#*year and now he's continuously making it everyone else's problem and whomever gets this role with be the Andy to his Miranda | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

uomo-accattivante · 4 years

Text

Fantastic (but long) article about Theater of War’s recent productions, including Oedipus the King and Antigone in Ferguson, featuring Oscar Isaac. The following are excerpts. The full article is viewable via the source link below:

Excerpt:

“Children of Thebes, why are you here?” Oscar Isaac asked. His face filled the monitor on my dining table. (It was my partner’s turn to use the desk.) We were a couple of months into lockdown, just past seven in the evening, and a few straggling cheers for essential workers came in through the window. Isaac was looking smoldery with a quarantine beard, a gold chain, an Airpod, and a black T-shirt. His display name was set to “Oedipus.”

Isaac was one of several famous actors performing Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King” from their homes, in the first virtual performance by Theater of War Productions: a group that got its start in 2008, staging Sophocles’ “Ajax” and “Philoctetes” for U.S. military audiences and, beginning in 2009, on military installations around the world, including in Kuwait, Qatar, and Guantánamo Bay, with a focus on combat trauma. After each dramatic reading, a panel made up of people in active service, veterans, military spouses, and/or psychiatrists would describe how the play resonated with their experiences of war, before opening up the discussion to the audience. Since its founding, Theater of War Productions has addressed different kinds of trauma. It has produced Euripides’ “The Bacchae” in rural communities affected by the opioid crisis, “The Madness of Heracles” in neighborhoods afflicted by gun violence and gang wars, and Aeschylus’ “Prometheus Bound” in prisons. “Antigone in Ferguson,” which focusses on crises between communities and law enforcement, was motivated by an analogy between Oedipus’ son’s unburied body and that of Michael Brown, left on the street for roughly four hours after Brown was killed by police; it was originally performed at Michael Brown’s high school.

Now, with trauma roving the globe more contagiously than ever, Theater of War Productions had traded its site-specific approach for Zoom. The app was configured in a way I hadn’t seen before. There were no buttons to change between gallery and speaker view, which alternated seemingly by themselves. You were in a “meeting,” but one you were powerless to control, proceeding by itself, with the inexorability of fate. There was no way to view the other audience members, and not even the group’s founder and director, Bryan Doerries, knew how numerous they were. Later, Zoom told him that it had been fifteen thousand. This is roughly the seating capacity of the theatre of Dionysus, where “Oedipus the King” is believed to have premièred, around 429 B.C. Those viewers, like us, were in the middle of a pandemic: in their case, the Plague of Athens.

The original audience would have known Oedipus’ story from Greek mythology: how an oracle had predicted that Laius, the king of Thebes, would be killed by his own son, who would then sleep with his mother; how the queen, Jocasta, gave birth to a boy, and Laius pierced and bound the child’s ankles, and ordered a shepherd to leave him on a mountainside. The shepherd took pity on the maimed baby, Oedipus (“swollen foot”), and gave him to a Corinthian servant, who handed him off to the king and queen of Corinth, who raised him as their son. Years later, Oedipus killed Laius at a crossroads, without knowing who he was. Then he saved Thebes from a Sphinx, became the king of Thebes, had four children with Jocasta, and lived happily for many years.

That’s where Sophocles picks up the story. Everyone would have known where things were headed—the truth would come out, and Oedipus would blind himself—but not how they would get there. How Sophocles got there was by drawing on contemporary events, on something that was in everyone’s mind, though it doesn’t appear in the original myth: a plague.

In the opening scene, Thebes is in the grip of a terrible epidemic. Oedipus’ subjects come to the palace, imploring him to save the city, describing the scene of pestilence and panic, the screaming and the corpses in the street. Something about the way Isaac voiced Oedipus’ response—“Children. I am sorry. I know”—made me feel a kind of longing. It was a degree of compassion conspicuous by its absence in the current Administration. I never think of myself as someone who wants or needs “leadership,” yet I found myself thinking, We would be better off with Oedipus. “I would be a weak leader if I did not follow the gods’ orders,” Isaac continued, subverting the masculine norm of never asking for advice. He had already sent for the best information out there, from the Delphic Oracle.

Soon, Oedipus’ brother-in-law, Creon—John Turturro, in a book-lined study—was doing his best to soft-pedal some weird news from Delphi. Apparently, the oracle said that the plague wouldn’t end until the people of Thebes expelled Laius’ killer: a person who was somehow still in the city, even though Laius had died many years earlier on an out-of-town trip. Oedipus called in the blind prophet, Tiresias, played by Jeffrey Wright, whose eyes were invisible behind a circular glare in his eyeglasses.

Reading “Oedipus” in the past, I had always been exasperated by Tiresias, by his cryptic lamentations—“I will never reveal the riddles within me, or the evil in you”—and the way he seemed incapable of transmitting useful information. Spoken by a Black actor in America in 2020, the line made a sickening kind of sense. How do you tell the voice of power that the problem is in him, really baked in there, going back generations? “Feel free to spew all of your vitriol and rage in my direction,” Tiresias said, like someone who knew he was in for a tweetstorm.

Oedipus accused Tiresias of treachery, calling out his disability. He cast suspicion on foreigners, and touted his own “wealth, power, unsurpassed skill.” He decried fake news: “It’s all a scam—you know nothing about interpreting birds.” He elaborated a deep-state scenario: Creon had “hatched a secret plan to expel me from office,” eliciting slanderous prophecies from supposedly disinterested agencies. It was, in short, a coup, designed to subvert the democratic will of the people of Thebes.

Frances McDormand appeared next, in the role of Jocasta. Wearing no visible makeup, speaking from what looked like a cabin somewhere with wood-panelled walls, she resembled the ghost of some frontierswoman. I realized, when I saw her, that I had never tried to picture Jocasta: not her appearance, or her attitude. What was her deal? How had she felt about Laius maiming their baby? How had she felt about being offered as a bride to whomever defeated the Sphinx? What did she think of Oedipus when she met him? Did it never seem weird to her that he was her son’s age, and had horrible scars on his ankles? How did they get along, those two?

When you’re reading the play, you don’t have to answer such questions. You can entertain multiple possibilities without settling on one. But actors have to make decisions and stick to them. One decision that had been made in this case: Oedipus really liked her. “Since I have more respect for you, my dear, than anyone else in the world,” Isaac said, with such warmth in “my dear.” I was reminded of the fact that Euripides wrote a version of “Oedipus”—lost to posterity, like the majority of Greek tragedies—that some scholars suggest foregrounds the loving relationshipbetween Oedipus and Jocasta.

Jocasta’s immediate task was to defuse the potentially murderous argument between her husband and her brother. She took one of the few rhetorical angles available to a woman: why, such grown men ought to be ashamed of themselves, carrying on so when there was a plague going on. And yet, listening to the lines that McDormand chose to emphasize, it was clear that, in the guise of adult rationality and spreading peace, what she was actually doing was silencing and trivializing. “Come inside,” she said, “and we’ll settle this thing in private. And both of you quit making something out of nothing.” It was the voice of denial, and, through the play, you could hear it spread from character to character.

By this point in the performance, I found myself spinning into a kind of cognitive overdrive, toggling between the text and the performance, between the historical context, the current context, and the “universal” themes. No matter how many times you see it pulled off, the magic trick is always a surprise: how a text that is hundreds or thousands of years old turns out to be about the thing that’s happening to you, however modern and unprecedented you thought it was.

Excerpt:

The riddle of the Sphinx plays out in the plot of “Oedipus,” particularly in a scene near the end where the truth finally comes out. Two key figures from Oedipus’ infancy are brought in for questioning: the Theban shepherd, who was supposed to kill baby Oedipus but didn’t; and the Corinthian messenger to whom he handed off the maimed child. The Theban shepherd is walking proof that the Sphinx’s riddle is hard, because that man can’t recognize anyone: not the Corinthian, whom he last saw as a young man, and certainly not Oedipus, a baby with whom he’d had a passing acquaintance decades earlier. “It all took place so long ago,” he grumbles. “Why on earth would you ask me?”

“Because,” the Corinthian (David Strathairn) explained genially on Zoom, “this man whom you are now looking at was once that child.”

This, for me, was the scene with the catharsis in it. At a certain point, the shepherd (Frankie Faison) clearly understood everything, but would not or could not admit it. Oedipus, now determined to learn the truth at all costs, resorted to enhanced interrogation. “Bend back his arms until they snap,” Isaac said icily; in another window, Faison screamed in highly realistic agony. Faison was a personification of psychological resistance: the mechanism a mind develops to protect itself from an unbearable truth. Those invisible guardsmen had to nearly kill him before he would admit who had given him the baby: “It was Laius’s child, or so people said. Your wife could tell you more.”

Tears glinted in Isaac’s eyes as he delivered the next line, which I suddenly understood to be the most devastating in the whole play: “Did . . . she . . . give it to you?” How had I never fully realized, never felt, how painful it would have been for Oedipus to realize that his parents hadn’t loved him?

