Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral


  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.



    I have decided to stop speaking sternly to my car audio system when I listen to Unspooled and just dump my comments here. I will pass on the argument whether Alien is better than The Thing or vice versa. They are both about isolation, invasion by the other and an adversary that is both deadly and effective at hiding. They both deal with the dynamics of people living in close quarters for long periods of time. Paul's argument that the characters are better defined in the Thing and that Alien depends more on the acting ability for characters to come through is weak. The characters are more subtly defined in Alien and the cast of the Thing is heavily populated with character actors playing up to their character vs their role. The casting in the Thing has everything to do with filling a stereotype while Alien is not so obvious. Also: Sally Hardesty in Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1973) is the first fully defined "final girl" NOT Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) in Halloween (1978). And yes you could draw a comparison between TCM and Alien in the way it is constructed but it would be a stretch.

    Unghouled Suggestions

    I do have soft spot for "The Conjuring" - It is probably one of the only James Wan movies that actually scared me (A man in his mid forties at the time) YES it is a bit derivative of the Exorcist / Amityville Horror and is more or less a string of jump scares BUT it is such a well made derivative jump scare movie with amazing performances that sell them.

    Toy Story

    I just want to comment on Amy's comment that Job's was using Pixar as a way to advertise his computer company. He was kicked out of Apple in 1985. He was not asked to be the CEO and return till 1997. At the time of the film was released he was CEO & President of Next Computers - they no longer were selling computers but were mostly involved in Internet software applications. Next didn't even have an animation software application to sell. Yes there were Apple tie ins with subsequent Pixar releases but Disney also helped sell cereal and shampoo... Amy's complaint that Jobs was only interested in selling computers is hard to legitimize as Pixar didn't use Apple.or Next computers to render the animation or even imply they did.