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!

     

Apollo 18....waste of 3 dollars..


Awesomeness!!

Recommended Posts

So my friend convinces me to go watch this shitty movie last night, and this was Skyline esque.* SPOILER ALERT* So basically, after Apollo 17, NASA had another trip to the moon, Apollo 18. It was a Top Secret two man mission to the moon to do something....they never fully explained the mission. They get there, and find a Russian Spaceship there as well. The idiots go inside of a crater so some reason near the space ship where they find the dead Russian. They find a rock inside of his suit. They tell NASA, and of course NASA is all like ahhh we didn't know, then the next day/morning NASA tells them they could confirm that Russia had been on the moon blah blah blah. They set off to leave a short time later but of course their ship fails to take off. One of these dumbasses goes outside as if he could actually access what was wrong with the poo in the first place, only to be "attacked" but the Moon spiders or whatever they where. His buddy goes out to save him, and get him back into the ship, where they find out he was infected? Inside his cut they find a rock, which explodes of something. Later you can see the spider inside the ship but...again, none of this was ever explained. His buddy gets really bad, and eventually dies (keep reading) so he tells NASA. The directer of the DOD tells the healthy guy that they can't get them, but at least he died a hero. He has the bright idea of trying to the dock the Russian ship, with the one in orbit to get back to Earth. Well, his not so dead but also dead dumbass buddy is attacked again and basically killed, but he makes it to the ship, where he magically pilots it to orbit, (but not after his buddy attacked the ship with a hammer one last time, only to be "eaten"? why the moon spiders. Anyway, the ship takes off, and when they get into orbit, of course 0 gravity takes affect, I'm not sure100% what happened in this scene, I was texting, but my friend said it was dumb. Anyway, the guy in orbit dies as well I guess, but again, this was never explained.

This could have been really good, except for the C- acting, how they never explained the spider things, the rocks etc. Too many holes..don't even waste time downloading this..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd think having two guys isolated on the moon would make for some pretty creepy imagery and tons of slow-building tension. The movie is mostly just cheap jump scares and "omg wtf was that" fast cutaways.

I also like how

*WARNING SPOILERS FOR A pooTY MOVIE YOU SHOULDN'T SEE*

Liberty apparently collides with Freedom at the end, hurling all of this supposedly found footage that was shot on hand-held cameras into space, never to be recovered. That and how parasitic rock spider things have managed to evolve and survive in a place that's only been visited by other living things a handful of times starting 40 years ago.

Really I'm definitely a plebe when it comes to movies and I'm easily entertained, but this thing was total ass garbage. The definite highlight though was when the "official story" of the fate of the space d00ds was printed across the screen at the end and some obviously shaken 12 year old in front of me was like "... they lied to us."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • His footwork has been discussed at length, just like Cam's was--no argument from me there. What I'm asking for is a statistical indicator that supports the idea that Bryce's footwork is creating meaningful issues. With Cam, we could clearly correlate occasional high passes to footwork problems. With Bryce, there are occasional misfires as well, but we aren't seeing it surface with the frequency of severity you'd expect if it were such a persistent issue. That's why when concerns about his footwork and height are paired together, there should be some measurable statistical impact. That's what I keep coming back to. That same inconsistency shows up in the deep ball critique. Saying "he misses guys outright" suggests he either isn't seeing them or can't hit them downfield... yet, as we've already seen, he was top-10 in catchable passes over 20+ yards. If accuracy were truly the issue, it should reflect in the data. It's also worth pointing out that deep-ball concerns largely became the next talking point after he made it through the season without the durability disaster some were predicting (despite being sacked for what was then the second-most times ever for a rookie QB). As for those sideline throws you mentioned: what specific throws are you referring to? If you can identify them, I'd be happy to pull up the PFF premium grades or grab All-22 clips from NFL Pro to look at those sequences and assess how real that concern is. For my part, I'd actually like to see improvement in the intermediate game. That was a strength his rookie year, but he seemed to trade it for a stronger deep game this past season. Could that shift relate to height and footwork? Maybe! But again... we'd need data or film trends to verify that rather than assume it. On the "top-10" classification front: I know that it's a moving target for most people. That's why I've been asking for specifics. Without a shared definition, it's hard to engage meaningfully. So with you moving away from raw yardage, does that mean your preferred KPIs are now height, weight, red zone efficiency, and point differential? If so, that's totally fine (just being clear about it helps). That said... red zone success and point differential depend heavily on OL play, WR execution, coaching decisions, defense (for point differential), etc. They're influenced by the QB but not exclusively determined by him... which, like passing yards, makes them more difficult to isolate for analysis of Bryce's performance.
    • I think "amazing" is basically relating to his prior performances, which is a very low bar. Even at his peak(so far), he hasn't consistently been an elite performer either by the simple eye test nor statistically. Regardless, we have seen the flashes of WHY we drafted him #1 overall and he is visibility significantly more confident. Hopefully he has spent an inordinate amount of time this offseason getting that footwork better and more consistent. That's going to be a massive factor in his continuing improvement.
×
×
  • Create New...