Excerpt:

If we borrow the terms of Greek drama, 2020 might be viewed as the year of anagnorisis: tragic recognition. On August 9th, the sixth anniversary of the shooting of Michael Brown, I watched the Theater of War Productions put on a Zoom production of “Antigone in Ferguson”: an adaptation of Sophocles’ “Oedipus” narrative sequel, with the chorus represented by a demographically and ideologically diverse gospel choir. Oscar Isaac was back, this time as Creon, Oedipus’ successor as king. He started out as a bullying inquisitor (“I will have your extremities removed one by one until you reveal the criminal’s name”), ordering Antigone (Tracie Thoms) to be buried alive, insulting everyone who criticized him, and accusing Tiresias of corruption. But then Tiresias, with the help of the chorus, persuaded Creon to reconsider. In a sustained gospel number, the Thebans, armed with picks and shovels, led by their king, rushed to free Antigone.

“Antigone” being a tragedy, they got there too late, resulting in multiple deaths, and in Isaac’s once again totally losing his shit. It was almost the same performance he gave in “Oedipus,” and yet, where Oedipus begins the play written into a corner, between walls that keep closing in, Creon seems to have just a little more room to maneuver. His misfortune—like that of Antigone and her brother—feels less irreversible. I first saw “Antigone in Ferguson” live, last year, and, in the discussion afterward, the subject of fate—inevitably—came up. I remember how Doerries gently led the audience to view “Antigone” as an illustration of how easily everything might happen differently, and how people’s minds can change. I remember the energy that spread through the room that night, in talk about prison reform and the urgency of collective change.

###

Again, the full article is accessible via the source link below:

#oscar isaac #theater of war #oedipus the king #antigone in ferguson #creon #frances mcdormand #john turturro #jeffrey wright #david strathairn #frankie faison #bryan doerries #sophocles #zoom #the oedipus project

117 notes · View notes

yourdailykitsch · 4 years

Photo

Taylor Kitsch on '21 Bridges' and Taking Pride in 'John Carter'

The actor, who has experienced ups and downs, notes his high-profile Disney flop has had a "mini-resurgence" in recent years: "People stop me all the time for that."

[This story contains spoilers for 21 Bridges]

Taylor Kitsch takes everything in stride — including his career. The 21 Bridges star became an overnight sensation in 2006 via NBC’s critically lauded TV series Friday Night Lights, whose devout following refused to let the football drama die after each underviewed season. Because of his breakout role as fullback/running back Tim Riggins, Hollywood quickly created movie star expectations for Kitsch, but once his first two blockbusters, John Carter and Battleship, vastly underperformed at the box office, Hollywood quickly threw the baby out with the bathwater. Fortunately for Kitsch, he soon found his footing with a string of well-reviewed performances including HBO’s The Normal Heart, Lone Survivor and True Detective.

While Kitsch couldn’t control the expectations placed on him, he appreciates the ups and downs as well as the continued opportunities to jump back and forth between leading man and character actor. In his latest movie, 21 Bridges, Kitsch plays a supporting role as Ray Jackson, a war veteran and small-time criminal who’s being hunted by veteran police detective Andre Davis (Chadwick Boseman). Soon, Kitsch will return as the lead in Neill Blomkamp’s Inferno.

“I could honestly give a fuck if I’m fifteenth on the call sheet or first,” Kitsch tells The Hollywood Reporter. “I see myself as a character actor first, and it really boils down to that. I love coming in and playing a flashy guy like Ray and supporting Chadwick… So, I have no problem doing one scene if it’s something worthy or something that makes me uncomfortable.”

Oddly enough, Kitsch has noticed a recent resurgence for Disney’s John Carter, one of the films that didn’t meet box office expectations.

“I think it got another life when it went on Netflix not long ago… People stop me all the time for that, especially in Europe,” Kitsch says. “Maybe, at the time, it was more of a knee-jerk reaction of ‘let’s see how we can bury this and everyone that has a part in it.’ Over time, I think you take a breath and understand that it is what it is... I guess people who watch it now for the first time can take a lot more away from it than people did at first… I learned a ton on that movie. I honestly don’t see it as a failure.”

In a recent conversation with THR, Kitsch also discusses his upcoming lead role in Neill Blomkamp’s Inferno, his memories from the series finale of Friday Night Lights and his experience on True Detective season two.

My favorite part of movie robberies is the mask choices, and in 21 Bridges, your character, Ray, wears a skull bandana of sorts. If you ever performed your own make-believe robbery, what would be your go-to mask?

Ooh. It’s funny because I do it in Savages as well. There was a long debate — and no one knows this — but we were going to wear old man masks. We screen-tested it, and I was just hoping that [Oliver] Stone would go for it. But, they went away from that, obviously. I would probably do something more enveloping — more like a full head thing. The old man mask — I was dying laughing in it. It’s a little more self-deprecating, and maybe a fuck you to whomever is coming after you. I’d probably go in that kind of direction. Point Break had all those President masks, and that was a lot of fun because you’re along for the ride.

It seems like there’s less and less crime drama these days — at least on the big screen. Do you also get that sense within the industry?

Without a doubt. I notice it with scripts to be honest. It’s the stuff that I grew up on. This is kind of an ode to those thrillers: the Heats, the Serpicos, the Dog Day Afternoons, the Mean Streets. Obviously, I’m not comparing it to those classics, but I think we all know the game has changed with the studios and their direction. I think I’m doctoring up the stat, but I think 21 of the last 22 number-one movies have been superhero, or sequel, or prequel, or something like that. Original content from major studios is getting rarer and rarer to hit theaters. Hopefully, this does well, and we can keep making these types of movies.

There's the cliche that villains or antagonists think they're the heroes of their own story. Actors are also taught to not judge their characters. With that in mind, did you find a way to humanize Ray Jackson even though he’s one of your most ruthless characters?

I think you have to. You have to erase your own judgements like you said. It’s imperative to go in with a clean slate as much as you can. That loyalty with Stephan James’ character, Michael, is a beautifully tragic thing for Ray, and that was my hook into it all. He is a stone-cold killer, but for me, personally, he’s willing to literally die out of loyalty to Michael and the guilt over losing Michael’s brother overseas. There is humanity, and it is gray. You’ve gotta tip the hat to Brian Kirk, our director, as he really gave me the reins and that responsibility to go there with him. We reworked it a bit to infuse that. If Kirk called me and said, “Your character just kill cops,” literally anybody could go do that role. You always want to make it as deep as you can. That’s why we do this.

Ray also reveals he’s in recovery at a certain point in the film. Besides loyalty and guilt, was that character detail another major draw for you since it gave you something else to play?

It was everything. It starts with this stone-cold guy that you don’t think is gonna crack, and to see that, to understand that and to relapse because of the circumstance, that is everything. The scene at the vault was a pivotal scene — to see him start to unravel. He also mentions the loss of Michael’s brother in this moment. This guy is human, and you have to show that.

My screening was so loud that I couldn’t hear Ray’s final line, but it seems like he died trying to take all the blame off of Michael. Before giving your thoughts on his death scene, do you remember the final line?

Of course. It’s “Michael, he’s not like me.” That was two takes. It was one of the last scenes and my only scene with Chadwick (Boseman). That’s literally his last breath. Thankfully, we shot that later in the shooting schedule. Kirk and I really worked on that in the script: what would he say, how do we want to end him and make this an earned beat in the film, especially for Ray. We really didn’t rehearse, but we talked about that moment when I signed on and then we reworked it to that. There was a little bit of luck with Chadwick’s character in that moment, which really grounds it. I think he was gonna lose that gunfight if that innocent guy doesn’t come around the corner. Ray was just trained on those steps. And, just as important, the moment where he lets go of the woman. He’s dying, and he knows it. Ray dragged his hand across a handrail and wall so that Chadwick would follow his blood, giving Michael more time. That’s why Ray told Michael they had to split up; Ray didn’t want to tell him he was gonna die.

You've handled weapons in plenty of past projects. Did you have to do weapons training again, or have you maintained those skills over the years?

You always want to press the refresh button. A lot of these weapons are different as well. It’s repetition, repetition, repetition. I feel I have a good base for it. I feel very comfortable with it, but I don’t really handle weapons unless I’m working or the job calls for it. I don’t do a whole lot of that when I’m at home. I just practice those reloads, learn how to unjam and all those kind of things. You want to be comfortable, and you want it to be a part of you so you don’t even think about it while you’re working and in character. It’s a great tool to have.

Do you ever try to avoid using the same style or moves as Lone Survivor’s Michael Murphy or True Detective’s Paul Woodrugh?

To be honest, I’m not that conscious of it. The characters are just so different. I had the same Navy SEAL teach me the handgun stuff and the M4 stuff — from Lone to True. They just say, “Slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Take your time. You’re in no rush. Make sure you have the target before you shoot.” I think it’s more what’s behind the eyes in that sense. The movements are usually pretty similar if you really train with a gun. Certain people may have their own movement, but SEALS or police officers know the second you pick up a gun if you know what you’re doing or not.

Is 21 Bridges the most night shoots you’ve ever done?

