on that base. Doesn't she have her own apartment?

3) Brian's mission is to negotiate with the sovereign Hawaiian people for a public blessing so that Bill Murray's company can build something or other on sacred ground. After some back and forth with the king, where Brian seems offended by the idea that a military contractor might attempt to do something evil like put weapons into outer space, he brokers a deal where he gets the blessing in exchange for the Hawaiians receiving two mountains and free cell phone service. Who owns the mountains Brian gives away? Which private company will be forced to provide free cell phone service, presumably for life? It doesn't matter. Brian just single-handedly makes the deal. You'd think a military liaison would be like, "Whoa, hey, let's slow down," but Allison seems down with the plan, too.

Did they really need to fly in Brian for this? Because it seems like it could have been taken care of with a phone call. That or, once again, you would think there would be someone already in Hawaii who could handle this.

4) It turns out that Brian isn't just a smooth-talking military contractor who can charm Hawaiian kings. He's also a master hacker. Like, the film just springs this on us out of nowhere in the last fifteen minutes.

As Bill Murray's satellite is shooting up into space, they discover that the Chinese have hacked it. Remember when Brian told the Hawaiian king that the satellite his company is launching doesn't have any weapons on it? IT TOTALLY DOES. But no big deal. Brian says he can undo the Chinese hack while the rocket is launching.

Even if the satellite didn't have a giant laser or nukes or whatever on board (I don't think we ever really find out what sort of weapon was involved), this seems like a grossly irresponsible thing to do. There's no reason given why the launch can't be cancelled. But luckily, Brian is able to undo the hack. We know this because a bunch of red text on his monitor turns green and the control room breaks out into relieved applause, as control rooms in movies do.

5) But all that is just set up for the big climax. Just when you thought the movie had run out of old friends for Brian to run into on Hawaii, there's one more. Some slovenly guy with a beard who works alone in an observatory, who's clearly also some sort of hacker. You can tell because he's a slovenly guy with a beard who works alone in an observatory.

Again, Brian hasn't been back to Hawaii in 13 years. Imagine if someone, even someone who was a really, really close friend once, who you hadn't seen in 13 years, asked you for a favor. Would you do it? What if that favor was helping him blow up a billion dollar military satellite, where the penalty would almost certainly be spending the rest of your life in federal prison? It takes Brian roughly ten seconds to talk his buddy into completely throwing his life away, and before you know it, Brian is telling him to--and I wish I was making this up--pump "every sound in recorded history" up to the satellite. I know you can do a lot of shit with computers nowadays, but I'm pretty sure you still can't do that.

But it works. The satellite blows up. From sound. But instead of being dragged off to Guantanamo Bay with his friend, Brian is allowed to leave under his own free will. Alec Baldwin yells at him and Bill Murray makes ominous threats, but you never really get the sense that Brian just committed an act of domestic terrorism, which he totally did.

None of that matters, though! Because the government finds out that Bill Murray actually did have weapons on board that satellite. Everyone seems mostly amused by the whole thing, as if a billionaire industrialist sending weapons into space, presumably to be used for evil, isn't really that big of a deal. At least when James Bond stops someone like that, at the end of the film, everyone at MI6 appears to be greatly relieved.

The scene where Bill Murray gets arrested, alone, on the beach, looking up the sky and I guess contemplating how close he came to ruling the world, before being dragged away by the FBI, sums up the entire Aloha experience: It looks nice, but makes no sense whatsoever.

But here's the thing: In spite of all the stupid shit I just described, and lots more stupid shit that I didn't...I did in fact kind of enjoy Aloha.

I always hate it when film geeks attempt to deflect criticism of a movie they like by claiming that the people who don't share their opinion simply "don't get" what the director was attempting. So I won't do that here. But at the same time, I do have this feeling that Crowe was attempting something. I can't define it, and he clearly failed miserably at it. But there's just enough of it sprinkled throughout the film that I appreciated it on some level.

Or maybe I'm just trying to rationalize liking a bad movie. It's been known to happen.