I tend to agree with your partner - scene 6

Here's the latest update for Tomb of the Undead - sorry it's been a while, but of course with the holidays there is a lot of traveling and visiting. I've had this week off, so I have had a chance to catch up with this project.

I tend to agree with your partner

I hope you enjoy the next scene - I hope you find the story moves forward fast enough.

Tomb of the Undead - No guts, no glory

After the last scene was so long - this one is tight and brief. It's called "No guts, no glory," and is pretty simple (though, the next scene will be a little longer, too).


So check it out - and if you missed the update of the scene from before - see it first, at this link (The Relics of Lazarus).

Tomb of the Undead - The Relics of Lazarus

It's taken a long, long while - but I've finished the next scene for Tomb of the Undead. So, please, follow the link and check it out.


Check out the new update here. Once again, you can click on the top, right-hand corner to "Follow" along, which just shows me that you're interested - and leave a comment or a thought if you'd like. I'd like that.

“Doing nothing is very hard to do...you never know when you're finished.”

(1926–2010)

Pneumonia steals another comedian from us.

He's possibly Victoria Composite High School's most famous graduate.

Actor Leslie Nielson has died at the age of 84.

He passed away in a Florida hospital where he was being treated for pneumonia.

In September 2003 Grant MacEwan opened the Leslie Nielson School of Communications.

Before making his way into acting he worked briefly as a disc jockey in Calgary.

Nielson is probably best remembered for his roles in "Airplane!", "Police Squad!" and the "Naked Gun" movies.

In 1988 he received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. In 2001 was inducted into Canada's Walk of Fame. And in 2002 Nielson was made an Officer of the Order of Canada.

Actor Leslie Nielsen dead at 84
29 Nov, 2010 05:07 PM

Leslie Nielsen, a serious actor who became a comic star with his career-changing roles in "Airplane!" and "The Naked Gun" comedies, died Sunday in Fort Lauderdale. He was 84.

Nielson died of complications from pneumonia at a hospital near his home, surrounded by his wife, Barbaree, and friends, his agent John S. Kelly said in a statement.

In "Airplane!," the 1980 send-up of just about every disaster movie plot imaginable, Nielsen as Dr. Rumack was "an essentially serious actor taking essentially preposterous material very straight," wrote Los Angeles Times Arts Editor Charles Chaplin in his review.

Just how preposterous was it?

As the crew and passengers became ill, Nielsen said they needed to get the sick to a hospital.

"A hospital? What is it?" a flight attendant asked.

Nielsen: "It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."

And when Nielsen was told, "Surely you can't be serious," he answered: "I am serious, and don't call me Shirley."

Nielsen followed up "Airplane!" with another goofy role delivered with deadpan conviction as Detective Frank Drebin in the "Police Squad!" television show and "Naked Gun" movies.

All-Draft Teams - 1985

It's been a while since I've done an All-Draft Team entry - so let's move on to 1985! A lot of good players joined in on this draft as well. (I didn't know that Gilmour was drafted two years earlier than Joe Nieuwendyk - didn't realize he was that much older).

Check the draft for yourself!

The first line: Randy McKay, Joe Nieuwendyk, Wendel Clark
2nd: Ulf Dahlen, Igor Larionov, Craig Simpson
3rd: Nelson Emerson, Brent Gilchrist, Benoit Hogue
4th: Randy Burridge, Robert Kron, Kelly Buchburger

D: Calle Johansson, Steve Chaisson
Eric Weinrich, Dana Murzyn
Billy Houlder, Dave Manson

G: Mike Richter
Sean Burke
Billy Randford

After the 1985 draft, it'll be almost impossible to follow it up with something that will surprise you. However, this draft wasn't particularly strong no matter who followed it, if you asked me. I had to take a few players out and put in new ones, mostly because after reviewing a popular name (like Tim Sweeney) I found out they barely played 200 games at the NHL level. So - they come out of the lineup and we put in someone a bit better. A tough draft this time around.

This team has a great first line that had incredible offensive punch, but lacked in consistency of potency throughout their careers - then the talent dwindles in the second line, dwindles significantly more into the third, and tapers into obscurity by the fourth line.

The defense was a consistent bunch of solid, strong and lengthy careers - with some success, but nothing flashy or offensive to help out the forward lines.

The goaltending is solid, though not spectacular, even though Richter was among the league's (if not the world's) best goalie for a season or two. This isn't a powerhouse, but it is definitely a stable contender through and through.

Among forwards: 11,654 games played, 2,773 goals, 3,509 assists, 6,282 points, 10,187 PIM, 812 PP goals, 432 Game Winners in the regular season.
In the playoffs, 1,120 GP, 276 goals, 324 assists, 600 points, 984 PIM and 75 PPG and 42 game-winning goals.

11 Stanley Cups, 2 All-Rookie teams, 1 Conn Smythe Trophy, 8 All-Star appearances and 1 King Clancy Memorial Trophy.

Among defensemen: 5,804 GP, 495 G, 1,670 A, 2,165 PTS, 7,226 PIM, 185, PPG, 70 GWG.
In the playoffs: 473 GP, 55 G, 125 A, 180 PTS, 753 PIM, 22 PPG, 5 GWG.

1 Stanley Cup, 3 All-Rookie Teams, 3 All-Star appearances

Among Goalies:
2,133 GP, 865 wins, 878 losses, 250 ties, 77 Shut outs
Playoffs: 167 GP, 81 W, 81 L, 14 SO

7 All-Star appearances, 3 Stanley Cups, 1 Conn Smythe Trophy.

Total: 18 All-Star appearances, 16 Stanley Cups, 5 All-Rookie teams, 2 Conn Smythes, 1 King Clancy Memorial Trophy.

