Rubes

Do you have inside sources, or are you just hearing rumors?

It's pretty crappy, yeah. I don't know if I'd say embarrassingly crappy, but pretty close if not.

Really sorry to hear that, Gordio. Yeah, that was me that posted that about a month and a half ago. Our dog was 15 and had bladder cancer as well. It got to the point where she was peeing all the time, and only a little bit each time. Finally she started to leak, and we knew it was time. It was really hard because other than having to pee a lot, she was otherwise doing great for a 15-year-old. I've definitely had that incredibly empty feeling over the past few weeks, and there are times my wife and I think we see or hear her. When you have a dog that is such a big part of your life every day for years and years, it's going to leave a big empty hole. I did find some solace in reading this book by Jon Katz. He has an interesting perspective on pets and the process of life and death with animals. It's short, and has a few good passages that I thought helped. Worth a quick read, I think. It's getting better, but it will take some time.

Ah, got it. As far as I know, nothing more happened to Rickon that we know of after they split up. I recall there being talk about some of the north lords wanting to return Bran/Rickon to Winterfell to rule, but that's about it. Not sure where GRRM is going with that, but that just goes with everything else. I've always felt that Arya's wolf was going to make a dramatic return at some point, perhaps if/once Arya returns to Westeros, but who the hell knows. I can see them leaving Lady Stoneheart out of the TV series, but only because they seem to have no problem leaving out important characters and storylines. I think it would be a huge mistake. Then again, part of it depends on where GRRM was planning on going with that storyline -- perhaps he told the directors that she wasn't going to play a huge role the rest of the way, and so they just decided to leave it out. Again, who knows. I thought it was crappy that they left out the Tyrion-Tysha marriage storyline in the season finale—especially since they already included it in Season One, so it's not like they cut it out altogether—because it added so much to the tension of that scene and the sense that Tyrion was so deeply wounded and alone in the world. But that doesn't seem to be an issue for the TV show writers, so leaving out Lady Stoneheart would not be a surprise at all.

You got it. Great stuff there. Any votes for Oregon Trail? "You have died of dysentery..."

What do people think of the Lemieux pick in round 2?

You mean what happened to Bran in the TV show, or in the books? As for Lady Stoneheart, I think there's a whole nation wondering why she was omitted. I thought that would make a great cliffhanger at the end, but apparently they thought it would be too much along with everything else they threw at the audience in that episode...

As long as we're on the topic... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/pitch-perfect-2/

Yeah, I definitely can see what you meant, sorry about that. I guess the way I look at it, the classification of a movie as good or bad is almost entirely subjective and personal, but there is certainly a broader sense from the collective judgment of a larger group, whether the public or critics. But that does raise the larger question of what makes a movie bad, which is really complicated, I guess. I was probably a bit harsh on both Pitch Perfect and Pacific Rim, but it really depends on perspective. I totally enjoyed both, and it's clear that both were reasonably well-made movies for different reasons. But at the same time, I don't see a movie like Pitch Perfect as a particularly good movie. Fun, but pretty empty, shallow, and formulaic. Pretty much the same for Pacific Rim, although that one was also just a mess from a plot standpoint. But they're also certainly better than a lot of really seriously bad movies, so there's a lot of room for debate on which movies are really bad, which makes seen since it's all just subjective anyway. What really surprises me is not just how many people really liked Pitch Perfect, but just how many people have actually seen it.

The exact wording was "What movies that you know are truly just bad movies". Perhaps you interpret that as meaning what is generally voted on by the public as such, but I don't. And I certainly didn't mean "overrated". But feel free not to participate if you don't agree. Yep, there's that.

Maybe not, but I still consider it a pretty bad movie, all things considered.

Can't we get a reprisal of "Friday" just for Tom's sake?

Late June and early July. Sports wasteland. So, since movies seem to be a hot topic, how about this one: What movies that you know are truly just bad movies are you completely embarrassed to admit that you like? I'll start it off. Just saw some movie called "Pitch Perfect" while channel surfing. The synopsis sounded ridiculous, but Anna Kendrick was in it, so I braced myself and forced my way through a few minutes. I ended up watching the whole thing. Just not a good movie, and I'm not even close to the target audience, but for some insane reason I liked it. Totally embarrassed to admit that. I also just saw "Pacific Rim" the same way. What a complete mess that movie is, although I guess the special effects are pretty amazing. But despite being described by one critic as "all the unpredictability of professional wrestling plus the magic of synchronized Stairmasters," for some reason I just can't stop watching it. Please don't tell anyone. Okay, you're next.

* does not compute *

My brother-in-law is a big Bears fan and season ticket holder, but not a smack talker. He appreciates my loyalty to the Bills and we both make a decent effort to know a bit about the other team. I'll be there for the opener with him, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't really, really (really) want the Bills to take that game. Badly. I'm really hoping Schwartz is just itching to stick it to the Bears offense.

If we had TBD back in those days, people would have been ripping Thurman for his hands of stone (and for being "injury prone").

Wow, so glad to hear she's okay.

They were only the Bickering Bills for one season, really. 1989.

Talent on either side of the ball is no longer an excuse for this team. They have playoff-caliber talent spread all over the roster, they just need to put it all together. As everybody says, EJ is the key to most of this. I have no idea if he'll have what it takes to get it done.

Do you object to anything in particular that he says, or do you just object to his anti-new stadium stance?

I'm not sure I'd want to get a close up view of that.

Can't believe I haven't heard of this until now.

Lawson played at 240 last year. I agree, though, he always seems bigger than Hughes. Nevertheless, Hughes was effective last year in a limited role, but one that is similar to this year's defense. Why get rid of something that's working well enough?

Yeah, I totally agree. I just lost a lot of respect for it once I realized just how much it was manipulated. Very entertaining otherwise, though.

Only until you realize how much the director manipulated the footage to grossly distort reality.