Now That It's Out: A Review of Watchmen

Despite the length of my pre-release Watchmen entry, I will be brief in my review: I liked it better as a comic book.

Well, I guess I have a little more to say; allow me to elaborate.

(This girl sucked at acting and being hot, but the rest of the cast was pretty well-chosen.)

Were there good moments in the movie? Good sequences? Sure. I can't really sit here and pretend like it was a wholly unenjoyable movie. There were times when Snyder's panel-to-shot adaptation of the source material worked really well and it was kind of cool to see it in live action; there were smallish details that I thought would be lost but weren't; there were movie-things that movie-goers probably enjoyed quite a lot, things that I certainly like to see when I go to the movies: sex, violence, cool effects, etc.

But there was just something off about it. Because I had read the book, I knew what to look for. I knew what the plot was, what the director was trying to do in his translation of various elements from the original piece, all that. I knew what I was supposed to get - what the big, complicated questions were and the social, cultural, and artistic commentaries. But I don't know how much of that stuff I would have gleaned from the movie as a Watchmen virgin. Rather than succeeding in a translation of the stuff that makes the comic so good, I think the movie succeeded in shouting out to people who already knew what to look for, if that makes any sense. If the talkative (and really annoying) people behind me are any indication, something as fundamental as Silk Spectre's/Nite Owl II's non-superhero status (that is, their lack of superhuman powers) was lost on those who had never thumbed through Alan Moore's comic.

This may be sacreligious, but I almost wish Zack Snyder had made the story his own rather than attempting to adapt as directly as he did. It is possible, after all, for a movie to be totally unfaithful to the book upon which it's based and still be a good movie (i.e. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). I know saying that 'there was just something off about it' is vague, but I really feel like Watchmen and Hollywood filmmaking have a square peg, round hole relationship. Just like I said they would in my pre-release entry. Everything is proceeding exactly as I have foreseen it.

The temptation here will be for readers to jump on my previous entry as evidence of my original interest in a faithful adaptation - wasn't that what you were ranting about, Mike, the impossibility of a faithful enough adaptation? Well, no. I wrote about how impossible it would be for Zack Snyder to adapt Watchmen at all satisfactorily, but I also argued from the very beginning that there should not be a film version of the comic. At all. And I still feel that way (hence my one-sentence review). Even a Zack Snyder reimagination, which I know I suggested earlier (and which I think could have been more successful than what was released), would not have been better than nothing at all. Alan Moore said Watchmen "works fine as a comic," and I couldn't have said it better myself.

Without further ado, a list of specific things I hated about the movie. Keep in mind that for this section I am assuming that the goal of the project was to create a very successful adaptation of the comic even though, as you know, I don't think it should have existed in the first place.


1. Apart from the opening credit sequence set to "Times They Are a-Changin'," I think the score was a failure. I got what they were trying to do. They chose iconic songs, songs that defined their time in history, songs that are quintessentially American. They wanted to amp-up what I'll call the 'now' factor in Watchmen: the idea that the story is as much a snapshot in time as it is a mystery-driven, pseudo-superhero piece. And, emanating from the historical 'snapshot,' it's a compromised and ugly big-picture of human existence. Even though the 'now' works with an alternate future, much of Watchmen's social, cultural, and political relevance comes from this 'historical sense.' So yeah, I definitely liked what they were trying to do, but I think they failed.

The music was extremely distracting. The double-edged sword of using iconic music is that while you're trying to show Blake's funeral - one of the most visually stunning sequences of the book in my opinion - viewers are busy thinking about the fact that "The Sounds of Silence" is playing. I'm definitely torn up about this, because like I said, I liked the idea they went for, but I definitely think it was over the top. Some of the songs only made it into the movie for about 15 seconds and seemed to serve no legitimate purpose. There was no need for "99 Luft Balloons," nor was there a need for the worst cover of "Hallelujah" ever (even though there are so many good ones) during that embarassingly long and...well, embarassing sex scene.

