#as someone who was a fan of rebels in the era where nobody cared about rebels unless Ahsoka was there I feel so vindicated

[blue-likethebird]

It’s objectively funny how Disney and filoni have been shoving Ahsoka into every Star Wars project like a square peg through a round hole for years, and now that she has her own show few if any people care about what she’s doing bc we’re all too busy gushing about Sabine/Kanan parallels and a recording of Ezra. Literally every time news has come out about the Ahsoka show starring Ahsoka she barely breaks the top ten while rebels trends for hours. It heals a hole in my bitter little heart

[animatedminds]

Star Wars: Visions - Episode 7: The Elder

Onward into the last trio of Visions episodes! This has been nothing but enjoyable thus far, and I’ve heard good things about these last three. Episode 7: The Elder Produced By: Trigger Inc. Directed By: Masahiko Otsuka After six episodes, we finally have one that definitively takes place in the Republic era. I’ve been regarding these shorts’ indeterminate time periods as I see them, but with a bit of misfiring: the one I thought worked perfectly in the post-ROTJ era turned out to take place far in the past (and in an alternate take on the series), and the one I thought would have worked well as an Old Republic piece turned out to be intended as a far-flung sequel. But this time, we’ve got a relatively solid timeframe established in the short itself. Some time during the time of the Galactic Republic, two Jedi - a master and his padawan - patrol the Outer Rim when they are suddenly distracted by a sudden flare-up in the Force: a call to something dark and unknown. Arriving on a backwater planet, they track this disturbance to a mysterious old man who traveled into the mountains recently. But something seems wrong, and the more they investigate the more it they find ties from this old man to the thought long-dead Sith, as well as hints that the whole encounter might just be a trap...

This is another “Jedi arrives at a simple village, and is forced into a battle with a darksider“ story - unsurprising, when narratives like that are so popular, and each of the short films were made independently of one another. This time, much more attention is placed on the darksider themselves. The setting of this one illustrates its tension: this is a time period before The Phantom Menace where the Sith were believed extinct, so sudden clues to imply they may still be around are unbelievable and deeply unnerving to the main characters - and this slow unsettled atmosphere composes the center of the short. In the end, the heroes defeat the villain, but obtain no answers - as they must not, for the Sith won’t reveal themselves for some time - and the story ends with them moving on, unsure.

The master and apprentice are fun characters. Not quite as developed as some of the other characters we’ve seen thus far, but they do have a fairly fun banter to them. It’s a trend that masters and apprentices end up countering each other in personality to a degree in Star Wars - wilder masters beget more serious padawans, and vice versa - and it continues here: the master being a dour, cautious and somewhat paranoid sort, whereas the padawan is emotionally expressive, lacking in worry and ever-direct in his words and actions. You can tell that they are wildly unprepared for what they are about to walk into - even the master, who is knowledgeable and powerful enough to face it regardless - and that endears them to the audience as the story goes on.

The antagonist is is the biggest draw, however. A murderous swordsman type: obsessed with nothing but the fight and proving his skills in battle by luring hapless opponents into battles to the death. It’s a character type that’s fairly common in samurai narratives, and thus one which I’ve always been surprised to see so little off in Star Wars media. Eschewing most of the Sith ideology, the Elder only cares about bigger and bigger challenges, deadlier and deadlier stakes. He is introduced having massacred a giant monster, and ends gleefully throwing himself into a fight with someone he knows may be his better, murdering and manipulating all the way to ensure that the fight happens. And the fight itself reminded me somewhat of the fights from the Filoni series, particularly the Obi-Wan and Maul fight in Rebels where the visual direction was all about getting more out of less. The motions are less elaborate, but are instead quick and deadly, which ups the impact. The Sith having a pair of light-shortswords made espeiclaly for an interesting fight - digressing again, but I’ve always felt branching out into different kinds of lightsaber weaponry would allow the series to evolve the swordsmanship aspect of the Jedi and other force users a bit more. The idea of giving Rey a light-pike, for instance, was one that got a lot of traction for a while and one I wish the films had adopted. There’s a degree of baby steps in regards to how versatile the Jedi can be that the main series tends to adhere to whereas these short films in general have not felt constrained by - whereas the light-weedwhacker of The Duel is obviously a bit excessive, the idea of shortswords or longswords for Jedi, or other varieties of bladed weapons, is something imo the series could well look into. If there was one thing that felt off about his one, on the other hand, it was the animation as a whole. It isn’t something I’m unfamiliar with, watching anime as much as I do you’re sure to find a few series that do the same thing, but it may be a bit jarring to go from the previous short films - which were very fluid and expressive in animation - to this one, which is a lot more stiff. Everything is very intricately and elaborately drawn - with deeply etched character designs and vivid backgrounds - but very limited in animation, with less physical emotion and range. A curious choice, given how Trigger’s other film - The Twins - in this set was the complete opposite: extremely animated in all respects. Characters mostly just move their lips and incline their heads, until the fight starts - and the fight itself is, again, an example of getting more out of less. There are thus times in the short where the shot almost appears to be static for long periods of time. This is, once more, a stylistic choice which I am not unfamiliar with, but I’m not as sure that it affords well to the film’s story. But it does have the effect of also drawing attention to the antagonist - The Elder himself is by far the most vividly animated character in the story, and it makes him and his menace fly off the screen in comparison. All in all, a good episode. But that’s not the only thing we’re here to look at. As you’ve probably cottoned onto by now if you’ve been reading all of these, the Visions shorts are all currently non-canon. However, in a franchise like Star Wars it is not uncommon for installments like this to get examined for official continuance if they have a lot of support from us, the fans, and - importantly - if they fit well into the universe. So here, we’re also looking at whether each short fits into the universe, and how well. And what are the chances of this one fitting into the universe? Pretty Good Odds. This short was careful to design itself such that it could easily fit into the time period it takes place in: another backwater planet with a sheltered culture, making it unlikely to contradict anything, two remote Jedi with a far flung assignment also unlikely to contradict anything, and the characteristics of the setting are actually baked into the plot: the Jedi of this time have no idea extant Sith still exist, and thus are left stymied by the mystery this Elder presents. In the end, they obtain no answers, either: only smoke and ambiguity of a lost lead. So I could easily see this being popped right into the continuity with no hassle to anyone. And it would definitely be interesting to see: did the Elder really leave the Sith to pursue his own bloodlust. If so... that was his history? If this short accomplishes one thing, it’s delivering on the mystique surrounding the SIth. Not to mention giving the world a few more nightmare faces to dream about - nobody in the Star Wars universe is scarier than a Sith on the prowl...

