Ask Grandstander

[John F]

Celebrity Death Match was a claymation show on MTV that pitted celebrities against celebrities in a gory and over-the-top comical brawl that played out like the rules of Thunderdome (Two men enter, one man leaves).

So, with that in mind -- which of these two BANDS wins a Celebrity Death Match? The Rolling Stones or the Beatles? (and for the sake of saying so -- think of them in their 1960's incarnations -- not as the old men and creamated corpses that they are today).

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by John F

which of these two BANDS wins a Celebrity Death Match? The Rolling Stones or the Beatles? (and for the sake of saying so -- think of them in their 1960's incarnations -- not as the old men and creamated corpses that they are today).

I suppose that depends on the rules and the nature of the combat. Neither group featured anyone especially imposing physically, but the Stones would have a numerical advantage of one. If it was a beauty contest, the Beatles would easily win since only Ringo was out of the cute loop while none of the Stones were any better looking than Ringo.

If it was a music power contest, edge to the Beatles in terms of innovation and popularity, edge to the Stones in terms of authenticity and sincerity. (By sincere, I mean that the Stones never screwed around and released novelty crap like Yellow Submarine or incomprehensible jokes on their fans like Rocky Raccoon.)

In terms of wives/girlfriends, strong advantage to the Stones. Harrison's first wife was quite attractive, but other than she, the Beatle women were shockingly unglamorous compared to what they should have attracted. Mick's string of heartbreakers alone would top the entirety of the Beatles ladies while Yoko alone would ...well, let's not go there.

In terms of longevity, obviously the Stones...they have kept it together as fossil rockers way past any reasonable expectations while the Beatles lasted only a dozen years as a group and are half dead at the present. (3/4th dead if you count Paul's late sixties demise.) The Stones also enjoy the advantage of the aging process in that they were so ugly from the get go, they never depended upon looks as part of their appeal...it doesn't matter that they look god awful now because they always looked god awful.

And if it came down to singular song combat, I'd have to give it to the Stones once more. The Beatles had more hits, but none became the "anthem for an entire generation" to the degree of "Satisfaction."

Adding up the scorecard then, we realize that none of this has been quantified in any sort of easily comparative manner and consequently, the idea of a scorecard is useless. So ultimately it comes down to....which group did I like better?

I liked the Beatles better.

[Zen653]

Why the flap over Richard Gere's kiss of the Bollywood actress, when India quite openly boasts some of the most erotic art in the world, dating all the way back to Ancient times?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Zen653

Why the flap over Richard Gere's kiss of the Bollywood actress, when India quite openly boasts some of the most erotic art in the world, dating all the way back to Ancient times?

We may lump all such "public obscenity" concerns under the general heading of Puritanism whatever the nationality or ethnicity of the outraged and offended may be. Puritanism is of course the horrible fear and anxiety that somewhere, someone is having fun. H.L. Mencken had commented on this phenomena, calling it "the impulse to punish ther man with the superior capcity for happiness."

[skrable]

Queen Elizabeth is in the United States. Does this mean Helen Mirren is running the show back in England?

[Yogi44]

answer to renny's question....

dwarf, dwell, dwindle

Been watching West Wing lately, Renny?

I skimmed the posts, never saw it answered. Apologies if I missed it.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by skrable

Queen Elizabeth is in the United States. Does this mean Helen Mirren is running the show back in England?

All that I have seen of "The Queen" is the short clips shown in the ads for it. I keep in mind that in putting together a clip ad for a movie, the snippets will be chosen on the basis of how well the producers feel viewers will be lured to the film. For action movies they like to show the hero/heroine on the brink of disaster or just starting what looks like some impossible stunt...throw in a bunch of explosions. For a comedy they will way too often include the four or five funniest lines or sight gags that the film contains. It is frequently the case that those four or five lines/gags are the only funny things in the movie, and sometimes the four or five shown are so damn dismal that one is left wondering just how wretched the film must be if this represents the best of it.

I figure the hardest clip ad to do is a non action drama because dramas tend to be more low key and contain fewer "punch" moments that may be highlighted in a commercial for the movie. Because of this, the ads typically try and find a moment which more or less identifies the theme of the movie and the basic crisis being faced by the main character.

Which brings us to "The Queen." In the ads that I have seen for it, the snippets are largely unsurprising narrative bits....the news that Diana is dead, the Queen meets the press and so forth. But the moment chosen to set the narrative theme is a very brief one showing someone telling the Queen "The monarchy has been damaged" and without having seen the film, I'm assuming this is a reference to the Queen offending the public by not making a bigger display of grief over Diana's death.

I have a basic contempt for all things Windsor because I consider modern day monarchies to be absurd relics of a dead age. That anyone gets to be a prince or princess or king or queen strikes me as obscene. That leadership of any sort, even ceremonial, is based on royal blood rather than merit, seems a tremendous afront to democracy. Because of this, the idea that a monarchy could be damaged, or that if it was damaged, it meant a damn thing to anyone other than the monarchs, strikes me as a ridiculous thing around which to build a film. Resolving such a crisis would consist of undoing the damage. Yawn. And that's why I have not seen it and probably won't see it no matter how well made it may be or how great Mirren's performance was. There is zero chance that I will have any sympathy for her at all because I view her position in life as preposterous. My attitude is "The monarchy has been damaged"....so what? "The monarchy has been repaired"...so what?

[pogo]

I am reading The Supreme Court : the personalities and rivalries that defined America by Jeffrey Rosen. Read any good books lately?

First time on the board. Good to see that you still have a non-corporeal existence.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by pogo

I am reading The Supreme Court : the personalities and rivalries that defined America by Jeffrey Rosen. Read any good books lately?

First time on the board. Good to see that you still have a non-corporeal existence.

Is this THE pogo from the old boards? If so, welcome, long time no see and very glad you're back.

If not, welcome anyway.

As for books....I'm in a slump stretching back about a month and a half and have been thrashing about trying to find a winner. The best among the slump books has been "Halsey's Typhoon" which was about a big mother storm which sank three destroyers in Halsey's fleet during the Phillipines campaign. It was good, not great.

These things happen, before the slump I had been in a long winning streak going back to about October. Part of the current problem is that March and April are my baseball book reading months and for the first time in several years, none of the new releases were really worthwhile.

[skrable]

The GOP candidates for president debated en masse last evening. I was unable to watch, so could you tell me which of them was the sharpest masse debater?

[perfectstormhits]

I thought Mitt had a pretty good handle on things.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by skrable

The GOP candidates for president debated en masse last evening. I was unable to watch, so could you tell me which of them was the sharpest masse debater?

You should have watched, it all came down to which candidate could mention Ronald Reagan's name the most times without mentioning "Bush" at all.

In other shocks....McCain ruled that being 70 years of age was okay, Romney ruled that changing his mind about abortion was okay, Giuliani ruled that he was against abortion but supported it, and Brownback, Huckabee, Thmpson, Gilmore and Hunter ruled that getting some free national coverage made their joke campaigns justified.

[pogo]

Same old pogo, only a little grayer. I've been hanging around ballparkguys.com, however they no longer have a Tribe board & even their OTL board is dominated by political rants (most of which I agree with, however bear only so much repetition.)
I wondered what had happened over here. Took a little browsing before I figured out the nature of the changes.
Still following the Indians, only with enhanced bemusement (& pleasure) at their improbable run.
Had any epiphanies about the state of the world?

[bigheadache]

What's your favorite malaprop?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by pogo

Had any epiphanies about the state of the world?

Yes. It came to me in a flash one night that all conclusions drawn from epiphanies are wrong.

And once more, a sincere welcome back, you have been missed.