Chris Hardwick's Blog, page 2161

RICK AND MORTY Rickrolls Us All with New Season 3 Trailer

Part of what we love about Rick and Morty is how willing the show is to do just about anything for a laugh. The network and creators know that we’ll pretty much love whatever they decide to send our way. And while we’re all still waiting for any real glimpse of season three of Rick and Morty, Adult Swim thought it necessary to prank us in a manner that would make Rick Sanchez of dimension C-137 proud. And you know what? We kinda love them for it.

We never would have thought we’d enjoy getting Rickrolled… and yet, here we are. There’s no real footage of season three in the video above, but it’s impressive when you think about the effort applied just to mess with an eager audience. We can only imagine the nightmare of a workday(s) a team of editors must have had putting this together, but the final product is glorious. By taking bits and pieces of dialogue from past seasons, they were able to cut together the first verse and chorus of Rick Astley’s 1987 mega-hit “Never Gonna Give You Up.” Lots of these videos exist on the internet but this one is particularly special because it leans into the unique voice of the show. Or, rather, the unique manner of stuttered speech that its main characters share.

The Rick(and Morty)roll might be our favorite rendition, and although we can’t imagine how long it took to just make the 46 second clip, we hope someone out there (with a LOT of free time) cuts together the rest of the song.

Y-y-y-y-you mad about season three, Morty? Wh-why *BURP* don’t you wh-whine about it in the comments below!

Image: Adult Swim

Guy Ritchie Takes KING ARTHUR to The Streets in New Trailer

Knights of the Round Table, assemble! The newest trailer for director Guy Ritchie‘s ride into Arthurian legend has arrived! King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is the latest adaptation of the famous and revered British legend. You better believe that Ritchie’s distinct wildcard style will throw all of the previous Camelot conventions out the window in this planned film series–get ready for more swearing and less singing, for starters. Check out the latest epic trailer above, via Collider. If a rugged Charlie Hunnam and Led Zeppelin’s “Babe I’m Gonna Leave You” don’t do it for you, then we don’t know what will.

Much like his previously adapted Sherlock Holmes series, Ritchie’s balls-to-the-wall approach to the classic tale will focus on the more mature side of King Arthur. We’ve seen bits of backstory in previous trailers, but this latest reveals a heavy dose of major childhood trauma for the young prince thanks to his uncle, Vortigern (Jude Law), who murders his parents and steals the throne. You know, typical Medieval stuff. After growing up on the streets, this version of Arthur isn’t too quick to answer the call of Excalibur and seems extremely weary of royalty.

He’s eventually joined by Arthurian staples like Sir Bedivere (Djimon Hounsou) and Merlin (Kamil Lemieszewski), with a mage-type Guinevere (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey), and Aidan Gillen from Game of Thrones as Goosefat Bill Wilson, a conniving newcomer to the legend. The casting seems right for a Ritchie film, so we’re hoping everything else falls into place. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword opens in theaters on May 12, 2017. Are you excited to experience Guy Ritchie’s take on King Arthur? Let us know in the comments!

Featured Image: Warner Bros. Pictures

LOGAN Stars and Director on How It’s Different from Any Other X-MEN Movie

Whether you’ve seen every X-Men film three times over or Logan is your first big screen encounter with Marvel Comics’ legion of mutants, the newest entry in the franchise is bound to surprise you. It goes without saying that Hugh Jackman’s latest foray with his hot-tempered antihero Wolverine is unlike anything we’ve seen so far in the X-Men series; the film’s great achievement, though, is managing to stand out as unique against its fellow superhero movies across the board. How director James Mangold managed such an unusual piece of work, as he explained to our own Dan Casey during a conversation about the film, is in approaching Logan not as his take on the X-Men universe, but as an X-Men story filtered through his overarching cinematic vision. The results, I can tell you, are something to behold.

In talking to Mangold and stars Jackman and Patrick Stewart, who returns to the screen as the inimitable Prof. Charles Xavier, Dan looked into the specifics of what makes Logan feel so much like a beast all its own. Part of it, as Mangold expressed, is the hard R rating. As Jackman put it to Dan, “I wanted to hit the berserker rage like we hadn’t hit it before.” Not simply a gimmicky exploitation of excess bloodshed and multitudinous curse words, the upped dosage of violence and coarse language works to great effect toward a heightening of the stakes. (I’ve seen Wolverine stick his claws in and out of countless baddies over the past 17 years, and have never once felt as affected by the ritual as I did while watching Logan.)

Another component is, of course, the acting. Though Jackman and Stewart haven’t exactly been phoning it in all these years, there’s something striking and new to be found in their chemistry in Logan. As Jackman told Dan, “There’s more drama in that first scene between us than maybe all the other movies combined.” If their performances alone aren’t testament enough to how seriously Jackman and Stewart took this particular outing, the physical toll the film took on both men should hammer the point home. Stewart’s decision to drop 20 pounds for the role and Jackman’s fainting spell during one particular action scene account for nothing if not devotion.

There’s much more that went into making Logan such a special piece of work. Watch our interview with Mangold, Jackman, and Stewart (with a quick cameo from Boyd Holbrook, who plays the film’s silver-tongued villain) in the video above, and catch the film in theaters on March 3.

Featured Image: 20th Century Fox

Daisy Ridley is Bombarded by a Room Full of Celebrities with STAR WARS Questions

We really want to know all there is to know about Star Wars: The Last Jedi. But alas, we don’t have the inside access to those who hold the key to all our questions. But Josh Gad does, and he’s our ultimate ally right now. He too wants very much to get an early peek at the upcoming movie, and thankfully, he and Daisy Ridley are now working together on a film adaptation of Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express, so he’s been bothering her about it plenty.

We’ve written about it before, when Gad began sharing Facebook and Twitter videos of him pestering Ridley on set, trying to massage The Last Jedi info out of her. He even recruited Dame Judi Dench, their Orient Express costar, to help him out once. And while that was impressive, his latest effort has raised the bar for celebrity cameos (via Uproxx).

A post shared by Josh Gad (@joshgad) on Feb 20, 2017 at 4:59am PST

In a video Gad shared today, he brings Ridley to the false security of his home, only to be bombarded by a host of faces you’ll surely recognize. It seems that even big name celebrities want some answers… and some just want to promote their own movies. This info seems to be kept under even tighter wraps than we thought.

We’re thankful for your service, Josh Gad, but if this didn’t do it, nothing will. You’ve been a real friend, but our quest is over.

Featured Image: Lucasfilm

Mega Oscars Preview Part 1: The Four Acting Categories

It’s Oscars week, which means this Sunday in Hollywood, at the 89th Academy Awards, a select group of very talented people are going to reach the pinnacle of their profession. But how did they get to the precipice of their industry’s highest honor? What made them worthy of recognition over the hundreds of other films and performances we saw last year?c

To find out, I watched every movie covered across the six biggest awards: Best Picture, Best Director, and all four acting categories. We’re not worried about debating who got snubbed or who they should have replaced here, and we watched them all knowing exactly who is up for the golden statue, to try and determine who stands out as the best of the best and should go home the winner.

We’re starting with all 20 acting performances. We’ll explain why they deserved their nomination, why they might win, and why they won’t. So whether you are trying to come out on top in your office pool, sound like the smartest person at your viewing party, or are just curious about some wonderful acting, here’s our complete breakdown for the Best Supporting and Leading actors and actresses.

Note: We aren’t interested in the literal odds on favorites, who don’t always line up exactly with our own views. Also, this is a grand celebration of great movies and moving performances, so we’re only focusing on all the things we liked about the nominees. If you’re looking for cynicism you’ve come to the wrong place. Oh, and we tried to keep all spoilers to a minimum.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

MICHAEL SHANNON, NOCTURNAL ANIMALS

Why He Was Nominated: Shannon plays unflinching, gritty, no-nonsense West Texas Detective Bobby Andes, and he’s as perfect for the role as he sounds. Whether he’s matter-of-factly telling a grieving husband and father about the brutal details of his wife and daughter’s murder, threatening a criminal without even raising his voice, or exacting frontier justice, Shannon has an intensity that feels so authentic you hope you never actually run into him… until the exact moment you need his help. It also doesn’t hurt that Detective Andes gets diagnosed with terminal lung cancer later in the movie, giving Shannon a chance to add another layer to his performance, which he does with understated strength and resolve. Oh, and he gets to do an accent, which always helps.

Why He Might Win: A dying grizzled cop who holds your attention every second he is on screen is right up the Academy’s alley, and that goes for most moviegoers too. It doesn’t take much to appreciate him here, and Shannon is one of the best working actors going today; his very brief performance in Loving is so dramatically different you could easily be duped into thinking it was played by someone that just looks like Michael Shannon. Recognizing him for a powerful performance in a classic Hollywood role wouldn’t upset anyone, and it would give studios one more actor to slap that “Academy Award Winner” label to on posters and commercials.

Why He Might Not Win: Not only is this the type of role we’ve seen many times, making it feel a little less special, he’s not even the only grizzled Texas cop in the category. The other, played by Jeff Bridges, is older, more grizzled, and has a lot more screen time. This is a great performance in a flawed movie, but as good as Shannon is, the other four actors will likely benefit from seemingly more “difficult” or “meatier” roles.

MAHERSHALA ALI, MOONLIGHT

Why He Was Nominated: Moonlight is unlike any other movie we’ve seen before, and Ali sets the tone in his role as the crack dealer Juan who befriends the young, shy Chiron after finding him hiding from school bullies. Juan is tough and imposing on the job, but tender and loving in his role as a surrogate father to Chiron, who is constantly trying to escape his addict mother. It’s a part that could have felt unrealistic or phony in the hands of a less skilled actor, but Ali makes Juan feel real and likable, even though his lifestyle directly contributes to Chiron’s troubles.

Why He Might Win: We’ve seen tough drug dealers with hearts of gold in the past, but few have ever felt as human and vulnerable as Ali’s Juan. Acting with such a young performer can’t be easy, but each moment with the two is wonderful and heartbreaking at the same time. Ali’s final scene, in which he has no answer to Chiron’s question about what he does for a living, is one of the single best pieces of acting of the entire year. Ali’s non-response says more than most dramatic monologues.

Why He Might Not Win: Even though he does a lot in such a small amount of time, it’s still a small amount of time. Ali is completely gone from the movie a third of the way in, which might hurt him in competition, even though I can’t shake his performance or this movie from my mind. Plus, no accent.

JEFF BRIDGES, HELL OR HIGH WATER

Why He Was Nominated: Everyone loves a comically inappropriate, wise old Texas cop on the verge of a retirement he isn’t interested in, who is trying to go out on top by solving one final case. And everyone loves Jeff Bridges, so it’s not hard to see why this performance was recognized. It also doesn’t hurt that his Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton gets to deal with a surprisingly wide range of emotions and situations for a supporting part, including loss of purpose, loneliness, old age, death, a dramatic and physically taxing climax, and a continuing search for justice. Bridges nails all of it.

Why He Might Win: He’s won before (2010 Best Actor for Crazy Heart), so we know the voters like him. And while Hell or High Water is up for Best Picture, it probably won’t win (despite being really good), so a Bridges victory could be a way to both honor the film and to also move a consistently great actor into that rarefied level of multiple-time winner (an opportunity that actually could apply to many acting nominees this year). Oh, and he does an accent too.

Why He Might Not Win: For lots of the same reasons he might win. Th fact that he has won before may provoke the Academy to spread the wealth around. Also, as good as he is here, Bridges faces the same problem as Michael Shannon: this role doesn’t break any new ground. Not to mention they are up against three other monster performances.

LUCAS HEDGES, MANCHESTER BY THE SEA

Why He Was Nominated: His role as Patrick Chandler, a popular, charismatic, smart ass high school student who loses his father and finds himself without anyone who wants to raise him, calls for Hedges to hold his emotions in for most of the movie (according to Hollywood, every Irish Catholic guy in New England is required by law to act like nothing upsets him at all times, no matter how awful life gets). And the way Hedges handles that responsibility would be enough to make this performance worth a nomination, because he lets enough cracks through to let us see the deep pain he is hiding underneath that stoicism. But what makes this performance genuinely special is when that protective veneer shatters, and he transforms into the vulnerable, devastated kid he really is. Hedges is a young actor in a demanding, complex role, who completely holds his own against two other great acting performances that nabbed nominations for the film too.

Why He Might Win: The acting in Manchester by the Sea is world-class all around, but to get such a believable, powerful performance from a young actor in a taxing part is remarkable. It would have been easy for Hedges to get overshadowed by Casey Affleck and Michelle Williams, but he is their equal here, and without him the movie wouldn’t be nearly as good. Oh, and he gets to do an accent too, but his is the most impressive in the category because it’s a good Boston accent, which only has a 3% success rate in Hollywood. (Though in fairness, Kevin Costner in Thirteen Days accounts for 42% of the failure rate).

Why He Might Not Win: As good as he is, he might get overshadowed by Affleck anyway. Hedges shares a lot of his scenes with his destroyed uncle, and since the movie is primarily about Affleck’s Lee Chandler and Affleck is amazing in that role, some voters might not recognize just how important Hedges’ performance is to making the movie work. Not to mention it might be easy for them to think such a talented young actor will have plenty of other chances to win an Oscar, so they can vote for him some other time. I don’t agree with that logic, but that doesn’t mean some might not think that way.

DEV PATEL, LION

Why He Was Nominated: The true story of Saroo Brierley, an Australian-adopted man who becomes obsessed with finding the Indian family he was accidentally separated from 25 years earlier, is both heartbreaking and uplifting, and Patel is remarkable in the main role. Saroo carries an unimaginable amount of guilt and trauma, and it causes him to slowly lose his sense of identity and self worth while his obsession grows and consumes his entire life. It’s an intense and difficult role, but Patel never feels over the top even at his most vulnerable and broken. Big, dramatic moments feel authentic, which makes them powerful and empathetic.

Why He Might Win: He’s so great in the role that he would be a serious contender any year the movie might have come out, and with his Indian heritage it’s a part that feels perfect for him, but he outdoes those expectations. He also has one huge advantage over the other four actors in this category: this is really a leading role. Even though he doesn’t show up until about 40 minutes in, once we meet the adult Saroo it is Patel’s movie in every way. No other nominee here is as important to his film as Patel is, and that has to matter. Oh, and he gets to do an Australian accent, mate.

Why He Might Not Win: It’s a strong category, so any of the five might win, but Patel could be hurt for a very weird reason: he could get downgraded for being “too perfect” for the role. If we’re being completely honest, how many other actors could we imagine in this role? There aren’t many parts of this size and depth for performers of Indian descent, and some voters could grade him on a curve because they think this part could only be played by him, resulting his excellence getting taken for granted.

And the winner should be…

Ungh, this is hard. Ask me tomorrow and my opinion might change, but today I’m going with Dev Patel.

I really do think any of these actors would be worthy recipients, but it ultimately came down to Patel and Hedges, who were both asked to do the most and had the biggest impacts on their movies. Mahershala Ali is understated and moving in a truly incredible performance, but in comparison he is hurt by being in the movie for so few scenes. I’m giving Patel this by the smallest of margins possible–like 50.1 to 49.9%–because he had to convey a guilt few will ever experience, but he still made Saroo’s emotional journey accessible and overwhelming.

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

OCTAVIA SPENCER, HIDDEN FIGURES

Why She Was Nominated: In a film about fighting back at deep-seated institutional prejudice with grace, strength, talent, and determination, Octavia Spencer‘s motherly, take-charge Dorothy Vaughan represents the whole package. It can be easy to overlook a quiet performance in a good movie, but Spencer manages to convey all of the frustration and exhaustion Vaughan feels, as she forces the world she lives in to accept her for what she can do instead of her skin color, with a quiet power that comes through from all the things she doesn’t say (or scream). Her amazing scene in the bathroom with Kirsten Dunst epitomizes her entire performance.

Why She Might Win: The 2011 winner in this category (The Help) wouldn’t surprise anyone if she came home with the trophy again, especially since she is the only nominee from a movie with three great female performances at its heart. A second best supporting actress victory would elevate her to another level she is worthy of, and it would simultaneously reward a movie that deserves to be celebrated.

Why She Might Not Win: Like other past winners, some voters might elect to give someone else the honor of a lifetime if they need a tiebreaker. Also, it can be argued that of the three women in the film, Spencer’s role is the third most important, hurting her since she could be competing not only against the four other nominees, but also the two other actresses from Hidden Figures. There’s not even an available clip featuring one of her primary scenes from the movie to share.

NAOMIE HARRIS, MOONLIGHT

Why She Was Nominated: Moonlight follows a sad, confused young man struggling with his identity from childhood to adulthood, so it would be easy to hate the neglectful, crack-addicted mother who causes him so much pain. Yet Harris feels so real in the role that it’s impossible not to empathize with her too. And while she is in only a few scenes, we get to experience her own difficult journey through many years as well. Harris excels in a number of very different scenes and emotional states, requiring a wide ranging performance.

Why She Might Win: The movie is a stunning, unique experience, and it would be a shame if it wasn’t recognized with a victory in some category, so Harris could be a way for the Academy to do just that. It’s hard to make us feel hatred, pity, and sympathy alike for such a flawed character, let alone in one particularly terrible moment, but a scene in which she takes her son’s money manages to do it.

Why She Might Not Win: A complicated, failed, drug-addicted mother isn’t an easy part by any stretch, but it’s not an uncommon role, so her greatness might not be enough to overcome the idea that others have been excellent in similar roles.

NICOLE KIDMAN, LION

Why She Was Nominated: In lesser hands, the very real Sue Brierley could have felt like a stereotypical Hollywood white knight, the savior of small brown children, resulting in her part taking away from the bigger story being told. But Kidman doesn’t just overcome that; she makes Saroo’s adoptive mother complex, sympathetic, and the genuinely great person she obviously is–the kind that makes us feel better about humanity. A scene in which she tells her troubled son why she adopted him is a masterclass in acting all its own.

Why She Might Win: This is yet another great performer that could get that second statue, and Kidman is worthy of such recognition. Considering none of these movies are watched or judged in a vacuum, the fact that she was able to transcend the modern trap of coming across as the stereotypical goodly white saint is a testament to how authentic and wonderful she made the very real person the role is based on feel.

