NFL Records: Prepare to be Shattered.

September 18, 2011

The season is two weeks old, and you know what that means: Time to jump to ridiculous conclusions!

Coming into the 2011 NFL season, only 5 quarterbacks in history had ever thrown for 400+ yards in consecutive games. After two weeks of action, that number is now 8.

Those 5 QBs?
Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Phil Simms, Billy Volek, and Matt Cassell.

Quite a list right?

Drew Brees threw for 404 yards in the Saints playoff loss at Seattle in January. His next meaningful game came on opening Thursday night against the Packers in which he threw for 419 yards. The NFL doesn't recognize those games as "consecutive," but I do. So he's number 6 to accomplish the feat.

Cam Newton threw for 422 in his debut and a week later went for 432, becoming the 7th QB of ALL-TIME to throw for 400+ in back to back games. This was in his first two games. Think about that for a second.

How much wood would a Woodhead blow
if a Woodhead would blow wood?
Tom Brady has gone for 517 and 423 in the first two games and that made him the 8th QB to accomplish the feat. On the CBS broadcast, once Brady went over 400, they came on and declared Brady to be the 6th QB of All-time to go for 400+ on consecutive games. Ooops CBS, way to keep us informed.

In the 2007 NFL season, there were 5 QBs that eclipsed 400 yards in a game.
In  the 2005 season it happened only once.
Last season it happened 12 times.

Through just two weeks of this season, it's happened 6 times (Brees, Newton, Brady, Henne, Newton, Brady). Which means were on pace for 48 QB-games of 400+ yards!

I smell a Casserole
Looks like the lockout has helped the passing game. (No RB is on pace for more than 1900 yards or 16 TDs rushing)

Tom Brady is on this pace:
504 of 704  for 7520 yards 56 TDs and 8 INTs

Of course, his one-time replacement, Matt Cassell is on this pace:
296 of 464  for 2016 yards  8 TDs and 32 INTs

And his team, the Chiefs, are on pace to go 0-16, to score 80 points, give up 712 points, and to commit 72 turnovers.

(In his last 4 games, dating back to last year's playoff loss and regular season finale, Cassel's stat line looks like this: 57 of 109 for 417 yards, 1 TD and 9 INTs. That's in 4 games. Cam Newton has more than 417 yards in both of his career starts...)

Looks like we know who's gonna get Lucky next April.


The Matrix Rebooted

September 14, 2011

For this kid, there is no poon
In my mind, the Matrix sequels do not exist. They are one with the spoon in the amount of "there is no"-ness that they have. They sucked so much dick that they are like a black hole that's filled only with penises.

Here's the 5 reasons they sucked.


1. The Double Movie.

This shit needs to stop. A movie is a hit, so they skip the 2nd film and go straight to making it a trilogy all at once. The end result is a first movie that's awesome followed by a 4 hour mini-series that has one big meandering shitty plot. If you've ever written something long like a screenplay or a novel, you'll know that when you begin you have tons of ideas, and as the project goes on you have to abandon some of them, hone others, and take a bunch of ideas and make it into one tight package. This whole two movies at once thing is an excuse for the writers to say "Oh fuck it, let's just do this shit I made up." They don't have to cut things or make the story tighter since they have 4 hours to work with. Look at The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. They feel like different films. They have different tones, the plots are quite different, in short, they're distinct movies, like a middle child and a youngest child, they share some of the same DNA, but they're different. If the Star Wars sequels were made today, they would have been "The Shit that happened after we blew up the death star part I and part II."
The HIV Virus AKA Gay Death Star

If you'll remember, the entire goal of Matrix 2 is for Neo to decide between saving the world and saving the girl. He pulls a rabbit out of his ass and does both (don't ask how the rabbit got there). Then she just dies in the 3rd one anyway...Cool.

The reason you do the 2nd movie and then 4 years later make the 3rd movie is that you have time to step back from 2 and reflect on it, to examine 1 and 2 together, to think about what you really want 3 to be about. (Imagine if they made all 3 Star Wars prequels at once...Lucas wouldn't have had time to realize how much Jar Jar sucked and we would have been stuck with him for 3 movies...seriously) When you skip this middle step, you end up with a pair of movies that were made in haste, without a lot of thought or reflection, and the whole thing begs for a complete do-over.


