The verdict is in I think. Tinder?  Not that creepy. I didn’t say it wasn’t creepy at all, or even that it wasn’t creepy, period. I’m just saying it’s not that creepy.

I know the people on match.com are reading this on their high horse thinking that because Tinder is just images, it is shallow and superficial. Well, they aren’t wrong. But if you’ve ever been on a dating website there is a process to filtering out your future Mr. or Mrs. The first thing you do is look at the other persons pictures and if you like what you see, then you move on and read whether or not they want to have kids and what their height preference is. Online dating is superficial, get over it. It’s also a way of life right now. There is no longer a stigma that online dating is for freaks. At least in New York, it’s for most. It really comes down to the basics. If you’re not meeting someone online, where are you meeting them? A lot of people meet at bars and as “romantic” as that sounds, you really have no idea who you are meeting. At least with Tinder, it exposes the easiest way of communication; texting. This app really couldn’t make meeting people any easier. You may not be getting all of the good eggs through this app, but at least you can create dialogue with all of the eggs and try to make your own assessment if you decide they are worth meeting.

Tinder made it’s way into my life when one of my friends sent me a screenshot from the app from a guy asking if she gives blow jobs on the first date. As I read that I thought two things; this is hilarious and there has to be more of where this came from. The answer was Tinder. Here’s the breakdown, you log into the app and are able to see which prospects (who also have the app) are around you. You are shown one profile at a time and given two options, you can either hit the “x” to dismiss this person or a heart symbol to show you’re potentially interested. You will never know if you’ve been “x”ed. You’ll only know if the other person “liked” you. If you both like each other, you may text within the app. Texting within the app is genius. You don’t have to give out your number and the person can only see your first name. With all the positives, Tinder is definitely not without it’s “dark corners”, so just like anything you might do on the internet don’t be surprised when you get an extremely forth right offer that’s unsurprisingly lacking politeness. I shared a few of those moments I found below.  But if you want my advice, don’t let a few bad apples spoil your Tinder fun.  Life’s short, go ahead and Tinder.

These Tinder snapshots are courteous of The Tinder Diaries.  You can find them and much more at thetinderdiaries.com.  

The post Tinder: Worth It? appeared first on Rookerville.

It’s (finally?) back.  To be honest I forgot Walking Dead was coming back this week.  Not sure if it’s my own omission or if it’s a good pulse on the overall feeling over the show.  I was reminded while sitting at the bar watching the Cowboys game and actually had to set my DVR from my phone (I do love new technology).  For some reason I feel like previous season premieres were met with a bit more fanfare.  People planning parties and what not.  Maybe everyone is still reeling from the loss of Breaking Bad.  Either way it’s back and I have a couple thoughts on it’s opening episode.

Faith in viewers:

I like that cable TV has turned some sort of corner and considers the fact that their fan base might actually be smart.  The first episode of the new season opens with an obvious lapse of time passed and I really like that there was no attempt to spoon feed the audience exactly what was going on.  Everything seemed fluid and nothing felt like a machination of story telling in order to to convey certain details.  They’ve built a small community in the prison, that obviously feels less like home than the pleasantville that was in place before, but also seems infinitely more joyous in morale.  There’s a few mentions of “the counsel” which leads us to believe that the community is governed in a parliamentary fashion, with the experienced characters being the leaders.  They’re all kind of looked up to and idolized, most notably Darryl who seems to have a local mythology about himself being built up (this feels a bit tongue and cheek and meta because Daryl is actually the most unkill-able person on television.  One could argue that New Girl would fair much better if Zooey’s character was mysteriously killed off than Walking Dead would fair if Daryl were to die.  It’s reminiscent of the Jimmy problem Boardwalk Empire had) .  All in all I like the timing of this “look in”.  While I don’t think Walking Dead is amazing television, I do like it’s take on the Zombie genre.  While it may not be perfect it does attempt to attempt to answer the questions I usually have at the end of all zombie movies that focus purely around the outbreak of the zombie apocalypse; which is “then what?”

The luxury of the saved:

There’s two parts in this episode that seem to really draw a line of separation between the different types of people in the post apocalyptic world.  And by my broad estimations there seems to be 3 distinct groups.  The first and most dire group are the hopelessly damned.  Carl, at one point catches up with Rick on the farm and asks his dad, “what’s wrong with Violet”, one of the pigs they’ve seemingly raised for food.  Rick kindly reminds Carl that he shouldn’t name them as he needs to remember they’re just food. This seems almost aggressively deliberate to separate oneself from any humanizing thoughts in this post apocalypse world.  This groups disposition, which seems to be made up of only Rick, Michonne, and Beth (who typifies this group’s mantra when she exclaims to Daryl that she doesn’t cry anymore, when she hears the news of her “boyfriend’s” death) seem to be running on cruise control and are only continuing to survive based on some external inspirations (Michonne; it’s killing the Governor, Rick; it’s Carl, and for Beth; it’s her father).  The second group are still rather off a bit emotionally but seem to carry around a sense of a humor and slight hope for it all; they’re comprised of your Daryls, your Carols, and even Carl.  What separates them from the final and most fortunate group is that they faced the evils head on. Carl advises the other kids against naming the walkers near the prison.  It’s obvious these kids have not seen what Carl has seen.  And it’s pretty safe to say none of them had to put a bullet in their mother’s head. That’s the luxury of being saved and not having to do the saving.  You get to walk around with a bit of an ignorant bliss.

The troubled road ahead:

Eventually everyone learns to deal with the walkers.  It would be annoying to see all our characters continually having the same pitfalls of being caught off guard.  Although they did find a creative way to make the threat of zombies new again when a horde came down from a leaky ceiling in what looked like an awesome video game level, but still there’s only so many iterations of zombie attacks they can create. So naturally some other obstacles must be thrown their way.  Some of these new obstacles I like and some not so much.  The mental health of people dealing with dead families and in general the horrible deeds they’ve had to perform is interesting and I think can be compelling as Rick contemplates how close he is to the state of the woman he met in the woods carrying around her zombie husband.  He admits he came close, but is it all for naught?  But things that almost seem gimmicky, like the obvious portrayal of an alcoholic leading to a mishap on the supply run seems out of place to me.  Alcoholism is very serious, but to me it seems that would almost be a none issue at this point in the world.  We’re a couple years into this thing, I think by now the ever impending need to survive would essentially destroy most vices.  After all vices are generally a product of idle hands.  Not hands clawing and scratching to survive. But it seems the threat of disease might be the newest nemesis, which I’m not sure how I feel about it yet.  I’ll report back later.

