Theoretical Gambling: Week 10

It's Friday, and you know what that means -- time for imaginary gambling! A quick refresher on the rules: The entire "pot" (which started at $5,000 in Week 5) must be wagered, with every game having at least $100, and no more than $1,000, wagered on it. For previous installments, check out the link on the right hand side of the page, or simply click here.

Week 9 record: 11-3*
Season Record: 47-22
Week 8 vs. Spread: 10-4
Season vs. Spread: 36-31-2
Week 8 Money won/lost: +$3,400
Season total (gain/loss): $7,600 (+$2,600)

* For the second straight week!

Finally found my groove last week with a new formula (which is really my old formula): pick the three to five games which seem the most obvious –- you know, the ones where you go “What is Vegas thinking with that line?” – and bet approximately 3/4 of the pot on them, and then lay the remaining ~1/4 of the pot on all the other games combined (or essentially, the as close to the minimum $100 bet as possible for each).

After one very successful week using this formula, I feel very good about my chances the rest of the year. Tune in next week to see how far my confidence has fallen. In fact, it’s already started:

BROWNS (-3) over Broncos

PREDICTED SCORE: Browns 34, Denver 27
“MONEY” WAGERED: $200

*ACTUAL FINAL SCORE: Broncos 34, Broncos 30*

That’s right, I’m already 0-1 this week, both overall and against the spread (and down $200), because I made the unforgivable mistake of having faith in the Browns. Of course, it would’ve been just as unforgivable to place my trust in the defense-and-running-game-deficient Broncos.

Without further ado, here are the rest of my Week 10 picks:

Jaguars (-7) over LIONS

I hate taking the Jags, especially after the week they’ve had – giving the Bengals their first win, followed by lots of off-the-field controversy in Jax-ville – but I feel significantly better picking against Daunte Culpepper, starting his first game for the Lions one week after joining the team.

PREDICTION: Jags 31, Lions 16
WAGER: $200

Titans (-3) over BEARS

Is this the week the Titans lose? I’m going to answer that question with a question: Did you realize Rex Grossman is starting?

PREDICTION: Titans 23, Bears 16
WAGER: $1,000

PATS (-4) over Bills

The Bills are officially on the skids. The Pats are paying better and at home. These is the kinds of superficial analysis you can expect from me – especially when trying to differentiate between all the very similar AFC East teams.

PREDICTION: Pats 24, Bills 17
WAGER: $400

FALCONS (-1) over Saints

I’m on the Falcon bandwagon. Do I have to write this every week, or have I made it clear yet?

PREDICTION: Falcons 27, Saints 24
WAGER: $1,000

Rams (+8.5) over JETS

The Jets consistently underwhelm (in part due to Brett Favre’s weekly Pick-6), so I’m not giving a TD+ to anyone, even the Lambs.

PREDICTION: Jets 24, Rams 17
WAGER: $300

Seahawks (+8.5) over DOLPHINS

The ‘Phins are playing well, so I’m taking them here, but I don’t think they have the fire-power to give 9 points, even to the lowly ‘Hawks

PREDICTION: ‘Phins 24, ‘Hawks 16
WAGER: $300

Packers (+2.5) over VIKINGS

The Pack almost pulled off the big upset against the Titans I predicted last week, and are playing very well. If they can hold Adrian Peterson reasonably in check this week and force Frerotte to beat them, they should do it again.

PREDICTION: Pack 27, Vikes 20
WAGER: $1,000

Panthers (-9.5) over RAIDERS
The Raiders are an absolute joke. That’s all I have to say about that.

PREDICTION: Panthers 30, Raider 13
WAGER: $1,000

Chiefs (+15.5) over CHARGERS

The way the Bolts have been playing, I can’t give away double-digit points. Also, the Chiefs have beat the spread and almost pulled off upsets two weeks straight.

PREDICTION: Bolts 24, Chiefs 20
WAGER: $300

Colts (+3.5) over STEELERS

The Steelers still likely win this one (whether Big Ben plays or not) because the Colts are not up to their normal standards this season, but I think they can still keep it close.

PREDICTION: Steelers 24, Colts 21
WAGER: $300

Giants (+3) over EAGLES

The Giants may be the best team in football. The Eagles are playing well again, but aren’t in the Giants class. Why are the eagles favored? Good question.

