Catching Hell

[Brownie]

Anyone see any of it? What I saw was crap, and more about Alex Gibney's tortured Red Sawx demons and how everyone near Mike D's seats were worse than the worst Limey Football fans.

There were two bits of useful information:

1) Splicing out the other spectators, it is apparent that Alou probably WOULD HAVE caught that foul ball.
2) Moises and Aramis booked a flight out to the DR immediately after losing Game 6.

[BH]

This is the first I've heard about this documentary. What is it about?

[PenPho]

This is the first I've heard about this documentary. What is it about?

Soccer.

[Brownie]

This is the first I've heard about this documentary. What is it about?

Soccer.

I was expecting it to be about the 2003 Cubs, yet I heard more from the guy who last was six starting first basemen before Eric Karros talking about a game that occurred the same weekend Chicagoans were more outraged about CBS cutting into its broadcast of the Bears-Oilers with a special report that Reagan and Gorbachev agreed on nothing in Reykjavik than a baseball game than I heard from any other Cubs player.

Look at that sentence, by the way. It's a thing of beauty that not even BC could produce. Seventy-six words and you really have to diagram it to make sense of it.

[flannj]

Chicagoans were more outraged about CBS cutting into its broadcast of the Bears-Oilers with a special report that Reagan and Gorbachev agreed on nothing in Reykjavikplayer.

Right in the middle of a Neil Anderson 66 yard touchdown run.

I shrieked at my television like a little German school girl.

[R-V]

This is the first I've heard about this documentary. What is it about?

Soccer.

I was expecting it to be about the 2003 Cubs, yet I heard more from the guy who last was six starting first basemen before Eric Karros talking about a game that occurred the same weekend Chicagoans were more outraged about CBS cutting into its broadcast of the Bears-Oilers with a special report that Reagan and Gorbachev agreed on nothing in Reykjavik than a baseball game than I heard from any other Cubs player.

Look at that sentence, by the way. It's a thing of beauty that not even BC could produce. Seventy-six words and you really have to diagram it to make sense of it.

You should ghost write for Peter King.

[Brownie]

This is the first I've heard about this documentary. What is it about?

Soccer.

I was expecting it to be about the 2003 Cubs, yet I heard more from the guy who last was six starting first basemen before Eric Karros talking about a game that occurred the same weekend Chicagoans were more outraged about CBS cutting into its broadcast of the Bears-Oilers with a special report that Reagan and Gorbachev agreed on nothing in Reykjavik than a baseball game than I heard from any other Cubs player.

Look at that sentence, by the way. It's a thing of beauty that not even BC could produce. Seventy-six words and you really have to diagram it to make sense of it.

You should ghost write for Peter King.

Does that mean I have to start going to Starbucks, girls high school field hockey games and Brett Favre circlejerks?

[CT III]

This is the first I've heard about this documentary. What is it about?

Soccer.

I was expecting it to be about the 2003 Cubs, yet I heard more from the guy who last was six starting first basemen before Eric Karros talking about a game that occurred the same weekend Chicagoans were more outraged about CBS cutting into its broadcast of the Bears-Oilers with a special report that Reagan and Gorbachev agreed on nothing in Reykjavik than a baseball game than I heard from any other Cubs player.

Look at that sentence, by the way. It's a thing of beauty that not even BC could produce. Seventy-six words and you really have to diagram it to make sense of it.

You should ghost write for Peter King.

Does that mean I have to start going to Starbucks, girls high school field hockey games and Brett Favre circlejerks?

Yes.

[Chuck to Chuck]

So, we watched it last night. I have no idea why it was made.  What was the point it was trying to get across?  A good documentary takes a thesis and proves or disproves it. What was the thesis of this?  The three of us that watched it couldn't figure it out.

[BH]

So, we watched it last night. I have no idea why it was made.  What was the point it was trying to get across?  A good documentary takes a thesis and proves or disproves it. What was the thesis of this?  The three of us that watched it couldn't figure it out.

I didn't realize that a "good" documentary has to prove or dispel something.

[Quality Start Machine]

This is the first I've heard about this documentary. What is it about?

Soccer.

I was expecting it to be about the 2003 Cubs, yet I heard more from the guy who last was six starting first basemen before Eric Karros talking about a game that occurred the same weekend Chicagoans were more outraged about CBS cutting into its broadcast of the Bears-Oilers with a special report that Reagan and Gorbachev agreed on nothing in Reykjavik than a baseball game than I heard from any other Cubs player.

Look at that sentence, by the way. It's a thing of beauty that not even BC could produce. Seventy-six words and you really have to diagram it to make sense of it.

You should ghost write for Peter King.

Does that mean I have to start going to Starbucks, girls high school field hockey games and Brett Favre circlejerks?

Start?

[Yeti]

This is the first I've heard about this documentary. What is it about?

Soccer.

I was expecting it to be about the 2003 Cubs, yet I heard more from the guy who last was six starting first basemen before Eric Karros talking about a game that occurred the same weekend Chicagoans were more outraged about CBS cutting into its broadcast of the Bears-Oilers with a special report that Reagan and Gorbachev agreed on nothing in Reykjavik than a baseball game than I heard from any other Cubs player.

Look at that sentence, by the way. It's a thing of beauty that not even BC could produce. Seventy-six words and you really have to diagram it to make sense of it.

You should ghost write for Peter King.

Does that mean I have to start going to Starbucks, girls high school field hockey games and Brett Favre circlejerks?

On the bright side, PenFoe will read your columns, and get mad at anyone who criticizes you

[CT III]

So, we watched it last night. I have no idea why it was made.  What was the point it was trying to get across?  A good documentary takes a thesis and proves or disproves it. What was the thesis of this?  The three of us that watched it couldn't figure it out.

I didn't realize that a "good" documentary has to prove or dispel something.

It proved that even when a Red Sox fan makes a documentary about another team, he won't be able to help himself and it will somehow still be about the Red Sox.

Also, Dennis Leary will be involved, and fuck Dennis Leary.

[Brownie]

So, we watched it last night. I have no idea why it was made.  What was the point it was trying to get across?  A good documentary takes a thesis and proves or disproves it. What was the thesis of this?  The three of us that watched it couldn't figure it out.

I didn't realize that a "good" documentary has to prove or dispel something.

It proved that even when a Red Sox fan makes a documentary about another team, he won't be able to help himself and it will somehow still be about the Red Sox.

Also, Dennis Leary will be involved, and fuck Dennis Leary.

Although it didn't really focus on it, it alluded to the fact that Bartman robbed Alou of a legitimate chance to make the play.
It alluded to the change in the attitude of the Cubs fans, in that they got a harder edge after that.
It didn't touch on what the inning and the game did to Mark Prior's psyche and career trajectory, and to others involved, including Dusty Baker, Moises Alou, Alex Gonzalez and so on.
It touched on the media's role in scapegoating him, but what did that change about FOX's or ESPN's coverage of stuff?
It theorized what Bartman is up to and caught up with the other bystanders, but so what?

I think the thing about this was that it documented the event, and sort of froze there in time. It didn't show us what became of the Cubs, although we see the Red Sox won two World Series. (Did you know that?) We see Bill Buckner was welcomed back to Fenway Park in 2008. But what of the Cubs? Anything to be said about their history since, and what that play might have done. One thing the play didn't do was slow the reclaiming of foul territory for more seats.

Also, I missed part of it, but did Alex Gibney remark at all on the irony that the practice of keeping foul balls wasn't instituted until the mid 1910s? A Federal League owner decided that it would be a fun gimmick to let the fans keep the balls hit out of play instead of dispatching an usher to retrieve it. This owner wound up getting a Major League club as part of the Federal League anti-trust settlement, and he moved the Major League club he got to his 2-year old ballpark on the site of an old Lutheran Seminary at the corner of Clark and Addison (and Seminary) streets.

Mike D. and I should have done the documentary.

[Slaky]

So, we watched it last night. I have no idea why it was made.  What was the point it was trying to get across?  A good documentary takes a thesis and proves or disproves it. What was the thesis of this?  The three of us that watched it couldn't figure it out.

I didn't realize that a "good" documentary has to prove or dispel something.

It proved that even when a Red Sox fan makes a documentary about another team, he won't be able to help himself and it will somehow still be about the Red Sox.

Also, Dennis Leary will be involved, and fuck Dennis Leary.

Although it didn't really focus on it, it alluded to the fact that Bartman robbed Alou of a legitimate chance to make the play.
It alluded to the change in the attitude of the Cubs fans, in that they got a harder edge after that.
It didn't touch on what the inning and the game did to Mark Prior's psyche and career trajectory, and to others involved, including Dusty Baker, Moises Alou, Alex Gonzalez and so on.
It touched on the media's role in scapegoating him, but what did that change about FOX's or ESPN's coverage of stuff?
It theorized what Bartman is up to and caught up with the other bystanders, but so what?

I think the thing about this was that it documented the event, and sort of froze there in time. It didn't show us what became of the Cubs, although we see the Red Sox won two World Series. (Did you know that?) We see Bill Buckner was welcomed back to Fenway Park in 2008. But what of the Cubs? Anything to be said about their history since, and what that play might have done. One thing the play didn't do was slow the reclaiming of foul territory for more seats.

Also, I missed part of it, but did Alex Gibney remark at all on the irony that the practice of keeping foul balls wasn't instituted until the mid 1910s? A Federal League owner decided that it would be a fun gimmick to let the fans keep the balls hit out of play instead of dispatching an usher to retrieve it. This owner wound up getting a Major League club as part of the Federal League anti-trust settlement, and he moved the Major League club he got to his 2-year old ballpark on the site of an old Lutheran Seminary at the corner of Clark and Addison (and Seminary) streets.

Mike D. and I should have done the documentary.

This would have been something worth watching.