I think it is cool that comic book companies are making a strong effort to diversify their comic book heroes to better represent our own diverse culture. It's great to see that you don't have to be a tall,well built, straight, white male to be considered a superhero anymore and that females are breaking out of the traditional "damsel in distress" or "[enter well known superhero name here]girl" roles they have been forced to play through out comic book history. That being said, Marvel's decision to make Thor a woman is wrong and reeks of hubris. While Thor the comic book character has been a mainstay of Marvel for decades, Thor(as many of you know) is not a Marvel creation or recreation or "adaptation based on". He is a significant mythological, cultural, and even historical deity who was well established well before Marvel inked him on to their pages. To change his historical context just to sell more comic books and, even more important to Marvel at this point, make more movie money in the future is just arrogant. Making strong female superheroes in your comic books is great. Changing the identities of personages that you actually didn't create and had to "borrow" from history, not so great.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Game of Posts
The season 4 finale of Game of Thrones happened recently and while there has been plenty written about it, I still wanted to share a few thoughts on the TV series as a whole. A couple of you may already know that I touched on the book series here, A Post of Ice and Fire, so if you haven't read all the books or haven't seen the entire TV series you may want to look away because, there will be spoilers!
Now I've read enough Stephen King in my lifetime to know that movies and TV productions rarely, if ever, follow the source material. Generally they will re-shape the story the way they see fit rather than go by what is already considered an incredible read. Game of Thrones is no different but I was surprised at how close they did stay to what was happening in the books as a whole. It would have been near impossible to use the different character, POV style that Martin used in the books but the show, and especially the actors, did a tremendous job in conveying what each character was going through during their plights and ordeals. The characters for the most part stayed true to form from the books and most of the major events were there although slightly tweaked for television reasons. Overall, I was very pleased with how the show turned out with only minor gripes*...that is, until season 4. Specifically the last two episodes.
There have been some well documented complaints regarding season 4 ranging from the accidental(or maybe intentional) introduction of major characters who have yet to be introduced as actual characters in the book(The Night's King*) to the infamous rape scene* between Cersei and her brother/lover/enemy Jaime. But for me, the last two episodes really let me down as far as the show's connection to the book is concerned. The 2nd to the last episode, The Watchers on the Wall, was a full episode dedicated to the Wildlings' assault on Castle Black. The show was basically trying to recreate, what was up to that point, the show's greatest episode, Blackwater. Both were beautifully shot with the best special effects the show could provide while focusing on only that one specific event instead of jumping around Westeros and beyond. The big difference between the two, other The Watchers on the Wall missing most of the popular characters, is that we got to see the climax of Blackwater instead of waiting another episode. I've read the books so the whole time I was watching The Watchers on the Wall I was waiting for Stannis to show up to save the day. I wanted to see the initial battle of Stannis's army versus a front line of giants. That would of been epic! But instead we got Lord Snow walking off into the snow. End of episode. I'm sorry but if you are going to dedicate an entire episode to the assault on Castle Black you should of did it justice by including Stannis and his army, triumphant in the end.
Of course by dedicating an entire episode to one event meant the show had a lot to cover during the finale, The Children. And, in my opinion, they failed at that. First thing they had to do was conclude the previous episode by having Stannis show up in this episode but instead of a straight on fight with giants and such we get some military pincer maneuvers picking off various Wildlings in the forest. And then the mighty King Beyond the Wall surrenders, without so much as raising his sword to defend. Not epic, not how it happened in the book. Next was the actual Children themselves. I don't think I have been as disappointed with how characters looked vs. the book than what I was with how the Children were portrayed. Instead of elf-like, feline types we get street urchins. Look, I get how they blew their budget wad on The Watchers on the Wall but after watching several seasons of Face Off I don't think it would have been too difficult(or expensive) to get a couple of make up types to come in and do it right. Hell, call Face Off and make it one of their challenges. And don't get me started on Bloodraven.