PREDICTION: Giants 27, Eagles 24
WAGER: $1,000

Ravens (PK) over TEXANS

I’m officially OFF the Texans bandwagon, especially with Sage “Don’t Trust Me” Rosenfels starting at QB for Houston.

PREDICTION: Ravens 23, Texans 20
WAGER: $400

49ers (+9.5) over CARDINALS

This is more out of hope the Niners don’t embarrass themselves on a rare national TV game than anything logical.

PREDICTION: Cards 30, Niners 21
WAGER: $200

To see which announcers will be calling your team’s game, or to get an early look at what game will be airing in your area of the country check out this site.

Random List: Top 10 Movies Still To Come In '08

It's the start of Oscar season, so what better time to rank the contenders coming out before the end of the year. I’m ranking these in order of how much I want to see them, not necessarily how good I think they’ll be. All I know of these movies is from a trailer and reading about them. This list is all about expectation, and personal taste.

1. 'Milk' -- Even if this wasn’t about a man whose murder was a local story I still remember from my youth, I’d be excited. I’m a sucker for anything with Sean Penn in it, and Gus Van Sant is one my favorites -– especially when he plays it straight (a la ’To Die For’), as he reportedly does here. And the supporting cast includes Emile Hirsch, James Franco, and Josh Brolin.

2. 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' -- I’m a huge David Fincher fan, and his two best movies starred Brad Pitt, who plays the title role here. It’s a great idea from a story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, adapted by Eric Roth. And the trailer looks amazing. What’s not to like?

3. 'Frost/Nixon' -- Another true story from my youth, though I was a little young to comprehend. It was a hit play, and is adapted by playwright Peter Morgan. Ron Howard directs, and people are predicting an Oscar nomination for Frank Langella as Nixon.

4. 'The Wrestler' -- Darren Arnofsky. Mickey Rourke’s big comeback -– maybe an Oscar nod. I’m so there. And that’s before I knew personal favorite Marissa Tomei was in it.

5. 'Revolutionary Road' -- Sam Mendes directs an adaptation of a Richard Yates novel, reuniting Kate Winslet (his real-life wife) with her ’Titanic’ co-star Leonardo DiCaprio.

6. 'Valkyrie' -- Director Bryan Singer and screenwriter – the team which brought us ’The Usual Suspects’ -- reunites to relay yet another real life story about the German soldier (played by Tom Cruise) who tried to kill Hitler.

7. 'Defiance' -- Ed Zwick co-writes and directs this tale of bad ass Jews kicking Nazi ass. It stars Live Schreiber and Daniel Craig (who’s already been in one Jews-kicking-Nazi-ass movie, ’Munich’).

8. 'Doubt' -- The underrated John Patrick Shanley adapts and directs his Pulitzer prize-winning play about a priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who’s accused of molestation by a bitter old nun (Meryl Streep).

9. 'Australia' -- Baz Luhrmann can get a little fanciful for me, but he can create a spectacle with any filmmaker. Plus, I love Australia (I was there for my marriage/honeymoon). But if at any point Hugh Jackman breaks into song, all bets are off.

10. 'Seven Pounds' -- This Will Smith Oscar bait looks a little sappy/weepy for my tastes, but I needed to round out the 10.

Hollywood Horror Show: How MTV Picked My Pocket

This is a series detailing the strange, sometimes traumatic experiences I've had in the entertainment industry -- run-ins with celebrities, development execs, and douchebags of all shapes and sizes -- since I moved to LA 11 years ago. A link to the previous installments can be found on the right hand side of the page, and also here.

I’ve thought long and hard about writing this story. While, I spoken about this before to most of my friends, I’ve never put the whole thing down in writing, and certainly not on the Internet. Considering the only party it might offend is owned by a global media conglomerate worth billions of dollars, that fact deserved a lot of thought.

But here’s the thing: Everything I’m going to write here really happened. Yes, I’m making one leap, one assumption, but it is based on so much evidence, I think anyone reading will agree it’s a reasonable leap to make. That makes me feel a little better. So does the fact I once heard the best legal defense for slander is truth (it’s not libelous if it’s true). Lastly, I’m also calmed by the fact I don’t think many people actually read this blog.