So far I have hope for The Walking Dead’s new season, but I do think they’ll need to make the reality they live in have real stakes.  And killing off characters we just met in an episode, no matter how endearing you make them, is not the way to do it.  It will have trouble competing with the pantheon of great shows like Friday Night Lights (paralyzed the star Quarterback in the first episode), Game of Thrones (red wedding), Breaking Bad (everyone was killed or mentally ruined), et al without really putting everyone at least at some risk.

Also this has nothing to do with the show, but I think the Talking Dead has over stayed it’s welcome.

The post Walking Dead: Episode 1 appeared first on Rookerville.

Justin Timberlake – 20/20 Experience (2 of 2):

No one was surprised to find ten more songs from the newly crowned prince of pop this past week.  But when the Roots spoiled the surprise back when part one of two had first come out, it helped quiet the negative backlash Justin was receiving for what some (myself included) were calling a sub-par album.  And even though I like a lot of the songs off the first half of the 20/20 experience, I have to admit the critics had some merit.  It was a few tracks shy of being fulfilling.  Which as we all see makes complete sense.  If I had to rate both halves of the album as two separate albums; I would say the first was a step in the right direction, but came up short in terms of completeness, and the second half I would grade as having a great sound, but not really showing much growth.  Fortunately for all parties involved, these aren’t two albums released ten years apart.  This is, by all measures one whole album released in a gimmicky fashion to capitalize on increased record sales (can’t really blame him, have you seen the record industry lately).  And as a whole experience this album is really good.  From part 2 you get that nostalgic sound that we missed so much (remember JT hadn’t put an album out in 7 years), and from part 1 you get that more grown up sound you can listen to over a cocktail. Together it’s exactly what I needed from him.  And yes I use the word need rather strongly.  Quick anecdote that I think I shared before, but in case you missed it. At the time JT had released an album prior to the Experience I was in the midst of the longest tenured relationship of my existence and his album was sort of a soundtrack to that relationship.  low and behold it eventually came to an end, as all good things do, and I was left with a personal battle I had taken on.  I wasn’t going to lose JT to a relationship.  I forced myself to listen to that album nonstop for a week (I even cried on the subway sitting alone one time) in order to disconnect it’s reminiscent effect.  In the end it worked.  She can have The Feeling: Twelve Stops From Home, but Future, Sex, Love Sounds was mine to keep.

Which brings us to the present.  As I already said this album is damn good.  From the more dance poppy songs of TKO and Amnesia, to the more rock ballad sound of Only When I Walk Away.  It’s a great mix of tempo, melodies, and unsurprisingly great vocals.  I will state that this album is far from perfect; I would’ve loved to hear him push a few more boundaries and that I hope this isn’t Justin’s one and done for the next seven years album. I just think it’s a good album to fill a much needed void that was created last time he stepped away.

7.0/10

Lorde – Pure Heroine:

If you’ve been reading this site, then you know I’ve had a huge musical crush on Lorde.  Her EP came out about a year ago, and I absolutely loved it.  Well the completed version of that work is finally here and honestly it’s awesome.  Here’s the thing.  Lorde is only 16.  I want to say that upfront, as to me she has a lot of influences (Lana Del Rey and Adele to name a few) that she borrows from but it’s to be expected.  Young people are impressionable.  Ray Charles was known for sounding like every other famous artist out until he finally found his sound (Don’t worry I’m not saying Lorde is Ray Charles).  Hell the song Glory And Gore sounds like it could be straight off a Portugal the Man album.  But that doesn’t discount that it’s actually quite good.  As I listen to this album I realize there’s going to be an obvious backlash. One; she’s positioning herself as almost anti-pop, as in one song she claims she’s “kind of over gettin’ told to throw my hands up in the air.”  If you search Lorde you’ll see her very tightly kept image also fits this mold.  And while it’s a bit contrived (remember she’s 16) she isn’t really wrong for her stance.  Britney came on the scene at 18 and was clearly having her strings pulled to play into the dirty fantasies of old sleazy men everywhere.  And after reading the Sinead O’Connor  letter to Miley (which I wholeheartedly agree with), I find Lorde’s disposition rather refreshing.  Here’s a sixteen year old with no massive online identity, singing about apt stuff to her life.  And while you may not get all her complaints, as some of them are just young problems, you can definitely enjoy her much more adult sounding vocals.  In a lot of ways she reminds of  Paolo Nutini, who’s first hit single at 17 was about New Shoes. His first album was really good, but honestly it was his second album that blew me away.  His first had great sound, but his second album had wisdom.  And if I had to guess her career arc I’d lean towards it having a similar growth.  Look I love an artist like Britney Spears all the same, but when we go to play our songs of yesteryear and wish to enjoy them without the need of nostalgia, I’m more inclined to think that sound is something closer to Adele.  And while an artist like Miley makes some great Bangerz, I just think a sound more like Lorde my stand the test of time.  This isn’t to say you can only enjoy one or the other, or to pit these two against each other (much like the Girls in Hoodies Podcast on Grantland seem to do) but musical significance is usually a byproduct of how you stand out among your peers.  And right now the closest peer to Lorde is Miley Cyrus, and I feel fairly confident whatever comes out of Lorde’s camp next will probably sound infinitely more timeless than anything we’ve heard from Miley yet (Let me reiterate, I love Miley and actually think her album is really good, but when speaking purely in guesstimations as to what I might still be listening to in 10 years, I think Lorde has a better shot at being that).

All in all the album Pure Heroine is really good.  It’s 1 hit songs away from being incredible as it does tend to just flow from beginning to end, with no real tempo break up.  I think most will enjoy it in their shuffle, and more specifically I think she has a ton of upside.  It will probably garner some award buzz as she is only 16 and does a lot of her own work on the music, so she kind of deserves it. But if you’re looking for a perfect accompaniment with that new Drake album I think this is it.

8/10 

The post The Prince and The Lorde: Album Reviews appeared first on Rookerville.

