CosmicBills

I have no doubts he will look great in a baseball cap, holding the clipboard. And I'll appreciate him just as I did Shane Matthews.

So...what exactly did you do to get in trouble with your wife this weekend? Based on this post, I'm guessing it was something highly entertaining (for the rest of us)

Yup. The new 3rd string QB/clipboard jockey

(I have an eclectic taste in music, a small taste:) Thunder Road - Bruce Watchtower - Dave Matthews (Live at Redrocks, best version -- even better than Hendrix and Dylon in my mind) Juicy - Biggie !@#$ All Y'all - 2Pac How Do You Want it - 2Pac Get up Offa that Thing - James Brown Bring it on Home to me - Sam Cooke (One night stand album) One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer - Thorogood

Wow. The Bengal's PR department is going to have a busy summer/fall spinning all these disasters. Sweet Jesus.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000523/ I think she has fallen off a bit over the past few years, but that's just me.

Could be. But I just have a tough time believing that Marv and Company really believed Nall had enough talent to be a starter considering how highly his former team thought of his potential. The Packers were so convinced that Nall has what it takes, they not only released him, they used a first round pick to draft Rogers...you know what I mean? Something doesn't add up. If Nall was any good, he would still be in GB. I think his signing was certainly a flyer that the Pack might be wrong in their assessment, but realistically the front office didn't expect much more than another young arm to push and see if JP rises to the challenge.

Think of it this way: There is NO way JP will be the 3rd QB for the Bills (no way in hell a number 1 draft pick gets demoted to that -- it would be an insult to the organization). There is no way KH is going to be the number three. You don't put a veteran backup (a good vet backup) behind two inexpeirenced QBs. and finally.... If Nall were any good, why would the Packers use a draft pick on Rogers? Bottom line, Nall was brought in to "compete" (push JP) and nothing more. No one expected him to wind up as anything more than the number 3.

Amen.

I think they have built the team for JP's purposes. As was pointed out by others, they brought in FAST WRs (ones that are designed for the long ball not KH's short game), re-enforced the OL with Reyes and Fowler and improved the defense so that it's better able to recover from a young QB's inevitable mistakes. Not to mention the offensive system they are employing is better suited to JP's arm strength and talents than KH's. Regardless, tossing JP away after only 8 games would be a disasterous setback from an organizational standpoint, everyone at OBD knows this, hence why I believe there is no way JP is NOT the starter on openning day UNLESS he is a mess in camp/preseason and is injured. If KH outplays JP by a hair, JP starts. If KH and JP play to a draw, JP starts. If KH throws 10 more TDs and 10 less INTs in preseason than JP, then he might get the nod. But the likelyhood of that hapenning is slim to none.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Everything Marv and DJ are saying about it being an "open competition" is merely politics. The organization has far too much invested in JP for him not to be the starter (yes, even though Marv and DJ weren't around when they picked him). Sure, it's a "competition" and they won't make an announcment until well into training camp. But the only way JP doesn't line up as the starter on openning day is if he royally screws up in preseason or gets injured. ' The vets know it. The coaches know it. The front office knows it. And the players know it. Like, KTFBD says, there is more than just one way to judge QBing and I would throw in youth, potential and organizational investment into that judgment -- the Bills certainly will.

I just watched the Kirk Cameron/Dudley Moore/Sean Astin opus, "Like Father Like Son". It wasn't a DVD though, it was On-Demand... And don't try to act like you aren't impressed.

RIP, buddy.

I disagree with this sentiment for the most part. I think it's film's job (or any artform) to reflect any drastic (or even subtle) change in society and the events that caused it. Most of the time, film is ahead of the curve and able to spot changing cultural/social norms before they become main stream. Creating films about these sorts of events does not necessarily mean the industry (or the films themselves) are exploiting the events -- though there are of course exceptions. There will be a time and a place for countless films which deal with the events on that day and the aftermath. Similarly there will be even more films about the current war in Iraq and the impact (for better or worse) it's inflicted upon American society. The only question I have is whether or not it's too soon. How much perspective can we possibley have on these monumental events less than 10, even 20, years since they occured?

Mark, love your movie posts, but one thing has really bothered me recently about the movie going public (not your posts). I am always amazed at how focused the audiences are on the BO numbers or a film's budget. It's almost as if a majority of the public feels that if a movie isn't raking in the dough or if it didn't cost over 150 million to produce, it isn't a worthwhile film to see. The fact that CNN has a Top 10 list every week up with the gross figures is astounding. I think that this recent trend is what helps fuel this boom or bust, blockbuster/tent pole movie mentality which has almost crippled the smaller, more quaint films of the day. I understand the interest in numbers if you work in the industry (hell, it's your job then) but from an outside perspective it is alarming I think -- and I am saying this as a hypocrite because I always check and see how the weekend BO wound up. I just think it's a dangerous trend that has really developed over the last five to ten years....and people wonder why Hollywood doesn't make any "good movies" anymore (though I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment). Am I alone in that?

From what I've heard, the entire movie takes place within the rubble, they don't even show the planes hitting the towers let alone talk much about the events of that day. The focus is survival for the two men caught in the rubble -- or at least that is how they are billing it. Still, I didn't see 93 even though it is supposed to be excellent and I don't think I will be seeing this movie for a few years at least.

I was waiting for you to chime in, I knew you'd love that I'm not sure, I agree with you that it almost supports your theory rather than contradicts it. Especially considering my take on Desmond "proving his worth" to Penny's father and thus signaling to the searchers he is worthy... But I am just reporting what Lindelof and Cuse have said. Clearly there WAS some form of experements going on (the pnuematic tubes to nothing, the different hatches, the disguises etc) -- but whether or not that is still continuing is up in the air -- or at least that is my interpretation of the quote from the producers. But for awhile they have been saying that it's NOT purgatory (really since Season 1) and they finally disproved that with the finale last night. Now if they are saying it's NOT an experiement either, then maybe they are going to spend season 3 explaining why not...I dunno though.

I just read the review in the NYT and Lindelof had an interesting/important comment about the end of the episode that hasn't been brought up yet. By showing the outside world for the first time in real time (not in a flashback) it, according to the creator, destroys any thoughts of the Lostaways being in "purgatory or are subjects of some expierement." As for Charlie being in a dream sequence, I don't think so. I mean, I may be wrong, but Claire was coming back around even before Charlie went into the hatch. I also don't think he was evil when he came back to the beach...had he wanted to kill Eko and Locke, he wouldn't have tried to warn Locke that Eko was about to blow up the door with dynamite. He would have just left. Instead, I think that whole thing with Charlie was the writers returning Charlie from the dark side back to the good natured/funny Charlie we all enjoyed in the beginning of the show. The other noteworthy thing in the NYT review was that Cuse and Lindelof said that while the second season was about the Hatch, the third season will be about the Others, specifically: "Who are these people? How many of them are there? What is their history? What are they trying to accomplish?" Also, Gale is going to be a regular cast memeber, so I don't expect Jack/Kate/Sawyer to escape anytime soon.

First off, I thought these were the best two episodes of the series to date. We learned a ton and it was damned fine writing/acting. So here goes my random tangent... First, we learned for sure WHEN this show is taking place. almost Decemeber of 2004 (66 days or so from Sept. 22, 2004) which most suspected ever since Jack's saying about "The Sox will never win the series" (which was said post reversing the curse). Desmond: Ponder this...Penny's father told him he's a coward and not worthy to be his daughter's husband. It seems apparent that the father is connected to Dharma and manipulated things so that Desmond would get LOST on the island. Penny told Desmond that "if you have enough money, you can find anyone". So what if the whole thing with the key and hatch was Desmond's test? It was HIS redemption, sacrificing himself for the others, thus proving himself worthy to the father that he could marry Penny -- and that the key launched a signal that alerted the people Penny AND her father hired. Locke/Eko: Still alive. I don't think the hatch is completley destroyed since Charlie seemed genuinly surprised that Eko and Locke hadn't made it back yet. Plus, they are two of the most popular characters. They are fine. The Plane Crash: I have always assumed that Dharma (or Hanso) had pre-selected the Lostaways to be on board flight 815 and to crash on the island. Now, if we are to believe Desmond's story 100 percent, that makes that scenario more tricky (though not impossible). Not pressing the button triggered the crash sure, but the plane had been off course for 2 hours prior (and maybe circling the island waiting to "crash"). Also, I wouldn't assume Kalvin is dead -- to me it looked like it was part of a plan to GET that plane to crash and show Kalvin the boat. If Kalvin knew he was being followed, why would he wait as long as he did if he didn't really WANT Desmond to almost miss the button? I smell a rat there. . . Jack, Sawyer, Kate: Jack gave Kate a look right before the bag was put over their head as if they both knew what was coming, almost as if they were privy to information that they hadn't shared with the other lostaways...could they be in on it with the others? Doubtful, but the thought crossed my mind. I don't know what's going to happen with them, but I forsee a similar beginning to season 3 as we got with season 2 when Michael, Jin and Sawyer were seperated from the main lostaways for a good stretch of time... Okay, that's it for now.

Scary thing is that the budget is probably even MORE than that. Studios never release the actual budgets, and when they do, it's always an underestimate. I have a buddy who worked on the PA crew for this movie and he said the amount of financing that went into this movie was astounding -- so much so it caused even the most jaded studio execs to do a double take. Yet, he assured me for the little time he worked on the set, nearly every penny will show up on screen. . . I hope so!

Remember Eko's story about the dog when they were cleaning up the blood. That was all about Michael -- the kid in the story wasn't a killer, but he killed his dog because it bit his sister. Then, when he asked Eko for forgivness it wasn't because he was worried about God, it was because he was worried about the dog waiting for him in hell. People's natures can change (in the world of Lost) and that story was really explaining how Michael could change and what he was really afraid of. He doesn't care about the survivors on the island -- he made that clear in season one. Sure he has his moments (with Sawyer and with Jin) but overall Michael has done nothing but show that he only cares about Walt and will do anything to get him back. I expected the Others to say they wanted Michael to kill AL -- the fact that he did that on his own initiative puts him in a much darker place as a character -- which will be fun to see how it all plays out.

But how did she look?

Close! It was Debbie does Tampa if I remember correctly -- I may have been too busy fast-fowarding to remember accurately though

Hey now, low blow! Low blow!