|
Bob Quixote posted:The Predator is grotesque, but its not exactly sexually ambiguous -- its entire schtick is that its basically the alien example of one engaged in the stereotypical masculine pastime of big game hunting. There isn't anything feminine about it, from its deep guttural voice, its very male and heavily muscled body and the fact that it goes most of the movie in a blank emotionless mask. Long hair, skirt, vagina-mouth. Even the mask had feminized features. It was jacked and all, but it was an Amazon. It was some horrible female parody of manhood, which is exactly the point of it. Predator's got some interesting stuff bubbling under the surface.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Vagina-mouth aside, they were going for a more "tribal" motif with the long dreadlock-hair and the skirt, which was an interesting pairing of the tribal/"primitive" designs and behavior with its very high-tech weaponry. If they were going for a feminine motif with the Predator (they weren't), they left out a lot of important characteristics like mammary glands, child-bearing hips, etc. The mask doesn't have feminized features, they specifically designed the mask to be blank and featureless, so that the eventual reveal of the Predator's face would have more impact. The original design was much closer to the Predator's actual face, and they changed it to make it featureless (and the original mask ended up cameoing at the end of 'Predator 2'. You say the phrase "exactly the point of it" as if it's a well-established concrete fact. I think it's that sort of phrasing that turns me off to wacky film interpretation and analysis. Seeing different interpretations and whatnot is neat - I liked the earlier discussion about the Thing as a female and the "artificial intelligence" idea, that was an interesting way to look at it. But saying things as if they were obvious factual intentional choices done by the filmmaker strikes me as pretentious as hell. Especially if, as lizardman said, the audience's perception is more important than the messenger's intention. If that's the case, then saying "the filmmaker obviously meant [x]" is really silly, when what you're really saying is "the audience perceived [x]". Really it's not the actual film analysis and whatever that I don't like, it's the way it's commonly presented. I guess I'm just an unwashed plebeian, I dunno. 
Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It saves everybody else, sure, but everyone in the camp is dead. I guess you can kind of count that as a "win" for rationalism, but honestly I see it more as a combination of luck (that the Thing landed in Antarctica, for instance) and a symbolic microcosm. Not to mention the implications of ending a film about microcosmic society with a black man and a white man glaring warily at each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:You say the phrase "exactly the point of it" as if it's a well-established concrete fact. I think it's that sort of phrasing that turns me off to wacky film interpretation and analysis. Seeing different interpretations and whatnot is neat - I liked the earlier discussion about the Thing as a female and the "artificial intelligence" idea, that was an interesting way to look at it. But saying things as if they were obvious factual intentional choices done by the filmmaker strikes me as pretentious as hell. Especially if, as lizardman said, the audience's perception is more important than the messenger's intention. If that's the case, then saying "the filmmaker obviously meant [x]" is really silly, when what you're really saying is "the audience perceived [x]". I'm actually with you on this, for the most part (though I think you should be careful not to confuse "the film is obviously saying this" with "the author is obviously saying this"). Movies are such a collaborative medium that a lot of the time I think the deeper themes are usually accidents. I think it would distress the likes of SMG to know how often this is the case. I honestly don't think McTiernan or John Carpenter really thought their respective monsters were inherently representative of femininity; and even with Alien, the sexual imagery is obvious, but I think Ridley Scott's primary motivation for employing it is "it looks really cool" ("interesting" is probably how we would put it). That said, a work of art is out of the author's hands once it's committed. A film says what it says as long as what's on screen follows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 07:54
|
|
|
lizardman posted:Movies are such a collaborative medium that a lot of the time I think the deeper themes are usually accidents. I think it would distress the likes of SMG to know how often this is the case. I honestly don't think McTiernan or John Carpenter really thought their respective monsters were inherently representative of femininity; and even with Alien, the sexual imagery is obvious, but I think Ridley Scott's primary motivation for employing it is "it looks really cool" ("interesting" is probably how we would put it).  No really I'm right there with you that a lot of meaning perceived by the audience is unintentional on the part of the creators and is the audience projecting their own feelings/experiences/knowledge onto what they're seeing. In a way it's like a less-abstract Rorschach test, where the inkblots themselves do not carry meaning, it's what is interpreted by the viewer that is important. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, and that can lead to interesting discussion (and discussion that is often more revealing about the person doing the observing or society as a whole, rather than that which is observed), it's when people start saying "oh this obviously means [x]" or "this was the creator's way of commenting on [y]" or whatever and phrasing opinions/interpretations as if they're facts that things start getting a little silly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 08:09
