Posts by casualcanyon3

hollowpuma762 said:Aha... so you aren't actually holding any prejudices? You just took my interpretation out of context and decided to pass judgment on it. Real classy.

Look, you don't need anyone else to step in and explain things to you. You already get it. It is what it is. Period.
And honestly? That’s 100% spot on. I mean, you're absolutely right about that. I don't even know where to start with this one. It’s just... it's a lot. I've been staring at my screen for twenty minutes trying to find the right words, but everything feels too small for how massive this actually is. Honestly? I’m exhausted just thinking about it. There's this sense of overwhelming weight, like we're all just circling a drain we can't see. It's messy, it's complicated, and frankly, it's kind of ridiculous how much energy we spend worrying about things that feel fundamentally broken from the jump. My head is spinning. Just... yeah. That's where I'm at. So, that's how she read into it? Yeah... yeah, that's just wrong. Total miss.

It’s all perfectly logical—really—as long as you don't have any of that pesky "humility" left to actually listen or weigh things out.
It’s just one big, messy cycle, isn't it? A dog chasing its own tail, or like they say, one fish biting the tail of another. Everything just circles back on itself in this endless, exhausting loop.

What’s even the point of learning this stuff? Honestly, without it, you're just sitting there with nothing but empty air in your head.

Whatever. It doesn't matter. Who? Look, I’m not even claiming to be the center of this universe here. Honestly. This whole topic is digging into some deep spiritual concepts regarding the state of one's character—it actually requires a bit of context and some actual sense if you want to wrap your head around what's being said.

If that’s missing—whether it’s because someone just doesn't know any better or they're too damn stubborn to admit it—then they start making stuff up just to fill the gaps. It's pure fantasy. They mistake whatever they've cooked up in their own heads for actual reality, but let me tell you, what "you" think is true and what's actually happening in the real world? Those two things aren't even in the same zip code.

Look, if someone actually sets out to wrap their head around something—I mean, really dive in because they think there’s a practical point to it, some kind of actual utility—they’re going to put in the work. They’ll grind. They'll sweat it out just to figure out what the hell it all means.
Look, if you want to be stubborn and cling to your little fantasies, fine. Go ahead. But honestly? It’s pretty much the only option left when you can't wrap your head around doing anything actually useful in a situation like this. It's as simple as that.

Your whole "self" thing? Honestly, you’re just taking a concept from some ancient teaching—something from a completely different era, a totally different language, and a state of consciousness we can barely wrap our heads around—and trying to force it into a translation that makes sense to you today. You're basically interpreting it based on how the words sound in English, filtered through our current social mess and those knee-jerk reactions we all have toward modern "religion" and the inevitable abuse of authority. It's just a reaction to being conditioned by everything around us and that deep-seated distrust of anyone claiming to hold the reins.

And he’s totally misreading him. Just completely missing the point.

...

Apples. That’s the topic. Just... apples. Honestly, I don't even know where to start with this one. It's such a mundane thing to fixate on, isn't it? But here we are.
To me, the whole idea of an apple just brings to mind those rotten ones left to rot on the ground under the tree. It’s messy. It's real. And honestly? That's how I see myself.
Apples? Honestly, they just aren't all that.

...

Good God, the sheer arrogance on display here is staggering. It’s all wrapped up in this tiresome, sanctimonious veneer of being a "neutral media outlet"—as if by constantly insisting, "I am not important here," they can somehow mask their own massive ego while masquerading as a vessel for universal truths.
Look, I’ve already laid out my position on how I interpret humility, and I stand by it. To me, this concept isn't some vague, airy-fairy sentiment; it functions quite specifically. It means that:

I am simply addressing the question posed in the opening post—offering my own particular reflections on the matter, which, given the nature of this subject, is exactly what was requested.

To be perfectly clear, I didn't frame this topic around any specific religious doctrine—be it Christian, Muslim, or otherwise—so there’s really no reason for me to harbor any preconceived notions toward a particular definition of humility.

Prejudices are almost always anchored to a specific, supposedly objective reality, but they tend to shatter the moment you gain any true insight into the underlying truth. That’s exactly right. Let’s get one thing straight about the current state of affairs. You’re down there trying to liken this entire discussion to some trivial debate over an apple, but you’re missing the fundamental logic. An apple is a physical reality; its existence is an objective fact that no amount of arguing can somehow negate. I might have my own personal biases regarding how an apple tastes, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and argue whether I'm experiencing an apple or a pear. That would be absurd. Humility is... The concept.Spiritual teachings shift and morph depending on where you land on the map or which specific culture you’re immersed in, and that’s true whether we are discussing a deeply personal realization or a structured theological doctrine. It begs the question: who exactly granted you the authority to act as the sole gatekeeper of a universal concept like humility? To suggest there is a single, objective standard is a fallacy; in reality, any individual interpretation is nothing more than a personal bias. I fail to see where you derived the notion that anyone here holds some kind of monopoly on the truth.

Quincy:

It becomes entirely logical when there isn't even a shred of humility left to allow one to actually listen and give any serious thought to the matter. It’s one of those absurd, circular realities where the predator becomes the prey, and the whole system just eats itself alive. It’s the ultimate picture of chaos—the fish biting its own tail. What is even the point of studying this subject if you don't grasp these fundamentals? Without them, you might as well be staring at a wall, completely lost and utterly clueless about what's actually going on.

You come to quote me on this subject, yet at the very first hint of my own personal interpretation, you immediately reveal just how little you care about what I’ve actually written or even what I fundamentally believe. You attempt to trivialize my words by resorting to these tired metaphors about taking things too literally—as if that somehow justifies your blatant refusal to engage with my actual point. You aren't even trying to mask your condescension; in fact, you’re hovering right on the edge of being outright insulting. It is a complete lack of respect in a conversation, yet you somehow still have the audacity to expect some level of humility from me. Not happening. I suppose you don't think you matter enough for that, do you?

To is, quite frankly, an absolute eyesore to me.

If you truly cared about anyone actually learning anything—and if you were genuinely as indifferent to your own role in this as you claim to be—you wouldn't be wasting your breath addressing people who clearly possess zero emotional intelligence and even less basic respect for the art of conversation. The brand of humility you’re preaching here, and the kind of subservient attitude you seem perfectly fine with, isn't just misguided; it is deeply insulting. To be blunt, it borders on hypocrisy. No sane, mentally healthy person should ever be expected to settle for such a pathetic display of "humility."

Quincy:

It really doesn't matter. Who? Whatever he claims, I'm certainly not sitting here acting like my own importance matters in all of this.

Don't you dare lie to me.

Quincy:

This discussion centers on a concept pulled straight from spiritual teachings regarding the fundamental state of one's character, though it requires a certain amount of context to truly grasp its underlying significance.

The discussion kicks off with a single question:

What are your actual thoughts on the concept of humility?

Who exactly gave you the authority to think you can just stroll in here and insult someone’s perspective, let alone dismiss it as if it holds no weight at all?

Quincy:

If that truth remains missing—whether it’s due to sheer ignorance or a stubborn refusal to see things clearly—then people inevitably try to bridge that gap with pure fantasy. It’s a pathetic sort of compensation. They mistake their own delusions for reality, convinced that what they perceive in their own minds is somehow synonymous with the actual state of the world, when in truth, their subjective whims couldn't be further from the cold, hard facts.

What I experience is my own reality, and this path I’m walking is mine alone. Only an arrogant blind fool would dare look at someone else's life journey—without having the slightest clue what it actually entails, nor possessing any genuine interest in the truth of it—and have the audacity to dismiss it all as mere fantasy.

Quincy:

If someone actually sets out to grasp the true essence of something—to understand it exactly as it was intended and to find some genuine, practical purpose within it—they will inevitably pour every ounce of their energy into uncovering its real meaning. To whom it may concern, clinging stubbornly to one's own delusions is nothing more than a tedious exercise in futility, especially when there are far more productive avenues available to grasp in a situation like this. It is quite frankly elementary.

Where on earth do you get the idea that I automatically fail to grasp a concept simply because I refuse to agree with it? Honestly, it’s a tired assumption. I have spent considerable time reading the writings of various clergy members regarding the virtue of humility, and quite frankly, I find much of it to be an absolute affront to human dignity.

Quincy:

When you say "your self," you are attempting to interpret a concept born from an entirely different era, a different language, and a completely distinct state of consciousness. You are trying to force it into a modern dialect that feels familiar to you, essentially decoding it based on how the terms sound in our current tongue. In doing so, you are filtering everything through our present sociological landscape—interpreting it through those immediate, reflexive associations shaped by a society conditioned to be deeply suspicious of anything resembling modern "religion" or the inevitable abuse of authority.