Why She Might Not Win: This is a tough category this year, and as touching as Kidman is she’ll probably be overshadowed by two other nominees.

MICHELLE WILLIAMS,  MANCHESTER BY THE SEA

Why She Was Nominated: The main theme of Manchester by the Sea–unimaginable loss and grief–is draining on its own, but the reason you leave the theater feeling crushed is because the performances in the film live up to the impossible weight of the subject matter. You can argue this is the single best performance of her life, with a scene she shares with Casey Affleck towards the end of the movie standing as one of the most heart wrenching I’ve ever sobbed my way through.

Why She Might Win: In terms of screen time, the role is actually quite small. Williams is only in a handful of scenes, but each and every one of them hits like a ton of bricks because of how incredible she is. I will carry her performance with me for a long time. Oh, and her Boston accent is one of the best evah.

Why She Might Not Win: Honestly? Only because someone else is going to win, even though that person is in the wrong category.

VIOLA DAVIS, FENCES

Why She Was Nominated: Fences is an adaption of a play, in which Davis starred in the same role, winning a Tony Award in 2010. Her Rose Maxson carries her burdens with strength and dignity, and then is forced to face an unthinkable betrayal that calls into question her entire life’s purpose. Davis conveys all of those painful struggles and questions in both her quietest and biggest moments.

Why She Might Win: Honestly, she would be the favorite if she were nominated in the leading actress category, and that’s just where she should be. She is the female lead, and while costar Denzel Washington gets more lines and screen time, Davis is not only his equal, but has the single most heartbreaking, most compelling scene of the entire movie. It left me drained, and it’s the kind of moment that could end up being the one we always think of when we look back on her career.

Why She Might Not Win: Hypothetically, enough voters decide it isn’t fair for her to be up for supporting actress, so Michelle Williams gets the win in a role that is more in the spirit of the category.

And the winner should be…

Viola Davis. She feels like the surest winner of the four acting categories and she deserves it, even though Michelle Williams doesn’t deserve to be zero-for-four at the Oscars, especially after her what she did here. We’re confident she will get that elusive win someday… just not on Sunday.

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

ANDREW GARFIELD,  HACKSAW RIDGE

Why He Was Nominated: Hacksaw Ridge is way better than it has any right to be, since the subject matter is well trod ground. The biggest reason for its triumph is because its lead character and heart of the film is played by Garfield with strength and compassion. Army medic and American hero Desmond T. Doss deserved to have his story told, and Garfield more than does right by him and it.

Why He Might Win: It’s easy to root for a genuine hero, and it’s easy to root for the likable Garfield, who is just as good when he is silently standing up for his beliefs in training as he is facing down his own death on the battlefield. His big, Oscar-worthy scene is long, but doesn’t feel like it because you never get tired of watching him. And you better believe he gets to use an accent.

Why He Might Not Win: It’s a really good performance in a role that the entire film revolves around, but it doesn’t feel special in the way some of the other parts up for the award are. It’s an inspiring story of a real person, delivered with sincerity, but it’s still just about an unlikely war hero who wins over his skeptical fellow soldiers with his bravery, the kind we’ve seen countless times before and will again. That’s partly why we can think of lots of talented young actors who also would have been good here. We’re big Garfield fans, but we think his best is yet to come.

DENZEL WASHINGTON, FENCES

Why He Was Nominated: It’s an absolutely powerhouse clinic from one of the best actors of all time, who bursts onto the screen with the energy of a tsunami, and then crashes with all the anger and sadness of a deeply flawed man who never forgave life for stacking the deck against him.

Why He Might Win: He presence controls everything that happens for the entire movie, and yet by the end you can’t decide if you like or hate his Roy Maxson because he’s made him so complex it’s impossible to sort out all of your own feelings. For an actor so famous and distinct as Denzel Washington it can be hard at times to overcome his own stature as a viewer (we all know his many quirks and mannerisms so well he’s become an easy impression to do), but he more than does so here. This isn’t Denzel-being-Denzel (which would be good enough anyway), this is much more. It’s arguably a better performance than he gave in Training Day, which got him his Leading Actor Oscar win.

Why He Might Not Win: He has two acting awards already, so does he “need” a third? (We don’t advocate any of these silly standards, we’re only trying to imagine why someone might not vote for him.) And so much of this part is big, intense, and in-your-face dramatic that it might make some people forget how good he is in the quieter, sadder moments in between. Ultimately though if he loses it will be because another nominee gave the performance of his life.

RYAN GOSLING,  LA LA LAND

Why He Was Nominated: It’s not exactly controversial to say Ryan Gosling is charming, likable, and delightful, and all of those traits are on full display here. His optimistic but frustrated Sebastian, who sacrifices his own dreams and principles in a wrongheaded attempt to make things work with the love of his life, is someone who makes us root for him even when he probably doesn’t deserve it. At its best, La La Land is magical, and we feel that in Gosling’s performance.

Why He Might Win: La La Land doesn’t just lead this year’s Oscars with the most nominations (at 14), it tied the all-time record with Titanic and All About Eve. So it’s definitely going to win some awards. That means one of the only two developed characters in it has a chance. Sebastian requires Gosling to be funny, warm, difficult, stubborn, annoying, and most importantly sincere, and Gosling has to do all of that while also singing, dancing, and playing the piano. He does, and it makes us love Sebastian and him because of it.

Why He Might Not Win: It’s a musical, but that makes Gosling’s only weakness in the film an issue, since his singing voice isn’t that great. I didn’t have a problem with it, as he’s excellent anyway–inspiring, frustrating, and wholly engaging–but if he is going to win an Oscar for a musical it would probably be better if he was an above average singer. (But really, the passion he brings to the musical numbers more than makes up for his merely okay vocals. This isn’t a Russell Crowe in Les Miserables situation.)

VIGGO MORTENSEN,  CAPTAIN FANTASTIC

Why He Was Nominated: Captain Fantastic is about a close-knit family who has been living an isolated, commune-style life in the woods for years, but who returns to the real world after their mother commits suicide. This could have felt like absurd story if not for Mortensen‘s empathizing performance to anchor it. His Ben goes from a difficult but confident outsider to a man that questions and regrets the decisions he has made in life, all while trying to do right by his kids, even when it’s not clear what that means.

Why He Might Win: All of the individual elements of this role–grieving husband, struggling dad, society rejecting-hippie, flawed genius who is either the best or worst thing to happen to his children–aren’t unique, but putting them all together makes Mortensen’s father so complex we’ve been trying to figure out how we feel about him since seeing the film. There are no easy answers here for us, and that’s because Mortensen makes him layered and dynamic. Of all five actors here, his performance is the one we want to talk about and analyze the most.

Why He Might Not Win: We love that he is getting the recognition he deserves (this is only his second Oscar nod), but we can’t see how he can beat out the favorites here. His performance in some scenes is so nuanced and subtle it might be hard to fully appreciate just how good he is here until we see it a few more times, and there are too many movies for voters to see once before they can start re-watching them already. His unusual, survivalist dad stuck with us long after seeing the movie, but he’ll be overshadowed by the competition.

CASEY AFFLECK,  MANCHESTER BY THE SEA

Why He Was Nominated: It might seem like a big, juicy role in a crushing movie dealing with grief would be something any good actor could excel in, but Manchester by the Sea asks far more of Affleck than most roles of that nature. He has to convey what it’s like to live with unfathomable loss, but then he has to go beyond that, and build a real person who is completely and irrevocably broken the way few people ever will be. The flashbacks make it so he has to be everything–from a man who seemingly has it all and then experiences an unspeakable horror, which makes him a shadow of a man. It’s a remarkable job from start to finish, and one that already–somehow–feels better than when we left the theater.

Why He Might Win: This is the performance of a lifetime, one that is worthy of all of the accolades it has received thus far. If someone described what this character had gone through before you saw the film, what would your expectations for Affleck have been? Impossible, right? But he’s better than that. If “losing” ourselves in a scene were the single metric used to pick the winner, the one of him in the police station would give him the win. (We can’t give an Affleck credit for a Boston accent though, even if it’s a good one.)

Why He Might Not Win: The primary reason will be because Denzel wins it, but we think there is a chance that because his character is so shattered for much of the movie, requiring Affleck to play numb to the point he can appear to feel nothing (when it’s really that what he feels is too large to express out loud), it could make some people not fully understand what he did here, especially his work towards the beginning, which can’t be fully appreciated until later in the film.

