|
I feel like Emily Coutts would be a cool Pinhead if they were going for one based on the novella. For one that's the movie version but with a new actor, Doug Jones would be cool because he's used to working through heavy makeup of course and so are a lot of other names folks already mentioned.Basebf555 posted:Tilda Swinton disappointed me for the first time ever, in Suspiria. Maybe it was Guadagnino's direction or something, but her performance was way too low-key and blah for me. I wanted something a bit more overtly pretentious and aristocratic than that. Not necessarily chewing scenery....but ok yea maybe some scenery chewing would've been nice. Given the amount of heavy lifting she had in that movie playing three different characters and having to have them each feel and sound different I can cut her some slack. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Feb 20, 2019 |
# ? Feb 20, 2019 15:22 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 02:37 |
|
I feel like they should just go a completely different direction with Pinhead because nobody can really top Bradley. One of my hopes with a new Hellraiser is go back to it being about sensory exploration, hedonism, and how our desires undo us rather than making Pinhead 90s Devil. I'd love to see Pinhead cast as someone who really does believe that he lives in a space that is both Heaven and Hell. He has not an ounce of malice or menace in him. He genuinely believes people will get something profound out of their skin being pulled off by tiny little hooks and he's really enthusiastic about the sights he has to show you. He's someone who seems friendly and generous to a degree that cannot be reasoned with. Anyway, I'm saying I want Mark Duplass as Pinhead. But in general, yes, if you're going to go with something more traditional, I think going with a lady makes a lot of sense. I think Rooney Mara is someone who really could carry the same intensity as Bradley for Pinhead while giving it a new energy. Jodie Comer from Killing Eve also does a really good job of switching between soulless predator and portraying terrifying enthusiasm for hurting others.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 16:56 |
|
do they even need Pinhead though? he's iconic looking but not really essential to the plot. they could do a remake with an entirely different cenobyte design.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 16:57 |
gey muckle mowser posted:do they even need Pinhead though? he's iconic looking but not really essential to the plot. they could do a remake with an entirely different cenobyte design. The original short story didn't even have "Pinhead" as we know him. They had one Cenobite with the look, but it was a female and the pins were jeweled. None of the Cenobites were really above one another in the hierarchy and there didn't seem to be a hierarchy. They just are.
|
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 17:04 |
|
Pinhead was only in 2 Hellraiser movies before he was replaced by boring British Freddy so I dunno. I don’t think it’ll be hard to find another person so long as they never do what they did in 3 again. gently caress that was sad.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 17:08 |
|
Dr Channard was loving cool and I hate he never showed up again.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 17:10 |
|
I don’t really think you make a Hellraiser flick without Pinhead, as the character has become intrinsic to the franchise. But that doesn’t mean you can’t come at it from a different perspective. I like the idea of pushing the aforementioned androgynous element from the story.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 17:12 |
|
I think for me though, I really adore the Pinhead design because it really just tells you a lot about the character. He's this monstrous being who has driven pins seemingly just into his head denoting the sick violence he's into, but it's organized into this orderly grid on his face denoting that he is not just causing mayhem willy-nilly. There are rules and procedure that he follows. I think at the end of the day you sort of need someone in the Pinhead role who is the bookkeeper and voice of the Cenobites, and the core elements of the Pinhead design are just near perfect. I have this image of a revised Pinhead though where the pins are actually coming out from his flesh instead of into it. Like he somehow hammered pins from inside his own skull. I really just want a new movie to get weird in terms of the poo poo that the Cenobites are into. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Feb 20, 2019 |
# ? Feb 20, 2019 17:14 |
Fart City posted:I don’t really think you make a Hellraiser flick without Pinhead, as the character has become intrinsic to the franchise. But that doesn’t mean you can’t come at it from a different perspective. I like the idea of pushing the aforementioned androgynous element from the story. Maybe just do a straight adaptation of The Hellbound Heart, then? Without Clive Barker's shaky directing as he tries to learn while doing, staying as close to the book as possible. It would be very difficult, but you could create a radically different film. I'm especially thinking of the very beginning, where they show Frank what he's in for by jacking up all of his senses a million times and letting him suffer the world's worst sensory overload. I know exactly how you would film it, but it would take effort. Timeless Appeal posted:I think for me though, I really adore the Pinhead design because it really just tells you a lot about the character. He's this monstrous being who has driven pins seemingly just into his head denoting the sick violence he's into, but it's organized into this orderly grid on his face denoting that he is not just causing mayhem willy-nilly. There are rules and procedure that he follows. Going off the original, they didn't really need someone like that because they weren't just mindless monsters. All of them had a similar personality to Pinhead, with little care for mortal concerns. You summon them, they take you and give you exactly what you asked for. Even if you just solved the puzzle without knowing what you were really doing, they feel that they have to take you for doing it. The only reason they don't take Kirsty for eternal torture is because she tells them that Frank escaped and they find getting him back to be more important than just taking the next person they see.
|
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 17:31 |
|
Timeless Appeal posted:
This would be really cool because of how the makeup in the movie can evoke scars instead of a tattooed grid, like incisions were made and the pins placed in instead of them being pinned. Also this would require a practical effects scene where the character completely obliterates someone's face by embracing them. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Feb 20, 2019 |
# ? Feb 20, 2019 17:34 |
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think for me though, I really adore the Pinhead design because it really just tells you a lot about the character. He's this monstrous being who has driven pins seemingly just into his head denoting the sick violence he's into, but it's organized into this orderly grid on his face denoting that he is not just causing mayhem willy-nilly. There are rules and procedure that he follows. What's great about the grid lines is that they weren't part of the original design, someone was working on the prop and just had them there to line the pins up, and Clive Barker liked them, and told them to keep them in the final prosthetic.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 17:34 |
|
chitoryu12 posted:Going off the original, they didn't really need someone like that because they weren't just mindless monsters. All of them had a similar personality to Pinhead, with little care for mortal concerns. You summon them, they take you and give you exactly what you asked for. Even if you just solved the puzzle without knowing what you were really doing, they feel that they have to take you for doing it. The only reason they don't take Kirsty for eternal torture is because she tells them that Frank escaped and they find getting him back to be more important than just taking the next person they see. And I think there is a reason that people gravitated to the notion of Pinhead as the leader. People want a sort of singular villain that encompasses the dread of the film. But I do at the same time want a movie that feels more like the first two and is less The Pinhead Show.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 17:48 |
|
sethsez posted:Tilda Swin- Swinton has a pretty unique (rip David Bowie) presence on screen. I wish Constantine had been a better (or at least more successful) movie so I could have seen more of her as that character in a sequel. I need to see Suspiria, I don’t know why I haven’t yet. e: sort of related https://youtu.be/gH7dMBcg-gE Drunkboxer fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 20, 2019 |
# ? Feb 20, 2019 17:58 |
|
TheKingslayer posted:Dr Channard was loving cool and I hate he never showed up again. I love his opera-like yell when he's getting drilled in the back of the head by that giant tentacle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GJE8KtGFnE
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 18:03 |
|
There was a Pinhead game Sherlock Holmes book? What the gently caress lmao
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 18:08 |
Timeless Appeal posted:I get you and I appreciate that about the first one. But I do feel like there is something to having a leader. I know there are some who view the Cenobites as being equal in the original film, but I actually don't. There is a neutrality to him that I enjoy. Like Butterball always seemed gluttonous, Female Cenobite (Does she really not have a name?) with her neck vagina always seemed lustful, and Chatterer always seemed a bit more sadistic. I don't think these are things that are necessarily denoted in their actions, but more their designs. Like I said, what I think visually stands out about Pinhead is having a sense of order and authority. Though again, that's because of the changes made by the film. In the novella, Frank was the primary villain and much of the story is about Julia helping him regain his strength after he escapes. I think there's a good case to be made for centering a potential remake around Frank instead of needing a "lead Cenobite" who acts as the mascot. In general, there's a good case to be made for making a faithful adaptation with the focus on the story and imagery rather than needing to make a distinctive franchise mascot.
|
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 18:09 |
|
Basebf555 posted:Tilda Swinton disappointed me for the first time ever, in Suspiria. Maybe it was Guadagnino's direction or something, but her performance was way too low-key and blah for me. I wanted something a bit more overtly pretentious and aristocratic than that. Not necessarily chewing scenery....but ok yea maybe some scenery chewing would've been nice. I wouldn't call Blanc low key at all. Klemperer definitely, but then Blanc is somewhere in the middle and Markos is way out there.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 18:39 |
|
Basebf555 posted:My picks for cenobites/Pinhead: This made me imagine Mark Rylance doing Pinhead as the mumbly, put upon nerd voice he had in Ready Player One It’s a good thought
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:08 |
|
Has Horror Cafe been posted before? It fuckin' owns. It aired on BBC2 back in the day and is a roundtable dinner discussion between Clive Barker, John Carpenter, Roger Corman, and three other horror luminaries where they talk about the definition of horror and brainstorm a modern take on Jekyll and Hyde for the turn of the century audience. quote:Six of the Horror world's leading figures dine together. Hosted by Clive Barker with guests John Carpenter, Roger Corman, Ramsey Campbell, Lisa Tuttle and Pete Atkins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TosdCShzD4g
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:15 |
|
Yeah, a couple years back, I think around the time Wes Craven died. Loved it and I could listen to Clive Barker talk all day.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:21 |
|
Splinter was pretty awesome. Gruesome.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:27 |
|
Yeah, Splinter is really underrated. Lots of fun.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:30 |
|
I started watching that Eli Roth History of Horror show, and it's a little frustrating? It's more interested in name-dropping some movies, convolutes the evolution of genre's to the point of misinformation (without any real benefit to this), and it has Eli Roth in it. And Chris Hardwick. I thought it was pretty funny that they had Rob Zombie as a talking head for the zombie episodes, except all he did was nod politely at Eli Roth whenever he had to share that he knew something. Eli Roth: 28 Days Later is most famous for having introduced running zombies. EXCEPT THAT FULCI HAD RUNNING ZOMBIES IN CITY OF THE DEAD. Rob Zombie: I know it's for a mainstream audience, so I shouldn't gripe about it mainly focusing on The Walking Dead instead of fun stuff like Dead Alive, but then it spends a while on Shaun of the Dead but brushes over Return of the Living Dead. I'll watch more, but it's all pretty rote for a regular of this thread.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:37 |
|
Franchescanado posted:I started watching that Eli Roth History of Horror show, and it's a little frustrating? It's more interested in name-dropping some movies, convolutes the evolution of genre's to the point of misinformation (without any real benefit to this), and it has Eli Roth in it. And Chris Hardwick. I was mildly interested in this but glad to see not to waste my time.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:40 |
|
Franchescanado posted:it has Eli Roth in it. Pass. quote:And Chris Hardwick. HARD PASS.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:43 |
|
chitoryu12 posted:Though again, that's because of the changes made by the film. In the novella, Frank was the primary villain and much of the story is about Julia helping him regain his strength after he escapes. I think there's a good case to be made for centering a potential remake around Frank instead of needing a "lead Cenobite" who acts as the mascot. In general, there's a good case to be made for making a faithful adaptation with the focus on the story and imagery rather than needing to make a distinctive franchise mascot. I want a brand new story about people being undone by their desires that features the cenobites in supporting roles.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:44 |
|
ruddiger posted:HARD PASS. Hardwick is interesting, because his comments mean absolutely nothing. Hardwick: See, what I like about Shaun of the Dead? It's so funny. There's a part, where, get this. Shaun is hung over, and he walks into a convenience store after the apocalypse? And he slips on blood. It's such a simple joke, BUT IT'S SO FUNNY. It's nonsense. Eli Roth is similar, in that he kinda just reiterates the talking points, or whatever the clip just showed, but he's a producer; the show's in his name, so of course he gets to say whatever useless stuff there is. But Hardwick's just there because he...talks about Walking Dead when he's not abusing women?
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:50 |
|
Franchescanado posted:I started watching that Eli Roth History of Horror show, and it's a little frustrating? It's more interested in name-dropping some movies, convolutes the evolution of genre's to the point of misinformation (without any real benefit to this), and it has Eli Roth in it. And Chris Hardwick. You couldn't have possibly made me less interested just from that.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:51 |
|
Neo Rasa posted:You couldn't have possibly made me less interested just from that. Same. What an awful pairing.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:52 |
|
Neo Rasa posted:You couldn't have possibly made me less interested just from that. Eli Roth seems to conduct at least half of the interviews. When it's formatted for the celebrity/expert to be a talking head, like Edgar Wright talking, it's exactly what the show needs to be, fun and informally informative. The interviews Eli Roth conducts are him talking to the celebrity/expert/guest, and the majority of the footage is Roth talking to the guest in the form of a question, or answering his own question, or commenting on their answer with what he wants to say (without really showing the guest's answer). Eli, you have Tarantino here talking about how Romero's Dawn of the Dead redefine how horror movies could make it's social commentary more palatable to the mainstream through visceral gore. Shut the gently caress up and let him talk.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:56 |
|
Franchescanado posted:Hardwick is interesting, because his comments mean absolutely nothing. Hardwick is baffling. He’s gotten so rich off of nothing.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 19:57 |
|
Not surprised Eli Roth is a narcissist
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 20:02 |
|
Yea I thought it was gonna be Eli Roth + a guest, and I was willing to give that a chance. But there's no way I can take Roth and Hardwick going back and forth with each other for 30 minutes.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 20:06 |
|
Really the most you can say about Roth and Hardwick is that they're completely vapid.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 20:10 |
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Really the most you can say about Roth and Hardwick is that they're completely vapid. It's a shame too because the format is valid, and can lead to some great loving discussions, as is the case with Cameron's sci-fi talk show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv9Jq_mCJEo Cameron's a great interviewer because he knows when to get out of the way and he just lets the discussion come natural.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 20:14 |
|
I've been looking to see if Fury of the Demon's available yet for streaming and so far all I've been able to find is AmazonUK. Did it get a US release at any point or no?
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 20:23 |
|
I was expecting Eli Roth's History of Horror to be similar to Robert Kirkman's History of Comic Books. Which is to say, decently done and interesting if you don't know the subject but not terribly good if you're already familiar with the topics. So I skipped it. If its just Roth talking to Hardwick though, my esteem for Kirkman staying off the show and actually making a documentary just went up a bit.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 21:16 |
|
ruddiger posted:It's a shame too because the format is valid, and can lead to some great loving discussions, as is the case with Cameron's sci-fi talk show. It's not even an interview when you're using the format to create space for yourself
|
# ? Feb 20, 2019 21:17 |
|
e:nm
Kvlt! fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Feb 20, 2019 |
# ? Feb 20, 2019 22:03 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 02:37 |
|
Kvlt! posted:hey whats a good horror movie for gonna go ahead and recommend bloodz vs wolvez also therapy, my guy Somebody fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Feb 20, 2019 |
# ? Feb 20, 2019 22:04 |