I did a series [Shadowplay] in Europe right after this, and we did a crazy amount of night shoots on that. I don’t wish it on anybody. You literally kind of lose your mind. When you’re a month in, your off-days are messed up because you don’t want to screw up that pattern. You’re doing these scenes at 4 or 5 in the morning. You go to bed at 9 a.m. and you’re up at 2 p.m. or 2:30 p.m., hopefully you can work out first. Then, you’re on set rehearsing the scene during the daylight, and the second it gets dark, you’re shooting it. It’s tough on the crew; it’s tough on everybody. It’s obviously a huge part of this movie since it takes place in five allotted hours. So, you know what you’re signing up for.

When it comes to shooting on location, do you prefer shooting all over a major city, or are you most partial to remote locations around the world?

Whatever suits the script. I will take locations any day of the week over a fucking studio. I’m not a huge fan of studios, but I understand you have to use them. 21 Bridges was all on location, and I love that. It just puts you in the moment, and you’ve got all these factors that you probably wouldn’t have to deal with in a controlled environment.

You're an actor who can be a leading man and a character actor as needed. When making choices at this point, are you less concerned with the type of role as long as the writing, cast and filmmaker are compelling?

Obviously, I’ve had great lows, great highs and this and that. I’ve worked with some amazing people. That’s always been the target — just be scared, be uncomfortable and take risks. My next one with is with (Neill) Blomkamp, and it is the lead. My character is basically in every scene of this movie, but the character and the tone of this is what draws me. I could honestly give a fuck if I’m fifteenth on the call sheet or first. I see myself as a character actor first, and it really boils down to that. While kind of impossible, if David Koresh was seventh on the call sheet, I still would’ve done Waco. I love coming in and playing a flashy guy like Ray and supporting Chadwick, a guy who’s been doing great work and is an even better guy. So, I have no problem doing one scene if it’s something worthy or something that makes me uncomfortable.

Jumping back a bit, I’ve heard a surprising number of people celebrate John Carter in recent years and how it deserved a much better fate. Have you noticed how well Carter has aged?

I think it got another life when it went on Netflix not long ago, maybe a year ago or something, but, yes, to be blunt. People stop me all the time for that, especially in Europe. It’s had a little mini-resurgence. Maybe, at the time, it was more of a knee-jerk reaction of “let’s see how we can bury this and everyone that has a part in it.” Over time, I think you take a breath and understand that it is what it is... I guess people who watch it now for the first time can take a lot more away from it than people did at first. It’s always flattering, and I learned a ton on that movie. I honestly don’t see it as a failure. I have great memories from it, and I still talk to a bunch of the cast. It is what it is, right?

True Detective has helped fill the big screen’s crime drama void, and I actually enjoyed your season from an actor and character standpoint. Was that a great experience regardless of how it was received?

Yeah, it was. I still check in with Nic once in a while to see how he’s doing. Selfishly, probably, because I’d love for him to write me something. (Laughs.) Going back to that first beat, these noir movies or shows aren’t really getting made much, and Pizzolatto is a beast. I’d work with him again in a heartbeat. I loved his process. I watched True Detective Season One, and I remember saying, “This is the kind of stuff I want to be a part of.” Obviously, it worked out, and I’d do it again. But, yeah, I’m a huge fan of Pizzo, and we got along incredibly well. I’m still grateful for that opportunity.

I’m not gonna ask you about a Friday Night Lights reunion or revival since you’ve been pretty consistent about not being interested.

Right. Thank you.

Since the finale is where you’d prefer to leave things, what do you remember most about those final couple scenes of yours with Adrianne (Palicki) and Derek (Phillips)?

It was sombering — metaphorically, literally. Doing that sunset scene on this house they were trying to build is such a metaphor. I like that they left it open, and that’s very FNL. We made the audience work for everything, and I love that process. I try to keep that with me in everything I do. It was just a beautiful moment, and you’ve gotta tip your hat to [showrunner] Jason Katims. He was really receptive to our ideas and applied a few of them. I’m still best friends with Derek Phillips, who was obviously Billy Riggins for five years. He actually came to Prague and visited on my last gig. I’m a big supporter of his, too. We laughed a lot, but it was just sombering, not just with that scene, but because it was over. It was a 5-year run against all odds. I don’t remember a day where we weren’t being told it was going to be canceled. I think we ended up on 25 networks, on 16 different days and at 12 different times. (Laughs.) That allowed me to just enjoy the process because it can be taken away from you in a minute.

Is there a Friday Night Lights cast group text?

No, we’ve moved forward. I'm still in touch with (Kyle) Chandler, Connie (Britton), Derek (Phillips) and (Jesse) Plemons. I wish everyone all the best, and it all ended on great terms.

You touched on it already, but how did Shadowplay go?

Well, I think. I’ve seen a baby teaser of it, and it’s beautiful. I love that period piece. Nina Hoss is one of the best actors I’ve ever worked with. The cast is great including Mike C. Hall. It was a long shoot; we were all just exhausted, but I can’t wait to see how it turned out.

What else can you say about Neill Blomkamp’s Inferno?

It’s about a guy who loses everything and will do anything to get it back. There’s some beautiful undertones with addiction and immigration. It’s something that I can’t wait to dive into. It’ll be very challenging; it’s emotionally raw.

#taylor kitsch #21 bridges #Shadowplay #infero #friday night lights #True Detective

18 notes · View notes

sprut6 · 5 years

Text

The Society Thoughts and Theories

Lots of spoilers if you haven’t finished season 1! This show is bananas and I absolutely love theorizing things like this where we don’t know what’s going on. I have some ideas below and some way more out there than others. Would love to hear what others think!

Where are they:

1. Parallel Universe – I feel like the show was pushing this hard with the strange solar eclipse, bringing it up multiple times (more than other theories). For that reason, I don’t think that will be what it is. However, I loved the twist about the eclipse. I really feel like they pushed PU hard in S1 even though people also threw around other ideas I still felt like this one was pushed the most. I think in S2 they’ll push a different theory to take us in a different direction and I think we’re seeing that with how S1 ended.

2. Kidnapped – I think this is a strong theory and where the show really wants us to go in assuming they’ve been taken and are being held hostage for ransom. I’ve seen some theories about the season finale saying that we don’t know what the dog represents and I agree but I definitely think that’s what the writers want us to assume – the dog is the same dog so it’s earth and the dog was able to get from New Ham to West Ham somehow. I think this will be the main theory for S2 that everyone will work around.

3. Afterlife – A reasonable theory now that we know that West Ham still exists and there is a memorial to the kids. But it’s too similar to (SPOILER – even though the show has been over for almost a decade) Lost. I think it would be disappointing if they copied it and I just think that everyone is alive.

4. Dream – I actually really like this theory. I could even see it being something like they wake back up on the bus and they (and the viewer) don’t know if it was a dream or what really happened although as a viewer that would be frustrating if we don’t have closure.

5. Simulation – They were kidnapped and they’re in a coma/simulation where this is all playing out while they’re being held for ransom. I actually was just like eh/maybe about this theory but as I was thinking it through more I think I’m getting more behind this one. (More thoughts on this below). At the moment this is my front runner.

6. Experiment – I actually don’t like this one but still wanted to include it. Again (spoiler) it’s copying The Village kind of and I just don’t know how likely I think it would be especially if the parents are supposed to be involved. Just bizarre all around if this was it.

Theories:

1. Now that we know their parents aren’t dead, I’m thinking we’re going to see the parents a lot in S2. I think it’ll flip back and forth between perspectives between New Ham and West Ham. Maybe even some flashbacks leading up to field trip day.

2. We’ll get a new mayor. I don’t see Harry/Lexie staying mayor throughout. I think Allie will be re-elected at some point in S2 or we’ll see a breakdown of the system and she or someone else will take back over.

3. We’ll learn who Eden’s biological father is. I strongly felt like it was Luke (because of problems it would create) until the Thanksgiving episode. When Luke and Helena announced they were getting married it showed Becca as really happy and I’m not sure that would have been authentic if it was Luke. I think the creators would have either showed a slower response or not shown her at all. I think Campbell is a stronger possibility because of Becca asking Sam to never ask her that again. I think she regrets whomever she slept with. If it’s Campbell I think it would be pretty devastating to her relationship with Sam. Even though they’ve never been in a romantic relationship she has seen how Campbell has treated Sam over the years and I think Sam will be hurt that his best friend slept with his abuser/bully. I think it would really change their dynamic and could possibly push Sam away from Becca.

4. Luke and Helena’s wedding doesn’t happen or gets postponed. I think their relationship will breakdown. It could be if Luke is the father but I don’t think they’re going to go that route because of how S1 ends and Luke having to side with Campbell. I think Helena will learn what really happened and she’ll have strong feelings about Luke lying to her.

5. I think we’ll see more side characters added. The cast is large already but we’ll need to continue to see alliances made between sides and new problems added so I think they’ll introduce more people who have been in the background just like we saw Lexie take a more prominent role right at the end.

