Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«8 »
  • Locked thread
verdigris murder
Jul 10, 2011

by FactsAreUseless


I thought the blood bag was something vaguely based around dead foetus's. And it was the best wtf segment without a doubt, which is something everyone seems to agree on, unless your brain has been turned into retard purée. Is there a thing called subjective intertextuality?

I don't know, as I don't use google.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

LeJackal
Apr 4, 2011


osietra posted:

I thought the blood bag was something vaguely based around dead foetus's. And it was the best wtf segment without a doubt, which is something everyone seems to agree on, unless your brain has been turned into retard purée. Is there a thing called subjective intertextuality?

I don't know, as I don't use google.

I was very unsettled up until the glowing eyes and Troma hand-puppet dicks.

verdigris murder
Jul 10, 2011

by FactsAreUseless


LeJackal posted:

I was very unsettled up until the glowing eyes and Troma hand-puppet dicks.
Yeah, me too! And it was still the best chapter.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD
Sep 14, 2007

everything is yours


osietra posted:

Yeah, me too! And it was still the best chapter.

This guy gets it.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007



The main secret is that the monster genitals reading as hands is not a mistake. They just have big demon hands for junk.

If you want to point out something really egregious in the film: what happens to the third cyclist, with the red tank top?

LeJackal
Apr 4, 2011


SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The main secret is that the monster genitals reading as hands is not a mistake. They just have big demon hands for junk.

Mistake or not, it was really distracting and just plain silly.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD
Sep 14, 2007

everything is yours


LeJackal posted:

Mistake or not, it was really distracting and just plain silly.

You watched the second sequel to V/H/S.

Ghosthotel
Dec 27, 2008


I'm in the "the silly stuff was awesome" camp.

demon dick is probably one of the funnier gags from the entire series for me and I guess I don't see it as silly and more as a legitimately funny joke.

Cole
Nov 24, 2004

DUNSON'D

LeJackal posted:

Mistake or not, it was really distracting and just plain silly.

Yes because huge exaggerated cocks and Venus fly trap pussies aren't silly otherwise.

Lets! Get! Weird!
Aug 18, 2012

Black King Bazinga


Ghosthotel posted:

I'm in the "the silly stuff was awesome" camp.

demon dick is probably one of the funnier gags from the entire series for me and I guess I don't see it as silly and more as a legitimately funny joke.

You can see it as a legitimately funny joke and still think an interesting premise was mishandled.

Ghosthotel
Dec 27, 2008


For me personally I never really thought they betrayed the premise though, the way the whole satan universe was ramping up through out the segment it felt like a natural and really funny progression. once that ridiculous blimp with the neon inverted cross flew by I was ready for the segment to get ridiculous and it definitely followed through with that.

MisterBibs
Jul 17, 2010

dolla dolla
bill y'all


Fun Shoe

I've had to skim posts since the spoilers started rolling in, but where are you guys seeing this movie?

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007



Cole posted:

Yes because huge exaggerated cocks and Venus fly trap pussies aren't silly otherwise.

We should actually approach the cock-limbs with utmost seriousness, while recognizing the true joke: the way Monster Alfonso looks at the real one like "you sick motherfucker," and then shivs him in the leg.

fullroundaction
Apr 20, 2007

Drink beer every day


MisterBibs posted:

I've had to skim posts since the spoilers started rolling in, but where are you guys seeing this movie?

I watched it on Amazon but you can get it on iTunes, YouTube, etc.

Shoombo
Jan 1, 2013


This was probably my least favorite of the three, but I still thought it owned. None of the segments are in my favorites for the whole series yet, but none of them were bad either.

The real flaw was definitely that it didn't feel cohesive like the first two. That was a problem in the second as well, but it still felt like an anthology for the most part, whereas this feels like a bunch of unconnected, but good, shorts. A big part of this was probably the framing segment, which is the worst of the three. And I say that as somebody who actually really liked the first movies framing segment and still thought the second one was pretty cool.

I knew going into it that it was supposed to be funnier than the first two, so that didn't bother me at all, although an extra short that was scarier would have helped the movie, I think.

This does have what might be one of my favorite deaths in the whole series: When the biker gets picked up by the ice cream truck, and is being dragged around as his feet disintegrate beneath him, and then one of his feet flies off and knocks over one of the other bikers. That was really rough.

axelblaze
Oct 18, 2006

Congratulations The One Concern!!!