The story began a few years back when my friend (and now writing partner) Barry came up with the idea of a parody of Cameron Crowe’s ’Almost Famous’, re-imagined in modern times, centered around a kid obsessed not with classic rock, but hip-hop. The title: ’Almost Gangsta’. I thought it was a great idea, and we ended up writing a script together. Later, we produced a short film out of it. The film didn’t turn out as well as we had hoped, and Barry didn’t want the idea to die.

Eventually, he came upon the idea to turn the concept into a reality show: Young aspiring writers who loved hip-hop would write sample essays to The Source magazine, who we had worked with a bit on the making of the short, and the finalists would do pieces, which would appear in the magazine. The winner would receive a one-year internship as a reporter for the mag.

However, we couldn’t get the bigwigs at the Source to sign on, so we broadened the pitch to include another take – the show could, like the original movie, could center around Rolling Stone Magazine. We called this version, ’Rock Journalism 101’. This take probably had the broader appeal, but because MTV was the obvious place to pitch the idea, and their programming was becoming almost exclusively hip-hop-related, we decided to keep ’Almost Gangsta’ on the title page of our treatment.

I was worried about pitching MTV because a former lawyer of mine had cautioned me about their pitch meeting practices. She had multiple friends who had pitched them and were told the network already had something similar in development, only to later see their exact show hit the air. When I relayed this to my manager, who had a friend in development there he wanted us to meet, he admitted that was MTV’s reputation within the industry, but advised they were still our best bet.

We met with this high-level development exec and pitched our idea. She seemed to like it, and peppered us with questions for more details. At the end, she asked for our treatment so she’d have something to show her superiors, and complimented the idea. But she left us with one haunting last remark: “Let me just make sure we don’t have anything similar in development.” The thing that has always bothered me about this: How could a highly-placed exec not already know what their company has in development?

You can probably guess the rest. A couple of weeks later, we heard back from the exec via our manager – they were passing because…(drum roll please) they had something similar in development. I was furious because I knew what was really going on, but both Barry and my manager played it pretty cool, saying, essentially, it probably wouldn’t come to anything anyway.

Then, a couple of months later, Variety ran a story announcing a deal between MTV and Rolling Stone for a new reality show based on ’Almost Famous’, titled, ’I’m With Rolling Stone’. Though the concept of the show was almost identical to our alternate take, which was registered with the Writer’s Guild of America, our manager saw no real reason to pursue the matter yet. “Wait until they get pregnant with the show” was the general advice – once the show is in production, the network is more committed to the idea, and might consider a “payoff” just to avoid any legal entanglements from delaying production.

But by the time ’I’m With Rolling Stone’ got into production, we were with a different manager. His reaction: “I know how that feels, dude. I used to work in development at MTV, and they stole two ideas of mine, too.” So could we do? “Not much, dude.”

But we weren’t going to take this sitting down. The parents of Barry’s then-girlfriend, now wife live is Pacific Palisades, next door a top notch lawyer specializing in intellectual property. Barry’s future father-in-law got him a face-to-face with the lawyer, who quickly told him it was a good news bad news situation. The good news: The good news was he knew that MTV had a reputation for this and had quite a bit of litigation against them. The bad news: they had top notch lawyers to battle this and it was almost impossible to beat them, and he knew this because… (another drum roll please) they had him on retainer -- and used his services often.

So there we were, with no real recourse but to spend money we didn’t have to pursue a case we couldn’t win. Sure, I dashed off a strongly-worded e-mail to said exec, calling her out for exactly what she did. I never heard back, of course. And that was it. Or, that was it until the show actually aired. I tried to watch, but it made me sick to my stomach. In fact, I could barely watch the one MTV show I actually like, ’The Real World’.

But, thankfully, the show’s ratings stunk, and it quickly disappeared. I don’t know what I would’ve done if it had been a hit. Something bad, I’m sure. But it still hurt – much worse than I had ever imagined it might. It’s something akin to intellectual rape. You feel angry at the perpetrator, but also at yourself for letting yourself be taken advantage of. And there’s the innocence lost.

I’ve written before about how my love for screenwriting has dimmed due to effect of peripheral parts of the industry. This episode with MTV might have been the first slide down that slippery slope.

Yes We Can!

CONGRATULATIONS TO PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA!

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

But it wasn't all sunshine and lollipops for the liberal elite Tuesday night.