Last spring, in attempts to trump the playoffs predictions of so-called experts by using non-sports-related metrics, I turned to local food and drink in lieu of win-loss records and statistics. My completely subjective signature dish bracket called for the Memphis Grizzlies to stand atop the NBA (they lost in the conference finals), but my math-based, mostly-objective breweries bracket accurately crowned the Chicago Blackhawks as Stanley Cup Champions. I decided to run the gimmick back once more for the MLB playoffs – this time with a distinctive fall flavor – mostly because I have nothing better to do, but also because talking about beer will distract me from the fact that my favorite team fell short of the playoffs.

I stuck with my trusty Beer Advocate account for this edition, as it allowed for objectivity and had proven worthy in the past. There were, however, a few changes to the formula. Instead of focusing on bottling breweries in the immediately area of a team’s home stadium, I looked at the top rated beers of different styles and allocated wins based on the highest-ranked local brews. For example, let’s say one of the rounds was “cream ales”. If Team A was home to the second-ranked cream ale, they were awarded one win. If Team B subsequently produced the 11th, 19th, and 22nd highest-rated cream ales, without Team A placing anywhere in between, Team B would win the five-game series 3-1. The rounds were as follows: Wild Card Series – Wild Ale; Division Series – Pumpkin Ale; League Championship Series – Märzen/Oktoberfest; World Series – Top Beers, Any Style. I’ll explain these choices further in each individual section.

Each beer needed to have at least ten reviews to be considered eligible, though the vast majority had far more than this. I allowed for non-bottled entries this time, as a world-class brewpub is just as much a part of the local flavor as is a bottling brewery. In regards to what was considered local, I expanded the area to account for any beer brewed within the state the team plays. There were two cases in which two teams played in the same state, so I decided to split each in half. Ohio was divided longitudinally, with the Indians getting Columbus and all points east and the Reds representing Toledo and the rest of the west. In California, the line was horizontal instead, extending from just south of Monterey Bay across the state, under Fresno and through the Sierras. The A’s had the resulting top half and the Dodgers got the bottom. I have no idea what I would have done if both Chicago or New York teams had qualified, or if the Angels or Giants had put together winning seasons.

As usual, chains that exist in multiple states such as Rock Bottom were excluded. But beyond all that, let’s play ball!

Wild Card Games – Best of 1, American Wild Ale

Pittsburgh 1, Cincinnati 0

While wild ales – those brewed with wild yeast or bacteria – are not exactly considered to be autumn beers, it seemed far too appropriate to make the wild ale/wild card connection to pass it up. The Pirates came out swinging, with Pizza Boy Brewing producing an ale called Permasmile, followed shortly thereafter (not that it counted) by Intangible, created by the same company.

Cleveland 1, Tampa Bay 0

The winner here came from Jackie O’s Pub & Brewery – rated as world class – and was entitled Oaky Golden Pucker. Believe it or not, Tampa actually had some high-quality brews that would have qualified in the later rounds, but alas, they couldn’t pass the first test. Except that this article was released following the wildcard games, and we already know they won. Which brings me to my next point – if you think deciding the first round based on one singular beer is a foolhardy way to determine a superior region, you’re probably right. It’s kind of like deciding a playoff series based on one game. Get it together, MLB; you’re starting to make the college football playoff system seem reasonable.

Division Series – Best of 5, Pumpkin Ale

Detroit 3, Oakland 0

One of my fellow Rookers recently discussed his aversion to the omnipresence of pumpkin spiced offerings at this time of year. To each their own, I suppose, but also, he is wrong. Pumpkin ales may seem to some as trendy and not worthy of real consideration, but those people are probably drinking Shipyard’s Pumpkinhead, which has no real pumpkin and is absolutely terrible. But I digress. With all the excellent breweries in northern California, I thought the A’s would run away with this competition; in any other season of the year, they probably would have. But the cold winters of Michigan are preceded by midwestern autumns, and the Tigers flexed their muscles on this one. Kuhnhenn’s All Hallows Ale, Short’s Funkin Punkin, and La Parcela, brewed by Jolly Pumpkin Artisan Ales – clearly, a ringer – dominated this matchup.

Boston 3, Cleveland 0

Well, at least we didn’t have the Indians advancing too far. Eastern Ohio actually had a solid amount of beers on the “top pumpkin” list; it’s just that all of them came after those representing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Their victories included an Imperial Pumpkin Stout that sounds pretty delicious, and they closed the series with Boston Beer Works’ Pumpkinhead Ale, not to be confused with the shit-tastic crap that Shipyard produces.

Los Angeles 3, Atlanta 0

A lot of sweeps in this round! This series was a snoozer, as we had to go deep into the pumpkin ale list to even find three beers that qualified. Georgia isn’t exactly known for its brewing prowess, and LA is too warm to have an autumn. The Dodger’s first victory came from Bootlegger’s Brewery, and all three selections were simply called “Pumpkin Ale”. Snore.

Pittsburgh 3, St. Louis 2

This was an exciting matchup; I was on the edge of my seat. The Pirates took game one, but the Cardinals quickly countered with Schlafly’s Pumpkin Ale and Crown Valley’s Imperial Pumpkin Smash – a great beer name for a baseball game. Just when it looked like all was lost, Pittsburgh squeaked out the last two, closing the series with an offering called “Braaaiins!”, which I really hope is what Andrew McCutchen screams the next time he hits a home run.

League Championship Series – Best of 7, Märzen/Oktoberfest

Boston 4, Detroit 1

They say that legends are made in October, so it was only right to include Oktoberfest as the focal point of the next round of quintessentially autumn beers. The Sox took the first two games with lagers from the Element and Berkshire Brewing Companies, but the Tigers came back strong with another selection from Kuhnhenn. They couldn’t keep their momentum, however, ultimately finished off by Copper Legend, from Jack’s Abby Brewing.

Pittsburgh 4, Los Angeles 1

LA could out-autumn Atlanta, but it stood little chance of defeating mighty Pittsburgh. The Pirates took the first three games with ease, submitting two winning selections from Pennsylvania Brewing Company as well as Zeltbier, from, appropriately, Victory. The Dodgers prevented a sweep with the tasty-sounding Oaktoberfest, but were likely doomed by their horrible year-round sunshine and beach weather.