2. That sex scene was sooooo embarassing.

3. While it certainly stands alone as a blemish on the film, the Nite Owl II/Silk Spectre sextravaganza is an example of a more general trend: overdoing stuff. There was sex in the book, yes, but it was very brief and it wasn't graphic at all. They did this with the violence, too. Rorschach doesn't split the pedophile's head open with a cleaver again and again and again; he just douses him in kerosene and sets him on fire. 'Off-screen,' mind you, or out-of-panel since we're talking about a comic. There is no carnage in the scene at all, just smoke and fire. When his enemies are trying to get at Rorschach in his cell, they don't saw anybody's arms off; sure, they stab that fat guy in the neck, but there's a big difference between the two if you ask me. Nite Owl II doesn't snap a guy's arm inside out when he and Silk Spectre fight thugs in the alley. They just...beat them up.

The artificial elevation of these sensationalistic elements is exactly the kind of Hollywood bullshit I expected to see.

4. The fighting was too stylized. I don't care if crowds would rebel if the fighting looked 'lame.' Watchmen is not the screenplay to an action film. It is a comic book, a comic book in which real people who don't have superpowers put on costumes and go around fighting crime. They talk about struggling with equipment, costume malfunctions, and fighting techniques. They are out of shape (or they're supposed to be...another fault). They fight scrappy. I don't care if you think the slow motion was cool. I don't care if you think Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre 'kicked ass' - they weren't supposed to, or at least not as much as they did in the movie. Your action movie tropes are unwanted here. The people sitting behind me thought the masked vigilantes were superpowered superheroes. Failure.

5. They screwed up the ending. Not the whole framing Doc Manhattan thing in place of the monster - that was fine - but they messed with something sacred to me. Rorschach, at the end, is supposed to walk off into the snow alone and die. Nite Owl II doesn't see him get blown up (though of course Doc Manhattan is present) and the cliche "NOOOOOO!" is nonexistent. They also added lines for Rorschach, who is supposed to say, "Of course. Must protect Veidt's new utopia. One more body amongst foundations makes little difference. Well? What are you waiting for? Do it. DO IT!" He's not supposed to give a whiny speech about how Doc Manhattan should have cared more about humanity. No, no, no. You don't get away with that because of the non-monster ending; there was no need to add those lines and it totally sucked, Zack.

(I was really glad they kept Dr. Manhattan's dick in there, though it may have been a little much after a while just because there was so much of it. You need it to establish how removed he is from humanity. Ah, whatever, you can never have enough Doc Manhattan dick.)

I'll end my review with a little in memorium section for all the little things I missed. I didn't expect Snyder to include everything, and I know there were sections that were utterly impossible to incorporate, but I missed them anyway. The Black Freighter. The kid reading The Black Freighter and the guy at the news stand. The lesbian couple near the news stand. More graffiti. Hollis Mason's memoirs. Rorschach's psychological report. Newspaper clippings. Letters. Apocalypse tentacle monster. Anti-colors.

I want to be clear that I am not upset at the idea of people enjoying this movie. If there is one positive thing that could come of this movie's creation, it's the spark of coolness that some will see in the story and characters. I love Watchmen and I want other people to love it too. If seeing the movie inspires people to read the book, then I am ecstatic that a movie exists, and that's that. Just as long as people read the damn book.

The Story of How I Was Pissed Off About the Watchmen Movie, then Briefly Excited when I Saw the Trailer, but Am No Longer Excited Anymore Again

When I first heard that a Watchmen movie was in the works, I was about as pissed off as the next Watchmen fan. How could anyone presume to even almost think about attempting to mess with the best graphic novel ever? I was not looking forward to its release.

Then it was 11:59 PM on July 17th, and I was a giddy little girl because I was sitting in the Jordan's Furniture IMAX theater in Reading, MA, waiting for The Dark Knight to begin. I had never been more excited for a movie in my life, so perhaps I was in a more forgiving mood than usual. Not surprisingly, there was a nerd sitting next to me. He had glasses, and a ponytail, and a strange-looking girlfriend. Actually they looked a lot alike. Anyway, he looked like a fairly well-versed nerd, so when he started talking about Watchmen, I wasn't surprised. He knew that the trailer for the upcoming movie was going to precede The Dark Knight, and he had definitely read the book. I expressed to him my grave displeasure at the very idea of making a movie adaptation of Watchmen, and to my surprise he did not share my sentiments. Then we watched the trailer. Check it out before you continue reading.

