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!

     

Pacific. fuging. Rim.


SZ James (banned)

Recommended Posts

I'm trying to find a Tbox slant for this....

but giant human controlled robots fighting giant monsters.....I'm in!!!!

 

i just get tired of seeing fighter jets doing fly-bys....why would they ever get within a miles of the target i don't know. Strafing the target with guns?....looks cool but it is a pet peeve of mine in films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here, I submit, is the mark of great director:

 

Last night, gf and I are watching TV. Trailer for Pacific Rim comes on. We watch for 30 seconds. Trailer ends, and gf remarks how fugging stupid it looks, and she has no interest in seeing it. Shrugs her shoulders at the pathetic offering of summer movies. In the rant that follows, the names "Battleship," "Transformers" and "G.I. Joe" get bandied about. I tell her generally I would agree. However, I am still giving the movie a chance because the director isn't Michael Bay, it's not a Jerry Bruckheimer productions; it's Guillermo del Toro. Her eyes go wide, she stares blankly back at the TV, obviously playing the trailer over again in her head, except now taking into account the GDT slant. She remarks, "I must admit I'm slightly intrigued now." Within another minute we have already decided that we are locked in to see this movie.

 

And that's when I realized that GDT is an amazing director, if not the best director working today. No other director could do that, I think. No other director could make you look at a movie that looks like total trash, and then totally change your opinion of if because of his name alone. Not Spielberg, not Scorsese, not Allen. No one else could convince me wholesale that a movie that looks like crap is actually worth seeing. No one else would I give the benefit of the doubt. Only Guillermo del Toro.

 

He doesn't make the best movies. He doesn't make the highest grossing movies, but he's got a rare skill; the ability to bring you into his imagination and let you crawl around in there for a while. And I can't wait to see what he throws at us next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here, I submit, is the mark of great director:

 

Last night, gf and I are watching TV. Trailer for Pacific Rim comes on. We watch for 30 seconds. Trailer ends, and gf remarks how fugging stupid it looks, and she has no interest in seeing it. Shrugs her shoulders at the pathetic offering of summer movies. In the rant that follows, the names "Battleship," "Transformers" and "G.I. Joe" get bandied about. I tell her generally I would agree. However, I am still giving the movie a chance because the director isn't Michael Bay, it's not a Jerry Bruckheimer productions; it's Guillermo del Toro. Her eyes go wide, she stares blankly back at the TV, obviously playing the trailer over again in her head, except now taking into account the GDT slant. She remarks, "I must admit I'm slightly intrigued now." Within another minute we have already decided that we are locked in to see this movie.

 

And that's when I realized that GDT is an amazing director, if not the best director working today. No other director could do that, I think. No other director could make you look at a movie that looks like total trash, and then totally change your opinion of if because of his name alone. Not Spielberg, not Scorsese, not Allen. No one else could convince me wholesale that a movie that looks like crap is actually worth seeing. No one else would I give the benefit of the doubt. Only Guillermo del Toro.

 

He doesn't make the best movies. He doesn't make the highest grossing movies, but he's got a rare skill; the ability to bring you into his imagination and let you crawl around in there for a while. And I can't wait to see what he throws at us next.

 

 

that's weird because I felt the exact same way when I first saw the trailer, then my friend told me del Toro was directing and I completely changed my thoughts on the movie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

probably the only movie i'll bother seeing in the theaters this summer

 

another director that could do this flick and i'd go see it in a heartbeat is christopher nolan (but i didn't watch inception cuz its dumb)

 

but yes, this concept by any other directors in hollywood is absolute traaaaaash

 

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...