...

I understand it's the playoffs, but I can't get over how dirty of a game the Blues play. Also, according to my eyes, either the Blues are a larger than average team, or the Sharks are a smaller than average team.

These guys can go like this for 3 overtime periods.

Fun!

Not caring? Okay!

On WGR last night, "Sneaky Joe" was discussing who he thought were pretty high on the list. Keefe and Gronborg, essentially, with Gronborg being, perhaps, more likely. He doesn't claim to have inside info, but did do a @PASabreFan-style deconstruction of the situation as we know it to arrive at his conclusions. And, of course, there is conflicting info on Tippet. https://o.canada.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/ken-holland-is-coming-to-edmonton-oilers-but-not-coach-dave-tippett-says-holland-insider/wcm/a203daef-0c30-46ef-8cb6-96d9298bf2ac

Royal screw job.

Because it was meant to? Mission accomplished! On Phaze 4, I thought I saw a few references to it in the film-culture media I was scouring last night. I'll post stuff whenever I get to it again if you want.

On the bolded, and this is not really directed at you, just jumping off the point: certain people, like Hollywood itself (generalizing) are "women-sensitive" these days to an absurd, immature level. When the point in the movie arrived last night, my wife and I both looked at each other and said "girl power" and laughed. My wife, BTW, is a woman. It was contrived and an obvious attempt to make a statement. In movies like this where the line between reasonable suspension of disbelief and jumping the shark is so razor thin, they need to be very careful with maintaining that line. When they throw in a contemporary, pandering message in an intense fight scene they leap off the line, blowing through the fourth wall and like snapping a finger (I did it again!), break the spell they worked 2:45 hours to put us in. Stupid. Also, philosophically speaking, the idea that someone starts to care about a character simply because they look like them and that this little moment "matters" in some big, sociological, evolutionary way is pathetic and depressing. On the non-bolded: they seemed to have had some forethought early enough in the MCU series that building in references and planning how they're going to get out of the painted corner was built in and became more sophisticated as they went along. I think the Star Trek reboot probably did a lot to give them the confidence to consider developing totally new timelines in film. Obviously, the comic books have been doing it long prior, but film audiences are not comic book audiences. I need to read more about "Phase 4". I would like to see more Dr. Strange, etc, and there is still a ton to tap into from the Marvel comics. I think the problem they're likely to have is finding someone like Robert Downey Jr. and, to a lesser degree, Chris Evans to anchor the next phase. I would argue that without Downey Jr. nailing Iron Man, the MCU would be facing the same scrutiny and issues the DC movies have faced. As much as I like Benedict Cumberbatch, he's not Downey Jr. playing Tony Stark. Brie Larson is one-dimensional and boring. Tom Holland is good but they need to make him grow up, fast. Zoe Saldana has some presence that I enjoy, but, again, none of the remaining stable seems strong enough. It will be interesting to see how they split things up, and I agree that we're likely to see a lot more separation now that Disney has their streaming service coming.

So, FWIW, I just saw this tonight, so I'm new at the spoiler stuff. Apparently this timeline/Rogers thing has already been discussed: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/avengers-endgame-captain-america-ending-isnt-what-it-seems-1205370

Yeah, I think the timelines will be different. I'll have to wait until this one is streaming so I can see it again and figure out if they are trying to tie that timeline to the current one, or if now we're going to have to suffer through multiple timelines so they can do in these things what they want rather than keep them all connected.

"That was a difficult winter. A blizzard had trapped half our battalion behind the German line. Steve... Captain Rogers, he fought his way through a HYDRA blockade that had pinned our allies down for months. He saved over a thousand men, including the man who would... who would become my husband as it turned out." ―Peggy Carter

I did not say "all of the changes create their own universe" I said "each timeline is its own universe". Which, I admit, is probably splitting hairs when it comes to the mechanics of realities. In other words, there is only one timeline per individual. You can not go back and alter the current timeline - the timeline you're on already contains the alterations made in the past. The Rogers thing at the end was a bit sloppy - it's not possible for Rogers et al to have been on the same timeline before he went back to marry Peggy, conveniently showing up to put a "Cap" on the movie (see what I did?). In the Rogers (et al) timeline we've been following, Peggy married someone else as far as I recall. Of course, if we had old Cap'n A on the timeline we had been following all along, he could have advised and helped to avoid a lot of tragedy, so I think the timeline we were on at the end of the movie was different than what it was at the beginning. So, that's a long way of saying we might be agreeing on this more than I think. You're right, the Rogers thing at the end spoiled the certainty that Loki is back in whatever timeline we left at the end of the movie. Good question, I forgot about that one.

You all will note that Steve Rogers did not "come back" with Mjolnir. I think the next Thor movie is him getting back on the path we saw him on at the end of Infinity War (while Quill searches for Gamora). Loki, obviously, is back, so look for him in this one. I agree with those who thought the Thor arc went too far. I did find it funny that when they were in the Asgardian Palace, all of the Asgard guards were referring to Rocket as "rabbit" like Thor does, which always gave me a chuckle in the other movies. I'm not happy the Tony Stark era has passed by, but I thought that arc was very nicely done, totally the best part of the movie aside from the main plot. I wonder if we see Marvel trying to strengthen Spider Man's importance to the MCU based on how much he meant to Stark. The Cap'n America arc was fine, I thought. Predictable. I don't see how Falcon can become a replacement for Cap'm America unless he undergoes the same treatment Rogers and Bucky had. I am disappointed in how Dr. Strange was used to forward, or, more accurately, not used to forward the End Game. This is actually the most disappointing part of the movie, IMHO. Essentially, the only thing Strange did was keep Stark alive at the end of Infinity War, and, thus, put them on the 1/14,000,605 road to success. Having sucked up all of the pre-movie theories, I would have preferred something about manipulating the Time Stone or something. However, they shot that down when Hulk was talking with the Ancient One where she explained (rightfully) whatever thread of time you're on is your only present and your actions on that timeline, no matter where you jump on, do not affect the future of that timeline. because those actions are the future of that timeline. Lacking in that explanation, and therefore leading to some of confusion in this thread, I think, is a reinforcement of the concept that each timeline is its own universe. Each individual is on their own timeline and regardless of whether you go forward or backward in time, it is always still the individual's present. I won't say I'm disappointed with it, but I think @TrueBlueGED and I are about 95% in agreement on the film overall.

OMG. BEAT HIS ASS!

It shouldn't be underrated in Buffalo by now. Our problem with this goes back to at least Lindy.

Only a fool would not look at a tattoo artist as an actual artist.

Seriously, the thread should have ended at "Buffalo gets Nazem Kadri from Toronto."

This place will be insufferable for the next year.

Thankfully they called that. The ref close by couldn't be bothered.

Bob's awake!

I respect that Columbus always seems to take the opportunity to go after the short-handed goal.

So, I have the Columbus game volume muted and I'm listening to this while watching the game. Sort of meshes...

I don't know. I already stated I'd like to watch some of his teams. Have you watched his teams? His reputation precedes him somewhat, though, as illustrated by the article that started this conversation. And I already stated earlier in this thread I doubt he would go P1-P5 on the ice per shift, that those players would have to revert to some comfortable area. It's ludicrous to think we're going to find 18 players per night who are all so well rounded they're going to be trusted in any zone, with any assignment, playing any role. All I know is that the systems we've been seeing aren't likely the only way to play the game. There has to be a better way to enter zones than dump and chase. There has to be a better way to capitalize on possession while using the neutral zone and your own zones. I think we caught a little flavour of that with the Sabres during the streak and they would routinely use Hutton as a sixth player (as opposed to just a goalie). I bet you that stuff drove Housley crazy and it's why we saw a lot less of that from January on. In their attempt to implement Housley's system, they were chaotic, but we saw some interesting things happening with the D coming up and forwards dropping back but not into a completely defensive position.

Love this guy.

Can these people figure out how to move a L or R signal into both sides?