|
|
|
There were no women in Antarctica when Who Goes There? was written and they weren't stationed there until relatively recently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 09:58
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Exactly. The design was literally done because James Cameron thought it would look cool, and he offhandedly suggested it to Stan Winston while on a plane ride. Again, this is dodging the question. Why did James Cameron think the yoni-faced design would be the best choice for the film? James Cameron is a skilled concept artist and production designer, most notably for his science-fiction films. Presumably he knew the basic premise of the film (powerful modern supermen vs. demonic genderfucking Guatemalan cave-spaceman.) Presumably, he suggested a design that would fit that premise. Presumably, Mcteirnan agreed that it was a good choice for the film he was making. As did the whole loving production team responsible for the finished film. This goes beyond stated intent and into basic competence. You would have it that these professional artists had effectively no control over their output. That these professional communicators are bad at communicating. Don't look for intent in DVD supplementals. Like try finding the word "posthumanism" or the name "Turing" in The Thing's commentary track, even though both are referenced explicitly in the text itself. Hand a camera or a paintbrush to a guy on the street, by the way, and ask him to just do whatever looks cool. See how far that gets you. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 10:18 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 10:11
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:The obvious film-analysis way to handwave that is that it was intentional but subconscious on the part of the creators. Oh Jesus, stop saying this! Nobody needs the artists personal permission to hold an opinion on a book or read a film in a certain way. Do you honestly think the value of a work of art is only in the INTENDED message? Nobody in this thread wants to put words in John Carpenter's mouth. Nobody is trying to second guess the creators. Nobody is suggesting they are smarter than the writers. People are looking at the images on the screen, and listening to the words that are spoken and applying their own readings. edit: Doh, should have paid more attention! Spermanent Record fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 10:27
|
|
|
In short: The authors 'wrote' something. We are 'reading' it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 10:40
|
|
|
frozenpeas posted:Oh Jesus, stop saying this! Nobody needs the artists personal permission to hold an opinion on a book or read a film in a certain way.
Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 11:11
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:In a way it's like a less-abstract Rorschach test, where the inkblots themselves do not carry meaning, it's what is interpreted by the viewer that is important. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, and that can lead to interesting discussion (and discussion that is often more revealing about the person doing the observing or society as a whole, rather than that which is observed) How is the thing which is being observed (a movie, every image selected and written and shot by humans) not part of society as a whole?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 15:29
|
|
|
Three Red Lights posted:How is the thing which is being observed (a movie, every image selected and written and shot by humans) not part of society as a whole?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
This is like some bizarre supercombo of the author intent thing and the solipsistic "everything is subjective and so nothing is real" argument. The films are the product of human beings. Those humans are a product of society. In the case of professional filmmakers, most are college-educated. they are trained to communicate ideas with sounds and images. They are not operating in a vacuum and they are not just operating on random whims. they are people. How can an Alien superfan not identify Promethean imagery? The next Alien film is called Prometheus, and that's not a novel development. Ridley Scott did not just call the film Prometheus that because the name sounded cool. John Carpenter did not put a chess computer scene in The Thing - as the introduction to the lead character - because he had a minute of screen-time to kill. Artists work within technical limitations. They don't just fart and poo poo if something is 'imperfect'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:As mentioned earlier, sometimes what we see on-screen is the result of budget or technical limitations, or is a happy accident, or is literally nothing more than than something the filmmaker thought would "look cool". The idea that something just "looks cool" seems like a cop-out when trying to describe how a piece of art came to be. The alien in Predator, Neo in the Matrix, and Robert Muldoon in Jurassic Park all "look cool," but that's entirely dependent on the context in which they appear and on the nature of their character. It's not a coincidence that we didn't end up with Bob Peck in khaki shorts up in a tree with an energy weapon trying to kill Arnold Schwarzenegger. And as for accidents, take Jaws. Even though some of the film's strongest stuff was partially the result of technical problems - the fake sharks not working well - and serendipity - unexpected footage of a shark tearing a cage apart - that doesn't change the fact that the people who made it knew how to incorporate those happy accidents into the film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
While all this is interesting (not really), it is detracting from my horror fix. I'd rather read five more pages about the relative merits of the Final Destination films than a discussion about intent vs. accident. Xenomrph is right, sometimes it is just an accident but that doesn't mean it is always an accident and he seemed clear about that. Generally what a person reads into a film tells me more about that person than the film. So if you have to bring this argument here please at least try and relate it back to horror films specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
wormil posted:While all this is interesting (not really), it is detracting from my horror fix. I'd rather read five more pages about the relative merits of the Final Destination films than a discussion about intent vs. accident. Xenomrph is right, sometimes it is just an accident but that doesn't mean it is always an accident and he seemed clear about that. Generally what a person reads into a film tells me more about that person than the film. So if you have to bring this argument here please at least try and relate it back to horror films specifically. I like how you say "I don't want this argument to continue" and then try to weigh in with your own position on the argument (I mean I don't like it)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
I watched Pelt on Netflix last night. I thought the premise, while not original, was interesting. Wow, what a piece of poo poo it was. Not recommended at all unless you like watching 90 minutes of poo poo. Time for the next worthless streaming flick...
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
Anybody seen The Ward?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 04:05
|
|
|
Wow, you guys weren't kidding about Trick 'R Treat. Definitely the best horror movie I've seen in a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
RBX posted:Anybody seen The Ward? Boring and, predictably predictable. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 04:08
|
|
|
The only good thing about The Ward was Amber Heard. And she looks even hotter in Drive Angry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 04:08
|
|
|
Predator wasn't about male/female. It was about techno-savagery. SMG is completely wrong in his interpretation. No offense, but he is. The first team member that gets killed? Funny, likeable kid with the glasses. He was also the weakest, most 'humane', and the one most viewers would probably identify with, even if just subconsciously. Predators kill the weak first. Then Blain. Because Blain had the most powerful, brutal technology the team had, and it was nothing compared to the Predator. Because the Predators in the movie weren't 'anti-men vagina faces', they were hyper-male hunters that had less remorse and greater technology- in every way superior to the human males. Those first two kills show that scope. The team gets hunted down, one by one, and reduced to a state of primal savagery, where the raw force of animal killing lust is in it's purest, hunting-form state. Watch the movie. There's a reason Billy stops, turns and pulls out his knife, and a reason why the ones who tried in any way to fight with a gun were destroyed before that. Billy understood. That's why before the climax, Dutch is shooting a bow and arrow. And at the end, it wasn't a swinging 'mega-cock' deadlift trap that epitomized what the movie was about. It was Dutch, standing over top the downed Predator with the most basic, primitive weapon our species ever had- a loving rock, about to bear it down on top of the Predator's skull, to crush it's skull and watch it die like any other animal dies. The Predator laughs, because he has one last piece of technology left. Predator was never about men being reduced by female imagery; it was about the most hyper-male symbolic characters of that decade being eclipsed by an even greater hyper-male, and when both competitors were dragged down to the most pure, primal state, humanity's monstrous, unstoppable savagery won out. (If you want a more positive bent on it: 'Come for us. We will fight you with guns, we will fight you with knives. We will fight you with rocks. But we will not give up.') Edit: spelling. Mr.Graves fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jul 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Anyone see the creepy trailer for Kill List? http://www.kill-list.com/ Or for those who can't view the site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmoCaF2l-Dk
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
justlikedunkirk posted:Anyone see the creepy trailer for Kill List? Wow, what the heck was that? It was creepy in the same way that David Lynch can be and Begotten was when I first saw that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
Mr.Graves posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
Predator was an allegory for Vietnam.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
Trailer for Contagion has been released. Thankfully it's no longer in 3D, AND my least favorite person in the cast dies in the trailer! Yesssss. I love my plague movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 04:37
|
|
|
Mr.Graves posted:Predator wasn't about male/female. It was about techno-savagery. I'm not sure how one aspect cancels out the other. The alien in the film is based around counter-intuitive pairings of concepts. It is advanced and primitive, and it is also simultaneously masculine and feminine. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jul 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Predator was an allegory for Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 07:02
|
|
|
Doppelganger posted:Wow, you guys weren't kidding about Trick 'R Treat. Definitely the best horror movie I've seen in a long time. I watched it yesterday on the threads' recommendation. I felt it was a little mean spirited at first til I understood the premise, then I was on board. It was pretty creatively filmed and played with my expectations a bit. By the end I'd have to say it's definitely one of the better horror films I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 12:29
|
|
|
I'm worried Final Destination 5 is going to be swallowed up this summer as there are way to many movies out and I think a part 5 in a horror series will do well, Rise Of The Apes is out the week before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 13:31
|
|
|
Levantine posted:I watched it yesterday on the threads' recommendation. I felt it was a little mean spirited at first til I understood the premise, then I was on board.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
Levantine posted:I watched it yesterday on the threads' recommendation. I felt it was a little mean spirited at first til I understood the premise, then I was on board. It was pretty creatively filmed and played with my expectations a bit. By the end I'd have to say it's definitely one of the better horror films I've seen. Trick R Treat is definitely a rare surprise. The movie went from showing theatrical trailers that looked really good! Then release dates kept pushing back and Fangoria reported it was in development/reshoot hell. Then it went dead silent. A couple of years later it was on the shelf at a store and a bargain price. It's a good horror film and great Halloween season film. Seriously, I wonder if the reason it never saw theatrical release was because it was not a remake of a some classic franchise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
ZombieParts posted:Seriously, I wonder if the reason it never saw theatrical release was because it was not a remake of a some classic franchise. Saw. Blame Saw. Warner Brothers poo poo their pants at the prospect of putting this movie up against Saw, so they shelved it. Which is a drat shame, because I think it would have found a good audience in theaters. Still, I love popping that fucker in every October. Makes me grin throughout the picture. TheBigBudgetSequel fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jul 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 04:27
|
|
|
I love anthology horror movies in general.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Saw. Blame Saw. Warner Brothers poo poo their pants at the prospect of putting this movie up against Saw, so they shelved it. What's worse is that the film did GREAT at festivals. It played to packed places with people who were totally on board and it still got shelved. They didn't even reshoot anything, they just let it sit there and said they didn't know what to do with it. All they had to do was put it out over Halloween and it would've done great business.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 11:34
|
|
|
ZombieParts posted:Trick R Treat is definitely a rare surprise. The movie went from showing theatrical trailers that looked really good! Then release dates kept pushing back and Fangoria reported it was in development/reshoot hell. Then it went dead silent. A couple of years later it was on the shelf at a store and a bargain price. It's a good horror film and great Halloween season film. There were rumors that WB chickened out due to the violence against kids in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 15:13
|
|
|
Doppelganger posted:I know exactly what you're talking about. The shovel was a bit much for me, but it immediately got better. Yeah, I was getting ready to turn it off but I gave it a few more minutes and that was all it took. Each story was separately interesting and really surprising. I can only imagine it would have done well in theaters just on word of mouth alone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
ZombieParts posted:Trick R Treat and Fangoria I keep forgetting that Fangoria is still in buisness. I had a sub for several years in the late 80's early 90's, and went to the the Weekend of Horror in Dearborne, MI two years in a row. Those were fun times and bless my dad, who had zero interest, for taking me. I met Angus Scrimm, Tom Savini, Tobe Hopper, Bruce Campbell and a bunch of others that I can't think of atm. I've thought about going again, just to see what the what is, Has anyone been to a WoH in the last few years? I still haven't seen Trick R Treat, but it is on my list
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Levantine posted:Yeah, I was getting ready to turn it off but I gave it a few more minutes and that was all it took. Each story was separately interesting and really surprising. I can only imagine it would have done well in theaters just on word of mouth alone. I thought it was way too mean spirited at first. The opening vignette and the story about the Jack O'Lanterns really turned me off. I enjoyed the rest, I guess, but it didn't have the same neat atmosphere as the pumpkins one and never really drew me back in. Never gonna see it as some Halloween classic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 18:28
|
|