World Series – Best of 7, Top Beers, Any Style

Beer Advocate has a list entitled “Top 250 Beers”, and for a matchup in the World Series, I eschewed other fringe fall styles such as harvest ales for a no-holds-barred battle of the heavyweights. Boston took game one with Samuel Adams’ Utopias, consistently regarded as one of the best strong ales in the country. The Pirates rallied to take the series lead with strong performances from Tröegs Nugget Nectar – seriously, Tröegs does not have a single mediocre beer – and a selection from Voodoo Brewing Company which, on paper, sounds like the most delicious brew of all-time. It’s called Black Magick, it’s an imperial stout, and it’s made with Pappy Van Winkle, the greatest bourbon there is. Yowzas. However, their offense went cold after that one, as the Sox took the next two with additional offerings from Jack’s Abby; the first a pale lager called Hoponius Union, and the second a bourbon barrel aged baltic porter named Framinghammer. Game 6 was won by an IPA known as Julius, and autumn in New England reigned supreme. Foliage, pumpkin beers, and baseball.

Boston 4, Pittsburgh 2.

The post If The Playoffs Were Food and Drink, Autumn Edition appeared first on Rookerville.

We wanted to give this topic its due and be able to be honest, so the writers have been kept anonymous.  Enjoy.

A Female Perspective:

Known as one of the oldest double standards in the book, my “number”, has been haunting me since the age of 16. Men are praised if they fuck a girl the first night they meet them.  In most cases, it is expected behavior. But if a woman is sleeping around she’s a slut, whore, easy, desperate, and my personal favorite, hussy (when it’s 1920).
The numbers game consumes me. If my number is too high, I’m not appealing but if my number is too low I’m inexperienced. Does it matter? Who is keeping track? What is the ideal number?
And this is where the truth comes out. The answers; no, nobody, and it doesn’t matter. If you’re dating someone and they ask your number, you don’t have to tell them the truth. The only person that knows the amount of people you’ve slept with is you. If you want to be innocent that day and throw out a modest 5, go for it. Nobody can prove where your vagina has been. I’ve been single for a good amount of time now and I’m constantly concerned about hiking my number up. I literally avoid sleeping with a guy just so I don’t have to add another to the list. I even have a reserves list of men I’ve already slept with that I still hook up with. It was a win-win situation, I’ve already been with them, I know how they perform, and my number does not increase. This is all a great idea until you end up sleeping with your ex-boyfriend and wondering how you somehow are choosing to sleep with him now after all of that horrible sex. Because in my head, if I’ve slept with a lot of men, I’m a whore because that is what society tells me. It doesn’t matter if I’m educated, well mannered, and well maintained. If I had slept with 45 men and somebody knew, I’m considered a slut. All positive attributes fade away into the “hell” that is my vagina. Am I saying to go hop on the first dick you see? No. But I’m saying don’t be scared to if you want to, let it happen. If you like a guy and you’re ready to take it there, fucking go for it. As long as you’re being safe, who are you hurting?

As I thought about it more and more, I’ve realized that the only people really judging my number are other women and me. Men really aren’t in the equation because most of them truly don’t care who you’ve been with. To most women, sex is a big deal. To most men, sex is equivalent to a really good meatball sub. I’ve made the decision that moving forward only one person will know my true number and that is me. So fuck you to the girls that will ask me because I am going to bold face lie right to you with no remorse because my vagina is my business and YOU DON’T OWN ME. Fuck the numbers game

A Male Perspective:

I might be (I definitely am) in the minority here.  For me the numbers aren’t as important as how one might get to that number.  I’ve been there when a girl gets on her high horse about not having a high number in front of other girls, but what they don’t divulge is that they’ve been in a relationship since they were sixteen. Oh, not with the same guy mind you, but they’ve had less single days than holidays since high school. I think numbers are looked at all wrong.  It should be more of ratio to months single and months dating.  I don’t know what a good grade would be based on that, and I’d rather not set some pseudo ceiling, but my point is that, to me, it’s more about selective-ness.  Look I’d be lying if I said I’m not curious about the number for any girl I meet.  But in the end it’s not that important and it’s not cause I want to know it’s less than my number, or not above some random limit.  No, I’m curious because it tells about your selective-ness and I’m a natural observer of people so stats intrigue me for sociological purposes that have nothing to do with the actual girl.  But as I said it’s not about high or low.  If I met a girl who’s number was below average but she hadn’t been single longer than a month at any given time since high school, and has had 3 long term boyfriends, I’d question her independence and her neediness for acceptance by guys.  It’s for a selfish reason, but I want to know that she’s into me for adult reasons.  Not just cause I’m the next leaning post to walk by.  But I must be honest about what the average guy is (most likely) thinking.  A small number don’t care at all.  But a lot will definitely hold their female counterpart to some higher standard than they would ever hold themselves (I have a friend who wanted to marry a virgin or close–”Men can handle it better” was his reasoning). It’s just the reality of it.  Yet, and this is a point I go back to all too often when debating the worst characteristics of my fellow male species, there are women dating these guys.  Any time I meet a douche bag or some sexist asshole, I tend to wonder how did he gets there.  If no one dated him he would eventually change his ways.  But I digress.  That’s a conversation for a whole other topic.

The concern of numbers isn’t completely a non-concern for men.  There’s a double edge sword that you have to try avoiding.  See I’d like to believe I have a below average number because I’m a great guy, but as a self-reflective person I realize I might simply be a product of circumstance.  It’s that idea that when you meet a guy in his twenties and he’s still a virgin, he’ll tell you it’s cause he’s waiting for someone special, but what you’ll hear is he just can’t get any.  I was one of these guys, and frankly I can’t tell which is more right. I want believe the former but I can’t deny that the latter is somewhat true too.  Men have their own societal pressures; there’s a reason guys with large number continue to have larger numbers and why guys with low numbers seem to stay that way.  You women have a case of collective unconscious judgment. One could be lead to believe that one needs to conquer enough women for other women to want him.  I hope I’m wrong, but the thought still lingers. And yet, admittedly, it’s not the same level of pressure a female has to deal with.  Look there’s no doubt the world is sexist and it sucks.  I wish I could argue on the part of every girl that has to deal with being judged.  But I can only offer one bit of advice.  You can always reinvent yourself.  If people talk about you in high school, guess what, you can be whatever you want in college.  And if it happens in college, guess what you can graduate and yet again establish who you want to be.  And in the real world, you can just cut people off who are quick to judge.  And for men, I’ll say this, just cause it’s just another notch on your belt, doesn’t mean it’s the same for the other party.  Try to think about how you want the world to be when you have a daughter.

The post The Numbers Game appeared first on Rookerville.

As a Yankee fan, Mariano Rivera has been an institution. For the better part of 12 seasons, we knew we had the mother of all closers. He has one of the most unhittable pitches of all-time with his cut fastball, has impeccable control, has the ultimate will to win, is ridiculously athletic and can field his position as well as anyone, and is unmatched in his mental toughness. He has a smooth delivery that he was able to repeat time after time. When his velocity decreased over the years, he compensated with movement and sharpening his already incredible control. His stats are ridiculous. Overall, he has the most saves in history with 652 to go along with a 2.21 ERA, 1.00 WHIP, and 1,173 Ks in 1,283.2 innings. As a testament to his control, he only walked 286 batters and had a great 4.1 K/BB ratio. More impressively, Rivera has been able to sustain his performance at a position where dominance is short lived and turnover is high (e.g. Eric Gagne, Brad Lidge). In his 19 year career, he had 11 seasons with an ERA under 2 and 10 seasons with WHIP under 1. Outside of his rookie season in 1995, his only other season with an ERA over 3 was in 2007 (3.15). As spectacular as his regular season stats are, he turned it up in the postseason where he is 8-1 with the most saves in postseason history by a large margin (42) with a mindboggling 0.70 ERA and 0.76 WHIP. However, Mariano Rivera is much more than stats. His presence at the end of games affected how other teams looked at each game. In the postseason, the thought was that the game was over by the 8th inning if you were down as Mariano would lock down another Yankee victory. It was one of the key aspects of the mystique of the Yankees dynasty at the end of the 90s. For Yankee fans, we salivated over having an unbeatable weapon at the end of games.

Nevertheless, even the great ones get beat. It is how you deal with and respond to failure that makes you a legend. Mariano is no different and he had a few big blunders over his career. The first occurred in 1997 in the ALDS against the Cleveland Indians. With the Yankees up 2-1 in the 8th inning and 4 outs from advancing to ALCS, Mariano gave up a game tying homer to Sandy Alomar Jr. The Indians ended up winning Game 4 and then Game 5 to win the series. It was Mariano’s first year as a closer after the Yankees won the World Series in 1996. While giving up a big homerun in a big spot can hurt a young closer’s confidence, Mariano overcame the hurdle and built his legend in the following years by closing out three consecutive World Series from 1998 to 2000 without blowing a save. His next blown save in the postseason came in 2001. The 2001 World Series between Yankees and the Arizona Diamondbacks, was one of the most dramatic series, especially after the devastation of September 11th in New York. The Yankees won Game 4 and Game 5 in the World Series in dramatic fashion with 3 dramatic homeruns late in those two games. With the Yankees taking a 2-1 lead off a go ahead homerun from Alfonso Soriano in the 8th inning of Game 7, the Yankees were in great shape to win another World Series as the only decision for the Yankees to make at that time was to put Mariano in the game to close it out. After he struck out the side going through the middle of the lineup in the 8th inning, victory seemed certain going into the 9th against the bottom of the Diamondbacks offense. However, a throwing error from Mariano and third basemen Scott Brosius not throwing a double play ball to first in the ninth inning helped setup a dramatic walkoff win for the Diamondbacks. It was one of toughest losses as a Yankee fan and a New Yorker with the dramatics of that postseason and the aftermath of September 11th. While I doubt I have the fortitude to handle blowing such a significant moment, Mariano was more than equipped to deal with the loss and move on. While he started the 2002 season as dominant as ever and made the All-Star team, injuries hurt his performance in the second half and there were concerns that his dominance was beginning to end. Of course it is just another small blip in his career as he rebounded and continued to dominate after 2002.

Of course, the biggest disappointment as a Yankee fan from a purely sports perspective was the 2004 ALCS against the Boston Red Sox. With the Yankees up 3-0 in the series, they handed Mariano a 4-3 lead heading into the 8th inning. Similar to Game 7 against the Diamondbacks, Mariano carved through the middle of the Red Sox quickly and faced the bottom of the lineup in the 9th inning. As we know, Mariano walked the leadoff hitter Kevin Millar, pinch runner Dave Roberts stole second, and Bill Mueller singled in the game tying run. The rest is history as the Red Sox began an epic comeback to win the series and win the World Series for the first time in 86 years. How did Mariano handle the situation? In the way only he can, he dealt with it with humility and was secure enough in himself to poke fun of the moment. When the Yankees returned to Boston for the season opener, Mariano tipped his cap to Boston fans and smiled and laughed with the Fenway Faithful. Of course, the Red Sox fans loved the gesture and it is a moment that they still remember and thank Mariano for as displayed by the celebration the Red Sox held for Mariano in his last game in Fenway Park. While I hate recalling these moments as a Yankee fan, there is much to be learned from them. While Mariano is the greatest closer of all time, even the best fall. It is how he dealt with failure that ultimately defines his legacy. Instead of allowing any of those moments to devastate and cripple his career, he went on to dominate through his final season and also closed out the 2009 World Series.

While there may be players in the future that have the talent of Mariano Rivera, there will never be another player that will combine that talent with Mariano’s mental toughness and character. He has been a gentleman and represented baseball with utmost grace. As shown by the response Mariano has received in his final season, he has the greatest respect from every team and player in baseball. We will never see another player quite like him. Since I was in elementary school, I have always slept well knowing Mariano was the closer for the Yankees. However, all good things must come to an end. I am forced to say goodbye to Mariano Rivera. Baseball will never be the same for me. The Yankees will never be the same for me.

The post This is the Greatest and Best Closer in the World…Tribute (Part I: An In Depth View) appeared first on Rookerville.

