Yes, the 28 days late style zombies have gained a lot of traction, presumably because they more or less solve the ways in which zombies taking over the world dosen't make any sense. The only thing in 28 days that you really have to stretch on in terms of plausibility is the way zombies seem to have no interest in…

Speaking of this has anyone read any of Ted Nugent's columns at the Washington Times? They have to be the most mindbogglingly stupid and incoherent articles published by a (more or less) mainstream news organization. A couple of highlights:

I have to admit I found something hypnotic about Eddie Cibrian or however you spell his name trying really really hard to be Don Draper. He had the voice down so it was interesting to watch a character who cruelly seemed to have been born as Don Draper's identical yet charisma-less brother.

If it helps, your critique about over-reliance on talk shows and cocktail parties was/is right on. But the idea definitely needs some work.

Yeah, like your sabre example, its at the point where it's kindof hard to even tell which plots fizzled out and which didn't since even the plots that keep on going have no stakes to them. I mean, technically the Sabre plot is still going, but that entire plot has added almost no tension to the show.

I really don't understand this show's paranoia towards having character arcs and plot-lines that actually go somewhere. A lot of the show's best stuff came from plots which - even if they didn't quite permanently change the status quo - at least derailed the status quo for a long time. But ever since Michael's paper…

I actually was wondering about this as well. I'm pretty sure the movie would not have done "well" regardless, but I think there is actually a realistic case to be made that the advertising for this changed it from a badly performing film to a film that almost literally nobody saw.

I still enjoy the show enough to keep watching it but the total inability to commit to any plot arch or development of any sort has been the show's main problem ever since the Michael Scott paper company story ended.

That photo up top really could not be trying any harder to be mad men. I started to write up a list of all the ways its desperately mimicking Mad, but then I realized it was going to be a very long and boring list.

It's not often used this way anymore but the phrase was originally meant to mean: "the point at which the show has deviated so far from its original goal/mission/atmosphere that it can never return." It's not strictly tied to the quality of the show.

They should just have Tom Hanks reprise his role in the oscars from 2 years ago (where he read the final category)  but as host this time. The show would last roughly 10 minutes.

Blake Edwards is a strange director. He seemed to be equal parts genius and king of the hacks. I love a shot in the dark and the third pink panther film (return?), but some of his material is just the worst stuff ever. Other than the 2nd and 3rd pink panther films, that series tends to become deathly boring whenever…

Based on Boomer Esiason on radio, I picture a suspense novel by him involving somebody stealing 1 million dollars and then complaining endlessly about how 45% of that just goes to taxes anyway.