BobDylan

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 11:24 AM) Advance word is that it's actually pretty well done. It's based on a book. It looks pretty good to me, though I don't like the casting and I think the title of it is stupid.

QUOTE(T R U @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 01:16 AM) Thats what im saying, no one is going to have the exact same ideas about comedy as someone else.. I dont even know one of those 10 movies you listed, never heard of em I do like Kingpin though. That's a hilarious movie. [Claudia to Roy] You sure it wasn't when you were busy spankin' your monkey? [ishmel] You have a monkey?

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 03:22 AM) but thats not all true..... a lot of starters pitch differently depending on the game. If their team scores 1 run they wont give up any... if their team scores 10 they will give up 6-8. Im not saying this is the case for Garland but sometimes pitchers are just natural winners and others are just natural losers despite era. A course in the case of Clemens last season.... it was just pathetic team offense. Hypothetically, the Sox are in the World Series right now. Do you want Jon Garland pitching in any of those games? If it's me, I go to Buehrle, Contreras and Garcia only. Sure, Garland had a hell of a post-season last year, but he also had a hell of a regular season. There are such things as one year wonders. Remember Josh Beckett?

QUOTE(T R U @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 12:51 AM) Just their opinion on the top 100 comedies, no one is gonna agree with it 1-100 Im looking at most of your suggestions and I personally dont find them funny at all, and definately wouldnt be in my top 10.. Everyones for the most part is gonna be totally different, but I do agree that there are a lot of movies on there that arent even comedies.. ANYWAYS 10. Billy Madison 9. Major League 8. Wedding Crashers 7. Tommy Boy 6. Dodgeball 5. 40 Year Old Virgin 4. Kingpin 3. Anchorman 2. Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back 1. Dumb and Dumber (Will always be my #1 comedy) You like the slapstick side of comedy. In the American style, I don't think it takes much talent. Anyway, my top 10 comedies. 10. Sleeper 9. Bull Durham 8. Rushmore 7. Bananas 6. Barfly 5. Raising Arizona 4. The Royal Tenenbaums 3. Dr. Strangelove 2. Annie Hall 1. The Graduate

QUOTE(SmokeandMirrors @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 12:31 AM) While I've never been one to argue over video games or systems for that matter (and honestly, I don't intend to get a big system war started), I do disagree with some of what you said. I do understand that Sony has had amazing success with the Playstation and the PS2, but you can't honestly justify the $500-$600 price of the system. Sure, when figuring everything up, it looks to be a better buy than the 360 (and yes, I do intend to buy a PS3), but the majority of the people won't even use/need half the stuff in the PS3. One of Sony's employees claims that you're paying for potential, well, what if someone doesn't want to pay over half a grand for potential? What if they just want to play games and could care less whether it's on a Blu-Ray disc or if it has Wi-Fi or HDMI? Heck, I'm sure some of Sony's supporters have no clue what some of that even is. Also, I hardly think the 360 is a hunk of s***. I've had the thing since Nov. and I haven't yet been disappointed. Even when mine crapped out on me, at least Microsoft was willing to take it back free of charge. Did Sony offer to do that for my launch PS2? Nope. I happen to like the games that the 360 has. Just like I like the FF series or MGS or Gran Turismo, among others that the Playstation provides. My intention is to own all three systems this year. I missed out on some of the great games the Gamecube offered last gen. Also, I wouldn't get my hopes up too high on Sony having enough PS3s to go around, especially with the worldwide release. I mean, you've got to consider that many want the $600 version. So, with Sony releasing only 2 mil worldwide, most likely 800,000 of those will be the $500 version. Leaving just 1.2 mil of the $600 for everyone (sure, I can't back these numbers up as they are just guesses, but it will most likely be close to that). I've heard 1,000,000 will be shipped to the United States? Anyway, I'm not terribly interested in the business war. Fortunately I can afford to shell out $600 to buy something for a simple pleasure. I just purely think the PS3 will be the best system released when it's all said and done. Sell the most? Who knows. (As far as Microsoft taking your 360 back and replacing it...they're used to it. )

