Serena Williams officially retired on Friday after a loss in the third round of the US Open to 29-year-old Ajla Tomljanovic. Serena won her first Grand Slam Title 23 years ago in the same stadium.
Serena started playing professional tennis in 1995 as a 14-year-old. Twenty-seven years later, she walks away from the game with 858 tour victories, an 85% win rate, 73 singles titles, an Olympic gold medal, and 319 weeks at No. 1. With her sister, Venus, they won 14 major doubles titles and three Olympic gold medals.
Recently, I shared this graph that helps put the Williams sisters' dominance into perspective.
via Yahoo!Sports
Serena is undoubtedly one of the most dominant athletes - man or woman - in any sport.
To be great requires an extraordinary level of grit, determination, and pain tolerance over an extended period of time. It isn't just what you choose to do from moment to moment – it's about a persistent commitment to who you choose to be!
During Serena's final match, an ESPN commentator said something interesting about what makes her (and many famous athletes) great. For context, Serena was down 5-1 in the final set of the final match, with her opponent having won two sets already. It's 'game point'. To get here, Ajla will win a point, then Serena - it goes back and forth like that more than seven times. Yet, Serena keeps finding a way to keep herself in the match despite everything going against her.
While this is going on, the commentator exclaims, "How can she care so much? How can she keep dancing on the lip of the volcano?"
Imagine being in Serena's position. She's 40, she's announced her retirement, the match has been going on for almost 3 hours, and her chances of coming back are almost nil ... she has nothing left to prove ... but she keeps finding more in the tank. She keeps putting herself in a position to turn it around. After the match, her opponent makes clear that she never once thought that Serena was out of it - that she couldn't turn it around and clinch victory.
It was beautiful - and it was a testament to the passion and discipline it takes to be that elite for that long.
There's a difference between good and great - but there's also a difference between great and the greatest.
Bruce Willis Deepfake: The Smart Decision?
Bruce Willis is a legend of cinema, and he made many of my favorite movies of the 80s and 90s. He stayed relevant and exciting up until very recently.
Then, last year, he started releasing a slew of disappointing "straight-to-DVD" style movies that had him receiving his own award show category in the Razzies (an award show for the worst performances of the year). In 2021, they created the category "worst performance by Bruce Willis in a 2021 movie."
Vulture did an interesting interview with the founders of the Razzies where Bruce Willis comes up.
Then, it came out that Bruce Willis was diagnosed with Aphasia and was losing his ability to speak.
Suddenly, these pieces take on new meaning. They're Bruce getting as much work in as he can before he loses his voice permanently. He's trying to do what he knows how to do to make sure his wife and children are taken care of after he can no longer act.
It doesn't make the movies suddenly "great" but it was enough to get the Razzies to rescind their award.
I don't believe these last films of his dampen his well-earned legacy.
Last year, his digital twin showed up in a Russian telecom ad.
Recently, he's been in the news again for having sold his likeness to a deepfake company. It was reported on the company's website and by The Telegraph, but there are now claims to the contrary as well.
While the jury is still out on if his rights have been sold, I think it's likely you'll see more Bruce Willis deepfake content.
The question becomes, is it the right decision?
If his estate still has final approval - and there is quality control - then what's the harm?
Does the potential ubiquity, or the idea that we can always have another Bruce Willis movie, reduce the value of his movies?
Does allowing deepfakes in cinema (on TV or in film) take away roles from actors who might become stars?
We've already seen actors use deepfakes to reprise a role they did when they were younger - like Luke Skywalker or Leia from Star Wars. It's a different idea to build a new series around an actor who isn't actually acting in it.
These questions pair well with the discussion around AI-generated art and whether it should be considered art.
What do you think?
Posted at 08:49 PM in Business, Current Affairs, Film, Gadgets, Ideas, Just for Fun, Market Commentary, Movies, Science, Television | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0)