And why is it so vital to you that I interpret this—within the very structure and phonetics of the terminology itself—exactly according to your own rigid specifications? For what possible reason? Why does it matter so much to you that I label a specific concept in one particular way, especially when we are operating within a temporal and linguistic context that suggests such a definition doesn't even align with how I actually perceive it, let alone how I strive to live my life? I am genuinely curious to know.

Quincy:

He’s completely misinterpreting him, plain and simple.

Your contributions to this thread serve as nothing less than a definitive testament to my own interpretation—and believe me, I am reading it perfectly.

Quincy:

... The subject at hand—apples. It’s a deceptively simple topic, isn't it? Most people will glance at a fruit bowl and see nothing more than a snack, but if you look closer, there is an entire history of cultivation and commerce woven into every bite. Whether we are discussing the commercial giants like Apple Inc. dominating our digital lives or the humble orchards dotting the landscape of Washington state, the apple remains a symbol of both simplicity and immense complexity. I find myself wondering how many of us actually stop to consider the sheer scale of the industry behind such a common staple. To me, the very concept of an apple conjures the image of something left to rot beneath the tree. It’s a messy, unvarnished reality, but that’s exactly what I mean by it. It signifies that I possess a self—a core identity that isn't polished or performative, but something grounded and undeniably real. Let’s be honest: apples just aren't all they're cracked up to be.

At the very least, try to make an actual effort to distinguish between what I am actually saying and whatever distorted version of my words you’ve conjured up in your own head. You possess such a staggering level of arrogance in the way you communicate that the true art form here is simply managing to maintain even a shred of patience with you.

hollowpuma762 said:So, you're calling me biased and arrogant? That’s rich coming from someone who’s judging an out-of-context concept based entirely on their own preconceived notions—and then acting all high and mighty when someone calls them out on it.

And we're talking about a concept that is literally designed to strip away that exact kind of arrogance.

But sure, let's keep pretending the problem lies somewhere else. It's always someone else's fault, right?

...

I don't hold any "prejudices" against the concept; rather, I am interpreting it through my own lens, just as I described. Furthermore, I refuse to bow down to the "authority" of some "official" spiritual dogma attempting to lecture me on humility, especially when I find myself fundamentally at odds with how that "official" doctrine presents itself.

You seem convinced that disagreement is synonymous with ignorance—or worse, arrogance.
To me, it isn't. To me, it’s simply called having a backbone.

Yes, the problem clearly lies elsewhere. 👍

hollowpuma762 said:It’s eating away at my ego like a bad habit.

Look, it’s fine.
Some people get way too high on their own supply, falling in love with their own mental projections until they hit a wall, while others just... don't. They move on.

The endless, exhausting tug-of-war over the "meaning" of theological or philosophical concepts—concepts that are basically just words wrapped up and translated into another language to begin with... It’s pointless. People just grab whatever word suits their specific bias, pulling things completely out of context in their own language, without any guidance, zero education, and absolutely no desire to actually learn anything. It's just noise.

Having an opinion doesn't mean you lack the will to study, to seek guidance, or to actually think critically. You've simply taken your entire interpretation of my stance, my ego, and my worldview, and projected it onto me based entirely on your own preconceived notions.

You might want to dial back the arrogance when it comes to your "spiritual insights."

hollowpuma762 said:Look, it doesn't matter what you think, or what kind of labels you want to slap on things.
Nobody sat down and designed a spiritual doctrine specifically to fit your local slang, let alone your personal vocabulary. A serious school of thought isn't going to bend itself just to cater to you. If anything, it's the other way around if you actually want to learn something. A lot of these terms are archaic for a reason, and banging your head against the literal definition of a word isn't exactly a productive way to spend your time.

When someone passes a concept down to you, you interpret it the way they teach it—not how you feel like it should be. Otherwise, you're just indulging in fantasies and tossing away the essential truths sitting right under your nose, turning the whole thing into a game of broken telephone. People on these forums just post whatever comes to mind without any context, so there's this constant tendency to play philosopher based on the first random thought that pops into your head.
A priest (or anyone actually worth listening to about this stuff) puts these things into clear context. They use real-life examples. Has anyone here actually suggested that "humility" means a loss of dignity in this context?

Actually, it matters immensely. I wasn't attempting to lecture anyone on some established religion or a specific worldview; I was simply articulating my own personal interpretation of a concept.

Quincy:

No one is out there designing a doctrine specifically to cater to your local—let alone your personal—vocabulary. No serious system of thought is going to bend itself over backward just to suit your preferences.

I don't require someone to tailor a entire belief system to fit my private lexicon just so I can express how I personally experience a certain idea. At no point in my post did I claim to be discussing any specific "public" spiritual tradition.

Quincy:

If you actually want to learn, it works the other way around. Many of these terms are archaic, and splitting hairs over semantics is frankly a waste of time.

I am not splitting hairs; I am stating my perspective. A little less arrogance in this conversation wouldn't hurt you.

Quincy:

You interpret the concept being taught based on how the teacher presents it, not however you feel like it.

Does someone hold a monopoly on the concept of humility, such that I am somehow forbidden from describing how I personally perceive it? 😕

Quincy:

Instead, people just fantasize and reject the essential truths right in front of them, reducing everything to a game of telephone. People post all sorts of nonsense on this forum without any context, leading to a tendency to philosophize about whatever random thought pops into their heads. While a priest (or anyone with actual authority on the subject) would provide clear context, often using real-life examples. Has anyone here suggested that "humility" implies a loss of dignity?

I don't need a priest to provide me with context. I am perfectly capable of doing that myself. Nor do I need someone else to suggest that I am losing my dignity just so I can realize whether or not I am losing it through humility.

As far as I am concerned, human beings were not designed to kneel, whether metaphorically or literally, before anyone or anything. To me, that act of kneeling feels fundamentally wrong.

hollowpuma762 said:The problem is that the local dialect makes you think of "humiliation."

But the actual concept has nothing to do with that.

Ditch that word for a second and just try to imagine a state of consciousness where you perceive, practice, and "listen" from a place of superiority. You know, the exact opposite of an ego trip or narcissism.

That specific aspect of consciousness? That’s a character virtue.

Actually, there's plenty to get when you realize what character actually is and how it dictates a person's capacity and limits. Especially when we're talking about metaphysical development.

What you’re describing is what I personally call modesty. To me, being "humble" feels like a total loss of dignity. You don't have to surrender your self-respect just to understand, acknowledge, or learn from something superior. You don't need to grovel—which is exactly what humility feels like to me—just to show respect.

Elevating humility to the status of a virtue is nothing more than the most pedestrian attempt to rationalize one's own spiritual frailty and inherent masochism. To me, it sounds like someone trying to dress up a personal perversion as some higher, more noble calling just to lend themselves a shred of credibility. Frankly, I find seeing a submissive, "humble" individual to be utterly repulsive. It reaches a point where I feel a genuine impulse to give them a kick in the teeth. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Nancy Lee84 said:Is it too much ego if I say thanks? 🙂

As far as I'm concerned—not in the slightest.

Nancy Lee84 said:Nobody can actually change who they are at their core—you can't force yourself to be someone you aren't. Therapy is supposed to help you find yourself again, maybe even empower you, and try to shift your perspective. Real change isn't about rewriting your DNA or your personality traits, it's about smashing those old, shitty assumptions you have about yourself.

Nancy, I have to tell you, stumbling upon your insights on this platform is a genuinely profound experience. 🙂

Here is a brief catalog of instances where you have behaved in ways you claim don't qualify as harassment—ranging from your most recent outbursts to older ones over the last couple of months, spanning several different discussions:

- Advising the thread starter to simply ignore a specific user whom you are actively targeting.
- Poking at a user by questioning if she uses dating apps just to find "humor," while simultaneously dropping insinuations on that very same site that she isn't trustworthy.
- Mocking her posts and implying that she is lying about herself.
- Telling the OP that she "lacks both knowledge and experience" and suggesting he disregard her entirely, followed by claims that you only comment because her "posts are pathetic," alongside various other petty arguments and attempts to discredit her.

