|
The Cameo posted:This sort of thing I can't quite get my head around. Yeah, there are dodgy shots like when they open the door to the kid's room and there's some real bad compositing on the toys floating and spinning around the room, but just about everything else in the movie, from simple things like the floor sliding to the tree eating to the more intricate puppetry work as poo poo hits the fan and the compositing there, it all still looks tangible and feels real within the movie's design. Even the rope going through the portal back into the house looks perfectly fine. Really, in a decade where effects work ranged from groundbreaking to deplorable, Poltergeist still lands closer to the former for me, and that's having just watched it last week. No see they should use CG because that way it's a new thing and then it'll be a new thing instead of a lame old thing and it'll be at least two months until it looks dated.
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
My proposed Poltergeist hype video:
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
I feel like I'm way more positive/ trying to give the benefit of the doubt to this remake project than most, but even I'm not liking how so much of the press and marketing copy tries to emphasize how this is a "contemporized" version of Poltergeist for "modern audiences", and I realize it's just marketing speak or whatever, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as if the original movie were some relic from a lost era that has no relevance anymore. The only thing non-modern about Poltergeist that I can think of are some fashion/window-dressing and analog TV. This thing would have to make some major use of the web or contemporary issues to justify that attitude, IMO.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Here's a great piece about the making of Poltergeist, which tries to trace it from the initial treatment (In which Steven gets possessed when he's loving his wife and she loves it) right up to production. While Zelda Rubenstein claims that Hooper was coked up and it was all Spielberg directing, James Karen said that it was all Hooper. The reality, by Spielberg's own admission is that he couldn't let go and would take over whenever Hooper was unsure of something. http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2012/01/08/schlock-corridor-poltergeist-1982-part-ii
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
If Hooper was really a coked up mess on-set I find it hard to believe Spielberg wouldn't have just fired him.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:If Hooper was really a coked up mess on-set I find it hard to believe Spielberg wouldn't have just fired him. Hollywood in the 80s? He'd probably stand out more if he WASN'T.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:While Zelda Rubenstein claims that Hooper was coked up and it was all Spielberg directing If Poltergeist is actually directed by Stephen Spielberg, then so is Lifeforce and Invaders From Mars, because they all share a very similar style and tone.   
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
I really did gain a whole new appreciation for Hooper when I saw Lifeforce. Its so much more creative and stylish than I had previously thought Hooper was capable of.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
This is some nifty marketing: http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/101793/poltergeist-now-haunting-realty-site-trulia/ So now not only are the character a different family than before, it now takes place at "Willow Point" (or "Peak", I forget) in Illinois rather than "Cuesta Verde" in California. I wonder if there is anything at all to these updates or if it's just change for change's sake.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:If Hooper was really a coked up mess on-set I find it hard to believe Spielberg wouldn't have just fired him. The link I put up a few posts ago explains this. DGA rules say that if a Director is fired then he can't be replaced with someone who's already involved with the production. So the best case scenario in that instance would be that Hooper is fired and a third guy is brought in to still be shadowed by Spielberg. I don't really buy Rubenstein's story, mainly because no one else actually backs her up. The truth I think is just that Spielberg wanted to direct it himself but couldn't because of ET, so he handled as much of the production as he could. Again, as per that earlier link, Hooper was locked out of editing and Jerry Goldsmith says that he only dealt with Spielberg and didn't see Hooper.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:The truth I think is just that Spielberg wanted to direct it himself but couldn't because of ET... I think at the very least we can say that this part is true based on what Spielberg has said. He pretty openly states in that article that in a perfect world he would have been able to direct ET and Poltergeist, but the schedules just made it impossible.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
New Zealand seems to have the scoop on Poltergiest '15: The first review I've seen anywhere (TL;DR: Movie is solid - 3 out of 4 stars; reviewer interprets the movie as re-contextualizing the original story in terms of a family dealing with an economic downturn, though he says the story beats and set pieces mimic the original's too closely). The same site has a neat article about the movie. Kind of a fluff piece, but pretty meaty for what it is, and Raimi at least comes off as having a specific vision for the project (and at least acknowledges my earlier annoyance at all this 'remake for a modern audience' talk makes it sound like he thinks the original is overly dated). quote:So why bring Poltergeist back from the dead in this current climate? Raimi says the idea came from the original's rights holders MGM. "They said they were going to remake it and would I be interested in producing it? I said only if we can get a great writer and a visionary director to make it exciting pace wise and who knows great visuals. Poltergeist is a brilliant movie, but even when it came out it was an old story told new. Twenty years before it became many people's favourite horror movie, the story was a Twilight Zone episode called Little Girl Lost."
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
I hope by giving people "references they can relate to" he means thematically, not just the fact that there will be cellphones and flatscreen T.V.s in the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
I mean he's right in that the original is dated because it's so tied to the idea of Regan's America and the burgeoning 80s sprawl of suburbia, but the movie still works without you even considering that stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I mean he's right in that the original is dated because it's so tied to the idea of Regan's America and the burgeoning 80s sprawl of suburbia I know, because America isn't about weird right wing values and suburban sprawl at all any more. EDIT -- So some early reviews are coming in and this looks like it will be piled on to the shitheap of other entirely forgettable remakes. It did generate some good conversation here at least. Also, one of the reviews has "Now with satanic squirrel" as a subtitle, so the film also gave us that (and the investigator has a backstory involving a haunted car wash !): http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=139082 "A disappointingly tame and unimaginative effort, which throws away much of what was best-loved about the original and fails to find worthy replacements." InfiniteZero fucked around with this message at 19:12 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Over the past week I saw both Insidious: Chapter 2 and The Conjuring for the first time and I gotta say, while I understand a lot of the basic plot structure and characters (family in haunted house, ghost targets children, paranormal investigators arrive with psychic lady) are definitely in the Poltergiest template, neither really reminded me of the actual Poltergeist all that much. They just feel a lot different. Both are quite different from each other, but they're also both going for 'creepy' a lot harder than the more overt thrillride that Poltergiest is. I guess I just associate awesome FX spectacle with Poltergeist more than I do the literal story beats.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Bit of a cross-post from the General Thread: really enjoyed the new Poltergeist. Haven't seen the old ones so I can't compare, but general everyone-knows-what-hapoens-in-Poltergeist kinda made it a bit predictable. Surprisingly funny.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Every time I hear the trailer say "It's a new, more powerful kind of Poltergeist" I want to see it less.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Haven't seen it but after watching a review on youtube I don't think i'm going to shell out the $$ for it. Said review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLe67f8m1AM
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
Caught the new Poltergeist this afternoon, and while I have one big complaint--the movie is too drat short and gives the impression it wants to check-off "things you gotta have in a Poltergiest remake" on some list so it could hurry up and end--BUT I was pleasantly surprised at how well it "gets" the original Poltergeist and successfully evokes the same vibes. The family is well-realized despite the short running time and even the "stoic Irish psychic man" character winds up being a lot more fun than he might seem at first. One thing that ties back into our discussion in this thread earlier: this is a kids movie! And that realization actually delighted me. It makes sense that they got the director for the animated Monster House for this and I'm glad that it wasn't simply trying to be a redundant Insidious clone (and all the sad irony that would've entailed). This plays like a revival of the "kids horror movie" subgenre that briefly existed in the 80s when studios were experimenting what they could do with the PG-13 rating: movies like Monster Squad, The Gate, Fright Night, movies that in some ways are descendants of the original Poltergeist. Funny enough, Sam Rockwell admitted as much earlier this year and sparked a bit of online backlash as people grew worried that the remake wasn't going to be a horror movie. But it turns out it's a throwback to a time when a movie could, in fact, be both a kids movie and a horror movie at the same time.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
This movie could've been improved significantly if they let Sam Rockwell dance a little bit. It's like making a movie where Tom Cruise doesn't run! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB7Vb2_QpA0 - proclick of Rockwell dancing. davidspackage posted:Every time I hear the trailer say "It's a new, more powerful kind of Poltergeist" I want to see it less. I don't remember this line. I think the only time Poltergeist is even mentioned is when it is identified, and it's something like "this isn't just a normal ghost, it's a powerful poltergeist".They may have mangled that line specifically for the trailer. Firstborn fucked around with this message at 15:34 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
