Football and Movies: An Analogical Approach (Warning: Looong post) by zoid

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Football and Movies: An Analogical Approach (Warning: Looong post)

POSTED BY: ZOID
UPDATED: Sunday, November 27, 2005 15:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 437
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, November 27, 2005 3:12 PM

Greetings, Fellow Browncoats:

a·nal·o·gy n., pl. -gies. [Lat. analogia < Gk. < analogos, proportionate. –see ANALOGOUS.] 1. Correspondence in some respects between otherwise dissimilar things. ... 3. A form of logical inference, or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects. ... From Webster's II, New Riverside University Dictionary (Property of U.S. Government, heh-heh)

The preceding definition is given solely to ensure that participants in this thread do not come to the mistaken belief that I am maintaining that football (American rules, as opposed to 'footy', Aussie rules, or futbol) and cinema are exactly alike. They are not. One of many examples of the ways in which football and movies are dissimilar: At the professional level, football is not a co-ed endeavor; there is very little nudity in football, and thank God for that. Although occasionally a running back will get 'pantsed' by a desperate defender on national TV, the hirsute backside of a 215-pounder is generally met with a sense of comedic revulsion – another reason to perhaps start up an all-women's league, utilizing the “tear-away” jersey that is banned in the NFL? But I digress...

In football, it's the little things that matter. It frequently happens that a generally sloppy game is won, and a well-played game is lost; it all hinges on a handful of plays that are made or missed. As I watched 'my' team – the much loathed/beloved Dallas Cowboys – play on Thanksgiving Day, I was struck by the similarity between how a game is won or lost and what makes a movie – specifically, the BDM – successful at the box office or not. That thought prompted me to write this analogical evaluation of the BDM in football terms. Here then are the correlations I've drawn, followed by a 'by position' analysis of how our 'team' performed in the cinema.

Firefly-class vessel, Serenity: Football analogy, “Offensive Line”; protects quarterback, makes it possible for offense to function well and score points (reach goal).

Malcolm Reynolds: Football analogy, “Quarterback”; offensive team leader. The successful QB is a take-charge kinda guy, but knows it takes a whole team to win; he knows when to pass, when to hand off, and when to throw it away to avoid taking a loss. He need not be overly athletic in order to win; but must have a great sense of his own strengths and weaknesses, those of his teammates, and those of his opponents. Some of the best QBs in NFL history have been somewhat lacking in physical skills, but more than made up for it in field generalship and/or 'moxie'.

Zoe 'Whatever-Her-Last-Name-is': Football analogy, “Strong Safety”; defensive 'skill position'. The successful SS must be a 'big hitter', good against the run, effective in pass coverage, and smart enough to quickly read the play as either pass or run. This is a high “athleticism” position.

Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: Football analogy, “Cornerback”: defensive skill position. The successful CB must have the speed and ability to cover the opposing offense's most dangerous threat, the long pass. Generally loners (and higher suicide risks), they play 'on an island' away from the help of their fellow defenders, getting little of the glory when they perform well and scathing blame should they prove human and err. Alluding to another analogy I made about Wash on this website, the CB is the 'Hermes' of football: He doesn't generally produce points to win the game, but if you don't have a capable CB, you are well and truly screwed.

Shepherd 'Whatever-His-Real-Identity-Is' Book: Football analogy, “Fullback”; functions mostly as a lead blocker out of the offensive backfield. The successful FB will not only be an excellent lead blocker and pass-protection blocker, but will be an effective runner when occasionally handed off to, and a sure receiver in the short passing game. While somewhat deprecated in modern 'spread' offenses, the few good FBs in the league are literally worth their prodigious weight in gold.

Dr. Simon Tam: Football analogy, “Running Back”; offensive skill position. The successful RB will be devastating in the running game and a threat who must be accounted for in the passing game; should also be effective as a 'blitz pickup' blocker. Come in a variety of shapes and sizes, from elusive 'scatback' to lumbering 'pounder'; the best ones are a combination of these extremes, mixing speed, agility and power.

Jayne Cobb: Football analogy, “Defensive End”; defensive line position. The successful DE is a highly athletic pass rusher (meaning 'quarterback killer'), single-minded in his goal to disrupt the passer, but smart enough not to get sucked in on trap blocks or play-action passes. The best ones never fail to know when to rush the passer and when to hold their ground against the run. (NB: I almost said “Middle Linebacker” for Jayne, but the MLB is the leader of the defense, reading offensive formations and calling defensive sets, etc.; a little too 'aware' for Jayne.)

Kaywinnit Lee Frye: Football analogy, “Possession Receiver”; offensive skill position. Generally not the fastest receiver, the successful player at this spot will have the surest hands, can make the catch in traffic and keeps the offense ticking along by 'moving the chains' (i.e., getting first downs). The possession receiver is most effective in the 5 and 10-yard, short to intermediate routes.

Inara Serra: Football analogy, “Slot Receiver”; offensive 'specialty' skill position. Generally only used in special situations, the successful slot receiver (not a sexual innuendo, btw) is a wild card that can run short, intermediate or long routes, with good-if-not-great hands, good-if-not-great speed. It is generally the lack of either breakaway speed or 'hands like glue' that keeps these receivers at number 3 on the depth chart.

Which brings us to...

River Tam: Football analogy, “Deep-Threat Receiver”; offensive skill position. Sometimes referred to as the 'number 1' receiver, this is generally the most potent long-ball threat on your team. The successful player at this position is generally a seasoned vet, having worked up from slot receiver, but talented rookies have been known to make the leap into a starting number 1. They must be accounted for at all times until the ball crosses the line of scrimmage and the forward pass becomes illegal, which explains why CBs are moody, suicidal loners, btw... The great ones are not only a breakaway threat, but are effective on 'reverse' running plays and capable blockers when someone else gets the ball.

Other analogies:

Joss Whedon: Football analogy, “Head Coach”. The successful coach handpicks his players, trains them in the skills necessary to work within his offensive/defensive scheme, draws up and implements game plans and situational strategies. If his team wins, the head coach is a national hero; if his team fails, he's likely to wind up unemployed.

Fox TV and Universal Pictures: Football analogy, “Ownership”. Bad ownership can't get out of its own way, making it impossible for the head coach or team to succeed; unfortunately, Ownership can't be fired. Contrastingly, good ownership is studious, making good deals for players, enabling the head coach to amass the tools necessary to win. Good ownership toils in relative obscurity, basking in the reflected glory of the players and coaches (and gate receipts and endorsement deals and merchandising and team logo licensing and…).

To avoid confusion, The Reavers ('opposing defense') and The Alliance/Operative ('opposing offense') are not the actual opponents in this particular case, any more than the New York Nationals are actual opponents for the Harlem Globetrotters. They are merely foils against which to showcase our team's talents. The actual opponent is the ‘team’ I'll henceforth call The Box Office. And so, 3 pages into this exercise, everything more or less defined – in more or less easy to grasp terms – let's get on with the post-game analysis, shall we?

Game Recap: Serenity (a.k.a. The BDM) vs. The Box Office

First off, this game was played under extremely adverse 'weather conditions'. Literally. In a case of Life imitating Art (imitating Sport), the hurricane Katrina disaster hit virtually every American pocketbook where it hurts most: the gasoline budget. As the price for a tank of gas went from circa $22.00 to c. $42.00 (and I purchase 6 tanks per month for my car alone), most folks’ entertainment dollars evaporated like the lost dreams of youth. Too little has been made of this fact, imho. This is another prime example of the incongruities between football and the movie biz: In football, both teams have to play in the same weather; it never snows on one team while the sun shines on the other (well, except for that time in the Cotton Bowl against Montana’s Notre Dame, grumble, grumble). The Box Office plays its game without regard to any inclement economic ‘weather’ that the other team must overcome. But let’s not get sidetracked…

Offensive Line: Grade: A+

Serenity performs admirably as the vehicle that moves the offense (i.e., the story) along. For me, the most stirring moment in the film was when we first see Our Girl from external view and then she slips into reentry burn. I’m not ashamed to say that I shed a tear and then let out a full-volume, “Yeah!” in an otherwise silent theatre, and Special Hell be damned. Serenity gives an immaculate performance, never a misplaced step.

Quarterback: Grade: A+

Nathan Fillion, QB rating 134.2, 20 of 26 passing for 265 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INTs; 4 carries for 58 yards, 1 TD. Nathan connected on virtually everything he threw. Modest yardage per attempt and nearly intercepted throw down the middle hash (i.e., a couple of fairly maudlin speeches) were not due to lack of execution but errors in scheme. A Pro Bowl, if not quite League MVP performance. This guy’s not Peyton Manning, but he might be next season. One to watch.

Strong Safety: Grade: B

Gina Torres (that’s Mrs. Fishburne to you, buddy) performed admirably, especially considering that she’s really not athletic enough to play this position (i.e., she doesn’t know how to hold a rifle and is a little knock-kneed, making her running style a little humorous to watch). During the regular season (i.e., the TV series), she was better protected by the scheme, playing closer to the line of scrimmage in run (i.e., emotional) support. In this ‘game’, she was inexplicably deployed in deep zone pass (i.e., action sequence) coverage, which exposed her weaknesses and negated her strengths. In conclusion, she did her best playing out of position, but did not fail the team.

Cornerback: Grade: C+

I’d really love to give Alan Tudyk a better score here, but in all good conscience I cannot. He was fairly effective in his scant playing time. He’d have scored a much lower grade if not for his featured moment, a big-play, one-handed interception against a much taller receiver in his own end zone and thrillingly returned the ball all the way to The Box Office’s 30-yard line. Reportedly, Alan suffered a bruised sternum on the play – or was benched by coach’s decision, as has been rumored – and did not return to the field during the crucial 4th quarter. His absence ultimately spelled defeat vs. The Box Office, in this analyst’s opinion.

Fullback: Grade: Incomplete

Hard to grade what you don’t see. Firefly was great all during the regular season at producing long drives based on running (emotion) to set up the pass (action). Serenity (BDM) inexplicably abandoned this approach, opting for a big-splash passing game, almost from the outset. Used sparingly when used at all, Ron Glass made his last appearance on the field before half-time, as the coach decided to go exclusively to single-back, three-wide sets in the concluding half. Ron proved all season long that he was a useful veteran, effective in both the running and passing games, and increasing the effectiveness of his teammates. That he was thus relegated to the sidelines for no apparent reason is a real head-scratcher.

Running Back: Grade: C-

Sean Maher is at best a serviceable back. In regular season, he was a reliable ‘C’- to ‘B’-grade performer, due again mostly to scheme, which saw Ron Glass’ opening blocks (i.e., “That young man's very brave…” and “I'm fair sure you haven't shot anyone yet.”) pave the way for his best runs. In this ‘game’, he broke off a 30-yard gain on the first play from scrimmage on a play-action pass (action sequence) in the flat. But, he never really produced any rushing yardage, again due to the abandonment of the running (emotional) game almost from the outset. He was woefully ineffective in the single-back sets the coach went to for the balance of the game. Always a finesse back, Maher was unsuited for power running and non-existent in the passing game after that first play. As effective in an ‘actioner’ as Hugh Grant would be… (NB: Serendipitous fact: Sean actually played a running back in “Brian’s Song”.)

Defensive End: Grade: A

Adam “I Don’t Got No Brothers” Baldwin is perfect as the imperfect defender. This ‘game’ had him playing somewhat out of position as well – smarter, more rebellious and less slow on the uptake, in general – but Baldwin took it in stride and made it work. A good veteran player who knows his strengths and plays to them, Serenity’s defense is schemed around this guy, and it’s in good hands. Nobody else could play this position as effectively as Adam, and you can take that to the bank.

Possession Receiver: Grade: C

Again, no knock against the player, but Jewel Staite was inaptly used. As the possession receiver, she should have gotten a lot more touches, but was more of an afterthought than a factor. What few balls she did get thrown her way were either dropped (i.e., she needs Simon a little too much in the BDM, by my reckoning) or of no consequence to the outcome of the game (i.e., tacked-on love scene, with no heat between the actors; basically a set-up for a comedic River moment: an ungainly and unsatisfactory resolution to the intricate dance Simon and Kaylee spun for an entire season on TV). With proper screen time for this integral character, this could have easily been at least a ‘B’.

Slut Receiver: Grade: B

Okay, so I couldn’t resist a little fun… Morena Baccarin did a really good job as Mal’s go-to receiver. Her facial expressions and physical beauty and grace are the perfect counterpoint to Fillion’s rugged looks and rough mannerisms. She’s got good enough hands to be a possession receiver (emotional) and speed enough to play the 1 spot (action heroine). I’d definitely have her as a number 1 wide receiver in my fantasy league team next year (where’d I put that ‘tear-away’ jersey?), but it looks like Coach Whedon is grooming her to be a 2, possession receiver for next season (i.e., she lost the makeup and fancy garb in her final scene with Malcolm, turning her back on her Guild to be a proper love interest in the next movie, if we’re lucky enough to get one). She didn’t get a lot of meaningful touches, but she did a better than average job with what she was given.
(NB: Would some enterprising movie maker please cast Morena and Nathan opposite one another in a romantic comedy? They have great chemistry together, reminiscent of Hepburn and Tracy. Perhaps a remake of “Woman of the Year”?)

Deep-Threat Receiver: Grade: A

Summer Glau was the recipient of the greatest shift of playmaking responsibility ever seen in a ‘playoff game’ (i.e., theatrical release). To her credit, she made the transition from seldom-used threat to bona fide playmaker flawlessly. She caught everything thrown in her general vicinity (action) and even picked up valuable yardage on a couple of reverses (emotional). Unfortunately, focusing on her as the primary weapon dulled the rest of the arsenal, through no fault of her own. The image of River holding a blood-dripping battle axe while clearly plotting out her plan of attack against a heavily armed superior force of Alliance troopers, is one that will remain in my memory for a long time.

Head Coach: Grade: ?

Joss Whedon is a gambler. He doesn’t play nice and he doesn’t play safe. He apparently doesn’t even like the idea of self-restraint. To his credit, he does devise a helluva game plan (i.e., story). But sometimes a gambler tries to break the bank, and only manages to lose the house. “Dance with the one that brung ya’,” is the oldest coaching adage in the NFL. Why did Joss decide to ignore this sage advice and change the scheme that was so successful all during the regular season? He abandoned his well-tuned running (emotional) game in favor of a new-fangled, all-fireworks passing (action) attack, leaving his most solid players on the sidelines in the process. It almost worked; but what if he’d simply kept the faith and gone with a more balanced attack? Might the BDM have kicked The Box Office’s posterior outright, had Coach Whedon only focused as much (or more) on running as passing, as he had successfully done in the past?

Ownership: Grade: C+

To set some contrast here, F*x TV are the poster children for ‘F’ grade ownership. (See, “can’t get out of their own way”, above.) They make Daniel M. Snyder look like Robert Kraft by comparison. But this grade is for the current owners, not the former ones. I believe Universal’s hearts are in the right place, I truly do. But if a football team owner decided to televise a special event in which the entire game plan was revealed to the general public in the days leading up to the game, I’d say he was certifiably ‘gone bye-bye’. One day, perhaps, Joss Whedon – the ultimate spoilerphobe – will reveal his thoughts on Universal’s ‘strategy’. I’d personally call it a costly blunder to “preview screen” the movie the way they did. They essentially took the wind out of our sails. I know you will argue that all those who saw the preview screenings still went to see the movie when it opened on 9/30/05. But there is nothing so deflating as sitting in a theatre with a bunch of people who’ve already seen the flick, for whom there is no gestalt of discovery within the story. The laughs, the oohs, ahhhs, and OMG!s sound canned, because they are. The audience should never be part of the performance; we’re simply not good enough actors to gush, “Omigosh, did you see that!” and make it actually sound like we were surprised. I guess I’ll just say that Universal did an above-average job as owners, not a spectacular one. They have certainly earned my loyalty for giving our story a shot, and I will preferentially choose their products over their competitors’ for the foreseeable future (or at least until they officially kill any possibility of future Firefly-based projects).

Overall: Grade: ?

Ultimately, the final score will be dependent on DVD sales and/or Universal’s commitment to producing more films. If we get more films based on the final tally, I will award ‘Head Coach’ and ‘Overall’ scores of ‘C’; otherwise, we have failed and deserve an ‘F’. I would have to concede that we lost the game to The Box Office, however close the final margin, and regardless how well we played the game with the exception of one or two questionable decisions. If a ‘C’ seems a bit harsh, remember, writing a gripping story is only part of a Creator’s job. Ultimately, Joss should have taken off his ‘kid in a candy store’ hat and put on his ‘I’m responsible for the success and continuation of this endeavor’ hat. Apparently, he doesn’t have one of those yet, but this is his first time out as a primary creator at this level, and I’m willing to give him a passing score if he hasn’t killed my favorite fictional world (because it’s really all about me, after all).

And as I said at the outset of this (doctoral-length) thesis, it was the small things that cost us the game: Wash’s death was a bad call, not because we hated to see Wash die (we did), but because it cost us the game against The Box Office. Downplaying Kaylee’s character – and the emotional interplay as a whole, in favor of an action shoot-em-up – was a bad call. Joss said a couple of years ago that the movie would be just like the TV series, except much bigger. In the final analysis, I’m not convinced bigger is always better. ‘Better’ is one that fits…

Long-windedly,

zoid

P.S.
Please feel free to rebut this opinion. I’ve spoken my piece (and thank you for listening), now I’ll shut up and let y’all say yours. Next up: How the BDM is like an AMD 64-based computer. I promise lots of unintelligible PCI Express bus, and data pipes, and beta ATI drivers, and ‘lack of actual 64-bit code’ references to wade through. Oooh! Certain to cure your insomnia…
-zed

_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDM'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE