CosmicBills

It breaks my heart that he could have been a Bill.

It's a great game so far for sure. But I'm pulling for the Packers because I want the Bills to be able to interview Grimm this week.

This could be way off, but I think the only reason Fox isn't interested is because the Bills spurned him when he interviewed here back before Greggo. I don't think it's reflective of how the organization is viewed elsewhere. It's just his grudge against Ralph. But again, that's speculation.

That's cool. Wasn't trying to argue just curious cause I've never heard anything negative about him. Personally I don't think it will happen regardless since it would take a huge cash offer to bring him to B-lo. I think the smart money is still on Frazier or B. Schot. I'd prefer the later of those two ... but I honestly don't know much about either Frazier or B.Schot. Just what I've read the past few weeks.

Why do you think that? Who would you prefer (taking Cowher and Marty out of the equation).

Why not? He's one of the most talented coordinators out there, has the ability to put together a dynamite staff based on his connections in the league. He's young, offensive minded and also more intense than Fraizer AND even though he's an offensive minded guy, he would (most likely) move the Bills from the Tampa 2 to more of a straight forward 4-3 or even a 3-4 (over time).

I love watching BB and Brady's faux pained looks on the sidelines.

This would be an outstanding hire ... though, since he is the heir apparent to Wade in Dallas I doubt he would leave Dallas for anything less than a a monumental cash offer that would eclipse his "actual" worth. So I doubt it happens.

... I can't believe I'm about to (semi) defend McG ... He's a lousy director. But man, he would be an amazing cinematographer. All of his movies are GORGEOUS -- or were till T4.

Something that always got me into trouble in film school. Because, you're right. Without a doubt. And as someone who enjoys popcorn flicks and writes them himself ... I take my share of ****

Agreed 100%. There just isn't a Mel Brooks, Jim Abrahams or David Zucher out there right now who's making movies or even writing scripts. I've had the misfortune of reading hundreds of scripts this past year but I can't think of one that was a parody or even in the same vein as a Brooks or Zucher. That's shocking when you figure that of all the scripts out there, even ones from the unestablished writers, there isn't a single one that I can recall that even ATTEMPTED to do that. It's kind of sad I guess, but then again it's always been a very niche genre.

This must mean the Bills are going to trade up to draft him ...

The best is if you go to their website they have a link: "Too ugly to sign up? Click here to browse as a guest".

I don't know what's funnier, the CNN headline or the quotes from the website's owners. http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/01...ight/index.html

Please go away.

My apologies if I said it was a historically accurate drama. Obviously, Dunbar was not based on a real person and I don't claim to know enough about the Sioux or their language (which I know was a big issue as far as accuracy) ... I just meant that the film portrays the era and the plight of the Native Americans more than getting it 100% accurate.

I love Crayonz. He's my hero.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that Howard is a "nothing director". It all depends on what measuring stick you're using. From a stylistic perspective, you might be right. He is not really an innovator by any stretch of the imagination. But from a storytelling perspective and a longevity perspective, Howard will be remembered as one of the most beloved American Directors long after he's hung up the slate. He launched the career of Tom Hanks and directed him to several Oscar worthy performances, he created Imagine Entertainment with Grazer and together they have had their hands in a number of huge commercial successes in the past 15 years. When you factor in the scope of his entire career from child star to one of the elite A List directors in the studio system, it's quite impressive. As for your second point, I think you're absolutely dead on. The studio system cares about Box Office and DVD sales first and they do everything they can (intentionally and unintentionally) to drive every script in pre-production as close to the middle as they can to try to find the vaunted "four quadrant" movie that will dominate at the Box Office. This, in many cases, is a disaster because it kills a lot of the POV and creative spirit of the original piece of material. Some Studios have bucked this trend by setting up "art house" branches (Paramount Vantage, Fox Searchlight etc) ... but those enterprises have largely faltered (and closed) because their box office numbers weren't strong enough. Having been out here now for a brief period of time, one thing is very clear. While the people with the most press time are fairly left leaning (the actors, directors and top producers), the people with the real power in town (studios) are all run by HUGE conglomerates that are, by in large, very conservative by nature (Rupert Murdoch, Time Warner, General Electric, Sony and Disney). It's harder than you think to get a left leaning message film made INSIDE the Hollywood system. Most of them are made by independent producers who attach a name star to their "passion project".

And in Dances with Wolves there are several scenes of the Natives attacking White Settlers -- brutally. Scalping them. Killing them. Kidnapping them. It's all in there. And just as Lieutenant Dunbar has a change of heart, so to does Kicking Bird -- the ultra violent, ultra anti-white warrior. Dances with Wolves isn't an attack. Europeans (and by extension Americans) have had a long and very bloody history with their treatment of non-whites.

There's a big difference between anti-American and historical. Dances with Wolves is NOT anti-American. It depicts the plight of the Native Americans and the suffering inflicted upon them during manisfestdestiny. But, rather than show that plight through purely Native American eyes -- thus giving an overwhelming majority of the audience no access point -- Michael Blake used an American hero as his entry point. Costner's war torn hero was not Anti-American. He was anti oppression (against slavery and the massacre of an entire indiginous people). You can't white-wash history. It happened. And telling stories about it to keep the horrors (as well as the uplifting moments) fresh in people's mind isn't a bad thing. And certainly isn't Anti-American. It would be more Anti-American to pretend that those events never took place. Oliver Stone is a special case in that he has, and always will be a product of the political turmoil of the Vietnam era. His work reflects that and, though I disagree with a lot of his views, his work is important in the grand scope of cinematic history -- at least American cinematic history -- BECAUSE it espouses such a vibrant point of view. That said, I agree 100% that no one likes to be preached to. The best films leave their messages buried in the subtext rather than hit you over the head with it ... The DaVinci Code is not really Ron Howard sending any sort of message. Dan Brown on the other hand ... But Howard, if anything, toned down the messages in that book and made it VERY bland and accessible to everyone. He was not, in my opinion, bashing the Church. If he had, the film might have been good or at least more entertaining. Instead he did a very PC, paint by numbers rendition that is one of his worst films of his otherwise impressive career. As for the rest, Astro already pointed out Milk and Erin Brocovich issues. Those aren't agendas. Those are, much like Dances with Wolves, pieces of American History that need to be made. Especially Harvey Milk who, outside of the Gay and Lesbian community, was pretty much unknown. His story, his sacrifice and what it says about where we are as a country even now is important.

They better play Brohm at least some of the time today.

Cameron isn't one to "pimp" his political views. Avatar has a very Green message, but it's more in line with Dances with Wolves than any sort of left wing message. But I don't see anything wrong with Howard, Cameron or anyone using films to send messages. Film is, after all, an art form. Like novels, poems, painting, music. And art is the cauldren of social and political change. So why can't they use their films and their art to express their views? How is it any different than what Shakespeare, Wilde, Swift or anyone else has ever done throughout history?

Cool. Thanks for the answers. Was just curious. From my quick scan of the standings, the best possible (draft) scenario would be: Cleveland, Washington, Seattle & Oakland all win (giving CLE & WAS 5 wins, Seattle and OAK 6 wins) and Buffalo loses. That would put Buffalo somewhere between 5 and 7. The worst would be 10th. Right?

I know this is an impossible question to answer until all the games are over and the strength of schedule is finally determined ... BUT, playing devil's advocate ... Does anyone know roughly where the Bills will draft if they lose compared to where they'll pick if they win?

Oh, I don't disagree that it's entirely possible for a tent pole movie to kill it. And I think it's a shame that more Studios don't aim for that result (rather than just BO numbers). And yes, Transformers 1 and 2 were MISERABLE. As a guy who's stuff is generally geared in the tent pole, summer genre, I'll say that as a writer, I don't ever AIM for crap. And I'll say that I've never written crap. But, during development, casting, studio meetings, director notes etc etc, the original ideas and concepts get ... muddled. Trek is a great example of a script that was protected all the way through writing and production because Paramount gave Abrams, Lindleof, Kurtzman & Orci the ability to protect their original idea(s). Sadly, it doesn't always happen that way.