Admittedly, I got excited when I saw it. Maybe it was because of The Dark Knight or the nerd next to me, but I went home and made a cute little facebook posted item saying that I was originally angry that they were making the movie, but that when I saw this trailer I got excited for it. It's a really epic trailer, after all. There's fire and explosions and hovercraft and fighting. And a blue guy. "FROM THE VISIONARY DIRECTOR OF '300'," "THE MOST CELEBRATED GRAPHIC NOVEL OF ALL TIME." Just epic. (Though I'm not so sure I would use the word 'visionary' to describe 300.) One of my friends said it was one of the best trailers he had ever seen.

There are many reasons I could give as to why I was excited upon seeing this trailer, but none of them would be a passable excuse. Please forgive me, other fans. Please forgive me, readers of my facebook posted item. Please forgive me, God/Alan Moore. I should have been sad. So sad.

The Watchmen movie cannot and will not be a satisfyingly faithful adaptation.

I read Entertainment Weekly's article about Watchmen, which is definitely not the source to end all sources, but I learned some general things - things that aren't secrets, just general things that the studio wouldn't mind people knowing - that made me angrier and angrier as I went along. Rather than bore you with excerpts, I'll give you the run-down on what got me so pissed off in sarcastic summary form.

Basically what we're getting is Zach Snyder's this-is-the-best-we-could-do-with-the-studio-breathing-down-our-necks version of Watchmen. Snyder talks about how stressed out he is because of how badly he wants to do the book justice. Apparently he read it, and liked it. Go figure. Anyway, he ends up mentioning that he's working with the studio to create a movie that will not just cater to the diehard Watchmen fans, but will also hold up as a good popcorn flick that lots of people will pay to see. Apparently he has a 3 hour cut right now - which, in my opinion, would probably leave a lot out - and apparently the studio is making him cut it down to a more 'realistic' length of 2 hours and 25 minutes.

Bullshit. This is bullshit. There is no way that 2 hours and 25 minutes could include everything in the story. It's just not enough time. The graphic novel is nearly 200 pages long, and the general rule is that 1 page = 1 minute, though it may translate to slightly less screen time because of larger panels that take up more space, as well as Comedian pin and Doomsday clock pages. And wait a minute, if you have a 3 hour version right now, what the fuck are you cutting out? Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that there is a single plotline, a single page, a single panel of Watchmen whose inclusion is not fearfully urgent? 3 hours would not have been enough time in the first place, and now I'm hearing that they filmed some things and then just decided not to include them? Like they have the fucking right to make that judgment?

Terry Gilliam originally wanted to adapt Watchmen into a mini-series. That could have worked. If you legitimately were to take 6-8 hour-long episodes to tell this story, and tell it well, then it might work. And if Terry Gilliam directed it, then it actually may have been really good. What the fuck did Zach Snyder think was going to happen with a major studio like Warner Bros. producing this? All they want is money. Maximum profits. They know the fans are going to pay for their tickets anyway, if only to be able to bitch about how horrible it was, so they don't see the benefit of trying to make it a really good adaptation. As long as they can show fire and explosions and blue guys and do it within an average (shitty) moviegoer's threshold of how long they can sit still, they just don't give a shit. After all, one of the worst things that could happen for them would be a drove of average Joe's and Jane's going to see it opening weekend and then telling their friends that it was too long, or worse, that you have to be a fan to enjoy it.

Side note: I heard someone say both of those things about The Dark Knight, and I hated them with the anger of 20 lions.

The other, perhaps more pressing issue is one that fans (including myself) have been trumpeting from the minute they heard that this movie was going to be made: Watchmen uses the medium of serial/novelized comic books to its absolute fullest potential, and there are elements of its genius which could never be captured in a film. Part of Watchmen's whole deal is that it comments upon itself. It asks questions about heroism, vigilantism, and justice, and it deconstructs comic books as such. I doubt that any filmmaker could possibly do a more-than-mediocre job of capturing those elements. Perhaps it's just not meant to be a movie.

Apart from what I have already discussed, which are general criticisms, I have a list of specific things that I think the movie version of Watchmen will bastardize, or else exclude completely:

(Oh, and spoiler alert. Don't read this if you haven't read the book yet. And read the book.)

1) Too much CGI/Stylization - I did not originally have a problem with how the movie actually looked, but my longtime film-savvy friend and fellow fan of Alan Moore's masterpiece, Sam Osborn, mentioned to me that he thought there was too much CGI. I will give him credit for making that point, but I will take credit for my own feelings on why the CGI and stylization are a problem. I think it destroys the gritty, this-is-the-real-world feeling of the comic. Watchmen takes place in a slightly historically different version of our world, and I thought the artwork in the comic reflected the reality what that would look like. Realism. Lots of films go for realism. It's strange to think that it would be appropriate for a 'super hero movie', but I really think that's what's right for Watchmen. What is it really like for a regular person to dress up in a costume and beat up criminals?

Look at some of the fight scenes in the trailer. Obviously Doc Manhattan has to look kinda crazy, but part of Watchmen's charm is that apart from him, all of its masked vigilantes are just regular people kicking ass. They don't have superpowers, and while they are certainly more agile and dextrous than you or I, they can't do anything very spectacular. The shots of non-Doc 'heroes' I see in the trailer seem to parade them around as cool-looking, skull-cracking "super heroes" in the most traditional sense of the term. That's not what Watchmen was about. The real question for both the 'heroes' and the people they protect is whether they are anything more than freaks dressing up and prowling around at night. I want to see what it would really look like for an out-of-practice Night Owl II to beat up a bunch of guys in an ally with Silk Spectre, not a showy slow-motion bullshit kick that doesn't capture the truth of the comic.

2) Rorschach's Journal - Not only did this make use of the comic book genre really well by enlisting documents to help tell the story, but it was also the big punch at the end. Rorschach wins. Because that news guy finds his journal, Rorschach's story gets told, and that's the big payoff. He dies taking a stand, making the only choice that was within him to make, having no idea that anyone would ever come to know his story or realize the corruption which he uncovered, and it's totally badass. Moore presents the journal to us in scraps of paper over images of Rorschach's investigations and late-night prowlings, and it works perfectly for Rorschach because we can buy that he would write those things. He doesn't talk very much, but we get to see his thoughts anyway. That's part of why he, more than anyone, is the hero of the story, or at least the guy we're pulling for ('hero' can be a problematic term). The only way they could really do this in a movie would be with voiceover, which I think takes something away from the intimacy of the journal, and probably kills the bang at the end. They're going to have to show Rorschach writing in his journal (which I don't think we see very much, if at all, in the comic) just to establish its significance by the time the end rolls around. I also think it takes away from Rorschach's character to have him talk to us in a voiceover. He doesn't say very much, and it's part of who he is. I fear he will be changed severely if he becomes a Travis-Bickle-like character.

3) Visual Continuity - One of the coolest things about Watchmen was how well-integrated the story seemed because nearly every scene transition was visually continuous. A shot of the moon from Mars where Doc Manhattan and Silk Spectre are hanging out becomes a shot of the street light over the news stand where the kid is reading pirate comics, for instance. It felt like every single panel was absolutely essential, and it was a fantastic tool for weaving a story out of characters and occurrences that may not have anything directly to do with one another, or may not be aware of one another's existence. Watchmen is a mosaic. A seamlessly integrated scrapbook. It's not that I think visual continuity is impossible within a film - it definitely isn't - but I think we will lose that amazing feeling that comes from reading an intricately woven, multi-media collection of journal entries, pictures, flashbacks, thoughts, words, old newspapers, excerpts from books, etc. Cutting/dissolving/wiping from one scene to the next will never replace that feeling of looking from one panel to the next and feeling like this story was destined to fit together in this particular way. Maybe there's just no equivalent to that feeling within the medium of film.

4) Documents - My last point rather logically reminds me of one thing I think the film will really fail to capture. Excerpts from the Hooded Justice's memoirs, newspaper articles, letters - these are some of the elements that really give Watchmen depth. Watchmen deals with timelines effortlessly, allowing events from the past to shed light upon the future, and using the timely revelation of those events in an intrigue-heightening way. Other than what Sally Jupiter and Hollis Mason divulge verbally, these documents are what allow that oh-so-gritty backstory to unfold, as well as the central mystery of the story. They also shed light on what Rorschach is doing in trying to solve the murder of The Comedian. He's researching and digging through information. He's knocking on doors and asking questions. And that's what we do as the reader when we make our way through these sections. Logistically speaking, how is a movie going to render these sequences? Let the audience read them? Some of the chapter excerpts are 10-15 pages long. I don't see how they could possibly include these in the film, and I don't see how they could possibly succeed at faithfully adapting Watchmen without them.

5) The Pirate Comics - These were, for me, some of the coolest sections in Watchmen. It was so intelligently reflexive because it asked the question of what comic books would be like in a world where there really are masked 'heroes'. Not only did it contribute wonderfully to the mounting apocalyptic vibes in the story as it went along, but it provided what I thought was the smartest self-examining question of the book: what is it that you, the reader, are reading? This is a comic book, but how would that be different in a different world? What do comic books say about us and the ever-changing world in which we live in? Some heavy shit. Plus, the pirate comics were really fucking cool. I would read those or things like them if they came out. I hear they are attempting to do something in homage to the pirate comics with old film reels in the movie, as if to comment on the medium of film. That could work, and it sounds like a good idea, but it had better be as brilliant as the most brilliant part of the most brilliant graphic novel ever. Good luck with that, Zach.

Those are my criticisms, and the reasons for my sadness. I give Zach Snyder some credit, because the vibes I get from reading his interview and press for the movie suggest that the rights were optioned, and that there was going to be a Watchmen movie no matter what. Since Zach is a fan, he's probably doing the best he can. Maybe that's all we can ask for as fans. Maybe, in a sad and backward way, the non-creation of a movie is asking too much in this case. Or maybe we deserve to have our baby left alone.

All Star Game

Big-Franchise, Big-Name Problems

I love the Red Sox. I love them unconditionally. But I have a problem with the All-Star Game right now.

It's actually important to beat the National League in the All-Star Game - the league that wins gets home field advantage in the World Series, and you want that. The American League is supposed to come together with the common goal of securing this advantage for whichever team ends up representing them in the Series, but that's not quite how it's working.

People take a lot of pride in the All-Star Game. Last year, when the Red Sox had 6 players on the roster (though only David Ortiz was a starter), I was as proud as the next Red Sox fan. And those players deserved to be there. Josh Beckett was pitching W's like crazy, Hideki Okajima had an ERA under 1.0, and Jonathan Papelbon was closing the deal every time. Mike Lowell was hitting like a beast. Manny and David were healthy, and hitting well. Jason Varitek was...well, he was leading the best team in baseball, anyway. I felt good about the roster not just because the Red Sox were well represented, but because the players on the roster were legitimately among the best in their positions. This year, I don't feel that way.

It has become increasingly clear that players on big-franchise teams (like the Yankees and, embarassingly, the Red Sox) have an unfair advantage when it comes to getting into the All-Star Game. People do not vote for the best player in each position; they vote to maximize the number of players from their team that make it onto the roster.

While the All-Star Game serves the practical purpose of determining which league gets home field advantage in the World Series, part of its purpose is to acknowledge and honor the outstanding performance of the best players in baseball that year. In the same way that people get a little bit too proud about making sure that it's their team's players on the roster, I think people are too sentimental when it comes to making sure that the big-name players make it to the game year after year.

