I'm hearing this one described in the 'horror' genre, which quite frankly I'm not interested in at all, but everything on Rotten Tomatoes makes it sound more like a super-hero movie, with one of the friends going bad.  What makes it horror?  Is this horror as in scary, or gorefest, or what?

OILERS.  Gagner ties Gretzky record.  Fuck I love this team.

I hear you, and I know we're supposed to imagine it all worked out alright... but I have trouble with that.  I prefer to see them walk through the door of their house and having a baby to know that the imaginary characters that apparently have the ability to make me lose sleep are ok.

FWIW, the ending I was expecting since about five minutes into "Chuck Versus Sarah" was that Chuck had the trump of Intersect "flash cards": I was waiting for him to pull out that little drawing he did of Sarah with the baby and the house and the picket fence, which I was sure was going to undo all of Quinn's mental manipulations. I was quite surprised that that drawing never popped up again.

- Ash

That would have been genius!  Sarah could have flashed on the drawing and everything come flooding back.

The show was effectively a fairy tale, so where's the happily ever after?

Right there in front of you, when Prince Charming kissed Sleeping Beauty in the show's very final shot.

I'm serious: the ending was only a bummer if you don't believe Morgan's "crazy theory". If you do, though, then the show really did end with Chuck and Sarah getting their happily ever after. And the episode took pains to show that Sarah's memories weren't completely gone - she remembered carving her name in the doorframe, she remembered the layout of the Weinerlicous, she remembered Irene Demova - so it's not much of a stretch to think the kiss really did bring her back. I suppose they could have been a little more obvious about it - ending with Sarah opening her eyes, maybe, or even putting the kiss at the start of the beach scene and then playing that final montage on her retinas, Intersect-flash-style - but even without hitting me over the head with it, I don't have a problem going away with the belief that Chuck got the girl (back).

As for the rest of the episode, I agree that it was an underwhelming finale on the whole. All their other "we may never get another episode" episodes were better, most notably "Chuck versus the Ring" and "Chuck versus the Honeymooners". Quinn was a thoroughly underwhelming final villain and the "chase Quinn around the globe" plot was entirely pedestrian. I also didn't like that, despite the attempt to showcase the original Badass Casey, he basically never got to be a badass. He deserved a cavalry-to-the-rescue scene (preferably with Gertrude) on par with his through-the-ceiling takedown of Ted Rourke.

That said, Jeffster got a great send-off, selling the Buy More to Subway was hilarious and I was happy with Ellie and Awesome's resolution. I also think it was appropriate to make the final episodes focus around a Chuck and Sarah will-they-or-won't-they, since that was  the driving force for the entire show...it just could have been handled a little better.

I'm not happy that the show's over and it's shame that they didn't go out on a high note but I'd say they went out on a solid middle-C, which is more than a lot of a shows (*coughEnterprisecough*) manage, so I can live with it.

- Ash

I hear you, and I know we're supposed to imagine it all worked out alright... but I have trouble with that.  I prefer to see them walk through the door of their house and having a baby to know that the imaginary characters that apparently have the ability to make me lose sleep are ok.   

Yes, I would have preferred a intersect style montage of Sarah getting her memories back, or eyes opening wide and throwing her arms around him, or something.  I guess I'm a softy that way.  I take solace in the fact that apparently Yvonne Stravhosky felt the same thing I did when she first got the script - she described it as a bit of a tragedy and major suprise compared to how she thought the series would end for her character.  Stupid writers having to be mysterious and interpretive. 

My epic nerd rage is fading today, thankfully - my wife was somewhat concerned last night when I stomped down the stairs announcing that I was going to go burn down the NBC studios.

The 4th and 5th season were all about Sarah and Chuck gradually growing beyond spies and wanting a normal life.  The whole theme of the 5th season was Sarah literally pining for a house with a white picket fence and a baby.  Morgan, Ellie and Awesome, Jeff and Lester all get their happy endings, but for the two main characters, we get a final scene where Sarah (and the fans) have been robbed of all the growth and emotion that's built up over 5 years and Chuck and Sarah are reset back to the starting point, with the added bonus of Chuck getting to know what he's lost.  Closure!

This wasn't MASH, which was a comedy set in a tragedy.  Chuck was a great show because it was generally lighthearted, happy, funloving, goofy, nerdy, loving and romantic.  Bad guys were caricatures, good guys were awesome.  It had two of the most likeable main characters of any series ever, who were just generally great people who grew greater as the show went on.  In season 3 they tampered with that formula, and the show sucked.  Look at anyone's top episodes list and see if there's anything from season 3 on there - there isn't.  Season 3 is when they tried to go dark and angsty.  That's not what people like about Chuck!  So naturally they decide to end the series by taking away all of their hopes and dreams, and leaving everyone wondering where they go from here.  The show was effectively a fairy tale, so where's the happily ever after?

The Weinerlicious, the tango, Jeffster were all great.  They could have revisited all those scenes and locations in an epic chase of Quinn.  Even that was a let down - we're to believe that he was the mastermind behind the big bads of seasons 1, 2 and 4 - and yet he goes out with a wimper.  There was zero reason to torture the characters and fans by reverting everthing that had been accomplished, and absolutely refusing to give them the happy ending that the series was leading up to. 

WTF was that?  Why do I get the feeling that ending was a giant f-u to Chuck fans?  Would it have killed them to write a happy, non-ambiguous, non-break up the team, leave everything in limbo ending?  Why do writers think that anyone likes these kind of endings?

That's been a topic of discussion the last two years - draft what you need, or the best player?  I can get behind the logic that says you draft the best player - but the implication of doing that is that when you draft two 'skill' forwards in a row, then that means you better be prepared to bump everyone down a spot and start trading / using those prospects that just got bumped to address your gaps.  If it was me, Gagner, Piajarrvi, Hemsky, Horcoff (lol), and most of our prospects not named Hall, Eberle or RNH would be on the block for a couple of household name, established top 4 defensemen or a long term goalie solution.  Regardless, in the team's current position, if there are any high level D picks that are deemed ready for the NHL ala Larsson or Victor Hedman, I'd draft them over Nail at this point.  We don't need more small forwards, and even if you have them, experience shows that other GMs aren't going to trade you high level D for them after you've had them for a couple years.  Potential to score a ton of goals doesn't mean anything if your team can't get it out of your own zone up to your forwards, and they just get frustrated watching their goalie or D not play at their level.  (see Hall, Taylor)

edit: I should clarify - those are the ONLY conditions I'd be trading prospects or Gagner or Hemsky under.  I fully expect though that Tambo will trade Hemsky for a bag of pucks and a bunch of draft picks that may or may not bear fruit in 5 years and do nothing but make the team worse right now.

I also don't understand signing Ben Eager and then playing him 3 minutes a game.  You signed him to be a pest / agitator who can somewhat play, so let him play with someone who's not a complete scrub!

Flames still own the Oilers.

Oilers continue their quest to Fail for Nail.

Suck and Pluck.  They will continue on this path until they have a complete team of 1st round picks.

Yes, I'm sure that's the organizational strategy.   

Look, the Oilers suck right now, no doubt.  The game Saturday night made me want to puke.  I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that we have 1 NHL level defenseman (two if you count Sutton) playing right now, and our goalie is a 39 year old drunk who everyone in Edmonton not named Renney or Tambellini knew was going to suck this year.  It probably has nothing to do with the fact that Eberle, Hall and RNH all went out at close to the same time with injuries, never mind Gilbert and Whitney (who, given the history with his foot, will likely never play at last years level again), and Hemsky who started the year injured and hasn't found his game back yet.  This team has been gypsy cursed for the last few seasons as far as injury goes, and our GM doesn't seem to realize that going out and signing Cam Barker doesn't count as getting a top defenseman.

Some of the pieces are there.  Now the Oilers desperately need to obtain two top D men and adopt something similar to a long term goalie plan, since Dubnyk doesn't appear to be it.  October shows that when this team is playing defense and getting goaltending support, it's going to be an elite level team.  Management just needs to wake up and realize that 10,000 prospects are only useful when you can parley them into actual NHL players, either through development or else trading them away for established players.  More firepower is fine if they do end up in the one or two pick position, but now is the time to start trading away the pieces that don't fit for the pieces you need to make the team click.

you guys realize starcraft 2 isn't an expansion pack right?  There 3 separate full games.

If that's what you think, then Blizzard has succeded

+1.  Just because they're big x-packs, doesn't change the fact that Blizzard split one game into three in order to charge people three times and spread the revenue stream out for 5 or 6 years.  I'd bet a thousand dollars that after the protoss 'game' comes out in 2014 or whenever there will be an 'SC2 Ultimate' version that contains, wait for it, all three campaigns in one game.

#15 on that list makes me crazy.  Pick up the damn phone you just called me!

My wife and I would love to get rid of cable, but we don't know how to get our HD hockey fix.... any Canadians ditch their cable and still be able to get HNIC, Sportsnet and TSN?  I want to watch my Oilers in glorious HD on the 60 inch TV and the lousy low res stream the Oilers put out sucks.

Wonder if Abrams is going to exterminate all the Klingons this time?  Maybe we'll get Kirk and Spock in zero G suits using swords to cut through Khans men and firing shoulder mounted portable modified photon torpedo launchers into a supernova - oh wait; forgot we already did the supernova thing with the Romulans.  Hmm.  Black hole?  No, did that too...  Maybe Khan should have stolen Borg tech - ah, crap.  Well, we'll work out the details later but I see lots of lens flares and exciting combat, cause that's what TREK was all about! 

Looking at one of the two following TVs:

LG Infinia 55LW5600 and the LG Infinia 50PZ750.  The 55 Inch is LCD/LED and is about $1335, the 50 inch is plasma and under $1000.  Opinions?

Look at the 60" LG 60PV450.  Fewer useless (IMO) bells and whistles, (no 3d, no internet apps) excellent picture quality.  Bigger screen and still under $1000, or should be - I got mine (in Canada) for $1075 last month.  Love it.  Compares very favourably in PQ to the Panasonic ST30 mentioned earlier, for similar price and bigger.

If Whitney wasn't made of glass, he'd fill the role fine.  Gilbert is looking much improved this year too.  I had lots of doubts about him as even a 3 or 4 D but this year hes been handling heavy minutes, mentoring and covering for AHL players much of the time.

Wonder when Khabibulin is going to turn back into a pumpkin.  This can't last.

Oilers laying the smack down on the 'Hawks tonight!     Picked a crappy night to bench Hall and Eberle on my fantasy team.   

So is this worth renting for two adults who are generally big Pixar fans and thought Cars 1 was kind of ok?

Might be worth a rental, particularly for adult Pixar fans, moreso than children Pixar fans.  Pixar animation is still very good - although the story in this one is weak, even compared to the original Cars which is considered by many to be Pixars lower tier.  I wouldn't show it to any huge Cars 1 fans though, since it's so different in tone and content.

If you do end up with a patch, I say own it and get a naval captains cap.  And a navy blazer, and a pipe.  You're a teacher, right?  I think it works.

My son was born with something very similar, although I can't say if the term Duane's Syndrome was ever diagnosed.  He had surgery at 2 years old.  He still favors one eye, and tilts his head to read or focus on close tasks, although at this point his vision seems to be 20/20 or close to it.  It's unnerving to see him turn his head 45 degrees to read, but when you cover the good eye he can still read perfectly.  I'm very afraid of a situation like you describe for him later in life, though.  I don't think you're being overly dramatic, and I completely understand and sympathize how this might severely degrade your quality of life.

For what it's worth, I'd recommend gathering your courage and going for the surgery.  You're only 39, you have many many more years of life ahead, and even if you choose to wear a patch (which, if you have a valid medical reason isn't douchey at all) surely that's going to have an impact on the long term health of your good eye.  I would be pretty depressed if at 39 I had to give up golf, baseball, basketball, or anything that required depth perception.  If you refuse to consider the surgery, though, then maybe you can try to find a monocle that blocks out the bad eye and go for the Monopoly dude look?

Wings might take him.

Perfect fit in Jersey. Plenty of money for him next year too. We'll make it work. 

He's not a UFA for four years, yo.  We'll take your next 4 first rounders .

I'd give up the Oilers next four first rounders for Doughty.  He'd compliment the core quite nicely.

I miss the Cosby show.  We used to sit around as a family and watch that every week.

Meh.

You're still wrong - I just don't care enough to spell it out.

 

All of this is very interesting and all, but where does ICE CREAM fit in?  Because I need a diet that will allow me to consume 4 liters of Ice Cream per week.  kthx.

Put me firmly in the camp of low carb being a healthy life style - I use Atkins / Paleo / whatever they want to call it this week every couple years to slim down and always feel great.  My problem is that I love me some pasta, fresh baked bread, potatoes and ICE CREAM.  Very very hard for me to stay off those things long term.

I really liked the idea of pinned app tabs and promptly pinned several different gmail accounts, gmail docs and reader and facebook.  That worked great for a few days, until I opened a new browser window for some reason or another - then later closed them both.  The next time I opened FF expecting to see all my pinned app tabs, they were all gone.  I've readded them and subsequently lost them several times since then.  They seem very flaky.

I must be the exception - I hate trying to play multiple games at a time, and I will play a game I start until it's done - 10 hours or 100.  Besides the very occasional FPS or RTS multiplayer with a friend or two, when single player games go away, I won't be a gamer any more.  I play games to experience a story.

What I don't get is why no one ever cos-plays as Jabba at any of these events.  Seems like a free pass to walk around holding the collars of a bunch of Leia's.

Does Osgood get in the HoF?  He's got the stats, but playing for Detroit will count against him.  I've said it before, but if the Wings won Game 7 in 2009 he would've been the Conn Smythe winner and his place in the HoF a dead lock.  Maybe not first ballot, but eventually.  But they didn't so it's questionable.

No way Osgood gets in the HoF.  Far from a household name in hockey.

Biggest problem with Cars 2 is that Pixar took a franchise that appeals to 4 - 10 year olds and added cars with guns, cars with missile launchers, cars with tasers, beloved character cars with bombs strapped to them.  Explosions!  It's like Michael Bay consulted on the movie.  Cars are frequently given orders to kill other cars.  A car is 'tortured' prior to being 'killed'.  It's completely jarring, and so completely, totally off tune from the first Cars movie.  WTF, Pixar?  My family and I love your movies because they're child-like and innocent.  Who's idea was it to think James Bond was a really a good fit with the Cars universe?  

The first comments from my 7 and 9 year olds mouths were "that was weird".  My 7 year old wanted to know why they put guns on Tow-Mater, when he's a tow truck, he's supposed to help people.  My 9 year old was frustrated that they kept cutting away from the race scenes, that he was interested in, to focus on spies and secret agents and 'action' scenes.  

I've watched Cars and listened to Cars playing on the DVD player in the van about a thousand times, and I still sometimes get misty when Lightning stops, loses the race, and goes back to get the King.  It's a movie with a moral center and a good message.  It may be simplistic in many ways, but it's got emotions, some genuine laughs, and a heart.  I think I laughed once in Cars 2, and at no point was I in any remote way moved by anything going on on-screen.  Cars 2 is the first Pixar movie that just seems to be about money, and the first Pixar movie I won't be buying on DVD.

Now, see, everything you describe is what made Cars 2 look interesting to me (on paper, anyway).  I thought the world of spies was a great way to avoid a story rehash and add some excitement to an otherwise drab scenario.  To me it seemed a perfect fit.  I didn't find the racing stuff interesting at all in the first movie.  It was only when they started really getting into the meat of the death of old time Americana that it started getting interesting, IMO.

I'm not saying I wanted a Micheal Bay dumbed down experience, but a Pixar movie with that level of excitement could be really great.

That's fine - but are you the target demographic, little boys (and girls) who are excited by animated race cars?

Could Pixar do a great spy movie?  Probably.  But why take a franchise about 'cute' race cars aimed at little kids (Cars skews youngest of all the Pixar movies, in my opinion) and try to shoe horn it in there?  If you want to make a spy movie, then do - just don't call it Cars 2 and then make it not about racing or Americana at all.  I don't hate James Bond - I just think it was a bizarre combination, and considering their audience for this film, a very poor decision.  I can't tell you how many two and three year olds we saw in that theatre with us.  I'm sure they had no idea what was going on.

I don't think I am the target demo.  I think the target demo is the kids who saw Cars in 2005 and are now 5 years older.  You know what those kids like?  Spies and explosions.  And not just the boys.  My daughter has an ongoing spy thing that is only overpowered by her wizard fixation between Hermione and Alex Russo (sadly, mermaids have been left in the wet dust).  She had next to no interest in the original, but even though I've told her that the sequel isn't getting great reviews, she's still excited to go.

I also think that younger kids enjoy the excitement involved with spies, especially if their older sibling is coming along.

As far as leaving racing and Americana behind, there were a lot kids who didn't care for the racing element (again, see my daughter), so leaving the track is a good idea.  Where can cars race around but not be going in circles?  Hey, don't spies have cool cars?  Yes.  Yes, they do.  And this is a new movie.  Just as Toy Story 2 and 3 are not about avoiding the neighborhood bully and learning to love all toys (people), Cars 2 is trying not to do a rehash.

I'm sorry you and your kids didn't like it.  I'm sorrier that they seem to not have pulled it off, but I'm not sorry they tried this angle.

Honestly, I see this as a very smart move on their part, and I'm sad it seems it didn't come together.

So, you keep talking about how people that didn't care for the original movie would like the change - why call it Cars 2 then?  Why not make a new Pixar film about spies and explosions and car chases that your daughter and all the kids that are now too old for the first Cars apparently can go see?  Why fool all the kids and parents who DID like the first Cars movie, by making a sequel that's completely different in tone, setting and content?  The only reason you call this movie Cars 2 is for a cash grab - make sure you get all the fans of the first one.

People take two year old children to the movies?? Thats pretty crazy in itself

Why? My two year old is perfectly capable of going and sitting through a movie. She went to Tangled when she was 22 months old and did great and is looking forward to the new Winnie the Pooh movie.

I hear the next Winnie the Pooh movie is a bank heist movie.  Winnie plays the ringleader.  Disney wants to go in a new direction with the characters, since the kids that loved Winnie the Pooh are now much older.   

Uh... Smyth has stated in interviews that he asked specifically for the trade.  He only denied it once because he didn't want it to get out.

http://lakingsinsider.com/2011/06/26/smyth-talks-about-trade-to-oilers/

Interesting, I hadn't heard that follow up from Smyth.  Guess he requested it then.  Nice to hear a player that wanted to come back to Edm, in that case.  Ok, guess Lombardi's not a slimeball - still don't get the griefing in the papers though.

Nobody told me that if I played Oblivion I got to listen to Patrick Stuart send me to find his son, Sean Bean.  So I'll likely be playing that some.

 

Now that is successful avoidance of a spoiler, and for quite some time.  And here I thought I was behind the times trying to get into Fallout 3. 

I loved Oblivion.  I completed every single achievement, every side quest, and explored every cave and ruin I stumbled upon.  My primary advice would be to complete the Kvatch main quest storyline where you have to close the Oblivion gate early on before you've leveled up too much.  All other quests were manageable regardless of level, but Kvatch was an unusual exception.  Most had little trouble with it, but I had leveled up so much that the enemies I encountered were borderline impossible to defeat. 

This weekend I'm hoping to give Fallout 3 one more honest try before deciding to move on.  If it grabs me, great.  If it still doesn't, then it'll be time to try something else.

That's interesting.  I had the opposite experience, I've tried to get into Oblivion three times, and every time I'm bored silly after a few hours, or frustrated with the silly combat mechanics.  But Fallout 3 is one of those rare games that sucked me right into the universe and I put 150 hours into.  Considering how similar the games are, it's strange how one is loved and the other so inaccessible.  In theory, Oblivion (esp. with all the cool mods) should be a game I'd play for a long, long time... something about the combat and the leveling system though, just pushes me right out of the world.

Uncharted 2 360 - Almost at the end I am guessing. Should finish it next play session.

Really? On the 360? When did this happen? 

Oops. I wasn't supposed to break the news. Very hush hush. I'll have to kill you now. Sorry.

I would kill just to get Uncharted 1 & 2 on the 360.  They're the only PS3 exclusives I've considered owning a PS3 for.

Dean Lombardi speaking on the Ryan Smyth trade:

"The bottom line for me, I would have rather invested my money with Bernie Madoff than invest in Edmonton's word".

Oh well.  I don't understand these guys that want to hash it out in the media.  What's Lombardi going to prove by slamming Edmonton over and over again in the LA Times?  Is he trying to take over for Bryan Burke?  Dude, either get over it or deal with it internally.  It's been pretty much a non-story in Edmonton, I'd love to argue from the other side but Oilers management is collectively shrugging.  Maybe he's still sore that Penner would apparently rather play in Edmonton than for the Kings?

Based on this side show he's had running for three weeks now, I'm starting to buy into the theory that moving Ryan Smyth was his idea from the start and that he made up the story that Smyth asked for a trade (which Smyth denies - he's said that he said Edmonton would be his preference only IF the Kings wanted to trade him).  Seems like a GM I kind of admired is maybe a bit of a slimeball.

Sorry, folks, I thought threads for movies and tv series were generally considered enter at your own risk spoiler zones.  My apologies.

[Spoiler]

Glad to see that there are some people who are seeing this third installment as not the greatest thing since slice bread, but yet a good time at the movies for Transformers fans. My whole point with this Bay-Transformers-Hate internet phenomena is how people are missing the middle ground. I'm on the middle ground. It's not Shakespeare, yet it's not Planet 9 From Outer Space.  

Spoiler for Hiden:

Despite the 2hr 40 min run time of this 3rd movie, they got the plot sound and right. There's a slow-burn narrative following the Decepticons latest play to take over the world. Very much enjoyed the scary take on Lazerbeak; a decaying, megalomaniacal Megatron; and the treacherous Sentinel Prime (and bravo to Bay for casting Leonard Nimoy on the role. Nimoy voiced Galvatron in the the '87 animated Transformers movie. It seems they did their homework). The Autobots were fine. It was good to see a kick-ass Sideswipe.. and rough to see Ironhide's death. The Wreckers were just fine. The old Autobot scientist was just cute, though don't understand why they didn't just introduce Percepter or WheelJack instead (unless he was supposed to be one of those. I didn't catch his official name). A complain I can lobby at Bay is that he forgets there's a whole canon of Autobots to choose from. There's still too much focus on Optimus Prime and Bumbleebee. Come on Bay? How about Omega Supreme, Ultra Magnus, or Hot Rod?!

The 'Battle Of Chicago' is what makes the movie, imo. It was just Bay at his purest and unabashed action filmmaker form. You even got human paragliders! How cool were they? By the time the Decepticons shit hits the fan, it hits the fan properly. Shockwave was just scary awesome; his riding, burrowing, all-consuming worm form was truly a sight to behold. Starcream's ultimate takedown at the hands of Sam was properly heroic. And the final confrontation between Optimus, Sentinel and Megatron was just all kinds of bad-assery! Yea, it was all just CGI porn and definetely not a flick for women.. but just very well done cartoonish action.

If a 4th film is made.. and that's a given considering this third one has already taken $460 mil worldwide in 6 days.. I hope they finally introduce some long-overdue characters from the Transformers canon. Please, let's finally see the fucking Dinobots! Let's finally see Galvatron, Cyclonus and Scourge? How about you take a crack at the triple-changin' Astrotrain? How about Unicron? Those characters are waiting with much potential.

Now the question is.. Will Bay and Lebouf be back for No. 4? They've both said they're done.. but money talks in Hollywood, so we'll have to wait and see.

Given how many main characters, particularly on the Decepticons, are killed in this movie, I don't see how they could make a 4th film.  Also, they've gone from minor battles in a city, to wrecking a the great pyramid, to wrecking a city.  What could Bay possibly do in number 4?  Blow up the moon?

You obviously have never seen 'Transformers: The Movie' (1987). You do know Unicron is a planet-sized Transformer, right?  

Yes, I do know that.  However, unless you're suggesting 3 hours of Optimus hacking up a planet with his energy sword and Bumblebee dancing and shooting the ground underneath him, I'm not sure how a planet sized antagonist works for a film.  

Spoiler for Hiden:

Particularly considering any known Decepticon characters like Megatron or Starscream who could be in partnership with Unicron are now dead.

 It would be the same problem that the Fanatasic Four Silver Surfer movie had.  An antagonist the size of Unicron or Galactus doesn't work very well on film, when the good guys are earth bound and several orders of magnitude smaller.

[Spoiler]

Glad to see that there are some people who are seeing this third installment as not the greatest thing since slice bread, but yet a good time at the movies for Transformers fans. My whole point with this Bay-Transformers-Hate internet phenomena is how people are missing the middle ground. I'm on the middle ground. It's not Shakespeare, yet it's not Planet 9 From Outer Space.  

Spoiler for Hiden:

Despite the 2hr 40 min run time of this 3rd movie, they got the plot sound and right. There's a slow-burn narrative following the Decepticons latest play to take over the world. Very much enjoyed the scary take on Lazerbeak; a decaying, megalomaniacal Megatron; and the treacherous Sentinel Prime (and bravo to Bay for casting Leonard Nimoy on the role. Nimoy voiced Galvatron in the the '87 animated Transformers movie. It seems they did their homework). The Autobots were fine. It was good to see a kick-ass Sideswipe.. and rough to see Ironhide's death. The Wreckers were just fine. The old Autobot scientist was just cute, though don't understand why they didn't just introduce Percepter or WheelJack instead (unless he was supposed to be one of those. I didn't catch his official name). A complain I can lobby at Bay is that he forgets there's a whole canon of Autobots to choose from. There's still too much focus on Optimus Prime and Bumbleebee. Come on Bay? How about Omega Supreme, Ultra Magnus, or Hot Rod?!

The 'Battle Of Chicago' is what makes the movie, imo. It was just Bay at his purest and unabashed action filmmaker form. You even got human paragliders! How cool were they? By the time the Decepticons shit hits the fan, it hits the fan properly. Shockwave was just scary awesome; his riding, burrowing, all-consuming worm form was truly a sight to behold. Starcream's ultimate takedown at the hands of Sam was properly heroic. And the final confrontation between Optimus, Sentinel and Megatron was just all kinds of bad-assery! Yea, it was all just CGI porn and definetely not a flick for women.. but just very well done cartoonish action.

If a 4th film is made.. and that's a given considering this third one has already taken $460 mil worldwide in 6 days.. I hope they finally introduce some long-overdue characters from the Transformers canon. Please, let's finally see the fucking Dinobots! Let's finally see Galvatron, Cyclonus and Scourge? How about you take a crack at the triple-changin' Astrotrain? How about Unicron? Those characters are waiting with much potential.

Now the question is.. Will Bay and Lebouf be back for No. 4? They've both said they're done.. but money talks in Hollywood, so we'll have to wait and see.

Given how many main characters, particularly on the Decepticons, are killed in this movie, I don't see how they could make a 4th film.  Also, they've gone from minor battles in a city, to wrecking a the great pyramid, to wrecking a city.  What could Bay possibly do in number 4?  Blow up the moon?

Biggest problem with Cars 2 is that Pixar took a franchise that appeals to 4 - 10 year olds and added cars with guns, cars with missile launchers, cars with tasers, beloved character cars with bombs strapped to them.  Explosions!  It's like Michael Bay consulted on the movie.  Cars are frequently given orders to kill other cars.  A car is 'tortured' prior to being 'killed'.  It's completely jarring, and so completely, totally off tune from the first Cars movie.  WTF, Pixar?  My family and I love your movies because they're child-like and innocent.  Who's idea was it to think James Bond was a really a good fit with the Cars universe?  

The first comments from my 7 and 9 year olds mouths were "that was weird".  My 7 year old wanted to know why they put guns on Tow-Mater, when he's a tow truck, he's supposed to help people.  My 9 year old was frustrated that they kept cutting away from the race scenes, that he was interested in, to focus on spies and secret agents and 'action' scenes.  

I've watched Cars and listened to Cars playing on the DVD player in the van about a thousand times, and I still sometimes get misty when Lightning stops, loses the race, and goes back to get the King.  It's a movie with a moral center and a good message.  It may be simplistic in many ways, but it's got emotions, some genuine laughs, and a heart.  I think I laughed once in Cars 2, and at no point was I in any remote way moved by anything going on on-screen.  Cars 2 is the first Pixar movie that just seems to be about money, and the first Pixar movie I won't be buying on DVD.

Now, see, everything you describe is what made Cars 2 look interesting to me (on paper, anyway).  I thought the world of spies was a great way to avoid a story rehash and add some excitement to an otherwise drab scenario.  To me it seemed a perfect fit.  I didn't find the racing stuff interesting at all in the first movie.  It was only when they started really getting into the meat of the death of old time Americana that it started getting interesting, IMO.

I'm not saying I wanted a Micheal Bay dumbed down experience, but a Pixar movie with that level of excitement could be really great.

That's fine - but are you the target demographic, little boys (and girls) who are excited by animated race cars?

Could Pixar do a great spy movie?  Probably.  But why take a franchise about 'cute' race cars aimed at little kids (Cars skews youngest of all the Pixar movies, in my opinion) and try to shoe horn it in there?  If you want to make a spy movie, then do - just don't call it Cars 2 and then make it not about racing or Americana at all.  I don't hate James Bond - I just think it was a bizarre combination, and considering their audience for this film, a very poor decision.  I can't tell you how many two and three year olds we saw in that theatre with us.  I'm sure they had no idea what was going on.

Biggest problem with Cars 2 is that Pixar took a franchise that appeals to 4 - 10 year olds and added cars with guns, cars with missile launchers, cars with tasers, beloved character cars with bombs strapped to them.  Explosions!  It's like Michael Bay consulted on the movie.  Cars are frequently given orders to kill other cars.  A car is 'tortured' prior to being 'killed'.  It's completely jarring, and so completely, totally off tune from the first Cars movie.  WTF, Pixar?  My family and I love your movies because they're child-like and innocent.  Who's idea was it to think James Bond was a really a good fit with the Cars universe? 

The first comments from my 7 and 9 year olds mouths were "that was weird".  My 7 year old wanted to know why they put guns on Tow-Mater, when he's a tow truck, he's supposed to help people.  My 9 year old was frustrated that they kept cutting away from the race scenes, that he was interested in, to focus on spies and secret agents and 'action' scenes. 

I've watched Cars and listened to Cars playing on the DVD player in the van about a thousand times, and I still sometimes get misty when Lightning stops, loses the race, and goes back to get the King.  It's a movie with a moral center and a good message.  It may be simplistic in many ways, but it's got emotions, some genuine laughs, and a heart.  I think I laughed once in Cars 2, and at no point was I in any remote way moved by anything going on on-screen.  Cars 2 is the first Pixar movie that just seems to be about money, and the first Pixar movie I won't be buying on DVD.

With regards to the elite forwards vs. elite D debate, ask the Capitals how their score-first, defend later approach to building a team has worked for them.

Fair enough, but ask the 80's Oilers how it worked out while you're at it.  Goalie is definitely a factor, as is the league, I suppose.  I'm not suggesting you can win without good D - just saying I don't think you can't go wrong picking goal scorers.  Worst comes to worst it's relatively easy to move a point getter for a stay at home D-man.

[but the logic goes that good D-men are much easier to acquire than goal scorers]

Everyone thinks Flyers managment is on crack - I think Oilers Management is on crack. They have one of the worst defences in the league and the take Nugent-Hopkins over Larsson. Good for Lou and the Devils managment to have the sense of Larsson's worth and recognize their need to strengthen their D core. How much you want to bet the Oilers suck again next year with one of the worst GAA's. Not that Nugent-Hopkins isn't a potentially great NHL center, but IMO the Oilers 1st and foremost need to help their goalie.

I would have been just as happy with taking Larsson, but the logic goes that good D-men are much easier to acquire than goal scorers, in this era of low scoring games and incredible goalies.  A team can't really go wrong loading up on offensive pieces.  Also, the Oilers have several highly regarded D prospects in the pipeline already.  Regarding last year, we had multiple injuries on D - Whitney and Smid were both out for significant periods of time, which also had impact on players like Gilbert who is much better with Whitney, for some reason.  I agree Larsson could have stepped in and made an impact immediately, but you can never go wrong taking the best player in the draft.  Considering Larrson went fourth, at least two other teams thought he wasn't the top player this year.

I'm not sure I agree.  Maybe decent D are easier to find than decent forwards, but I'd argue that at the very good to elite level defensemen are much harder to come by.

Elite level D are pretty scarce, but you can win with solid D.  If I can only have one of an elite D-man or an elite scorer, I'll take the 50 goal scorer every time.

Welcome home, Smytty!

RNH and Ryan Smyth coming home... it's a good day to be an Oilers fan.

Not so fast. Deal appears to have fallen through due to Brule's health.

Trade finally goes through.

Sequence of events, best as I can gather:
1. Smyth informs LA he would prefer a trade back home due to family reasons.
2. LA calls EDM and says 'hey, give us some draft pick for Smyth.'
3. EDM says OK... and here's Sheldon Souray!
4. LA says 'LOLNO.'
5. LA calls CGY and says 'hey, give us some draft pick for Smyth.'
6. CGY for some inexplicable reason is interested.
7. CGY re-signs Tanguey, can no longer afford Smyth under the cap. This makes a lot more sense, which is confusing since Calgary rarely does anything that makes a lick of sense.
8. LA calls EDM and says 'Ok seriously, a draft pick and some rube under contract we can buy out so we can replace Smyth with BRAD RICHARDS or Gagne or fucking somebody.'
9. EDM says 'Gilbert Brule! (who was once favored over Kopitar, seriously.)
10.  LA says 'That'll work, certify his health and we're all good.'
11.  EDM says 'Certification?  WHO NEEDS CERTIFICATION?  Trust us!'
12.  LA again says 'LOLNO.  Can't buy out if he's not certified.  We learned from the Rags and Chris Drury!'
13.  EDM proceeds to do fuck all for a day or so for some reason.
14.  EDM says 'Fuck, fine... Colin Fraser and a 7th?'
15.  LA says 'FINALLY, DICKHOLES.'

Deal done.

lol - that was probably the way it went.  If they just wanted to buy someone out anyway, why not Souray?  Jerks.