'Walking Dead' Creator Amputates The Season Premiere

Two legs are better than one, but one leg is better than becoming a zombie. At least, that's the logic Rick Grimes is hoping Hershel Greene will accept if — not when — he wakes up on next week's episode of "Walking Dead" and realizes that he's missing a limb.
During the "Walking Dead" season premiere, Rick and his group of survivors battled their way into an all-but-abandoned maximum security prison, securing one section of the facility after another in order to carve out a new home for themselves. But during their episode-closing mission, poor Hershel was the unwitting recipient of a zombie-bite to the leg, necessitating an on-the-spot amputation from a hatchet-wielding Rick.
Hershel's impromptu leg loss marks yet another change between the "Walking Dead" comics and the television series; in the books, the old farmer's feet stay firmly planted on the ground. But savvy comic book readers will recall that a similar leg-chopping does take place in Robert Kirkman's source material — just to a different character.
"It happened in the same way that it happened to Allen in the comics, with him being bitten unexpectedly, and Rick frantically chopping his leg off to the shock of everyone else. But Allen doesn't exist on the television show," Kirkman told MTV News about the premiere's biggest shock. "It's a call back to the comics, another one of those things that fans of the comic book series will recognize, but it comes in an unexpected, cool, and shocking way. It is, to me, yet another sign that the adaptation is going to continue in a way that calls back to the comic respectfully, but still has its own shocks and surprises along the way. I think that's important."
Also familiar to longtime "Walking Dead" readers: the fact that Rick and his friends are not alone in this prison, and we don't just mean the zombies. As in the comics, the premiere sees the Grimes gang encountering a group of prisoners who survived the undead uprising, albeit differently from the way these parties meet in the books. It's not all different, however, as Kirkman revealed that one prisoner in particular comes directly from comic book land.
"Axel's there. He's the guy who says 'Holy s---!' He's a character from the comics and we'll be seeing a lot more of him," promised Kirkman. He also promised that Axel's signature line -- "You follow me?" -- will be uttered at least "a few times" in the coming episodes.
Axel aside, Kirkman cautioned that there would be more significant differences between the comics' prisoners and the show's prisoners to come, yet another move to keep reader-viewers on their toes.
"There are analogues from the comics who do many of the things you saw from the comics, but there are also big changes to the storyline," he teased. "There are moments from the comics that won't make it onto the TV show. Those prisoners borrow a lot from the comic books, but there's new elements added as well."

Review Revue: ‘Battleship,’ ‘What to Expect When You’re Expecting,’ ‘The Dictator’

