Geoff and I had a good conversation over dinner (while Eric H. listened in) about stall counts in Ultimate.  Given different strategies in Ultimate the highest levels have in recent memory simply involved moving the disc around very quickly and quite a bit in order to create the chance for a huck (long pass downfield).  Our primary concern was that at lower levels people hang on to the disc for quite a long period of time.  What it came down to was that it almost always takes the same number of plays to make it to the end zone (n).  When one hangs on for the disc (assuming they don't throw it away) until stall 8 before dumping the offense has been running around furiously for 8 seconds.  If instead you dump the disc at stall 3 or 4 then the offense is continuing the cuts and runs from the previous pass and they've only been running hard for 3 second tops.

So consider that it takes 10 passes to make it to the end zone regardless of how long you hang onto it.  In that case the offense can either be running for 80 seconds (for stall 8 counts) or for 30 seconds (for stall 3/4 counts).  What's the more attractive option?  Running for 80 seconds or running for 30 seconds?  Move the disc around fast and often.

"You can run for 80 seconds or you can run for 30." 

Akshay continues on his path of ignorance in a bid to make his opinion seem important and educated.  I will attempt to answer his comments by addressing each component of his argument.

He argues that there is a degree of plausibility to "National Treasure:  Book of Secrets" with regards to Nicholas Cage kidnapping The President of the United States [of America].  Wait a second, he's taking this movie seriously?  Perhaps you need to get a reality check Akshay but the reason we go to movies is to be entertained.  Action movies are entertaining and tend to have simplistic plots only so that most of the audience can keep up.  "Nationial Treasure" was different in that it wasn't based off of a book that people could read along to ("The Da Vinci Code") and people were genuinely confused and intrigued by it.  I would go so far as to say that "National Treasure" was as much if not more entertaining than "The Da Vinci Code" due to it being fresher and funnier.  For goodness sakes take a look at the audeince we're dealing with:  "The Da Vinci Code" has an illustrated version...read that last part again to let it sink in.

I will now address the core idea behind Akshay's argument:  "sequels are unnecessary".  Really?  Just like the first movie is necessary?  No movie is necessary.  No sequels are necessary.  People would have been quite happy with just one "Bourne" movie.  People were quite happy with one "Star Wars" movie ("A New Hope"...why do you think it had that funky awards ceremony ending?).  Heck, "Rush Hour" didn't need "Rush Hour 2" (and it really doesn't need "Rush Hour 3"...seriously, it's terrible) but it did.  So why do all these sequels exist?  People and history aren't simple concepts that can be compacted into one 2 hour (or less) viewing period.  Both have an awful lot of interesting items and interesting people (especially) are hard to create and find in the movies.  Once you have an established character that people can recognize and identify then you can more easily tell more stories about that character.  That's why there are sequels.  I would rather there be a thousand terrible sequels lest I miss out on the few gems.  You want examples?  See below.

Jason Bourne.
Indiana Jones.
Rocky, of course there were a couple misses in there but you can't go wrong with Mr. T, Hulk Hogan, and Dolph...plus the last movie was excellent.
Rambo.
Star Wars.
Back to the Future.
Shrek ("The Third" was a let down but four might be much better).
Lord of the Rings.
James Bond.
Evil Dead series.
The Man With No Name series (particularly "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly").
Aliens (yes, "Aliens" is correct as "Alien" was the first one).
Godfather.
Toy Story.
X-Men.
Terminator.
Superman.
Spider-Man.
Star Trek.
Mad Max/Road Warrior.
Kill Bill.

I think I've said enough there.  Plus, I have the feeling that he agrees with me.

Akshay posted something interesting over at his blag.

What would possess somebody to condemn a movie and an entire industry based upon the release of a sequel.  National Treasure was a fast paced action flick that was entertaining on the whole.  The sequel seems like the same sort of adventure ride and I'd like to note that just because Cage says he's going to something the whole point of the movie is that he may or may not...da da daaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's like reviewing Star Wars (episode 4) before it comes out and calling it terrible.  How could you Akshay?  Terrible.

Download 3rd party library. 

Configure.

Compile.

Compile error.

Fix compile error.

Read license agreement.

Remove fix.

Download patch.

Apply patch.

Compile.

Compile error.

Can't fix compile error due to license agreement.

Download patch.

Apply patch.

Compile.

Compile error.

Can't fix compile error due to license agreement.

Search for patch.

No patch found.

Hmm...

Delete 3rd party library.

Write my own library.

Compile.

Link.

Deploy.

Such are my days and nights.

This trailer for "Shoot 'Em Up" is rated R, do not watch it if you object to some strong language and a lot of violence for what looks to be a great action film.

Ian (yes, _that_ Ian) linked me to a fabulous page (while he was browsing AVS) that compares HD DVD/Blu-ray content to DVD.  It's a flash app that lets you scroll over the difference between the two.  For those of you that are still skeptical or especially those that don't know the different I highly recommend you check this out.

Note, some items may not load (if the bars stay at 0 for a long time) so simply hit back and try another.

xylon.haloapplications.com

I especially recommend these:
Serenity
Chronicles of Riddick
Stargate
Kingdom of Heaven (warning, looking at this screen difference may result in you purchasing an HDTV and HD DVD and Blu-ray player)

Please be sure to scroll around and look at the picture appropriately.  If the image does not fit on your display then it's probably because your resolution is set to less than HD resolution; if your desktop icons look this good imagine what movies would look like. 

I didn't think I would be looking forward to "Alvin and the Chipmunks" but I am...especially after this teaser-trailer: