Dibs

Though I am a big fan of "Raising Arizona", I too am not a big fan of the Coen Brothers. For me they write magnificently quirky and interesting characters, and have some fantastic scenes within their movies......but more often than not do not deliver on an overall story. Many of their movies seem to be a very entertaining progression of events with no satisfying conclusion.....or any conclusion at all in some cases. Re: True Grit. Perhaps the concept that they made that based upon a pre existing plot(a complete story) is the reason why you like that one in particular.

.....or we could let people have their fun. It's a mad mad mad mad idea but if he was a bit taller I'd have liked "The Big W". I'm glad we didn't draft Mike Evans as I think ME might be the best nickname for him.

I don't understand all of the angst about this. He has shown that he can win important games on his own(even if it is with his legs) & he is getting paid $3M/year more than Romo & Cutler!!! Romo & Cutler people! Both on $18M+/year......and after this season Romo will be averaging $21.9M/year for the rest of his contract. I see nothing wrong with the Kaepernick deal. To put it in slightly better perspective, the cap rose $10M this year(the year after Romo & Culter got their deals).......and at least the Kaep deal seems relatively cap friendly if he gets injured down the road. A small cap penalty for the SB.

No way! Get f*cked! F*ck off! He was a true professional too from what I heard. He would stay sober for the gigs in order to give the best performance that he could. According to his fellow band members, he would run around the block just prior to going on stage so that he would be sweaty & pumped up from the start. R.I.P. Doc

Not everyone can decide on an ultimate favourite. I have 3 movies that I can't choose between.......others have 87

It wasn't the actual effects for the deaths, but the manner in which they made them die. It was like they sat down and said "What are the most grusome deaths we can think of?". Rip somebody in two, slowly lower another's face into flames etc, etc. It not only felt out of place for the X movies but felt crudely staged(in contrast to the relatively realistic action & story for the rest of the movie).

That was pretty much my only negative thought in regards to the movie. The deaths were extraordinarily gratuitous. I typically love a brutal gory death, but since the X franchise has veered away from that sort of thing in the past(no blood when Wolvie goes the slash for instance), it felt very out of place. That was my only criticism though......top notch movie IMO.

I don't really have the expertise to figure it out. However, what I do know is that with rookie QBs(injured and down to 3rd & 4th string), hobbled RBs(both at the same time), a hobbled #1WR(who missed 4 games....should have been 5) & rookie #2 & #4 WRs, a turnstile RG and a porous OL in general.........his offense still produced to similar levels( run, pass & scoring) to the previous year where we apparently had an offensive genius HC/OC.

Robey is somewhat a slot specialist. I can't recall a slot CB having anything like the impact he had with similar regularity. As many have mentioned though, he is not suited to be matched up outside. This means that if Gilmore or McKelvin get injured we will need somebody to be able to competently fill in for them(thus the Cockrell drafting). I can see us being relatively unconventional with our CBs. Robey will be the #1 CB for the slot position, but won't be the #3 CB.

Award winning book by Robert Heinlein.....and IMO quite a good read. The book/movie relationship is interesting in that the many fascist elements in the book(which provoke serious contemplation while reading) are portrayed in the movie as dystopian elements to society. (Also interesting is that both Dib and Dibs have decent interest in the book....go figure).

For me it is a guilty pleasure movie. It should be hard to watch....but for some reason I find it highly entertaining.

I really like this thread because it only asks for peoples favourite movies.....not movies that are of good or great quality. It is interesting to see what people like(& dislike) without the need for justification.

I think the issue is the broad nature of the term sci-fi. I tend to use the terms "true sci-fi" or "pure sci-fi" to discribe those sort of movies. "Moon" mentioned by Mark Vader above is a great example of the sort of sci-fi you are talking about.....a great thinking sci-fi. It's the same with books. Some are the brilliantly cerebral Asimovian type......while others are the pulpy action based fluff such as Buck Rogers. It's technically all sci-fi though.

I'm not too sure how relevant a lot of this is. Firstly, as pointed out by a previous poster(sorry cant remember who), the NFL is already being shown in LA. This would mean that the existing ratings numbers would need to be subtracted from the new ratings numbers(if a team were to move there). On top of that one would need to further subtract the numbers lost from the ratings numbers in the original city(which if it is Buffalo would surely be quite a large reduction) in order to get a true figure of new(extra) viewers. Secondly......and correct me if I'm wrong but the TV rights have already been sold for a pre-set amount through to & including the 2022 season. This means that any increased TV ratings won't garner the NFL any extra revenue until a new deal is formed for 2023 onwards.

If I understand things correctly though, the blackout rule would mean that unless the new top 32 market location actually sold out the games, there would be no local product on TV in those markets anyway(at least for home games). Furthermore, revenue sharing means that the NFL owners would make less money unless the number of seats sold(& merchandise) was more than the previous location. The owner of the moved team would likely be very happy regardless as the mega dollar luxury boxes(& stadium advertising) don't come under the revenue sharing rules and they can keep all of those massive profits for themselves. My point here being that there are many financial reasons for an NFL owner to want to move to a big market area but that doesn't necessarily mean that the NFL(the other 31 owners) will make more money out of a team moving locations. If there is no significant new revenue for the NFL I doubt they would give the okay for a team to move.

Hell yes! Absolutely abysmal......particularly when compared to the excellent writing of the first two.

I misread it as something else entirely. I thought Sam had inspired him to finally come out of the closet.

Here are all of the sci-fi movies in my "Top 100 movies" list(of which I have about 150 movies in it). They are not all great movies.....merely ones that I particularly like(so a few superhero ones get in...even though they aren't brilliant). Star Wars: A new hope Close encounters of the third kind Superman the movie Alien Star Wars: The empire strikes back Superman II Time Bandits Blade Runner Terminator Dune Back to the Future 1, 2 & 3 Aliens Terminator 2 The Fifth Element The Matrix X-Men Spider-man X-Men 2 Hulk Terminator 3 Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind Serenity Iron Man Incredible Hulk Iron Man 2 X-Men First Class Captain America Avengers Iron Man 3 Captain America Winter Soldier X-Men Days of Future Past

You might want to reread his post too...

Though I agree somewhat with your points on the sacks, I don't see why you feel the need to be a stat stacker in order to support your narative. Yes we allowed 28 passing TDs. 20 in the first 8 games where the secondary was injured & learning the new D......and 8 in the last 8 games. One more & we were log jammed at 26th??? Well, we were actually 20th.....and had the same result of the 2nd half occured in the first half we would have been 2nd. You also fail to point out that we were actually 4th against the pass last year. Our opposition didn't have good passing offenses on average? Really? 7 were in the top 12, 5 in the bottom 12, and 4 in the middle 10. I totally agree that there are other indicators besides pass rush. 4th in the league against the pass & only 8 TDs allowed in the final 8 games are some of those other things. Also, if you acknowledge that we focused too much on sacks last year(and likely won't do the same this year), surely you would predict a Schwartz D with a new run stuffing specialist LB(Spikes) will improve the weakest area.....thus a possible improvement to the D.

To perhaps further the point you were making..... As far as I'm aware(someone can correct me if I'm wrong), standard ticket sales come under revenue sharing whereas the boxes/suites don't. This means that extra ticket sales really don't increase your teams profits by much at all.......but every cent of profit from the boxes is money in the bank.

Gamepass through NFL.com. I get to watch every game(of every team if I want). I think it might just be for international fans.....not sure if US residents can do it.

Yep.....5 days of boredom....and often no winner if it rains. You'd think it would be the perfect environment for cheerleaders, but no, just the occassional seagull. The 3 hour T20 cricket has cheerleaders though.

Thanks for that. If I didn't live so far away I would certainly justify the expense for it. Regardless of all of the negative stuff that comes with being a Bills fan, those of you that are able to go to the games are indeed lucky. Enjoy your 50 yard line seats. I'll be jealously watching from my computer.

The T20 has really changed my views on cricket. To me the game was always about as exciting as watching grass grow(my views have never been popular where I live....Melbourne, Australia). T20 has basically taken out all of the boring stuff leaving a very eciting sport to watch. I'm finding it difficult to undrrstand how people can't grasp the basic concepts of cricket after watching it for a few minutes. It's extraordinarily simple.....though like all sports it has a few intricacies to learn after the basics.