I was scrolling through some sports news this morning and it got me thinking about the weird direction professional leagues seem to be heading in lately. It feels like we are moving away from a world where you follow a team because of their grit, their local connection, or their tactical brilliance, and moving into an era where a team is essentially just a vehicle for a single recognizable face.
Don't get me wrong, I get the business side of it. I’m not a fool; I know that if you’re an expansion franchise or a league trying to plant a flag in a new territory, you need eyeballs. You need people who wouldn't normally tune in to a Tuesday night match to suddenly care because someone they recognize from a global stage is wearing the colors. It’s a shortcut to relevance. But I can't help but feel a sense of cynicism whenever I see these massive "marquee" moves being leveraged to build a foundation.
It feels like a bit of a cheat code, doesn't it?
There’s this fundamental tension between "building a club" and "buying a brand." When a club is built from the ground up, there’s usually this slow, organic process of developing a culture. You scout talent, you struggle through the lower tiers, you find your identity, and eventually, the fans bond with the badge. But when you lead with a superstar—someone whose entire value is tied to their individual celebrity rather than the collective strength of the squad—you’re essentially building a house on sand. What happens when that one person retires? What happens when the hype cycle moves on to the next big name? If the fans only showed up for the individual, the club is essentially dead the moment that person hangs up their boots.
I remember watching local teams back in the day. You didn't care if the striker was a household name; you cared that he played with the same heart as the guy in the stands. There was a sense of shared struggle. Now, it feels like every league, from the top flights down to the secondary divisions, is obsessed with this "event-based" model of engagement. It turns a sport into a series of spectacles rather than a continuous narrative.
I worry that this trend is going to dilute the quality of the actual competition. If the strategy for growth is just "find a legend and put them in a jersey," then the actual development of domestic talent or the tactical evolution of the game takes a backseat. We end up with these lopsided matchups where the "star" is essentially a walking advertisement, and the actual substance of the match feels secondary to the marketing opportunity. It starts to feel less like a sport and more like a touring circus.
I also think it changes the psychology of the fans. It creates a fickle kind of loyalty. It’s easy to be a fan of a person, but it’s much harder—and much more rewarding—to be a fan of an institution. If we keep incentivizing teams to chase the quick fix of celebrity, we might find ourselves in a future where "teams" are just temporary shells for whoever happens to be trending on social media that month.
I’m curious to hear what the rest of you think. Do you think these big-name signings are a necessary evil to grow the sport in new markets, or do you think it’s a hollow way to build a fanbase that ultimately hurts the integrity of the game? Is there a way to balance commercial growth with actual club building, or are they fundamentally at odds?
casualotter21 said:Where'd you pick up the comic? What was the damage?
I grabbed mine at "More Comics"—it's tucked away right by that skyscraper downtown. Each volume runs about $42. There’s actually an anthology in there too, full of homages to other legendary creators with some seriously great stories; it's pretty fascinating seeing how different artists tackle Hellboy—some go full slapstick while others get all poetic and moody. (Whatever you do, don't bother with the Profile Megastore. They charge like fifty bucks more for the same damn thing.)
Anyway—I bought it. Yes, I bought it. Honestly, I really need to change this ridiculous nickname 😁 because everyone keeps assuming I'm a guy.😠
casualotter21 said:I have no clue what the comic is actually like, but I will say this—the concept alone was strong enough that I genuinely wanted to see how it translated to the page.
Look, the movie irritated me enough that I actually went out and picked up a few issues just to experience the real deal. To me, the character felt brilliant—cynical, weird, layered—but the film just "softened" him until he was completely uninteresting. Now, the folks who have been reading Mignola's work for decades are probably going to laugh at me, but for me, Hellboy was a total revelation. Unlike the movie, the comic is absolutely stellar. Most of it centers on this strange hero—a demon whose whole "destiny" was to usher in the apocalypse and let the forces of evil take over the world. He fights external enemies in every issue—villains, devils, demons—but the real battle is the one happening inside himself (where else would it be? 😁), specifically his stubborn refusal to accept the fate others have laid out for him—even if that "other" is the Dark Lord HIMSELF. Unlike so many other comic or film characters, Hellboy isn't searching for his "true self," hunting for truths about his past or some grand "purpose"; instead, he’s actively running away from any new realization about who he is—effectively rejecting the whole idea of predestination... My collection certainly reflects that...
And, yeah, Rasputin works brilliantly in the comics—as a man who has transcended his limited human nature (biologically speaking) to become the literal embodiment of chaos and evil. And he's no lightweight either 😁 😁
Richard Howard2 said:The ultimate duos ---------------------------------
New school: Ben Stiller & Owen Wilson
Old school: Gene Wilder & Richard Pryor
British picks: Dawn French & Jennifer Saunders
I'm signing off on this! Though—if we're talking about those British pairings—I'd have to go with Laurie & Fry (you know, the ones from that Jeeves and Wooster series)
If we’re actually considering the younger demographic here, then we definitely need to ditch Adam Sandler—I mean, seriously, is there anyone left on this planet who actually finds that guy funny?? Instead, let's bring in Ben Stiller; he is quite literally the perfect comedic embodiment of the modern-day loser.