The first line of Dhalen, Nieundyk and Clark would have been strong, feisty and dangerous, for sure. A lot of heart and determination in those three guys. The next line has some incredible depth with McKay, Larionov and the second overall pick in Simpson on deck. Yet after this, the third and fourth lines are a bit weak and are absent of star-power. This is more of a Brian Burke team, with top six forwards on the first two lines, and then bottom six forwards on the bottom two lines - however, this is supposed to be an 'all-star' team from this particular year's draft - so not too impressive.

The defense was sturdy and long-lived. Lots of games played for long NHL careers in guys like Johansson (1,109) Weinrich (1,157), Manson (1,103) rounding off the top. No, they weren't flashy super-stars, but they were salty tough fellahs on the back end, which is fine.

There is a real surprise deep in this draft, and I'll explain after the jump.

Draft numbers from 1982:

• W. Clark (1)
• C. Simpson (2)
• D. Murzyn (5)
  
• U. Dahlen (7)
• D. Manson (11)
  
• C. Johansson (14)
  
• J. Nieuwendyk (21)
• S. Burke (24)
  
• M. Richter (28)
• E. Weinrich (32)
• B. Hogue (35)
  
• N. Emerson (44)
  
• S. Chaisson (50)
• B. Ranford (52)
  
• B. Gilchrist (79)
• B. Houlder (82)
• R. Kron (88)
  
• R. McKay (113)
• R. Burridge (157)
• K. Buchburger (188)
  
• I. Larionov (214)

So here we've got Igor Larionov (one of the greatest players from the USSR and the Soviet league, drafted near the bottom of the draft. Only Vancouver had the guts to take a chance on him. Now, it would be my guess that North American leagues would be cautious in drafting a Russia because it would be unlikely that the players could transfer away from the USSR, right?

But Larionov had at least five years of pro hockey under his belt - he was a super player who (if he made himself eligible for the NHL draft) was at least interested in joining the NHL. Why wouldn't someone have selected him sooner on the off chance that he MIGHT make it to the NHL and be great? Why should James Jr. Sandlak (4), Brad Dalgarno (6), Craig Duncanson (9) and Dan Gratton (10) be drafted in the first round?

Then again, if you KNEW that such a quality player wouldn't be selected until the 8th round, I guess you can afford to wait a few rounds before picking him. Oh well, another mystery of the league for every team to not use him that could have used him.

I feel like the '84 team is just too unbalanced, but you can't argue with supreme star power of that first line and in net. You just can't. I gotta rank this team higher than '82 and '81.

Rankings:
(1) 1983
(2) 1984
(3) 1982
(4) 1985
(5) 1981

Player of the Draft:
My "Player of the Draft" from 1985 is: Joe Nieuwendyk. What an incredible record: he was named to the all-rookie team in '88, won the King Clancy Memorial Trophy in '95, the Conn Smythe Trophy in '99, had 4 All-Star appearances, and the greatest achievement is winning three Stanley Cups with three different teams (in three different decades, if you can believe it!). All while maintaining a sterling reputation around the league through his whole career (plus 14 game winning goals in the playoffs, pretty awesome).

Honorable mentions go to Igor Larionov, Wendel Clark and Mike Richter.

Notes of Interest from this draft
One of the players on this list, Steve Chaisson, died in a drunk driving collision after the Hurricanes were eliminated from the playoffs. As Wikipedia says:

On May 3, 1999, after the Hurricanes were eliminated from the playoffs in Boston and returned to Raleigh, Chiasson wrecked his pickup truck on the way home from a team party at the home of Gary Roberts and was killed on impact. According to teammate Kevin Dineen, Chiasson refused to call a taxi or accept a ride home, insisting on driving himself despite a blood alcohol content later found to be 0.27, over three times North Carolina's legal limit of 0.08. Chiasson was survived by his wife, Susan, and three young children: Michael, Ryan and Stephanie. There is a small statue and plaque in his memory in Millennium Park, Peterborough, Ontario, the town where he was raised.

I'll have to go check that memorial out some time next time I'm in Peterborough (on Wednesday, believe it or not - I'll try and snag a picture and link to it).

Also, a Maple Leafs connection to this draft that isn't Wendel Clark: Paul Maurice, one time head coach of both the minor league and major league versions of the Maple Leafs, has the dubious distinction of being drafted last by the Flyers in this draft. Cute.

Talking Heads, True Stories

I have updated the next scene for Tomb of the Undead, titled Talking Heads, True Stories - it introduces us to our protagonists (briefly) and we'll certainly get a chance to learn more about them over the next few pages. I hope you like it. Again, once you've gone to visit, it would definitely make me feel awesome if you clicked on "Follow" on the top right hand corner.

I'm beginning to find that hosting the scanned images up on Blogger is taking up quite a bit of my space limits. For example, I think I've already used 9% of my limit, but I've only posted six pages - and haven't barely scratched the surface of the first act. SO - perhaps I'll find another place (like Facebook, perhaps) to host the images and then just link them from there. Who knows.

Anyhow - thanks for reading the blog, and if you're into Tomb of the Undead, thanks for reading that, too.

Down with Amicable - up with Amiable!

It's absolutely ridiculous to have two words that mean the same thing, be spelled differently.

What's the difference between Amicable and Amiable?

Amicable: characterized by or showing goodwill; friendly; peaceable.
Amiable: having or showing pleasant, good-natured personal qualities; affable.
- and you might be able to throw affable into this equation, too.