It seems this Ben Affleck casting caused quite a stir. As the news was dropped and the debris laid rest, fans were up in arms over their fallen hero, Christian Bale. The thing is the Batman recasting would’ve had to happen eventually.  Just as all comic book movie stars will have to be recast eventually.  So to avoid another commotion we’re here to help. We want to help plan ahead for these comic franchise, both new and old, released and unreleased.  So this is our 3 part series to give Hollywood a blueprint to deal with the future of their franchises.  We will cast comic book characters based on 3 categories; 1) “Please don’t fuck this up”, where we’ll cast comic book movies not yet made, but we think should be; 2) “You already fucked up but we’ll see if we can save it”, where we’ll recast the movies Hollywood ruined in a bad way, i.e. Green Lantern; and lastly 3) “That’s a tough act to follow”, where we’ll recast the best cast characters in an attempt to prepare the franchises when their star actors move on.  

Part III

This is the part we try to recast some roles that have some really tough shoes to fill. Lets hope we succeed in continuing these already great franchises.

Wolverine (Hugh Jackman is Wolverine and Wolverine is Hugh Jackman, but one day he will have to step down.  I’ll hate it, but we need a plan)

Nichole – Aidan Turner, if we’re going younger. He has the look and he seems to be into fantasy/sci-fi stuff as his credits include The Hobbit trilogy and Being Human. He has that lightness (i.e. Kili) that can fulfill the comedic side of Wolverine.

Michael - Let me begin this by saying that despite his height and good looks, Hugh Jackman did a hell of a job as Wolverine. Hugh Jackman is a dope actor man. For serious. I honestly think that he could have had a crack at any major heroes, if he didn’t play Wolvie. He could have been Batman. He could have been Superman. Hell He could have even been Bruce Banner, and lest I forget James Fucking Bond. These are all pretty good looking guys, and maybe with the exception of Bruce Banner, they all exceed 6’0”.

Having said all that, I want a new Wolverine to be closer to his characterization in the 1970/1980s. Back in the days where he was kind of the opposite of the heroic ideal. I want someone who isn’t dashing with a kind of John McClane’esque flair. Someone who is short, hairy, and maybe even losing his hair. The thing that strikes me about Wolverine is that although he is immortal, he’s not that sexy, airbrushed, Twilight-y, Forever 21 version of immortal.The dude is 40. Maybe perpetually his late 40s. In a perfect world, I’d like for them to cast a younger actor, but then age him up a little with make up or CGI even. I want my perfect Wolverine, who when you see him, you know he’s a mutant. There’s one artist that gave him really thick forearms like Popeye (Wolverine & Havok: Meltdown), and that’s kind of what I want. I want a Wolverine that is an animal. Not an obvious action hero. Not James Bond. I want him to be short. And I want him to not always be the most likeable guy. I mean a guy who looks 40, who is actually much older hitting on some young post-teenage red head? And then banging her whilst her innocent childhood sweetheart boyfriend broods through his 20s? Wolverine is a dick, but we should learn to like him.

Having said all of this, I would like to see Aaron Paul don the claws. Give him the hair, the chops, and a few months in the gym, but acting wise he has the height, and I think he has the range. Read Origin and just picture Aaron Paul as a younger Wolverine. Killing the love of his life. Going through Hell. Joining Weapon X. Enduring so much pain, and never dying. This is the Wolverine I want to see. I think that a new actor as Wolverine should really be transformed into the character, straight from the page, but they should also add more of what we don’t always get to see. Wolverine is a living wound. Sure i could go with an obvious guy like Joe Manganiello or Josh Brolin, but I can’t think of many actors already in their 40/50s that have the time to grow into this part. I think Aaron Paul could really sit into something like this and really convince us that he is this man. Quite frankly, if I could have my way, Harvey Keitel would have been my DREAM version of Wolverine, but time passes… I think that a new Wolverine should have the depth and grit of a movie like  Taxi Driver…with a little bit of Platoon spliced in.

Cargile -  I might still be on a Breaking Bad bender, and it may never leave me, but Aaron Paul does sound like a great choice.  One, he’s young enough to carry this franchise for a while; and two, he has the proper emotional spectrum for Wolverine. He would need to hit the gym and put on a good amount of muscle, but with how dramatically good Need For Speed looks, which is has no business looking that good, I’m convinced he’s perfect for this.  Plus he plays a tortured soul really well.

Iron Man (RDJ took Iron Man from a tier 2 super hero and made him a tier 1 guy.  That can’t be given enough credit.  Not sure anyone can Tony Stark like he can)

Nichole – I think this is the hardest of the entire list because RDJ has made his Tony Stark iconic. It’s a stretch to think of an actor who can embody the humor, confidence, toughness, sarcasm, and thoughtfulness that go with this role. (Also, RDJ pretty much acts likes Tony in real life.) I keep thinking of possible actors, but there always seems to be one or two pieces missing. For example, Ben Barnes has the look. He can be suave and charming, maybe even a tad menacing. But can he do humor? He’s done action in the Narnia films…but can he do Iron Man-grade action? What about Tyler Hoechlin? I’ve never actually seen him in anything, but I know he was (supposedly) in the running for Superman and Batman.

Michael – Leonardo Dicaprio. I don’t really think an explanation is needed. But if you MUST pry me open, I think that Leonardo could be our chance to see a Demon In A Bottle interpretation of Tony Stark. I think that what RDJ has done has set a wave in motion that really forced us to examine the inner life of our heroes. Who are they really? Flaws and all? Watch The Aviator because that movie pretty much is the story of Iron Man. Howard Hughes IS Tony Stark.

Cargile - Alright so I think there’s no way you can Leo for more than 2 films.  I think you let him do the whole Demon in a Bottle storyline, but you put it off in some future, so that the Avengers continuum is not screwed up.  You then employ one of these younger guys to take the franchise back up at the present time line. I like Tyler Hoechlin.  So that’s the final choice.

Blade (I mean I think we should all thank Wesley Snipes for revitalizing the new era of comic book movies.  And he wasn’t the perfect comic version of Blade, but that blade was lame. He took a tier 4 hero and made him easily a tier 1 hero)

Nichole – We need some Chalky White up in here! And by that, I mean Michael K. Williams. Is he too in-your-face for this role? Maybe that’s a good thing. I can also see Chiwetel Ejiofor, although he might be too “high-brow” for the role.

Michael - I’d be interested in seeing a brand new interpretation of Blade. Maybe even something closer to an origin story about Blade. In the comics he was born in London in 1929, So maybe it might be a little cool to give Blade the hypothetical MCU Marvel Knights treatment, in the sense that his story can be removed from the present day happenings of the MCU Universe. I think it might be cool to connect him to a branch of SHIELD. You could call it “Howling Commandos” and combine the horror/mystery side of the MCU with the espionage part. This would be the “Journey Into Mystery”/Doctor Strange/Giant B Movie Monster part of the MCU. I think that it would be a cool move to “high brow” Blade up a bit to distinguish him from other harder-edged black heroes in the MCU. Treat him more as a samurai-type or cursed wanderer type. Blade would be a cool hero to see fight Nazi-Vampires, and Werewolves with weapons of mass destruction… it could be very fun and far-fetched. I’m just speculating here.

And I want him to be English-y since he was born there. Chiwetel Ejiofor for the win. I’m sorry if this show is basically Doctor Who with vampires, but I’m not sorry. I desperately need to get into fan-fiction.

Cargile - Blade has a special place in my heart.  I’m usually a sucker for comic book movies sticking to the source material but there’s no doubt in my mind the cinematic version of Blade is cool as shit. The only bad thing is, that since it was an original take, it essentially is Wesley Snipes. For those who don’t know Wesley took this role more seriously than he probably should’ve.  Rumors of him holding fighting tournaments in warehouses as a way to train lead me to believe he might’ve thought he actually was Blade. It got to the point that he legit hated Ryan Reynolds in the third one because he thought he wasn’t taking it serious enough.  Still, Blade 1 and 2 are amazing.  But I think if it’s not Wesley Snipes you’re going to need a new route to go. Had he not signed on to do Spider-man I would’ve said Jaime Foxx, but since he’s not available, I like the sound of Michael K. Williams.  I think his more intimidating demeanor might be the perfect fit.

Jean Grey (Look Fox fucked up, but the casting was great.  She fit the mold quite nicely and at some point Fox is going to want to make amends to this character, but who shall they employ)

Nichole – Lily Cole!! My other choice would be Karen Gillan, but since she’s going to be in GotG, that wouldn’t really work. Lily Cole is a model who has been acting more and more in recent years. She’s a 5’10” redhead with this ethereal look that would be perfect. Phoenix is probably my favorite character in the entire Marvel universe, so my very biased opinion is that she needs her own movie. Also, the Phoenix force is one of the most powerful entities in the entire canon! I think that deserves a movie! And I think that movie should be an adaptation of the Dark Phoenix Saga!

Michael - I second Karen Gillian. Talk about a missed opportunity. I’d like to see a reboot of the X-Men franchise from the perspective of Jean Grey since she is basically, kind of the center of the story when you really think about it. I’d like to see something a little bit closer in characterization to her Ultimate Universe counterpart because she was bubbly and fun. I think that Jean Grey is way too much of a plot device in the mainstream U. I feel like my dream for Jean Grey is for her to be the anti-Bella Swan. If they were to go in one direction and put her in high school, I’d like to see someone like Brie Larson take one the role. I think it would be wise to kind of make her like an older sister-type of character. Put her in grad-school and put her days of working in the field behind her. I see her as an academic (like Prof X) and an example of what mutants can be in the mainstream world. I would love to see Taylor Schilling take on this kind of a role. Someone who is afraid of their power, and done being a hero. I mean she was known as Marvel Girl for Christ’s sake. I feel that she’d be this uber waspy girl who sort of has the same kind of regret that a former child star would have. Also I wanna see Dagny Taggart make out with Jesse Pinkman. Just sayin.

Cargile - My job here is to play pseudo arbitrator so I’m not going to rock the boat.  Karen Gillian wins on principle but since we’re worried about crossing comic book lines I’ll throw my vote for Rose Leslie, from Game of Thrones.  She can obviously be tough and yet compassionate.  If we’re starting with a young Jean Grey this is who I want.

The Joker (Probably the hardest recast ever.  This will not go over easy.  But it has to be done eventually. It was hands down the best comic book performance ever.  No Hyperbole)

Nichole - Would anyone even touch this role again given the unique circumstances of the last Joker? I cheated and have several possibilities, which is inevitable in this category. If we’re going for campy-comic-booky, cosplayer “Harley’s Joker” has the perfect look and has the act down. But, this is the film world, and that’s probably not going to happen for him (even though he has attracted ample internet fame.) That being said, what about Gaspard Ulliel? He has that angular face and the ability to play someone off the hinges (i.e. Hannibal Rising) He’s usually cast in male lead/male heart throb roles, so it would be interesting to see him as the Joker. Gael Garcia Bernal keeps coming to mind too; I don’t quite know why. Both these actors are also not American…so maybe I subconsciously think the Joker can’t be played by another American…? Also, Aiden Gillan – we know he can play sly and cunning through his role as Littlefinger in GoT – I also suspect he can play crazy quite well.

Michael - Sam Rockwell. Although I have to say that Aiden Gillan is a bomb-ass choice. I just can’t shake wanting to see his take on Harvey Dent or Commissioner Gordon.

So yeah, Sam Rockwell is a “great fucking actor.” I’d be interested in seeing him explore the origins of the Joker. Specifically his :Killing Joke” origins. Yes. The Joker a homicidal maniac, and we’ve seen that done. I think now what I’d like to see more of is the side of him that we can relate to. Lest we forget, the Joker was created by Batman in a sense. They are almost brothers. They define each other. I’d be interested to see Sam Rockwell find the happy medium between the showman that Nicholson was, and the cerebral terrorist that Ledger was. And maybe, just maybe, it might be cool to give him a little “puddin’” to banter with.

Cargile – Man both these choices are great.  I wouldn’t be mad at either choice.  I almost think the Joker is something that should be played by different people all the time.  It adds to the psychosis of the character.  If you can make them as unrecognizable as Heath was in the Dark Knight I don’t see why you can have a different actor take on the role as is needed. But I’ve always thought of the Joker’s next phase being more pessimistic.  That sounds weird cause you’re probably thinking he was already pretty pessimistic.  But think about it.  He was rather hopeful he could change the ideology of the Batman.  He was convinced he could get him to kill him.  He thought he had the human psyche figured out. But now he’s less sure of himself, and therefore more brooding and angry. I present to you Sam Witwer.  On the show Being Human alone he’s played a ton of different characters just to fit the historical mold of his character’s storyline.  He’s done a ton of video game voice acting so we know his voice is compelling, which is what you need when it comes to wearing makeup for a whole movie.  And he’s got pretty awesome facial structure for the part. I think if you want someone to be the Joker, much like RDJ is Tony Stark, or Hugh Jackman is Wolverine, this guy can BE the Joker.