This week at the movies brings us a trio of cinematic adaptations from disparate source materials: a board game (“Battleship,” starring Taylor Kitsch, Rihanna, and Liam Neeson), a self-help book (“What to Expect When You’re Expecting,” starring Jennifer Lopez, Cameron Diaz, and Elizabeth Banks), and a Charlie Chaplin classic (“The Dictator,” starring Sacha Baron Cohen and Anna Faris). Find out what the critics have to say.
“Battleship”
A big-budget blockbuster based upon a board game, “Battleship” all but promises empty-headed thrills. On that count, critics say, it succeeds, though they also note that a few mindlessly awesome set pieces can’t totally compensate for the film’s thuddingly silly script. Years after NASA has sent a message to a nearby planet, a group of alien ships visit earth – and they do not come in peace. A group of naval officers leads the charge against the invading armada, and explosions ensue. “Battleship” is currently at 38 percent on Rotten Tomatoes’ Tomatometer; check out some of the reviews here:
Rotten: “Hey, if you’re Hasbro and Universal, and you’ve agreed to make a movie based on nothing more than brand recognition of a game, you’ve got to fill two hours with something.” — Tom Russo, Boston Globe
Rotten: “‘Battleship’ has the IQ of a rutabaga and doesn’t require much more intelligence than that to watch.” — James Berardinelli, ReelViews
Rotten: “As big, dumb summer movies go… this is just another big, dumb summer movie. And one that makes you feel slightly dumber for having watched it.” — Stephen Whitty, Newark Star-Ledger
Fresh: “‘Battleship’ is big, dumb fun that knows it’s big, dumb fun and enthusiastically embraces its big, dumb, fun nature.” — Christy Lemire, Associated Press
“What to Expect When You’re Expecting”
Since it was first published in 1984, the popular self-help book “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” has helped to guide women through the turbulent months of pregnancy. Unfortunately, the big screen version lacks the unpredictability of real life, stranding its talented cast in a sitcommy plot. Starring Jennifer Lopez, Cameron Diaz, Elizabeth Banks, Anna Kendrick, Dennis Quaid, and Chris Rock, “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” is the story of five interconnected couples dealing with a variety of pregnancy and childbirth-related issues, and it features plenty of spirited discussions from both male and female perspectives. “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” is currently at 30 percent on the Tomatometer; here’s what some of the critis are saying:
Rotten: “‘What to Expect When You’re Expecting’ doesn’t find new laughs, just layers on attempts at the tried-and-true ones — think one scene in which a woman howls and makes funny faces during labor is funny? How about many of them together?” — Stephanie Zacharek, Movieline
Rotten: “Several ensemble scenarios have rich promise for interplay, but the manner in which they are staged, photographed and edited undercut their reality.” — Brent Simon, Screen International
Rotten: “Expect that two hours will feel like nine months, and that before it’s over you’ll be screaming for an epidural to your brain.” — Ann Lewinson, Kansas City Star
Fresh: “As sociology, it’s skin-deep, but if you’re a parent or preparing to be one, you might see yourself in a few of these folks and have a good time doing so.” — Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly
“The Dictator”
With the gonzo documentaries “Borat” and “Bruno,” Sacha Baron Cohen established himself as one of contemporary cinema’s most merciless satirists. Now he’s graduated to scripted comedy, and critics say that while “The Dictator” isn’t as outrageous or as teeth-clenchingly funny as “Borat,” it’s just funny and un-P.C. enough to prove that Cohen hasn’t gone soft. This loose remake of Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” is the tale of an oppressive, buffoonish North African despot who survives a coup attempt that leaves him wandering the streets of New York City until a kindly hippie grocer (Anna Faris) takes a shine to him. “The Dictator” is currently at 62 percent on the Tomatometer; here are some of the reviews:
Fresh: “‘The Dictator’ is loose and slap-happy and full of sharp political barbs and has funny actors moving in and out — and at a lickety-split 83 minutes, it doesn’t wear out its welcome.” — David Edelstein, NPR
Fresh: “By cracking wise about subjects most people are hesitant even to mention, Cohen shows us where our boundaries are and then makes us question why we’ve put them there in the first place.” — Mathew DeKinder, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Rotten: “‘The Dictator’ has a few laughs along its bumpy path, but not enough of them to indicate that Cohen has found a means to escape the shadows of his early career and forge a second act for himself.” — Shawn Levy, The Oregonian

Flesh-eating bacteria finds a fighter

ATLANTA — Faced with the prospect of losing both hands and her one remaining foot, a young Georgia woman battling to survive a case of flesh-eating bacteria that already has claimed one leg mouthed the words “Let’s do this.”
Aimee Copeland, 24, “shed no tears, she never batted an eyelash,” her father, Andy Copeland, wrote on Facebook yesterday about the conversation he and his wife had with their daughter the day before.
“I was crying because I am a proud father of an incredibly courageous young lady,” Copeland wrote.
It was not immediately clear yesterday evening whether the surgeries had been performed, and a post to a blog about the woman’s progress simply said, “Aimee is doing well today. Her vital signs are as positive as her spirit.”
Copeland’s battle to survive has inspired an outpouring of support from around the world. The University of West Georgia student developed a rare condition called necrotizing fasciitis after suffering a deep cut in her leg in a May 1 fall from a homemade zip line over the Little Tallapoosa River.
She has been hospitalized in critical condition at an Augusta hospital, battling kidney failure and other organ damage. She had been on a breathing tube until recently, when doctors performed a tracheotomy.
Until Thursday, Aimee Copeland did not know the full extent of her condition, only that her hands were badly infected.
Andy Copeland said he told his daughter about what had happened since the accident, how her one leg had been amputated. Doctors had once characterized her chances of survival as “slim to none.”& amp; amp; lt; /p>
“We told her of the outpouring of love from across the world,” her father said. “We told her that the world loved and admired her. We explained that she had become a symbol of hope, love and faith. Aimee’s eyes widened and her jaw dropped. She was amazed.”
Andy Copeland said he learned on Thursday that doctors wanted to amputate his daughter’s hands and remaining foot. Doctors were concerned that she could develop respiratory problems, and if her hands released an infection in her body, there was a risk she could become septic again, her father said.
“We had a window of opportunity to perform the amputations and have a successful outcome,” he said.
At that point, the family decided to share the situation with their daughter.
Copeland said he showed his daughter her hands, told her they were not healthy and were hampering her progress.

Celtics collapse in Game 4 after succumbing to Sixers' tricks; series tied 2-2

PHILADELPHIA – Of all the teams to fall for the trick, you’d expect the Boston Celtics to be the last.
They had to know the reaching hands were coming; the grabbing, the tearing, the slapping and the shoving. Whatever dream of a season this had been for the Philadelphia 76ers was now reduced – with an 18-point deficit in a series about to go 3-1 – to the final act of the desperate.
Their only hope was to make the Celtics snap.
And then it worked.
This was in the second half of Friday’s Game 4 of the Eastern Conference semifinals the Celtics were controlling. With no other choice, the Sixers brought the elbows and shoulders and subtle pushes. And unpredictably there followed the unraveling. It arrived in a forearm of Kevin Garnett brushing away an opponent on a loose ball. Then it followed a possession later in an angry Garnett drive toward the basket that brought much of Sixers forward Elton Brand’s hand latched onto his face.
After that, it seemed whatever crisp basketball the Celtics had been playing was gone. This series that should be a game away from being over is instead tied. And that means the Sixers have done nothing if not dragged the old and weary Celtics into at least a six-game series they did not want.
All because the young inexperienced team pulled an old playground gimmick on the wise and experienced Celtics – and it worked.
[Also: Dwyane Wade clashes with Miami Heat coach during awful Game 3]
“After we got those technical fouls, we did go on a [13-2] run,” Brand later said standing alone at his locker.
Brand smiled. He was asked if the Celtics “unraveled.” He didn’t want to say that, he replied, but he kept smiling, leaving unspoken the notion that Boston had done exactly that.
“We had to muck it up,” he said. “We had a lot of bodies to bring and that worked to our advantage.”
This, of course, would not be the first time Garnett has reacted poorly to rough and physical play. At times he is a 6-foot-11 stick of dynamite ready to explode at the slightest spark from an elbow or official's call. He didn’t retaliate against Brand for the technical, but his exaggerated attempts to stay away from a conflict showed he was well in its center.
Ultimately, it wasn’t just Garnett who broke the wonderful spell the Celtics seemed to have held on the Sixers for the first half. But so much of Boston’s psyche rides on the emotions of its starting center. Once the Philadelphia players started to torment Garnett, his teammates lost composure too.
It came in little things: fouls, missed shots and turnovers. As the third quarter dragged on in the game that was supposed to break the 76ers, the team breaking instead was Boston.
“I thought [Philadelphia] came out [in the second half] and became more physical, and I think we got into that instead of playing basketball,” Celtics coach Doc Rivers later said. “Quite honestly, I thought we lost the composure we once [had]. We really never returned to playing basketball the way we played in the first half."
What seemed to stun Rivers was how this could happen. This has been an ugly series, one with so many missed shots and fouls and free throws. The Celtics fully understood the limitations of a Sixers team that could give 36 minutes to guard Evan Turner so he could clank 17 of 22 shots. As long as Boston played smart and its older players could stay reasonably healthy this wouldn’t be a tough series.
[Also: Spurs still rolling in playoffs while 'super teams' show cracks ]
Best to let Philadelphia make the mistakes, which it did for two quarters in Game 4. Then came the muck.
“It wasn’t planned or anything, we just knew it was something we had to do,” Brand said.
“When you have a chance to go up 3-1 in a series and you’re up and you’re on the road what else [is Philadelphia] going to do?” Rivers said. “They’re going to get into you. They are going to grab your hands. They are going to foul you. To me, that’s what they should do.
“But we act like we’re surprised by it. So I was disappointed in that.”
Boston was never the same after the technical. The Celtics maintained their lead into the early minutes of the fourth quarter yet something was clearly gone. The Sixers, who had 12 points in the first quarter, had 33 in the last. Garnett, who has taken a beating in this series, had nine points and was in foul trouble for much of the second half.
“It was a little frustration for us,” Brand said. “You want to play hard, things aren’t going your way, you want to step up a little bit.”
So the pushes. So the grabs. So the little slaps to the forearms.
So the last hope of the desperate.

Lakers win it at the line; 76ers stun Celtics to even series

 
 

The obituaries for the Los Angeles Lakers can be put away, at least for now. The Lakers are alive in their Western Conference semifinal series with the Oklahoma City Thunder after a jaw-dropping free-throw performance Friday night enabled them to hang on for a 99-96 victory.

 

 

The Lakers trail the series 2-1 with Game 4 Saturday night in L.A.
The Lakers made 41 of 42 free throws (only Andrew Bynum missed one) and Kobe Bryant scored 36 points, helping L.A. claw back from a late five-point deficit. The performance at the line was the second-best in NBA playoff history for teams with more than 30 attempts. Only Dallas' 49-for-50 effort against San Antonio on May 19, 2003, was better.
The Thunder were 26-for-28 from the line, but it wasn't quite enough.
Over in the Eastern Conference, the decades-long rivalry between the Philadelphia 76ers and Boston Celtics has rarely had a more memorable finish from a Philly point of view than what was witnessed Friday night. The Celtics just want to forget it.
The Sixers trailed 14-0 to start, then 20-5, then 46-31 at halftime after shooting 23% in the first two quarters.

 

And they won the game going away.
Whether it be attributed to younger legs or a stronger will, the 76ers blew past the Celtics in the second half for a 92-83 victory that tied their Eastern semifinal series 2-2.
After a first half in which they barely had more field goals (nine) than turnovers (seven), the Sixers were booed by their fans as they headed to the locker room. But they decided they weren't ready to head back to Boston Monday facing elimination.
Perhaps even more surprising, though, was the way battle-tested Boston went cold and melted down after what looked like it would be an easy win. The Celtics look nothing more than mediocre in these playoffs and are making things hard on themselves.
"We lost our composure," coach Doc Rivers said.
Winners:
Kobe Bryant -- Fourteen of his 36 points came in the fourth quarter, and he made all 18 of his free throws on the night. Talk about answering the call in a must-win game.
Pau Gasol -- The Lakers forward on Friday won the J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award for his extensive charity work as a UNICEF ambassador, winning a vote by members of the Professional Basketball Writers Association. Gasol has traveled the world to raise awareness for UNICEF over the past seven years, primarily working on programs involving nutrition, education and health care for children. He also has strong ties to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, where he began his NBA career
Andre Iguodala -- He converted only five field goals, but two of them, including a huge three-pointer, gave the Sixers a late five-point lead.
Lavoy Allen -- Sixers rookie forward, a second-round pick, has seen his playing time jump recently and contributed eight points and a team-high 10 rebounds Friday in more than 32 minutes off the bench.
Losers:
Thunder players not named Durant, Westbrook and Harden -- The OKC big three combined for 73 points, but the other seven players who saw action accumulated only 23 and missed 19 of 29 shots. More will be needed.
Kevin Garnett -- Ugly numbers for the Celtics frontcourt star, who otherwise has had a good series: Nine points on 3-for-12 shooting along with seven turnovers. With their big man struggling, the Celts followed suit.