So, why the extra c? And what does it add to the word. I mean, obviously it adds nothing to the meaning of the word. It's just a waste of letters, if you ask me.

Amiable's origins:

mid-14c., from O.Fr. amiable , from L.L. amicabilis "friendly," from amicus "friend," related to amare "to love" (see Amy). The form confused in O.Fr. with amable "lovable," from L. amare . Reborrowed later in proper L. form as amicable.

Amicable's origins:

1530s, from L.L. amicabilis "friendly," a word in Roman law, from L. amicus "friend," related to amare "to love" (see Amy).

So - you can see that Amicable is from the 1530s, while Amiable is from the 1300s - obviously Amicable is redundant, dated and useless in the bigger scheme of things. I think we should all go out of our way to eliminate this waste of letters.

Honestly - what's the point in having two words sound alike, mean the same thing, and exist at the same time? It's time to kill one of these words.

Down with Amicable - up with Amiable!

All-Draft Teams - 1984

After reviewing the 1983 draft - and seeing some of the very interesting players that came from there, we can move along to 1984.

Check the draft for yourself!

The first line: Brett Hull, Mario Lemieux and Luc Robitaille
2nd: Stephane Richer, Mike Stapleton, Gary Roberts
3rd: Ed Olcyk, Cliff Ronning and Kirk Muller
4th: Scott Mellanby, Tony Hrkac and Shayne Corson

D: Al Iafrate, Todd Gill,
Sylvaine Cote, Kjells Samuelsson
Petr Svoboda, Kevin Hatcher

G: Patrick Roy
Kirk McLean
Craig Billington

There is some incredible star power in that first line for the team, and of course Patrick Roy is an all-time great goalie in the league, but is a HUGE first line and giant star-power in net enough to make this the best team? I'll argue, no. While this team might beat the others on a consistent basis, it still isn't a great all around team, but rather dependent on a giant first line and a giant in net.

After the first two teams, the defense looks kinda weak comparatively, as well. No doubt, the first two drafts developed some incredible defensemen, but the '83 d-corps is below-par, even for the 80s. But, you can judge for yourself.

Among forwards: 13,645 games played, 4,887 goals, 6,324 assists, 11,211 points, 12,410 PIM, 1,620 PP goals, 640 Game Winners in the regular season.
In the playoffs, 1,380 GP, 468 goals, 538 assists, 1,006 points, 1,433 PIM and 153 PPG and 173 game-winning goals.

11 Stanley Cups, 2 All-Rookie teams, 2 Conn Smythe Trophies, 13 First-Team All-Stars, 2 Calder Trophies, 5 Pearson Awards, 1 Lady Byng, 4 Hart Trophies, 6 Art Ross Trophies, 2 Masterton Memorial Trophies, and 1 Patrick Award and 43 All-Star appearances.

Among defensemen: 5,975 GP, 689 G, 1,825 A, 2,514 PTS, 7,282 PIM, 220, PPG, 114 GWG.
In the playoffs: 644 GP, 67 G, 170 A, 237 PTS, 897 PIM, 23 PPG, 6 GWG.

3 Stanley Cups, 14 All-Star appearances

Among Goalies:
1,973 GP, 906 wins, 726 losses, 234 ties, 97 Shut outs
Playoffs: 323 GP, 185 W, 130 L, 29 SO

14 All-Star appearances, 4 Stanley Cups, 1 All-Rookie team, 3 Conn Smythe Trophies, 5 Jennings Trophies, 4 First-Team All-Stars, and 3 Vezinas.

Total: 71 All-Star appearances, 18 Stanley Cups, 3 All-Rookie teams, 5 Conn Smythes, 5 Jennings, 17 First-Team all-Stars, 3 Vezinas, 2 Calders, 5 Pearsons, 1 Lady Byng, 4 Harts, 6 Art Ross Trophies, 2 Masterton Memorial Trophies, and a Patrick Award.

The first line of Hull, Lemieux and Robitaille is unbeatable. I don't think we'll find another threesome in the history of the draft to make a line like that - but the rest of the forwards just aren't fantastic. No doubt, most of the achievements and awards in this draft generate from those three players - and if it doesn't come from them, then Patrick Roy is reeling in the rest.

This foursome makes this an incredible draft for the NHL loaded with talent, successes and Hall of Famers. Pretty awesome. Incredibly awesome - is it better than the '82 draft? The defense is weak, I'd say three of the lines on this team aren't better than the '82 draft.

In this draft, you'll be surprised to see what kinds of stars are loaded toward the end, yet how much talent was identifiable at the top of the draft, as well. This could be the first draft where the top five picks are on the all-draft team.

Draft numbers from 1982:

• M. Lemieux (1)
• K. Muller (2)
• E. Olcyk (3)
• A. Iafrate (4)
• P. Svoboda (5)
  
• S. Corson (8)
• S. Cote (11)
  
• G. Roberts (12)
• K. Hatcher (17)
• C. Billington (23)
  
• T. Gill (25)
  
• S. Mellanby (27)
  
• S. Richer (29)
• T. Hrkac (32)
• P. Roy (51)
• K. McLean (107)
  
• B. Hull (117)
• K. Samuelsson (119)
  
• M. Stapleton (132)
• C. Ronning (134)
• L. Robitaille (171)
  

Once again - lots of strong defensemen selected high in the draft. Lucky Luc gets picked 171st overall? Brett Hull at 117? That's pretty unbelievable - Lemieux was a no brainer at first overall - just like Gretzky would have been if he ever was drafted. I think Roy at 51 was a pretty good steal, as well. That's like almost the third round, I think.

