Month: July 2022

The trade deadline is approaching in baseball. As playoff contending teams are prepared to make big, meaningful movies to give them a push towards a World Series title and non-contending teams look to sell off their best players in the hopes of rebuilding for the future, the stove is about to get hotter than ever. However, there is not one trade that is being discussed more right now than that of the young, energy-filled superstar for the Washington Nationals, Juan Soto.

Recently, it has been reported that Soto turned down a 15-year long contract extension for 440 million dollars by the Nationals. After trying to do everything in their power to extend their talent slugger in the hopes of building a contending team around him for the foreseeable future, the Nationals no longer feel that they will be able to extend Juan Soto long term and have made him opened to trade. Whether Soto turned this massive contract down because he felt he wasn’t being paid enough or just thinks the Nats won’t be a competitive team for the next decade plus is beyond me but no doubt this is a stunning development.

Juan Soto is no doubt one of the best players in baseball. He’s great with the bat with plenty of pop and contact, has one of the best eyes in baseball being able to take a ton of walks and always able to find a way to get on base, and has the cocky, show-off attitude that makes him the right player for this flashy age of baseball we are currently living in. Also, he’s only 23 years old!

He’s no doubt a future hall of famer at the moment but he has got a LONG way to go before we even consider having some sort of conversation about that. Even so, he’s already accomplished many things in baseball! He won a World Series in 2019, took home a batting champion crown in 2020, the Silver Slugger and All-Star game twice, and just came off on top at this year Home Run Derby! A team trading for him would be HUGE but no doubt it will come with a MASSIVE price.

According to head baseball writer/reporter, Ken Rosenthal, the Nationals are requesting at least four to five top young players in return, a combination of top prospects and major league players with brief experience on the major league levels to potentially land this all-star caliber player. This is a huge cost but you will be guarantee Juan Soto for at least three consecutive pennant races.

What's the Nationals asking price for Juan Soto? @Ken_Rosenthal reports that it will take 4 to 5 top young players (combo of prospects and major leaguers with low service time) to potentially land the superstar pic.twitter.com/fefj20gO7P

— FOX Sports: MLB (@MLBONFOX) July 23, 2022

There is however one other feature that makes this trade more complicated. On top of trading away Juan Soto, the Nationals have also requested that teams also acquired starting pitcher Patrick Corbin as a side dish so they could get rid of all of his remaining salary on his contract. The problem here is that Corbin has been one of the absolute worst pitchers in baseball for the past three seasons. This year in particular, he has a dreadful record of 4-13 with a 6.02 ERA and has lead the National League in hits and earned runs given up. Like Soto, Corbin will become a free agent after the 2024 season with plenty of money being due. So not only will you be able to require one of the best hitters in recent memory but you will also have to require one of the worst pitchers in recent memory. This is where things get quite frustrating.

This really comes off as a cheap and manipulative move on the part of Nationals general manager, Mike Rizzo. Basically asking a team to cover up a big financial mistake he’s made along with asking for multiple top prospects and players for two and a half years with a superstar slugger with no guarantee that he will stick around after 2024. Sure, Corbin might be better on a different team with a different catcher, pitching coach, different defense, and a completely different ballpark but asking for the other team to pay for every single cent of an overpaid contract is criminal. It’s a crime without a doubt, but I still believe it’s a crime worth committing.

As much as teams are passionate about their top prospects in their farm system, there is never a guarantee they will turned out to be the next big star. There’s never a guarantee they will turn out to be the next Barry Bonds or Albert Pujols. Some do but most other folks don’t. Just go back and take a look at any of the MLB drafts of the past decade and tell me how many players selected in the first round ended up having impactful careers to this day. Not just talking about Mike Trout and Bryce Harper but every single one chosen from every team out there. You are likely to find more misses than hits there. Prospects are unproven but veteran players are absolutely proven. Especially the ones that come around like Juan Soto. The kind that is able to impact the game of baseball harder than ever before. The ones that is absolutely is worth trading for at ANY price imaginable!

Anyone familiar with James Ramsey or Brian Johnson?

There are many teams that have been discussed that are interested in a potential trade for Soto.. The key teams that have been most considered to be traded include the likes of the Mets, Yankees, Mariners, Rangers, Dodgers, Padres, and the Cardinals. Those are teams that have the talent to trade away as a means of acquiring Juan Soto for a potential postseason run. As much as there are plenty of advantages for each team to want to acquire him, there is at least one thing that could potentially hold them back of pulling the trigger.

The Mets are a divisional rival of the Nationals which might set them back from Washington’s sights. The Yankees don’t exactly have a top-tier farm at the moment and will probably be more focused on extending Aaron Judge. The Mariners and Rangers might not want to deplete their farm system this soon in the hopes that they can make future playoff spots in the upcoming years after being out of it for years now. The Dodgers already sacrificed a lot last year with the additions of Max Scherzer and Trea Turner and would probably rather just wait until Soto hits free agency to make the move on him. The Padres already have plenty of salary on the books with long-term contracts of Tatis, Machado, and Hosmer and may not want to go over the luxury tax. Lastly, the Cardinals are an organization that highly values their prospects and probably prefer to put greater focus on acquiring starting pitching to fill out that injury-plagued rotation.

As much as there is a strong chance that Nationals will trade Juan Soto in the next coming days, there is also likely as strong of a chance that he might not be dealt with until the offseason if no teams are willing to meet Mike Rizzo’s demands. In hindsight, that would be a big mistake on part of the Nationals as by then, the price will probably be less demanding and they won’t be able to get the players and prospects they want because they waited too long to trade him. However, when it comes to benefits from both sides of this equation, it is for the best that Soto is able to put on a new uniform by August 2nd.

(And that’s not even bringing up how the Nats were so grumpy over Soto’s rejection that they didn’t even offer him a ride to the Home Run Derby!)

A trade is always a big risk. Neither side knows how it will affect them in the future and whether or not it will benefit them in the long run. However, when you have an already proven winning player like Juan Soto involved with such a trade, then it is certainly worth it. There are very few players like Juan Soto right now that can be described as good and fun to watch as he is. He’s the type of player that not only can help a team out now but also in the long-term future. He is the type of player that any fan of any team will want to pay money to come watch play. He is the type of player that MLB needs to put a greater emphasis on around marketing for players as he fits right in. He is the type of player that is 100% worth trading for! Whoever ends up with Juan Soto, you will be in for quite a treat!

Thor: Love and Thunder is now released in theaters and everyone has an opinion on it. Whether it’s a positive one or negative one, this is definitely another MCU installment that seems to be getting a pretty split reaction from fans. Similar to that of more recent movies in Phase 4 such as Black Widow, Eternals, and Doctor Strange: Multiverse of Madness, there doesn’t seem to much of overwhelming positive reactions compare to other, more high-rated Marvel entries such as Spider-Man: No Way Home for example. Whether people debate about the film’s tone, direction, handling of the story and subject matter, and being slightly more progressive or whatever, there has now been some serious discussions as to whether or not the Marvel Cinematic Universe has finally ran it’s course. While most will argue that fatigue is settling in with the franchise approaching 30 movies and multiple Disney Plus series being released on a monthly matter, others have argued it’s because Marvel doesn’t seem to have an overall “plan” for Phase 4, or at least one that hasn’t been made clear enough.

I find this discourse quite amusing since it was Marvel themselves that created this mindset that every big studio must have a near decade long plan in advance before going forward with their own shared universe. It was the road map that Marvel created for themselves when developing the Infinity Saga that made people believe that you must plan out everything ahead of time or else it will fall apart. And now here we are, three years after the Infinity Saga has been complete and Marvel being accused for not being prepared enough in advance of what’s in store for the future of this franchise.

*in Palpatine’s voice* Ironic!

For the past several years, there has been discussions by movie buffs everywhere about whether or not a movie franchise needs to have a big grand plan in order for it to be worthwhile and feel cohesive. Many folks would claim the reason the Star Wars sequel trilogy turned out quite uneven was because there was no overarching plan four to five years in advance or how the Dark Universe and Sony Spider-Man universe collapsed because they had no idea what kind of foundation they were trying to built which lead to poor reviews and underwhelming box office results. While those talking points do have valid points, I think it’s more complicated than just not being planned in advance. As a matter of fact, planning in advance doesn’t have to be a necessity and I will gladly explain why.

