MyKILLv2.0

I don't care if the year is 1994, 2004, or 2144... Daunte Culpepper will FOREVER be better then O'Sullivan. Even if the brother died at this very minute, he would have more ability then O'Sullivan does breathing. I'm not trying to sound like Culpepper would come in and lead the Niners to the Superbowl. At this point in his career, he is a back up on most good teams. Green Bay wanted him as a back up. Pittsburgh wanted him as a back up... but to the Niners, he has to be a better option then O'Sullivan.

Because he has shown that he can be a better QB then any of the other q'backs that the Niners have at the moment. As I said, I hope Liv is correct and Smith will do fine. And nor was I saying that Culpeper would be their cure all for the Niner's franchise. All I am saying is that I wish they would have brought someone like Culpepper in, who if Alex does struggle with the system, or just his play in general, you could put someone back there who has proven at some point in his career he can get the job done. Hill started like two games, and Sullivan couldn't get on the field, on any other team in the league. If not Culpepper, someone who has least shown they can be a decent starter in the league.

I don't mean to come off as totally blasting O'Sullivan, Shaun Hill, or Alex Smith. I understand that since Battle and Johnson are out, and Bruce didn't play the first game, they aren't throwing to the most talented guys in the world... or even on the team. And I'll concede that Mike Martz typically has never made the wrong choice for QBs. He subbed in Warner, then Bulger, then moved to Detriot, and hand picked Kitna. However, I've never been impressed with O'Sullivan yet, despite the coaching staff giving him every chance to suceed, and so while I wouldn't pitch a fit if Alex Smith were to start at QB (which is what I forsee happening) I would much rather have them bring in someone like Culpeper, whom has proven he can start in this league, to push Smith for the starting role, rather then someone who is unproven. Especially on a year in which if the Niners don't do anything special, the franchise is likely to clean house and start all over next year. I hope Liv is right about how things will work out, and I'm just being a bleeding vagina about the whole mess.

Why is it that the Niners are completely sold on these three losers when guys like Culpepper are still available?

Ouch... that hurts.

Am I missing something? Doesn't Dallas have to play in that same division too? With the Superbowl champion, and a NFC Wild Card team? If you are going to make the arguement that the division is tough for one team to win, the same arguement has to apply when you are talking about the other teams in the division. My arguement wasn't that Dallas COULDN'T win the division it was that Philly COULD win the division.

I don’t see how picking Philly to win the division is hard buy. As you pointed out, a few years ago with a first place schedule, and McNabb out, the team still went 5-6. That tells me that the team is good, not just one player carrying the load. Do you honestly believe if you take Peyton Manning from the Colts for 11 games, that they will go 5-6? I don’t. Plus this year the Eagles will have a last place schedule… and as Washington showed last season, those two/three games can make all the difference in the world. I picked Dallas to win the division, but I by no means believe they have it in the bag, or will run away with it. They have a more difficult first place schedule, plus the team has a lot of question marks with their secondary, and we’ve yet to see Marion Barber play a full season as the starter. Couple that with the fact that the Giants may suffer from the Superbowl hangover that has plagued NFC teams for the last half dozen years or so, and Washington not getting a last place schedule, on top of losing Joe Gibbs…. … I just don’t see how everything has to go the Eagles way to win the division. But I hope you’re right. I’d love to see Dallas win 12 or 13 games again.

AFC East - New England North - Pittsburgh South - Jacksonville West - San Diego Wild Card - Indianapolis, Houston Sleeper - Houston I agree that Oakland could be better, but the AFC is loaded. That last playoff spot is wide open, with anyone fron Denver, to New York, to Oakland, to Tennessee. I went with Houston due to how they finished last year, and the fact that they will have a last place schedule. NFC East - Dallas North - Green Bay South - New Orleans West - Seattle Wild Card - Philly, Minnesota Sleeper - Arizona

Speaking of chokers.... ....Hi Peyton.

Ugh... is it bad that the Niners have only had ONE preseaon game, and I'm already having to look forward to the 2009 season?

I wonder if South Park will do anything? I know Hayes and Trey/Matt ended things on bad terms, but since he played such a huge part in the show's success, they could/should do something in next season's first episode. ... and this makes me sad. I always wished that one day Chef would return to South Park.

This sucks. I've always loved Bernie Mac. His show on Fox was funny... nothing special, but funny none the less, and his stand ups were always very funny. For some reason, he was always someone who drew my interest in whatever project he was working on.

Martz has always done crazy things with QBs, but they have always seemed to work. Kurt Warner. Marc Bulger. Jon Kitna. ... I wonder if Pennington will get a look. He is accurate, which is key in Martz system?

I want to agree with you, but that would involve me actually being confident that Alex Smith will play well against even back up defensive backs.

And let the Mike Martz era officially begin.

Yeah, that was a nice scene from Armaggeddon, but my favorite was the scene with Rockhoung in the bar/club when he was looking at the bimbo's rock. FBI Agent: Sir, we have a matter of national secruity. Rockhound: Good for you. FBI Agent: Come with us sir. Rockhound: How old are you again?

Gina Carano

I thought there was going to be another South Park movie.... I am glad however they broke Imaginationland up into three parts. My personal favorite part of the entire series was the way the first show ended. For the entire next week, we all talked about who they would have come through the wall. So had they released it in movie form, I would have missed out on that.

I normally always listen to the director comentary on movies that I really enjoy. My favorite one to do so is my current favorite TV series "Rome", which the comentary usually illistrates not only the filiming, but Roman history, which I am a huge fan of. :thumbs up: ... some comentaries are completely dreadful, however. The worst I remember is the Chronicles of Riddick. They had the director, the main girl, and main villian (Karl Urban) do the commentary. Basically it was two hours of the director drooling over the girl, the girl drooling over Vin Diesel, and Karl Urban reminding everyone that he was in Doom & The Lord of the Rings.... :shoots self in head:

Farrell is garbage. I've never liked him in a single role where he was the main star. He is much better suited playing a secondary role, like in Old School. With that said, I'm interested in this movie. I wish it was released at a different time, since I won't be picking this movie over some of the other movies that are out at this point, and fully expect the movie to be dreadful, but unlike most of Farrell's other movies, I'd be lying if I didn't say I was at least a bit interested in seeing this movie.

Maguire should have left after Spidey 2. Similar to the way Michael Keeton fit the role of Batman in the first two movies of that series, Maguire fit the role of Spidey perfectly in the first two movies. However in the ladder part of Spiderman 2, the spiderman character really evolved into a heroic state, and it was a state they held onto in the third film. To me, Maguire was never able to sell that role, and side of Peter. He was gold at being the hard luck, unconfident, dorky character that he needed to be in the first two movies to portray Peter Parker. However in the third movie, Parker was more confident, more bold, and after acquiring the suit, those qualities were only enhanced. I personally think Topher Grace (whom I loved as Brock) would have made a much better Peter Parker, since he would have been able to sell the confidence that Parker now possess, while still being able to show that Parker is still that hard luck, dorky kind of guy. And Kristen is meh to me… so replacing her isn’t a loss at all. Especially since one of the named mentioned to replace her is Mandy Moore.

I'll admit, when I first learned that Christian Bale would be the next Batman, I was very disappointed. I didn't believe he could pull it off. However I will admit that I was completely wrong. Not only did I love his portrail, but his character is EASILY my favorite Batman to date. So needless to say, I am very interested to see Bale, and this spin on the Terminator pre-quel? (Could you call it that considering the time line?). .. even though admittingly, I am not a huge Terminator fan in the first place. This algo goes in line with the hollywood trend of not only trillogies (thanks alot fucking Lord of the Rings), but pre-equels, instead of sequels. .... however what ever happened to the rumors that the Rock was going to take over Arnie's role of Terminator. Could Rock posisbly play one of the terminators in this movie series? Or has this rumor been shot down/disprove to be false?

I agree with most everyone. I found the AIDS episode to be average, (funny, but nothing over the top), yet the Brittany Spears episode to be a total bomb. That doesn't mean I think Trey and Matt should quit the show. I just think (and this is just me) this show bombed. I suppose they figured Brittany walking around with her head missing, and unable to do anything but make gargling sounds would be funnier then it actually came out. Maybe some people found that to be funny. I didn't.

As I stated when the movie first came out, I agree with the poster above, that they spent way to long on the character introductions at the beginning. It’s not that I didn’t like the idea over all, I personally just think they dragged it out a bit too far for my taste. However to answer the question about a possible sequel for Cloverfield, I would say that I would bet almost everything I have that there is a sequel. There is just too much money, and hype put into a movie like this, for there to be only one movie. After the Lords of the Ring Triology, Hollywood has been cashing in like crazy on sequels like never before, and considering the buzz this movie generated, I wouldn’t see why there wouldn’t be a solid push for another movie. I personally see at least two more sequels, possibly more depending on how they choose to develop this story out. As for your routes of a sequel, I could see a realistic chance of both your first and third route. As someone who watches Lost, I can tell you that JJ Abrams very seldom very does anything “just cause”. If there was a guy on the bridge with a camera (which there is, right?), then chances are that Abrams put him there for a reason. This could be a clue in for the next sequel, though to echo the sediments of Skummy, they are going to have to totally alter his path since if he doesn’t make it across the bridge, we will know the coarse of events will unfold for the most part. However it isn’t something that can’t be over done, and seeing how this fact (which I didn’t notice in the movie to begin with) of a man with a camera on the bridge was brought to my attention, my guess is that this will probably be the way they go with the sequel. However I could very easily see them going with the third option, only if they choose to “Hollywood” up the movie. Obviously, they would have to lose the camera angles, and go to a more tradionalist camera view, because this focus of this movie would be military vs Cloverfield, however if the purpose of the first movie was only to introduce you to Cloverfield, they could spend the next movie explaining its origin, and then of course in all other sequels, just have the damn thing wage war on city after city, much like a modern day Godzilla.

Tom Cruise, Collin Farrell, Jimmy Fallon, Queen LaTifa, Uma Thurman ... Jim Carey is someone on the comedic front that I can't stand. I never found him funny. Not in Dumb and Dumber. Not in the Mask. Anything. But for me, the name that comes to mind first is Clint Eastwood. Everyone drools over the man, yet every time I see him on my scren, I find myself disliking his character. Maybe it's that I imagine him as Dirty Harry saying "Go Ahead... Make My Day", and that was my first image of him. So from that point on, I expected him to be that bad ass, and just could never get back to that point. I dunno. I just know that I don't like him in anything he does.