[safetypinkerton]

Hollywood Propaganda by Mark Dice 

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/hollywood-propaganda-mark-dice/1137833508

Christianity Under Attack

In order to destroy America, the conspirators are determined to eradicate faith in God and dismantle organized Christianity. Attacking Jesus and Christianity is a sacrament in Hollywood because the far-Left hates Jesus and everything He stands for. It’s not an overstatement to say that many in key positions of power in the entertainment industry (and politics) are Satanists who will someday openly embrace Lucifer as the rebel angel kicked out of Heaven for defying God.

  “I’m glad the Jews killed Christ,” ranted comedian Sarah Silverman in one of her comedy specials. “Good. I’d fucking do it again!” she declares, as her audience agrees in laughter.158 While accepting an Emmy Award one year Kathy Griffin said, “A lot of people come up here and they thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. He didn’t help me a bit…so all I can say is suck it Jesus! This award is my god now!”159

I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to make fun of Christians, but no mainstream celebrity would dare make such insults or jokes about Muhammad because Muslims (and Jews) are vigorously protected against any criticism or mockery and only wonderful things can be said about them. Even a slightly edgy joke ignites a barrage of attacks with cries of “Islamophobia” or “anti-Semitism” and gears start moving in the well-funded and massive smear machines like the ADL and the SPLC which quickly move to destroy the person’s career before they can utter another word.

Hating Christians is almost as necessary as believing in climate change if you’re going to be a mainstream Hollywood celebrity. There are very few open Christians in Hollywood, most of them are has-beens like Kevin Sorbo and Kirk Cameron who have been basically blacklisted since being open about their faith.

  Kevin Sorbo was banned from Comicon because he’s a conservative and “pals with Sean Hannity.”160 He and other Christian actors are stuck doing low budget films that get little attention. They’re allowed to exist (for now) as long as they never point out the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality. Only watered down and generic Christian messages are allowed to be said.

After Guardians of the Galaxy star Chris Pratt appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and happened to discuss his “spirituality,” many online began attacking him for being a Christian and attending a church. Actress Ellen Page (a lesbian) from the X-Men and Inception tweeted, “If you are a famous actor and you belong to an organization that hates a certain group of people, don’t be surprised if someone simply wonders why it’s not addressed. Being anti LGBTQ is wrong, there aren’t two sides. The damage it causes is severe. Full stop.”161

Singer Ellie Goulding threatened to back out of her scheduled performance at the 2019 Thanksgiving NFL halftime show if the Salvation Army didn’t pledge to donate money to LGBT causes. She got the idea after her Instagram comments were flooded with complaints from her fans because the Salvation Army was sponsoring the game to announce their annual Red Kettle Campaign (bell ringers) fundraiser for the homeless.162 Since the Salvation Army is a Christian charity, Goulding’s fans freaked out, accusing them of being “homophobic” and “transphobic.”

They quickly bowed to the pressure and “disavowed” any anti-LGBT beliefs, which basically means they’re disavowing the Bible because even the New Testament denounces homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 and 1st Corinthians 6:9-10. Many critics claim that only the Old Testament does, but the Book of Romans makes it clear that just because Jesus came to offer salvation doesn’t mean God’s law regarding homosexuality changed.

The Salvation Army also removed a “position statement” from their website that had made it clear “Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex,” and replaced it with one saying “We embrace people regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”163 One of the world’s largest Christian charities whose very name “The Salvation Army” refers to the salvation of Christ, cowardly bowed down to the Leftist activists out of fear they would be branded “homophobic.”

Christians are easy targets since they’re much more passive than Jews and Muslims when attacked, and Hollywood loves to stereotype them as a bunch of superstitious bigots who don’t know how to have fun. In the rare case that there is a movie favorable to Christianity that gets widespread distribution, that too is attacked.

Passion of the Christ was deemed “anti-Semitic” because it depicts the story of Jesus’ arrest, sham trial, and crucifixion.164 It was the most popular film about the events to be made and wasn’t a straight to DVD release like most others. With Mel Gibson behind it, the film became a huge success, which caused a tremendous backlash.

The ADL [Anti-Defamation League] denounced the film, saying it “continues its unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus. There is no question in this film about who is responsible. At every single opportunity, Mr. Gibson’s film reinforces the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the Crucifixion.”165 That’s because that’s what happened!

Technically, the Romans did it, but at the behest of the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem at the time. The Bible makes it very clear what led to Jesus being crucified. Pontius Pilate is quoted in Matthew 27:24 saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” and “It is your responsibility!” meaning the Jewish Pharisees. They were the ones who conspired to have Jesus arrested and killed for “blasphemy” and being a “false” messiah. Pontius Pilate even offered to release Jesus, but the crowd demanded he release Barabbas instead, another man who was being detained for insurrection against Rome, and for murder.166

A critic for the New York Daily News called The Passion of the Christ, “the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of the Second World War.”167 Many others angrily denounced the film when it came out in 2004. Some in the media even blamed it for a supposed “upsurge” in anti-Semitic hate crimes.168

When the History Channel miniseries The Bible was released in 2013, the same cries of “anti-Semitism” rang out.169 The New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss went so far as to say that it’s a “conspiracy theory” that Jews killed Jesus.170

Even though most Christmas movies aren’t overtly Christian and instead focus of the importance of families reuniting and spending time together, that doesn’t mean they’re not going to come under attack. As the war on western culture continues, the Marxists have set their sights on Christmas too.