6. We’ll learn more about Pfieffer. I’m not convinced that’s a person. I’m wondering if that’s a code word, company name, etc.

7. Kelly and Harry’s parents aren’t having an affair. I think the meeting at the hotel will actually be a meeting between council members surrounding the smell/blackmail/mystery, etc. I think the group will start expanding on the council knowing more leading up to the field trip and they’ll start looking at other council member’s offices, homes and find more were at the hotel meeting.

8. The parents are working on a plan but the show might not let us know that. If the show wants us to think it’s possible the group is dead then I don’t think they’ll show us much of the parents but I’m thinking we might see S2 pick up with the parents. We have only a few parents in the library as opposed to a large group like an official memorial. I think its council members meeting. I think they know the kids are alive and they’re being extorted for money or something that is very difficult for them to get.

9. Harry knows something. He called this all a game and he’s inferred several times that everything would be okay. I think he knows something more specific or his parents said something to him to make him think that something could possibly happen but that everything would be okay. He also was one of the few that wasn’t worried at all in those early days.

10. I really debated mentioning this theory because I worried some people might think I was victim blaming or glamorizing Campbell but bear with me. I think it’s possible Elle has a mental disorder and she is actually harming herself and not Campbell. We know Campbell is a diagnosed psychopath but the show hasn’t shown us the physical abuse they’ve led us to believe is happening. It didn’t show him branding her or hitting her. Elle also hasn’t specifically stated that Campbell is hurting her, she lets people infer it. I think there’s a reason for both and I think it’s because he didn’t do it and it was actually Elle who branded herself with the C. Also, remember the dog. If the dog is the same then Campbell didn’t kill it as we were originally led to assume. If Elle has a diagnosed mental illness then most likely she hasn’t been on medication for months. I think we’ll find out more about what her home life like in S2 because as it stands she is the most central character that we know the least about in regards to backstory. It also would add another layer of complexity to the show. The group might have to decide, do they hold someone against their will if they consider them to be a danger to themselves or others (she tried to kill Campbell). In S1 we saw how they had to handle illnesses like a snake bite, poisoning, pregnancy but they didn’t deal with mental illness outside of Harry’s depression. I could see them tackling something like schizophrenia and the stigma around mental illnesses.

11. Maybe no one is dead. If it is a simulation maybe the deaths are the parents getting kids out/rescued. This is hard because of Allie and Cassandra and the idea that a parent would have to choose a child to rescue and leave another behind (at least for now) except Cassandra had a serious heart condition. Maybe the parents would pay her ransom first because of her illness and have to wait longer for Allie. I just think in a lot of shows there are reasons why characters have illnesses, etc and it’s because the show is going to use them later but Cassandra’s was never really used because she died so quickly and in a way that had nothing to do with her heart so why even have the character with that issue? But if there had to be a reason why one child would be chosen and another left then illness could be a factor. Also, maybe two parents paid at the same time – Cassandra’s and Dewey’s and that’s why their deaths are somewhat tied together. I’ll admit, this is pretty out there. I totally get that but I like the idea that no one is dead.

Questions I want the kids to start asking themselves:

1. Where did the bus drivers go? They dropped them off and then the buses left. If they’re not in town then that should mean there’s a way out.

2. Why is the power still on and water running? We’ve seen multiple shots showing electricity and water but both should be off at this point without anyone running those systems. Power and water plants won’t run for months on their own.

Random thoughts:

Love the nods to different forms of governing. Really interesting and smart insights!

I see some parallels to Animal Farm. Especially with how power corrupts.

Kind of pondering if the literature/movie references are important. 500 Days of Summer has a nod because of the creator but we’re seeing some of the books and movies in certain shots and just curious if there are more to them than face value. For example, The Princess Bride is a story within a story...which brings me back around to the simulation theory.

I told you, the series is bananas.

#the society #the society season 1 #the society season 2 #the society spoilers #the society theories

132 notes · View notes

sol1056 · 6 years

Text

a bunch more asks waiting their turns so politely

These are all various asks about the likelihood of a remake, a rewritten season, or a spinoff.

1 could we get an alternate version 2 is a rewrite for S8 a viable option 3 would they change the ending for a spin-off 4 are single-episode edits possible for S8 5 will S7 reactions affect S8 6 how will DW get us to watch S8

Behind the cut.

With the shitstorm that vld became, would dreamworks ever take pity on us and remake some seasons of voltron that turned out like crap, or not even air, just release them as alternate versions on dvd? Im questioning the possibilities, not the probabilities, bc Im really not optimistic about that, I just wanna know if a show can do that and what would it take for the company to snap their fingers and be like "lets do it" (besides having money)

It’s not like frequent reboots don’t have precedent in other franchises; hell, comics do it on the regular. It’s also much cheaper to do a series of graphic novels or full novelizations geared towards an older audience. The problem there is that Dreamworks isn’t a comic book company or a publishing house; that part of the franchise would have to be farmed out to someone else.

My guess --- if another remake is ever a possible option --- it’d be several years down the road. The first version would be set aside as, say, the Y-7 version for kids and family, and then you’d find a new angle for the next version.

If DW got the impression there was a massive older crowd (say, 25-45) who would’ve eaten up a more mature, somewhat darker, version? Sure, why not try to grab that audience? I mean, look at the Castlevania series: it’s not pulling any punches on making clear it’s for adults. That would also require a different business model, since what adults like to buy for themselves is very different than what kids want. Skip the cake toppers, for starters.

do you think given the reaction to VLD S7, is a rewrite for S8 a viable option? I feel the fandom is divided about the general reaction to S7. If JDS and M can just [focus on the fanbase segment] that liked it, why [bother trying to fix it for those] that didn't?

Given what I’ve been seeing in terms of data from the season... I think they aimed to please everyone and ended up pleasing no one.

Pretty sure I’ve said something to this extent before: when you can’t please everyone, the answer isn’t to split the difference and piss everyone off. The answer is to pick your audience and give them the best damn story you can. The rest will sort itself out.

Let me put it this way: there are enough people who didn’t like S7 for the crummy animation, the OOC dialogue and actions, and the nonsensical storyline overloaded with a host of new characters that stole time from the actual protagonists. And there are also enough people who didn’t like S7 for queerbaiting the audience, killing off three out of four queer characters, and sidelining the one remaining queer character. There may be some overlap between those two sets, but taken together, those two sets are pretty much the dominant majority of the fan base.

I don’t know if that makes a rewrite a viable option, but it should be making a few execs think twice about letting the EPs/staff carry on in the same direction. I mean, you want a series to end on a high note, not an ‘omg that had such potential but boy did it self-destruct in the last two seasons’ note.

So if DW wants to do a Voltron spin-off, would they consider changing the ending to VLD to give Shiro the things he earned so this spin-off wouldn't be dead out of the water?

That would depend entirely on whether they’ve gotten the message that Shiro’s current status isn’t good enough for a significant part of the fanbase. If all they’re hearing (or all they choose to hear) is that it’s great to sideline one of their protagonists with no in-story explanation whatsoever, what’s to tell them there’s anything that needs addressing?

Additionally, if the entirety of the issue is Shiro --- and everyone else is just fine, thanks --- I’m not sure that’d rate as enough to warrant changing so much. More likely any spin-off would start some X length of time between, and we’d get an implied intermediary backstory (or even a mild retcon), and go from there.

Truth is, whomever gets the spin-off will (I really hope) be a better writer and not have to deal with intrusive newbie EPs. Even then, they’d be kinda limited on what they could do, given the spin-off does need to make sense placed against the first series. Then again, VLD hasn’t respected its own premise or continuity for the past few seasons, anyway.

So I guess there’s always the option to start with an episode that retells VLD’s ending... Kinda awkward, but not unheard of, to basically retcon a previous series out of existence.

I have no doubt DW is looking into what went wrong with this season. I know it might be a little to late to fix all of Season 8, but do you think they would have at least maybe the last few episodes changed to give a better ending to the show - or at least more respect to Shiro as a character?

Normally I’d say no. I mean, episode 1 should have characters making choices that in turn impact episode 2, and those choices prompt the events in episode 3... but that’s a logic VLD threw out the window somewhere between S3 and S4, and it’s only gotten worse since then.

In which case, oh sure, why not? It wouldn’t make any less sense than what they’ve already got planned, if S7 is any indication.

Could the reaction to season 7 cause any change the execs minds going into season 8?

One problem: this is a Dreamworks production, but it’s not a DW-owned story. It’s a franchise: there are other players involved. There are the two guys who first butchered GoLion into Voltron, Toei whose story got that embutcherment, Netflix as the distributor, along with Playmates and Lion Forge and other contracted partners. There’s a lot more people at the table than just DW.

It’s one thing for the EPs to say they messed up, and apologize. It’s quite another for Dreamworks to admit publicly their lousy (or nonexistent) oversight allowed the situation to happen.

Legal would have apoplexy, for starters. What wins you a franchise is often showing you have the confidence (if not sheer chutzpah) that you can do this job justice like no other. And then you hit S7 and must admit you hired people who made a complete hash of it?