I feel like the '84 team is just too unbalanced, but you can't argue with supreme star power of that first line and in net. You just can't. I gotta rank this team higher than '82 and '81.

Rankings:
(1) 1983
(2) 1984
(3) 1982
(4) 1981

Player of the Draft:
My "Player of the Draft" from 1982 is: Mario Lemieux, of course

Regular season: 915 GP, 690 G, 1,033 A, 1,723 PTS, +115, 834 PIM, 236 PPG, 74 GWG.
Playoffs: 107 GP, 76 G, 96 A, 172 PTS, +20, 87 PIM, 29 PPG, 11 GWG
2 Stanley Cups ('91, '92), All-Rookie Team ('85), Calder Trophy ('85), 4 Pearson Awards ('86, '88, '93, '96), 5 First All-Star Teams ('88, '89, '93, '96, '97), 6 Art Ross Trophies ('88, '89, '92, '93, '96, '97), 3 Hart Trophies ('88, '93, '96), 2 Conn Smythe Trophies ('91, '92), 1 Masterton Memorial Trophy ('93), 1 Patrick Trophy ('00), 10 All-Star appearances.

Honorable mentions go to Patrick Roy, Luc Robitaille and Brett Hull, but Lemieux trumps almost any drafted player in the history of the NHL.

All-Draft Teams - 1983

After reviewing the 1982 draft - and seeing some of the very interesting players that came from there, we can move along to 1983.

Check the draft for yourself!

The first line: Cam Neely, Steve Yzerman, Sylvaine Turgeon
2nd: Claude Lemieux, Pat LaFonatine, Esa Tikkanen
3rd: Jon MacLean, Dave Gagner, Kevin Stevens
4th: Rick Tocchet, Peter Zezel, Bob Probert

D: Jeff Beukeboom, Slava Fetisov
Garry Galley, Uwe Krupp
Bobby Dollas, Gerald Diduck

G: Dominic Hasek
Tom Barrasso
Darren Puppa
This team has improvements in a lot of areas compared to the 1982 team, but not as much star power on defense. Again, there is way more depth in the forward position, better goaltending and the defense is solid, even if it's lacking in star power. It'll be easy to rank this higher than 1981 and '82 but you can judge for yourself.

Among forwards: 11,832 games played, 4,329 goals, 5,275 assists, 9,604 points, 16,785 PIM, 1,376 PP goals, 586 Game Winners in the regular season.
In the playoffs, 1,435 GP, 505 goals, 592 assists, 1,097 points, 2,328 PIM and 87 game-winning goals.

I especially like the Probert contributions to the penalty minutes (Kevin Stevens helps, too). These guys put up huge numbers and paid out a beating on a regular basis.

3 Masterton Trophies, 1 Pearson, 1 Conn Smyth, 2 First-Team All-Stars, 1 Selke Trophy, 20 All-Star Appearances, 10 Stanley Cups.

Among defensemen: 4,805 GP, 358 G, 1,260 A, 1,618 PTS, 6,503 PIM, 106 PPG, 39 GWG.
In the playoffs: 546 GP, 28 G, 105 A, 133 PTS, 800 PIM, 5 GWG.

7 Stanley Cups, 5 All-Star game appearances.

Among Goalies:
1,941 GP, 937 wins, 661 losses, 222 ties, 138 Shut outs
Playoffs: 254 GP, 130 W, 112 L, 71 SO

6 First-Team All-Stars, 5 Jennings Trophies (3 shared), 7 Vezina Trophies, 2 Pearson Awards, 2 Hart Trophies, 8 All-Star appearances and 4 Stanley Cups!

Total: 27 Stanley Cups, 3 Masterton Trophies, 7 Vezina Trophies, 2 Conn Smythe Trophies, 1 Selke Trophy, 8 First-Team All-Stars, 3 Pearson Awards, 2 Hart Trophies, 44 All-Star game appearances.

The forwards are tremendously improved - and the goaltending is impeccable. If you had to pick a thru-and-thru awesome team, with incredible first-line players, awesome second-line players, shut-down third-line players and a bust 'em up fourth line, this is the complete team. The forwards could generate incredible offense, the defense were solid defensively and the goaltending was supreme. An all-around incredible hockey team if you ever saw one. And they have the stats to show for it.

If this team had any weakness it is only in its absence of a quality offensive defenseman that had any longevity (although Uwe Krupp did score the overtime Stanley Cup winning goal). I guess no team will be completely supreme - but this is very strong.

Draft numbers from 1982:

• S. Turgeon (2)
• P. LaFontaine (3)
  
• S. Yzerman (4)
• T. Barrasso (5)
  
• J. MacLean (6)
  
• C. Neely (9)
• D. Gagner (12)
• B. Dollas (14)
• G. Diduck (16)
  
• J. Beukeboom (19)
  
• C. Lemieux (26)
• P. Zezel (41)
  
• B. Probert (46)
• D. Puppa (74)
  
• E. Tikkanen (80)
• G. Galley (100)
  
• K. Stevens (108)
• R. Tocchet (121)
• V. Fetisov (145)
• D. Hasek (199)
  
• U. Krupp (214)
  

Now, we can agree that some times you just don't know what you get out of the draft for years and year - and here's another example of that. How the MVP of this draft, Dominic Hasek, gets drafted 199th overall, is mind-blowing. It really brings to light the idea of drafting the best player at the time, or the best player in a few years. The Tyler Seguin v. Taylor Hall scenario is interesting - but which will be the best in the end? Hard to make a choice like that, I guess.

