Thatz

1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

2. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

3. Mass Effect 2

4. Pokemon Red

5. Super Mario World

6. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

7. GoldenEye 007

8. Super Smash Bros. Melee

9. Golden Sun

10. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

Full Voting List

1. John Locke (LOST)

2. Michael Scott (The Office)

3. Desmond Hume (LOST)

4. Phil Dunphy (Modern Family)

5. Gob Bluth (Arrested Development)

6. Charlie Pace (LOST)

7. George Feeny (Boy Meets World)

8. Dwight Schrute (The Office)

9. Walter White (Breaking Bad)

10. Al Swearengen (Deadwood)

1. The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

2. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

3. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien

4. The Dark Tower (series) by Stephen King (if series aren't eligible, then make it the Drawing of the Three)

5. The Road by Cormac McCarthy

6. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

7. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey

8. Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

9. To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee

10. The Godfather by Mario Puzo

1. Robert De Niro

2. Sean Connery

3. Al Pacino

4. Viggo Mortensen

5. Terry O'Quinn

6. Clint Eastwood

7. Bruce Willis

8. Sylvester Stallone

9. Matt Damon

10. Sean Bean

Discuss how frustrating this game can be when you're not playing as a team that's named the Phillies, Dodgers, Cardinals, Red Sox or Yankees. Go!

No, but seriously. I just got this game a few days ago and I've been playing games as teams that no one would consider a contender - the Pirates, Rangers (yes I know they're having a good season irl, they always have shit ones in the game), etc.

For instance, in my Rangers game I played through the majority of the 2009 season with the current roster - I traded some prospects away for starters, though - and I finished last in the division. It seems like it was my pitching doing the damage, because I inspected my pitching lineup and rarely did anybody have an ERA under 5. My offense was decent as well, few players throughout the season had batting averages below the mendoza line and if they did they got benched or optioned to Triple A, where I'd bring up a rookie to see how well they could perform.

So at the end of the season I started dealing for pitchers. Prospects for starters. Veterans for starters. Benchwarmers for starters. Cash. Whatever I could do to get starters that had better seasons than my current ones, right?

Wrong. I'm in June of 2010 with a pitching lineup that looks almost nothing like what I started with, and I've still got guys with horrible ERAs. I have one starter who has lost all 7 games he's pitched. We started the season off going 2-8 in the first 10 games, and I think we're 3rd or 4th in the division right now. I'm not sure what to do to remedy my pitching situation.

Mmmbutyes. Let's discuss our BM2010 games!

To be honest, the game isn't really that difficult once you know what you're doing. If you just play at an adequate level, it's ridiculously easy to keep winning with any team after a few years. It doesn't matter if you're the Royals - after a few seasons of decent management, you easily outclass the AI.

As for the pitching - give it time. Texas is a hitter-friendly park, ERAs are going to be inflated. You can always try to upgrade your defense though, as a great defense can save some runs.

It's my most anticipated film for the summer, it looks to be pretty good. I'm not expecting it to be the best film of the year or anything, but it should be worth watching.

Kate is just an irritating character that frequently ruins things for everyone else on the Island. She's very selfish, and the way that she jumps between Jack and Sawyer is annoying as well.

I'm pretty happy with what the Lions did. They got the #1 QB, #1 TE, and #1 Safety. That's not bad. Besides, they're in a position where they're not going to contend next year. They have so many holes that it was best for them to draft the most talented players, rather than picking guys to fill holes (which they have a lot of).

Really? You draft the most talented players rather than draft to fill holes because you have a lot of holes? That's your logic?

...really?

It's not a bad philosophy.

If you have a need at practically every position like Detroit does, why force yourself to choose a player to fill a hole and reach when you could simply let the board play out, stay true to your own board, and take the best player available regardless of position?

Some of the best teams in the NFL do that, and granted they do it when they don't have holes to fill, but really is reaching for a DT in the 2nd round when the best player available (and best value) is a linebacker going to hurt at all when you need talent?

This is what I was talking about. Why reach to take an offensive lineman to fill a hole when your top-rated tight end is still on the board? Why take a middle linebacker that isn't exactly what you're looking for when you have the best safety out there? You don't go just by position, the Lions had holes everwhere. You take the best players that you can find, period.

I really, REALLY, wanted to be in Athens this weekend to see if I could find the 2nd round DB out of OU. I can just imagine:

Here he is, thinking he is a 6th-7th rounder, probably undrafted FA, so he will watch the draft with his family on day two --- Day one he decides to hang with friends, possibly on Court St., and he gets a call at the beginning of the second round of the NFL Draft. Had to be great for him, who knows, maybe he's actually really good.

I heard a rumor that Chicago was looking at taking him, so maybe he is a good player. I've watched some highlights of the guy and he hits really hard, but that's about all that I've been able to come up with so far...

I'm pretty happy with what the Lions did. They got the #1 QB, #1 TE, and #1 Safety. That's not bad. Besides, they're in a position where they're not going to contend next year. They have so many holes that it was best for them to draft the most talented players, rather than picking guys to fill holes (which they have a lot of).

The thing that I see about Deadpool is that he's not really integral to Wolverine's past, is he? I mean, couldn't they have made the film without the character? He just seems like the type of character that they put in the film to please the fans, and now they've done a bunch of shit that the fans don't like. It doesn't make any sense.

Tonight's episode:

Spoiler: Click here to view

Whoa... did not see that coming. That ending was pretty hardcore for network television and I have no idea what Sayid's actions will do. Afterall, Faraday said they can't alter the course of time... well that seems like a pretty big alteration.

Spoiler: Click here to view

Nothing, young Ben will be saved. What a poor killer only putting one in the chest and not taking a second shot to the head that leavs no questions... now we finaly will get to see old ben Topless and get the scarry music as we surprisingle see a scare on his chest... it´s Lost, you just have to see it comming... i guss the pay of will be Old Ben getting killed after Lost logic... haha, he´s dead! noho he´s not! oh wait - he is!

1. Wilt Chamberlain

2. Cy Young

3. Jerry Rice

4. Barry Sanders

5. Pete Rose

My original question and other thoughts:

Spoiler: Click here to view

Yeah, I thought about it being Claire, but it was just so quick and never mentioned, I'm not even sure if it was intentional or if someone else got in the shot, which would be funny. What makes me laugh is that I'm not seeing it being mentioned all over the place where people usually dissect Lost frame-by-frame and notice shit like how many books are on the shelf and how that number applies to the theory of time traveling and some obscure biblical reference.

Anyway, I think it's safe to assume Christian is actually alive and was resurrected after the original crash, like Locke now. Of course that raises the question of what significance does he have to the island and why does he speak for Jacob? And of course that raises the question, who/what the hell is Jacob?

Despite my love for the series, I'm holding out for the Wii version since the version of RE4 was a lot more fun in my book.

Good luck with that.

Great episode. Although I don't understand how Richard hasn't aged in any single shape or form. This is now apparently set numerous years before, so why is he exactly the same when he hasn't actually been travelling through time like the rest? Unless he has, but then that wouldn't make sense as to why he doesn't remember anyone. Unless he's acting that way and is actually travelling like the rest were, I don't fucking know this show hurts your mind more and more every week

Either way, I loved the episode. It helped throw a little more insight on things and the end scene with Kate returning after the previous speech Sawyer made just a few minutes before the scene. I'm sure they'll fuck my mind over once again next week.

It's obvious that Richard is different than everyone else, there's really nothing else that can be said. He's just different, we don't know why yet. I'm sure that it has something to do with his role on the Island.

I mean, if you're going to be that picky, why not ask why Locke is the only person who died and was able to come back to life? Because he's special, that's why.

I'm not being picky at all, I'm bringing up a point that came to mind. Locke does make sense because there's explanations behind it already, there's been nothing explained towards Richard so far. I'm just trying to work it out that's all, I wasn't being a dick about it. I just wondered how Ben, who is apparently MORE special, ages yet Richard somehow doesn't. I'm not knocking the show, I love being confused :/

You are confused. Where did you get that Ben is supposed to be more special? Just because he was the "leader?" He had a tumor in his back while he was on the Island.

The guy is centered around almost every fucking thing, to claim he's not supposed to be more special than Richard really baffles me. Either way, I think you're taking this a little too far. I was only saying I was slightly curious as to why Richard hasn't aged at all, no need to go off on a wild one

I don't know though, Ben is involved in a lot of stuff, but a lot of it is just him forcing his way into everything, not necessarily because he's destined to do everything, if that makes any sense. Besides, if you believe Widmore, Ben basically kicked him out and just made himself the leader. Plus, Richard has been there for pretty much everything that they've shown so far and he hasn't changed a bit. He was there before Ben, possibly for a very long time as well. He doesn't age, and he's been shown to leave and return to the Island seemingly at will. He's important. My theory is that he's like the "keeper" of the Island, if you will, since he was there for all of the Island's "leaders" shown so far.

I agree that I might be taking this a bit far, but Lost IS a show that's based upon incredibly fine details.

Great episode. Although I don't understand how Richard hasn't aged in any single shape or form. This is now apparently set numerous years before, so why is he exactly the same when he hasn't actually been travelling through time like the rest? Unless he has, but then that wouldn't make sense as to why he doesn't remember anyone. Unless he's acting that way and is actually travelling like the rest were, I don't fucking know this show hurts your mind more and more every week

Either way, I loved the episode. It helped throw a little more insight on things and the end scene with Kate returning after the previous speech Sawyer made just a few minutes before the scene. I'm sure they'll fuck my mind over once again next week.

It's obvious that Richard is different than everyone else, there's really nothing else that can be said. He's just different, we don't know why yet. I'm sure that it has something to do with his role on the Island.

I mean, if you're going to be that picky, why not ask why Locke is the only person who died and was able to come back to life? Because he's special, that's why.

I'm not being picky at all, I'm bringing up a point that came to mind. Locke does make sense because there's explanations behind it already, there's been nothing explained towards Richard so far. I'm just trying to work it out that's all, I wasn't being a dick about it. I just wondered how Ben, who is apparently MORE special, ages yet Richard somehow doesn't. I'm not knocking the show, I love being confused :/

You are confused. Where did you get that Ben is supposed to be more special? Just because he was the "leader?" He had a tumor in his back while he was on the Island.

why not ask why Locke is the only person who died and was able to come back to life?

Well, I think there's quite a bit of evidence to support the idea that Locke isn't the ONLY person to have died and come back to life on the island.

True, but I was just wondering how Richard not aging can be so confusing when it's clear that some characters are "special" and others aren't so much.

TOO faithful? That's the stupidest fucking critique ever.

Not really. Film and comics are two different mediums, what works well in one doesn't necessarily work well in the other.

Great episode. Although I don't understand how Richard hasn't aged in any single shape or form. This is now apparently set numerous years before, so why is he exactly the same when he hasn't actually been travelling through time like the rest? Unless he has, but then that wouldn't make sense as to why he doesn't remember anyone. Unless he's acting that way and is actually travelling like the rest were, I don't fucking know this show hurts your mind more and more every week

Either way, I loved the episode. It helped throw a little more insight on things and the end scene with Kate returning after the previous speech Sawyer made just a few minutes before the scene. I'm sure they'll fuck my mind over once again next week.

It's obvious that Richard is different than everyone else, there's really nothing else that can be said. He's just different, we don't know why yet. I'm sure that it has something to do with his role on the Island.

I mean, if you're going to be that picky, why not ask why Locke is the only person who died and was able to come back to life? Because he's special, that's why.

I liked the movie a lot. I'd rated it as an 8, but it's really more of an 8.5 or so. The story was solid and Eastwood was perfect for his role, and I think that he should be pleased if that's the last time that he acts in a film. However, I felt that his performance was just on an entirely different level than all of the other actors in the film, who were just average at best. They kept the film from being truly elite.

Oh, and part of his quick transformation was that he probably knew that his life was nearing its end (his wife died) and since he had already alienated himself from his own family, he was eager to connect with someone once he found out that his neighbors weren't so bad.

I'd give it around a 9/10. I really liked it, and I can't really find any major flaws. The acting wasn't incredible but it was pretty good, and I really liked the technical aspects of the film. The music was very fitting, and the cinematography was quite beautiful. Everything was edited together well too, with all of the questions flashing back to the answers in Jamal's life. Technically it was a very strong film, and since everything else was at least decent/good it deserves a high rating.

However, I recommended it as a rental. It's not really a film for everyone. If you're not at all interested in the technical (or artistic) aspects of film then it'll probably still be an enjoyable movie, you just might not appreciate it as much as the critics do. Rent it first, just to make sure.

Why do we use spoiler tags in this topic? Aren't they pretty pointless, considering that the topic is marked for spoilers?

The whole "nine films" thing is slightly misleading, since he'll probably have just a short scene or two (like in Iron Man) in a few of them.

Please, somebody get Terry O'Quinn another Emmy.