TV Review: 'My Own Worst Enemy'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

In ’My Own Worst Enemy’, Christian Slater plays two men –- a family man and super spy. That makes ’Enemy’ feel like two shows -– a family man drama and spy action thriller. That might be fun, except for one thing: Both shows are mediocre. And two mediocre shows do not equal one good one.

The concept could be solid: A man discovers he has two distinct personalities -– one a super spy, the other an ordinary husband and father from the suburbs. Not only has the government figured out a way to give him these personalities, they can switch it on and off whenever they want. Or at least, they can until it malfunctions early in the pilot episode, and begins to come and go at random times with very little warning (but just enough time for either personality to leave a quick video message to the other with vital information/instructions, conveniently enough).

But there's glaring flaw, and not a hard one to identify: Why? Why is it so vital to have a super spy who can double as a family man? If the agent half is so adept at a life of spying, why does he need such an elaborate cover, complete with a wife and kids who's lives are endangered simply by virtue of who their father really is? Is screwing with the lives of innocent women and children just so their agent will have a safe place to crash really the best way the government can come up with to disguise its agents?

The parts which do work – the plot keeps moving, it’s action-packed (though cheesey), and it has a pretty solid ensemble cast –- reminds of ’Prison Break’, only not as juicy. The general rule of thumb is, the cheesier the tone and the more over the top the acting, he further the line can be pushed. Over at the always adventurous FOX, shows like ’Prison Break’ and '24' maximize this rule. This should've been instructive to the minds behind the show -- especially when taking into consideration what '24' did for Slater's contemporary, Keifer Sutherland, when he was in need of a similar career resurgence/re-imagining. But at NBC, where vanilla meets cheese, the storylines don’t ever push the boundaries. That has damaged the milquetoast ’Heroes’, and it does the same to ’Enemy’.

While the entire cast, from Slater on down, seems to be on the same over-the-top page, the writers seem to be stuck in second gear in terms of plot-twists, curveballs, and juicy moments. In short, it’s not pleasurable enough to be a guilty pleasure. There are too many mundane family arguments -- like the wife of Henry, the accountant angry at him for spending $2,000 on a dress for his young daughter, when it was actually super spy Edward’s doing – and what action there is does not make up for the family banalities.

The writing staff (led by creator Jason Smilovich) may not shoulder the blame for the tameness of the show -- often the tone of a show has a lot to do with the studio producing it. Studio notes are mandatory if a show wants to be treated well -– given a good time slot, promoted well, shown patience if early ratings don’t take off. As mentioned earlier, NBC’s current management, doesn’t have a great track record for pushing the envelope, so it’s not very hard to connect the dots.

Slater’s performance is certainly good enough, but comes off badly because the show doesn’t match his intensity. Similarly out of place are Mike O’Malley, as Raymond, Edward’s super spy colleague/handler, and Alfre Woodard, as their superior, Mavis Heller. Only Henry’s wife, Angie, played by Madchen Amick feels the right tone for the show. But again, that says more about the show than it does the actors.

’My Own Worst Enemy’ has a chance to be a good show, but it isn’t yet, and there isn’t any indication the artistic direction behind the show is capable of the kind of change it needs.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’My Own Worst Enemy’:

PASS*

* Of course, this doesn't mean I won't have to watch it. My wife likes the show, and I don't have the heart to tell her how wrong she is, so I'll be watching it with her (probably while I'm doing something else -- like writing some future blog post).

For Who? For What?: The Definition of "Indisputable" is Indisputable

This wrap-up of the weekend in both college and pro football is named after the classic post-game quote immortalized by all-time favorite whipping boy Ricky Watters.

The state of instant replay is a joke right now, and I think it comes down to semantics: Referees do not grasp what the word indisputable means. Seriously. I refs can broken down into two groups: the ones who think “indisputable” means “probably”, and one which thinks it means “Only if the Lord himself appears before you and says “Overturn it”.

In the last two weeks I’ve seen a play get overturned when the replay was dark, shadowy, grainy, and, to my eyes at least, very disputable, and another play stay as called despite a replay clearly showing the call was wrong. You just don’t know what you’ll get in any game – will it be a head ref incapable of convincing, or one who’ll take any excuse to overturn a call.

The added issue of the head coaches being consistently and maddeningly ill-prepared to make the right call about when to use their challenges, and the whole replay experience has become a bit of an eye-sore on the NFL landscape. When a call is clearly butchered a fan has so many things to worry about: "Will the coach challenge?", "Will a replay show conclusive evidence?", "Will the ref be reasonable?"

The more I think of it, a hybrid between the college and pro system might be the way to go. Take the best from the college system (Every play is eligible for booth review, coaches still get their own challenge if booth won’t review, an off-field official in the booth making the calls), and the best from pro system (two challenges, three if you get the first two right), and you have a workable system, where everybody has a chance to right a wrong, and on-field officials aren’t asked to do too much.

College Round-up:

--After another exciting weekend of college football, here’s my new Top 10:

1. Texas Tech (9-0)
2. Alabama (9-0)
3. Penn State (9-0)
4. Texas (8-1)
5. Oklahoma (8-1)
6. Florida (7-1)
7. USC (7-1)
8. Oklahoma State (8-1)
9. Utah (9-0)
10. Boise State (8-0)

Last week, I said Texas or Alabama would lose (and likely both), and it only took me one week to look prescient,. Of course, I also said this loss would allow Penn State to sneak by them and into the top two, so how come I still have them at #3? Well, for two reasons: 1) Texas Tech was too impressive this weekend to keep out of the top spot, and 2) I only said Penn State would make it into the top two by the end of the season, and I still believe that for the same reasons I did then (more on that below).

--Texas/Texas Tech was a game for the ages. The atmosphere was intense, the momentum switches were dramatic and only increased in frequency as the game went on, and the ending was one for the ages. Texas almost withstood one of the great tests a #1 team has ever had – playing the nation’s top passing combo, and a fired-up defense in a tough road venue – and, in doing so, almost overcame one of the great schedule tests a team has ever had – facing four Top 10 teams (Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State and Tech) all in a row.

Now, Tech is Big 12 team with a bull’s eye on their backs, and they’ve just begun to run their schedule’s Top 10 gauntlet – their next two games are against Oklahoma State and Oklahoma. If they get through all that, they can look forward to a date with Missouri in the Big 12 Championship Game. That kind of run of tough teams was the reason I thought Texas would end up with at least one loss, and as good as the Red Raiders looked Saturday, I have to say the same thing about them. Still, I’ll be rooting for Mike Leach’s darkhorses from Lubbock to keep the magic alive, if only so his success can remove the stigma pirate fetishists have long been saddled with.

--Next week’s big game: ‘Bama tries to stay at the top of the polls, by keeping their perfect record intact at LSU. It’s the first of three tough tests, the Tide will have to overcome to play for a championship under Coach SatanSaban.

NFL Round-up:

--In my initial NFL wrap-up column, I touted the Dolphins and especially the Falcons as two young teams on the rise, with impressive rookie coaches, who just might continue to confound preseason expectations. Four weeks later and they still look good.

The Falcons, behind former Jags defensive coordinator Mike Smith, are 5-3 and are a serious threat to win the NFC South, depending on how they play the Panthers and Bucs later in the season. Meanwhile, the ‘Phins are 4-4 behind Parcells chosen one, Tony Sparano, and though they likely won’t make the playoffs (they are last in their division), they seem to be well on the path to competing in the near future.

--Is Dallas dead? They sure look it. Though they still have a winning record at 5-4, they are in last place in their division, are without several key players, and now have a QB controversy on top of everything. With Tony Romo still out, the offense struggling, and both Brad Johnson and Brooks Bollinger playing give-away with the football, the team appears rudderless. In that division, they can’t afford to sink any further, but there’s no help on the horizon – at least for a couple of weeks until Romo gets back. By then it may be too late.

Weekend Link Dump

--You've got to love any story that's title involves either "Hooter's" and "found drunk", but when it has both, that's a very special thing.

--Some of these are pretty crazy: "15 images you won't believe aren't photoshopped" from Cracked.com.

--If you're a dude, and you're bored at work, this could be very useful.

--Clint Eastwood hasn't been in movie in four years, and now that he's back, he's directing himself in what looks like another Dirty Harry movie. Only now he's retired. And racist. Only he's not actually playing Dirty Harry, he's playing a Korean war vet. And while it looks like the title should be "Angry Old Man", it's actually called 'Gran Torino'. Here's the trailer:



In other comback news, the "Wassup" guys from the Budweiser commercials are back, though it looks only temporary:



--I love FAILblog. The pic at the top is an example of the genius from over there, as is this: