Why athletes arent overpaid

An uncontrollable, spirling feeling you feel coming up your throat. Oftentimes, when we experience loss, we beg for the "one mores".

One more hug, please. Can I have one more kiss? Just one more laugh we can share? We wish for these experiences to just happen once more as if that would ever be enough. The reality is that even if we were privileged with one more, we would want another.

And another. We'd never be satisfied. We'd eventually just wish for eternity. Loss is necessary. Loss is natural. Loss is inevitable. Loss was never defined as easy. In fact, it has to be hard. It has to be hard for us to remember. To remember those warm embraces, to remember the feeling of their lips on yours, and to remember the smile on their face when you said something funny.

But why are we so afraid of loss after all? We are so blessed to have experienced it to begin with. It means there was a presence of care. That ache in our heart and the deep pit in our stomach means there was something there to fill those vacant voids. The empty spaces were just simply whole. We're all so afraid of change. Change in our love life or our families, change in our friendships and daily routines. One day we will remember that losing someone isn't about learning how to live without them, but to know their presence, and to carry what they left us behind.

For everything we've deeply loved, we cannot lose. They become a part of us. We adapt to the way they talk, we make them a part of our Instagram passwords, we remember when they told us to cook chicken for 20 minutes instead of We as humans are so lucky to meet so many people that will one day leave us. We are so lucky to have the ability and courage to suffer, to grieve, and to wish for a better ending. For that only means, we were lucky enough to love. When Sony announced that Venom would be getting a stand-alone movie, outside of the Tom Holland MCU Spider-Man films, and intended to start its own separate shared universe of films, the reactions were generally not that kind.

Even if Tom Hardy was going to take on the role, why would you take Venom, so intrinsically connected to Spider-Man's comic book roots, and remove all of that for cheap action spectacle? Needless to say I wound up hopping on the "lets bash 'Venom'" train. While I appreciated how much fun Tom Hardy was having and the visual approach to the symbiotes, I couldn't get behind the film's tone or story, both of which felt like relics of a bygone era of comic book storytelling that sacrificed actual pathos for that aforementioned cheap spectacle.

But apparently that critical consensus was in the minority because audiences ate the film up. On top of that, Ruben Fleischer would step out of the director's chair in place of Andy Serkis, the visual effects legend behind characters like 'The Lord of the Rings' Gollum and 'Planet of the Apes' Caesar, and a pretty decent director in his own right.

Now with a year-long pandemic delay behind it, 'Venom: Let There Be Carnage' is finally here, did it change my jaded little mind about the character's big-screen worth? Surprisingly, it kind of did. I won't pretend that I loved it by any stretch, but while 'Let There Be Carnage' still features some of its predecessor's shortcomings, there's also a tightness, consistency and self-awareness that's more prevalent this time around; in other words, it's significantly more fun!

A year after the events of the first film, Eddie Brock played by Tom Hardy is struggling with sharing a body with the alien symbiote, Venom also voiced by Hardy. Things change when Eddie is contacted by Detective Pat Mulligan played by Stephen Graham , who says that the serial killer Cletus Kasady will talk only with Eddie regarding his string of murders. His interview with Kasady played by Woody Harrelson leads to Eddie uncovering the killer's victims and confirming Kasady's execution.

During their final meeting, Kasady bites Eddie, imprinting part of Venom onto Kasady. When Kasady is executed, the new symbiote awakens, merging with Kasady into a bloody, far more violent incarnation known as Carnage. It's up to Eddie and Venom to put aside their differences to stop Carnage's rampage, as well as Frances Barrison played by Naomi Harris , Kasady's longtime girlfriend whose sonic scream abilities pose a threat to both Venom and Carnage.

So what made me completely switch gears this time around? There's a couple reasons, but first and foremost is the pacing. Serkis and screenwriter Kelly Marcel know exactly where to take the story and how to frame both Eddie and Venom's journeys against the looming threat of Carnage. Even when the film is going for pure, outrageous humor, it never forgets the qualms between Eddie and Venom should be at the center beyond the obvious comic book-y exhibitions. If you were a fan of Eddie's anxious sense of loss, or the back-and-forth between he and the overly eccentric Venom, you are going to love this movie.