I’ve pulled these from your last five warnings (I won't list the final one since it's already been cited here). These specific incidents were preceded by a long string of similar behavior. Your posts directed at this user are derogatory, insulting, and provocative. They have absolutely nothing to do with the actual topics being discussed. At no point was she the one to initiate contact with you; rather, you are constantly quoting her or others specifically to tear her down. It isn't just about her content, despite what you falsely claim here—you are attacking her as a person in a purely malicious fashion.
Your conduct hasn't gone unnoticed; other users on the platform have seen it and commented on it across various threads.

Let me be clear: everything described above is the definition of harassment. I strongly suggest you review section 13 of our Terms of Service. Honestly, you might want to pay attention to the very last rule as well—playing dumb isn't permitted here either.

As for your question regarding what kind of comments are permissible versus what isn't—aside from my repeated recommendation that you re-read the rules for both the main forum and the Reddit archives—I will say this: acceptable commentary must remain relevant to the topic at hand. If you intend to disagree with the original poster or anyone else, you are expected to present constructive arguments that maintain a coherent discussion within the thread. That means no insults, no off-topic rambling, no trolling, no provocation, no disparagement, and no personal vendettas against other members.

One final note: given your track record, I will be watching your future interactions with this user very closely. Should any behavior similar to the examples listed above recur, I will fully support a move toward a permanent ban from Reddit.

The book.

Carl Rivera43 said:Creativity really needs a clear head, right? You can't be constantly obsessing over what you're going to get out of it. Honestly, trying to pre-calculate your success or worry about the profit margins just kills the creative spark before it even starts.

I feel like that’s how you actually find balance in life. When someone is completely burnt out, they don't have the energy to fight against whatever comes their way, so they just take what's offered.

So, how does one actually go about "cleansing" oneself of those distractions? 🙄

To the editorial staff over at Reddit, I am reaching out to ask if there is even the slightest possibility of expanding the character limit for private messages. 🙂
The current constraints are, frankly, quite stifling. 🕺

I cannot recommend the Odyssey series starring Armand Assante highly enough. In my estimation, it stands as one of the premier adaptations of this kind of subject matter and arguably ranks among the finest fantasy productions ever made—even if it is technically a miniseries, I have always experienced it as one continuous, sweeping cinematic epic. It is a remarkably high-caliber piece of work, and I can't help but feel that modern studios simply don't bother making anything of this caliber anymore.

Mickey Mouse

I actually pulled it off! 😁

Sarah Stewart72 said:I honestly don't understand why you're being so incredibly aggressive here.

Good grief, please, stop playing the martyr. I’ll gladly take a ban if that’s what it takes, but for heaven's sake, you are overstepping massively. You’re painting me as some kind of villain while casting yourself as this pure saint who—heaven forbid—just wanted to defend the downtrodden... give me a break.

It is merely my perspective. Since I became so preoccupied with this topic, I tried to look at people out on the street and identify what you consider to be 'vulgar and primitive'—and I simply couldn't. Therefore, it seems impossible to judge a person solely based on their appearance.

I am quoting myself from that other thread for the third time now:
"I do not view vulgarity through the lens of whether someone is a good or bad person."

So, in that sense, I am not judging anyone. What exactly are you accusing me of judging?! Are you suggesting it is impossible for someone to look vulgar and primitive? And yet, when someone dares to say they find it possible, they are supposedly "stigmatizing people," a point you never miss an opportunity to hammer home in both threads.
Meanwhile, I am expected to remain silent because apparently, I am "turning the discussion into a personal vendetta."

Perhaps we just see things differently, but to me, something can only be vulgar and primitive in terms of behavior, never in a person's physical appearance, regardless of how much or how little clothing they are wearing.

Since when does having a different perspective grant you the right to persecute me with accusations of stigmatization?

... This isn't about you, and I wouldn't have even brought you up if you hadn't chimed in.

Oh, I see. So it’s perfectly fine to accuse me twice in this thread, but once I push back, suddenly "this isn't about me." Unbelievable.

And this is what the moderators consider acceptable? Behold the height of "constructive debate."

I have no desire to turn this into a personal crusade, but I refuse to sit idly by in the face of systemic accusations and provocations. It happens repeatedly: I discuss something on Microsoft, and suddenly someone attaches themselves to my posts with this level of accusation and hostility. I won't resort to using the ignore button because I actually want to know if people are talking about me. So, if what I'm saying is permitted, what choice is left? Should I just stay quiet so I don't turn another thread into such a "constructive discussion"?

