Jump to content

HorizontoZenith

Veteran Members
  • Content count

    6,553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HorizontoZenith

  1. Don't be lazy, make a case. Either give a reason for why your personal favorite movie is the best ever made, or create a compelling or at least a little case for what movie you think is the best ever, regardless of whether or not you like it. If you haven't seen The Thing, it's available to watch on Hulu now. John Carpenter's The Thing (1982): For any movie to be considered the best movie ever made, in my opinion, it has to have three things: 1. Technical achievement (score, cinematography, other). 2. Entertainment quality. 3. A lasting influence in film and in the genre. The Thing has all three and then some. I’ll start with Technical Achievement, which I will break down into three categories: Technical Achievement: 1. Score 2. Cinematography 3. Practical Effects The Score: To me, there are maybe five themes in all of cinema that stand out more than this one. Harry Potter’s theme, Jurassic Park’s, Jaws, Predator, Star Wars and maybe a few others. The music portrays a creeping sense of doom and impending terror, but it’s subtle at the same time just like the threat they’re up against. It’s a score that’s so popular it was turned into a record for the film’s 35th anniversary, and Tarantino reused parts of the score in The Hateful Eight. The Cinematography: Dean Cundey recently offered strong clues to the ambiguous ending of the movie stating that he wanted, through cinematography, to give visual cues to which of the crew was human, and which were “one of those things.” Said Dean Cundey, In addition to the clues and hints provided by the cinematography, the film was also shot in Anamorphic. For a really quick, yet very intriguing read, go to this link to read more about and look at some of the cinematography that gets highly overlooked when comparing this movie to other masterpieces in the genre. I feel if there’s one thing that sets The Thing apart from its biggest competitor (Alien), it’s the cinematography. There are no spoilers in this link: http://vashivisuals.com/thing-atmospheric-anamorphic/ Practical Effects: I don't care who wants to argue that The Thing isn't the best movie ever made, I don't even care when people want to say it's not the best science fiction horror movie because, as much as it hurts to admit it, there are arguments to be made against it. HOWEVER... There is no movie that has EVER had such a lasting, iconic influence on and mastery of practical effects. If you ask anybody working in practical effects, 999 out of 1,000 of them will either say that they were inspired to get into it because of The Thing, or that they consider The Thing to be the pinnacle of practical effects accomplishment. Rob Bottin, the man who made The Thing come to life, literally had to be admitted to a hospital due to exhaustion for his efforts in making The Thing come to life. There are spoilers in the following video, but for anybody in doubt, just look at this scene and compare it to CGI in similar body horror films that have been made 37 years later: https://youtu.be/JjIXwkX1e48?t=20s Entertainment Quality: I don't think there's an aspect of The Thing that isn't entertaining, but I'm going to break it down into three categories: 1. Dialogue 2. Humor 3. Terror Dialogue: Out of all the movies I've ever seen (I currently have 2,784 rated films on my IMDB account), there's only one more quotable movie than The Thing, and that's Predator. The movie is so loaded with one liners, but not one of the one liners is tongue-in-cheek or forced like some of them are in Predator (Stick Around comes to mind). They are all fitting with what's going on in the movie and fitting the paranoia and fear and confusion of its characters. Some of my favorites: Humor: The humor is entirely situational and there are no forced jokes. It's entirely based around the incongruity of near a dozen men going up against what they can't possibly understand or hope to fight, and none of the characters have to stoop to generated laughs because their reactions to their environment and the antagonist is pure and genuine. The quotes I just provided are even better in the context of the movie. Terror: Although The Thing never scared me once, not even the first time I saw it when I was ten, it's still one of the most terrifying concepts I can possibly imagine. A single cell of the organism is enough to completely overtake you and take you over completely, creating a perfect copy. Your memories and even your personality. I've read the novella the movie is based on several times because it's one of the best concepts in film and science fiction history. It's a shame that zombies have taken over cinema when this far more terrifying concept/creature/antagonist has been relegated to one masterpiece and one alright prequel. Other Entertaining Elements: Although Guillermo del Toro recently went on a Twitter rave about this, I'm still taking credit for it because I've been saying it for years. The Thing is not an easy movie. It doesn't provide everything for you, and in a lot of cases it doesn't provide enough. The shadows aren't conclusive, the order of assimilation isn't conclusive, the timing of it isn't conclusive, and the movie leaves MULTIPLE questions unanswered. As GDT said it, you have to DIG to enjoy this movie. It doesn't telegraph the transformations, it doesn't clue you in on how this happened or how that happened. Who got to the blood? How did they get the keys? The movie provides a LOAD of hints, but ZERO answers. Who was a human at the end? Who was The Thing? The script gives an explicit answer, but the movie doesn't acknowledge it. The cinematography hints at it, but doesn't acknowledge it. You have to work at this movie, which is a truly rewarding experience. You have to look at the facts, look at what you're seeing and what you're hearing and what you saw and heard in order to come up with your own solution to these problems. It's why I still watch the movie once a year on my birthday and still come away entertained with new theories. It has multiple conflicts. Man versus self, man versus man, man versus nature, man versus supernatural, and for those of you who want to consider man versus machine a literary conflict, MacReady has a fight with a computer. Additionally, there has never been a better case of building tension than the blood test scene. I'm about to list a bunch of films that reference The Thing, and most of them pay direct reference to this scene. If you haven't watched the movie, do not watch this scene because I would literally pay ten thousand dollars to be able to watch The Thing for the first time again, and mostly because of this scene. The Thing's Influence: The thing is probably referenced more often or as often as Alien, and movies inspired by The Thing are numerous. There was a video game. Quentin Tarantino made The Hateful Eight so strongly influenced by The Thing that he brought in its star (Kurt Russell) and its composer. Ennio Marriconi even reused unused score from The Thing. This is after Tarantino's first film, Reservoir Dogs, was also highly inspired by The Thing. The movie has been referenced in Night of the Creeps, The Wraith, Wicked City, the sound of The Thing is used in Rambo 3, Akira references it, The Blob (1988) references it, The Terror Within, Leviathan, Terminator 2 references it, The Simpsons, Last Action Hero pays homage to it, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine directly references the blood test scene, Independence Day makes a direct reference to it, Event Horizon, Phantoms, The X-Files has a whole episode that pays homage to The Thing, The Faculty pays homage to it throughout the entire movie, Ice Age, Cabin Fever, Dreamcatcher, Star Trek: Enterprise references it, The Day After Tomorrow gives a direct shot-for-shot reference to The Thing, Slither references it, Supernatural had an episode that paid homage to it, South Park directly referenced the blood test scene, Planet Terror, The Mist, Stranger Things and so many more movies, writers and directors reference the movie that I'd be here for an hour listing them all. If you want the full list, go here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/movieconnections I've provided my case. From now on, every time I'm made fun of on this site for loving this movie, I'm just going to link to this post. Now what are your own personal favorite movies?
  2. FF-Packers Fantasy League?