2. They break their own rules.

The world of The Matrix has rules. The story is unique because the rules are different from the ordinary rules in reality. So to create believability what you have to do is have clear rules. This is my problem with Fantasy/Magic/Vampires, while they sometimes have clear rules, more often than not they can just make shit up whenever the writer needs to get out of a jam.

So in the Matrix they have some rules. If you die in The Matrix, you die in real life. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but okay. In the real world, it's the real world, no magic, no dodging bullets. In the Matrix, since you're in a computer, you can dodge bullets and do crazy shit. Got it.

Then in Matrix 2 we have an agent, a computer program, escape into the real world by taking over a real person. Ummm, wat? How the fuck does that work? It's never explained. I guess Bane didn't have very good Cerebral Anti-virus (I told him Norton sucks). Then Neo somehow creates an EMP out of thin air with his hands. So...that whole real world being reality thing? What happened to that?

This same problem came up in just the first hour and a half of Inception. Rules are established, then they're broken. This destroys both the believability and it's sloppy since you need to either do what they do in Inception and explain why the rules have changed, or just pull the Matrix sequel technique which is to pretend like it's perfectly rational.


3. It makes no god damn sense.

Wait, you guys know that batteries just store power, they
don't create power...right? Oh, you're just idiots. Got it. 
So the evil computers need Humans to be their batteries. This makes no sense. Even if holding a living thing in a tub of jelly somehow created lots of electricity, wouldn't that be true of all large mammals? I mean, why not just keep a bunch of chimpanzees or whales in tubs of jelly to make power?

Okay so even if we buy that humans are just a power source, well, why keep them in the Matrix? Why not just keep them in a coma? What's the fucking point of deceiving these billions of people? The AI could have designed a Matrix that's set in Medieval Europe, so when Neo wakes up into the real world and Morpheus is all like, hey plug your brain into this computer and lets go hack the Matrix, Neo would shit his pants and call them heretics for making moving lights. Seriously, the AI are basically training computer hackers. WTF?


4. Zion is lame

ZION! BEER ME!
Zion is cool in The Matrix because you don't ever see it. It's the last remnant of civilization. It sounds cool and mysterious. Then we find out it's a glorified night club going through a grunge phase. The cool thing about The Matrix universe is that you can go inside computers and do impossible and awesome looking things. But the sequels spend a ton of time in this dank hole of a city trying to make us care about ridiculous characters fighting off flying octopi with machine guns.

It's jaw shatteringly good.

5. The ending is lame

Honestly I don't even remember how 3 ended. I remember a baby-like face computer thing and then you see sunshine for the first time in the real world. Something like that. Zion and the evil AI make a deal or something? I don't really recall. It was just so lame and weird and didn't follow any kind of logic. I do remember a pretentious Colonel Sanders. That guy was pretty cool.



So I think they need to Reboot The Matrix. Forget the sequels ever happened, like I've tried to do, and just make a new 2 and 3. It's Hollywood so they'll probably wait 10 years and then just reboot starting with 1.

When that happens, here's what they need to do in the sequels.


1. Fix the battery bullshit.

But how do you kill that which has no life?
Here's a good reason for the AI to keep humans alive and in a matrix world where they're not only educated, but given the abilities to use computers that once they are extracted, they're trained hackers:
The AI still needs help. Clearly the AI can create new systems and fix problems, but maybe there are still some things they aren't good at. The AI isn't as creative as a real person or something. So they keep these  people in a Matrix, like Neo, who is in fact a computer programmer. What's his day job? Maybe he thinks he's developing software for an iPhone but in reality it's helping the bad guys fix some kinks in their communication systems.

This way not only are the humans inside the Matrix powering the bad guys, they're even actively helping them without knowing it.

Then you can have some crazy general in Zion who thinks they should just nuke the Matrix, kill all those  deceived people, but cripple the bad guys. It leads to an ethical dilemma, and of course Neo and Morpheus would be against that and would hatch a different plan to defeat the AI. Perhaps that involves waking up some section of the population inside the Matrix without extracting them. If you'll remember the ending of The Matrix, Neo calls the AI and then tells it he's going to "show these people a world without rules, a world without you." Then he flies away. So...what happened to doing that?


2. Stick to the god damn rules

That totally looks like it would fly in the real world.
After watching Reloaded in which a person in the real world is taken over by a virus, Neo makes an EMP with his bare hands, and then in Revolutions Neo can magically see through his blindness in a pseudo Matrix-vision even in the real world, I came up with an explanation for how these rules could be broken in what was supposed to be reality:

This isn't reality. What if midway through the 3rd movie we discover that Zion and the hovercraft and all this is not reality, that they're still in a computer simulation. A. That would be a big holy shit moment just like in the first one, B. It would raise the stakes immensely, and C. It would make some fucking sense.

So if they're going to insist on having miracles happen in the supposed real world, then they better make it not really the real world.


3. Make the ending not suck

Imagine if the ending was the result of a struggle for control of the minds of the people in the Matrix. Neo and gang are trying to wake them up and create resistance to the AI, keep programmers from helping, or in fact plant double agents that write malicious code. How the fuck do you beat a computer? With a virus stupid! Perhaps the Agents start just offing people left and right, causing Neo and gang to question if it's moral to risk the lives of all these people. But the AI can't just kill them all, they need power and programming. Maybe the AI strikes back by changing The Matrix, making it post-apocalyptic so the people in it can't become hackers. Perhaps there are many Matrices with different settings and rules. We know they tried many other variations of the Matrix because we're told so. Smith says they tried to make utopia but entire crops were lost because their primitive minds couldn't accept it. Maybe there's a steampunk Matrix out there with rudimentary computers. Maybe an old west matrix? There are all kinds of possibilities because it's virtual reality. Fucking anything can happen.
Try hacking Western Union whilst my wenches perform
 fellatio on you and I hold a blunderbus to your back

Instead of that, we get an ending that splits between trying to save their hole in the ground city from flying octopi, and climactic battles where Neo and Smith try to break the laws of physics by flying and punching each other while millions of Smiths watch or something.

The entire reason the Matrix is interesting is because there's billions of people alive in the Matrix where crazy shit can happen. The sequels decided to ignore all that and make movies about punching and bad romance and hovercraft.



Clearly The Matrix 2 and 3 need a good hard reboot.

Hangover 2: You had to be there

September 10, 2011

Don't Drink and Jerk

Last weekend I got hammered with my friends Tibbs (also known as Turbo for some reason), Derek, Melissa, Kael, Eric, Brandon, my girlfriend, and some chick I didn't know. We played a drinking game I invented, and then out of nowhere, suddenly Tibbs is bleeding all over the place. Apparently Eric tried to pull Tibbssess knife from his pocket and that somehow resulted in a cut on the thumb and on the wrist. We were just about to go to the bars, and Tibbs wasn't about to not go out, so we duct taped the shit out of his cuts and were off to the clubs! Where we almost got in a fight. It was awesome.

Don't give a shit? Yeah, cause it's a story that's only cool if you were actually there to witness it (and were also drunk). "You had to be there" stories lead to some of the worst moments in your life. Whenever you go to a party, there's always some guy named Walter or Matt or Jake, some boring name to go with his boring life, and he's going to corner you and tell you this story about his crazy friend Tim who you've never met, and how Tim did the craziest thing this one time when they were in San Diego, but were so drunk they thought they were actually in Tijuana. You...had to be there.

I'm talking about YHTBT stories for a reason. And that reason is to dissect a film that came out a while ago for no apparent reason.

Three Men and a Plot Twist
The Hangover worked for a couple of reasons. The obvious one is that it paired the mystery plot structure with the stupid high concept comedy. It's a mystery with clues and twists and surprises, but it's also funny most of the way through. This is why I love writing comedies. In most dramas, there's only really one thing going on at a time. Watch any Hugh Grant movie and you'll see how little is going on. Boy meets girl. They flirt and stuff, and then they don't hook up for a while for some reason, then they do hookup and the music swells, and then they kinda breakup for some reason, and then they end up together probably, cue music. Comedies have to do all the things that a mystery, or a suspense thriller, or a chick flick does, but they also have to be funny, which ain't nothing to sneeze at.

Does Bruce Willis Look Like a Bitch?
If you can think of a way to match the mystery plot with high concept comedy, you can have a million dollar idea. A script that just recently sold for 1.2 mill is called "Sex Tape." It's about a regular couple who have a crazy night of sex and when they wake up the sex tape they made is gone! TV Networks love the shit out of cop shows because each week they can have a new serial rapist to catch. But in ordinary life, something that a comedy can work with, mysteries revolve around shit like "Dude, where's my car?" or "What the fuck happened last night." Those are both really the same thing. DWMC? matched the mystery plot with the comedy, but that movie sucked a dick because it was a fucking retarded stoner movie. (And then like hot Alien Chicks should show up!)

The Inept Sperm Dance
So what else can we match the mystery plot with? "Shit, who's the daddy?" Has been done, Jerry Springer and Maury Pauvich have built mansions based on that slut shaming enterprise. That subplot has been used frequently on TV to give female characters something to do. Another version is the, "Who is the sperm donor?" plot, which has also been done. So where's the next Hangover? What other real life mysteries do we face? Or perhaps it's going to be the pairing of a different plot to the high concept comedy (Gone In 60 Seconds meets 40 Year Old Virgin. "What's more fun? Having sex, or stealing cars?" In fact, I'm going to rewatch that movie and pretend it's really about Nicholas Cage trying to finally have sex...with the unicorn?)

The OTHER reason The Hangover worked was because you felt like you were one of the guys. Who can't imagine going with their close friends to Vegas for a great bachelor party? So the movie puts you in the moment, with these guys just like it's you and your friends getting into whacky shananigans. There's surprises and crazy shit and the goal is clear and simple. We need to find our friend, who's getting married. It's a crazy party story and you're there actually experiencing it.

Then my friend was all like...


The Hangover 2 is a really good movie because it feels like you're right there with your friends going through this. I mean, who hasn't gotten stoned in Thailand and misplaced their friend's fiance's little brother? Oh right, that's never happened ever. The Hangover 2 doesn't work for the same reason the first one does. The Hangover 2 is a movie that should really end with the Director coming on screen over the credits, putting his head down and saying "I guess you had to be there."

The big differences between the two films really comes down to believability. The first one is believable enough that when something crazy happens, it's like one of your friends suddenly getting a beat down from a naked chinese dude. In the second one, I'm not buying it, it draws too much attention to the fact that it's not just a movie but a sequel. When whacky things happen to whacky characters in a whacky movie...well so what? So when people say that the second one sucked because it was too much like the first one, they're part right. The first one was good, so why would it be such a sin to be similar? Well, the answer is that drawing attention to the artifice of it completely undermines the main reason the first one worked. So instead of being there and experiencing it, the second one is a whacky YHTBT story.

Rust Belt Readies For Waves of Refugees from Manning-torn Indy

September 5th, 2011

"The quarterback dropped back to pass, and then I just don't know what happened," said Indianapolis native Joe Quincy, "There were receivers running routes, but he just didn't throw a perfect back-shoulder fade or anything. I mean, how hard is it to throw a touchdown?"

"These quarterbacks are awful! I'll bet their passer rating is lower than 100!" Said Tim Gransell, 18, "I mean how hard is it to throw a ball? These guys suck."

Everyone outside of Indiana has known this day will come. The day when Peyton Manning won't be the starting quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. The result? A bewildered and frightened population. Thousands of Indianans wearing #18 jerseys wander shell-shocked through the streets. It's been 14 years since someone other than Manning started a game under center.

The Indianapolis PD has been over-worked trying to field all the suicide-related calls. Buildings all over the rejuvenated down-town have lines out the door of hopeful suicide jumpers trying to catch elevators to the top.

Many citizens of Indianapolis couldn't name a single former QB that preceded Manning. "Harbaugh? The Ravens coach?"

Curtis Painter is ready to become the QB of the future. 12 more people just jumped.

"We've got clones of Peyton in training right?" asked Jim Caldwell, which is the longest sentence he's ever uttered.

The Colts season starts on Sunday against The Texans. It should be an interesting QB battle between Matt Schaub and Kerry Collins. Collins in all likelihood will pass Joe Montana on the all-time passing yards list, putting him into 10th all-time. If he plays all year he might surpass Dan Fouts for 9th all-time.

Collins might just have had one of the most overlooked careers of all time. It won't be a consolation to Colts fans when Collins passes Joe Montana. Peyton, who's 5 years younger than Collins, passed Montana four years ago. Collins remains a Michael Vick's worth of passing yards behind Manning on the all-time list.

Manning was expected to surpass Dan Marino into 2nd all-time in Touchdown passes. He has 399, Marino's record was 420 before Brett Favre broke it. Instead of Manning breaking Marino's mark, Colts fans will be treated with Kerry Collins passing Randall Cunningham for 28th place at 208 career TDs.

Interestingly, Manning and Collins are tied for 28th all-time in Interceptions thrown (even though Manning has nearly double the TD passes). So perhaps Colts fans can have something to celebrate as Peyton moves down on the all-time interception list. Some consolation prize.

D E C E P T I O N

 September 1, 2011

It's September and you know what that means! Time to disect a movie that came out last year for no apparent reason.

This month it's time to tackle, BWAAHHHHH, Inception.

First off, Inception did spawn this: http://inception.davepedu.com/
Perhaps the greatest tool for everyday conversation ever devised.

Just pull that up and sprinkle it into conversations.

To the Movie!


So Inception is a good movie. It's at least original, has some interesting ideas, does way more than the average blockbuster, but it's not Citizen Kane, hell it's not even The Matrix.

One thing it is is a litmus test. If you meet someone and they tell you that Inception was a "Philosophical" film, run away fast. This person is dumb. And the one thing we know about dumb people, it's that they know nothing about  C O N T R A C E P T I O N. 


I will give credit to the movie for not being a fucking obvious action movie, and for not having any cheesy one-liners, and at least taking a crack at an interesting premise. Most action movies fail on all counts here. What I want to talk about aren't what they did right, but what they did wrong.

1. E X C E P T I O N . . . to the rule.

In the Matrix, the screenwriters needed a way for the action within a virtual world to matter, so they devised the simple rule "the body cannot live without the mind," meaning that if you die in the matrix your mind is somehow destroyed? It makes perfect sense because every time you die in Grand Theft Auto you die in the real world too. It's a way to cheat and give stakes to a situation that would otherwise be consequenceless. We as audiences tend to be very accepting of illogical and poorly introduced rules as long as it makes for a better story.

Now, when Inception begins, you're inside a dream inside a dream inside a dream inside a dream inside a dream and then you flashback to being inside a dream inside a dream that happened months earlier (I did the math, that's an accurate description). And once we learn that this is a dream, and Leo and Joe are discovered, we quickly learn that dieing in the dream world simply wakes you up. So right off, I'm glad they don't take the Matrix route and make you somehow die if you die in a dream.

 I'm a bit unhappy that being shot in the heart actually somehow makes you die in a dream. I mean, you can have a dream that you're guillotined and then live on as a severed head for months. Anything can happen in dreams.

But they stop short of allowing for things like that and establish that pain is real, so torture is possible, and they can imprison you and prevent you from achieving your goals while torturing you, which is probably worse than just putting a bullet through your cerebellum.

I found this to be a pretty good rule. It can allow for clear goals and for stakes. They can capture Juno, torture her spunky ass, and prevent them from completing their mission whilst getting information from her. Leading the gang to go on a mission to kill Juno to end her misery and stop their prying torture, or perhaps to break her out and continue on despite the psychological trauma. Either way, shit can mean something, it's not just anything can happen land with no consequences.

BUT, once they start the big heist at the core of the film, this rule is immediately wiped away and a new less sensical one is established. If you die in this dream, you go to limbo, because of the powerful sedative. Umm wat? Limbo is never very clearly defined, despite earnest attempts such as calling it "raw infinite subconcious." Oh, okay, that clears everything up. So if you die on the big mission, you get sent to a never ending Madonna video.

So basically all this accomplishes is that the main characters spend the movie trying not to die. I've never seen an action film with that goal before. So they squander an interesting opportunity, and commit a cardinal sin of spending time explaining a rule, only to completely change the rule a little later in the film.


Exception Part II

Remember how on Dream Level 1 (DL1), they are in the van and falling to the river? This means that in DL2, in the hotel, they are in zero gravity, thus leading to Joe's dillema of having to create a kick or a fall without using gravity. That's interesting, it's a weird logic puzzle, it creates scenes that are definitely original. It also leads to some of the best action in the movie with zero-g fights, or with tumbling gravity. Great right?

Well, in DL2, the rest of the crew is sleeping, and floating, and in the next dream down, DL3, they are on a snow level...with gravity. Excuse me? If zero g in one level causes zero g down a rung, then why doesn't it keep continuing? This makes no sense.

DL3 should have taken place in zero-g. Maybe underwater or in a space station.



2. Squandered Opportunities

My favorite part of the movie, at least the first time I watched it, was when Juno learns all about the dream world. She's given a tutorial about changing the world, she even folds up a city, moves bridges, creates infinite mirrors, alters gravity, it's all pretty interesting, but then comes with a caveat. If you change a lot of things, the sub-conscious becomes hostile. Suddenly all the extras filling the Escheresque city start trying to grab Juno like aggressive planned parenthood protesters. Anyone with a pulse can see that later in the film, on the big job, Juno will have to manipulate the world, bend physics, create impossible shapes, turn a city on edge, maybe just turn gravity upside down to get them out of a pickle, a million weird things that you've never seen in another action movie are possible, BUT this power is limited by the aggressiveness of the extras afterwards. So you can imagine she has to do just a little too much world manipulation and the extras get so pissy that they almost, but not quite, stop our protagonists.

Then when this happened in the 3rd act, oh wait. It doesn't. Juno never again manipulates the world or does anything cool. In fact, she seems pretty pointless for the rest of the film, except to try to act as a shrink to Leo about his dead wife, because chicks like to talk about chick things, not architecture or physics.

Seriously, this super power with a clear limitation and is set up so well is never again used or mentioned.

What do we get instead?

Quit Screen-peeking!
A fucking Bond level from Goldeneye N64. The snow level, you remember the one, where we interrupt this movie to cut to stock footage of Nazis on skis and lots of guns firing for some reason. What?

Then in the middle of this incredibly generic video game level, Leo goes to Juno and tells her they're low on time, so she needs to create a shortcut for them to get to the middle of the maze very quickly. Now instead of opening up a portal, shifting gravity, or even creating some sort of portal in her vagina and making the whole team crowd through it, no, she just thinks about it and then our crew just skis a different route, which to me seems indistinguishable from their original route. Thanks Juno, glad we brought you along.


3. M I S C O N C E P T I O N 


The ending does not make you think.

Here are 3 similar movies that all beat Inception to the punch by a decade.

The Matrix makes you think, just a little bit, but not at the end. The philosophical idea it throws out there is that perhaps you are living in a simulated world and have no idea. And even so, does it really matter? How do you define real?

I'm not calling The Matrix philosophical, but at least these ideas are expressed in some way.
That looks more like the ground floor to me. 

The Thirteenth Floor offers similar ideas. It's about a computer programmer who works on a simulation of a world in the 30's. A world that seems real and you can go inside of and the virtual people inside it think their world is real. SPOILER: At the end, the main character discovers that the present day world is actually a simulation in a computer from 2030-ish. That ending offers up the idea that our world is simulated and we could wake up from it.

Dark City - SPOILER - offers up the possibility that every single day you wake up, you're actually a new person, or a different person, and that all of your memories are fake. How can you know that you existed before you awoke today? For all we know, the universe could have been created 15 seconds ago and we were all just given detailed memories of everything supposedly leading up to this point.

Yeah, Deus Ex was a great game.
Again, these aren't spectacularly philosophical, but at least I can write a paragraph about it.

What's the philosophical question Inception asks?

Ummm...hey, is Leonardo DiCaprio still dreaming or isn't he? Who gives a shit? Maybe the whole idea of Inception and dream heists is just the figment of Leo's imagination in the real world and this whole world and whole universe is one night's, or maybe one coma's dream.

Okay. Cool man. That's interesting I guess.

People can debate whether or not Leo is dreaming still, but there's two big flaws in the whole debate. Leo has a totem, the dradle thing right? And at the end we don't know if it stops or goes on forever.  The camera cuts away. But Leo and the kids and Austin Powers dad are just over there. In a few minutes, THEY WILL KNOW whether this world is real or not. So even if Leo is deluding himself, he can't ignore the spinning top he just left going five minutes ago still spinning.  Problem number 2 is that we see him use the dradle earlier in the film and it stops spinning. So the question isn't whether the seemingly real world of the film is actually a dream, the question is only if Leo has awoken from the big heist mission and that maybe he's still on the plane and doing the heist. You follow?

You see, the film hints at his world not being real, that he jet-sets around the globe, chased by some faceless corporation that someone compares to the subconcious security forces, and pines away for his dead wife who, if she was right, is actually alive in the real world while his world is a dream. So it's hinting at the idea that if Leo dies in what seems to be the real world, that he will wake up to the ACTUAL real world where his wife is still alive and it turns out she was right. This is the ending that a lot of people wanted. In fact, I wanted this ending because if the movie ends with Mal succeeding in convincing him to wake up, and it turns out she's been Inceptioning his ass in the dreams, so that, just like in a lot of heist/confidence movies, the actual con is done on the audience by not giving us the whole picture. So the con isn't that Leo is breaking up some other multi-national corporation for some reason, but Mal inceptioning Leo's ass to wake up to reality.

Which is better, if the movie is about breaking up an energy company for some reason, or if the movie is really about Mal inceptioning Leo to wake him up to reality and her and the kids?

If you watch this long enough
 you'll find out if you're in a coma. 
So, it seems that it's hinting that this will happen, then leaves us hanging. Except that they fuck this up, because earlier in the film, Leo spins the totem and it falls down, this is in the 2nd act when they are still prepping for the mission. So this, under the broken movie logic as I understand it, means that this world is the real world. And if somehow they make some exception to the totem rule, then it means that whether it stops or keeps spinning at the end doesn't mean anything. So to summarize, at the end, Leo isn't testing if the base world of the movie is real, he's only testing that he's woken up from the big heist in the plane.

See, isn't that kind of retarded? And not at all Philosophical.


The real Inception, the real reverse heist that plants an infectious idea, takes place when millions of people see this movie and then become convinced that it's great.



The Cam Newton Express

Aug 31, 2011
The Carolina Panthers were the worst team in football last year. They were rewarded with the first overall pick which they spent on a 1-year wonder who spent that year running from a pay-to-play scandal all the way to the Heisman and a National Championship. He has all the indications of a draft bust:


1. Athletic QBs Win in College, Suck in the NFL

Just ask Tim Tebow. . . and Jamarcus Russell, and Vince Young, and Pat White, and Eric Crouch. In College, a QB who tucks it under and moves the sticks with his feet is a valuable asset. But in the pros, the defenders are too fast, the schemes too complex, the hits too hard. Scrambling QBs are eaten alive in the NFL. 

Vick: Nimble as a cat
But Michael Vick! you say. Vick is the anomaly. But he isn't even that. Vick was drafted in '01, but didn't get the starting job until '02. In '03 he broke his leg in preseason, came back at the end of the year to play in just a handful of games. Then he played 15 or 16 games in '04, '05, and '06.

So basically in his first 6 seasons, he only played 4 complete seasons. His total numbers in Atlanta looked like this:

930-1730  53.7%    11505 yards  71 TD  52 INT

He never once topped 3000 yards passing and his most TDs in a season was 20. Only since his release from prison and his resurgence in Philadelphia where he has learned how to be a pocket passer has he really found success as a passer. 

Compare to Drew Brees, the 2nd QB taken in the same draft as Vick. Brees was a 2nd round pick. Came in without the obscene athletic skills that Vick had, but was a smart pocket passer. From '01 to '06, Brees played in just a handful of more games than Vick (he sat the entire 01 season). 

Here were Brees' numbers:

1481-2363   62.7%    16766 yards    106 TD   64 INT

Which QB would you rather have? And if you think I'm being unfair for comparing Vick to Brees, remember that the Chargers drafted Rivers to replace Brees and then let him go as a free agent. This ain't exactly a Peyton Manning situation.



2. Auburn ran a simple offense


There is no spoon
If you watch Gruden talk to other incoming rookies and compare, it makes Cam Newton look like a high school kid. 

Playing QB in the NFL is about intelligence. Smart QBs do well. Now I'm not saying Cam is dumb, but the offense he ran in Auburn didn't require him to be intelligent. So he hasn't yet proven he has the mental ability to handle the NFL. 


3. One year wonder. 

It's hard to imagine that one year of success in college is enough preparation to be a starter in the NFL. The Draft history is littered with guys that blew up for one year, landed a high draft spot, then faded into obscurity. 

I got it
I'm looking at you Troy Williamson. 

Peyton Manning was the starter a few games into his freshman year, and never missed a game after that, even returning for a senior season even though he was assuredly a top pick. 

With 3 years and change experience as the starting QB at a major college program, Manning deserved the top pick. Had he skipped his senior year, Manning might very well have ended up a St. Louis Ram. 


4. No Pocket Awareness

In College, if there's nowhere to throw it, you tuck it and run. You can't do that in the pros. You'll be eaten alive. Good quarterbacks are at home in the pocket. They'll make subtle moves to keep the play alive. It's not about how fast you are, it's about knowing where the pressure is instinctively, moving to keep the play alive, and taking as few sacks as possible. 

Know what QB was sacked the least number of times last year? For comparison, I'll tell you that Michael Vick, who only played in 12 games, was sacked 34 times. Even the fast and elusive Vick is sacked about 3 times per game. 
This is what you get when
 you google "Manning's Sack"

The league leader in least sacks was a tie. Peyton Manning and...Eli Manning, were both sacked only 16 times. Or once per game. Peyton accomplished this feat despite having an offensive line made of swiss cheese, and throwing to a decimated receiving corps. It doesn't matter if he's under pressure and has practice squad players running go routes. Peyton Manning just won't be hit or sacked all that often. He's the master of the pocket. 

Here are the QBs that were sacked the fewest times (who actually played all year)

The Mannings 16
Matt Ryan 23
Drew Brees 25
Tom Brady 25
Carson Palmer 26

The worst list:
Jay Cutler 52
Cutler Drops Back To Punt
Joe Flacco 40
Philip Rivers 38
Donovan Mcnabb 37
Sam Bradford 34
Kyle Orton 34
Michael Vick 34

Notice a trend?
The 6 best QBs have between a Super Bowl record of 6-2. In fact, the 2 losses they suffered were Brady's in '07 and Manning's in '09, when they were up against another QB on the list. The 7 worst have between them a Super Bowl record of 0-1. 

Cam Newton has taken 4 sacks so far in preseason while attempting about 50 passes. Do some extrapolation and you figure he'll be sacked 30-45 times. However, this is in preseason where defenses aren't throwing complex blitzes at you. I'd put his sack total this year, if he plays the full season, at about 55. 



So you put that all together, and I have serious doubts that Cam Newton will be a successful NFL QB. 

But...I might be wrong. Especially in the NFC South. 

I wrote this before the start of last season:


The NFC South was created in 2002 during the 8 division re-alignment.
NFC South 2002
(2) Tampa Bay Buccaneers 12 4
(6) Atlanta Falcons 9 6 1
New Orleans Saints 9 7
Carolina Panthers 7 9
In First season, Buccaneers win it all. Panthers finish last.
NFC South 2003
(3) Carolina Panthers 11 5
New Orleans Saints 8 8
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 7 9
Atlanta Falcons 5 11
Panthers go from last to first and a trip to the super bowl where they are beaten by Adam Vinatieri's 2nd SB winning field goal. The Falcons finish last at 5-11.
2004
(2) Atlanta Falcons 11 5
New Orleans Saints 8 8
Carolina Panthers 7 9
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 5 11
Falcons go from worst to first. Buccaneers finish last 5-11.
2005
(3) Tampa Bay Buccaneers 11 5
(5) Carolina Panthers 11 5
Atlanta Falcons 8 8
New Orleans Saints 3 13
Buccaneers go from worst to first. This is the year of Katrina and the last place Saints.
2006
New Orleans Saints 10 6
Carolina Panthers 8 8
Atlanta Falcons 7 9
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 4 12
Saints go from worst to first, Buccaneers finish last.
2007
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 9 7
Carolina Panthers 7 9
New Orleans Saints 7 9
Atlanta Falcons 4 12
Buccaneers go from worst to first. Falcons finish last...draft Matt Ryan.
2008
(2) Carolina Panthers 12 4
(5) Atlanta Falcons 11 5
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 9 7
New Orleans Saints 8 8
And here ladies and gentlemen, is the first year that the worst to first trend doesn't hold true. The falcons were the worst, and they did NOT win the division. Although, they finished 11-5, and got the 1st wild-card. The Falcons lost in the first round, and the Panthers lost at home after their first round bye, both were defeated by the eventual Super Bowl losing Arizona Cardinals. The Saints finished last at 8-8
2009
(1) New Orleans Saints 13 3
Atlanta Falcons 9 7
Carolina Panthers 8 8
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 3 13
Saints go from last in their division, to number 1 overall seed in the NFC and Super Bowl Champions.
Buccaneers finish 3-13 in last place. As crazy as it might have seemed. The NFC South History tells us that the Buccaneers have a good shot at winning the division.


And the Buccaneers failed to live up to prophecy, however they did finish 10-6 and just barely miss the playoffs due to a tie-breaker (The 10-6 Packers won the whole damn thing).
Cam Newton and Tim Tebow
Saw a spider. 

So looking back at 2010:
Atlanta Falcons 13-3
New Orleans Saints 11-5
Tampa Bay Bucs 10-6
Carolina Panthers 2-14

How can anyone possibly think the Panthers will have a winning record in this division? Well, history says otherwise. 

Bandwagoneers, be ready to hop on the Cam Newton Express.