Rankings:
(1) 1983
(2) 1982
(3) 1981

Player of the Draft:
My "Player of the Draft" from 1982 is: Dominic Hasek

Regular season: 735 GP, 389 W, 223 L, 82 T, 13 OT wins, 81 Shutouts, 2.20 GAA
Playoffs: 119 GP, 65 W, 49 L, 14 shut outs, 2.02 GAA
2 Stanley Cups, 6 First-Team All-Stars, 3 Jennings Trophy, 6 Vezina Trophies, 2 Hart Trophies, 6 All-Star appearances. Just incredible, especially for a goalie, to maintain this type of dominance over the league.

Honorable mentions go to equally worthy Steve Yzerman!
1514 GP, 692 G, 1,063 A, 1,755 PTS, 202 +/-,924 PIM, 202 PPG, 94 GWG
Playoffs: 196 GP, 70 G, 115 A, 185 PTS, 84 PIM, 27 PPG, 12 GWG.
3 Stanley Cups, 1 Pearson Award, Conn Smythe Trophy, First-Team All-Star, Selke Trophy, Masterton Memorial Trophy, 9 All-Star Appearances, Lester Patrick Trophy.

Fundraising Faux-Pas 1 & 2

Modelled after the seminal comedy of Tiny Toon Adventures:

Direct Mail FF.01

Will donation FF.02

I hope you think they're funny - a little funny anyhow. I might have gone a little far in calling Green Peace a terrorist organization, but if the shoe fits ...

All-Draft Teams - 1982

After reviewing the 1981 draft - and seeing some of the very interesting players that came from there, we can move along to 1982.

Check the draft for yourself!

The first line: Pat Verbeek, Ray Ferraro and Dave Andreychuk
2nd: Ron Sutter, Doug Gilmour and Tony Granato
3rd: Patrick Flatley, Rich Sutter and Brian Bellows
4th: Gary Leeman, Vladimir Ruzicka and Dave Reid

D: Phil Housley, Scott Stevens
Gary Nylund, Ken Daneyko
Dave Ellett, Ulf Samuelsson

G: Ron Hextall
Kenn Wreggett
M. Gosselin

This team is way better than the 1981 team, if you ask me. There is way more depth in the forward position, better goaltending and I think the defense is much stronger as well. It'll be easy to rank this higher than 1981, but you can judge for yourself.

Among forwards: 12,364 games played, 3,723 goals, 4,866 assists, 8,589 points, 13,124 PIM, 1,176 PP goals, 464 Game Winners in the regular season.
In the playoffs, 1,247 GP, 277 goals, 446 assists, 723 points, 1,433 PIM and 42 game-winning goals.

5 Stanley Cups, 1 Memorial Trophy, 11 All-Star appearances, 1 Selke Trophy

Among defensemen: 7,230 GP, 812 G, 2,577 A, 3,389 PTS, 10,796 PIM, 283, PPG, 117 GWG.
In the playoffs: 680 GP, 49 G, 188 A, 237 PTS, 1,136 PIM, 12 GWG.

8 Stanley Cups, 1 Masterton Trophy, 2 First-Team All-Stars, 22 All-Star game appearances, 1 Conn Smythe Trophy.

Among Goalies:
1,424 GP, 612 wins, 569 losses, 136 ties, 38 Shut outs
Playoffs: 181 GP, 91 W, 83 L, 5 SO

1 Stanley Cup, 1 First Team All-Star, 1 Vezina Trophy, 1 Conn Smythe Trophy, 1 All-Star game appearance.

Total: 14 Stanley Cups, 1 Masterton Trophy, 1 Vezina Trophy, 1 Conn Smythe Trophy, 1 Memorial Trophy, 1 Selke Trophy, 3 First-Team All-Stars, 34 All-Star game appearances.

The forwards are tremendously improved - though the defensive and goal-tending numbers were stronger from the year before. Personally, I like star-power in the forward position better than the longevity and glamour of Chelios's career - so I give the edge to 1982.

I should include the positions each of these all-stars were drafted at ... you'd be surprised how some players that are in this category of success were still drafted in the fourth round, or 240th overall. It shows the incredible unreliability a high draft pick presents. You might draft in the top 3 and wind up with a Patrick Stefan or an Alexandre Daigle.

Draft numbers from 1982:

• B. Bellows (2)
• G. Nylund (3)
  
• R. Sutter (4)
  
• S. Stevens (5)
• P. Housley (6)
• R. Sutter (10)
• D. Andreychuk (16)
• K. Daneyko (18)
  
• P. Flatley (21)
• G. Leeman (24)
• P. Verbeek (43)
• K. Wreggett (45)
• M. Gosselin (55)
  
• D. Reid (60)
• U. Samuelsson (67)
  
• V. Ruzicka (73)
• D. Ellett (75)
  
• R. Ferraro (88)
• R. Hextall (119)
  
• T. Granato (120)
  
• D. Gilmour (134)
  

The big surprises - lots of strong defensemen selected high in the draft. Gilmour, Granato, Hextall and Ferraro should NOT be at the bottom of this list - it's absolutely amazing that players like that get drafted AFTER guys like Dave Reid and Gary Leeman.

Rankings:
(1) 1982
(2) 1981

Player of the Draft:
My "Player of the Draft" from 1982 is: Scott Stevens

Regular season: 1,635 GP, 196 G, 712 A, 908 PTS, 2,785 PIM, 75 PPG, 34 GWG
Playoffs: 233 GP, 26 G, 92 A, 118 PTS, 402 PIM, 12 PPG 8 GWG
2 First-Team All-Stars, 1 Conn Smythe Trophy ('00), 13 All-Star appearances, and very importantly, 3 Stanley Cups ('95, '00, and '03).

Honorable mentions go to Doug Gilmour and his great career, but more importantly, to Ron Hextall, with his 1 First-Team All-Star, 1 Vezina Trophy ('87) and Conn Smythe Trophy ('87) even though he never won a Cup.

All-Draft Teams - 1981

Throughout training camp I've been spending a lot of time looking at / reviewing old draft history to see what players went to which teams, and where they were drafted, etc. I was interested in seeing if there was a pattern, or some way of knowing which prospects might jump out.

It's really interesting to know that, basically, there are about 15 bonafide NHLers in a draft, and maybe three or four star players - if you're lucky, one or two franchise players, every year. But where are they and where do they come from?

Well - as I've been going through the drafts, I've discovered that, basically before the lockout - teams had absolutely no idea what they were doing. You should look at the 99 - 2003 drafts, they are brutal in the top end, while the second - fourth rounds are where the quality picks come from.

Anyhow - I've wanted to make All-Star Teams out of each draft - looking back on each year, selecting the best team out of the bunch of players and then having the draft years go head-to-head to see which was the best (just for fun).

In any case, this has taken a lot of work and ALSO a lot of time to just collect the data. So I may draw this out for a little while. Meaning, not post something every day, but rather every few days - and I want to see what you think about it. Look at the list, look at their accomplishments and see where you'd rank the draft year - and see if there are players you would include on the team vs. the players I put on the team.

Anyhow - I begin the whole process way back in 1981 (a good year if you ask me : if we go back much further than this, I don't even recognize players' names. Even in 1981, I'm not sure who's who - but I've tried).

Check the draft for yourself!

The first line: Mark Hunter, Dale Hawerchuk and Mike Eagles
2nd: Tony Tanti, Ron Francis, Normands Leveille
3rd: Richard Chernomaz, Claude Loiselle, Scott Arneil
4th: Steve Gatzos, Doug Smith, Todd Strueby

D: Chris Chelios, Al MacInnis
Garth Butcher, Bruce Drive
Joe Cirella, Tom Kurvers

G: Grant Fuhr
John Vanbiesbrouck
Clint Malarchuk

Look like a good team? Not so much in the forward position, eh? I would agree. This group (thanks in great part from Chelios and Fuhr) have a load of awards in their name.

Among forwards: 7,198 games played, 2,038 goals, 2,125 assists, 5,001 points, 7,258 PIM, 598 PP goals, 189 Game Winners in the regular season.
In the playoffs, 515 GP, 110 goals, 220 assists, 329 points, 575 PIM and 15 game-winning goals.

1 Calder Trophy, 1 Selke Trophy, 3 Lady Byngs, 1 Clancy; 11 All-Star appearances, 2 Stanley Cups

Among defensemen: 6,373 GP, 826 G, 2,784 A, 3,610 PTS, 9,170 PIM, 343, PPG, 98 GWG.
In the playoffs: 696 GP, 94 G, 314 A, 408 PTS, 1,030 PIM, 14 GWG.

4 Stanley Cups, 4 Norris Trophies, 25 All-Star appearances, 9 First-Team All-Stars

Among Goalies:
2,088 GP, 918 wins, 771 losses, 278 ties, 77 Shut outs
Playoffs: 236 GP, 122 W, 97 L, 11 SO

5 Stanley Cups, 2 FirstTeam all-Stars, 2 Vezina Trophies, 1 Jennings Trophy, 9 All-Star Game Appearances

Total: 1 Calder, 11 Stanley Cups, 2 Vezina, 1 Jennings, 4 Norris, 45 All-Star Game Appearances, 19 First-Team All-Stars, 3 Lady Byngs, 1 Selke, 1 Clancy.

Not bad.

Rankings:
(1) 1981

Player of the Draft: (edit, Oct. 3)
I have added this section to highlight the player of the draft, because in some instances, the numbers of the draft can be heavily skewed by the inclusion of one particularly significant player that might have a career that would be considered greater on its own than the culmination of all of the other players in the draft combined. For example, in the 1983 draft, there's a player that single-handedly makes that draft incredible. And you'll see who that is very shortly.

In any case, my "Player of the Draft" from 1981 is: Chris Chelios, who has finally retired just this year after an absolutely unparalleled career.

Regular season: 1,651 GP, 185 G, 763 A, 948 PTS, 2,891 PIM, 69 PPG, 31 GWG
Playoffs: 266 GP, 31 G, 113 A, 144 PTS, 423 PIM, 13 PPG 6 GWG
3 Norris Trophies ('89, '93, '96) 11 All-Star Game appearances, 3 Stanley Cups, 5 First-Team All-Stars. An incredible career, especially considering he was drafted 40th overall. A very special honorable mention to Al MacInnis, who is undoubtedly right up there as a great NHLer with Chelios.

Designing compelling characters

It's not easy to come up with classic characters. Think of basically any character that Tim Curry has played

He rocked in Congo. "Abso-lutely true"

Rocky Horror Picture Show: "Antici- - PAtion"
The Three Musketeers: "..." I can't quote him from this.

I don't know what movie this is even from.

It: "Down here we all float, Georgie"

? He kind of looked like this in Clue, he was the butler, but also Mr. Body, in one of the conclusions. Though I'm not sure he had a beard in Clue.

And he really challenged himself in this role. Great character actor.

After that brief example of how important memorable characters are to a great story - I come to these bits of advice courtesy of Suite101.com:

You need apparently only three things. 1) An interesting and plausible character back story:

The character backstory is necessary due to the effects it has on the character’s present self. Unless vital to the plot or story of a particular screenplay, no character is isolated from the rest of the world. He is affected by almost everything that surrounds him including his family background, education, friends, religion, birthplace and way of life.

Therefore, his actions, beliefs, thoughts and the way he reacts to events are somehow related to his past and the reasons why his present self is portrayed the way it is. Backstory should not be blatantly revealed but provide yet more subtle insight on the deeper workings of the character’s heart and mind.

Because of the fact that nuances in present characters can ultimately be explained by a rich background, in return a rich background can provide existing characters with a more dynamic personality.

2) the character goal;

All characters need to have a clear and measurable goal. This not only justifies their existence in the story but also allows the audience a chance to relate to the character as their goal or ‘reason for being’ is revealed throughout the story.

The Protagonist’s goal sets the story in motion and it is important to make sure this goal, though achievable is also something that is worth fighting or even dying for. After all, the stakes of the story are placed upon the importance of this goal. The protagonist will risk his entire being in order to achieve it so the gains he will receive should the goal be reached needs to be of equal or greater value. For example common goals in action films include saving innocent people or someone important to the protagonist. In romantic films the goal is often gaining the love of the protagonist object of affections.

The Antagonist’s goal which is in direct opposition to the protagonist’s bears the true task of creating conflict in the story which in turn allows the plot to develop further. Without conflict, the story will idle and will ultimately prove to be uninteresting and dull.

3) and the character motivation.

The character motivation also allows audiences an inside view of the character on a deeper level. Characters that are injected with plausible motivations are allowed to have an added dimension and the more personal the motivation the more likely it is for audiences to be able to understand and therefore relate to the character.

These motivations can be apparent to the character and audiences when played straight but can also be used to add twists and turns to the story should the writer hold back the reveal.

Similar to the character goal, the character motivation also has to have as much intensity as needed to support the genre base of the story. Because screenplays deal with events that are critical to the character’s existence, the character motivation needs to be the essence and spirit necessary to push him right up to his limits as it drives him to achieve his goal.

Character motivation creates the reason why the character will run through burning buildings, head into enemy territory or risk his life to save a stranger. A motivated character has a true reason for being and a true reason for wanting to be alive and fighting fit for the next scene. The fact that he is memorable and dynamic drives audiences into following him throughout the journey.

I think that one of the more difficult parts of writing a character with a clearly defined goal is that you don't necessarily start with a character that has a clearly defined goal. And sometimes without a dramatic need, either.

These needs or goals can be something that emerge from out the plot - but could be something that was seeded way back in their past, which only emerges as a result of some mitigating circumstance that brings that old dramatic need into the present for the character.

I look back and realize that my protagonist Luc Lefevre was just doing his job when a circumstance revealed an item out of his past which he was ashamed of - which propelled him toward a clearly defined resolution. My other protagonist, Dr. Casey Miller, has been a different challenge - because he needs a few things in his story - and his back-story isn't developed in any particular way. In fact, his character flaw might be that he doesn't have much of a back-story. And that fits his character really well.

However, by the nature of his job (and his inability to be great at some parts of his job) he finds himself desperate to achieve a clearly defined goal - but along the way, finds a personal ambition that holds either equal, or even greater, importance than his career - but those things are all in conflict with a series of antagonists who required Miller's professional assets to achieve a goal of their own.

Given the choice, I would get Tim Curry to portray Casey Miller in film. It would be awesome.

Tips for writing a screenplay

Writing a good screenplay is an art - but also a craft

Here are some thoughts from Danny Rubin on the matter.

10 steps to writing a screenplay
1)Write what you know.

Anyone can write about anything! Fact! The key is in-depth research about the story-worlds and subjects you are writing about.

When I was developing Lefevre's Redemption, this particular tid-bit jumped out at me. I was going to set it in New York City (because it's popular and everyone could relate to it) but I simply didn't know anything about it. I didn't have a feel for the city. I didn't know the places, the good parts and the bad parts. It was completely foreign. Thus - I asked myself, "what do I know?" And so it was set in Windsor. This led to the availability of a LOT more options for me, because I knew so much more about it. Good advice.

2)Write what you feel most passionate about.
This sounds obvious, but it’s a crucial aspect that needs to be considered when you choose the subject of your next script. Some writers have many ideas, constantly come up with new ones. They feel very excited about them for a while but when it gets down to the nitty gritty of the writing and re-writing process they lose interest. And of course they have a seemingly good excuse: They have had a new idea! Writing a good script takes a long time. So you’ll need to be so passionate about your idea that you will commit your time happily to it.

If you believe in it, follow it through and don’t let yourself being side-tracked. But at all means collect new ideas (see point 5).

Well, am I particularly passionate about crime dramas? Not really - but I was passionate about telling the story that I wanted to tell. The time-traveller who cathartically causes what he sets out to prevent was a major ambition of mine. When the time-travel became too awkward and weird for the book (which, let's admit it! time travel is always weird and awkward) I cut it out. But the first draft of the novel was definitely inspired by something I was definitely passionate about.

3)Writers write.
Develop a working structure that enables you to do a certain amount of work every day. It’s not the quantity, and not even the quality that matters. First of all, you need to get into the rhythm of writing every day. Re-writing will give your script the quality it needs.

This is a great point - and one I have struggled with. Over the past two months, with a regular start time at a job (that I hated) I was able to punch out an hour or 20 minutes every morning while I had the story ready to go. Just writing is a big, big part of the story. Even though just writing means you skip some things - which I admit - it makes the rewrite all the more important! But don't be a perfectionist - just get the ideas on the page - you can sculpt them later.