First off, most movie franchises are built on original movies. Franchises tend to be as successful as they are because of how much people liked the very first entry of it. It’s because of that is what leads to a series being made. For example, Toy Story was given three sequels not because it was always planned to be a series but because of how much people adore the first one. You don’t get Toy Story 2, 3, and 4 if the original was no good. How can you expected for a franchise to plan ahead before it is even given a chance to be a franchise? Sure, you can argue that movies like The Godfather, Jurassic Park, and any Marvel or DC property is based off of existing source material that have had multiple additions, but there is still no guarantee that any of those can get more movies if the first one is not successful. You don’t get sequels to any of those without the first movie being a success.

Granted, there are definitely examples that are harder to defend with the no plan/road map mindset. Going back to the sequel trilogy, that was a series of films that the people behind it knew for a fact that they were going to make it a trilogy no matter what. They knew that each film was going to make a billion dollars based on the Star Wars name alone. Having a plan in advance certainly would have helped but I still would argue that was not a requirement. They didn’t need a plan for the trilogy, what they needed to do was make sequels that build upon the previous one and not try to erase it entirely.

Regardless of what one might think, The Last Jedi actually flows just fine with The Force Awakens as a direct sequel. You may not like the choices that were made in that movie but you can’t claim that it “retconned” the previous one just because it contained things you didn’t like. Rise of Skywalker on the other hand, did not flow well at all as sequel to both Last Jedi and even Force Awakens (which is baffling since Abrams himself directed that film). Instead of following through on the previous two movies and wrapping up it’s remaining story elements, Rise of Skywalker felt the need to add new story elements, characters and completely rewrite backstories at the very last minute because of online discourse surrounding the previous two installments. The movie was a complete mess because it felt sloppily put together at the last minute and felt like it was made with the people involved with it having a gun pointed to their heads by a member of The “Fandom” Menace. It didn’t need to be planned years in advance, what it needed to do was be an actual sequel. Something which most franchises out there tend to do without a big plan.

What’s even more interesting about these claims is that those people don’t even bother to think about the franchises that did in fact have a plan in advance and it completely backfired. Just look at what happened with DC after they gave Zack Snyder full creative control to his own shared universe. It was definitely planned in advance but it completely fell apart because they didn’t bother to keep their foundations in check or second guess what the actual public reaction would have been to those films or it’s box office results. Because of the mixed to negative reception to Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, it forced Warner Bros to reconsider Snyder’s direction of DC films just right in the middle of the road map he had for it. Trying to plan ahead is what set DC films back for quite awhile and attempting to course correct by adding in reshoots to include jokes and tacked-on pop songs in movies like Suicide Squad and Justice League certainly didn’t help. Yes, Snyder did eventually get to release the movie that fitted more with his vision but at what cost. DC had a plan with their extended universe with Zack Snyder and it failed spectacularly.

Of course, this is not the only example of this. There are even instances involving television when this has occurred. Do I need to remind you how bad the ending to How I Met Your Mother and Game of Thrones despite it clearly being the intention from the get-go or how Marvel Netflix got muddled because the producers assumed that people would fall high over heels for Iron Fist and the godawful Hand cult? There can in fact be such things as planning too far in advance. It’s not always about preparing for the future when you’re certain where that exact future will leave you.

When talking about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I would argue that it was not as pre-planned as many are willing to believe. Did they have a road map? Absolutely! Did they have everything figured out all the way back in 2008? Absolute not!

All you have to do is what the quadtrilogy of Thor movies. You can’t sit there and tell me that all four of those movies were planned the whole way through. There was clearly course correcting between each one of them. With things like how the Lady Sif and the Warriors kept getting build up but with zero payoff, not much time being spent completely on Asgard, Loki being shoehorned in whenever he can, and character arcs and moments that come out of left field such as Jane Foster becoming Thor all of a sudden , this was clearly a series of films being made up on a flight. Were there certain beats that was intended from the beginning? Sure but that doesn’t mean it was planned out as a whole. And do I even knew to mention that moment with Hela and the Infinity Gauntlet.