    I will trade Pryor + any one of Foreman, Forte, Bennett, Taylor or Stills for a top RB.
  3. $18M Left In Cap Space - How To Spend?

    I've never once in my entire time here professed to have any confidence whatsoever in a single draft prospect, only the merit of whether or not it's a good idea to draft their position, so it kinda shocks me that you think I'm adamant of my opinions when I've never once expressed confidence in a prospect. Most I'll comment on is a lack of physical attributes or how physical attributes could impact how well they perform in the NFL. I'm adamant on repeated patterns in the NFL and with teams based on which positions they go and how that reflects a team's success, and I'll fall for a player based on commonly accepted opinions, but only so far as their position. Example, I desperately wanted for us to draft Harrison Smith because he was widely regarded as the best safety prospect. I've never professed to have the right opinion on a prospect, only positions.
  4. $18M Left In Cap Space - How To Spend?

    Give me a quick rundown of how frequently I'm wrong when people suggest I have a wrong opinion. You want to know what the difference is between you and I? When I disagree with someone, I provide multiple points, counterpoints, acknowledgments and disagreements with an aggressive tone, but an overall sound and thought out counterargument. You respond with, "You want to re-sign Janis over Adams. Wow" That's literally not offering an ounce of an argument, that's just calling someone out because you disagree with them. I'm not asking you to agree with my opinions, I never did. I just find it flat out stupid that I'm literally always jumped on for being this arse or this insufferable **** when literally every single time I get into an argument, I provide evidence, points, counterpoints and historical context to prove I'm right, and people like you respond with, "Lol, you crazy." How does that work? Don't give me this crap. It's very insulting. This was, of course, in response to me saying I'm the only one expecting a second/fourth year jump from Davis/Janis. You know damn well that the vast majority of people here have given up on Janis. You know damn well the vast majority here have given up on Davis. It's why people were suggesting we'd cut one of them in favor of Allison/Yancey/Dupre/McCaffrey/take your pick. And you know damn well the vast majority of people on the old site gave up on Davante Adams after his second year. I don't belittle people's opinions. Look back on this thread. I got into this discussion when I asked, "Why though?" And then I provided my point. I didn't belittle an opinion, I provided a counter opinion. There was no condescending tone, there was no belittlement, there was a question and reasons to back up my question. Look at how I responded to Packer_Esp. He said he agreed with some, then disagreed with other parts of my argument. He didn't say, "Your opinion sucks, this, that, you're crazy, wow." Look at my response to him. There was no condescending, there was no belittlement, there was me presenting my counter argument. Then you've got people like you saying LITERALLY only, "You want Janis instead of Adams. wow." Look at how Shanedorf JUST responded. I've got this perception as being this **** when I literally never say crap like, "Wow," "Your opinion sucks," I provide an aggressive counter argument, and I get that distinction as being the **** just because I go in-depth and I point out obvious flaws in an argument. It's frankly bull****. I got called out by some new person here for being a **** when LITERALLY the only thing I said was, "Lol. Yeah. Right." In an otherwise detailed and thought out response. I'm gearing towards abandoning this crap and letting all of you have that circle "agreement" mentality where everybody agrees with everybody and the only actual discussion is trolls saying our defense sucks and Capers sucks. It's literally been ticking me off and it's really not even worth it because the only reason there's this perception out there that I'm the **** is because I actually come out with opinions that aren't massively accepted while the rest of you are in a massage circle where you think the same damn thing. So how about don't tell me I'm being a condescending and belittling **** when the most you've contributed to this conversation is, "You want to re-sign Janis over Adams. Wow."
  5. $18M Left In Cap Space - How To Spend?

    We used a second round pick on Adams hoping he could be more than he is. He isn't. He goes through high and low confidence swings and he's going to have 1-2 drops a game. Sometimes in big situations. You can live with that if he's prime Terrell Owens, but he's not. He's got quickness and a good jump and that's about all you've got with Adams. Re-signing him for Cobb money (which will have been inflated by the time Adams signs) for a quick high jumper with questionable bouts of confidence/poor hands is not something I want to do, and I really don't care what the mass opinion is on that opinion, just like I didn't care when I was one of the only people who was very okay with the notion of Cobb leaving (I wanted him, not going to lie, but I wouldn't have felt a thing if he left). Turns out I had every right to feel that way because once Cobb's role expanded, his production diminished. I'm also the only one here expecting a second and fourth year jump from Davis/Janis, but that's also absurd around here. Davante Adams isn't going to be the number one receiver here, but he's going to get paid like a #1 either here or somewhere else, and I'm crazy for not wanting to pay 10-12 million a year for a receiver with #2 receiver talent and overall game. I'm not opposed to re-signing him to a 1/2 year extension at those numbers, but I definitely see a 3rd/4th round compensatory pick as more valuable to us than carrying an 11-12 million contract for four to five years on a #2 receiver. Also, I was one of the crazy ones for not wanting to cut Adams heading into 2016. So I guess I'll just be the crazy one.
  6. 2018 NFL Draft Discussion

    I'd argue we've been drafting for need for the past while now. King, Clark (with Raji retiring), Randall (with us letting Tramon go), and Clinton-Dix could all be considered top 1/2 needs, and in all scenarios there were probably better or equal players at other positions.
  7. $18M Left In Cap Space - How To Spend?

    Funny, I got the same treatment when I suggested I didn't want to re-sign Cobb and when I was one of a small handful who wanted to re-sign Bakhtiari.
  8. $18M Left In Cap Space - How To Spend?

    With RJF and House above Linsley, it's purely because I think DL is about twice as important as OL. Linsley is certainly better than RJF is and a better re-sign, it's just preference there. The idea of having two players like RJF and Daniels on the offensive line is more important to me for us winning Super Bowls than Linsley. If we were to sign Dial to a multi-year deal, RJF would go down to 5 or lower for me. House would still remain my number one priority though. On Adams, the reason I don't like it is because re-signing Adams means we wouldn't try to upgrade at receiver next year, and I think we should. Adams is in a lot of ways a one trick pony, and I'd rather take a chance at getting a better player. Not first round obviously, but not 4th-7th, either. So a second or third. If we were to cut Cobb, I'd absolutely be okay with re-signing Adams.
  9. Rookie? New coach? Schedule?
  10. Packers Extend Lane Taylor

    You're continuing to make yourself look like a weirdo who's suggesting things I'm not saying. When did I mention last year? Where did you even come up with that? There were literally three people at least that were arguing that we probably should and probably would take an interior offensive lineman in the first three rounds in the 2018 NFL Draft Discussion. Are you trying to tell me that there aren't people arguing whether or not we're going to take an interior offensive lineman in the draft discussion thread? Wherever you're getting this notion that I'm suggesting dozens of people are talking about it I'd like to know. But whatever. You must've had a bad day, and I'm an easy target, so you go ahead and get them likes. You deserve them, and I'm sure you'll get them from TheOnlyThing and a few others who hate me on here anytime you call me out.
  11. $18M Left In Cap Space - How To Spend?

    Yeah, one of them would cost like 2 million dollars and the other would cost like 10 million dollars. It's not like I think Janis is better than Adams or anything, but whatever.
  12. $18M Left In Cap Space - How To Spend?

    Only if we win the Super Bowl. Honestly, a Super Bowl win for me means the next season is 100% gravy. I literally didn't care who we took the year after we won the Super Bowl because the way I see it, a Super Bowl win validates everything for the next 5-ish years. So yeah, if we win the Super Bowl, receiver in 1.
  13. $18M Left In Cap Space - How To Spend?

    Why though? If we re-sign him, we're not going to be looking at getting somebody else in the second-ish round next year's draft, and I'd rather go that route. Other than his quickness/route running, I just don't love Adams long term. I felt the same way about Cobb. I wouldn't have been upset if Cobb stayed or left, but I leaned towards being more okay with him leaving, and I'm even less high on Adams returning. I'd rather take a chance on getting a more complete receiver in the second round of this draft than re-sign Adams and have Adams, Nelson and Cobb. My preference for extensions would go: 1. Davon House 2. Morgan Burnett 3. Ricky Jean-Francois 4. Corey Linsley 5. Jeff Janis 6. Davante Adams I like Adams, and if he somehow re-signs for considerably less than the deals Cobb/Nelson signed, I'd rather get a third or fourth round pick from a team overpaying him and using a second round pick on a receiver next year.
  14. The PSVR Thread

    Just got Resident Evil whatever number that you can play in VR. Going to try it tonight.
  15. Packers Extend Lane Taylor

    Stop trying to make yourself feel important.
  16. Packers Extend Lane Taylor

    You responded to me saying that in the first post of this thread. You think I was referring to talk about this thread in the first post of this thread? That makes no sense, and regardless of whether or not I'm looking like an idiot arguing against high interior offensive linemen here, how do you think you look by saying nobody in this thread is saying that when I said they were saying that in the first post of this thread? How does that make any sense? Hint: It doesn't, and I was referring to a different thread. Obviously.
  17. Packers Extend Lane Taylor

    Even Jeff Janis had 19 yards and a TD behind them against the Seahawks last year. http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2016121111/2016/REG14/seahawks@packers#menu=gameinfo|contentId%3A0ap3000000755296&tab=analyze&analyze=boxscore
  18. Packers Extend Lane Taylor

    PackAttacky liked this post, but who are you disagreeing with here exactly? I feel like you're disagreeing with him, not me.
  19. FF-Packers Fantasy League?

    Has the draft order been set yet? Is there a way to look and see it if so?
  20. Roster Cuts Thread

    That's perfect.
  21. Bitcoin

    No, they should all do that because if they all do that I make more money. Everybody should buy bitcoin. And Litecoin. And Ethereum.
  22. 2018 NFL Draft Discussion

    But did we really drop off any visually noticeable amount between Sitton and Taylor? It certainly didn't feel any different to me the amount of pressure Rodgers had. Are we really going to drop off that much from Lang to Evans? Are we really going to drop off that much from Evans to Patrick in his third year? Hop into your time machine and look at Lane Taylor in his second year. Now compare him to Lucas Patrick now. You'll see two 6-3 guards separated by 11 pounds who were both undrafted.
  23. Packers Extend Lane Taylor

    Yes, but I don't understand how Lang has been anything different from what we've seen there before. We'll re-sign guards for team-friendly deals. Sitton, Lang, Taylor... All of them have re-signed for team-friendly deals. If we really wanted to keep Lang, we would have offered the same the Lions did. Lang himself said he wanted to re-sign here. Lions offered more, we didn't match, we must not have really wanted him. We certainly could have afforded him.
  24. Packers Extend Lane Taylor

    Name one time when a coach or staff member has ever said, "Good riddance, we didn't think he was worth that." If a woman asks you if she looks fat in a dress, do you tell her the truth if she does? I'm not going to grant this as a valid point because the Packers aren't going to say, "No, we didn't want to re-sign him." Especially when we have to play him twice a year now.
  25. 2018 NFL Draft Discussion

    Not doubting you, just like to shy away from the argument because we both have good points whether or not you want to acknowledge it, but do you have any way to look up sacks Rodgers had that separate interior pass rush from exterior? I feel like Rodgers gets sacked much more often from outside pressure.
×