Big-name players are not always aging incumbents. David Ortiz, though aging, is a big-name player who deserves his spot; he is a better hitter than any of the other DH's in the running. Alex Rodriguez is the best 3B in the American League, and probably will be for many years. That's just the nature of star players - they really are some of the best in the game. But players who have, in the past, deserved beyond a shadow of a doubt their All-Star designation and established themselves as heroes are not necessarily the best players in their positions for that year.

I understand the pain. In a lot of ways, it's the same pain that permeates every non-baseball aspect of our lives - change. The end of a baseball career is one of the saddest things I can think of. Here you have a player who has delivered the big hits, the big plays, the big moments, again and again; here you have a name that's known to even the most ignorant of laymen. Hey guy on the street, you know who Ken Griffey Jr. is? Sure, he's a baseball player. One of the greats. So when you see these guys fading, it can be distressing. Here was something constant in an inconstant world, and here it is flickering like a - dare I say it - candle in the wind. As I'm writing this, the Red Sox and the Reds are on the 3rd game of a 3-game inter-league series, and I watched Junior ground into a double play with guys on 1st and 3rd and 1 out in the middle of what would have been a game-winning rally. I was happy because the Sox ended up winning, but it was really sad to look at that man's face as he stood in the box. He's hit 600 home runs, weathered a lot of injuries, and played a lot of games, but it looks like that's where he's gonna run out of gas. Do I think he should go into the hall of fame? Absolutely. Do I think he should represent the National League as one of the best outfielders this season? No.

Who Deserves It vs. Who's Getting It

National League Standings as of June 15th, 2008

1B
1. Lance Berkman
2. Derek Lee
3. Albert Pujols
4. Ryan Howard
5. Prince Fielder

2B
1. Chase Utley
2. Mark DeRosa
3. Kozuo Matsui
4. Dan Uggla
5. Orlando Hudson

3B
1. Chipper Jones
2. Aramis Ramirez
3. David Wright
4. Ty Wiggington
5. Mark Reynolds

Short
1. Miguel Tejada
2. Hanley Ramirez
3. Ryan Theriot
4. Jose Reyes
5. Jimmy Rollins

Catcher
1. Giovanni Soto
2. Brian McCann
3. Yadier Molina
4. J.R. Towles
5. Russell Martin

Outfield
1. Alfonso Soriano
2. Kosuke Fukudome
3. Ken Griffey Jr.
4. Carlos Lee
5. Carlos Beltran
6. Ryan Braun
7. Matt Holiday
8. Hunter Pence
9. Pat Burrell
10. Rick Ankiel

Now, Soriano's an old-timer and a big name, but he's also having a monster season (up until the hand-breaking). Fukudome? Maybe. He's been a big part of the Cubs' success, but he's not exactly performing at the All-Star level in my opinion. What about Ryan Braun? Ryan Ludwick? Nate McLouth...Pat Burrell...there are a lot of outfielders having big years this year, but they're not making it onto the All-Star roster. Could this have to do with how many ravenous Cubs fans there are? Well, if we look at the leaders in the NL roster, we'll see a few more Cubs lurking. The first and most upsetting standing is Giovanni Soto over Brian McCann. No way. I get that Soto's a great little rookie and all, but who's really doing better this year?

Apart from Fukudome, Griffey Jr., and Soto, there don't seem too be any violent upsets. The obvious winners at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (Berkman, Utley, Jones) are leading. But look at how many Cubs are in second or third place: Lee, De Rosa, Ramirez, Theriot. And look at their positions: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Short. Now, as I said, the proper winners are leading in the NL infield, but why not by more? Should Theriot really be anywhere near Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Tejada? Or Derek Lee anywhere near Lance Berkman? When you have players who are performing at such a superior level, why do people come out in droves to vote for other players? The big-franchise problem and the big-name problem.

Now, that said, I think that the National League roster is looking pretty good. That infield is really good. Let's look at the American League.

American League Standings as of June 15th, 2008

1B
1. Kevin Youkilis
2. Justin Morneau
3. Jason Giambi
4. Carlos Guillen
5. Carlos Pena

2B
1. Dustin Pedroia
2. Robinson Cano
3. Placido Polanco
4. Brian Roberts
5. Ian Kinsler

3B
1. Alex Rodriguez
2. Mike Lowell
3. Miguel Cabrera
4. Joe Crede
5. Scott Rolen

Short
1. Derek Jeter
2. Edgar Renteria
3. Michael Young
4. Julio Lugo
5. Orlando Cabrera

Catcher
1. Jason Varitek
2. Ivan Rodriguez
3. Joe Mauer
4. Jorge Posada
5. Victor Martinez

DH
1. David Ortiz
2. Hideki Matsui
3. Jim Thome
4. Gary Sheffield
5. Travis Hafner

Outfield
1. Manny Ramirez
2. Ichiro Suzuki
3. Vladimir Guerrero
4. Magglio Ordonez
5. Bobby Abreu
6. Josh Hamilton
7. Melky Cabrera
8. Grady Sizemore
9. Tori Hunter
10. Johnny Damon

Now I'm a huge Red Sox fan, but I think this year's American League All-Star roster is pretty fucked up. I'm gonna go position-by-position.

1B: I do think Youkilis is the best option. If you looked at Justin Morneau's stats, you'd see that he has more RBI's, and therefore seems like a better candidate, but you have to remember that Morneau bats cleanup for the Twins, and that Youkilis bats...well, he doesn't really have a set place in the lineup, but it's never 4th. He also doesn't start every game. They have a more or less identical OBP, and Youk's slugging percentage is about 50 points higher. The fact that the all-over-the-lineup Youkilis even contends with Morneau in offensive numbers when Morneau bats cleanup behind always-on-base Joe Mauer makes him a better choice in my book. If you need more of a clincher, look to Youk's defense to seal the deal. (I will note that this is a fairly bad offensive year for American League first basemen)

2B: Sorry Dustin, but the 2B roster spot should go to Ian Kinsler. He's hitting better than most players in the American League, let alone other second basemen. Dustin's got some great defense, and I'm a big fan of his hitting style - taking a lot of pitches and wearing guys' arms out, drawing lots of walks and getting on base for the big hitters behind him - but he just doesn't win out, in my opinion. I would probably take Brian Roberts over Pedroia as well.

3B: Yeah, A-Rod.

Short: This is one of those situations where I'm going to lose credibility because I'm writing as a Red Sox fan about a Yankees player, but I'll have it be known that if there is anyone on the Yankees I respect, it's Derek Jeter. I think he's been a great player for a really long time. I don't think he should be the first choice for American League All-Star shortstop this year. Michael Young should get it. Like the rest of his off-the-wall offense, Young is hitting extremely well. I know it's sad to think that Derek Jeter might not be the best shortstop in the world anymore, but it's just the way things go. Jeter should be the reserve. P.S. The fact that Julio Lugo is on this list at all is sickening.

DH: David Ortiz deserves this. He's an elite hitter and nobody can deny it. He's injured right now, but Thome, Hafner, and Sheffield are sucking and Matsui just doesn't come close.

Catcher: I love Jason Varitek. He's a great leader, he has great relationships with his pitchers, calls a good game, and jumps on board Red Sox rallies in clutch situations just the way I want him to. I'm proud to have him as my catcher, but this spot belongs to Joe Mauer.

Outfield: This is where it gets really hard to let go of legends. Manny has been amazing for the Sox this year, just as he has been in years past, and as I'm sure he will be for at least a few years to come, but I'm not sure he's the best power-hitting outfielder in the AL right now. To be sure, he's an elite hitter and a clutch hitter, and I wouldn't want anyone else at the plate when the game is on the line, but Milton Bradley and Josh Hamilton are the easy choices for two of the OF slots. Vlad Guerrero has sucked this year. Just because he's got a big name doesn't mean he's the best for the All-Star roster. The third spot should go to Ichiro, with honorable mention to Carlos Quentin.

I say the NL wins the 2008 All-Star Game. The AL has the players to put up a roster good enough to contend, but that's not how the fans are voting. If there were only more Rangers fans.