cabbageboy

I heard from someone that this film has the guys impersonating zombies to avoid being attacked. Is this true? If so, that's a really cool idea. I remember seeing the DOTD remake earlier in the year and saying "Someone needs to do a zombie movie where people act like zombies to avoid attack."

I can't really see Ben Sheets winning the Cy Young. And for all the talk about Randy Johnson he's 14-14 this year and it's hard to see a .500 pitcher winning the Cy Young. Mind you, I'm not like John Kruk, thinking that the guy with the most wins should get the Cy Young...but you gotta at least win quite a bit more than you lose. In the AL, Santana might have 1 fewer win than Schilling but his stats overall are better, so give it to him.

I know there's likely been bitching about this, but what the fuck are the Cubs doing? They get some gift stuff this weekend (Giants lose 2/3 at home to the Dodgers, Astros lost one to the Brewers 8-0) and yet what do they do? Lose 2 out of 3 to the fucking METS! I swear it reminds me of 1998 when the Cubs had the WC in their grasp and Brant Brown made that horrid error against Milwaukee that damn near cost them the playoffs. They get the Reds at Wrigley for 4 this week, and anything other than taking 3/4 in that series is embarrassing. Then close with the Braves, who might well be resting guys for the playoffs.

I disagree that the original Dawn of the Dead has unintentional humor. I thought stuff like them going around knocking the zombies down and the bikers stealing their jewelry and throwing pies at them was meant to be funny. Haven't seen Shaun of the Dead, but it's probably cool. Can't imagine it being the BEST zombie movie ever...I mean it's kinda derivative, that alone eliminates it from being the best.

I can't believe the Cubs lost to the Mets today after being up 3-0. I mean, the Cubs have a gift final 2 weeks playing jobbers like the Mets and Reds (not to mention a Braves team the final 3 games that will be resting people for the playoffs) and yet are trying their damnedest to blow it.

My boys Louisville looked awesome today stomping the shit out of UNC 34-0. Cards have now held two of three opponents scoreless (the other was UK). One more squash of a jobber (East Carolina) before the big one at Miami on Oct. 14. I've seen Miami twice this year, against FSU and Houston the other night. Neither time were they all that impressive. I'm not going to predict upset, but this will be a good one. U of L doesn't have Chris Rix to choke like a bitch.

I noticed the Kings Row thing too but it seemed out of place since some of the other movies playing were Wizard of Oz and Wuthering Heights, which were both 1939. Kings Row wasn't until 1941. I enjoyed the movie but it wasn't as much like a 50s movie as it was a late 30s/early 40s type movie. The whole relationship with Law and Paltrow seemed like a His Girl Friday or Only Angels Have Wings deal (or any number of films from that period). Of course the whole tropical prehistoric stuff (and the log bridging the chasm) was a riff on Kong. Surprised no one else mentioned the Shangri La stuff. I sorta expected Ronald Colman to guide them or something, haha. The recreation of Olivier here makes me wonder why no one does a Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid type deal again, only with cooler new technology. Incorporate a bunch of classic stars into a new film.

Just the other day I was mentioning the best signs ever in wrestling and mentioned the Starrcade 97 sign saying "Ray Traylor: Will Job For Food." Eerily enough the guy dies the next week. Might be time to bust out the Mountie match from SS 91, I always loved that....or the Nailz stuff if I can find it. I'll say this for Bossman: he always seem to have some amount of heat, heel or face.

Oh, my brother and friends all think Michael Holley is a flamer for sure. So it isn't shocking that someone would think he looked like a woman. The goofy thing is that EVERY show has an overbearing New Yorker who loves anything with the Yankees and all that. And most shows have a Boston guy or Chicago guy. Where's the love for, I dunno, St. Louis for instance?

It was funny above when it was stated that the Twins vs. Angels in the ALCS would be a nice change of pace...it was just the ALCS 2 years ago and no one cared aside from whatever fans those teams have. Let's face it, the money playoffs are a combo of Yankees/Sox in the AL and Cards/Cubs or perhaps Cards/Braves. Hypothetically speaking, let's say the Sox somehow emerge from the AL. Who on earth would take them in a series against the Cardinals, given their WS history since 1918? That isn't to say the series wouldn't be good, it'd probably go 7 actually...with the Sox doing something really stupid to lose the series (like a Manny Ramirez error).

While I certainly think Flair is one of the all time greats, the dirty little secret is that Flair and the Horsemen never really drew substantial money for any length of time. Nothing like the NWO. When the Horsemen were at their peak the NWA was still a distant 2nd to the WWF. Critics and purists might have preferred it, but casual fans simply do not care to see heels on top of a promotion for most of a decade (which is why Crockett went bankrupt). The constant cheating, Dusty Finishes, etc. killed the promotion. The NWO did draw money for a decent while..roughly July of 1996 till late 1998 (though an exact time when it stopped drawing is hard to pinpoint). I've always maintained that a heel faction or run is best left at a year or less. Have them run roughshod over everyone for a while, then bring in the uber faces to knock them off.

I read into the Gallup and CBS polls, you know the ones that Bush ludicrously ahead by like 8-12%. Gallup sampled 7% more Republicans than Democrats and the CBS poll sampled 5% more Republicans. There is only one real reason to do such a thing: to make Kerry look like he's struggling mightily when he really isn't. Take into consideration that not only did 7% more Republicans not actually vote in 1996 or 2000, but in reality 4-5% more Democrats did. View the polls with that in mind and it's actually a swing of something like 11-12%. Thus, Bush might be ahead but it's by maybe 2% at most. I've seen a few other polls that had 5% more Democrats surveyed and the results looked reasonable. I took a look at this website again today (electoral-vote.com) and what kind of crackhead shit is this? Bush taking Oregon and Maine? Tie in Maryland? I think it was Survey USA who had that stuff, and it's obvious that they're either inept or blatantly biased. Of the pollsters used for the site I tend to trust Rasmussen and Zogby for the most part. Zogby sometimes tends to lean towards Kerry a bit much though (like him being tied in AR for instance or ahead by a bit much in NM or OR), but in key states his numbers seem to make sense. Rasmussen might be a little better than Zogby since his numbers usually add up and while he might be a Republican his polls seem viable.

In all honesty Maddux hasn't done anything really all that amazing in years....his last Cy Young was 1995. Maddux is one of my favorite pitchers mind you, but there's not much story in a guy who goes out and pitches 6-7 innings, strikes out few people, and gives up 3 runs.

I didn't entirely stop reading but I skimmed it after that paragraph stating Booker and RVD weren't over at the time. You MIGHT make a case that Booker T wasn't the most over guy on earth at the time of the HHH feud, but my god, take a look at how he was booked in it. He certainly was over enough to get a title shot however. RVD was the most over guy on Raw in 2002, after the split. To suggest he wasn't a credible challenger coming off his programs with Eddie and Benoit is sheer idiocy.

Actually if the Dodgers lose tonight and Cubs win today then they are both tied....if the Giants lose the Cubs can go ahead of them. Basically it'd be nice to see SF and LA both lose.

It's basically saying CBS premiered their new shows thus if Raw didn't do as well as predicted it is ok.

Oh, I too think the Dodgers are screwed here. No one is really talking about it (well ok I mentioned it briefly in a previous thread), but they are far from a lock to get to the post season. I think they still have about 6 games against the Giants and right now SF is on fire. Astros are just 2 behind in the WC right now, aren't they? Oswalt probably wins tonight, but who knows?

The Twins are a nice little team and at best could make the ALCS again before jobbing out to either NY or Boston. They might have a slightly higher win % than Oakland, LA, and are tied with the Braves, but those teams all play in tougher divisions. Dodgers have the Giants and Padres to contend with, both of whom are in playoff contention. Oakland has the Angels and Rangers to contend with, and those teams have been in the race (at least until recently when TX fell off). Braves have the Marlins. I can't help but think either the Twins or A's will upset the Yankees in the first round. I base this on absolutely nothing other than I think the Sox will reach the Series this year, but we all know they can't ever beat the Yanks so someone will need to upset NY.

I can't see Lita doing a heel turn in this whole thing. I think it's pretty obvious that Kane seems on the verge of doing a face turn. I mean, how can we cheer on this Snitski dipshit? The guy is 1. totally unknown and 2. caused a woman to lose her baby. Incidentally, if Lita had simply stayed out of the ring or away from ringside she wouldn't have been in harm's way...so essentially Snitski is right when he said it wasn't his fault.

It gets no easier for the Packers next week: at Indy. Man, the Colts's early season schedule has been murderer's row, what with NE, TN, and GB.

Tomorrow is the Cubs/Marlins makeup double header, right? This is the key couple of games for the Cubs. If they sweep the double dip then they'll be tied for the WC...if they lose both, well, they're screwed. It's probably the Marlins's do or die games as well.

That was a heck of a game between FL/TN. That said, is it just me or is college football at its worst in a long time? It seems like every week people are missing extra points, fumbling the ball all over the place, etc. It's not like these are scrubs doing it. Alleged good teams like LSU, Tennessee, and so on. I'm a little stunned by that Carolina score. U of L has them in Chapel Hill next week, and I'm a bit worried about it now.

Why exactly would beating the Yankees out in the AL East be breaking the curse? The Red Sox have finished 1st quite a few times, they just can't ever win the Series. It'd be funny if either the Twins or A's upset the Yankees the 1st round, then the Sox win the AL...and then job out to someone like the Cardinals in 7. Thus keeping two notable things going: 1. The Red Sox cannot beat the Yankees in a meaningful playoff series. 2. The Red Sox cannot win the World Series.

The goofy thing is that Ichiro might break a longer standing and frankly more impressive record. I mean, McGwire proved that you can hit 70 homers in a season but not really get many overall hits, or even bat .300. I assume Sisler is a no brain Hall of Famer, but really how many people even know the name nowdays? It's a bit like the long standing argument over which was better between DiMaggio hitting 56 in a row or Williams batting .400. Personally, I think it's gotta be hitting .400. I'm not sure what DiMaggio batted that year, but I don't think it was .400 by any means.

Here's what I don't get about Bonds and 700. It's not a statistically significant home run, just a nice round number. He's not even passing anyone like he did when he hit 661 and passed Mays. I could care less if he hits #700...wake me up after 15 more and he passes Ruth.