Today, sitting at home watching my son, I randomly started popping in movies, and I find myself watching a personal favorite, Spider-Man 2
Oh s**t! Doc Ock is gonna get you!
I grew up on the Spider-Man cartoon of the late '90's, and it really built a love for the character and the world he lived in. When it really comes down to comic book movies, I feel the original Spider-Man movies have the best casting. Willem Dafoe and James Franco as Norman and Harry Osborne is fantastic. Alfred Molina as Dr. Octopus is perfect, almost the best casting in the film. But by far, the role they absolutely nailed on the head is J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson.
"Parker, you're fired!"
But I'm not here to talk about casting. Watching the second Spider-Man, I find myself thinking of the first and third installations in the series. The first is good - really good - but the third just takes a big steaming dump on the screen. I've often said that the reason the 3rd is so bad is they simply tried to do too much. Sandman/Venom/Green Goblin 2.0 is waaaay too much for one movie, especially with all the origin information crammed in as well. It makes for a lame film that spends way too much time explaining itself, which requires scenes like this.
But then I got to thinking about other film franchises, and their 3rd installment. X-men? Atrocious. Pirates of the Carribbean? Eye scarringly bad. The Godfather? You see where I'm going here. What is it about the third movies that makes them suck so bad? Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. Just look at the Batman relaunch. I don't count the Lord of the Rings movies here because they were three books first, not three movies.
Book trilogy = good
I mean, I understand the need to end a series, and the third installment seems to be the limit that people take on series, and they decide to end them there. But you don't need to end it terribly. Look at Toy Story. It's arguable that the third was the best installment AND it effectively ended the series. It did so in a powerful and moving way, and I still cry like a baby when I see it. So Trilogyitis isn't a required illness in movie land, but it sure as hell seems easy to catch.
As hinted at in my previous post, I was planning on going into my theory as to why the great Disney musical disappeared for nearly 20 years. However, a lot has happened since then.
While now this is by no means news, I wanted to see how this would resolve before I commented on it, to give both myself and the precious few of you that read this to get over the initial shock of the comments. Then the NFL draft happened, my buddy got married, and I put it off.
Until today.
According to the league office, June 3 is do or die for Sterling, at least on the NBA level. He has made it clear he intends to fight this in the court system, something which he is not a stranger to in the slightest. Seriously, google "Donald Sterling legal" and prepare to be shocked. Or check out his wikipedia page and prepare to be disgusted.
So this means the end, right? Hopefully, but probably not. Several owners have already come out publicly and said they will vote to oust Sterling, but the vote requires a 3/4 majority, and that many owners have not been vocal about this. It doesn't mean they will vote to keep him, but the fact they are not being vocal about something that would win them points within their organization, their fan base AND the league makes me wonder just a little bit.
Assuming humanity prevails (Lord knows that's usually not the case with the NBA) the league will probably kick Sterling out of their ultra exclusive club. Being who he is, he will then fight this in the courts like he has with everything, like how Elgin Baylor sued him for the remainder of his contract when Sterling fired him, or how...
Wait wait wait. What the hell does Richard Sherman have to do with all of this?
Huh?
The post it titled "Richard Sherman is right." About what? What does this have to do with Donald Sterling?
Believe me, it has everything to do with him. The news of Sterling's impending date with the league coincided with something else. Robert Mathis' four game drug suspension.So how are these related?
This man.
Colts owner Jim Irsay. While Irsay has not gone on a racist tirade like Sterling did, he did get arrested for DUI and is facing four felony counts of drug possession. This man is an owner in your league, and an outspoken one at that, and the NFL hasn't even batted an eye at him.
This is Robert Mathis. Mathis' suspension was for a banned substance he took per a doctor's instructions for fertility. Yes, Mathis should have done his homework and notified a Colts' trainer, the league, somebody, that he was taking this and if it was ok, but he did not. So NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, in all his, uh, "wisdom" laid the smack down. Hard. Mathis' appeal was denied, even though his doctor corroborated everything Mathis said, and he's now out four game checks, which amounts to about a $750,000 fine. Think about that. Three quarter of a million dollar fine for trying to have a kid. Harsh.
So how in the hell are all of these related? The NFL has a history, especially in the Goodell era, of rediculous fines on players, and allowing owners to act like jack asses. Which brings me to the title of the column.
In an interview with Time, Richard Sherman simply stated that the NFL would not have banned Donald Sterling. At the time, I thought that was silly, but Sherman makes some strong points, specifically about the ongoing conversation regarding the Redskins' name. After the Mathis news broke today, I realized he was completely correct. Goodell is terrified of the owners. He will bend over backwards to take care of them and do what they want. He clearly cares little for the integrity of the game, just the bottom line, as Sherman said several times in his interview. Don't believe me? Then explain Thursday Night Football. Here's my take on it. Explain the serious talks about lengthening the season, expanding the playoffs, even the player safety concerns they "addressed" by making kickoffs pointless and settling the concussion lawsuit with mere peanuts.
Look, racism is ugly. It sucks ass. And it's still here. Trying to ignore the racism of the Redskins in the NFL or of the Indians in MLB, hell, or even at Florida State is folly. Doing that makes it so people like Sterling can continue to exist and own teams. Allowing them to have power makes them feel and act entitled to propagate their hate, and ignoring the fact that it exists only makes it worse.
Ahhh! Owners! I'll do whatever you want, just don't hurt me!
That is what Sherman said about the NFL (specifically Goodell), and he is right. I'm glad Adam Silver (NBA Commissioner in case you don't know) dropped the boot hard and fast. It is something Goodell would never do to an owner, but as proven today, he has no problem doing it to a player. This will continue to be a problem, but hopefully Silver will be able to stamp it out in the NBA, because Goodell won't be able to in the NFL.