If there’s anything that will cost the EPs any future roles of a similar position, it’s that they’ve put DW in a very uncomfortable position. Caught between a furious fanbase and overly-interested co-owners, someone --- or several someones --- are treading very lightly right now. They’re not going to forget the EPs are the ones who precipitated the whole mess.

I think we are in a unique situation where the fact that the EPs were vocal about [changing] VLD ... could be a blessing for us & DW. [But we know it] was changed, & DW's part seems to be more negligence than direct fault like the EPs. So DW can drop it or fix it, and a rewrite would be worth us sticking around, while restoring DW's name.

Again, that depends on whether DW is in a position that they can do so. I assure you they’d throw the EPs under the bus at the first opportunity, because that’s how the corporate world works. So their failure to do so is either because they don’t see the EPs’ actions as untenable (as far as we know), or because doing so would expose DW corporate to greater retaliation from elsewhere. (It could also be part of the agreement that these particular EPs are in place for the duration of the series’ production, too. Sometimes that happens.)

I still can’t get over the fact that the EPs were so blunt about having already had a script fully written when they asked to revise. From the Studio Mir leaks, we can guess at least some of the animation was already in production at least a year ago, or earlier. That’s a lot to redo.

Here’s something that only just occurred to me, when I listed the co-partners in this franchise: the Koplar brothers. These are the geniuses who figured they didn’t need to know Japanese to make GoLion into an american production; turns out they were geniuses on some level ‘cause it was a hit, anyway. They went on to produce Voltron: Fleet of Doom (1986), Voltron: the Third Dimension (1998), and Voltron Force (2011). If there is anyone at the table who’d be likely to have nostalgia goggles, it’d be the Koplars. This has been their ongoing story in one way or another for over 30 years.

Originally, the EPs said they weren’t tied to nostalgia; they weren’t going to redo the story as it was, but the story as they remembered. (I’d argue this actually indicates a stronger set of nostalgia goggles, but eh.) Their determination to get rid of Shiro has always felt like nostalgia goggles to me. Perhaps the Koplars were the greatest supporters of Keith as BP --- since that would respect the pattern they’ve followed, over and over, in all the iterations.

Considering the Koplar’s somewhat litigious background over Voltron ownership, they may’ve had the ability to overrule. So... if you want to bench Shiro, you pitch your work with the execs who are most likely to agree with you. And if you can do that in the window between the previous VP of TV retiring and a brand-new external hire coming on as VP... welp, you got permission, and the new VP may’ve signed off, not realizing the impact.

Which would put DW over a barrel, in some ways. If DW could’ve overruled their partners, the EPs never would’ve been able to make that end-run in the first place.

How do u think DW will try to get us to watch s8? They & the EPs have shattered our trust and the show is so messy its almost unsalvageable.

Stay to see X point's resolution? Yeah, we stayed many seasons for nothing, next.

We have more rep? Ex. blonde girl is autistic... So we should be scared for her too???

There's more queer rep? Yeah, we heard that one already.

Unless everyone responsible is fired and a new crew runs the next seasons?

I don’t know. I would hope the answer is ‘by giving us a story that makes sense, and creates closure for all the protagonists, and not just by making two of them emotional rewards for two other characters.’

At this point, there is only one thing that’s going to make Dreamworks change course: if the fallout from VLD impacts its other projects. If the majority of the VLD fanbase up and announced it would be boycotting She-Ra or Fast & Furious or Trollhunters on the grounds that DW screwed up so badly with VLD that it cannot be trusted... Then you’d see movement. If the PR got so bad from so many upset and angry VLD fans that major news outlets paid attention and started writing articles about the situation, that would also put a black mark beside Dreamworks’ name -- and then you’d see movement.

With the VLD toys a failure (for whatever mismanaged reasons) and a financial model set entirely on toys, fixing VLD now would be throwing good money after bad. Unless, of course, there’s an impact beyond just this single series.

Until Dreamworks can see the impact in some concrete sense, they have far more to lose from their partners than they have to gain from their fanbase. It’s just how it is, with corporations in late capitalism.

You want to make an impact? You tell Dreamworks ahead of time, and then you follow through: pick a week and go silent. Nothing about VLD, here or on twitter or anywhere else. No reblogs on She-Ra updates. Ignore the podcasts. Don’t click on the articles. That stuff’ll be there when the week is over, after all. Show DW what it’s like when a fanbase checks out, by doing it. It’s a short-term boycott, but the reason groups do boycotts is because they work.

#vld #voltron #sol thinks about stuff #random commentary

41 notes · View notes

medproish · 6 years

Link

Eric Gay/Associated Press

Perennial All-Star Kawhi Leonard and the San Antonio Spurs have arrived at an unlikely impasse, with questions surrounding loyalty, trust, money and control.

Leonard’s absence from the Spurs bench became a topic of discussion yet again during Saturday’s nationally televised broadcast. Their relationship with their franchise player looks murkier by the day, with a report surfacing from The Vertical’s Shams Charania that Leonard will continue rehab on an injured quad in New York as opposed to emerging from the shadows of ambiguity to join his team against the Golden State Warriors in the first round of the playoffs.

Spurs coach Gregg Popovich has issued statements that appear to be coded, as team doctors have apparently cleared Leonard to play. Leonard’s consultation with independent doctors produced a different prognosis, as the second opinion he’s sought has confirmed his feeling that he’s not quite ready to return.

Popovich seems perplexed by Leonard’s inactivity, and when asked about Leonard’s potential availability, he told reporters, “You’ll have to ask Kawhi and his group that question.”

Brandon Dill/Associated Press

It’s not the first time a star player and team have differing opinions, where a player has relied on outside opinions to determine the best course of action—and Leonard’s future free agency comes into play, as he could exercise a player option in the 2019-20 season or hit the open market.

Leonard is taking control of his future, while the Spurs move through the present with trepidation.

Leonard need look no further than the events of last spring when Isaiah Thomas fought through a deteriorating hip and the emotional strain caused by his sister’s unexpected death to perform for the Boston Celtics.

His dream of a max contract and being the unquestioned leader of a contender was in his grasp—until his hip finally gave out and he missed the final games of the conference finals to the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Then the second-guessing began and hasn’t stopped since. The max contract he craved now seems as unlikely as his rise to stardom from the last pick in the 2011 draft.

It all stems from his decision to play on an injured hip last March, believing his dedication and willingness to play hurt would result in loyalty and respect in the form of a long-term contract.

Thomas will be penalized for his sacrifices and subsequent events in and out of his control—as he probably wishes he’d put himself and fiscal potential first in hindsight.

“Look at Isaiah’s situation,” a Western Conference executive told B/R. “Are you kidding me? Cost that guy a whole bunch of money by coming out trying to play.”

Nathaniel S. Butler/Getty Images

The Celtics traded Thomas in the Kyrie Irving deal and later dismissed longtime medical personnel who treated Thomas and advised him his hip wouldn’t get worse, which he implied in an interview with ESPN’s Rachel Nichols.

He consulted multiple specialists after the fact, but it’s a reason why players aren’t just taking the word of teams in the moment.

“A lot of these guys are starting to have their own workout people, medical people,” an Eastern Conference executive told B/R, citing the work LeBron James has done with his trainers, as he played all 82 games for the first time in his 15-year career. “They’re paying these guys, and a lot of times these guys have a different opinion than the team. Or present themselves as dedicated to the [player] 100 percent.

“It needs to be a collaborative effort between the team and whomever that outside entity may be. Because at the end of the day, both entities want what’s best for the player.”

The money has grown even greater than it has in years, making teams wary about committing nine-figure salaries to players without the certainty of availability. And the players have understood the importance of keeping their bodies properly tuned to ensure their present and futures.

Thus, both sides are often at an impasse about how to proceed. Solid relationships built on trust often become strained, even when there’s no friction beforehand.

“That’s your moneymaker. This is how you make a living. That’s your leverage,” the executive said. “If you feel that [team doctors] didn’t do a good job or weren’t thorough enough, I have no problem with players getting second opinions.

“For peace of mind. We’re confident in our ability as an organization, we encourage that. Go get one. We’re cool with that. Whatever makes you mentally comfortable, go for it.”

Leonard is merely the latest to go through the gamut. And the Spurs, a franchise lauded for a lack of drama, are discovering no one is immune from such circumstances.

‘Kawhi Is Not Tim Duncan’

Ronald Cortes/Getty Images

Tim Duncan set the standard for what became known as “The Spurs Way,” which is understood to mean selfless sacrifice on and off the floor. The thinking went: if Duncan, arguably the best power forward of all time, set the bar high, everyone else would be held accountable. It worked—Duncan and the Spurs’ five NBA titles will attest.

That extended to contract talks and taking less money than the max, or trusting the singular word of team doctors. The Spurs Way wasn’t challenged.

Leonard is the best Spur since Duncan was drafted in 1997. Though his stoic outward demeanor is similar to Duncan’s, the comparisons might end there.