'Ring of Fire' during Monday's solar eclipse

New Delhi, May 19 — Sky gazers in parts of the world are up for a celestial treat Monday (May 21) when an annular solar eclipse takes place - a rare event in which the sun will appear as a thin ring behind the moon. However, in India it will only be visible in the northeastern states.
An annual solar eclipse occurs when the Sun, the Moon and the Earth are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun, therefore only a part of the sun gets blocked. Hence the Sun appears like an annulus (ring), surrounding the outline of the Moon.
The next annular solar eclipse will occur after 18 years in June 2030.
"An annular eclipse of the Sun will occur May 21. The ending of the partial phase of the eclipse will be visible for a very short duration from northeast India after sunrise," said an official of the Ministry of Earth Sciences.
Other parts of India won't be able to watch the eclipse as it will be over before sunrise.
SPACE (Science Popularisation Association of Communicators & Educators) is taking an expedition of school students to Hong Kong to witness the annular solar eclipse, where it will be visible clearly.
"A total of 70 students from various schools are in Hong Kong to witness this rare celestial event," said C.B. Devgun, SPACE president, who is heading the tour.
He said the students will also participate in scientific activities and experiments, including contact timing measurement, a study of change in ambient temperature and lunar limb profile measurements.
"As the Sun won't be fully covered, you have to wear proper protection for your eyes even during the eclipse. You will also need a filter (ND filter or similar) for your camera to protect the sensor when taking pictures with telephoto/zoom lens," he said

Facebook stock debut isn't as friendly as expected

NEW YORK — It was barely a "like" and definitely not a "love" from Facebook investors as the online social network's stock failed to live up to the hype in its trading debut Friday.

One of the most highly anticipated IPOs in Wall Street history ended on a bland note, with Facebook's stock closing at $38.23, up 23 cents from Thursday night's pricing.
That meant the company founded in 2004 in a Harvard dorm room is worth about $105 billion, more than Amazon.com, McDonald's and Silicon Valley icons Hewlett-Packard and Cisco.
It also gave 28-year-old CEO Mark Zuckerberg a stake worth $19,252,698,725.50.
"Going public is an important milestone in our history," Zuckerberg said before he symbolically rang Nasdaq's opening bell from company headquarters at 1 Hacker Way in Menlo Park, Calif. "But here's the thing: Our mission isn't to be a public company. Our mission is to make the world more open and connected."
But for many seeking a big first-day pop in Facebook's share price, the single-digit increase was somewhat of a letdown.
"This is like kissing your sister," said John Fitzgibbon, founder of IPO Scoop, a research firm. "With all the drumbeats and hype, I don't think there'll be barroom bragging tonight."
Added Nick Einhorn, an analyst with IPO advisory firm Renaissance Capital:
"It wasn't quite as exciting as it could have been," he said. "But I don't think we should view it as a failure."
Indeed, the small jump in price could be seen as an indication that Facebook and the investment banks that arranged the IPO priced the stock in an appropriate range.
And it was good for ordinary investors, who are often shut out from IPOs or buy the stock at a high price on day one.
Facebook offered 15 percent of its available stock in the IPO, so there was enough to meet demand. In comparison, Google offered just 7.2 percent of its stock when it went public in 2004 — and rose 18 percent on day one.
Here was Facebook's "timeline" Friday, trading under the symbol "FB" on the Nasdaq Stock Market:
The stock opened at 11:30 a.m. at $42.05, but soon dipped to $38.01. It briefly traded at one point as high as $45 and by noon was at $40.40. It fluttered throughout the afternoon and hugged the $38 mark for much of the final hour, before closing at $38.23.
By the end of the day, about 570 million shares had changed hands, a huge trading volume for any company.

View full sizeZef Nikolla/Facebook via Getty ImagesFacebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg rings the Nasdaq opening bell on Friday in Menlo Park, Calif.

TD Ameritrade reported that in the first 45 minutes of trading, Facebook accounted for a record 24 percent of trades executed by its customers.
By comparison, on its first day back on the stock market, in November 2010, General Motors represented 7 percent of overall trades on the online brokerage.
Steve Quirk, who oversees trading strategy at TD Ameritrade, said that about 60,000 orders were lined up before Facebook opened.
Other social-media companies, most of whom have gone public in the last year, saw their shares plummet when it became clear what kind of reception Facebook was getting in the public market. Shares of game-maker Zynga Inc. and reviews site Yelp Inc. both hit all-time lows.
The stock market will now begin assigning a dollar value to Facebook that will rise and fall with investor whims. It will be subject to broad economic forces and held accountable for profit it earns —or loses— from one quarter to the next.
Facebook is one of those rare companies whose IPO transcends Wall Street's money lust. Since its start as a scrappy network for college students, Facebook has come to define social networking by getting its 900 million users around the world to share everything from photos of their pets to their deepest thoughts.
Most tech companies going public want a big rise in their debut to show they're "strong, dynamic companies standing out in the crowd," said Francis Gaskins, president of researcher IPOdesktop, but Facebook already has that image, and so may not care.
What's more, he said, most of the money raised in the IPO — $9 billion of $16 billion — went to early investors who want the highest price possible IPO price, and so they're likely happy with the modest firs-day rise.
Facebook is one of the few profitable Internet companies to go public recently. It had net income of $205 million in the first three months of 2012, on revenue of $1.06 billion. In all of 2011, it earned $1 billion, up from $606 million a year earlier. That's a far cry from 2007, when it posted a net loss of $138 million and revenue of $153 million. The company makes most of its money from advertising. It also takes a cut from the money people spend on virtual items in Facebook games such as "FarmVille."
Facebook's public debut marked a new milestone in the history of the Internet. In 1995, Netscape Communications' IPO gave people their first chance to invest in a company whose graphical Web browser made the Internet more engaging and easier to navigate. Its hotly anticipated IPO lit the fuse that ignited the dot-com boom. That explosion of entrepreneurial activity and investment culminated five years later in a devastating bust that obliterated the notion that the Internet had hatched a "new economy."
It took Google Inc.'s IPO in 2004 to prove that an Internet company with a disruptive idea could be profitable. In the process, the Internet search leader is forcing other industries to adapt to a new order where people have come to expect to be able to find just about anything they want by entering a few words into a box on any device with an Internet connection.
Facebook's IPO almost certainly will enrich other up-and-coming entrepreneurs as Zuckerberg uses the company's cash and stock to buy other startups in an effort to being in other talented engineers and promising technology. That's what has been doing for years. Since it went public in 2004, Google has spent $10.2 billion buying nearly 200 other companies. Those figures don't include Google's still-pending $12.5 billion acquisition of cellphone maker Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., which is still awaiting regulatory approval in China.
Zuckerberg's biggest deal so far came when he agreed to buy Instagram, a maker of a popular mobile app for photos, for $1 billion. Because most of the deal is being paid for in stock, Instagram is already getting richer. Based on Facebook's current share price, Instagram is in line to receive about $1.2 billion.
Friday's debut, though, resulted in deals worth much less.
Alper Aydinoglu, a DePaul University student who got 50 shares via Etrade at $38, said he was "disappointed with the first day of trading."
His gain on paper: $11.50, but that was before Etrade's standard commission of $9.99.
Aydinoglu still called it an excellent learning opportunity