And the winner should be…

If I answered this right after seeing all five performances I would have gone with Denzel. He’s not only at his apex, but is relentless in a part that demands him to own the screen throughout. However, the more removed I get from seeing all five movies the more I can’t stop thinking about what Affleck pulled off. The movie is so devastating and draining that it’s hard to process all of it while you’re watching, but looking back the full weight his journey is the hardest role of the five, and Affleck is amazing from start to finish. It’s almost impossible to pick between the two (I’m never complaining about voting again, it’s really hard!), and the only thing that would surprise us if one of them doesn’t hear his name called. Of course, the only asterisk we might attach to to our prediction or hopes for Affleck’s victory are the revelations about his sexual assault allegations that have come to a head since the release of the movie. If we’re judging on what we see onscreen alone, Affleck is still our pick, though a lot of our colleagues contend, quite defensibly, that this is becoming harder and harder to do.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

ISABELLE HUPPERT, ELLE

Why She Was Nominated: From the very first second of Elle until the last, Huppert‘s Michèle is mesmerizing. A powerful, strong, successful video game developer with a monstrous, tragic past, she develops a remarkable, troubling relationship with her rapist as she navigates the many complicated relationships in her life. Unfathomably complex, overtly sexual, straightforward and open, yet reserved, she is asked to do so much here in one of the most interesting, difficult roles I have ever seen. She’s so good at all of it that the only word that comes to mind to describe her performance is “breathtaking.”

Why She Might Win: No other performance is as hard to capture in words, because it’s so unlike anything else this or any other year. The vulnerability and rawness required of the role are unbelievable, and she pulls it off with unwavering commitment. In some ways Elle is part horror movie, psychological thriller, character study, and survival film, but it feels so brutally honest that even while you can’t believe this character is real, you never doubt she is. I won’t forget about Michèle anytime soon, and that’s all because of Huppert.

Why She Might Not Win: It’s the only foreign film in the bunch, so if any performance here has an unfair burden to overcome it might be this one. The movie is consistently difficult to watch, even though you can’t look away from Huppert, so it could be hard for some to get past the twisted, dark, often terrible nature of her character, even as she does so much here to make her empathetic and accessible.

RUTH NEGGA, LOVING

Why She Was Nominated: Loving tells the true story of reluctant civil rights heroes Richard and Mildred Loving, whose case before the Supreme Court ended laws against interracial marriage once and for all. It’s a significant, important story in our country’s history, but it’s just as much a love story, and Negga is at the heart of both.

Why She Might Win: It’s a part that doesn’t have a single big, overly dramatic scene, yet Negga stands out throughout the film anyway. She feels like a real person, which should never go under-appreciated (especially when someone is tasked with portraying an actual person). The story of Mildred and Richard Loving deserved to be handled with grace and elegance, and that’s just what Negga brought to her role. And she did it with a Southern accent.

Why She Might Not Win: While Negga imbues her part with a quiet strength, and manages to convey the burden and unfairness of her situation with nothing more than a tender look, there are performances in this category that called for that and more. All of the things that make her execution here worth recognizing–doing so much with so little–are also what hurts her in comparison to the other woman up for the Oscar.

NATALIE PORTMAN, JACKIE

Why She Was Nominated: It’s one thing to play a part that the Academy is always drawn to, that of a famous American who experienced a great tragedy, but Portman is genuinely amazing as Jacqueline Kennedy recounting her time in the White House only a week after she saw her husband killed in Dallas. Because she mimics the former First Lady’s distinct and peculiar speaking style so well, the start of the film feels more like an impression than her inhabiting the role (the Joseph Gordon-Levitt memorial part), but it doesn’t take long for her to overcome that. Portman makes you feel like you are reliving the tragedy with the real Jackie Kennedy, and it’s completely crushing and left us in awe of both woman.

Why She Might Win: She does everything here. She is asked to be completely under control during impossible circumstances, and that means failing to do so at times and falling apart in front of us. She has to be a grieving mother who stands strong for her two children, but also the entire country, and all while literally being kicked out of her home that she has dedicated the last three years of her life to. Plus she has to do all of that while facing the reality of being a young widow who saw her husband’s head blown apart right in front of her, making her question her faith. And then she has to plan a funeral for the whole world to attend, one that will help shape both her and her husband’s legacies. It doesn’t seem possible an actual person went through all of this, but Portman makes it feel as real as it was terrible and amazing.

Why She Might Not Win: She has won this award before, and while we’ve talked about how that can work in someone’s favor, it just as easily could hurt her if she is in a de facto tie with another nominee. Also, if any role in the category feels like the proverbial “Oscar bait,” this is it, and while it would be unbelievably stupid to treat this performance like that, some voters might hold it to a higher standard. Hopefully no one is dumb enough to do that.

EMMA STONE, LA LA LAND

Why She Was Nominated: La La Land is this year’s powerhouse darling, a throwback musical that transports you to a place you don’t want to leave, and half of it falls on Stone’s shoulders. One of our favorites, she made us laugh and cry–sometimes at the same time–while grounding a fantastic story with genuine emotion that made her Mia feel real in a world set among the stars.

Why She Might Win: Beyond the fact she is the lead and wholly likable heroine of a movie that made us happy to be alive, she has to do all of that while singing and dancing. Also, how many of the seven billion people on the planet can be as charming as Ryan Gosling, let alone make us root for them over him at times. That list currently reads: “one–Emma Stone.”

Why She Might Not Win: She’s a better singer than her costar, but if the modern standard to win an Oscar for a musical performance are Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls and Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago, this will be a tough hill for Stone to climb. She has a sweet, tender voice that fits Mia perfectly, but it’s far from an all-timer vocally. Plus, it feels like big dramatic performances get extra credit, and two other nominees delivered moving performances in those types of roles.

MERYL STREEP,  FLORENCE FOSTER JENKINS

Why She Was Nominated: Because she always is. But that’s only true because she’s consistently–at minimum–really good in every role, and this time is no different. She is vulnerable, lovable, and worth supporting in the title role of the woman who was a compelling singer because she couldn’t actually sing, though she didn’t realize it. Streep manages to make intentionally sounding like a clown feel totally genuine, and she makes it easy to understand why people loved the real Florence Foster Jenkins so much.

Why She Might Win: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and Meryl Streep gotta take homes gold acting statues. This would mark her fourth, which would be a crazy total for anyone else, but her winning percentage probably isn’t quite what it should be for arguably the greatest actress in the history of cinema. A win would tie her for the most all time with Katherine Hepburn.

Why She Might Not Win: Just how many times has she been up for an acting Oscar? This is her 19th nomination (oh my god), but is this even in her top 10 best performances? It’s a fun part and she brings all of the warmth and sincerity it deserves, but it doesn’t match up to her best roles, let alone compare to some of the other nominees she’s up against this year.

And the winner should be…

Isabelle Huppert. We won’t be surprised or upset if the delightful Emma Stone gets her name called, but we think this should be a two-horse race between Huppert and Portman. And while Portman transformed into Jackie Kennedy in a stunning, difficult performance, we can’t get Huppert’s complex, unique, dark, troubled Michèle out of our heads. It’s an amazing role, one of our favorites ever, thanks to an unforgettable performance that will always stay with us and deserves to be recognized with the industry’s biggest prize.

But what do you think? Who do you should win? Tell us what we got right and what we got wrong in the comments below, on Facebook, and on Twitter at @Nerdist and @burgermike. But don’t forget to come back tomorrow for our full breakdown of every Best Picture and Best Director nominee, and who we think should go home the winner in both.

Images: Summit Entertainment,  Paramount,  Universal,  A24,  Lionsgate,  Focus Features,  Amazon Studios,  The Weinstein Company,  SBS Distribution,  20th Century Fox,  Summit Entertainment,  Fox Searchlight Features

HORIZON: ZERO DAWN is the Machine-Hunting Action RPG of Your Dreams (Review)

There’s something that’s always intrigued me about the post-apocalyptic genre. I, like many other people, can’t help but wonder how humanity would cope and adapt to an unlivable wasteland. More often than not, the answer is, “chaotically.” The premise is something that’s been covered more times than anyone is willing to count. There’ve been zombies, hostile cannibals, and dangerous plagues—you name it. But what would it look like if Mother Nature were able to reclaim the damaged world, and a new civilization could flourish? Guerrilla Games (Killzone) has boldly left the first-person shooter genre to tackle that idea head-on with the ambitious mechanical monster-filled PS4 exclusive, Horizon: Zero Dawn.

As we’ve discussed in the past, the game takes place in the post-post-apocalypse. Following the fall of the old ones (a civilization very much like our own, but even more technologically advanced), nature has taken back the land, robotic creatures dominate the earth, and a handful of primitive tribes are stationed across the map. It is in this new world where we find Aloy (voiced by Ashly Burch), a motherless girl who was outcast from the superstitious Nora tribe at birth and raised by her foster father and fellow outcast Rost. It’s clear from the get-go that the game’s badass protagonist isn’t going to let anything stop her from finding out what’s really going on. The mysterious identity of her mother and a tragic event push her beyond the borders of the sacred Nora lands in search of answers not only about where she came from, but what led to the world mankind now inhabits. It’s this dedication, curiosity, and authenticity that make Aloy one of the best characters in Sony’s stable of PlayStation favorites.

The world in Horizon is delightfully diverse, and brimming with historic traces of a forgotten world. Aloy spends the duration of the adventure scaling the peaks of snow-capped mountains and roaming through arid deserts, lush jungles, painted canyons, and crumbling ruins. Beyond the natural beauty are remnants of the metal world. That juxtaposition of nature and machine is truly mesmerizing. When coupled with the dynamic weather system, day/night cycle, vivid color palette, and detailed realistic textures, the post-post-apocalyptic playground is a feast for the eyes, and especially fun to capture in the game’s photo mode. Heck, even the people in the game looked stunning, and more realistic than most of the video game characters I’ve seen. It’s no wonder Hideo Kojima hand-selected Guerrilla’s Decima engine for his upcoming Sony exclusive, Death Stranding.

Landscape and NPCs aside, where the graphics engine and art design truly shines is with the machines. There are 25 creature designs in total, featuring the likes of deer-inspired beasts that are easily spooked, crocodile monsters capable of lunge attacks and elemental damage, and massive hawks that scavenge the wastelands and terrorize you from above. My personal favorite, however, was the panther-like Stalker, which is capable of going invisible just so it can ambush you. Finding and facing these monsters was a new surprise every time.

Because the creatures take inspiration from the animal kingdom—albeit with a mechanical twist—their body language is recognizable and therefore easier to read and react to. But that also means they should be dealt with differently. This understanding and the skills I unlocked played a crucial part in determining how I would go about a situation. Early on, skills like the lure call, and silent strike, enabled me to sneak around the map and pick off enemies one by one. Once I started encountering larger machines, I opted for stronger weapons (all of which can be modded with rare weapon upgrades), the Double and Triple Bow Shot, and tear arrows to remove components from the beast as a means of crippling it. That said, the skill tree wasn’t as imaginative as I was hoping for. The marriage of futuristic machine tech, and primitive weapons is truly special and would have benefitted from a more creative set of abilities.

The fun comes in the hunt. Figuring out how to best approach before engaging in combat was as easy as scanning the machine (or hostile human) with Aloy’s intel-gathering focus device. Doing this revealed useful information about the machine’s elemental weakness, patrol path, mode of attack, and loot that they’d drop. For example, scanning the massive T-Rex-inspired Thunderjaw revealed a crucial tip: removing the disc-launcher from the beast’s back allows you to then wield it against the monstrosity. There are also components that can be removed or damaged to reduce the machine’s modes of attack, and deal critical damage to the beast and those around it. As a result, combat is incredibly strategic, and varied depending on the machine Aloy was fighting. The ability to craft ammo on-the-go from natural items found in the environment is simple, and leaves more time to focus on how you’re going to take down enemies.

Beyond fighting them, machines can be overridden once Aloy unlocks a particular device in the game. While some, like the Charger, Strider, and Broadhead, can be mounted, others will come to your aid during combat. I was even able to take control of a Thunderjaw, which I then unleashed on a nearby Thunderjaw—trust me, it’s a lot of fun. Aside from the first batch of machines, the ability to override subsequent tiers is unlocked via exploring the landscape and entering cauldron facilities when you aren’t busy tackling the main quest.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to additional things you can do in the game. Bringing up the massive map shows bandit camps you can conquer and loot, ruins to explore, hunting trials that help you hone your combat strategies, and so much more. To make these show up on the map, there are several Tall Neck machines that can be scaled and overridden throughout the land. Doing so clears the fog from the map and reveals special locations players can travel to. There also special relics planted throughout the world that can then be sold to special merchants for rare items. There is so much to do, that I’m still playing the game a good 20 hours after completing the main story—and haven’t gotten bored yet.

Without divulging any spoilers, I will say that the mysteries Aloy uncovered on her journey were equal parts fascinating and creative. My hat goes off to Narrative Director John Gonzalez and the team for keeping me engaged, surprised, and delighted the whole way through. Seeing it all through such a relatable protagonist’s eyes was the icing on the cake. Thankfully, the backstory extends beyond the main story and can be gleaned through the interesting audio/text data points, side missions, errands, and the overgrown ruins that are peppered throughout the land. Of course, learning more through logs is nothing new when it comes to story-driven titles. I’m guilty of hunting for these artifacts only to fulfill a requirement on a trophy/achievement list.

The curious thing about Horizon, however, was that I was actually driven by a desire to learn more about the central plot, so much so that I returned to early locations to find and read every last message I could find. The notes paint a colorful background of the humans who once inhabited the earth. In fact, there are several memorable characters that can only be found via reading the texts, a true treasure for those who look. There are similarly interesting characters who can only be encountered if you hunt for side missions to complete. The good news is that despite how rewarding uncovering this lore is, it isn’t necessary to enjoy the overarching story.

But of course, there were a few things that didn’t quite work out well. There was noticeable texture popping throughout my playthrough, but that may be rectified once consumers get their hands on the title. Another issue that got under my skin was that there were certain times when NPCs who were adamant about getting my attention repeated the same phrase over and over. Though it didn’t happen often, there was a particular boss battle where the enemy repeated the same two phrases for the duration of the fight—which didn’t help how stressed I was by the onslaught of hostile machines. There were also a few minor glitches where I got stuck in rocks, and couldn’t fast-travel a new location. Thankfully, these issues were few and far between.

The Verdict

With Horizon: Zero Dawn, Guerrilla Games has made a stunning transition to the world of open-world action RPGs with a brilliant new IP. Though there were a few graphical hiccups, and nitpicks I had about the skill tree, there’s no denying the fact that the game is a masterpiece in its own right. The mysterious narrative, strategic gameplay, and beautiful world making this a title worth exploring and one you won’t want to miss. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got a few more side missions to track down.

RATING: 4.5 out of 5

This review was completed using a PS4 copy of Horizon: Zero Dawn provided by Sony Computer Entertainment. The game is set to launch on February 28, 2017.

Images: Guerrilla Games/PlayStation

Was THE SIMPSONS’ “Homer at the Bat” Lineup Really That Good?

Twenty-five years ago today, in an effort to win the softball league championship and his one million dollar bet with the owner of the Shelbyville Nuclear Power Plant, one C. Montgomery Burns decided to stack his team with ringers comprised of Major League Baseball players. I’m talking, of course, about the plot of one of the greatest and most important episodes in the history of The Simpsons: “Homer at the Bat.”

Smithers, after wisely pointing out it would be best to use players that were still alive, seemingly did a great job putting the team together. Even though Mr. Burns’ plan was nearly foiled by an impossible collection of absurd catastrophes, Darryl Strawberry wound up carrying the team with his nine home runs. That is until folk hero and local man Homer Simpson brought in the winning score.

But did Smithers do the best job possible? Did he put together the most talented team he could have managed? With the power of stats and hindsight, we’re going back and looking at the Springfield lineup to see see if we could have put together an even better squad.

Before we can do that, though, we have to set some ground rules…

1. Anyone chosen will join the team. While Smithers had no issue getting professional MLB players to say yes to his bizarre job offer, Simpsons creators weren’t able to get all the guest stars they originally wanted–Ryne Sandberg and Carlton Fisk each reportedly turned down a role in the episode. To make this simpler, we aren’t going to worry about real world complications and limitations.

2. We’re sticking between the ’91 and ’92 seasons. Another issue is timing. “Homer at the Bat” premiered on February 20, 1992, but the episode was written and recorded for months during the second half of the 1991 season. Clearly, Smithers was approaching these players during baseball’s off-season, so we need to pick a specific time frame to both evaluate Smithers’ judgment and to pick our team.

3. No switching players’ positions. Now, while Smithers primarily stuck to going after players for their specific positions, he did make one exception in the outfield, which means we can too, since we’re returning someone to their actual position. Otherwise we’re going to avoid shifting players around.

Finally, before we begin, let’s really get into the Monday morning quarterbacking. Smithers was trying to pick the perfect team, but part of selecting the best players is projecting how good they will be. Sure, a guy might have had a great season in 1991, but what if he’d stunk it up in ’90 and ’92? Organizations make their biggest mistakes by rewarding players for flukes, or long faded strengths. If only they had the hindsight that we do in today’s undertaking.

Of course, Smithers wasn’t aiming to project success for five seasons of professional baseball, but rather for one single game of slow-pitch softball played in the late winter/early spring of ’92. That means we want power. Lots of power. And if we can’t get power in every player, we want guys guaranteed to get on base by hitting (it’s not as easy to earn a walk in slow-pitch softball).

The last thing we want to consider though isn’t as obvious, but it is really, in some ways, the most important trait: who could we count on? Eight of the MLB ringers didn’t wind up playing in Mr. Burns’ game due to some highly unlikely accidents and bad decisions, proving the value in a player’s reliability to “be there.” So, that leads us to consider injury history and the potential presence of questionable off-the-field habits that might have made one less likely to play (like, funnily enough, Darryl Strawberry).

To sum up, we will attempt to staff the Springfield Power Plant softball team with reliable, healthy guys, preferably with high averages and high home run totals, who were arguably the best players money could buy between 1991 and 1992. And we’ll find them by looking at their ’89 through ’93 seasons, as well as their historical place in the game so we can avoid ending up with a Christian Laettner-like player on this historic team.

Got it? Good. Bake em away toys.

STAT WARNINGS: If you aren’t comfortable with advanced baseball stats, stick around for this section, otherwise feel free to skip ahead.

Beyond home runs and batting average, we’ll be referencing some stats that casual baseball fans might not be familiar with, so here’s a quick explanation of them, with links to more complicated explanations courtesy of Fangraphs.

OPS+: “OPS” comes from a player’s On Base Percentage (times reaching base safely divided by plate appearances) added to a player’s Slugging Percentage (total bases divided by at bats). So OBP + SP = OPS.

The “+” comes from adjusting for variables that could unfairly make a player look better or worse than a counterpart (which stadium a player plays in, for example), with an OPS+ of 100 being league average. The higher the number the better the hitter. A 150 OPS+ means a player was 50% better than an average hitter, and that’s a great season.

WAR: A single number that tries to account for everything a player does to help his team win. oWAR refers to only what a player did offensively (more relevant for slow-pitch softball), with dWAR as their contributions on defense. As Fangraphs notes, a WAR above 4 makes you an All Star, 5 and above a superstar, and 6 and above an MVP candidate.

OPS+ and WAR are great stats to help us compare players in the fairest way possible, and we’ve relied on them a lot for this exercise. Even though we’ll reference OPS+ a lot more, WAR was extensively used for research purposes to help identify the best players in each season and from that time period. We got all of our stats from the absolutely phenomenal Baseball-Reference.com, a baseball fan’s trustiest (and most addictive) companion.

—

Let’s use Mr. Burns’ (horrible) lineup as our guide.

SECOND BASE: Steve Sax

SMITHERS’ PICK: We begin with Smithers’ Christian Laettner, a guy that now stands out from his softball teammates for all the wrong reasons: Yankees second baseman Steve Sax.

It brings me no great joy to start by ripping Steve Sax, who is said to have been the sweetest guy that The Simpsons creators worked with (granted, they said the only player that wasn’t pleasant to work with was Jose Canseco, which surprises no one), but the fact is he had no business being near this team. The 1982 National League Rookie of the Year had a nice career, making five All-Star teams and winning a Silver Slugger in 1986, and he was incredibly durable most of his playing days, (from ’82-’92 he played at least 136 games every year at a very tough, demanding position). But in his entire 14-year MLB career, he only had an OPS+ over 100 three times, with his highest far and away coming in 1986 (137).

Smithers might have been thrown off by the other two seasons of above average hitting coming in ’89 and ’91 (OPS+ of 113 and 110), but in 1990 he was pretty bad (OPS+ 80), and he was even worse in ’92 (OPS+ 71). By 1993 he was basically done, and he retired in 1994. With a career batting average of .281 and with only 54 home runs total in 14 seasons, he was about as bad a choice as you could make for a softball team.

And while lineup order is vastly overrated, it’s still insane that Mr. Burns batted him LEADOFF!

Playing for the Yankees from ’89-’91 helped raise his profile, and having players who were used to the spotlight is what you’d want in a winner-take-all championship with big money on the line, but this was the worst signing by Smithers. (Hey, at least such a nice guy and decent ballplayer will always be remembered for being charged with every unsolved murder in New York City. I could only wish for that kind of success.)

OUR PICK: So who should it have been? The very man that turned the show down for the position: the Cubs’ Ryne Sandberg. From 1989 to 1992 the Hall-of-Famer was at his apex, playing at least 155 games every season, with OPS+ marks of 134, 140, 138, and 145, excellent numbers for a second baseman. And while we might not expect a ton of power up the middle, during that time he had season home run totals of 30, 40, 26, 26, also great for his position. For the three most important years for us, ’90-’92, he was also Top 10 in WAR and oWAR in all of them.

He was a machine. And he almost definitely didn’t kill anyone in New York City.

THIRD BASE: Wade Boggs

SMITHERS’ PICK: A 12-time All Star with five batting titles, two Golden Gloves, eight Silver Sluggers, and a career batting average of .328 to go along with a career On Base of .415, Boggs was already heading to the Hall of Fame when Smithers chose him. He didn’t hit for any power, but he would have been able to get himself on base every single time and then jog home when the next guy hit one out of the park.

But literally none of that matters. It doesn’t even matter that we could consider replacing Boggs, who followed up a very good 1991 with two mediocre seasons, with the Giant’s Matt Williams, who from ’89-’93 had 143 home runs. Because Wade Boggs had a specific skill that made him arguably the easiest choice to play for this softball team: beer drinking.

The quantity of beer that Boggs is known to have been able to drink is so legendary that it’s often the first thing people mention when talking about him. It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia dedicated an entire episode to it. He once reportedly drank 64 beers ON A CROSS COUNTRY FLIGHT, but that number is, unsurprisingly, disputed now. (The new claim is it was actually 107. I would believe any number.)

Why does this matter so much? Well, in the episode, the umpire goes over the rules with Homer and Chief Wiggum before the first game.

“Any man scoring has to chug a beer. Chug a beer at the top of all odd-numbered innings. And the fourth inning is the beer inning.”

“Hey, we know how to play softball!”

OUR PICK: You could have any professional baseball player for this game, and there’s a Hall-of-Fame talent with the beer drinking ability of a camel? Boggs could have had Steve Sax numbers and he’d be worthy of this spot. Just keep him away from Moe’s.

RIGHTFIELD: Darryl Strawberry

SMITHERS’ PICK: As much fun as we’re having with this, we’re not going to be glib about Darryl Strawberry’s drug issues, and especially not his domestic violence incidents. He was a supreme talent on the field when motivated and healthy, but self-destructive outside of the game, and his problems might have cost him a spot in the Hall of Fame. The truth is, if you truly needed to win one game in 1992, you’d probably stay away from his just for that reason alone, even though he had so much talent. (The good news is that he now lives a clean and sober life.)

But what about his numbers? He was an All Star every year from ’84 to ’91, and finished in the top nine of MVP voting in ’87 (162 OPS+), ’88 (165 OPS+), ’90, and ’91 (140 OPS+ both years). He had plenty of power (280 career homers at the end of 1991 when he was only 29 years old), and with the exception of 1985 he was mostly on the field for the Mets every day (he signed with the Dodgers in ’91).

Considering there are not many great right field candidates from this very specific time period, Smithers had every reason to think he had the right guy talent-wise, other questions aside. But 1992 is when it all fell apart on the field too. Starting with a bad back that year, when he played only 43 games, Strawberry could never again stay in the lineup. Until his last year in ’99, the two single season highest games played total for him were 101 in ’98, and 63 in ’96. The rest were even worse, and during it all he continued to battle his addiction (he was suspended three times in his career).

Which means we need a different right fielder.

OUR PICK: Hall of Famer, and one of the greatest contact hitters ever, Tony Gwynn was in a little bit of a lull (for him) from ’90-’92, even as he kept making All Star teams. Andre Dawson (playing right field at that point in his career) was still an All Star, but more because of his reputation than his production. And it was too early to go with a young Larry Walker.

If we had to choose from these players we’d go with Gwynn, but there’s a better–though less pleasant–option for right field in a slow-pitch softball game. We’ll come back to this soon enough.

LEFTFIELD: Jose Canseco

SMITHERS’ PICK: It’s easy to see why Smithers was drawn to the larger-than-life Canseco. Even though he only played 65 games in ’89, he was otherwise reliable from ’86-’91 (though never really again). In ’88 he led baseball with 42 home runs, then had 37 in ’90, and again led all major leaguers with 44 dingers in 1991. Canseco has the power we want in the lineup, and with only 24 hours to get everyone signed it’s obvious why Smithers went to him first. (Especially since Canseco would never pass up a chance to make an extra buck.)

OUR PICK: But the best player in the world also happened to play left field during this time–a man who dominated MLB from 1990 to 1993: Barry Bonds.

After a down year for him in ’89, Bonds was the NL MVP in ’90, finished second in ’91 (he was robbed), and then won it again in both ’92 and ’93. His OPS+ numbers during that time: 170, 160, 204(!), and 206(!!). During that time he had home run totals of 33, 25, 34, and 46. Oh, and he won a Gold Glove for his defense each of those years too. Go ahead, catch your breath. I’m excited too.

You could say that it’s also weird to not have a place for Rickey Henderson on the squad, but there is no greater omission from this team than Barry Bonds. He could do it all, and he’s an easy choice even if Canseco makes sense for what we want.

But you know what? Jose Canseco didn’t play left field then; he played right field during that portion of his career. So if it was okay for Smithers to move him and only him to a different spot, it’s okay for us to put him back where he belongs. We recognize the constant problems he had staying healthy after ’91, but he played 119 games in ’92, so we think we can squeeze one game out of him that off-season. Canseco was basically a softball player anyway, and he would have hit a home run every at-bat. All we’d do is tell him he didn’t get his paycheck until after the game, and he’d be there.

Although, we kind of want to move Canseco to a very different position altogether…

FIRST BASE: Don Mattingly

SMITHERS’ PICK: I can already hear the cries from New York.

“Hey! Don’t you dare badmouth Donny Baseball. The man was a saint and he should be in the Hall of Fame!”

Rebuttal: He shouldn’t even be on this team. Come at me Yankees fans!

From 1984 to 1989, Mattingly certainly looked like a future Hall of Famer, but his career was derailed by a bad back, which just so happened to make him a poor hitter in 1990 (a stunningly terrible 81 OPS+). He rebounded in ’91 from that disaster, but he was still far below his former numbers, coming in with an OPS+ of only 103, and 108 in ’92. (He was better in ’93 and ’94, but never again the elite star he had been when he was a perennial MVP candidate–which he won in ’85.) It also didn’t help that he was, as Burns put it, a “dirty hippie” that refused to do what his manager ordered. Mattingly actually did have a spat with Yankees owner George Steinbrenner over his hair being too long… though in fairness, C. Montgomery Burns and George Steinbrenner were both regarded as lunatics, so it wasn’t really Donny Baseball’s fault that he kept ending up with crazy owners.

OUR PICK: So if not Mattingly, who should man first base? One candidate is the power-hitting Cecil Fielder, who didn’t play more than 82 games in a season in Toronto before leaving to play in Japan in 1989. He returned to MLB in 1990, where he played 159 games and hit a mere 51 homers. He followed that up in 1991 with 44 home runs, and then had 35 and 30 the next two years, all while playing at least 154 games both seasons.

However, his other numbers leave a lot to be desired. His 167 OPS+ in ’90 was great, but the highest mark the rest of that four year span was “only” 133, and the other years didn’t see him crack even 120. So there are lots of question marks around him, including whether or not he’d abandon the team to go play for the Tokyo Power Plant.

And if you’re wondering about Mark McGwire, in ’89 and ’90 he was good to very good, and packed lots of power. But he was an average hitter in ’91 (22 home runs, only a 103 OPS+). He more than rebounded from that, since he was a total beast in ’92 with an AL leading 176 OPS+ along with 42 home runs. But due to injuries he barely played in both ’93 and ’94 (27 and 47 games). All of that makes it impossible to know exactly what you were getting from him when this game would be played in early 1992. Fortunately there was a future Hall of Famer who just so happened to be blossoming into a pitcher-eating monster right when this game was played: The Big Hurt, Frank Thomas.

He only played 60 games in his first MLB season in 1990, but he posted an OPS+ of 177. If anyone thought that was a fluke, the next year in 158 games he bettered it with a 180 OPS+ and 32 homers. At age 23.

And here are his OPS+ numbers for the next six seasons: 174, 177, 212, 179, 178, and 181. His lowest batting average during that time was .308. So he was young, hitting for a high average, and doing it with lots of power. He played more DH in ’91 than first base, but was in the field for all of ’92. A lineup with young Frank Thomas and best-player-alive Barry Bonds just made me tear up, thinking of a dream world that never was. It’s hard to imagine anything better.

CENTERFIELD: Ken Griffey Jr.

…UNLESS YOU ADD A YOUNG KEN GRIFFEY JR!

SMITHERS’ PICK: I don’t think I can objectively judge, analyze, or even speak about young Ken Griffey Jr. No athlete in my lifetime has ever been cooler. I was a little kid when he was basically a young Willie Mays with a backwards hat and the world’s biggest smile, and I can promise you everyone my age felt the same way.

He had some pop in ’90 and ’91 (22 homers each year), and was a .300 hitter in each, with an OPS+ of 136 and 155, all while playing a Gold Glove centerfield both years (he was like watching a gazelle with a glove). He was a five-tool player, and he was only 21 in 1991.

OUR PICK: There are lots of great centerfielders from this time, like the late, great Hall of Famer Kirby Puckett… and maybe he would have avoided an addiction to nerve tonic. But we’d take Ken Griffey–even with a grotesquely swollen jaw–every single time for the rest of time.

CATCHER: Mike Scioscia

SMITHERS’ PICK: In some ways this is the hardest spot to fill. All we need defensively out of our catcher is someone who can handle an underhand lob, and possibly place a tag, so we don’t have to worry about defense at all. We want a catcher who can hit. That wasn’t really Mike Scioscia, at least not after 1985.

He had big years at the plate in both ’83 and ’85. By 1991 he was a nice little hitter, but nothing special. In fact, for his career, he only had an OPS+ of 99. A totally average hitting catcher who plays stellar defense is nothing to sneeze at in MLB, but not for slow-pitch softball. The problem is finding the right replacement for him.

OUR PICK: We would love for this team to be made up entirely of Hall of Famers, or at least unforgettable talents, but no catcher that fits that description makes for a great option in early 1992. The Simpsons wanted future Hall of Famer Carlton Fisk, and from ’89 to ’91 (his 40-42 age seasons–the original Pudge was a freak of nature) he put up really good numbers. His OPS+ during those three years were 155, 136, and 134, but his games played totals were only 76, 103, and then an excellent 137.

In 1991, at age 43 he played 134 games (seriously, this guy was made of steel), but his OPS+ took a nose dive, to a below average 97. And he followed that up in 92 with only 63 games and a terrible 76 OPS+. As such, his performance in a game in early ’92 would be a very dicey proposition.

But the second Pudge, Ivan Rodriguez, debuted in ’91 and was years away from being the hitter he would become. Mike Piazza, maybe the greatest hitting backstopper ever, debuted in ’92, so he is even less of an option. So if we really want to win this game we have to look at lesser remembered players (Benito Santiago and Sandy Alomar Jr. were making All Star teams, but weren’t anything special at the plate).

The best hitting catcher during this time period was Detroit’s Mickey Tettleton, who led all catchers from 90-93 in WAR, and who had an OPS+ of 140 in ’91, and a 137+ in ’92. He also had 31 and 32 home runs those years, and his ’93 season was just as good.

So who do we go with here? Tettleton is under-appreciated, but he’d be the de facto Christian Laettner on this team. Fisk has the prestige, but he wasn’t himself at the time of this game. A million dollars is nice, but bragging rights are priceless, so we want to win. Tettleton gets the call.

SHORTSTOP: Ozzie Smith

SMITHERS’ PICK: We love Ozzie Smith. The Wizard was the rarest of baseball players–one so good with his glove you’d watch just to see him field. But he couldn’t hit, and he shouldn’t have been on a slow-pitch softball team.

His career batting average was .262, and his career OPS+ was 87 (remember, 100 is an average hitter), with his single season career high of only 112 (though in fairness to Smithers, that was in 1991). We want to be prepared for Shelbyville to have ringers too, so we can’t imagine his defense up the middle would be enough to make up for his offensive shortcomings.

OUR PICK: We can’t put him in this lineup as is, but especially when Cal Ripken Jr. was at the height of his powers in 1991. From 1989 until 1993, the second highest single season WAR was a tie between 1990 Rickey Henderson and 1993 Barry Bonds, both with a 9.9 WAR (an absurd number). Bonds has the second highest oWAR during that time too, at 8.7 in 9’3.

So who is first? Cal Ripken in 1991 tops both of those lists, with an 11.5 WAR and a 9.2 oWAR. That’s Babe Ruth territory.

I took a cold shower after seeing those numbers. They are so good we’re totally throwing out our concerns about fluke seasons, since he wasn’t particularly exceptional in ’89 or ’90, and he was actually a below average hitter in ’92 and ’93. It seems insane to think you’d play a winner take all game in early 1992 and not have him at short.

Especially since he, more than anyone to ever play the game, accounts for one of our biggest concerns about…well, accountability. He is MLB’s Iron Man, having played in 2,632 straight games over 16 seasons. With eight no shows for the game, we have no doubt that he would have been in the lineup.

So while we love Ozzie Smith, and deeply apologize to Barry Larkin for not making a case for him, we have to go with Ripken, who was otherworldly in 1991, and who would not have fallen into a timeless void right before the game. Probably.

PITCHER: Roger Clemens

SMITHERS’ PICK: You know how when a newspaper is owned by the person they are covering, and they have to put a disclaimer so the readers are aware of any conflicts of interest? Yeah, well I’m a Red Sox fan and I hate Roger Clemens more than George R.R. Martin hates deadlines. But the good news is, I don’t have to put the big chicken on this team–in fact, I don’t even have to look at his amazing stats–and for totally legitimate reasons: it would be insane to pick an American League pitcher.

OUR PICK: There was no DH in this softball league, meaning Clemens would have had to hit. But only National League pitchers hit, so it only makes sense to look to them for this spot… except that none of them could really hit. So we’re going to make this simple and decide between two Hall of Famers: the Braves’ Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. Glavine was better in ’91, winning the Cy Young and the Silver Slugger, but Maddux was the Cy Young winner in ’92 and one of the all-time best fielding pitchers.

Starting in 1992, Maddux went on one of the great runs ever by a pitcher, but Glavine was the better hitter. Neither guy would conceivably walk anybody in this game, so we’re putting Glavine on the team. (But you know what we really want to do? We want to put Tony Gwynn in right field instead of Canseco, and move Jose to the mound. In 1993, the former high school pitcher actually pitched in a MLB game. And sure, Canseco then immediately had surgery on his elbow following that appearance, but we just want him to throw underhand, which wouldn’t put much torque on his arm. This is violating our own rules, but we thought we should throw it out there as a suggestion.)

To recap, here’s our final replacement lineup:

2B: Ryne Sandberg

3B: Wade Boggs

RF: Jose Canseco

LF: Barry Bonds

1B: Frank Thomas

CF: Ken Griffey Jr.

C: Mickey Tettleton

SS: Cal Ripken

P: Tom Glavine

Despite the great job he did in only 24 hours, that team would beat Smithers’ squad easy.

…assuming everyone showed up.

But what do you think? What players did we get right, and which ones did we get wrong? We’re talking softball in the comments below, on Facebook, and on Twitter at @nerdist and @burgermike.

Images: 20th Century Fox

In Which LEGO Spider-Man Gets a Taste of WHIPLASH

If there’s one performer from Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films who would be quickly welcomed back by fans, it would probably be J.K. Simmons. His performance as J. Jonah Jameson was so pitch perfect that he could easily step back into the role and not miss a step in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While Simmons has moved on to play Commissioner James Gordon in the upcoming Justice League film, a new parody video mashes up Simmons’ first comic book movie role and his recent Oscar-winning performance.

Via Laughing Squid, YouTube user The Brick Ranger posted a brief and very NSFW animated clip that mashes up Simmons’ turn in Whiplash and a LEGO version of Jameson. Within Whiplash, Simmons played Terence Fletcher, a conductor who was known to be emotionally and verbally abusive towards his students. Fletcher claimed that this was his way of pushing his charges towards greatness. In Marvel’s comic book universe, Jameson has definitely hurled his fair share of abuse towards Peter Parker and his alter-ego, Spider-Man. But Jameson has never seemed quite as cruel as Fletcher.

For the parody, Spider-Man was subbed in for an unfortunate trombone player who was out of tune during a rehearsal. The audio was taken from a particularly intense scene in Whiplash; which you can see below. Fair warning: it’s not the easiest thing to watch.

The Brick Ranger regularly posts LEGO animated videos on his YouTube channel.

What did you think about this mash up of Whiplash and Spider-Man? Let us know in the comment section below!

Image: The Brick Ranger

We also have questions for Spider-Man, but they’re nicer.

Everything Else Awesome We Saw At Toy Fair 2017

It might not pack the Javits Center as tightly as New York Comic Con does every year, but make no mistake: Toy Fair is a lot to take in. I mean, how are you supposed to focus on all the cool collectibles and figures when they’re all jam packed into one location like this?

This weekend we saw a lot of cool stuff from big-name brands like Mattel, LEGO and Hasbro, but we wanted to make sure that we paid homage to as many figures and other cool stuff as we could. Here’s a little bit of what we saw:

Square-Enix

Final Fantasy XV fans, get hype — Square-Enix unveiled a gorgeous new prototype for their Luna figure.

Square Enix doesn’t just make rad video games, though — they also work with both DC and Marvel to make figures either inspired by or straight-up designed by game artist Tetsuya Nomura for the Play Arts Kai line. Case in point: this delightfully bonkers reimagining of Harley Quinn and the Joker. Is it just me, or does he sort of look like Mads Mikkelsen?

On the Marvel side, this Play Arts Kai Magneto is just incredible, and it’s not even painted yet. You can just hear it yelling “Welcome… to DIE” in your head when you look at it.

And don’t forget the Play Arts Kai Doctor Strange! Y’all, this dude was made for an anime cape.

Funko

If you’ve been following Nerdist’s Toy Fair coverage up through this weekend then you definitely saw the huge reveal of Pop Vinyl prototypes and other awesome figures that Funko released just before the event. Well, no surprise — they’re even cooler in person.

Especially the CAT DOG ONE, HOLY NICKELODEON NOSTALGIA.

Speaking of nostalgia, dig these Harry Potter Rock Candy figures–which, coincidentally, include the first male figures Funko’s ever made for this line. That’s cool and I’mma let you finish, but that Luna Lovegood is the greatest Harry Potter figure of all time.

Bluefin/Tamashii Nations

The Bluefin Tamashii Nations booth always has some great figures and toys from Japan, but being a Sailor Moon fan, I was completely entranced by this Tuxedo Mirage music box. It’s inspired by the end credit sequence for Sailor Moon S, and while this is still a prototype, it’s simply stunning in person.

But that’s not all! They also had these completely off-the-wall Toy Story megazords, which I definitely could have stared out for hours without getting bored.

Of course, Tamashii Nations is also continuing to add to their collection of samurai-inspired figures with this awesome Iron Man:

As well as some awesome Street Fighter figures! Wow, did they nail Chun-Li’s legs. These figures will also be released in pairs that come with matching backdrops when you put them together, which is what you’re seeing in the middle of this display.

And for the billionaire nerds among us, this life-sized Doctor Strange statue is available for a whopping $9,000. They’re working on a regular-sized figure too, of course, but I bet it won’t make you feel like you’re staring at an actual sorcerer when you look at it dead-on.

 

Playmates

If you’re a huge fan of the new Netflix Voltron series, there’s a lot to love in this line of figures and die-cast robots. Look at how neat they are!

Fans of the Nickelodeon TMNT series will also enjoy all the cool turtle toys Playmates has to offer, but personally, the figures that stuck out to me the most were the ones from their WWE and Samurai sets. Finn Balor as a turtle? Now I’ve seen everything.

Dark Horse Deluxe

Hearts of Stone was practically it’s own Witcher game on TOP of Witcher 3, so it only makes sense that it should have its very own merch–like this supremely awesome Shani figure on the right.

Diamond Select

The Minimates have always been pretty inventive (and cute!), but their upcoming Marvel series, which features movie versions of the Guardians of the Galaxy and Wolverine-adjacent comic book X-Men, is something else. Is that a MOJO? Well done, y’all.

In bigger toys, Diamond Select unveiled this incredible Falcon Captain America:

And this Harley Quinn statue to celebrate the character’s 25th anniversary. Hope she likes her present!

Good Smile Company

I didn’t think it was possible to make Overwatch star Tracer any cuter, but this Nendroid proved me wrong:

Meanwhile in larger figure news, there’s a new Samus Aran Figma in the works, and she already looks pretty spectacular:

Kotobukiya

Two figures are coming soon to Kotobukiya Bishoujo Marvel line, and they’re basically the perfect duo of badass fan-favorite teenagers: Ms. Marvel and Squirrel Girl. I do miss that trademark Erica Henderson style (seriously, her art would make SUCH GREAT FIGURES), but this Doreen Green is still extremely cute.

Meanwhile in hilarious-yet-sad toys, this ArtFX Obi-Wan statue comes with… uh. Well, you see.

That seems as good a place to end as any! What are your favorite toys that you’ve seen come out of Toy Fair this year? Tell us all about them in the comments!

Images: Victoria McNally

Weekend Earworms: The Enthralling Music (and Videos) of Jax Jones

An estimated 92% of us experience earworms. Despite the annoying times we can’t get a chorus or a hook of an overplayed pop song out of our heads, getting a really good earworm stuck can be one of the best things, ever. We here at Nerdist are dead set on bringing you those types of songs—even if only for the weekend. So shove this into your grey matter!

Well, it seems electronic music didn’t leave my system from a few weeks ago when the column returned with Snakehips. Since then I’ve just been down a musical rabbit hole of YouTube recommendations. There are people out there who get a bit weirded out by Google collecting search data and using it to offer up suggestions on all sorts of things and–even though I know the potential downsides to that–I think I’m the type of dummy to be A-OK with it as long as good music is fed to me occasionally. The joke is on Google, though, since my personal search information other than music is all TV references, take-out menus, and those compilations of satisfying videos.

This week is plain and simple enjoyment of some music I only heard about through our new algorithmic overlords. Praise be to YouTube in the highest…video resolution. Here’s some Jax Jones.

“You Don’t Know Me” ft. Raye

This is one of English DJ Jax Jones’ latest releases and I have not been able to get it out of my brain. British singer/songwriter Raye lends her beautiful voice to the track and–compared to a lot of EDM these days–I appreciate the no-fluff approach to the song. There’s a certain confidence to the beat, lyrics, and composition of the song that makes it seem like it knows exactly what it needs to be. That focus on having no extravagant flash or frills is further driven home by the mesmerizingly simple video of a faux cereal box and dancing logo.

A similar video was made for our next song, but its official video is a whole other sight to see…

“House Work” ft. Mike Dunn MNEK

This track from July of 2016 has similar clean-cut structural elements as “You Don’t Know Me” but is a bit more energetic. Adding to that energy is the video showing us the absolute best infomercial we’ll never actually see. I’m fairly certain I would buy any product if it were presented in this manner. Who do I need to talk to in order to make sure that all infomercials are at least this extravagant going forward?

“No Sleep (Go Deep)”

I’m an absolute sucker for a good video and this one is a delight. The song, admittedly, doesn’t seem to correlate much with the action but its up-beat…well… beat is perfect for watching a man knock out his entire childhood bucket list in a day. Fingers crossed we all have that man’s mindset when we’re older.

Am I just, as the kids say, a “basic bitch” when it comes to EDM? Who knows. I might be. Hell, I probably am. But there is something refreshing with Jax Jones’ music and how it differs from the cookie-cutter things you might hear that all somehow need to announce when the bass will be dropped. That’s such a weird thing to show up in music, right? Imagine if singer/songwriters announced “HERE COMES THE CHORUS!” right before singing it. Ooh! Can someone do an acoustic EDM video for me, please!?

Did listening to Jax Jones remind you of similar music? Share it in the comments below!

Image: Jax Jones

Blake Rodgers writes for Nerdist from Chicago, IL where he lives happily with his Guinness World Record for High Fives. You can be his pal by following him on Twitter (@TheBlakeRodgers)