The Spurs doctors have cleared Leonard, but he has sought second opinions from medical personnel outside the organization and hasn’t been cleared from the independent doctors.

“The ‘totally cleared’ part? The doctors are saying they feel you can’t harm the injury anymore if you play. Outside of a freak accident,” the executive said. “But if you don’t feel you are, it’s a mental part for these guys. That’s big.”

Leonard can be offered a “supermax” contract this summer, a five-year deal worth up to $219 million. But rival executives feel neither the Spurs’ offer nor Leonard’s accepting the offer is a certainty—thus the trickiness of the Spurs’ old-school ways and Leonard’s modern sensibilities.

“As a player, potential free agent, that sticks a little to him,” the executive said. “If you rush him, you end up with Grant Hill in Orlando.”

Carlos Osorio/Associated Press

Hill was one of the game’s five best players as a Detroit Piston, but he played on an ankle injury at the end of the 2000 season that should’ve sidelined him. It was the start of a cycle that robbed Hill of his prime years as he left Detroit for Orlando that summer. It took five years before he found his health again, and he turned into just a valuable role player as his career wound down.

One can assume Leonard doesn’t want to put himself in such a vulnerable position. Injuries to Stephen Curry, Jimmy Butler and Irving are all leg issues—perhaps a byproduct of a changing game that requires more torque and cutting as offenses grow more sophisticated. It’s not a stretch to say Leonard, possibly the NBA’s best two-way player, needs his body at optimal condition to be the player he expects to be.

“A team or organization has you under contract,” Bucks forward Khris Middleton said. “Once you’re damaged goods, after a certain [number of] years they move onto the next one. You have to do the right thing and do what’s best for you.”

Knowing all that’s at stake for Leonard, it still leaves the Spurs bewildered.

“They have their people in house, they think you can go, ‘what’s going on,'” the executive said. “‘We’re trying to make this playoff run. What more do you have to do?”

Leonard has his own medical people, and in this day and age, that isn’t uncommon.

Stories about team meetings and ominous statements from longtime Spurs leaders Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili have been out of character for the notoriously private Spurs.

“Same kind of injury [as Leonard’s], but mine was a hundred times worse, but the same kind of injury,” Parker told reporters in late March. “I could’ve gone anywhere, but I trust my Spurs doctors. They have been with me my whole career.”

Darren Abate/Associated Press

It was reported Leonard was on track to test the injured quad March 15, but he hasn’t felt comfortable enough to play, and his doctors apparently agree with him.

“We fell for it a week ago, again,” Ginobili said in late March. “I guess you [reporters] made us fall for it.”

Multiple executives believe the Spurs have been using various tactics to urge Leonard to play, but to no avail.

“It’s a little bit of ‘how dare you,'” said another executive of the Spurs’ process, as their way has been praised and copied by other teams for years.

“Kawhi is saying for whatever reason he doesn’t feel ready to come back. When you try to jump into a player’s body and mind, that’s a slippery slope.”

Leonard isn’t doing things the way that has worked for the Spurs, and it appears they’ve yet to adapt to him—leading to all types of speculation about his present and future.

“Kawhi is not Tim Duncan, who’s bought into the Spurs way, into taking less money,” the executive said. “And now it’s putting some egg on Kawhi’s [reputation].”

But if the Spurs or other teams in similar situations don’t adapt to the new rules, they’ll be left with no superstar and no one worth the max—let alone one who’ll take less.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

The post 'That's Your Leverage': Don't Blame Kawhi Leonard for Taking Control appeared first on trend views word.

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

zeroviraluniverse-blog · 6 years

Text

Insiders predict which No. 1 seed is most vulnerable, who will be the breakout postseason star

Visit Now - https://zeroviral.com/insiders-predict-which-no-1-seed-is-most-vulnerable-who-will-be-the-breakout-postseason-star/

Insiders predict which No. 1 seed is most vulnerable, who will be the breakout postseason star

Our NHL experts tackle the pressing questions as we march toward the playoffs, including which No. 1 seed is most vulnerable in the first round, who will be the postseason’s breakout star and which teams will spend big in free agency.

Which current division No. 1 seed is most likely to lose the first round?

Greg Wyshynski, senior NHL writer: The Nashville Predators. Yes, this could be me attempting to justify my truly misguided prediction that the Predators would miss the playoffs. Or it could be me saying that a first-round series against someone like Ken Hitchcock’s Dallas Stars or Jonathan Quick and the Los Angeles Kings could be problematic for the Preds. It would be an undeniable shock. But hey, Predators fans, if it’s a consolation, I clearly have no read on your team.

Is Sidney Crosby the NHL’s version of Duke villains Christian Laettner and Grayson Allen? Or are the Blackhawks and their bandwagon fans hockey’s Blue Devils? Pittsburgh and Chicago get the calls and the glory — and have guys opposing fans love to hate.

The Capitals superstar scored his 600th goal at age 32 and doesn’t appear to be slowing down. But he has a long way to go to reach the Great One. Our experts weigh in on whether Ovechkin will break the sport’s most famous record.

Panthers goalie Roberto Luongo is also a parent who lives Parkland, Florida. Two weeks after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Luongo has another message: “I want the [students] to keep fighting. And I want everyone to pay attention.”

2 Related

Emily Kaplan, national NHL reporter: The Vegas Golden Knights. Two regular-season overachievers (Jonathan Marchessault and William Karlsson) have a combined 12 games of playoff experience. While Vegas stunned the league with its impressive start, rolling out four even lines, it feels like the rest of the NHL is catching up, especially as they gear up and into playoff mode. Then again, the Golden Knights have been playing with nothing to lose all season, and have a playoff-tested goaltender in Marc-Andre Fleury, so they’ll probably prove me wrong. Again.

Chris Peters, NHL prospects writer: I’m going with the Golden Knights, too. They’re not exactly a team you’d want to bet against, but among the top seeds I think they’ll probably end up with the toughest overall matchup. Among teams jockeying for wild-card position in the West and among the potential matchups are the battle-tested Kings, the Anaheim Ducks and the St. Louis Blues. The Stars and Calgary Flames present their own challenges as well. The Colorado Avalanche might be the least threatening foe on paper, but the Western Conference is going to be a grind no matter who Vegas draws.

Ben Arledge, NHL Insider editor: I’ll say the Washington Capitals even though we all know they are more likely to fall in the second round. Since Jan. 1, the Caps actually have a minus-3 goal differential, and goalie Braden Holtby remains in some sort of funk. If Washington has to play the Columbus Blue Jackets or Philadelphia Flyers, it might not emerge from the opening set of games.

Lightning center Brayden Point (21) is only 22, but he is ready for his postseason closeup. Scott Audette/NHLI via Getty Images

Which player will become a household name by the end of the playoffs?

Wyshynski: Tampa Bay Lightning center Brayden Point has 57 points in 69 games and is playing in the offensive shadows of Nikita Kucherov and Steven Stamkos. But the dude has 10 game-winning goals, including four overtime game winners. The 22-year-old has never played on the Stanley Cup playoffs stage before, but something tells us he’s going to shine when he does.

Kaplan: The hockey world has been gushing over Patrik Laine. Get ready for casual observers to jump on the bandwagon, too. Laine has a sniping style quite similar to Alex Ovechkin (the player he grew up idolizing), and no player has scored more goals since the start of the 2016-17 season than the 19-year-old Finn. Laine embodies the young, plucky Winnipeg Jets — one of the NHL’s darlings all season. If nothing else, his scraggly beard will captivate us all; who knows how that thing will manifest in the playoffs.

Which teams have the best shot at locking up a playoff spot? Who’s earning a better shot at the No. 1 overall pick? Here are the latest projections for both, along with critical matchups to watch today and more. Read »

Peters: The Columbus Blue Jackets might not go on a terribly deep run in the playoffs, but they should face a high-profile enough opponent to get some extra attention. That’s why I’m picking Seth Jones. He’s having his best season as a pro and is even starting to get more mentions as a Norris Trophy candidate. Columbus coach John Tortorella wants Jones to be aggressive offensively and it’s paying off. Jones is averaging nearly 25 minutes a night, has 48 points and is second among all defensemen with 234 shots on goal this season. I think he’s ready to step into stardom.

Arledge: Connor Hellebuyck has been downright excellent in goal for the Jets, posting a .923 save percentage in his first year as their full-time starter. What’s more, he has been even better down the stretch, registering a .937 save percentage in six March starts, all of which included at least 30 saves. With Winnipeg likely to make a run, Hellebuyck will need to be great, and I think he’ll still be a big story come May.

Which player is his playoff-bound team missing the most?

Wyshynski: If the goalie is the most important player on the ice, then logically losing a goalie would be the most critical blow to a team. Except that the Stars have actually gotten solid goaltending from backup Kari Lehtonen in Ben Bishop‘s absence (even if it has been wasted). But the Flyers? Yeah, they miss Brian Elliott. When both he and Michal Neuvirth went down, Philadelphia traded for Detroit Red Wings goalie Petr Mrazek. Three of Mrazek’s nine starts for the Flyers qualify as quality. The streak Philly went on after Elliott last played on Feb. 10 has leveled off. Bottom line: Elliott gives the Flyers the best chance to win, and they need him healthy.