4)Develop a portfolio.
Collect several poignant ideas you want to develop in the future. It makes sense to write them down in premise or synopsis form first and develop them into treatments and drafts when you’ve got the time to dedicate yourself to them.

Yeah, I've got something like this. I wouldn't call it a "portfolio" but I have a list of working ideas that I'd love to get to some day. One is my hilarious experience with an oversight board that was installed - and all the problems that went along with it. I am planning to make it a play, and also a comedy. It was such a fiasco that you'd have to see it to believe it. I've got a few cool ideas, but most of them probably work out to be short stories or little skits - I'm not sure how interested I am in jumping into another 150+ page novel right now.

5)Dramatise [sic] exposition.
Exposition is the necessary evil of screenwriting. Dramatise [sic] it and convert it into ammunition. Or make it funny. Or both!

What this means is, if you have to have a character explaining why something happens (like Dan Brown does in all his DaVinici novels) then you'd better make that moment of exposition exciting. He'll usually divide scenes of exposition with foot chases, car chases, fake-drowning liquid oxygen tanks, and things like that. Or, put jokes in it, that's a good idea, too.

6)Don’t make life easy for the protagonist.
Story progression means conflict!

Yes, you don't have much of a story if you don't have conflict. This really shouldn't be a bullet point, but ... maybe it is? If you have no idea what you're doing, then this should really be the first most important thing. A protagonist has a problem, and that stands in his way of achieving his goal. The problem is important.

7)Develop multi-dimensional characters.
No human being is simple. Neither are the characters in a film.

And don't just do this because we say so; this is so that people can identify with your character. If they have some sort of back story, then people can know about them, and if that back story influences how they act now, that helps people think that they can predict or expect certain things from your character. This helps with empathy. But then, twist it up a bit - have the character do something a little different and unpredictable - which shows that they're more complicated and deep than you'd expect.

8)Don’t write dialogue that is on the nose.
Write natural dialogue that is appropriate to your story, characters and genre.

This is definitely a tough part of the book - because lousy or awkward or over-used dialogue can stick out and ruin your story and flow. I may have to look more into this - does each character have a unique voice? Do they all sound the same? Can you tell one from the other? If you were to show a line of dialogue to someone else, could they tell which character (or what type of character) said it? A tough challenge.

9)Writing is re-writing!
Picture this: Your first draft is the impressive rock of stone you have managed to carry into your workshop. But now you need to expose the detailed shape of the rock which inspired you to pick it up in the first place. Layer by layer, draft by draft, your carving the sculpture free from the unnecessary shell of rock that is covering it up.

It sure is. You have to go back and make sure that everything flows together. The word Cohesion is very important between characters, plot, narrative, back stories, scenes and even paragraphs. And you have to make sure you're happy with it all. Gotta go back and see what you think.

10)Seek feedback and criticism without ever losing your own vision.
Being able to analyse your own work is a vital skill that can be trained by communicating with other writers, script editors, directors, actors, producers etc. If you can detect the aspects of your script that need to be more developed and improved, you will be able to cope with negative feedback.

Now, on this front, I often want my story to be a surprise - I don't want people to know what it's all about before they read it. A good story should have something unexpected - I know when my folks read the first little bit of LR that they were expecting something much more funny than what they got. I was too, to be honest. That's not how it turned out. And I think they were more intrigued by not knowing what was going to come of it, than they were with "that I'd written a book." However, they all agreed that the time travel was bad. We all agree that time travel is bad.

However, this next new story I've been developing is really exciting, and I'm very close to getting it out there for reading - so ... I hope people like it even though there really haven't been any proof-readers for it yet.

Editing
Apparently, it would unacceptable to not stress the importance of editing. Though this link almost mentions this step like some people wouldn't think to do it.

Sometimes when you write your funny stuff, the best way is to just write it as it comes and pay no attention to quality. Forget spelling, grammar and everything else but just getting that stuff onto the page. Let it sit for a week without looking at it, then go back and reread it; if it still makes you laugh (or grin) then start editing it for the quality. Tighten it up, rearrange the sequence if you need to and generally make it more readable. Work on the punch lines to see if you can shorten them or make them stronger.

I can agree with this. My experience has been to just write. Get the thoughts out, get the characters on the page, get the work done. It's the editing process where you can take what you already have and make adjustments. These adjustments make sure the scenery is just right, the metaphors and symbols are strong, the characters' voices are unique, and the clarity of the scene is executed with strength. If you narrowed your focus while you were writing and worried about all these details as you were going at it - you'd really struggle to get the work done. This is the flaw of a perfectionist who can't move forward until something is complete.

There's an eraser on the end of the pencil so we can go back and make changes, so no need to be perfect on the first draft.

Your Screenplay Sucks is a blog by the author the book, Your Screenplay Sucks! I guess he has made a career of editing, reviewing, commenting on and destroying screenplays for cash. And he found that most mistakes in screenplays are the same, so wrote a book about his thoughts on the matter. Anyhow - the blog is interesting.

Of note - he says about scene descriptions (which you don't hear a lot about when reading on the subject):

My theory is that you have a tad more room on Page 1 than anywhere else. No paragraphs over 5 lines, as per usual, 3 is better, 2 is swell, but you don’t have to leap into story. Set stuff up a little. Tell us what that craggy industrial wasteland looks like. Give us a bit of mood… But not half a page for an opening image. My usual thought is to read scripts on line and see what they do. Used to be, eons ago, that you had no dialogue on page 1, but that’s long gone.

It’s a bit more leisurely than page 2 – 110, but not a lot. Gee, now I’ve confused you.