Don’t take this article as me thinking I’m completely against a franchise having a plan, road map, or a straight forward goal. What I’m trying to say that this should not be the ONLY source of thinking when it comes to making films within established franchises. You just need to have people involved with it that know exactly what they are doing and what stories they are trying to tell with each movie they make.

A perfect example of this is with the new Planet of the Apes reboot. They weren’t planned out from the very beginning (something which Matt Reeves admitted when he claimed he wanted to make a “filler” installment before the finale) but each entry felt cohesive and flowed beautifully with each other. This was because directors Rupert Wyatt and Matt Reeves were able to build upon the previous installment to help create a trilogy-long arc that felt like it’s own complete story with a beginning, middle and end. We saw the main character of Caesar evolve as a character throughout the course of three films as we see him in his role as ape, father, and leader of his own kind.

It’s totally fine to not have a full plan in advance. Part of the fun in the creative process of the filmmaking is being able to see how far you can go with the main concepts and ideas that you have for you own standalone project without worrying about what the next one would be like. While there is still room to do that with franchises with strict planned scheduling, an overreliance of that can take away some of the energy and excitement with making certain movies that it can make come across as an obligation rather than a passionate project.

The main point I’m trying to get across here is that there are multiple ways to approach franchise filmmaking. All it comes down to is execution and how well each movie of said franchise presents itself. When it works, it works. When it doesn’t work, then it just doesn’t work. Plan or no plan, it will only come down to whether or not the filmmakers are able to translate that spectacular vision they have of their film properly on the big screen. If they can’t, then planned ahead or not won’t matter. What matters is the way the film present itself.

Who would’ve guessed that out of all the original Avengers that it would be Thor that would get a fourth movie? Sure, one could argue something like how Captain America: Civil War was just as much Iron Man 4 as it was Captain America 3 but as far as titled movies go, Thor is the first one to get a quadrilogy. It’s hard to deny that the sole reason for Thor getting another movie mostly has to do with the success of it’s predecessor Thor: Ragnarok. After his first two solo movies were met with a so-so reaction from fans and critics alike (along with an incredibly phony revival response from folks on the internet) , a change of course was needed to prove that Thor can hold his own movie and that he is a character worthy of the Marvel canon. Taika Waititi was able to provided that shot in the arm that the character and the franchise needed. While not everyone is a fan of the more comedic Thor, if it wasn’t for the success of that third Thor, there’s a big chance that Marvel would have been done with making standalone Thor movies and at best, he would be a supporting character in other movies until Hemsworth had lost interest in the role. Because of that, we now have Love and Thunder.

A big complaint that people have had about Phase 4 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is how aimlessness it all feels. How many things are just being thrown at the walls to see what sticks, and that there’s really not a overall “plan” to it. While I understand those claims, I think it’s a bit more complicated than that.

I’m going to save most of this for a later post sometime next weekend but the fact is most franchises are run without any sort of big grand plan. It’s the success of Marvel that has given the misguided sense that you must have every single little thing planned out many years in advance before you start shooting the pictures or else it will be a failure. If you ask me, that’s not a very healthy way to think when constructing a series.

To those people who have made those claims, I suggest you watch all four of these Thor movies back-to-back-to-back-to-back. When you watch them I dare you all to tell me that all four of these movies were planned all out in advance. I dare you! I double dare you motherf*cker! I seriously dare anyone to tell me that each of these movies were planned the moment that filming began for the very first Thor! You can’t because it’s not suppose to be that way!

Yes, Love and Thunder was of course not planned from the get-go and the sole reason it existed is because how big of a hit Ragnarok was! However, WELCOME TO HOLLYWOOD! THAT’S HOW MOVIE FRANCHISE ARE USUALLY MADE!

Anyways, so how actually does Waititi do on round two with Thor movies? Mostly, more of the same as last time out except not quite as much tonally control as he did with the prior movie and tackling subject matters that isn’t executed as well has it could have because of the oddball tone it’s going for. This will definitely not win anyone over who didn’t care for the previous one but if you are a fan of it, then you will most likely find just as much enjoyment of this one even if it’s shorter and feels more like trying to recapture lightning in a bottle.

Warning: The following premise might contain some mild spoilers for the movie. The reason I say this is because there are certain subplots and elements that the trailers have not touched upon. Fans of the source material that this movie is based on should not be surprised but for everyone else, proceed the rest of the review with caution.

Premise: Taking place sometime after Avengers: Endgame, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has been with the Guardians of the Galaxy for awhile and is struggling to find his next purpose in life. Despite all he’s lost and achieve, he is looking for that next big thing to help him find inner peace. Things take a turn for the worse when Thor receives a distress call from his old friend Sif (Jaimie Alexander), and discovers a new villain that has emerged in the form of Gorr the God Butcher (Christian Bale), a galactic killer who kidnaps the children of New Asgard as he seeks the extinction of all gods after losing his daughter. We also see Jane Foster (Natalie Porman) thrown back to the mix as she is battling cancer but believes that wielding the Mjolnir and becoming the Mighty Thor just might help her out with her life-threatening condition. It’s then that Thor must work together with Jane and reunite with his teammates from Ragnarok with Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), who is now king of New Asgard, and Korg (Taika Watti) to defeat Gorr before he gets his revenge.

Now, with that much of a setup, you would think that the movie would ranged around two and a half hours long. However, that is not the case here with Love and Thunder as it is just under two hours with a runtime of just 119 minutes including credits. The movie moves at a breezy clip by throwing enough action, laughs, and beats to keep your attention until it ends. While there are definitely elements that I feel could have benefitted with an extra 15 to 20 minutes of screen time, it’s not something you notice when watching the movie and only think about an hour or two after you’ve seen it.

The most surprising element of Love and Thunder is how this is the first time in these movies that I actually cared about the relationship between Thor and Jane. With the first Thor movies, it was hard to buy their chemistry and you couldn’t help but feel it was more of a physical attraction between the two as oppose to an emotional one. It only felt like Thor and Jane were together because both Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman are two insanely attractive people. However, here, it does just enough to get you engage with their relationships and have it all reflect the arcs the two characters go through. Mostly involving being about cherishing every moment with the ones you love because you never know when they are going to be gone forever. While there are parts in the first act that feels like it’s doing the heavy lifting that the first two Thor movies should have done, it’s certainly the most engaging part of the movie and what keeps the picture from falling completely flat on it’s face.

Another nice element is the return of Natalie Portman. This is the first time in these movies where Portman feels like she is really enjoying herself. While that is mostly because she now gets the chance to play a superhero, she is able to blend with the other cast members very well and is a big highlight of the movie. And for those concerned that her coming back as Thor would come across as fake feminism or having her be completely flawless, there is plenty of vulnerability on display for her character and has enough depth to make her feel like a fully formed person here. I won’t go too much into what her character does through as that would contain spoilers but it’s good to see Natalie get something more worthwhile to do here.

Christian Bale makes a great impression as the main villain as Gorr. While he doesn’t have as much screen time as much as I would have liked, he does make for perhaps the most engaging MCU villain since Kilmonger. He’s fighting for the same cause that the heroes are in the movie but for completely different reasons. He’s sympathetic, intimating, and even kinda funny at times. Bale’s performance does feel closer to Patrick Bate than Batman but he’s good enough here to make you feel his presence in every scene that he is in.

As for the rest of the cast, Tessa Thompson gets less to do her as King Valkyrie than in Ragnarok but gets enough cool action bits to herself and Thompson herself is so charming that she just completely steals every moment she is in. Taika Waititi gets himself more time to shine as Korg and the narrator but it feels like he might have been better suited as an extended cameo rather than as a major supporting character. Speaking of extended cameos, the Guardians of the Galaxy don’t have any big roles to play after the setup and feels like they’re only here because continuity and to let the audience know what they’ve been up to three years later. There’s also another stage play here that reacts events from the last movie that has the other two celebrities from before making a cameo here along with a delightful one from the one that plays Hela. Despite it making less sense of having a stage play this time out, that one surprise cameo basically saved that moment for me.