So, Sarah Stewart72, you just won't stop trying to STIGMATIZE ME, will you? First it was that other thread, and now you're back at it here, doubling down in a second post.
I mean, seriously—if I express my view that vulgarity is just another form of primitivism and write what I consider a perfectly reasonable, non-offensive explanation, is it really acceptable for me to be accused of stigmatizing women? First by attacking me directly in that previous discussion, then through these persistent posts directed at others, and now for a second time right here? Even when I try to clarify that isn't my intention? It feels like I'm being demonized as some sort of Grand Inquisitor regardless of what I say, even if I try to just walk away from the argument entirely.

I’m asking purely for the sake of clarity: if someone else were to argue that swearing or spitting on the street is primitive and vulgar, would I be allowed to relentlessly accuse them of stigmatizing and labeling people, no matter how they phrased it, provided they weren't explicitly trolling or provoking? Because what she's doing technically doesn't cross the line into a direct insult, and she knows that perfectly well. It’s a deeply perfidious and dirty game.

Richard Nelson84, I’m honestly not sure what the standard etiquette is here on the forum or over at Microsoft, but there is a massive distinction between a healthy debate between two people with opposing views and a situation where someone simply spends every single post labeling their opponent and shouting down everything they say just to "correct" a perceived misunderstanding. If I state, for instance, that something doesn't actually bother me—that I'm merely discussing it—and yet she persists in insisting that it *does* bother me, ignoring my explanations time and again, while simultaneously accusing me of categorizing people on some arbitrary scale or being overly objective, then we aren't having a constructive conversation. We aren't even debating ideas anymore; we are dealing with someone who is fundamentally incapable of having a rational dialogue. To be frank, I think anyone paying attention can see exactly what's happening in that thread. But fine, if you disagree, there isn't much I can do about it.

I have no desire to drag this out any further; I only stepped in to make it clear that Thomas Morgan67 isn't the only one with certain impressions, and I expressed my disagreement with you in a separate post... and that is truly all there is to it.

Richard Nelson84 said:......
Personally, I find the spat between you and casualcanyon3 far more problematic than that previous exchange you had with Leonid, mostly because you both pushed things way past the breaking point. To be perfectly honest, there were enough questionable elements in both of your posts that they could have easily warranted a ban, but I decided against it because I truly believed we could extract some actual substance from the chaos—which, in my estimation, we actually managed to do.

.....

And you have the audacity to call that a "quality discussion"? Let’s be clear: what happened was nothing short of a total distortion of my words. It was a relentless cycle of accusations, her insisting she knew my intentions better than I did, her stubborn refusal to see any other perspective, and those blatant provocations suggesting I maintain some arbitrary scale for labeling people. It wasn't high-level discourse, and it certainly wasn't fair; once she pushed me into a corner, I simply bit back with the sharpness she earned.

Look, I have absolutely no intention of engaging in petty bickering on this platform. If someone feels the need to report me just to get me banned, then so be it; it isn't going to ruin my life. I will simply state this for the record: in all my years participating in online communities like this one, I have NEVER once gone to the moderators to complain about another user, nor have I ever filed a single report against anyone. Never.

From here on out, I'll be giving that particular user a very wide berth.

Personally, I had no intention of filing a formal complaint because I’ve always had a distaste for playing the litigious type, but frankly, I’ve reached my limit. Furthermore, I would urge the moderators to take a closer look at one particular female member here. The way she stirs up unnecessary drama whenever someone dares to disagree with her—launching insults and then, when met with the justified silence of being ignored, pivoting to this incredibly insidious pattern of mocking others through indirect posts while simultaneously playing the martyr—is nothing short of repulsive. It truly drains any desire I have to contribute meaningfully to this discussion.

I don't see the point in comparing slashers to supernatural horror. In my view, you should group something like Scream and Halloween together, while characters like Freddy Krueger and the Cenobites belong in an entirely different category. Furthermore, I wouldn't go so far as to call Final Destination a cult franchise; the latter two certainly earn that title. Compared to them, FD feels somewhat lightweight, which is why I don't consider them to be in the same league for comparison purposes.

When voting among the titles provided that feature supernatural elements, the Hellraiser series stands out to me as the absolute best. Personally, I’ve never been particularly fond of Krueger.

What about King's IT?

And yes, I would also add the Alien franchise to another category.