|
Watrick posted:Remake or not, it's not very good. I watched it for free and I was pissed. I was a projectionist, so no stealing involved. I haven't seen the Paris Hilton version, and really have no desire to. The Vincent Price version though, that's essential viewing. I watched it in the October thread 2 or 3 years ago, and it was the best one I watched that year.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:17 |
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:It's a "remake" that doesn't resemble the original at all except for both involving wax statues, basically. Yeah, I'm not gonna bend my rules for a poo poo movie.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:I haven't seen the Paris Hilton version, and really have no desire to. The Vincent Price version is, of course, also a remake. Both it and the original (The Horror of the Wax Museum) are great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Remakes aren't bad. lovely remakes are bad. I bit the bullet and agonist my better judgement watched the NOES remake. What made the original so good was that it was an atypical slasher with really good special effects. I love the scene where Nancy is in her bed and Freddy pushes through the wall. After Nancy knocks on the wall. It's great. In the remake it was some lovely CGI Freddy who looks like he was pull straight out of The Frighteners (which I like The Frighteners).
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
If there's a want for a proper October Horror Movie Challenge thread, I'll write the thread complete with movie lists and movie schedules like last year. If everyone is happy with this thread, I'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:If there's a want for a proper October Horror Movie Challenge thread, I'll write the thread complete with movie lists and movie schedules like last year. I was working on a list to update the OP with, but I think Lurdiak is going to make a new thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:If there's a want for a proper October Horror Movie Challenge thread, I'll write the thread complete with movie lists and movie schedules like last year. Please do, I think it'd be worth it to start fresh with a new thread. That way people don't have to go to the fifth page to start seeing write-ups and reviews.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Lurdiak, would you like me to make the thread and you set up links for your streaming in the first page?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
So, does this "no remakes" rule also include US remakes of foreign films? Cause the 2000s on, there have been a lot of those. Last year I watched Don't Look Up (2009) and didn't even realize it was a remake til Hideo "The Ring" Nakata popped up in the credits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:01
|
|
I thought about that, and IF there was a situation like that in my lineup, I'd probably just show the original with subtitles. Unless it was like widely thought to be much worse or something.Franchescanado posted:Lurdiak, would you like me to make the thread and you set up links for your streaming in the first page? That's ok, I'll make my own thread. I don't mean to hijack this one, though. I just watched Terminator today! I think that technically counts as a horror film? At least it's a thriller. I don't really need to say anything about how good this movie is, right? 5/5
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
There's been plenty of really good unique horror since 2000, I don't think the no remake thing will be very restrictive at all. Also Lurdiak gave plenty of warning that he was taking suggestions, that train left the station weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:32
|
|
Oh wait, I think I misread what Franchescanado was saying. I suppose it'd be a good idea for me to at least make a placeholder post in the 31 days of horror thread so I can edit in streaming info and a link to my own thread later.Basebf555 posted:There's been plenty of really good unique horror since 2000, I don't think the no remake thing will be very restrictive at all. Yeah I mean, the main reason for the rule is to give people a chance to experience truly modern horror films, and not just re-imaginings of classics from the past. If I just streamed the TCM remake, the Friday the 13th remake, the NOES remake, etc. I wouldn't really be representing the modern aspect very well.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Yeah, I'm not gonna bend my rules for a poo poo movie. Not disagreeing, just saying I could see where the dude was coming from. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
I'm eager to see what Lurdiak has in the lineup. I like modern horror, and it will be nice to have someone pick things out with a critical eye. And you're not hijacking, Lurdiak. You're contributing. Big difference there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:37
|
|
Watrick posted:I'm eager to see what Lurdiak has in the lineup. I like modern horror, and it will be nice to have someone pick things out with a critical eye. Ehh! Don't overestimate my curation. I put in things that I feel are good (or at least interesting) examples of the genre from 2000 onwards, but I also chose movies that I've never seen so that I get some surprise as well. That's why last year I ended up inflicting Xtro 2 on my poor viewers. quote:And you're not hijacking, Lurdiak. You're contributing. Big difference there. Yaayyy. LORD OF BUTT posted:Not disagreeing, just saying I could see where the dude was coming from. I put the rule in place when I came up with this theme last year and the first 3 recent horror films that popped into my mind were all remakes. Hollywood is kind of out of control.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Ehh! Don't overestimate my curation. I put in things that I feel are good (or at least interesting) examples of the genre from 2000 onwards, but I also chose movies that I've never seen so that I get some surprise as well. That's why last year I ended up inflicting Xtro 2 on my poor viewers. Well, that's the funny thing about taste, eh? I may love everything or think it's garbage. The main point is you're putting effort in with some thought. Which is commendable. I had no idea this had been going on! What were some you showed last year? And there isn't anything wrong with remakes. See The Thing and The Fly. Hell, even Dark Water and that was modern. But a majority of modern ones are trash. They seem to pump them out for a quick buck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
I'll make a 31 Day Challenge thread on the 29th, and will PM you, Lurdiak, when it goes up. That way this thread has time to breathe, and people can just jump right into the challenge and review. If everyone's happy with this one, I can hold off. I just had a lot of fun making last year's thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:54
|
|
Watrick posted:Well, that's the funny thing about taste, eh? I may love everything or think it's garbage. The main point is you're putting effort in with some thought. Which is commendable. I had no idea this had been going on! What were some you showed last year? Last year's theme was sequels, so I showed a lot of part 2s and 3s. You can see the lineup here. Just stop reading my posts once I stop talking about the stream and starting getting in dumb arguments with people about things that don't matter. I agree that there isn't anything inherently wrong with remakes, and even some of the best films of all time had some remakes that are worth watching, it's just that sometime around the early 2000s, Hollywood started making way too many of them. It sometimes seems that almost every single thing that's in theaters nowadays is a sequel, adaptation, remake or otherwise based on something else. And I think there's something to be said for doing something at least somewhat original.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Last year's theme was sequels, so I showed a lot of part 2s and 3s. You can see the lineup here. Just stop reading my posts once I stop talking about the stream and starting getting in dumb arguments with people about things that don't matter. Yep, you have some drat fine movies in that lineup. I'm excited now. I agree with the remake stuff 100%. Originality is hard to see unfortunately, well, at least in Hollywoods eye's. And a horror fan arguing about things that don't matter. I've never heard of that happening before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Last year's theme was sequels, so I showed a lot of part 2s and 3s. You can see the lineup here. Just stop reading my posts once I stop talking about the stream and starting getting in dumb arguments with people about things that don't matter. Haha, I was wondering if Drag Me to Hell would show up this year because it qualifies as modern horror, but right on the first page of last years thread me and you have a disagreement about it. Guess its not your cup of tea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I'll make a 31 Day Challenge thread on the 29th, and will PM you, Lurdiak, when it goes up. That way this thread has time to breathe, and people can just jump right into the challenge and review. I don't know. If people want to keep this one, you can help redesign the OP of you want. If Lurdiak wants to make a new one that's cool too. I'm participating either way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:14
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Haha, I was wondering if Drag Me to Hell would show up this year because it qualifies as modern horror, but right on the first page of last years thread me and you have a disagreement about it. Guess its not your cup of tea. It's not a bad film, don't count it out! I just really think the CGI is used poorly in it, and that's especially bad when it's a spiritual successor to the Evil Dead franchise, which have some of the best low-budget practical effects in all of horror. I tend to come across way more harsh on stuff than I intend to. Franchescanado posted:I'll make a 31 Day Challenge thread on the 29th, and will PM you, Lurdiak, when it goes up. That way this thread has time to breathe, and people can just jump right into the challenge and review. I think we can have two seasonal horror threads. This thread is more about how AWESOME Halloween movie watching is, in my view. Yours would have a more specific goal.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:It's not a bad film, don't count it out! I just really think the CGI is used poorly in it, and that's especially bad when it's a spiritual successor to the Evil Dead franchise, which have some of the best low-budget practical effects in all of horror. I tend to come across way more harsh on stuff than I intend to. Lurdiak posted:It's not a bad film, don't count it out! I just really think the CGI is used poorly in it, and that's especially bad when it's a spiritual successor to the Evil Dead franchise, which have some of the best low-budget practical effects in all of horror. I tend to come across way more harsh on stuff than I intend to. This is a good idea. Halloween movie watching is awesome. Lurdiak, I wonder if we have a similar view on CG in horror? I'm not against it in any capacity, it has benefits when used well. When it's used to argument or in cases where any sort of practical effect are impossible, it doesn't bother me as much. But when it's used for blood, or as a main source of effect it looks tacky and takes me out of the experience. I know practical effects are fake, and even when they look fake it doesn't take me out of it the same way CG does. For some reason I don't mind it when Takaski Miike uses it. I guess everything else is usually so weird, the tacky CG adds a certain charm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:21
|
|
Watrick posted:Lurdiak, I wonder if we have a similar view on CG in horror? I'm not against it in any capacity, it has benefits when used well. When it's used to argument or in cases where any sort of practical effect are impossible, it doesn't bother me as much. But when it's used for blood, or as a main source of effect it looks tacky and takes me out of the experience. I know practical effects are fake, and even when they look fake it doesn't take me out of it the same way CG does. For some reason I don't mind it when Takaski Miike uses it. I guess everything else is usually so weird, the tacky CG adds a certain charm. As a general rule I hate any CG in film that isn't used for something you couldn't really do with practical effects. Like, the new Star Wars movie seems to be exactly the kind of mix I approve of. There are actual X-wings the actors will interact with. But the flying around will be done in CGI. Or Lord of the Rings: the orcs were people in costumes, but the ents and trolls were CG because stop motion or forced perspective would look totally unconvincing. Body horror and gore need to have as little CGI as possible because, well, pardon the pun, but those things need to be visceral. Fake blood splatter will never look as real as a squib. A creepy puppet will always look scarier than a CG monster face. End of story. Drag me to hell used CG for simple things like puking and bleeding. That's so offensive to me. It takes me out of the movie immediately because I'm not thinking "ewwwww", I'm thinking "There's nothing there. I'm getting ripped off." The goat stuff? No poo poo they had to use CG for that! That's appropriate. One of my favorite horror movies used CG almost exclusively for its monsters, but the way it did it was really effective because it allowed the creatures to bend in unnatural ways and crawl out of holes and poo poo. But they used practical effects for the injuries, as well they should. I can hardly stand to watch most Japanese modern films because they have so, so much inappropriate unconvincing CG. There's a lot of green screening to compensate for how loving impossible it is to get film permits in Japan, too, and that all looks equally horrible. I mean, I'm just some rear end in a top hat on the internet, but that's how I feel. Try and find me a single CG blood burst that looks as convincing as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8D_kOXw4Qk&t=122s Lurdiak fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Honestly, I'd be happy with this thread, a challenge thread and Lurdiak's streaming thread. There's been enough new horror lately that we can spread the discussion, and I'd participate in all three. I love horror movies, and last year's challenge thread was fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:As a general rule I hate any CG in film that isn't used for something you couldn't really do with practical effects. Like, the new Star Wars movie seems to be exactly the kind of mix I approve of. There are actual X-wings the actors will interact with. But the flying around will be done in CGI. Or Lord of the Rings: the orcs were people in costumes, but the ents and trolls were CG because stop motion or forced perspective would look totally unconvincing. We're on the same page. It's good to find like minded people. I had a friend not talk to me for a few weeks because I was bitching about CG being terrible. Oh well. I love me some body horror. Have you seen Society? I'm doing a 100 horror movie challenge so I'll be doing that in the challenge thread. I'm excited as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
I really didn't intend to bring up the CGI issue but yea, that's what I was discussing with Lurdiak in last years thread. I feel that the use of it in Drag Me to Hell is appropriate because for the most part those scenes aren't supposed to be viscerally shocking as much as goofy and fun. They are also supposed to be so over the top that the audience wonders if they are really happening as shown or if some of it is in the protagonists head. Its already Looney Tunes, the CGI doesn't detract from that, it only adds to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Watrick posted:I'm doing a 100 horror movie challenge... You're doing
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Last year I watched two movies most nights and sometimes three on a Saturday or Sunday and I only got up to 50 or 60. I don't see how 100 is possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:55
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Last year I watched two movies most nights and sometimes three on a Saturday or Sunday and I only got up to 50 or 60. I don't see how 100 is possible. 