The real thing that keeps Love and Thunder from being a top-tier MCU flick and somewhere in-between mid-tier and low-tier is it’s overall jarring change of tone and how it handle the elements in it’s story. While Ragnarok played a similar dark storyline in a funny way, it doesn’t work as well here. At least in Ragnarok, it made sense to be all wacky and fun with Thor as he visits these strange worlds and these strange individuals he meets along the way. In Love and Thunder, aside from a section where he visits a world to find Zeus (played gloriously by Russell Crowe), he doesn’t visit those kind of places or interact with those kind of individuals. It’s really hard to play the same comedic angle from last time but also try to make a personal story involving a man who kidnaps children to avenge his lost daughter along with a woman dying from cancer. It’s not that it’s impossible for Whatti to find the right balance between light and darkness as his other non-Marvel movies (What We Do in the Shadows, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, and JoJo Rabbit) has proven otherwise. Here, it feels like he got a bit of ahead of himself.

There’s also certain characters that don’t get as much screen time as they should. There’s not much done with the status quo for Valkyrie in her newly King form or even attempt to explore the gay side of her (Relax, conservative parents who lost their shit over Lightyear! There’s no gay kiss scene here!), Gorr is practically absent throughout the entire middle act, and what was even the point of bringing back Jaimie Alexander as Sif if you were just gonna have her show up at the very beginning and very end. I know many will argue that because of the film’s runtime that it couldn’t have put as much focus on it but there was also the original Guardians of the Galaxy which had a similar runtime but was able to find the time to flesh out it’s characters to make you get behind them. It’s all about balance, execution, and choosing the right things to focus on. Love and Thunder struggles at that more so than other MCU installments.

Production wise, it’s quite a mixed bag as well. While there are definitely not as many awful green screen shot that Film Twitter has made a big hassle over (the CGI helmet on Thor is admittedly very obvious), some of the movie does look distractingly flat while at others times, it looks glorious. The action setpieces are mostly fun, with the standout being the very first one with Thor and the event with all main four players in Zeus’s arena. The editing and lighting can be quite distraction at times with some awkward screen transaction and certain scenes looking quite dark. The music choices aren’t as fresh as before but the ones that are choosing are still awesome and the overall original score does it’s job.

Love and Thunder does help bring home many major points of the MCU that both it’s supporters and haters have hammered for the past several years. That the universe is not as planned out as many have been led to believe, it doesn’t have that same “fresh” feeling as it once did, and how even with an lesser entry like these still rise above the lesser entries in many other movie franchises (You can’t say with a straight face that Iron Man 2 and Thor: The Dark World is of the same quality as Catwoman and Fant4stic). There’s going to be multiple discussions about the future of Marvel throughout the coming weekend and this movie will likely provide plenty of amusing talking points for it.

Still, there are worse ways to spent a hot summer day than in a cool theaters and watching hot, badass folks kicking butt and saving the day like the superheroes they are. If still being entertain by these Marvel movies is now so wrong, then I don’t think I want to be right. It’s like having a big old Big Mac from McDonalds. Yes, it’s messy and all over the place but man, does it still taste good. If that sounds like a negative to you, then it will be a negative. If that’s a positive to you, then positivity trumps all! Or in the case of this movie, love (kinda) trumps all!

(And yes, there are two credit scenes.)

Other comments:

• It’s funny how this movie references a sci-fi epic that came out in 2014, a year after the last time that Natalie Portman was in these movies.

• I would definitely watch a Disney Plus show of Thor and his adventure with the Guardians themselves.

• There was WAY too much foreshadowing in this movie. Even if you don’t know the comics, you are bound to see certain beats coming from a mile away.

• There’s basically one moment that this movie’s version of “I have nothing to prove to you!” from Captain Marvel. Certain folks are gonna go nuts for that moment!

• When it comes to a movie that moves at a brisk pace and crams two popular storylines into one without as much build up and emotional payoff that one might want, this is basically like a better version of X-Men: The Last Stand. Don’t @ me!

• I forgot to mention but that Chris Hemsworth guy is still pretty good as Thor Odinson.