Hardy has a great grasp on what buttons to push for both, especially Venom, who has to spend a chunk of the movie contending with losing Eddie altogether and find their own unique purpose among other things, what is essentially Venom's "coming out" moment that actually finds some weight in all the jokes. Then there's Harrelson as Carnage and he absolutely delivers!

Absolutely taking a few cues from Heath Ledger's Joker, Harrelson is leaning just enough into campy territory to be charismatic, but never letting us forget the absolutely shattered malicious mind controlling the spaghetti wrap of CGI. Serkis' directing itself deserves some praise too. I can't necessarily pinpoint his style, but like his approach on 'Mowgli,' he has a great eye for detail in both character aesthetics and worldbuilding. That goes from the symbiotes' movements and action bits to bigger things like lighting in a church sequence or just making San Francisco feel more alive in the process.

As far as downsides go, what you see is basically what you get. While I was certainly on that train more here, I also couldn't help but hope for more on the emotional side of things.

Yes, seeing the two be vulnerable with one another is important to their arcs and the comedy infusions work more often than not, but it also presents a double-edged sword of that quick runtime, sacrificing time for smaller moments for bigger, more outrageous ones. In addition, while Hardy and Harrelson are electric together, I also found a lot of the supporting characters disappointing to a degree. Mulligan has a few neat moments, but not enough to go beyond the tough cop archetype.

The only one who almost makes it work is Naomi Harris, who actually has great chemistry with Harrelson until the movie has to do something else with her. Reference NerdySeal. References NerdySeal. Bibliography NerdySeal. Work Cited "Why Athletes are not Overpaid. Violence In Sports Essay Sample. Josh Hamilton. Example Of Portfolio Questions Essay. Junior College Baseball. Similar Samples. What makes someone financially irresponsible?

Why do we really care? Is it all in our heads? Now this subject is quite a hard one to make people understand, but that's just what we are all here to do. Most people will pay whatever it takes to get good seats at the game, but wonder why these Athletes get paid a large amount of money. Professional athletes are not overpaid and here's the proof. As I grew up I realized being an professional athlete is way better than the stereotypical high.

Should the athletes be paid? The athletes are not overpaid but rather that they deserve what they earn. So, let us accustom ourselves, then, not to judge things solely by what is seen, but rather by what is not seen. Often times when people talk or think about athletes, their stereotyped large salary is brought. Some might think that athletes are overpaid. Athletes are extremely overpaid. To begin, many citizens around the world love playing sports and watching sports.

The fans support these athletes no matter what. The MLB generated roughly 9. These 4 sports league collectively generated around Athletes spend so much time perfecting their craft and keeping their bodies in peak physical condition, but they are not and will never be more important than workers like healthcare workers, first responders, etc.

The purpose of sports is to entertain millions of viewers, and because of that, I believe that some of the top athletes are being paid too much as their contribution to society is much less than other workers who get paid much less.

I asked 12 friends whether they believed professional athletes were overpaid and 8 responded yes and 4 responded no.

There was a common consensus regarding the idea that players making the minimum salary were not overpaid, but that the highest-paid athletes made too much money.

Common reasons to support their claim were that nobody needs that much money and also that they do not deserve to make that much more money compared to teachers, doctors, first responders, and other healthcare workers.

In my opinion, professional athletes are overpaid. They provide viewers with entertainment for months out of the year, but ultimately I do not believe anyone needs to be making more than 15 million dollars per year. I believe more money should be given to more important workers or the excess revenue can go towards charities to help get people back on their feet or research cures for the numerous diseases prevalent in our society.

I have no problem with athletes making less than 15 million dollars per year because I recognize the value they bring to the economy and the countless hours they spend working to become the best. Ultimately, there is no right or wrong way to answer the question of whether or not professional athletes are overpaid, each person has their own perspective and everyone is right in their own sense.