• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Riggo#44

All Things Star Wars Thread -- Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Our only hope rests in a farm boy whose first reaction to handling a light saber is to point it at his face and stare into the hilt. 

 

 

 

But fortunately we have an F-16 sitting around which he's never seen before, but we're going to hand him the keys and send him into combat, anyway. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

But fortunately we have an F-16 sitting around which he's never seen before, but we're going to hand him the keys and send him into combat, anyway. 

 

An lo-and-****ing-behold...he hits the target none of the other thoroughly trained and seasoned pilots could come close to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

An lo-and-****ing-behold...he hits the target none of the other thoroughly trained and seasoned pilots could come close to.

 

Once read a letter to the editor on the science fiction magazine, attacking Star Wars for being anti-science. The writer argued that the whole theme was about ignoring facts and science, and just wishing for things to happen. 

 

He argued that the movie was fantasy, not science fiction. Complete with wizards and sword fights. 

 

I remember the line "Trust your feelings, Luke. Switch off that multi-billion-dollar targeting computer. Eyeball it in."

 

And then, a few months later, they published a rebuttal letter. 

 

The author stated that, for qualifications, he was an animator on the film. He explained, for people who wondered what an animator is doing on a live action films, that they worked on special effects. For example, he pointed out that when the Jawa shot R2 with a fire extinguisher, an animator drew lightening around all the seams on him. 

 

And he asserted that the movie wasn't about anti-science so much as it was about the triumph of the human spirit, and of Good versus Evil. 

 

And he concluded with "And 'The Force' didn't make that proton torpedo go in that exhaust port, I did."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Larry said:

Once read a letter to the editor on the science fiction magazine, attacking Star Wars for being anti-science. The writer argued that the whole theme was about ignoring facts and science, and just wishing for things to happen. 

 

So the joyless trolls were always there, they just have a wider voice now.

 

12 minutes ago, Larry said:

Trust your feelings, Luke. Switch off that multi-billion-dollar targeting computer. Eyeball it in."

 

Ok, that's funny right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Once read a letter to the editor on the science fiction magazine, attacking Star Wars for being anti-science. The writer argued that the whole theme was about ignoring facts and science, and just wishing for things to happen. 

 

He argued that the movie was fantasy, not science fiction. Complete with wizards and sword fights. 

 

I remember the line "Trust your feelings, Luke. Switch off that multi-billion-dollar targeting computer. Eyeball it in."

 

And then, a few months later, they published a rebuttal letter. 

 

The author stated that, for qualifications, he was an animator on the film. He explained, for people who wondered what an animator is doing on a live action films, that they worked on special effects. For example, he pointed out that when the Jawa shot R2 with a fire extinguisher, an animator drew lightening around all the seams on him. 

 

And he asserted that the movie wasn't about anti-science so much as it was about the triumph of the human spirit, and of Good versus Evil. 

 

And he concluded with "And 'The Force' didn't make that proton torpedo go in that exhaust port, I did."

 

My rebuttal to both of them is they have too much time on their hands. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, for all we know "the force" could be some incredibly advanced nanotechnology (midichlorians) that used fundamental forces of physics to influence the outside universe and was introduced into certain people so far back that nobody currently (currently in that fictional universe) understands what they truly are.

 

You can retcon science into many things if you want. Lighsabers were originally designed as "laser swords" but now the canon is that it's actually plasma. Which is certainly possible to control/contain. Despite the fact that if you switched on the lightsaber, the air around you would probably become so superheated that you'd burst into flames instantly. 

Edited by mistertim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw a line on a TV show lately. One character said he was into science fiction. Mostly Star Trek. 

 

Other character said she was into science fiction, too. Her favorite was the show with the talking horse. 

 

First character says a talking horse isn't science fiction, it's fantasy. 

 

She replies that a genetic mutation that causes a horse to develop a larynx is science fiction. Flying faster than light?  That's fantasy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Once read a letter to the editor on the science fiction magazine, attacking Star Wars for being anti-science. The writer argued that the whole theme was about ignoring facts and science, and just wishing for things to happen. 

 

He argued that the movie was fantasy, not science fiction. Complete with wizards and sword fights. 

 

I remember the line "Trust your feelings, Luke. Switch off that multi-billion-dollar targeting computer. Eyeball it in."

 

And then, a few months later, they published a rebuttal letter. 

 

The author stated that, for qualifications, he was an animator on the film. He explained, for people who wondered what an animator is doing on a live action films, that they worked on special effects. For example, he pointed out that when the Jawa shot R2 with a fire extinguisher, an animator drew lightening around all the seams on him. 

 

And he asserted that the movie wasn't about anti-science so much as it was about the triumph of the human spirit, and of Good versus Evil. 

 

And he concluded with "And 'The Force' didn't make that proton torpedo go in that exhaust port, I did."

 

I mean...isn't it pretty widely accepted that Star Wars is not technically science fiction?  People tend to use other terms like space opera and fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

I mean...isn't it pretty widely accepted that Star Wars is not technically science fiction?  People tend to use other terms like space opera and fantasy.

 

I just call it a movie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dfitzo53 said:

I mean...isn't it pretty widely accepted that Star Wars is not technically science fiction?  People tend to use other terms like space opera and fantasy.

 

I'm pretty sure it's ok to call it either one.  You could also fit it into the "action" movie genre.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 4:00 PM, dfitzo53 said:

I mean...isn't it pretty widely accepted that Star Wars is not technically science fiction?  People tend to use other terms like space opera and fantasy.

I've always classed Star Wars as science fantasy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Ouch!
Well, that does make me feel a little bit better that those who were making the film knew it was ****.

9 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I've always classed Star Wars as science fantasy.

Space cowboys.

I've never quite understood what people mean when they say "space opera".

And why isn't science fiction appropriate? Is it because of the Force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Ouch!
Well, that does make me feel a little bit better that those who were making the film knew it was ****.

Space cowboys.

I've never quite understood what people mean when they say "space opera".

And why isn't science fiction appropriate? Is it because of the Force?

In the classical definition of science fiction the story hinges on some element of science to make it work. Think Jules Verne needing the submarine or the genetics of Jurassic Park. In Star Wars, science doesn't solve the problem. The characters just live in a futuristic world.

 

Now, this definition goes gray when you get into some classic SF like HG Wells the Time Machine except the science there winds up being sociology. So, it kinda still applies.

 

Mind you, I find conversations like this to be fraught with silliness. It's like people who want to argue the difference between art and craft while ignoring the skill, beauty, and story inherit in the piece itself.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flaw in this franchise has always been.... If you can move people with the force....why is it really not used? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

Flaw in this franchise has always been.... If you can move people with the force....why is it really not used? 

 

 

Because they tend to gang up on you in pretty big ways. I will admit, the one thing that Ep 1-3 did was show a greater willingness to use the force than in 4-6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Because they tend to gang up on you in pretty big ways. I will admit, the one thing that Ep 1-3 did was show a greater willingness to use the force than in 4-6.

1. Way more Jedi around and they hadn't been forced into hiding. 

 

2. Decades of special effects advances. Look at the way Vader moves at the end of Rogue One vs. the beginning of A New Hope. Or Yoda in Attack of the Clones. 

 

(2 is really the driving factor.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burgold said:

In the classical definition of science fiction the story hinges on some element of science to make it work. Think Jules Verne needing the submarine or the genetics of Jurassic Park. In Star Wars, science doesn't solve the problem. The characters just live in a futuristic world.

 

Now, this definition goes gray when you get into some classic SF like HG Wells the Time Machine except the science there winds up being sociology. So, it kinda still applies.

 

Mind you, I find conversations like this to be fraught with silliness. It's like people who want to argue the difference between art and craft while ignoring the skill, beauty, and story inherit in the piece itself.

Yeah seems a pretty thin distinction, I guess 2001 Space Odyssey would be science fiction, just set in the future as well, and Jupiter Ascending. Oddly enough Star Wars isn't in the future. And I don't think of Jurassic Park as sci-fi. For me sci-fi is space/futuristic/time travel/future fantasy/adventure/horror etc. I'm not sure what I call JP or any of the awful sequels but not sci-fi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

1. Way more Jedi around and they hadn't been forced into hiding. 

 

2. Decades of special effects advances. Look at the way Vader moves at the end of Rogue One vs. the beginning of A New Hope. Or Yoda in Attack of the Clones. 

 

(2 is really the driving factor.)

1) we see that in Ep 1-3 the way Obi and Qui gon deal with some crowds of droids. And the Jedi were to serve, using the force on people seems hostile. Now why Darth uses his physical strength to lift the Captain (opening scene) rather than the force I dunno.

 

2. And yes, I think the biggest problem with using the force in Ep 4-6 was the technology for the story telling, that existed for Ep 1-3 and following but in the 70's and 80's would have looked silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

2. And yes, I think the biggest problem with using the force in Ep 4-6 was the technology for the story telling, that existed for Ep 1-3 and following but in the 70's and 80's would have looked silly.

 

Just pointing out, you have just announced that the biggest problem with the OT is that there wasn't enough CGI.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Yeah seems a pretty thin distinction, I guess 2001 Space Odyssey would be science fiction, just set in the future as well, and Jupiter Ascending. Oddly enough Star Wars isn't in the future. And I don't think of Jurassic Park as sci-fi. For me sci-fi is space/futuristic/time travel/future fantasy/adventure/horror etc. I'm not sure what I call JP or any of the awful sequels but not sci-fi.

2001 Space Odyssey would be classified SF because the major problem stemmed from a computer failure and the dangers of artificial intelligence. Continuing my geeky trend, that was the major fighting point between lovers of Star Trek vs. Star Wars. Star Trek is considered science fiction. Star Wars was treading on their turf without being classicly SF.

Edited by Burgold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out, you have just announced that the biggest problem with the OT is that there wasn't enough CGI.  :) 

I'm not bashful about admitting that. Some stories are told before their time. 

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

Is there really people out there that give a **** whether it's science fiction, science fantasy, etc?

Have you even been on twitter?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Have you even been on twitter?

 

No.  I just see what people post here from twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now