davidspackage posted:Every time I hear the trailer say "It's a new, more powerful kind of Poltergeist" I want to see it less. But is it clean and rad and powerful?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:This movie could've been improved significantly if they let Sam Rockwell dance a little bit. It's like making a movie where Tom Cruise doesn't run! Oh yes, I was going to mention this, too. That line's not in the movie. I also remember on a radio ad (why do all ghost movies seem to have radio ads?) a similar line "It's not just a haunting, it's a POLTERGEIST!" (as if a poltergeist were simply a more badass version of a haunting or something) that similarly seems to have been cobbled together for the marketing. Edit: I want to add that the psychic man character might be the most pleasant surprise of the movie. It's nice that they didn't take him too seriously, but also found a nice balance where he was still a strong presence regardless. I was also hoping that he'd reveal that the scar on his face was from a bar fight after watching a soccer game (er, football to the non-Americans). lizardman fucked around with this message at 03:30 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
I liked that the dude described the situation as less of a monolithic Entity and more of a bunch of spirits that were crippingly desperate for someone to free them. Christ, the way they were portrayed was being perpetually glued to every surface in an underwater thunderstorm was a rather powerful image for me. Like when he said "Release this family as you wish to be released" and they did. It's a brief collective 'gently caress, you're right, we are the lovely ones' moment.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Atleast it didn't end with a white guy killing a dragon with an Indian spear. Will wait for the redbox.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:Atleast it didn't end with a white guy killing a dragon with an Indian spear. Will wait for the redbox. You keep mentioning this, but is this really so terrible? Sure, it looked silly in execution, but you make it sound like the idea itself is so very insulting and I'm not sure why. (To be precise, I'm pretty sure the Indian guy strikes a flame (which is somehow a portal to The Other Side) which transforms into a kind of lightning bolt-looking thing that strikes the multi-headed/appendaged vomit creature/beast (it's not really a dragon) which flies off into the distance in the netherealm). ((This is all from Poltergeist II, for those wondering)).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
wrong thread
MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 21:44 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I liked that the dude described the situation as less of a monolithic Entity and more of a bunch of spirits that were crippingly desperate for someone to free them. Christ, the way they were portrayed was being perpetually glued to every surface in an underwater thunderstorm was a rather powerful image for me. Oh, yeah. I had read in an article before the movie released that they were going to show what The Other Side looks like I thought "good lord, that's like, the lamest and most easily-avoidable mistake they could have possibly made!" But that sequence(s) turned out to be very compelling visually and it actually made me regret (a little) that I didn't opt for the 3D screening. It helps that you couldn't actually *see* much in terms of details. The more I think about it, this is one of those remakes that is pretty darn solid whenever it's venturing into new territory but insists on taking on iconic moments from its predecessor (and this case it does the latter a LOOOOOOOT) where there is no nope but to look like a pale imitation. With the new movie I really enjoyed: - The above-mentioned visuals - The thematic twist by taking the son's point of view - The Irish psychic ghost hunter I think the movie would've played a lot better if it took the Mad Max: Fury Road / Star Trek (2009) route of sequel-that-functions-as-reboot-for-new-audiences. They already went to the trouble of establishing new characters and a new setting (and like MisterBibs pointed out there is no mention of "The Beast" anywhere so it didn't have to be literally the same ghosts, but a similar phenomenon), but they just had to lazily recycle WAY too many (hell, practically all) of the story beats and set pieces from the original--so much so that you can't even apply the sequel idea retroactively if you wanted. There's a good movie inside this remake, it's just surrounded by, well, a Poltergeist remake.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:43
|
|