BONUS RECAST- Gambit (So Gambit isn’t really established and the shoes that were put in place were not that great, but I did recast him on my own in a cavalier fashion in part II so we needed to put this up for everyone on the committee.)

Nichole - I love Gambit! When I was younger and watching the 90s animated series, I loved him and Rogue together – so she would have to be in this movie. Garrett Hedlund. He has the face, the tone, that ease about him that is so Gambit. I am also suggesting David Oakes, who is often cast in “baddie” roles. I don’t want to type cast him though, I just think he has the look and I know he can play arrogant confidence really well. I also want to note that I didn’t think Taylor Kitsch was that bad – he was pretty good for Gambit, actually, he was just way under-used.

Michael – I wish to god that Kitsch had a real moment to shine as Gambit. Honestly, if you’re smart, you’d know that his performance as Riggins on FNL was probably the best version of Gambit that I’ve ever seen. But shit happens.

All that said. Channing Tatum wants to play Gambit. LET HIM DO IT.

Cargile – When I brashly picked Colin Farrell for Gambit I was unaware that Channing Tatum wanted the role.  I can’t say no to that man.  I do think a younger McConaughey would’ve owned this, but alas his time passed for this role.  So while I would like to give Farrell another shot at the comic book world I’m going with Channing.

That does it for this casting challenge.  However we’ve received such a good response form this that we’re thinking of what portion of Hollywood we should save next.  Maybe action franchises where we pick the next Bond, Bourne, and Mission Impossible stars.  Who knows.  Either way we’ll be back. 

About Matt Cargile

Matt Cargile is the Editor in Chief of Rookerville.com. He also works in finance, but refuses to read any news printed on pink paper. He is a child at heart with adult means. His childhood dream was to either become a magician or the leader of the next great empire and somehow both these things make complete sense. He's contradictory in nature, but is always consistent.

• Mail
|
• Web
|
• Twitter
|
• More Posts (94)

About Michael Stevens

Michael is a writer for Rookerville and an aspiring writer at the beginning of his first significant meltdown: the Quarter-Life Crisis. He likes to think of himself as 'the alien of the group' or 'the android attempting to be human.' He is interested in many things so it would be easier to describe all the things he is not interested in: Sports. Read his stuff if you want to hear everything but sports. He is currently at large.

• Mail
|
• Web
|
• Twitter
|
• More Posts (5)

The post The Great Casting Challenge: Part III appeared first on Rookerville.

It was inevitable, I guess.

The state of the TV sitcoms is dire, and it’s a long time coming. While television dramas are improving exponentially each year—so much so that TV is arguably the most dependable medium through which to receive any kind of quality product—sitcoms are struggling to maintain a foothold. Fewer and fewer audiences watch sitcoms anymore, anyway, and they (sitcoms) have certainly lost any kind of water-cooler cache (do people still gather around water coolers?). Probably that began with the advent of the single-camera, laugh-trackless sitcoms of the turn of the century, a phenomenon we at the time found to be unequivocally a Good Thing, and yet it also kind of fucked things up, reliability-wise. The multi-camera sitcoms of the second half of the twentieth century were mediocre, sure, but they were reliably mediocre. Like the verse-chorus-verse, three-minute pop song, the form had been carved, and the quality was easy to gage. The only variable was the quality of the jokes.

Not so anymore. Sitcom writers were encouraged to go off on their own for a while, gain some experiences, Thoreau-like, then experiment when they came back. So we got Arrested Development, and we got Scrubs, and we got My Name is Earl. Most impressive was the fact that, in this brave new sitcom world, the squares weren’t kicked out altogether; the conventional sitcom form was allowed to stick around as well, and nobody shat on it for being itself—so Two and a Half Men and How I Met Your Mother got their days in the sun, too.

After a while, though, network heads got a little nervous, wary of this culture of chance-taking, so they looked for some stability, a surefire new formula that couldn’t miss. Around this time, NBC imported The Office from Britain and had moderate success. At the very least, it was successful enough to spawn two new phenomena: the mockumentary and the rebirth of the workplace comedy. Parks and Rec, 30 Rock, Two Broke Girls, and most significantly, the powerhouse ratings juggernaut that is Modern Family were created in this wake, the latter of which being the only true, no-bullshit, unquestioned hit in the lot.

We were warned pretty heavily last year that the family sitcom was going to come back—hard. Underseen gems like Happy Endings were yanked off the air last spring, making room for some family-friendly fare. Here’s the problem: family sitcoms are 1. horrible, and 2. cynical. They are horrible for pretty obvious reasons—the kids are watching, so make sure everything’s watered down, and never end an episode on a note that doesn’t suggest that Family is the Most Important Thing in the World (barf)—but the ways in which it’s cynical are trickier than all that. Network TV exists because of one thing, and one thing only: advertising. Advertisers put up crazy amounts of cash to have their product pushed on the air. And advertisers only give to shows with audiences who’ll buy either really expensive stuff (hence the mid-90’s push for upper class urban dwellers in shows like Friends and Frasier) or buy their stuff in bulk. And who buys stuff in bulk? Why, two-parent, firmly established, financially stable groups of people living in one house, of course. Families.

All of this is a very, very long-winded way of saying that the network heads must have been very happy that Modern Family hit it so big, so they could justify making all these family shows again, and the networks have all but sprayed a new crop of shows at us about moms and dads (like, off the top of my head, Mom and Dads). The question is, are any of them any good?

I watched Dads (Fox), Trophy Wife (ABC), The Goldbergs (CBS), and The Michael J Fox Show (NBC) to find out what they had to offer. One of these shows is alarmingly good, one is potentially good though it’s not good right now, one is totally fucking lame, and one is so godawfully bad that I’m wondering whether there’s a joke I’m not getting, as though it’s actually supposed to be a parody of a horrible sitcom rather than a bad sitcom itself.

Check back this week each day as we reveal Ted’s thoughts on each of the shows he watched. 

The post Family Values Tour: It Begins appeared first on Rookerville.