Leaderboard

Top five goalkeeper jerseys from the golden era of goalkeeper jerseys - the mid 90s 5. "Looks good, but make the Umbro logos look like weapons that are raining downwards" 4. "What shapes do you want on this one?" "All of them" 3. Campos designed his own kits, and he really nailed the "forgot my PE kit so I had to borrow some from the bin of discarded kit that doesn't at all fit" look, then made it look like a packet of Refreshers. 2. This one came in all different colours, and loads of teams used it. This one wins though. The Adidas decor look like wolverines claws. Totally badass. If it actually fit, it would be faultless, but true to 90s form, it looks like he's borrowed it from his much larger older brother. (and David James is a big lad, that shirt must be like a parachute!) 1. The mac daddy of Adidas templates, striking a much more tasteful balance between eye catching and obnoxiousness, and it actually fits the goalkeeper, for the first time that decade.

I just also read the Star Wars and the fantasy/sci-fi debates above. Also just don't get the mania for Star Wars. I saw bits and pieces of the originals in the early 90s on my rich mate's (dad's) big TV, so got some idea of the scale of the forest hoverbike waterthefuck chases, and a sense of what it might've felt like to see that in a cinema in the, uh, 70s? I've since seen the original 3, the first 2 prequels; don't utterly dislike them; but don't get it. I saw the Battle of Hoth named as "no.1 sci-fi battle" on WatchMojo (I think) recently in addition to I think the Battle of Endor and (although I instantly thought opening scene of Terminator 2, even if too short; which nevertheless got in there, so kudos for that) I went and watched both and mostly just laughed. The ATAT walkers are just fucking stupid... the tactics Luke uses to take down 2 single handedly is why having a talk on stilts is just a terrible idea. The scenario (flat wasteland all around, can see anyone coming) is the one place where fielding these would be less than suicidal, with the raised turrets/cockpit being useful for firing down into enemy trenches (but then if one has aircraft, just use that). But they had the balls to then call it "all terrain". And when I watched the battle of Endor (the forest, Ewoks one, anyway), there are only two-legged walkers: reading the comments, I saw someone ask why there were no ATATs. The answer is of course is that these ("all terrain") vehicles can't operate in a forest... Star Wars pew-pew effects (while doubtless impressive when it came out) are just way to close to Sindbad the Sailor than to something believable today. My favourite sci-fi movies are both Terminator and Alien(s) ones (yes, there are only 2 of each respectively; don't watch or play anything past the first sequel - basic life skill), as the effects still almost entirely hold up, while it still feels legit and scary (a Terminator is scary, but you can kinda see/guess what it can and can't do, and thus is believable and thus scary). With yer current typical superhero blockbuster, guys in spandex are flying around throwing/punching each other through buildings, with the building collapsing (helps sell tickets. I guess) but the other guy just gets up. So it's ludicrous, and yes these aren't necessarily sci-fi, but it, in any case, leaves one just bored and waiting for the dues ex machina of the bad guys Achilles' Heel. With sci-fi, I (though hardly just I) think there's a spectrum of fantasy films in space (Star Wars falls closer to this) to "harder" sci-fi where you have a mix of existing technology and tech that is projected or hypothesised and/or hasn't been disproved. And the everything in between. Fantasy: Game of Thrones isn't Lord of the Rings, or anything like it. I loved LotR when I read it around 13-14, and loved the films as they subsequently came out. Right up until Frodo/Wood explains with joy: "the eagles are coming!". I watched a few clips recently and it was pretty naff (borderline embarrassing) at a time when everyone's seen GoT. (although tbf: Tolkien had day jobs as a pro linguist, invented his own languages, and then thought what the hell, write some stories to have people use those languages. He'd written The Hobbit, but he couldn't have known how massive the intended sequel - which would be LotR - would become, it terms of size, scope and influence. The invented languages I think/hope also are the reason for the weird dialogue). Anyway Game of Thrones: better idea of what GoT is intended to be would (e.g.) be the novel Pillars of the Earth (I think that's the title). It's "historical", not fantasy, but is really about looking at England in the Middle Ages from all angles and perspectives (knights, tradesmen, merchants, farmers, aristocracy, clergy, etc.) This is mostly what GoT is about, except that the 2-continents fictional world allows juxtaposition of Middle Ages Europe (Westeros) and (in Essos) the Classical ad/or ancient (pre-Rome or maybe pre-Greco-Roman) Med (both would've been a match for each in the real world, despite the temporal distance: bloody Dark Ages and Christianity...). Martin, who wrote the novels, has said that he wanted magic to make it fantasy rather made-up history, but that he wanted it used only sparsely (in a nod to Gandalf, who can fight a demon to mutual destruction or remove curses from individual people; but if there's an army in front of him, he needs to be in an opposing army and sit on his horse like a regular person). But my beef with the magic in GoT is I tend to to see it as an excuse for deus ex machina, with exception of dragons and (with a few quibbles) the White Walkers: one can see that these are coherent in how they work, even if their motives are unknown. Other magic just seems to pop up to land a plot twist. Anyway, all that above I think is why people who don't like more trad fantasy nevertheless love GoT (I'm included in both those). /unplanned wowfuck essay