I personally voted for Eddie Murphy. I realize he isn't everyone's cup of tea—some people find his humor way too self-centered or over-the-top—but I think his ability to slip into different characters and truly inhabit them is just fantastic. Take a ridiculous comedy like The Clumps, for instance; it makes absolutely zero sense, but that’s only because it exists to let Eddie show off his genius at portraying a massive range of personalities. Rock music, for example, unsuccessfully tries to mimic his witty, exaggerated style but just ends up sounding like irritating hysteria.
Honestly, I think Clockwork Orange is actually quite good. The way that constant atmosphere of violence meshes with that aggressive, 1970s pop-art visual identity is just fascinating. Plus, you have Malcolm McDowell playing a complete maniac—his commentary really serves to relativize the plot and all those messy moral dilemmas... even if I will concede that the film’s narrative feels a bit cluttered and occasionally (maybe often?) leans too heavily into being heavy-handed. But that American translation? It's absolutely brainless and makes zero sense. It feels like a literal, word-for-word translation of a phrase without any thought behind it. Just gross.
Elizabeth Garcia2 said:Folks, why on earth are you even comparing the book to the movie?????😕 It’s completely pointless—the book and the film are two entirely different mediums altogether.
Yeah, yeah, I hear you—I actually agree with you, which is exactly why I’m saying I can't seem to shake this constant urge to compare them. It bothers me too, honestly. But I can't help myself because the book—unlike the film—is just so brilliantly constructed. The film version of Lolita feels like a story about sexual obsession dressed up in a bit of an existential crisis, but for me, that just doesn't cut it. From a purely subjective standpoint—the best character in the movie is the haze-woman. Even if she's totally caricatured, I think they hit the mark perfectly with her.
Pulled this topic right out of the Spider Web just as I finished watching Spider by David Cronenberg... As a massive fan of that Canadian madman, I’d love nothing more than to nitpick and claim the film isn't "Cronenbergian" enough, but... well, I suppose even an auteur has the right to deviate from their own established poetic style once in a while. (Though he should probably watch his step—wouldn't want him to "deviate" with some half-baked, simplistic plot like Tarantino did 👎 ) Unlike most of his body of work, you don't see that typical messy intersection of technology, sex, and death 😢 instead, the darkness of the human soul is masterfully projected onto the external world: those desolate streets, the industrial architecture, the decaying furniture, the revolting food... it all feels deeply unsettling, yet it avoids every single cliché of classic horror. Which, frankly, makes it even more terrifying. That weird distortion of the one-actor-to-one-character relationship actually reminded me of Buñuel's "That Obscure Object of Desire," just in reverse—in that one, two actresses play a single role. They share thematic DNA too—sexual pathology and the warping of the protagonist's perception. All things considered, it was fascinating (even if I still find myself gravitating toward "classic" C. more often)
stormyviper11 said:I’d sign off on this in a heartbeat—if it weren't for Sellers. Honestly, he single-handedly carried at least 50% of that movie.
I'm with you there; Sellers is just 👍 👍 👍. He's everywhere. His performance in Dr. Strangelove is pure, unadulterated genius—three different roles, and honestly, good luck picking which one is better (or more twisted).
But that Quilty character in the novel (and here I go again...) is an absolutely phenomenal figure. In the film, they just didn't leave enough breathing room to really flesh him out. He represents the demonic, wicked side of Humbert—a dark reflection that Humbert tries to destroy, only to end up destroying himself in the process. I'm not entirely sure how much of that subtext actually makes it onto the screen. And then there's that insane, frantic chase across America—where Quilty (who is essentially a construct made of fragments) leaves breadcrumbs for Humbert by scribbling names in hotel guestbooks—clues that only a highly educated university professor could possibly decipher... Nabokov was a total virtuoso.
Ugh, honestly, Lolita is Kubrick's worst work. All the life, moral, sexual, and ethical dilemmas are just so painfully obvious—it's like the characters aren't even wearing signs that say, "I am a middle-aged, refined erudite," or "I am a vulgar American housewife," and so on. (I'll concede that maybe this was the director's intention: to craft something akin to a medieval drama where the characters function merely as transparent symbols or archetypes. But that just doesn't work for me in a story that really ought to be steeped in ambiguity...) Perhaps the movie wouldn't feel quite so banal if I hadn't read the book first. As it stands, I can't stop myself from making manic comparisons—and in that regard, the film falls *soooooo* far short of the novel.
Sophia Williams said:In one of Roman Polanski's recent films, he cast Johnny Depp as this intellectual, somewhat sophisticated version of Indiana Jones. Honestly? Someone else would have been a far better fit for that role.
