Today at THT

I was catching up on recorded episodes of “Man vs. Wild” last night — Bear Grylls actually ate bear poop in this one! — when I noticed no less than three commercials for new Discovery Channel reality shows. For those who don’t watch the Discovery Channel, these aren’t the super-contrived kinds of shows you see on the networks or MTV or whatever. They’re usually focused on one profession, like loggers, or fisherman, or something unique like that. Well, there is some degree of contrivance in these in that they always seem to follow a crew full of misfits and strong personalities within these professions, but the action is more or less straight up.

As I was watching them, I got to wondering whether there would ever be one about government lawyers or bloggers. Then I realized that the only difference would be that the former would consist of a guy in a suit and tie staring blankly at a computer screen and clicking a mouse, while the latter would consist of a guy in a t-shirt, jeans, and blue hoody staring blankly at a computer screen and clicking a mouse. They could call the show “EXXXXTREME ANALYSIS” or something. I think it would be a hit.

  • Craig Brown looks at the Nats, the O’s, the Royals, and the Pirates to see what they have done to turn things around and become respectable. With these guys, he has to look really, really hard.
  • Richard Barbieri’s this week in baseball history offers some random bits and pieces this week. One of them: the birth of Melido Perez. I can’t remember: was he the good looking Perez brother, or the ugly one?
  • Tom Tango writes what he hopes to be the last thing ever on clutch hitting. Next up: Bigfoot.
  • John Brattain talks Barry Bonds and collusion and stuff. I don’t know if I’m buying what he’s selling, but he always has a good pitch.
  • Finally, over at Fantasy Focus, Alex Zelvin talks about the statistical model for Rotohog. Don’t know what a Rotohog is? That’s easy: it’s a pig (hog) shot out of a helicopter (roto).
  • All right, Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up . . .

    Print Friendly
     Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone
    « Previous: The quest for respectability, 2009 edition
    Next: New parks and new attendance »

    Comments

    1. Ethan Stock said...

      This is why movies struggle to represent scientists, intellectuals, and computer hackers even close to accurately in movies.  Watching everything from A Beautiful Mind to Sneakers to any supposedly science-based movie is just painful if you don’t put on your total disbelief sunglasses (they go with storytelling pants real nice); because any representation that the movies can make visually appealing either involves stupid eye candy (huge apparatus or dazzling 3D UIs), startling coincidences, or really dumb analogies.  We just have to accept that a lot of important things like blogging, and a lot of unimportant but lucrative things like lawyering, aren’t very appealing to watch.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    Current day month ye@r *