To me, the biggest fail was when Tyrion escaped from the dungeon which included him killing his father, Tywin. Because of the time constraints they put on themselves the show delivered most of the goods on how Tyrion escaped and what he did to Shae and Tywin before he got on to the boat but the show left out the biggest piece of the puzzle, Tysha. Tyrion didn't go back to face Shae and Tywin because of Shae and Tywin, he went back because of what Jaime told him about Tysha when Jaime was helping Tyrion to escape. Not getting the Tysha back story changed the whole dynamic of the scene and made Tyrion seem petty and vengeful instead of devastated, wrought with anger and grief. Knowing what really happened with Tysha made finding Shae in Tywin's bed all the more disturbing and gut-wrenching, leading to Shae's death. It also made killing Tywin for saying whore one more time more believable and understandable. This was probably the show's biggest misstep to date. I would also love to talk about the Lady Stoneheart scenes but apparently those may never happen at all.
There were some great moments in the finale. The meeting and resulting fight between the Hound and Brienne, which never took place in the book, was legendary and far more exciting/fun than what actually happened in the book. I was also moved by the scene of Daenerys locking up her dragons. It was wonderfully played by Emilia Clarke and really brought more depth to her story and character. And I loved how the episode ended with Arya* giving the coin to the ship captain and saying those most famous/infamous of words, Valar Morghulis, before setting sail into the vast, open, uncharted waters. Very metaphoric.
Season 4 ends where book 3 in the series ends and if you have read my previous post on the book series then you know how I feel about the books going forward. I don't know how the show in going to happen in regards to how the books happen but there is a lot to work around regarding the next two books if the show is going to continue to be successful. They would have to combine both A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons over the next two seasons otherwise characters will get left behind or forgotten about completely. And at the pace Martin is writing and releasing his novels in the series the TV show will blow past where the books are sometime in 2017-18. Looking forward to the ride.
*minor gripes- Belwas! BELWAS! Where are you...
*The Night's King- A pretty crappy thing to do whether it was intentional or not.
*the rape scene- One thing I have really disliked about the TV show is how they are always trying to portray Cersei as more sympathetic than how she is in the books. The rape scene had not only magnified that but also cast Jaime in a bad light after the book had been trying so hard to present him as more noble as the story goes on.
*Arya- Although truth be told, as great as the Arya character is on screen I still think the book version is much, much better. Arya is one of those characters who suffers the most from not using the POV style from the books. When you can see what she is thinking as well as how she is acting(she also is only 9 years old in the book!) then she becomes a much more formidable force. Her's is a true decent into darkness and her connection to Nymeria is sorely missed. She is my favorite book character.
Now I've read enough Stephen King in my lifetime to know that movies and TV productions rarely, if ever, follow the source material. Generally they will re-shape the story the way they see fit rather than go by what is already considered an incredible read. Game of Thrones is no different but I was surprised at how close they did stay to what was happening in the books as a whole. It would have been near impossible to use the different character, POV style that Martin used in the books but the show, and especially the actors, did a tremendous job in conveying what each character was going through during their plights and ordeals. The characters for the most part stayed true to form from the books and most of the major events were there although slightly tweaked for television reasons. Overall, I was very pleased with how the show turned out with only minor gripes*...that is, until season 4. Specifically the last two episodes.
There have been some well documented complaints regarding season 4 ranging from the accidental(or maybe intentional) introduction of major characters who have yet to be introduced as actual characters in the book(The Night's King*) to the infamous rape scene* between Cersei and her brother/lover/enemy Jaime. But for me, the last two episodes really let me down as far as the show's connection to the book is concerned. The 2nd to the last episode, The Watchers on the Wall, was a full episode dedicated to the Wildlings' assault on Castle Black. The show was basically trying to recreate, what was up to that point, the show's greatest episode, Blackwater. Both were beautifully shot with the best special effects the show could provide while focusing on only that one specific event instead of jumping around Westeros and beyond. The big difference between the two, other The Watchers on the Wall missing most of the popular characters, is that we got to see the climax of Blackwater instead of waiting another episode. I've read the books so the whole time I was watching The Watchers on the Wall I was waiting for Stannis to show up to save the day. I wanted to see the initial battle of Stannis's army versus a front line of giants. That would of been epic! But instead we got Lord Snow walking off into the snow. End of episode. I'm sorry but if you are going to dedicate an entire episode to the assault on Castle Black you should of did it justice by including Stannis and his army, triumphant in the end.
Of course by dedicating an entire episode to one event meant the show had a lot to cover during the finale, The Children. And, in my opinion, they failed at that. First thing they had to do was conclude the previous episode by having Stannis show up in this episode but instead of a straight on fight with giants and such we get some military pincer maneuvers picking off various Wildlings in the forest. And then the mighty King Beyond the Wall surrenders, without so much as raising his sword to defend. Not epic, not how it happened in the book. Next was the actual Children themselves. I don't think I have been as disappointed with how characters looked vs. the book than what I was with how the Children were portrayed. Instead of elf-like, feline types we get street urchins. Look, I get how they blew their budget wad on The Watchers on the Wall but after watching several seasons of Face Off I don't think it would have been too difficult(or expensive) to get a couple of make up types to come in and do it right. Hell, call Face Off and make it one of their challenges. And don't get me started on Bloodraven.
To me, the biggest fail was when Tyrion escaped from the dungeon which included him killing his father, Tywin. Because of the time constraints they put on themselves the show delivered most of the goods on how Tyrion escaped and what he did to Shae and Tywin before he got on to the boat but the show left out the biggest piece of the puzzle, Tysha. Tyrion didn't go back to face Shae and Tywin because of Shae and Tywin, he went back because of what Jaime told him about Tysha when Jaime was helping Tyrion to escape. Not getting the Tysha back story changed the whole dynamic of the scene and made Tyrion seem petty and vengeful instead of devastated, wrought with anger and grief. Knowing what really happened with Tysha made finding Shae in Tywin's bed all the more disturbing and gut-wrenching, leading to Shae's death. It also made killing Tywin for saying whore one more time more believable and understandable. This was probably the show's biggest misstep to date. I would also love to talk about the Lady Stoneheart scenes but apparently those may never happen at all.
There were some great moments in the finale. The meeting and resulting fight between the Hound and Brienne, which never took place in the book, was legendary and far more exciting/fun than what actually happened in the book. I was also moved by the scene of Daenerys locking up her dragons. It was wonderfully played by Emilia Clarke and really brought more depth to her story and character. And I loved how the episode ended with Arya* giving the coin to the ship captain and saying those most famous/infamous of words, Valar Morghulis, before setting sail into the vast, open, uncharted waters. Very metaphoric.
Season 4 ends where book 3 in the series ends and if you have read my previous post on the book series then you know how I feel about the books going forward. I don't know how the show in going to happen in regards to how the books happen but there is a lot to work around regarding the next two books if the show is going to continue to be successful. They would have to combine both A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons over the next two seasons otherwise characters will get left behind or forgotten about completely. And at the pace Martin is writing and releasing his novels in the series the TV show will blow past where the books are sometime in 2017-18. Looking forward to the ride.
*minor gripes- Belwas! BELWAS! Where are you...
*The Night's King- A pretty crappy thing to do whether it was intentional or not.
*the rape scene- One thing I have really disliked about the TV show is how they are always trying to portray Cersei as more sympathetic than how she is in the books. The rape scene had not only magnified that but also cast Jaime in a bad light after the book had been trying so hard to present him as more noble as the story goes on.
