Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Paranormal Activity 2

Hotsauce

By Hotsauce,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

lightsout Grand Master

lightsout

Posted
Posted

I saw the first one and enjoyed it. I'm not the type to scream at everything just because its put out there as a "horror" movie. I for one just wanted to see how it was produced and how into I could get. I wasn't disappointed. I have a thing where, in almost every movie, I think of myself a little. How would I react to that? What would I do? What would I be expecting. That's what got me. Obviously, the quick stuff got to me. But it exceeded the expectations I had before going into the theater.

I will probably see the second based on the fact that I like the first. I just pray they don't try and go overboard here. I don't want to end up hating the first and second one because the second one blows that hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lightsout Grand Master

lightsout

Posted
Posted

If anybody is interested, I just went to IMDB...the cast for the sequel...is well, interesting, to say the least. I wonder how they're going to work this movie based on the cast listing and the trailer. But it does seem like the sequel is going to sort of pick up where the 1st left off (at least, after the messages that were at the end that left you saying wtf?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CharlotteBeer.com Newbie

CharlotteBeer.com

Posted
Posted

I really enjoyed the first one. It was slow-moving, so if you're the type that likes your horror with a cheap scare every five seconds, it's not your kind of movie.

That being said, I'm not excited for the sequel. The Blair Witch sequel was absolutely horrible.

It's ironic because both Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch were made with very little funds. After bringing in tons of money, however, the producers decided to try to capitalize by creating sequels that were far lesser movies (I'm just assuming that will be the case with Paranormal Activity; I could be wrong).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...