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 12:06 AM) Well, judging from the posts in this thread, it seems many of us do. The price scheme is a gimmick, just like where they ripped off the idea from, the 360. Those who follow gaming know that either stripped-down, lower-priced version aren't worth it. It's meant more for parents and uninformed buyers who won't know what they're getting and will go with the cheaper buy. Anyways, 600 bucks is way too much for a gaming system for me and lots of others, and my guess is that many casual gamers will be turned off by the price. Sure, that's true for back then, but recently companies had been striving to keep all new releases at the same $50 dollar price point, and 60 bucks for the next generation seems like the next logical step. 80 bucks for a game would be wayy too much, in my opinion. There's really no way of knowing that. Hope you're not a ps fanboy. I would have thought the same if not for seeing Nintendo once again dominate the handheld market when many were predicting that the psp, which has way more power and technology, would finally be the one to topple Game Boy. None of the 3 really wow me or seem like the clear-cut favorite so it'll be interesting to see who wins out. It's easy to say that ps3 will continue their current dominance, but so far it hasn't been all that impressive (funny you should mention the changes to the controller when it's clearly a blatant rip-off of Nintendo), and the price is just way too high for my tastes and the tastes of many others. Well, from what I've heard and read, the PS3 has the power of a PC. You are correct about the cheaper version and the expensive version. I've read that the $600 version will have an HDMI port and the $500 one won't. (Excuse me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the lack of an HDMI port kind of defeat the purpose of the PS3? If so, stupid move by Sony.) HOWEVER, with blu-ray DVD players going for $1,000, you're essentially shelling out $500 for the system (what the 360 costs) and $100 for a piece of machineary that costs a grand. Is there a better buy than that? I am not a huge gamer so 80 bucks for the four or five games that I regularly play doesn't seem like a big deal. And you know what they say, you pay what you get for. As far as the handhelds, I never really got into that. I think the problem with the PSP was the lack of battery life, but I don't really know. I am excited about the Wii though. It has all the Gamecube ports for all the Gamecube owners and downloadable games from past versions (NES, SNES, N64, Sega and Turbo Grafx). But they're banking their success on a GIANT if.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jul 4, 2006 -> 10:19 PM) You had me at the Xbox 360 is a hunk of s***. PS3's Power: "The PlayStation 3 will have a 3.2GHz Cell processor that consists of a single PowerPC-based core with seven synergistic processing units. The Cell is the result of a joint effort between IBM, Sony, and Toshiba. The primary PowerPC core has a 512KB L2 cache, and each SPE has 256KB of its own memory to work with. The CPU has an eighth SPE for "redundancy." IBM has stated that the first prototypes have weighed in with 234 million transistors each. To put things into perspective, desktop PC processor manufacturer Intel only broke into the 200-million transistor range with its dual-core Pentium Processor Extreme Edition chip, which was released in early 2005." - Gamespot.com In other words, the PS3 basically can match the power of a gaming PC. If Sony releases hardware upgrades down the line, it may be 10 years before they can release an affordable machine that can beat it. I'd like to see Microsoft jump ship with the X-box 360, put Windows into the PS3 and sell it as the cheapest gaming computer on the market. Though, that's not very likely. I doubt the PS3 has the RAM to account for being a computer, let alone the other hardware it takes to make a computer work.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 02:21 PM) But the PS3 is a BluRay player which costs $1,000.00 alone. Want proof? Check the sales ad from bestbuy this past week and it's there. Samsung I think is the model. Does anyone in this thread follow the gaming world? The PS3 is being released at 2 prices: $499 and $599, and if you think one hundred extra dollars is bad, just take a look back at the success Sony and Playstation have previously had. They're matching, plus upping Microsoft and in the meantime, they still have soul rights to some of the best video game companies on the market (where Microsoft lacks). QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 01:33 PM) PS3 games will cost more than $60, could get up to $100. http://news.spong.com/article/10311 Final nail in the coffin for Sony. Are you kidding me? In 1997 Final Fantasy 7 cost $75 dollars when it first hit the shelves. This is nothing new by any means. The Xbox-360 is a hunk of s***, anyone that buys that thing will be horribly disappointed. It ALREADY has hardware failure problems, and given they didn't do anything to better the laser that reads the discs, it'll die out in 2-3 years just like all the first generation X-Box's did (PS2's do as well). Wii could be a force, but I think they have more of a gimmick than anything. Regardless, the PS3 is reported to have some of the same features the Wii is banking their whole future on (motion sensor's). The one thing I LOVE about the Wii, however, is that you can download all the classic Nintendo and SNES games from online (free, I've heard). All and all, the PS3, from the looks of it, will easily be the best buy in the newest generation of video games just as the PS2 was. Not to mention they are already prepared to actually have systems in stores.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jul 4, 2006 -> 12:28 PM) I counted about 50 movies on that list that I will never see. While I'm no movie expert, I did find the strangely absent "Super Troopers" to be hilarious, and "Major League" ain't listed despite the fact that it is a hell of a lot funnier than "Bull Durham" on the strength of Uecker alone. I disagree, Bull Durham is a well rounded movie while Major League (though a favorite of mine) is, well, just a comedy.

Usually when Kenny says this, he's got something in the works.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jul 3, 2006 -> 10:30 PM) This list is terrible... Absolutely terrible. Annie Hall 28? Dr. Strangelove 53!? These are two of the best films ever period, let alone among comedies.

Beat your division rivals, and you win the division. That's generally how baseball goes. Here's how it's stacked up so far: Sox 5-1 vs. Tigers Sox 5-2 vs. Twins Tigers 7-2 vs. Twins Minnesota stands 10 back because they are 4-12 against the teams they are chasing. Detroit has to lose their legs at SOME POINT, even if only for a week or two. But right now, though we all think the Sox are playing like s*** (and we all know damn well there is room for improvement), the Sox are 24 games over the bump. Falling 3.5 back of the Tigers before the All-Star break isn't half bad at all. The Tigers have just as many question marks as the Sox do going into the second half, but the Sox have yet to reach their peak...the Tigers are there now and I don't think they have the talent to play this good for an entire 162 games (even the Sox had their down points to last year. RE: 15 game lead went down to the wire). As far as the Twins, frankly, 4-12 against the teams you are chasing isn't going to cut it. They tore through the NL, but so did a lot of other AL teams...we'll see what happens in the 2nd half and when they have to play teams that can give them a run on any given night.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jul 3, 2006 -> 06:23 PM) disco 2000...oh man...OHHHHH...i love that song so much... "what are you doing sunday baby, would you like to come and meet me maybe? You could even bring your baby OOOOh OH OH OOH OH OH OOOOOH" ahh, i can never hit the high OOOHs but there is no song i sing to louder... Jarvis Cocker = coolest nerd on planet. Great song. I Spy is one of my favorites. "You see I spy for a living, and I specialise in revenge, on taking the things I know will cause you pain." Such a badass song...almost up there with Nick Cave.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jul 3, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) uber indie music...so electronic and ... britpop... the indie market is maybe 3%(MAYBE) of the population... Radioheads sales far surpassed that. People like radiohead the way people probably liked pink floyd. They are experimental enough that people feel like they are hearing something new, but poppy enough to have the hooks to get people to listen. If anything they are a gateway band for people to hear the bands truly trying to do something different or already had done something great. I think HTTT did sound misguided, one from Godrich's terrible production, which was quite suprising, and two...i just don't think they knew what to do with themselves anymore. It was more of just perfecting their technique...skttrbrain/2+2 sounded like earlier days, but myxamatosis kept eering towards amnesiac...but sail to the moon, f***...and others...started to remind me a bit of songs from shoegaze bands like slowdive. having heard their new songs...this is a return to the bends...but its not just a f***in hey lets roll up the distortion and have a 3 guitar go at it...they've become quite good at the layered sounds...and to ignore that would be silly. That's what HTTT suffered from...the confusion of where to go next whilst encompassing all that they've learned...Do i think LP7 will be a return to form...prolly not. They are probably dead like all my favorite bands are...but i Disagree that they are selling out. I think you have a bit of a skewed view of what people like...as i do too...sometimes i think a band must be really popular only to go to a show and me be "surrounded" by 15-20 peers (the constantines...) Electronic and the smiths-esque sounds of radiohead are not very popular in US. But radiohead put their spin on it and its commendable. I think Radiohead has played tastemaker in a lot of ways with OK C and Kid A. I think a lot more americans are familiar with Aphex twin because of radiohead. That said as far as influential goes i think its undeniable don't you...a bit gagging... but Muse, Travis, Coldplay, Keane, aqualung...all that garbage. btw...i was gonna make a point on how dylan has exploited news stories for hits and in an attempt to stay relevant in his later albums...(the undeniably embarrasing "joey") in which he bypassed all facts in a last gasp of hope that it stuck. This was no hurricane or jackson...but i decided not to because i like dylan too much and i don't want to argue against him... champ debate though, i've enjoyed it very much. Well, I know you've got good taste in music. I don't know very many Pulp fans. Different Class is one of my favorite albums of all time.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) Ebert only likes artsy tartsy films that no one in the real world likes. He should review Independant movies only, and just get on with it. I pay no attention to the fat man with no film taste. If it is anything like batman begins then it will be great. I cant wait to see it now. He's more like the fat man that likes EVERYTHING. He was a critic back in the day, now he's just a whore. Go to Blockbuster and see how many movie boxes his name is plastered on. It's about time he has spoken up about all these f***ing superhero movies. The only decent one has been Batman Begins.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jul 3, 2006 -> 01:59 AM) They all knew who you were... but were scared of the odor that emits from yourself. This thread is very nostalgic for some reason.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jul 2, 2006 -> 11:59 PM) I. Love. Dougly. I thought he died. Welcome back man!

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 10:09 AM) The Sox rotation is built on innings eaters...and Smoltz is not an innings eater anymore. He threw 229.7 innings last year. He's already thrown 111 this season.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 2, 2006 -> 07:13 PM) This trade makes sense. Our offense has been awful so far. A joke? QUOTE(Frankensteiner @ Jul 2, 2006 -> 07:28 PM) Can we have Smoltz as a throw-in? That's the guy I want. And I bet his price tag would be cheaper than Jones. The Sox rotation is lacking right now, if they can land Smoltz and get rid of Vazquez (wouldn't some bullpen help or a higher average CF be nice?), the Sox would be set in my mind.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jul 2, 2006 -> 09:51 PM) His n Hers not really good?!?!?! madness... besides Blur broke first with Modern Life is Rubbish...all these bands came up together including a bunch of bands i used to listened to that i've since forgotten certainly i can't here oasis in pop bands today..and bands like White Stripes, Strokes, blahBlah whom have followed the retro movement seem to have been influenced more by a bunch of E6 bands and T. Rex and a bunch of late seventies garage bands and wire and s*** like that. Maybe the late nineties i'll give em...no...i just don't see oasis as very influential at all. Good pop band though...had a good 2 album run. Sea Change sucked...bollocks i say...godrich did a damn good job and that album had more soul thatn 19/20s of the garbage being peddled out now as soulful... and you are completely discarding One foot in the Grave and Mellow Gold. Plus i liked midnight vultures. Guero did suffer thou. "like Radiohead thinks they do today" I just disagree with this...one of the more modest bands you'll see, any arrogance can be attributed to being british(nooffense deploderer) but i can't think of a band more cautious about their fame than radiohead was/is. I surrender on the first two fronts. But I do not think Radiohead is a modest band in even the slightest regard. The only thing I think they've led is pop to the indie genre. I salute their first five albums because I once was a big Radiohead fan. That was until Hail to the Thief. Pablo Honey aside everything, The Bends and OK Computer were big with the British crowds, just as Oasis was even with their later crappy music (for at least a little while longer). Kid A and Amnesiac brought more praise from the American crowd, but less in their home market. To this, they decided they'd combine the two genre's of music into some uber-indie music and try to appeal to the biggest market. (Sellout? Anybody?) Not only did Hail to the Theif sound poppish and misguided, Thom Yorke tried to throw in a political twist with lyrics that never start to make sense. Instead of handling their business like Dylan did when the Brits criticized him for the eletric guitar, saying to them all, "You don't like it? You're probably not American." There was a lot of anticipation for Radiohead's 6th album, mostly because people thought Radiohead would revert to their younger rock days. I like bands that find success in what they do. Not bands that find success in what people like. Radiohead is a British band, I wish they'd act like it.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jul 2, 2006 -> 04:35 PM) Oasis rode the wave of a bunch of bands that were all doing the same thing...its not like oasis came in and all the sudden Pulp and others were like, oh, yeah oh this is a good one... I don't think you realize how Influential southernplayalisticcadillacmusik and ATLiens and Aquemeni have been on hip hop and their latter albums have been on pop music... and as far as beck goes...you are just wrong. Pulp wasn't REALLY good until Different Class, first of all, and second of all Oasis RULED the rock world much like Radiohead thinks they do today (for my money, there aren't many albums better than Definitely Maybe). And face it about Beck. Guero sucked, Sea Change sucked and Midnight Vultures was barely average. He'll never see Mutations/Odelay days again.

Apparently Joe Crede had something to say about this.

Nothing like beating a dead horse until it's not really a horse anymore.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 11:11 PM) Yo, name some influential bands Mags that you think eclipsed Radiohead. I'm interested as I'm a huge music fan. Lets, see, that would be 1986. I was born in 83, so a bit young to remember those bands, but I remember the mid 90's well, and early 90's not so much. Here are some more off the top of my head. Nirvana Radiohead Beck Pavement The Smashing Pumpkins Outkast Outkast and Beck? Beck has one good album under his name and a bunch of bad to average ones. What the hell has Outkast ever done? Regardless, you're missing 2 of the bigger ones: The Pixies and Oasis.

Bat the pitchers, use a DH for Anderson.