[Despondent]

the Blair Witch's director has a new release. DVD digigods podcast offered free copy to the first 5 respondents recently.

Cloverfield is just misguided, everybody. I'm sure he was just bothered because of the evil yankee devils who decided to drill within sight of US shores...

[BigStupidDogFacedArse]

Well maybe once your ten foot Coen Bros. boner goes away, you'll take Cloverfield for what it is: a horror movie. Horror isn't a genre you go into looking for well-rounded characters or performances. You go into it looking for thrills, chills, and maybe some blood 'n' guts. There's the odd piece of cerebral horror (ie: The Exorcist) that really gets under your skin, but horror is NOT a genre for film buffs.

I should tell you I'm not a Coen Bros. fan boy. I take films for what they are, of course. But generally speaking I look for well-rounded films.

Jacobs Ladder, (original in B&W) Night of the Living Dead, The Shining, Ring, The Women In Black, Psycho, Rosemary's Baby, Silence of the Lambs, and Alien (had many horror elements) were all scary and well done at that.

But don't worry about it, I demand quality from films and often get it. I'm not missing out.

[civilian_number_two]

The Ring is exactly what you accused horror films of being. Lots of music cues to make you jump, quick cuts to people with ugly/mangled faces, and some dumb mystery about the kid's origin that isn't even resolved in the all-story-no-appreciable-horror sequel. The Ring ain't scary, but until it ends unresolved, it plays like a halfway decent mystery.

[Spoon Poetic]

But it was hilarious... What a concept, a haunted video tape. Almost as ridiculous as the new horror flick coming soon, about a haunted cell phone.

[Heccubus]

Yeah but the Ring was just generally a BAD movie. It doesn't deserve to be placed in the upper echelons of horror. To compare that useless pile of slop to masterworks like The Exorcist, Psycho, Silience Of The Lambs or Night Of The Living Dead is a direct insult to the films you've placed it alongside.
When I say that horror movies aren't typically out to prove anything or give us life-altering performances, I'm talking about the broad, tremendous spectrum of horror that primarily goes unnoticed in mainstream cinema. For something like Cloverfield to attract such a huge following before its release is unheard of in modern horror.

And really, stop comparing it to the Blair Witch Project. Please. For one thing, I think Blair Witch is one of the most underrated horror films of my time, and feel that while it isn't particularly effective in its execution, the creators came up with an amazing concept. They just didn't go about the whole thing well enough to successfully pull it off. They could've had the scariest film since the Exorcist if they'd done it right. That said, however, short of the POV-perspective cameras and first-person feel, there's no similarities here. Everything aside from the Handycam shots is completely different.

[civilian_number_two]

And really, stop comparing it to the Blair Witch Project. Please. For one thing, I think Blair Witch is one of the most underrated horror films of my time, and feel that while it isn't particularly effective in its execution, the creators came up with an amazing concept. They just didn't go about the whole thing well enough to successfully pull it off. They could've had the scariest film since the Exorcist if they'd done it right. That said, however, short of the POV-perspective cameras and first-person feel, there's no similarities here. Everything aside from the Handycam shots is completely different.

Heccubus, I was wondering whether you'd seen my retort above to your "wholly mistaken" remark. I think for sure now that you haven't. Here it is again:

I think you need to watch it again [the trailer] before assessing that the shaky footage is being used to a "different effect" than in BLAIR WITCH. The trailer opens with a note telling us that what we're about to see is found footage, and then we're treated to characters talking directly to the camera, characters who presumably are dead, hence the found footage. The shaky camera is not the only similarity. A third similarity will be that the dialogue will have to be "real," hence lots of "Oh my God I am so scared" garbage instead of any characterizations or a storyline. I guess the difference is this footage is found in Central Park, and not in the woods.

If in fact you did see that retort, you've shown (until now) remarkable restraint in not replying to it. However unless you're privy to some different information from what I've seen (perhaps a different trailer?) you haven't convinced me that there is any reasoning behind your insistence that Cloverfield is "completely different" from Blair Witch. In terms of the gimmick, I mean, of "found" footage. I hope you don't think that my comparison comes from an assumption that the thing attacking the city is just a group of humans under the sway of some woods-living witch. I don't. What I think is that the film won't reveal anything, or much, about its antagonist, that the footage will be POV camcorder crap, and that we will be told that it has been found some time after the death of all of the protagonists, in the area formerly known as Central Park.

As for how Blair Witch is "underrated," I'm not sure how. It was a huge success, and even folks who later joined a backlash didn't have much more to say than "the dialogue was ultimately crappy and the story was unresolved." They didn't backlash like say, STAR WARS fans or anything. I think unless you have disproportionate regard for BLAIR WITCH, its regard is about what it deserves (most people like it a bit, it has a user rating on imdb of 6.1/10).

I agree with everything you said about The Ring being bad horror. I don't entirely agree that it was a bad movie however. Until the lame conclusion (The Ring Two), it had all of the trappings of a half-decent mystery film.

[BigStupidDogFacedArse]

I'd like to get into a discussion on Ring and other films, but you're moderators are jerks. Namely Spoon Poetic, who actually re-edits your words to make you look like an idiot. (rectum and fecal were naughty according to him) And then he burns up explanation posts after you make a point like "I'd rather you burn a iffy post than re-edit it". Total jerk. As if I wanted my explanation and only protest of him burned away. I'm sure he'd say "well you wanted a post burned rather than edited".

Any how, thats my final stab at him. I can't leave without doing it, sorry.

[Jordan]

He's just angry, please ignore above post.

[Heccubus]

I'd like to get into a discussion on Ring and other films, but you're moderators are jerks. Namely Spoon Poetic, who actually re-edits your words to make you look like an idiot. (rectum and fecal were naughty according to him) And then he burns up explanation posts after you make a point like "I'd rather you burn a iffy post than re-edit it". Total jerk. As if I wanted my explanation and only protest of him burned away. I'm sure he'd say "well you wanted a post burned rather than edited".

Any how, thats my final stab at him. I can't leave without doing it, sorry.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, Junior. No one's out to get you. Grow up.

Now, Civ. I did see your post, but still don't agree with you, so I chose not to keep the rather futile debate going at the risk of running in circles. The fact that we are now running in circles was totally unintentional, as I somehow completely forgot about the previous Blair Witch debacle. And when I say that I think the Blair Witch Project is underrated, I say so from the perspective of someone who hears people say nothing but awful things about it. I don't care about the IMDB rating. I don't think that reflects the film at all. If I based everything on ratings, I'd still think that I'm Not There didn't suck a load of dick, and that I Am Legend wasn't as good as I thought it was.
I understand that not everyone is going to be interested in this movie, but I have a tendency to bounce up and down like a giddy 8 year old every time a monster movie happens my way. I LOVE giant monster films. Godzilla, Mothra, Gigan, Megalon, Mecha-Godzilla (the end-all/be-all of movie monster, in my opinion ) and the like are my celluloid candy. I don't expect others to take the same kind of interest in this kind of low-brow cinema, I just happen to take great joy in seeing big lizards fuck some shit up with extreme (unexplained) prejudice.

[Jordan]

Now, Civ. I did see your post, but still don't agree with you, so I chose not to keep the rather futile debate going at the risk of running in circles. The fact that we are now running in circles was totally unintentional, as I somehow completely forgot about the previous Blair Witch debacle.

Translation: I agree that blair witch is the same as cloverdale, but dont' want to admit it.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, Junior. No one's out to get you. Grow up.

He's my roomate for the next little while. I invited him to the boards, he's not a pansey he just feels like he got publicly disiplined on the boards and doens't understand why his post was re worded. He's not a bitch though.

Blair Witch got lots of hype! I remember every one was talking about it. I even recall that female actress got a spot on Jay Leno. I don't recall the reviews but it was talked about alot.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 14 January 2008 - 01:15 AM

[Snake Logan]

I'd like to get into a discussion on Ring and other films, but you're moderators are jerks. Namely Spoon Poetic, who actually re-edits your words to make you look like an idiot. (rectum and fecal were naughty according to him) And then he burns up explanation posts after you make a point like "I'd rather you burn a iffy post than re-edit it". Total jerk. As if I wanted my explanation and only protest of him burned away. I'm sure he'd say "well you wanted a post burned rather than edited".

Any how, thats my final stab at him. I can't leave without doing it, sorry.

I hate to be the one to tell you but Spoon Poetic is a female.

[Heccubus]

Translation: I agree that blair witch is the same as cloverdale, but dont' want to admit it.



He's my roomate for the next little while. I invited him to the boards, he's not a pansey he just feels like he got publicly disiplined on the boards and doens't understand why his post was re worded. He's not a bitch though.

Blair Witch got lots of hype! I remember every one was talking about it. I even recall that female actress got a spot on Jay Leno. I don't recall the reviews but it was talked about alot.

1) Not even close. If that was the case, I would've admitted I was wrong. I'm mature enough to admit defeat, and I don't think I'm wrong in this case. After I see it, if I change my position on the issue, I'll gladly admit I was wrong, but at the moment I don't think that I'm incorrect in stating that I don't see much comparison between the two films.

2) Why bother defending him? No one's accusing him of anything, I was just saying. Toughen up a bit, and don't take things personally. No one's out to get anyone here.

3) "Hype" has nothing to do with how well a movie is actually received. Look at the movie we're actually discussing here. It's not even out, but there's a huge hype machine fueling its release, and it's already shaping up to be a critical/fan failure, though I'm sure it will kill at the box office. My point in saying that Blair Witch is underrated (and I repeat), is that I never seem to hear anyone saying anything even remotely good about it anymore. Nine years ago, everyone was in love with it, but now it's not cool to like Blair Witch anymore. It's ridiculous to me, as I still feel that it's one of the most remarkably unique horror films that I've seen released in my life.

[civilian_number_two]

Ok Hecc, I NEED to know. WHY do you think ther is no similarity between this film and the Blair Witch Project? In both films, the footage is found after all of the characters have died, and the story will be told through this found footage. That's the similarity I'm talking about; THAT is the basis of the comparison. This is not a superficial similarity, by the way; this isn't a common narrative style, that is, not for filmmaking (it's relatively common for short stories or novels to be journals or letters, etc). So it's not like I'm saying "There's a monster in it; it must be GODZILLA." I am saying "Handheld camcorders, characters talking to camera, story told by found footage after the event" = exact same gimmick as Blair Witch Project." I can't even think of another film that used the same gimmick, althogh there was a horror out a few years back that was based on Big Brother. A lot (though not all) of the shots in that were made to look like surveillance cameras a la Big Brother. That's as close as I can come to another film made in a style similar to Blair Witch, so when I see exactly one film borrowing that gimmick, I will make the comparison. When it becomes a common style used by dozens of filmmakers (it won't), then I won't make that comparison.

Now you still haven't come up with a retort apart from "you're wholly mistaken" and "no way." Do you have a reason for saying there is no similarity between the two films? So far you've only acknowledged "shaky camera," as though to say I was comparing Cloverfield with the last Bourne film or something. I wasn't. To be clear, for me the chief similarity is the fiction that the footage is found after the characters have all died, like this is their final journal entry. Other similarities, like crappy dialogue and no clear view of the antagonist, will come up when the film is actually released.

I appreciate you like giant monster films, but this will have very little similarity to those. For one, I don't think you're going to see much of the monster, if there even is one.

On to new business, I don't like when Mods edit other people's posts for personal reasons. However I have no idea where the incident referred to by BigStupidDogFace might have occurred, so I have no comment on that. I would like more information however. Maybe a PM?

Back on to old business, the concept of The Ring wasn't that the videotape was haunted. It was that a child produced by some magical means or taken from some other dimension or whatever was mistreated. Now she is able to project her memories and nightmares onto a film medium, since she was left alone with a television and she had some magical powers. First she was simply able to make photographs, but then as we see she sends a videotape up into the cabin that is built above the place of her murder. It's all part of the weird Japanese horror obsession with abused litlle girls and the violent potential of a child's imagination (see the superior Silent Hill games and their rather good if not entirely faithful film adaptation). The thing with the videotape is that she's reaching out to make her experience heard out of a need for affection. Ridiculous as it is, it all works within the "suspension of disbelief" required to sustain horror, even if by the end it doesn't really make any sense (does she have to come out of the same tv used to see the film, or can she stalk you through any screen? Could you escape by moving to a house without a tv?). In the sequel, her demonic origins are made more specific and while ostensibly searching for a mommy she becomes a literal evil thing, and it's boring as hell. Also she's now able to possess people which has no setup in the first one, so boo to that too.

[Heccubus]

So far, the found footage aspect doesn't seem to be quite as shaky and doesn't look like it's all being filmed by panicky dimwits, so I don't necessarily think it's being put to work in the "ooh spooky look at this footage we found" way that the Blair Witch Project used it. With the Blair Witch Project, the reason that gimmick worked was because it was a tiny, remote area and the viewer could easily be sucked into the idea that those events might have happened. Adding to this is the fact that we never SEE what's terrifying those three kids. For all we know it was just some psychotic, deranged hermit living in the woods. Part of that fear is created by the fact that they don't have their cameras rolling conveniently just as the whatever-the-fuck-it-was strikes in the night, but rather they were filming the aftermath of its appearances in the mornings when they woke up and turned the cameras on for the first time, or well into the attacks. It created a sense of urgency and realistic terror that I don't think any film is likely to match any time soon. That's part of why it was an effectively frightening movie for me.
With Cloverfield, on the other hand, we all know New York City has not been leveled by a giant monster, and we all know that this is not likely to happen anytime soon. The effect of using the found footage concept with it seems to be more of a gimmick than anything, for sure, but it seems to be put to use more for the sake of having the viewer stuck in at street level with this horde of individuals trying desperately to escape the monster that's attacking the city.
So basically, the difference is believability. I think that for a lot of people, the reason that the Blair Witch Project was frightening was because it was easy to let yourself believe that you weren't just watching a movie. It was perfectly acceptable to let yourself get completely absorbed in the make believe that this was actually footage found by the producers, and that the events on the film weren't just acted out. I don't foresee that kind of believable realism being the case with a movie about a giant monster flattening a major metropolitan area.

And oh yeah. New kid. If you have a problem with moderators, don't act like a fucking baby and bitch and moan about it in a topic. If you think there's an issue worth bringing attention to, contact a head moderator, or an admin, and we'll deal with it quietly and come to a peaceful solution. What's the point in publicly decrying someone for no good reason? We're all adults here, let's all act like them, shall we?

This post has been edited by Heccubus: 14 January 2008 - 06:48 AM

[civilian_number_two]

OK. Now I know what you mean by different. You originally said that the gimmick was being used in a different way, but now you say that it's the same gimmick but that you find it less believable than Blair Witch. So ... that's a personal thing for you, right? Incidentally, I didn't find BWP believable at all, and didn't think the gimmick was any more than an interesting idea for a film. I don't know anyone who actually believed that it was really found footage, so IMO it's a different story being told in the same way, using the same gimmick.

I'm not sure if we're gonna hear back from that guy.