Online liberal cesspool Salon.com ran a headline reading “Hallmark movies are fascist propaganda,” and complained they promote “heteronormative whiteness” because there aren’t enough LGBT characters or people of color in them.171

“Hallmark movies, with their emphasis on returning home and the pleasures of the small, domestic life, also send a not-at-all subtle signal of disdain for cosmopolitanism and curiosity about the larger world,” Salon said, “which is exactly the sort of attitude that helps breed the kind of defensive White nationalism that we see growing in strength in the Donald Trump era.”172

The article went on to say that because the Hallmark Channel airs so many Christmas movies, it is promoting, “a set of patriarchal and authoritarian values that are more about White evangelicals defining themselves as an ethnic group, and not about a genuine feeling of spirituality…The very fact that they’re presented as harmless fluff makes it all the more insidious, the way they work to enforce very narrow, White, heteronormative, sexist, provincial ideas of what constitutes ‘normal.’”173

The article wasn’t satire. Salon.com has a deep-seated hatred of Christianity, conservatives and families, and is another cog in the Cultural Marxist machine working to destroy the United States.

Comedian Whitney Cummings was reported to the Human Resources department of a major Hollywood studio after she wished the crew of a TV show she was working on “Merry Christmas” when they wrapped up for the year. She made the revelation while speaking with Conan O’Brian the following December. “Last year, I was working on a TV show, [and] got in trouble with Human Resources for saying ‘Merry Christmas’ to an intern,” she began.174

Conan asked her if she was being serious and she said it was a true story, elaborating, “I was leaving, like on the 18th or whatever…and I was like, ‘Bye guys, Merry Christmas.’” When she returned from vacation after New Year’s she was called to HR and scolded. She joked, “I don’t even care how your Christmas was. It was just a formality. It’s what you say when you leave.”175

Conan O’Brien then replied, “In these times we’re in, that could trigger someone or offend them if it’s not their holiday.”176 She didn’t say which network it was, but she’s been involved with some major shows like NBC’s Whitney (where she played the main character), as well as the CBS sitcom 2 Broke Girls, which she created and was a writer for.

While today it may seem impossible that Christmas movies may become a thing of the past, nobody could have ever guessed that reruns of the classic Dukes of Hazzard would get banned after the Confederate flag was deemed a “hate symbol” in 2015, or that Aunt Jemima pancake syrup, Eskimo Pie ice cream bars, and Uncle Ben’s Rice would be deemed “racially insensitive” and pulled from production a few years later.177

Once someone reminds liberals that the word Christmas is derived from Christ’s Mass and that it is actually a commemoration of the birth of Jesus, they may finally go over the edge and deem Christmas just as offensive as Columbus Day or the Fourth of July. And with the Muslim and Sikh populations increasing in the United States, the American standard of Christmas music playing in shopping malls and retail stores all month long every December may one day come to an end because it’s not “inclusive” and leaves non-Christians feeling “ostracized.”

[wineanddinosaur]

Is the 1,000-Bottle Wine List Over?

Ours is an era of culinary athleisure. The hottest restaurants specialize in expensive understatement, serving cult toasts and Michelin-starred pizza, and rendering $200 porterhouses and muscular Napa Cabs not obsolete, exactly, but certainly not cutting edge, either.

The format and formality of wine lists are similarly shifting. Those grand, leather-bound tomes of yesteryear, wherein 10 pages might be devoted to French whites, are increasingly replaced by one-page printouts (or, better yet, a hand-written chalkboard!) comprised of a few reds, whites, a rosé, and maybe a Pét-Nat or grower Champagne.

It’s unclear whether these slimmed-down selections are necessarily an improvement for diners. Is it easier for consumers to approach a 15-bottle list than an encyclopedic tome? Or do restaurants with limited offerings risk alienating all but the savviest of drinkers?

“I’m a fan of the hyper-curated list because it maintains a focus,” Piper Kristensen, beverage director of Brooklyn’s Oxalis restaurant, says. His 50-bottle wine program has “gotten a lot of people to try some wines that are maybe outside of their comfort zone. For the most part, people have been really pleasantly surprised,” he says.

The mix is key. “If you’re going to have a shorter list, you need to have a little bit of everything,” says David Osenbach, wine director of Los Angeles’s Providence restaurant. There should be some bottles that will be familiar to most of your guests, as well as some surprises for curious drinkers.

Margot Mazur, sommelier at Rebel Rebel in Somerville, Mass., believes a well-edited list can demonstrate how much thought the restaurant puts into its wine program. “I look to restaurants like Sarma in Boston, who champion wines from the Mediterranean to match their similarly placed food menu,” she says. “Instead of feeling overwhelmed, the guest is intrigued and feels empowered to make a decision and to ask questions.”

Think about your favorite local Italian restaurant. If it has a short list of primarily Italian wines, you know you can pick one and it will likely complement your meal. On the other hand, if the kitchen serves southern Italian fare, and the wine list contains four California Chardonnays, three Oregon Pinot Noirs, and a smattering of obscure French varietals, many diners won’t know what to order.

Smart wine lists of any length reflect the restaurant’s culinary ideology. At Parallel 37 in San Francisco, for example, the menu features local ingredients and lists the provenance of everything from Dungeness crab to the Port Reyes-born blue cheese accompanying a beef tenderloin. Fittingly, the 20-bottle wine list skews heavily Californian.

“My best sellers are my servers, and no one can memorize a 1,000-wine list,” says Jacqueline Hültner, assistant director of food and beverage at the Ritz-Carlton San Francisco, which contains Parallel 37.

Meanwhile, Oxalis’s chef Nico Russell changes his hyper-seasonal New American menu almost daily, so Kristensen has a similarly ephemeral approach to his list, often buying one case of wine at a time. “The wines we get are released very seasonally. They’re here just for a minute and then they’re gone. That works with the way Nico designed his menu,” Kristensen says.

Granted, that means if you loved the Spatburgunder you had with your duck rillettes at Oxalis last month, neither might be available the next time you visit. But it’s in keeping with the market-driven spirit of the restaurant.

Seth Rogin, the CEO of a media and advertising company in NYC, estimates he dines out two of every three nights a week. He believes the size of a restaurant’s wine list is considerably less important than the skill of its staff.

“I’ve seen phenomenal short lists as much as I’ve seen the big binder. It really matters more what level of insight and care comes to the list,” Rogin says. He recalls an evening at the Beatrice Inn in Manhattan, when an especially skilled sommelier made suggestions for both his meal and after-dinner entertainment based on the wine he had purchased from a 220-bottle list. “It was spot-on!” Rogin says. “The wine list can really make you connect with the restaurant.”

That’s good news for those operating smaller cellars. After all, from a practical standpoint, wine lists can only be as expansive as storage allows. “I always know my wine-purchasing budget is up when I’ve run out of space in the wine room. When I have no more room to put things, I’m like, ‘Ah, I probably shouldn’t buy anything.’ The accountants have different metrics for measuring,” Osenbach says.

If you’re in a tiny boite serving seasonal small plates in, say, Brooklyn or Oakland, it makes sense if the wine list is slim and focused on young wines. Many modern city restaurants don’t have budgets or storage capacity for expansive, Bern’s Steak House-style, old-school cellars.

Those long wine lists can be challenging, too. An expansive collection can intimidate diners even as it awes them with its breadth and expertise.

“Having 1,000 wines on your list is less impressive than it is overwhelming, and, as a consumer, I don’t want to come to a restaurant and have to take 30 minutes poring over the list,” Mazur says. “I want to know that the restaurant tasted through options and curated their list to match their menu and their style. I want to trust the restaurant to help me in my decision-making process.”

Orsenbach agrees. “I can see people being like, ‘I don’t know anything on here, there’s too much going on, I’m overwhelmed, I’ll just get a cocktail,’ and then you’ve defeated the purpose of having this giant and/or esoteric wine list,” he says.

Herein lies the secret to excellent restaurant wine programs. Regardless of quantity, all the wines need to be accessible to all the diners and staff. If no one but the head sommelier and their two best friends can figure out how the list is organized, or what might appeal to someone who typically only drinks New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc, it’s missing the mark.

“You have to put your hospitality hat on,” Dan O’Brien, owner and winemaker, Gail Wines, says. Otherwise, the restaurant will alienate guests — and probably not sell very much wine.

“I want to have a wine list where, if I died in the middle of service, people are still able to order wine,” Orsenbach says. “It can have 12 bottles nobody’s heard of, or 150 pages of things people know, but you have to have people in the restaurant who can help you navigate all that if you need it.”

The article Is the 1,000-Bottle Wine List Over? appeared first on VinePair.

source https://vinepair.com/articles/short-wine-list-restaurants/

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/sports/no-one-better-than-novak-djokovic-at-his-best-andre-agassi/

No one better than Novak Djokovic at his best: Andre Agassi

When you are born in Las Vegas, it’s hard to resist a punt. And tennis great Andre Agassi is every bit a Las Vegan. As TOI Guest Sports Editor, he predicted that Novak Djokovic will surpass Roger Federer’s Slam tally of 20. In India to support an inclusive literacy product, Agassi opened up on a range of topics.

Excerpts…

What about education excites you and do tennis players miss out on it?

I don’t know any sport where you can be the best in the world and not give up a third of your life to not prepare for two thirds of your life. So as a result, this is by definition, a very difficult road to choose, but because I know what it’s like not to have an education I also know what it’s like not to have a choice because I was forced to play tennis. So when I take no education and no choice in some of the toughest, economically challenged places in the world, it’s really sobering what that means for their life. And this is how it feels when you’re pushing your mission that has been so personally inspiring even to my own success because it was because of this that I stayed in tennis when I could have quit. It gave me my second chance. It gave me many more titles, gave me my wife, my children, my platform.

READ ALSO: ‘Rebel’ Agassi now talks of order, but his returns are still as crisp as ever

What is it about Square Panda that made you come on board and what does it mean?

It’s been a long journey in education. It started with my foundational school in Las Vegas charter school in the poorest neighbourhood that led to me figuring out ways to scale my mission through the private sector throughout America, managing a billion dollar real estate infrastructure fund, building schools for best in class operators to wanting to find more global, scalable, sustainable solutions to helping children pursue their objectives and education. And this is where Square Panda comes in four years ago, which is a platform that allows for very personalized teaching of literacy and teaching of second language English which is also important in America. It’s also important in China as well as here in India. The earlier you can reach a child, the more you can impact them.

So what are the subjects that interest you?

I think that’s as close to the bone as you get to understand why I care about education. Because I don’t know. I just know I never had it, and I know what a crime that is for children not to learn what their passions are, to experience what they want for themselves. If I went to school if that was what I did, and I had a different childhood, I could explore what my life would be, but I don’t know that. Do I love history? Yes, if the person telling me about history is interesting. Math is nice too because you like it when you can solve a problem and there’s a real answer.

You played with some great champions. Coming to the current era, are we witnessing the beginning of the end of a very special generation in men’s tennis?

In any sport when you can quantify improvement every 10 years you see improvement. Is the sport better? Yeah, unquestionably it’s better. It’s different. You don’t see guys playing a lot like Edberg did, like Rafter used to play, like Pete played. I don’t regret how the game has changed because I understand too intimately what it means to create that kind of change. I think it’s a special generation. You have decades of history where only five guys win all four Grand Slams. And then three guys do it in three years. Murray will always be remembered for penetrating this generation of greatness and leaving his impression on it which is probably as remarkable an achievement as one can have. I think we’re far from seeing Novak being done and I’ve stopped betting that I know anything about Roger because I’ve been wrong 50 times.

Paul Annacone who coached Pete and Roger recently said one of the ingredients in the success of the greats today, other than the fact that they are gifted is that they don’t have to adjust to different styles or surfaces. Would it be fair to say that you completed the Career Slam at a time when there was a greater disparity among the surfaces? I can definitely say that the grass has changed dramatically. But also the game has changed. The reason why it was so difficult for me to win on grass wasn’t because it was so fast. I mean fast is OK, the first one to hit a good shot wins the point. Somebody has a good serve, it didn’t matter if it was slow or fast. Pete aced me in Paris, just as many times as he aced me in New York or in Wimbledon. The problem was guys played coming forward so much they tore up the court through the middle. And so by the end of the tournament, I’m playing in the back of the court and every time the ball bounces, it’s changing direction. The way they grow the grass today, it’s more predictable. It isn’t quite as fast. I can’t say that my achievement was harder. Certain elements would be harder for me now too if I’m playing on grass against guys that can move as good as they move. I mean grass is physical.

Fans gush at the accomplishments of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Three guys who are at the top of Slam records. Do you think people tend to overlook this factor or are we just talking about really special guys who would’ve been dominant in any era?

I had the privilege of playing all three of them. Novak was the worst of them because he was so young and it was an exhibition and he still beat me. Laver had two Grand slams (62 & 69) on two surfaces, grass and clay. Nobody had come close to winning four in the same year. Federer could have done that three times with one match against one guy that he couldn’t seem to be beat on clay. So you’re talking about historic achievements. I get it when my generation left, Roddick comes in as an American wins a Slam you know somebody comes in and wins a Slam but Federer looks like who’s this guy who was coming in at the right time and then he ends up having to compete against two of the greatest ever for the rest of his career and does it. So I feel like these guys just kept raising the bar of tennis.

So who do you think is the GOAT?

We tend to define it in this day and age as numbers, but I can make arguments why numbers don’t matter, you know. I mean Borg stopped at 26 after 11 Grand Slams, six French, five Wimbledons back to back for five years, almost won it the sixth year and he didn’t play 10 Australian Opens when it was on grass. He played once. So, who knows if he didn’t care about playing Australia. Lendl didn’t play three French Opens because he wanted to win one Wimbledon. Numbers came in the early 90s when Cable TV came. Everybody’s fighting for news and Pete Sampras is going to break Roy Emerson’s record.

How many people know who is Roy Emerson. So does that mean Roy Emerson was the greatest of all time before Pete?

Look at what these guys had to do. Fed beat me, Roddick, Hewitt, Moya … There were some guys that he beat to win the early Slams, but then he wins the other ones beating these other guys. Rafa comes in and has to beat Fed and Djokovic to win them. Djokovic comes in and has to beat both Fed and Rafa to win them. The highest standard of tennis I have ever seen is when Novak is playing his best tennis. It doesn’t mean that he has maximized it, but he is not done. I think Fed has made more of his career than anybody. He’s more versatile than anybody. Fed probably could have won Grand Slams serve and volleying only. Even when he was not allowed to come to the net, he could have still figured out a way to win. Nadal speaks for himself.

Are you happy to see Novak back to his best. Do you regret the fact that you had an association with him but it did not last long?

No, I’m not regretful. I am very happy. The reason why I tried to help him or hope that I could help him, is because tennis deserves this. What he was capable of was never in question. He has his own tortured process, as we all do, and I truly believed that I could have helped him and I also believed that I could not help him. We process differently and as a coach there is a lot for me to learn. It’s not what you know, it’s what someone you are with learns. But somebody has to be willing to learn and willing to see things differently. So, part of his greatness is his stubbornness. I felt like I learnt a lot and I felt like in some way I shook the cage enough that tennis could benefit.

When the alliance with Novak ended, you said that you agreed to disagree on most things…

If there is one thing that I will never change about anybody, it’s what his body can do. What his body can do is never the problem. You don’t go trying to fix the one thing that’s remarkable. He was never healthy two days in a row with his elbow and I live by one clear philosophy which is if you don’t listen to your body, your body is not going to listen to you. So we need to heal. But unlike me, when I played, he loves the game. He wants to play and he wants to run and he wants to find a way to get through the injury and playing injured is just not responsible. I can’t support that because I’d be hurting the very person I’m claiming I care about. You get one body and you get one career and taking chances with this wasn’t going to happen on my watch.

Do you see him surpassing Federer’s tally?

I mean I am from Vegas, so I have to make a bet, right? If I have to make a bet, what is he at? 15? Two more for three years? Yes. Now, you also have children, you also have priorities in life, so if he wants to, he will.

You are coaching Grigor Dimitrov now. He’s nicknamed Baby Fed for the similarity in playing styles with Federer. What’s the issue with him? Does he get overawed by big names or is it stage fright?

It’s a hard thing for anybody to be compared with Federer. There might have been a modelling of his game, but Fed plays with a lot of wrist, you know, Grigor hits through the strike zone a lot straighter. I believe that he has not seen his best tennis. He had some great results, but he’s yet to feel what it’s like to really build on a foundation that keeps taking him in the same direction and that has to do not just with tennis, but how you approach every day. He puts a lot of pressure on himself daily to be what he expects from himself.

Do you feel players are more politically correct today? Does tennis lack characters?

I think you guys scare the crap out of a lot of them. (laughs). Blame them, blame you, blame whoever you want, but I think being politically correct is not being politically correct. It’s a pretty scary proposition in this day and age of social media. When I played, what you said is what you said in its full context but now you are guilty till proven innocent.

On that note, the Colin Kaepernick issue snowballed into a massive controversy in the US and abroad. What did you make of it?

Yeah, I don’t know what his particular stance was. You called it a stance, or called it a kneel I don’t know. But in either case, if you want to offend half the people, you know choose one side or the other, but this is not something that I followed greatly. I mean I have a great respect for the American flag, so the connection I could never understand expressed in this way, but those that understand it would need to explain it to me.

How do you think it would be if you and Pete were playing today, for all that went on between you guys, even if all is fine today?

I don’t know if social media would have changed me and Pete, because we were always good with each other. But I think the scrutiny now is tough. I just know that you need to be incredibly thoughtful these days, more so than in the past. In the past you got to be thoughtful, now you better be thoughtful.

But are you surprised by how much warmth there is among the great rivals today?

Yeah, I mean, surprised enough to not know if I should believe it (laughs). I mean, you know, I have the luxury of getting to know Novak and he would never be disrespectful to somebody you know, willingly or knowingly. You know Roger, it’s impossible not to like this man. When you talk to him, his consideration to fans, to peers, to media. Same with Rafa, the time that they give, they are professionals all in their own way and I think there’s a great deal of respect. You know with me it was different. Everybody knows my story. I was confused, I hated what I did. Sometimes Pete inspired me, sometimes I envied him, sometimes he annoyed me, sometimes I resented it. But I was the one that was (makes up and down gesture). Then when you look back, you see Pete was just Pete. So, as a result, you got three great champions, four when you consider Pete, that didn’t seem to have my problems. So I do respect it, assuming it’s true, which you never know.

Coming to your Slam wins, which among the eight would you rate your most memorable?

The last of the four, so the French Open (1999). The first one I could have won, first one I should have won. The last one that I knew I would never have a chance to win again. So after I fell to 150 in the world, after I got a divorce, I was old enough to understand it. It was a microcosm of my life, that tournament. I was down two sets in the finals and, a lot like life.

When you retired, BBC described you as “perhaps the biggest worldwide star in the sport’s history.” What do you make of that tag?

I was never trying to win a popularity contest (laughs) but, you know, everybody comes to the game at this level bringing something. You don’t become, or you don’t win multiple Slams without doing something different than somebody else did it. My tennis game was the first thing that I brought different at a certain time and, certainly, my rebellion also did. I’m not sure the reason for it but I always felt very keenly connected to people. I was always honest with how I felt, so you knew if I was having a bad day, everybody knew it.

You just said that Federer is a guy who is impossible to dislike. Just a few months back, we did come across a negative view expressed about the Swiss by French player Julien Benneteau who spoke of how Federer gets special treatment at Slams…

You know it is hard. It’s hard to become Federer and then it’s hard for other guys when you are Federer, you know what I mean! Federer didn’t wake up overnight privileged. Federer was Benneteau at one point. So you eat what you kill. And then when you’re on the top of the food chain, the jungle tends to listen to you. So everybody fights for the best circumstances daily, you know, from scheduling to what court. I mean I would play third round, fourth round in the US Open, Australian Open. I’d play some guy that was thrilled to win three matches on court 19 and then he comes into the stadium and I already know I’m up a set and a break before he figures out that this court is different than that court.

The issue of on court coaching triggered the huge controversy involving Serena Williams against Osaka in the US Open final. What are your views now as a coach on on-court coaching?

I don’t believe the sport should have coaching. I think it’s one thing that separates our sport from so many. It’s one thing that brings out the real Gladiator part of it. I think, because coaching happens, the unfortunate part in Serena’s case was the crowd didn’t understand what had happened. If a coach gets caught coaching, it should be a warning to the coach. Second time it happens, the coach should be kicked out. Why a player should be penalized for a coach attempting to insert themselves?

Equal prize money for both men and women has been a debatable subject for long…

If you are paying someone based on the gender, there’s no place for that. But if you are making a business decision about who you are trying to incentivize to be the content or the product you are trying to deliver, then it’s your right as a business to decide whom you are going to value, what you are going to value, for all I know, more people watch Serena than Nadal but it’s not for me to say whether they will or they won’t. But if I ran a business, and somebody was going to come and watch Serena more than Nadal, I would pay Serena more than Nadal, because that’s my business and vice versa.

In your book, Open, you came clean about your drug offence. The revelations didn’t go down well with the ATP and the ITF. How has testing evolved today?

I understand the paranoia but let me be the first one to say I was the reason why this changed. It used to be internal governance that was legitimate as was mine when I was caught. We were able to leverage it on some level but once we outsourced governance, there’s no turning back. It wouldn’t be possible to cheat in tennis and get away with it. From 1998 on I probably averaged 20 plus drug test a year. Three out of competition where they knock on your door even on vacation. Every 24 hours they get to know where you are going to be in the forthcoming 24 hours. So everyday, they have an address and they don’t care whether you are in the Maldives or at home and so it’s not easy. But it’s the right thing for the integrity of the sport.

[thenerdparty]

Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Review by Matthew Rushing

Two years ago Star Wars roared back into the collective consciousness of the world as The Force Awakens dawned a new era for the saga. The installment left many viewers speechless and eagerly anticipating this return to a galaxy far, far away. Luckily in this era of Disney’s rule, the wait was only 2 years (with a nice side of Rogue One in the middle) for Rian Johnson’s addition, The Last Jedi.

Context

First, let’s start historically. It is clear that the original “Rebel” generation was unsuccessful in passing on it’s values to the next, as the galaxy has quickly descended back into the universe of pre-prequel. A government that became ineffectual, split into populists and centrists, all the while allowing the First Order to rise, unchallenged because, they’re not really a threat. “Relax, the First Order is the JV squad”. The greed and corruption in the galaxy has returned to what we saw in the prequels, as people line their pockets with ill gotten gain, selling weapons to the highest bidder, on any side. It all boils down to this one truth not being clearly passed on, “freedom isn’t free”, and sadly there are too few in the galaxy who seem to understand that.

Where are you getting all of this, you might ask? Well, not from the movies. All of this has been cobbled together from the ancillary materials that have come out surrounding this new sequel trilogy and that’s only, vaguely been hinted at in the films themselves. The main issue here is that The Force Awakens did very little to set up the context of the galaxy and now The Last Jedi suffers even worse because of it.

Think back to the Original Trilogy, as you watch those movies, you have an instinctive understanding of who all the characters are as well as the overall context of the movies because Lucas based them on archetypes that we know. The heroes’ journey, an evil empire and a a small group of freedom fighters looking to rescue the galaxy. In the Prequels, it’s the fall of a Republic and the story of a man that cannot let go and will do anything to hold on to what he “loves”. Each of these previous trilogies gave us the context we needed to know about the universe as a whole and the characters so that we could understand the journey we were on.

And here’s where this all comes into play, not just with the world building but with the characters. Not only do we not truly understand the state of the galaxy, but we also don’t know the history of these characters and it’s clear the writers of the film don’t either. Say what you will about Lucas, he always knew the history and the future of his creation. Some details may change along the way, but the journey ended up much the same. The same can be said for Rowling with Harry Potter , she knew the end from the beginning, so she understood what each character needed to go through to get them to that end.

It’s been clear from The Force Awakens and now through to The Last Jedi that there is no knowledge of what the end game is for their characters. Writing 101, if you don’t know their past and future, you don’t know how to write their “present”. You can see this in the all of the characters. Take Snoke. We have absolutely no idea who or what he is. We don’t know how he came to power or seduced Ben Solo, he’s a vague phantom menace so that when he goes out like a punk in this movie… well lets just say fans may be arguing whose death was better, Snoke or Boba Fett. Oh and remember Phasma? Well don’t worry, you don’t really need to, turns out she wasn’t all that important any way.

Ben suffers from this same problem we saw with Snoke, he’s completely ill defined and so is his “fall”. As with The Force Awakens, there is still no context to his story other than him having darkness in himself and somehow, Snoke temps him to the dark side. It’s all so nebulous that when he turns on Snoke, I don’t know what to make of it. There is no weight to his decision because I don’t know enough of the history of the character to actually care.

As bad as this issue is for Ben, my first impression was it was worse for Rey. The ultimate mystery box seemed to still be very much an enigma. The answer we get about her family was vague and unconvincing, I still don’t believe she’s a nobody and while I am frustrated that they skirted the issue of her family, I can see why they sidestepped that to make the focus, who she chooses to be. Her struggle for identity is fascinating. The questions of who we are, is it a product of bloodline, upbringing or are we a sum of our choices and experiences is brilliant. I think the movie comes down on the side of choices and experiences and the idea that personal responsibility is the answer is outstanding. Rey shows us that even though we are personally responsible for ourselves, we are also responsible for those around us, to look after one another, teach each other, guide one another, pass on hope to one another and the chance of redemption.

The most damaged in all of this is Luke Skywalker. We know Luke’s past, how he saved his father, who’d effectively become space Hitler, because he believed there was still good in him. By the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke is the culmination of the collected wisdom of Anakin, Obi-Wan and Yoda but greater because he avoids the mistakes of the past and forges a true, new path for the Jedi. But then, we get nothing. Oh we know Luke started a new Jedi Order and thought he could help Ben, only to be scared by his raw power and darkness. Wait, really? This is the same guy who redeemed Vader but can’t find a way to help Ben? Luke was right, “This is not going to go the way you think.” It’s as if the history of Luke has been forgotten. Now, I get the idea that Luke, like Obi-Wan, feels the pain of taking too much on, but at least Obi-Wan didn’t try to murder his student in his sleep and gave him a chance to change before delivering the “killing” blow.

Now, all that said, the lesson Luke learns about failure being part of life and how to deal with it, is actually a timely one. In life, failure is the best teacher. Yet, again, Luke’s past should have prepared him for this, his knowledge about Anakin and the help of force ghosts like Yoda, Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon, should have been able to help shepherd him through this ordeal, instead of running away to an island to die, screaming, “get off my lawn” to anyone who comes calling.

It is interesting that Kylo and Luke are actual after the same thing, Kylo wants to burn it all down and so does Luke, but for different reasons. Kylo because of his anger at everyone and everything and Luke because of his own hubris. He sees the Jedi as a failure, as well as himself, yet he’s blaming the wrong thing. In the end, it’s people and their choices that lead them to the dark or to the light, not the teachings of the Jedi. The Jedi texts and code are only a guide, that applied properly, promote peace, prosperity and hope in the galaxy. Over a thousand generations is not a bad run. Even though Luke gives Rey a lesson in humility in relation to the Force, it seems much to learn, he still has.

All of the issues I do have, stem from there being no direction for this trilogy. With no clear plan or endgame, this is what is left, each installment trying to make sense of the last, leading to it not always having fullest depth or payoff. This is post modern story telling at it’s worst, characters and plot without history and context that could have been more cohesive with planning.

Pass on What You Have Learned

Just as the galaxy and the characters in the movie lack context, the original characters fail to pass on their wisdom to the next generation and Luke is the biggest offender here. He seem incapable of passing on what he has learned as Yoda told him to. He’s driven by fear to almost kill Ben, and then the same fear leads him to reject training Rey for most of the movie. When he finally does train her, there is no depth or true substance to what he offers. You’d think someone with access to the original Jedi texts and a few good force ghosts would be able to provide more guidance than what we see.

Just because one has talent at something, does not mean they don’t have to practice, be taught and hone their skills. Rey is never given any of this, in the end, she’s forced to intuit who she should be for herself and from who Luke was, in the Original Trilogy. This may fit into the post modern world of “make your own way and your own truth”, but it’s not Star Wars. Lucas himself said,

“Star Wars has always struck a cord with people. There are issues of loyalty, of friendship, of good and evil…I mean, there’s a reason this film is so popular. It’s not that I’m giving out propaganda nobody wants to hear…Knowing that the film was made for a younger audience, I was trying to say, in a simple way, that there is a God and that there is both a good and bad side. You have a choice between them, but the world works much better if you’re on the good side.”

Lucas is clear, wisdom is meant to be passed on, the wisdom of failures and of triumphs.  It’s what both Obi-Wan and Yoda both do for Luke. Yes, they were wrong about Anakin, but that does not mean they didn’t have wisdom to share. Proverbs reminds us, “Listen to advice and accept discipline, and at the end you will be counted among the wise.” And the place to find wisdom is through, as Job reminds us, “Is not wisdom found among the aged? Does not long life bring understanding?” Lucas was once asked how he felt about the human condition and he said,

“I am very cynical, as a result, I think the defense I have against it is to be optimistic and to think people are basically good, although I know in my heart they’re not.”

It is clear that he understands that wisdom and goodness must be passed on and taught because they are not something we are born with’. Sadly Rey is left to find her own path, alone. Hopefully the books she saved from the force temple will give her some guidance, now that she is the last Jedi.

Luckily Rey seems to instinctively understand what Luke did at the end of Return of the Jedi, the Jedi are the embodiment of hope and light in the galaxy. Rey allows people to be defined by their choices, not their bloodline or possible history. She does not lose hope in that person’s chance at redemption until they make the choice to turn away from it completely. At that point, she stands on the side of the light, in it’s defense and in the defense of others. I think this is what is frustrating, is that I still feel like Luke should have been the one to show her this and he does, it’s just the Luke from the past not the present.

The only one in the movie doing any actual mentoring is Leia. Her relationship with Poe is a good example of passing on what you have learned. She gives Poe responsibility and then takes the time to discipline him, instruct him and trust him all over again when needed. Sadly the story is muddled with the interjection of Admiral Holdo, but it’s still the best example of someone passing on what they have learned to the next generation and it actually changing the character being taught.

The Movie

The plot of the movie is all over the place. The most glaring issue is with the Resistance story line. They don’t seem to know what to do with them, in the least and it leads to the worst “chase” scenes since Speed 2. There is no logic to what is happening. In space, there is no weight, so it’s all about thrust. If the First Order ships can create enough thrust, they could catch up to the Resistance ships. Another possibility is having a ship jump into the system, in “front” of the Resistance (it’s three dimensional space so there really is no “front”) and take them out. Now here is where context comes in again. Because we have no idea how big the First Order is, are we to assume that all the ships chasing the Resistance are it? And even if they are, could they just not jump “ahead” of the Resistance fleet and be done with it?

Another massive plot issue is why Admiral Holdo refuses to tell Poe and the rest of the Resistance her plan. Does she suspect a saboteur or a spy and that’s why? Well, we’ll never know, because the movie gives us no indication what she is thinking. It just creates a bad plot reason for Poe, Finn and Rose to come up with their alternative plan, to give Finn something to do.

As mentioned above, in the previous section, context creates a maelstrom of issues revolving around the plot points between Luke, Snoke, Rey and Ben. This leaves us with not always feeling the fullest weight behind who they are, the choices they make and who they become as the movie ends.

I enjoy the music, the effects are wonderful except that Yoda puppet, not too keen on his look. The design work is not bad here. Canto Bight is cool, but why is it in the movie and why is that not the story for the Resistance? Going to Canto Bight to try and rustle up support for the cause seems like a much more intriguing idea than the universe’s slowest chase. And would it kill the sequel trilogy to have some aliens we know from the rest of the series? What’s it going to take to get a freaking twi’lek in this series?

Another point of contention in the movie is the humor. Lucasfilm seems to be taking a page from the Marvel playbook and has inserted humor everywhere. Humor in itself is not a bad thing and the Star Wars saga is replete with funny moments, but The Last Jedi pushes it too far. So much of the humor that works in Star Wars is the dry, sarcastic kind that is exemplified in The Empire Strikes Back. Here, it feels forced in many places such as the constant porg jokes, Poe’s ribbing of Hux or Finn waking up in a clear suit and leaking fluids everywhere as he walks down the hall. It just does not feel as organic as it needs to, to truly work. The Star Wars franchise has it’s own rules on how things work in it and as Gareth Edwards said, 

“There’s such a fine line in Star Wars, if you go just slightly to the left it’s not Star Wars, it’s another sci-fi movie that doesn’t feel right. And if you go slightly to the right, you’re just copying what George did. So trying to navigate this thing where it’s new but feels fresh was like the dance that was the process of making the film.”

Conclusion

The Last Jedi suffers under the burden left to it by The Force Awakens. With no clear trajectory or plan for this trilogy, Johnson works to forge his own path but it’s one fraught with plot holes and many times, muddied character motivations. The universe, as it stands, lacks cohesion, history or context and it’s hurting the story. I love that Johnson tired to be different and some of it really works now that I have seen it a second time, while other parts still fall very flat. I love some of the moments in the movie, especially Luke’s noble end and the strong work done with the Rey/Ben/Luke story but Abrams has his work cut out for him with Episode IX. I never thought I’d say this, but J.J. Abrams, you’re our only hope. The Last Jedi is rated 2.75 out of 5 stars.

Don’t miss Matt on Aggressive Negotiations: A Star Wars Podcast and Owl Post: A Harry Potter Podcast!