If you ask me, it would’ve been better if Polanski hadn't filmed that absolute disaster ("The Ninth Gate") at all.🙂 And don't even get me started on his earlier misfires—stuff like "Cul-de-sac" or "Repulsion"...
I’ve been thinking about the various women Woody Allen has cast in his films over the last few decades—you know, the ones where he actually plays the lead role too: Tea Leoni in Hollywood Ending Elizabeth Berkeley in Jade Scorpion—which, hellooo? 😵 😵 Mira Sorvino in Mighty Aphrodite ...at least, those are the ones popping into my head right now.
It isn't necessarily that these actresses were given bad roles, per se, but rather that they just don't quite fit as partners for our dear neurotic friend. Don't you get the feeling that as Woody gets older, he's increasingly opting for younger, more conventionally "glamorous" women as his love interests? His partners in the earlier days—think Mia Farrow or Diane Keaton—worked so perfectly; their specific brand of neurosis complemented his own, making everything feel balanced. But this recent stuff...
Richard Hernandez13 said:"without pandering—whether to local tastes and political maneuvering or to foreign expectations."
This part is just classic. These "witnesses" were handed an award for some sort of special contribution to humanity—or whatever else they want to call it—which is really just a non-cinematic, purely political category. And honestly, is there any better way to "pander to foreign expectations" than churning out a film about American Civil War atrocities right at the exact moment when international discourse about the US is centered precisely on that context? (Assuming people are even talking about it 😁 😁 ) Coincidental timing? I highly doubt it...
As far as I can recall—and I DO remember, damn it!!—that decorator 😁 😁 was gifted eternal youth and life by her "master," that total degenerate (seriously, may whoever came up with that concept be cursed). You don't say. I honestly can't believe I'm even trying to "defend" the mind-numbing logic used in this movie 😁 someone please return my brain cells!!!
And what is even going on with Hellboy’s supposed love for cats? Or should I call it the screenwriter's fever dream: "his human side"? 🙂 Is this Hellboy or Boy George? Man, even the evil forces aren't as formidable as they used to be...
God bless the internet for the torrent sites. Thank Him for the pirated copies. Thank Him for the cracked software. Basically, that’s the only reason I was able to watch this movie entirely FREE of charge. And honestly? That is the single best thing I can say about Hellboy.
The film itself is quite possibly one of the most moronic ways to waste ninety minutes of your life—and we all know there were better things to do, like staring at a bucket of drying paint on a wall... 😉 or perhaps attempting to hypnotize a common housefly. 😲
It reminded me of that "Fellowship of Extraordinary Gentlemen" flick—or whatever they translated that title as—where they constantly bombard you with these supposed "wonders" and eccentric characters (yeah, sure, whatever you say)... but it’s all so incredibly banal and tedious that it actually gives you a headache. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't have an inherent problem with comic book movies. Blade is genuinely good, Spider-Man is passable (though, let's be real, you'd expect more from Sam Raimi, but okay...), and don't even get me started on those first two Batman films. But this? This is just stupid. Maybe certain characters look interesting in the panels, but on screen, they are just laughable. And not in a good way. As for the plot—in terms of ingenuity and tension—it has all the depth of a mediocre Tomb Raider game... you spend the whole time waiting for something actually interesting to happen, wandering off to grab a snack, checking your emails, and then suddenly realizing the bulk of the movie is over. Yes, that's it, ladies and gentlemen! Oops??? If we assume a protagonist is only as good as his antagonist, then Hellboy is easily the most pathetic excuse for a superhero, anti-hero, or monster ever put to film. (Okay, fine, I didn't see that blind guy. What's his name... Ben Affleck in a costume?) His villains are a total ca-ta-stro-phe.
spoiler I mean, that mechanical Nazi is just moronic. That Nazi bitch serves no purpose other than being decorative (and even that is being generous). Mr. Hellboy himself, acting like some ultra-cool guy (based on what exactly???), spends most of his time brawling with some creature that looks like a retarded younger brother of the Predator, or maybe something the FX crew made for Men in Black that was too dumb for them, so they sold it for peanuts to this production. But the absolute peak of stupidity has to be the main mastermind villain—back then!!!—Rasputin! You know, that Russian guy from before the October Revolution. ??? Who are you kidding...
Look, I actually enjoy bad movies. For instance, Field of Dreams is so delightfully naive and silly that it crosses a line and becomes good. It's campy. But Hellboy simply sucks!!!! Rating: 🙂 🙂 🙂 And once again: 🙂
Richard Hernandez13 said:"Futurism" is an art movement in painting and poetry that kicked off in the early 19th century in Italy. It basically glorifies technological progress and the Industrial Revolution—along with all the messy side effects that came with it back then, like war, imperialism, and fascism.
You mean the early 20th century—get it right. And it wasn't just limited to Italy, either; there was a completely separate but simultaneous movement popping up in Russia at the exact same time. Sure, they also obsessed over technological growth, speed, and how all that stuff alters our perception of reality, but their whole deal was linking everything back to communism once the revolution hit.