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Last year I watched two movies most nights and sometimes three on a Saturday or Sunday and I only got up to 50 or 60. I don't see how 100 is possible. I'm doing 8 on Halloween day, before midnight. I can squeeze in 3 more to make a 11 for the viewing day. That leaves me 92 for the rest of the month. 92/30 = a little over 3 a day. I can do it. I can do 5/6 on the weekends and I'm going to try and front load as many as I can the first two weeks in October to give me an emergency buffer if needed. Franchescanado posted:You're doing 666, bro.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Honestly, I'd be happy with this thread, a challenge thread and Lurdiak's streaming thread. There's been enough new horror lately that we can spread the discussion, and I'd participate in all three. I agree to this. (also shame I wasn't back here in C/D early enough to catch Lurdiak looking for suggestions, I would have told him to include Mulberry Street. It's a not-bad sorta zombie movie punctuated by what is possibly the most strikingly realistic and human interpersonal writing I've ever seen in a horror movie, which propels it above itself) Also, regarding the challenge, I'm gonna push myself to at least 40. 45 if I can. We're a week and a day out. I'm starting to lock and load. Mods, would it count as  in the upcoming threads to post links to a blog I've found that attempts to catalog as many horror movies released in the 80s that can be found on youtube as they can? I think it might be a handy resource to have this year...
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
I honestly don't see how I'm gonna fit 31 movies into October, let alone even try to reach 100. Good luck you unruly monsters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:As a general rule I hate any CG in film that isn't used for something you couldn't really do with practical effects. Like, the new Star Wars movie seems to be exactly the kind of mix I approve of. There are actual X-wings the actors will interact with. But the flying around will be done in CGI. Or Lord of the Rings: the orcs were people in costumes, but the ents and trolls were CG because stop motion or forced perspective would look totally unconvincing. I couldn't have said all of this better myself. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
son of a bitch. Just found out a local theater is doing a weekly series of John Waters films starting in October. Including several I still haven't gotten around to seeing. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:son of a bitch. Just found out a local theater is doing a weekly series of John Waters films starting in October. Including several I still haven't gotten around to seeing. That's awesome. I love John Waters. I'd love to see the crowd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Well Ann Arbor's a really liberal artsy fartsy town that once was a huge hippie type area even into the 90s. Then it became more yuppie, and the artsy fartsy ness got more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:Well Ann Arbor's a really liberal artsy fartsy town that once was a huge hippie type area even into the 90s. Then it became more yuppie, and the artsy fartsy ness got more expensive. poo poo. It's in Ann Arbor? I hate Ann Arbor. The people there are the worst. Good food though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
1. The Horror of Party Beach (1964) 3.5/5 2. Ghoulies 2 (1988) 2/5 3. The Clown Murders (1976) 3/5 4. Sundown (1989) 2.5/5 5. The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) 4.5/5 A lot of goofy gothic fun, some complimentary set design, and dated in the best possible way. One absolutely baffling day for night shot. Price as Phibes does nicely as the Willy Wonka of ghastly murders. 6. At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul (1963) 5/5  
cthulusnewzulubbq fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Sep 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:The Vincent Price version is, of course, also a remake. Both it and the original (The Horror of the Wax Museum) are great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 19:58
|
|