Kaplan: The Sharks have coped with Joe Thornton‘s absence thus far — they’re still clinging onto second place in the Pacific Division — but I’m worried about their playoff prospects if the center does not return. Since Thornton’s injury, the Sharks are 11-9-2, averaging 2.9 goals per game. San Jose’s power play scored on 14.8 percent of opportunities, the second-worst mark in the league during that span. That’s no way to roll into the playoffs.

With star Auston Matthews (left) sidelined, the Maple Leafs have struggled. Tom Szczerbowski-USA TODAY Sports

Peters: There are few players in the game today like Auston Matthews, and that shows in how the Toronto Maple Leafs have played without him. A stick-tap to Greg for this fun fact: With Matthews in the lineup, Toronto is averaging 3.45 goals per game and have gone 32-16-5. Without the 20-year-old phenom, whose 82-game pace would put him around 43 goals on the season, it’s down to 2.81 and the Maple Leafs is 8-6-2. Smaller sample size or not, the Leafs are a much better team with No. 34 in the lineup.

Arledge: Yes, the Boston Bruins certainly need their guys back, especially top-pair blueliner Charlie McAvoy, but they are existing just fine without their trio of injured players, rattling off six wins in their past seven games. Like Chris, I’d go with Matthews. The Maple Leafs have lost four of six while Matthews sits, and with very little information about his status and a constantly changing timetable for his return, it’s understandable that Toronto fans might be getting a bit nervous and frustrated.

Who should new Carolina Hurricanes owner Tom Dundon hire as his team’s next general manager?

Wyshynski: Julien BriseBois of the Lightning should be handed the keys to the Carolina franchise. He has been groomed for years as GM of Tampa Bay’s AHL affiliate, which continues to succeed and pump out quality young players. BriseBois helped manage contracts for Lightning GM Steve Yzerman, who usually gets all the credit for the team’s remarkable salary-ca account-balancing that has afforded the Lightning this two-year window to go all-in. The only problem: He’s too good, and hence will have his pick of jobs. And one assumes the Quebec native would love his shot at the Montreal Canadiens when Marc Bergevin is finally turfed.

Before conversations with Wild reporter Mike Russo of the Athletic as well as Panthers executive Shawn Thornton, Greg Wyshynski and Emily Kaplan discuss Alex Ovechkin eclipsing 600 career goals and who may one day take his crown, the goalie interference dilemma plaguing the NHL and much more. Listen »

Kaplan: Paul Fenton has been with the Predators since the beginning. He is currently their assistant GM. It’s hard to gauge exactly what roles behind-the-scenes guys like Fenton play for their franchises, but there’s no question Fenton is respected within league circles. Dundon has hinted that he wants someone with different qualities than previous Hurricanes GM Ron Francis. If Fenton has had a hand in any of the Predators’ signature, aggressive moves, I think Dundon might find a perfect match in him.

Peters: Fenton’s was the first name that popped in my mind, too, Emily. He’s only 58 and has been in the NHL for nearly 25 years on the administrative side. He also has a deep scouting background, which helps. That said, I think Dundon will go in a different direction. Perhaps he’ll try to pry Kyle Dubas out of Toronto. Dubas is a little outside of the mainstream, which I think might appeal to the new Hurricanes owner. Whomever Dundon hires, it seems like the GM job will require to be a lot of interaction with him. I think Dubas has the right temperament to deal with that, while also having the confidence to implement his own plan going forward.

Arledge: I’ll agree with Greg here. BriseBois is the best option available, and he has nowhere to go within the Tampa Bay organization. Former Kings GM Dean Lombardi’s name has also been thrown around a bit, and he might end up being the guy if Carolina can’t lure BriseBois away from the competition. Sure, Lombardi has a reputation for making the occasional bad deal, but he has two Stanley Cups to his name. There aren’t a ton of home run options available.

Which team(s) should tear it all down this offseason?

Wyshynski: The Vancouver Canucks seem to finally have embraced the concept of rebuilding, which is great news for Brock Boeser, Bo Horvat and the rest of the team’s new core. The Sedin twins’ future is a sticky wicket — the Canucks should bring them back, but only on the team’s terms (which should include one-year contracts). But if there’s a way to flip winger Loui Eriksson, defenseman Alexander Edler and potentially defenseman Chris Tanev — who is younger than Edler, and with a more attractive contract — then the Canucks should continue the tear-down. It’ll take some waiving of no-trade and no-move clauses, however.

Will forwards Daniel and Henrik finish their careers with the Canucks? Jeff Vinnick/NHLI via Getty Images

Kaplan: After the trade deadline, Buffalo Sabres GM Jason Botterill told reporters: “The group that we have right now is not working.” It’s hard to disagree. You could argue that few of the 13 players who will become either restricted or unrestricted free agents this summer are worth bringing back. The Sabres should have a decent amount of cap space and I’d love to see Botterill go on a spending spree and begin shaping a roster he’s more comfortable with.

Peters: I’m with Emily on this one. The big caveat is that Sabres owner Terry Pegula has to stick with whatever the next course of action is and deal with however long it takes. This team has gone through too many personnel changes; Botterill is Buffalo’s third GM and Housley is its fourth coach since 2013. Jack Eichel is obviously the centerpiece and prospect Casey Mittelstadt is looking like another potential cornerstone player for this team to continue to build on. After that, you might say just about everyone is expendable. How much more pain is this owner and this fan base willing to endure?

Arledge: Ottawa has a long rebuild ahead. The Senators overachieved in the playoffs last season, which might have given their brass pause in terms of mixing things up at all in the offseason, but the reality is that this team is going nowhere fast right now. Goalie Craig Anderson is going to be 37 years old next season (and his play is pretty dismal right now), Erik Karlsson is likely out the door in a year if he is not moved before that and the Senators currently roster zero forwards under the age of 25. I’d like to see Ottawa get something worthwhile for Karlsson and to potentially move that Bobby Ryan contract. Time to rip it all up and go full breakdown, a la the New York Rangers.

#1 #breakout #Insiders #postseason #predict #seed #Star #Vulnerable #Sports #Sports News

0 notes

deverodesign · 7 years

Link

Reading Time: 11 minutes

There are two types of leadership lessons. Lessons learned from theory and lessons learned from practice, usually the hard way. In this two-part article, we will discuss the later, 7 important leadership lessons I learned from more than 5 years in business. If some of these lessons will sound familiar, please keep reading. You may still find something useful. Finally, at the end, I will give you a list of four great books worth reading at least twice. Now, let’s begin.

Table of Contents:

1. Listen first and listen carefully

We have to practice

How to practice listening

2. Take full responsibility

How to take full responsibility for our team

The good, the bad and the ugly

3. Hire people you want to work with

Look under the surface and beyond the CV

Leadership Lessons 4-7 in part 2

Closing thoughts on leadership lessons

1. Listen first and listen carefully

This is one of the leadership lessons we hear about quite often. You should listen first, and carefully, and talk later. Yet, it is often also one of those rulers we break first. Listening to others is hard. It is especially hard today when we can go on social media and talk about whatever we want, whenever we want and with whomever we want. When we want to say something, all we have to do is open the browser or app and say it. It doesn’t matter if anyone is actually listening.

Listening to others is even harder when what we hear is different from what we think or believe. When someone says something we disagree with, we sometimes want to ignore it, pretend we didn’t hear it at all. Later on, this can become a root of many problems. Some things become less than optimal. Work that was usually done right is now done badly. Some people decide to leave. Business start to suffer. Different outcomes with a single cause. We don’t listen at all or enough.

We have to practice

There are dozens of books on leadership and leadership lessons. The problem is that these books are not the complete solution. It is not enough to take a stack of books, read them and think that we are done. Reading is just a way to get some information. And, it is only the first step. Second step is to put these information to practice. Without the second step the first one is a waste of time. I know this because I read many leadership books and I learned many leadership lessons.

The problem was that I was not applying these lessons. It was more like checking items on a to-do list. Add, read, check, next. That one important step, or piece of the puzzle, was always missing. Apply. If we continue with our list-based view of reading in order to get information the process should be: add, read, check, apply and only then next. In other words, we have to put every information we learn to practice, and we have to do it immediately as the information is still fresh.

Let me repeat it. Reading a bunch of books and learning a number of leadership lessons is not enough. We have to practice all these lessons if we want to see and cause any change. Otherwise, we will stay where we were before and get what we got.

How to practice listening

This may sound ridiculous. How to practice listening? We think we don’t have to practice listening. Why should we? We do it automatically. And, this is the problem. We are so good at listening we no longer think about it. In a fact, we often think about something completely while we are “listening”. Then, we find out that we remember only small part of what we heard. Listening is like learning. Well, it is actually learning. We have to do it deliberately, with focused attention.

There is even a special name for this type of listening, with focused attention. It is called active listening. All it means is that when we listen to someone, or something, we do only that. We are not thinking about what will we say or any other stuff. We focus our attention solely on the information we hear and the person we are listening to. This sounds easy, but it can be hard. We made it a habit to listen without focusing our attention on the information.

Now, we have to force ourselves and make some effort to break this habit. Then, we have to build a new one, listening with focusing our attention, deliberately. This may require some time, but it is worth it. When we start listening (actively), people around us will spot the difference. We will become a better conversation partner. Also, our memory will improve and we will retain more information. We will experience fewer moments when we don’t remember part of conversation.

All this may sound that listening actively, or carefully, will benefit us mostly in personal part of our life, in relationships with people around us. However, this is true only partially. Business part will benefit from it as well because every business is built on people and on our relationships (or partnerships) with them. We may just not see that way. Give it a try and start listening carefully.

2. Take full responsibility

This is one of the most important leadership lessons I learned in my whole life. We have to take full responsibility (or ownership) for everything that happens. If we want to achieve anything, there must be no space for excuses. This means taking full responsibility for the good and the bad. When something good happens, it is our responsibility. The same is true for the bad. Now comes the hard part. We also have to take full responsibility for our team and consequences of its actions.

We should make one thing clear first. Remember, we are talking about taking responsibility, not harvesting the fruits our team’s success. That something we have to avoid. When our team achieves something, it is their success and we should praise them, not beat our chest. It may be true that we gave our team the resources, space and information necessary for their success. However, unless we also did all the work, success is result of their work, not ours. We have to acknowledge it, openly.

How to take full responsibility for our team

So, what exactly are we talking about when we discuss taking responsibility for our team and its actions? It is this. We must take responsibility for providing our team with resources, space, information and anything else that is necessary for doing their job. We have to talk with every person on our team and make sure she knows and has everything she needs. It is our responsibility to make sure that everyone on the team knows what her role is and what we expect from her.

Then, it is also our responsibility to make adjust the environment and working conditions to them. We have to create a place where our team will want to work and that will help our team achieve the best results. Poor working conditions will lead only to bad morale and mediocre results, at best. Top teams need adequate working conditions. It is our responsibility to create them.

Finally, it is our responsibility to ensure smooth communication in our team. We have to not only provide our team with resources they need to get the job done. Also, we have to make sure that people on our team can communicate with each other. And, we have to make sure they can do it in a way that is comfortable for them, not us. If someone is more comfortable with email or chat, we should let her communicate that way. She should not be terrified before meeting because she is not comfortable with video hangout.

Sure, we may want to have a video call once or twice a week to connect with everyone and keep the everyone up-to-date. However, it doesn’t mean that this has to the primary type of communication. Do a video or call meeting to check up with everyone and then let’s use their preferred ways of communication. This assumes that we know what everyone’s preferred type of communication is. And, it is again our responsibility to find out.

The good, the bad and the ugly

Finally, we have to take responsibility for results of our actions and actions of our team. This is the last piece of the puzzle and usually the hardest to implement. When someone on our team makes a mistake we have to take full responsibility for all consequences. Blaming others never work neither it helps to find a solution. It makes the situation only worse. This doesn’t mean we should ignore the fact that someone made a mistake. Instead, we have to find out what went wrong and take responsibility it will not happen again.

As we discussed, it is our responsibility to provide our team with everything they need, whatever it may be. So, when something doesn’t work out because our team operated only with resources provided by us we should blame only ourselves. It was our responsibility to make sure they had what they needed. That didn’t happen. Therefore, we made a mistake and we are here to blame, not people on our team. When cap hits the fan, we should blame ourselves, not others.

I know there will be people saying that this is not true, or not completely. They may agree that we had a partial responsibility, but not full responsibility. I disagree. We are the leaders in this situation and our team follows us. They did what we said and with resources and information we gave them. Therefore, lack of resources or information or insufficient guidance is our fault. Does it still sound too extreme? This is one of the leadership lessons that are harder to swallow, but okay.

Think about this part of responsibility and ownership from this perspective. You can control what you take responsibility for. Is this true? Maybe it is and maybe it is not. I choose to believe that it is. Then, it will push me to do whatever it takes to prepare as best as I can and to give my team all resources I have because it is in my control. People didn’t believe that it is possible to run a mile under 4 minutes. Rodger Bannister did. And, he achieved it. Believe you control it and you will.

3. Hire people you want to work with

How many leadership lessons or tips did you hear about hiring? Chances are that you heard a lot of them. Maybe, you heard so many tips you got a headache. Yes, it is true. This topic about hiring people and building teams is full of tips, tricks and leadership lessons. Someone could say that there are almost too many of them. And, if you also count books published on this subject, we can talk about a flood. I mean, literally.

Hire slow, fire fast. Or, hire fast, fire slow. Or, hire fast, fire slow. Don’t hire too soon. Hire as soon as you can. Outsource what you can. Don’t outsource. It is a little bit like a pong, you bounce from one tip to another, each saying the opposite. My opinion is that everyone should hire as fast, or slow, as he think is appropriate for her specific situations and circumstances. Also, all these tips assume that there is a one size fits all solution. I don’t think so. I think that every case and person is different.

For this reason, we will not discuss any of these questions. I would suggest that you ignore these leadership lessons, analyze your situation, resources and then listen to you gut. If you feel it is a good time to hire, do it. If not, then don’t. However, there is one tip I can give you that fits this article about leadership lessons. It is to hire only those people you want to work with. Another, a relatively similar, advice is to hire people you would want to work for.

Look under the surface and beyond the CV

I think that, in this case, we can’t go wrong with any of these choices. However, there is one thing we have to keep in mind. Personality and skills still matter and we should not hire someone just because she is nice. And, I think that hiring that is based solely on person’s CV is also not a bulletproof approach. I’ve worked with many people who “looked” just good enough on CV and where amazing in action. Some of them literally surprised me. So, what should we look for?

Let’s take the ability to work with each other and the rest of the team, or mutual compatibility, as the place where we can start. Then, there are six things I look for in every person I want to add to the team. These things are adaptability, curiosity, eagerness to learn, passion, work ethic and grit. The world is changing every day and the speed of change is constantly accelerating. So, we should hire people who are flexible and can adapt to these changes.

Adaptability and flexibility alone are not enough. People we hire must have insatiable curiosity and be eager to learn, constantly. Only then, they will be able to really adapt to new situations, environments and circumstances. Next, people have to have passion for what they do. There has to be some inner drive or interest that motivates them. Otherwise, they will not last long. Then, there is this trait some of us like to talk and / or tweet about, work ethic.

We must look for people who are willing to work hard. People who are willing to go the extra mile and give everything they do 100 %. No small task is too small and details matter. Finally, my most favorite trait in the world, grit. Every person we want to hire has to be resilient. When something doesn’t work, she doesn’t give. She finds another solution to try. When something is too difficult, she finds a way to split it into smaller and more manageable parts.

Gritty person never gives up until she tried all options. When the situation gets tough, she doesn’t cry or complain. She grits her teeth and finds a way to get through. When we come with problem, she will come with solution, not immediately, but she will. Finally, person with a grit is motivated from the inside. Money, prestige and other extrinsic rewards will motive her, but they are not the main fuel for her inner fire. It is the work itself, the fuel and the reward. And, she does it on 100 %.

Closing thoughts on leadership lessons from 5 years in business

This is all for the first part of 7 Important Leadership Lessons from 5 Years in Business. I hope you found something useful in each of these lessons. And, that this article helped you learn something new today you can use. When we were discussing today’s leadership lessons, I briefly mentioned books about leadership. In the end we also discussed some traits we should look for in people. The last thing I want to share with you are three books that are worth reading, at least twice.

We talked a lot about taking full responsibility and ownership for everything that happens. There is one particular book that helped me fully understand this idea, Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin. Both authors are members of Navy SEALs and now business consultants. This book is based on, and describes in vivid details, their experiences from both, active duty and business consultancy.

The second book, I’ve read at least four times, is Relentless: From Good to Great to Unstoppable by Tim S. Grover. I love this book! It is also among the top three best books I’ve read in my whole life. It is either first or close second. Hard to decide. The third book is Mindset: The New Psychology Of Success by Carol S. Dweck. This book show you how much your mindset matters. After reading it, you will pay much more attention to how do you talk to yourself and your beliefs.

The fourth and last book is Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future by Peter Thiel and Blake Masters. If you want a business book that challenges the rules, status quo and encourages contrarian thinking, this the best choice. This book will teach you how to build business on ideas that are completely new. In other words, going from 0 to 1 instead of doing only incremental changes, going from 1 to 2. This is it, the end leadership lessons from 5 years in business part 1. Now, it is up to you to take these lessons and apply them in your business and life.

Thank you very much for your time. And, until next time, have a great day!

Did you like this article? Please subscribe.

Are you on social media? Let's connect! You can find me on Twitter and Dribbble.

The post 7 Important Leadership Lessons from 5 Years in Business Pt1 appeared first on Alex Devero Blog.

#Business Startups #business #business development #clients #entrepreneur #entrepreneurship #experien

0 notes