*Arya- Although truth be told, as great as the Arya character is on screen I still think the book version is much, much better. Arya is one of those characters who suffers the most from not using the POV style from the books. When you can see what she is thinking as well as how she is acting(she also is only 9 years old in the book!) then she becomes a much more formidable force. Her's is a true decent into darkness and her connection to Nymeria is sorely missed. She is my favorite book character.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Fandom
Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert…on anything. I am just an A’s fan who loves talking about the A’s. So if you find yourself shaking your head at my amateur ramblings or wondering why I even bother in the first place then please, move along, move along. If, however, you are like me and just love talking about the A’s then, by all means, welcome aboard!
I've been an A's fan going on 30 years now. I know some of you younger fans are already rolling their eyes because you hate when some old timer talks about how long they have been a fan. But in my defense, as much as you hate when old timers bring this up, us old timers equally hate when some younger fan tells us that we are not real fans because we don't meet an arbitrary set of rules that you feel define what a fan is. It seems every new generation of fans has a group who feel it is their job to define what is the accepted rules to be considered a fan a specific team. I did it when I started rooting for the A's(sadly and regrettably) and I have experienced it every time the A's reloaded for a playoff run. Of course I don't mean all or even most fans, the vast majority of which that I have had the good fortune of encountering being very good people and fans. But there is a small segment of fans who feel it is their job to tell others whether or not they have the right to call themselves A's fans. No matter what anybody says, I consider myself an A's fan, and don't feel I need to justify it to anybody. And if you want to call yourself an A's fan, you don't have to justify it to me. You root for the team how you see fit and I'll do the same. Just because we both consider ourselves A's fans doesn't mean we have to be friends or even agree on matters pertaining to the team we both root for. Thus is life. But in light of recent events, I want to touch upon the subject and get some things off my chest, so to speak.
We live in the age of social media and, for better or for worse, this has given rise to the "online super fan". Most of these OSFs are just die hard fans who use the power and accessibility of the internet to share their love for their favorite team. They share stories, memories, thoughts, time, memorabilia, and game experiences to create a rich and vibrant community for all to enjoy. They help make being a fan fun. But there are also OSFs who have designated themselves as, to borrow a term from one OSF, "thought police". Personally, I first gave up on social media way back in its infancy when fan forums* and community blogs were all the rage. Fan forums were great, where else could you mingle with so many fans from so many backgrounds and locations? Fan forums eventually gave way to fan community blogs that took the interacting to a whole new level. This is where I got off the social media train. I used to love the free-flowing talk and ideas about the A's but while on a very popular A's blog, I experienced some-shall we say-"though policing" by a small group of OSFs who decided to ridicule and ostracize any fan who didn't see things their way...and they always got their way. I grew tired of the blatant disregard of other opinions and ideas so I walked away, for almost ten years. That is until I decided to get on Twitter.
I've been on Twitter for two years now. In that time I have had the chance to interact with some wonderful people and even better A's fans*. It has been what social media should be, a global fraternization of people with common tastes and desires. Unfortunately, I have also come across more of the same b.s. from OSFs trying to tell me what defines an A's fan. At various times I have been told that I am not a real fan because:
a) I'm not from Oakland.
b) I'm not from the East Bay.
c) I'm not from the Bay Area.
d) I'm from the Central Valley.
e) I don't have season tickets*.
f) I don't attend X amount of games.
g) When I do go I don't sit in the right section.
h) I continue to root for certain players(being a "fanboy").
i) I don't become disgruntled and lash out(being a "blind optimist").
j) I don't like Reggie Jackson and don't consider him a true Athletic.
And that is just on Twitter. As I understand it, facebook can be even worse. Luckily I have no need for facebook.
What brought this on? Booing. It seems we have a new debate between OSFs on what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior for A's fans. There are those who feel it is their right to boo players whenever they see fit* and there are those(whom I tend to agree with) who feel it is counter-productive to being a fan* of a specific team. I understand a fan's frustration and there are times when I feel it is justified to boo. Players who are clearly not trying or have given up entirely. Players who act like knuckleheads either on or off the field. Players who show a certain disdain for the fans who root for them. They all deserve to be aware of what the fans think of them. However, booing a player because he is trying yet is still struggling accomplishes nothing. The way I feel about players is the way I feel about the team; if you can't support them when they are struggling then don't be there when they are succeeding. Which is how I define myself as a fan: one who supports,with noted exceptions, a given team and its personnel through both the good times and the bad. Simple really. Either I am part of something as a whole or I am not. Does that mean you are a real fan or not? Not my place to say. This is the code my fandom lives by, you go live by yours. To each their own. Of course, there are those OSFs* who are going to disagree with me and may even sic their "though police" on me again but this is the way I feel. For better or for worse.
*fan forums- Proudly, I used to always start an A's room back during the Commodore 128 Q-Link days! Long live the '80's!
*A's fans- It is on my bucket list to eventually meet one of you in real life, just to verify that this all isn't just a figment of my imagination.
*season tickets- I had two sets of bleacher season tickets from '96-2004 but had to quit due to job promotion.
*they see fit- Spare me the "I'm a paying customer therefore it is my right to boo!" rhetoric. All a ticket allows is your admittance to the event, maybe a bobblehead, it doesn't give you license to act however you like.
*being a fan- I looked back and went through quite a bit of the Twitter rage over booing last night and it seems, for the most part, it is the long time, older fans who take exception to the booing. Totally unscientific and could be complete randomness but my guess is because some of the fans who are "Boobirds" have yet to truly experience the A's when they have been at their worse and are taking all the winning and recent success for granted. Some are just jerks.
*OSFs- Luckily, or unluckily, no OSFs will actually read any of this.
I've been an A's fan going on 30 years now. I know some of you younger fans are already rolling their eyes because you hate when some old timer talks about how long they have been a fan. But in my defense, as much as you hate when old timers bring this up, us old timers equally hate when some younger fan tells us that we are not real fans because we don't meet an arbitrary set of rules that you feel define what a fan is. It seems every new generation of fans has a group who feel it is their job to define what is the accepted rules to be considered a fan a specific team. I did it when I started rooting for the A's(sadly and regrettably) and I have experienced it every time the A's reloaded for a playoff run. Of course I don't mean all or even most fans, the vast majority of which that I have had the good fortune of encountering being very good people and fans. But there is a small segment of fans who feel it is their job to tell others whether or not they have the right to call themselves A's fans. No matter what anybody says, I consider myself an A's fan, and don't feel I need to justify it to anybody. And if you want to call yourself an A's fan, you don't have to justify it to me. You root for the team how you see fit and I'll do the same. Just because we both consider ourselves A's fans doesn't mean we have to be friends or even agree on matters pertaining to the team we both root for. Thus is life. But in light of recent events, I want to touch upon the subject and get some things off my chest, so to speak.
We live in the age of social media and, for better or for worse, this has given rise to the "online super fan". Most of these OSFs are just die hard fans who use the power and accessibility of the internet to share their love for their favorite team. They share stories, memories, thoughts, time, memorabilia, and game experiences to create a rich and vibrant community for all to enjoy. They help make being a fan fun. But there are also OSFs who have designated themselves as, to borrow a term from one OSF, "thought police". Personally, I first gave up on social media way back in its infancy when fan forums* and community blogs were all the rage. Fan forums were great, where else could you mingle with so many fans from so many backgrounds and locations? Fan forums eventually gave way to fan community blogs that took the interacting to a whole new level. This is where I got off the social media train. I used to love the free-flowing talk and ideas about the A's but while on a very popular A's blog, I experienced some-shall we say-"though policing" by a small group of OSFs who decided to ridicule and ostracize any fan who didn't see things their way...and they always got their way. I grew tired of the blatant disregard of other opinions and ideas so I walked away, for almost ten years. That is until I decided to get on Twitter.
I've been on Twitter for two years now. In that time I have had the chance to interact with some wonderful people and even better A's fans*. It has been what social media should be, a global fraternization of people with common tastes and desires. Unfortunately, I have also come across more of the same b.s. from OSFs trying to tell me what defines an A's fan. At various times I have been told that I am not a real fan because:
a) I'm not from Oakland.
b) I'm not from the East Bay.
c) I'm not from the Bay Area.
d) I'm from the Central Valley.
e) I don't have season tickets*.
f) I don't attend X amount of games.
g) When I do go I don't sit in the right section.
h) I continue to root for certain players(being a "fanboy").
i) I don't become disgruntled and lash out(being a "blind optimist").
j) I don't like Reggie Jackson and don't consider him a true Athletic.
And that is just on Twitter. As I understand it, facebook can be even worse. Luckily I have no need for facebook.
What brought this on? Booing. It seems we have a new debate between OSFs on what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior for A's fans. There are those who feel it is their right to boo players whenever they see fit* and there are those(whom I tend to agree with) who feel it is counter-productive to being a fan* of a specific team. I understand a fan's frustration and there are times when I feel it is justified to boo. Players who are clearly not trying or have given up entirely. Players who act like knuckleheads either on or off the field. Players who show a certain disdain for the fans who root for them. They all deserve to be aware of what the fans think of them. However, booing a player because he is trying yet is still struggling accomplishes nothing. The way I feel about players is the way I feel about the team; if you can't support them when they are struggling then don't be there when they are succeeding. Which is how I define myself as a fan: one who supports,with noted exceptions, a given team and its personnel through both the good times and the bad. Simple really. Either I am part of something as a whole or I am not. Does that mean you are a real fan or not? Not my place to say. This is the code my fandom lives by, you go live by yours. To each their own. Of course, there are those OSFs* who are going to disagree with me and may even sic their "though police" on me again but this is the way I feel. For better or for worse.
*fan forums- Proudly, I used to always start an A's room back during the Commodore 128 Q-Link days! Long live the '80's!
*A's fans- It is on my bucket list to eventually meet one of you in real life, just to verify that this all isn't just a figment of my imagination.
*season tickets- I had two sets of bleacher season tickets from '96-2004 but had to quit due to job promotion.
*they see fit- Spare me the "I'm a paying customer therefore it is my right to boo!" rhetoric. All a ticket allows is your admittance to the event, maybe a bobblehead, it doesn't give you license to act however you like.
*being a fan- I looked back and went through quite a bit of the Twitter rage over booing last night and it seems, for the most part, it is the long time, older fans who take exception to the booing. Totally unscientific and could be complete randomness but my guess is because some of the fans who are "Boobirds" have yet to truly experience the A's when they have been at their worse and are taking all the winning and recent success for granted. Some are just jerks.
*OSFs- Luckily, or unluckily, no OSFs will actually read any of this.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Right Field Memories
With the Right Field bleacher section in Oakland getting some attention in recent years for being loud and supportive fans* I can't help but recall my days of sitting in those same seats and rooting for the A's. From 1987(my first game) through 2004*, 90% of the games I attended were in the right field bleachers*. The bleachers were always a festive way to watch a baseball game and being a simple, working man meant that they were a great value as well. So here are a couple of my memories of that specific, glorious section:
My first Oakland A's game. The year was 1987 and the A's were starting to make some noise with players like Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. All I remember from the game was Jose Canseco standing like a baseball god less than 50ft. from me and the whole section having fun with the name of the Detroit Tigers outfielder, Chet Lemon. "Hey Chet, you are full of Chet!" "BullChet!" "You play like Chet!" Good times? Nay, great times.
Any deep fly ball hit in Jose Canseco's* direction. During games Canseco was generally doing one of three thing; day dreaming, trying to wink or flirt with certain fans, or even better yet, flexing in front of an imaginary mirror. So when a deep one was hit Jose went through the 6 stages of the catch. 1) Get an "Oh Shit!" look on his face ever so briefly. 2) Start to go back like you are not quite sure where the ball might be going. 3) Finally get a reading on the ball. 4) Raise your glove and hope it goes in. 5) Sometimes it helps if you close your eyes right at the moment of impact. 6) Smile your cocky smile because you knew you had it all along.
1995-1997. Dark days, very dark days. These were not fun teams to root for but we(some of us) tried rooting for them anyways. I swear, there were games when there might of been like 12 people total sitting in any section. We rooted for guys like Ruben Sierra(gulp!), Geronimo Berroa, Matty Stairs, and Jose Herrera! Jose Herrera??? Yeah, 1996 was especially painful.
Paul O'Neil striking out. To me no other player represented yankee pretentiousness like Pauly so whenever he struck out we in the bleachers got to watch him stew over it in the field. He would mimic the at bat he just had, faux-swinging to try and figure out what went wrong all while turning occasionally to give some bleacher denizen a dirty look or turn his nose up at us. His strike outs were a small victory but a victory none the less.
The day they brought out Jerry Rice in an A's jersey. Rice had been a San Francisco 49er legend up to this point so when the cross bay Raiders signed him what better time to show him off in an A's jersey than when the San Francisco Giants were in town, on WAGs softball day too! When they announced him and brought him out in the A's home whites riding around in a convertible the crowd went nuts. A's fans naturally cheered but the Giants's fans in the bleachers went ballistic. I never seen so much hate poured onto one player for just waving at fans as I saw coming from Giants's fans. Here was the greatest 49er ever and arguably a top 5 player of all time and Giants fans were treating him like garbage. Memory bonus pints: The game also marked the 2nd closest* I have ever been getting into a fight at a game. Later on in the game, some real tough, grown-up Giants's fans tried to pick a fight with some kid(I think he claimed he was 12 or something) sitting in the first row of the bleachers. Security cooled them down but me and my buddy Paul followed them up to the concourse and as things were about to get ugly security stepped in again. We were told to go back our seats, they were asked to leave.
No matter where you sit at the Coliseum it is always a great seat to watch the game from. I really enjoy sitting field level from dugout to dugout, you can get a better feel for the game there, but the bleachers will always be the place where I grew to love the game.
fans*- They look like they are having fun out there so more power to them.
2004*- I got a promotion and pay raise at work so I started sitting field level and have been there ever since, although part of me wishes he could go catch a game in the bleachers now and again.
bleachers*- Why right field? Two words, one legend: Jose Canseco! When I was younger I had to sit as close to the man as possible and eventually it just became a habit.
Canseco's*- With the exception of Rickey(and quite possibly Pedro Martinez) Jose Canseco in his prime remains the most entertaining, fascinating, and physically dominating player I have ever watched.
2nd closest*- 1st closest? Opening night, 2006. A lot was going on that night; it was my birthday, Frank Thomas looked absolutely stunning taking Randy Johnson deep while wearing the Green n' Gold, and the yankees were killing Barry Zito and the A's. As A's fans were sitting in a little shock and awe some drunk, loud mouth yankee fan was walking up and down the aisle taunting everybody. He got near me and I jumped up into his face letting him know that it was about to go down. As I puffed up my chest, the crowd behind me was chanting "hit him, hit him!", and the guy, smelling like a brewery shut down due to a rat infestation, staring at me wide eyed, I couldn't help but think about if I really wanted to get thrown out or worst yet, locked up on my birthday because this guy was in no condition to fight back hard. I decided to back down, sit down, and the guy quietly went his way. I think I made the right call.
My first Oakland A's game. The year was 1987 and the A's were starting to make some noise with players like Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. All I remember from the game was Jose Canseco standing like a baseball god less than 50ft. from me and the whole section having fun with the name of the Detroit Tigers outfielder, Chet Lemon. "Hey Chet, you are full of Chet!" "BullChet!" "You play like Chet!" Good times? Nay, great times.
Any deep fly ball hit in Jose Canseco's* direction. During games Canseco was generally doing one of three thing; day dreaming, trying to wink or flirt with certain fans, or even better yet, flexing in front of an imaginary mirror. So when a deep one was hit Jose went through the 6 stages of the catch. 1) Get an "Oh Shit!" look on his face ever so briefly. 2) Start to go back like you are not quite sure where the ball might be going. 3) Finally get a reading on the ball. 4) Raise your glove and hope it goes in. 5) Sometimes it helps if you close your eyes right at the moment of impact. 6) Smile your cocky smile because you knew you had it all along.
1995-1997. Dark days, very dark days. These were not fun teams to root for but we(some of us) tried rooting for them anyways. I swear, there were games when there might of been like 12 people total sitting in any section. We rooted for guys like Ruben Sierra(gulp!), Geronimo Berroa, Matty Stairs, and Jose Herrera! Jose Herrera??? Yeah, 1996 was especially painful.
Paul O'Neil striking out. To me no other player represented yankee pretentiousness like Pauly so whenever he struck out we in the bleachers got to watch him stew over it in the field. He would mimic the at bat he just had, faux-swinging to try and figure out what went wrong all while turning occasionally to give some bleacher denizen a dirty look or turn his nose up at us. His strike outs were a small victory but a victory none the less.
The day they brought out Jerry Rice in an A's jersey. Rice had been a San Francisco 49er legend up to this point so when the cross bay Raiders signed him what better time to show him off in an A's jersey than when the San Francisco Giants were in town, on WAGs softball day too! When they announced him and brought him out in the A's home whites riding around in a convertible the crowd went nuts. A's fans naturally cheered but the Giants's fans in the bleachers went ballistic. I never seen so much hate poured onto one player for just waving at fans as I saw coming from Giants's fans. Here was the greatest 49er ever and arguably a top 5 player of all time and Giants fans were treating him like garbage. Memory bonus pints: The game also marked the 2nd closest* I have ever been getting into a fight at a game. Later on in the game, some real tough, grown-up Giants's fans tried to pick a fight with some kid(I think he claimed he was 12 or something) sitting in the first row of the bleachers. Security cooled them down but me and my buddy Paul followed them up to the concourse and as things were about to get ugly security stepped in again. We were told to go back our seats, they were asked to leave.
No matter where you sit at the Coliseum it is always a great seat to watch the game from. I really enjoy sitting field level from dugout to dugout, you can get a better feel for the game there, but the bleachers will always be the place where I grew to love the game.
fans*- They look like they are having fun out there so more power to them.
2004*- I got a promotion and pay raise at work so I started sitting field level and have been there ever since, although part of me wishes he could go catch a game in the bleachers now and again.
bleachers*- Why right field? Two words, one legend: Jose Canseco! When I was younger I had to sit as close to the man as possible and eventually it just became a habit.
Canseco's*- With the exception of Rickey(and quite possibly Pedro Martinez) Jose Canseco in his prime remains the most entertaining, fascinating, and physically dominating player I have ever watched.
2nd closest*- 1st closest? Opening night, 2006. A lot was going on that night; it was my birthday, Frank Thomas looked absolutely stunning taking Randy Johnson deep while wearing the Green n' Gold, and the yankees were killing Barry Zito and the A's. As A's fans were sitting in a little shock and awe some drunk, loud mouth yankee fan was walking up and down the aisle taunting everybody. He got near me and I jumped up into his face letting him know that it was about to go down. As I puffed up my chest, the crowd behind me was chanting "hit him, hit him!", and the guy, smelling like a brewery shut down due to a rat infestation, staring at me wide eyed, I couldn't help but think about if I really wanted to get thrown out or worst yet, locked up on my birthday because this guy was in no condition to fight back hard. I decided to back down, sit down, and the guy quietly went his way. I think I made the right call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)