Here is something put together by blogger Dan Meth over at his website that visualizes his enjoyment of each film in their respective trilogies in the form of bar graphs.

Dan comments on the inevitable disagreements and preemptively responds to any backlash by saying, "I know other movie geeks are going to have disagreements and that’s fine. And yes, I know some of these movies went more than 3 sequels, but none were ever meant to. These are rated purely on my enjoyment level on each film and nothing else. Frankly I’m surprised by how many sequels were better than the original. And I’m not surprised that the 3rd movie is never the best."

And so, here are my discrepancies with the chart stated in a declarative manner but not meant to be written as facts (but they probably are *wink*):

• Temple of Doom is definitely not better than Last Crusade
  
  
• The Matrix: Reloaded is not THAT bad of film at all. Reloaded and Revolutions get lumped together in poor quality, but Reloaded set up for an awesome conclusion and Revolutions ruined it all.
  
  
• Why is Jurassic Park so low? That film has most certainly held up over the past 16 years, especially in the visual effects department
  
  
• Die Hard with a Vengeance is much more fun and feels more like part of a trilogy than Die Hard 2 does.
  
  
• Rambo: First Blood is overrated and not even on the same playing field as the equally leveled Star Wars
  
  
• The Godfather Part III is bad but not worse than Spider-Man 3 in any capacity whatsoever.

Let's be honest: Grey's Anatomy is dying. Slowly, but is happening.

First there was the TR Knight/Isaiah Washington incident, which shook the world to its very core and proved just what a badass Patrick Dempsy really is followed by the rumors that Katherine Heigl was going to be taken off the show for being annoying both on and off screen. Then, Brooke Smith was unceremoniously fired from the show last November, just when her story line was getting interesting. And now comes the rumor that T.R. Knight has asked to be released from his contract. This isn't much of a surprise to anyone who watches the show and, like me, noticed to severe lack of George O'Malley.

The point is, we're reaching that moment when viewers of a once-popular show forget why they ever watched it in the first place and simply stop. Sure, the diehard fans will stick around, but doing this takes a kind of dedication apparently not found in the average Nielsen family.

Yes, it seems Grey's on its way out. And sure, while it's upsetting that we'll no longer be privy to the trials and tribulations of Seattle Grace's oddly sexual doctors, viewers can take solace in the fact that this might lead to the best last season ever.

And all of this has to do with a little theory I like to call "Good, Bad, Awesome."

Good, Bad, Awesome is a phenomena I've noticed in shows that start out red-hot, but slowly fade out of public conscious. This is currently happening with the downward spiral of Heroes. No one is watching, but they're bringing Bryan Fuller in to straighten things out.

The OC, for example started insane, but soon fizzled and was forgotten and hated by those who once considered themselves fans. What those who stopped watching missed out on was an amazing forth and final season.

LOST is another example of a show that started with amazing buzz, but got too slow and "kooky" for some viewers. What these poor saps missed out on is was the amazing last two seasons. And Sayid braking someone's neck with his feet.

SCRUBS, was quirky and original show that faught for ratings and viewers, only to slowly fade quietly into NBC's Thursday nights lineup. This show was even canceled, only to be saved by ABC, giving it a promising-looking last(?) season.

Now, the "Good, Bad, Awesome" theory doesn't always but if the Grey's team manages to get back to what is was that made the show good in the first place we could be in for an amazing, if final season in a couple of years.