You're addicted to Ivory!!

and...oh my...could you please...
oh my...



Grimey Drawer

As many of you probably know, I've pretty much a huge cheerleader for this series. Still, I did not have high hopes for this one. It was better than I was expecting but it was the worst of the series by a large margin.

The first segment was so silly that I couldn't help to like it but man it was badly put together. It couldn't decide if it was a documentary, or a found footage movie or pretty much anything. There were just shots where it was unclear why there was a camera there. As a found footage movie it was just lazy. It also just didn't fit in with the format of the series as a whole. I feel I should dislike it more but as I said, it was so silly I couldn't hate it.

The second one owned. It had an extremely unsettling buildup and managed to end somewhere actually pretty unsettling (though silly). Easily the best in the movie (though it still doesn't stand up as well compared to most of the other series segments).

I thought the filmmaking on the third one was strong and I really liked the first half. I like playing with the idea of skate cams and the characters were douchey in a very genuine way. Still, the payoff just didn't deliver. The fight just sort of went on and the end felt like a cheap play to half heartedly imitate the end of Safe Haven.

The wrap around segment is the worst movie I've seen all year by alot. It makes the other wrap around segment seem like Safe Haven. Every thing about it was just loving awful: the constant glitching, the senseless trying way too hard narrative, the badly done homage to Cloverfield to try to get us to care, the awful Mexican stereotypes...I could go on. Just loving awful and having it end with it just leaves a bad taste.

If I had the same expectations for this as I did for S-VHS, I would have been horribly let down, but overall I thought it was alright...I guess.

axelblaze
Oct 18, 2006

Congratulations The One Concern!!!

You're addicted to Ivory!!

and...oh my...could you please...
oh my...



Grimey Drawer

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

BONESTORM flows seamlessly into its action; it's a movie about skateboarders freestyling on death cultists. Where is the turn that's losing people?

It's not so much that it doesn't work in theory, it's just in practice it goes on kind of longer than it should and just sort of feels redundant after awhile. I have no problem with it becoming an action sequence but it's not the best made action sequence and it just sort of lost me, regained me whenever a skeleton jumped out and then lost me again.

Also I regret not jumping in this thread earlier because I really do like posting about how much the other V/H/S movies own and how everyone that disagrees is wrong.

Whalley
Mar 5, 2004

Drinking shows a real commitment to becoming a cooler person!


SuperMechagodzilla posted:

We should actually approach the cock-limbs with utmost seriousness, while recognizing the true joke: the way Monster Alfonso looks at the real one like "you sick motherfucker," and then shivs him in the leg.
I mean, Demon Dick Alfonso limps into the room looking like his dick was injured, then Regular Vagina Marta stumbles in covered in blood. No wonder he thinks Regular Dick Alfonso is a monster; the only two characters from the Regular Genital Universe we see responded to what these people thought of as "normal genitals" with violent attacks. Demon Dick Alfonso is right; we're the monsters, for despising genitalia and sexuality so much.

axleblaze posted:

The first segment was so silly that I couldn't help to like it but man it was badly put together. It couldn't decide if it was a documentary, or a found footage movie or pretty much anything. There were just shots where it was unclear why there was a camera there. As a found footage movie it was just lazy. It also just didn't fit in with the format of the series as a whole. I feel I should dislike it more but as I said, it was so silly I couldn't hate it.
The first segment loving sucked. Not because it was silly, but because V/H/S is a found footage horror mixtape, not a "low budget cameras I guess" anthology. One of the only things you need to do in a found footage film is give us a reason why this is being filmed, or at least, who is filming. The cameraman is a character in found footage. It's what Bonestorm did so loving well, having these ultimately decent people skaters hire a cameraman who spends his whole time muttering bullshit about how he wants to see the characters die and get seriously hurt. In the second part, Alfonso was filming because he is a scientist recording his experiments; in Bonestorm, the cameraman has so much personality, and in The Magician, loving faaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrt who gives a poo poo let's just have some cameras around I guess. There was occasional lines like "Dante needed an audience" that made me think they'd do a Chronicle-esque shot of him controlling some cameras, something to make sense of why there was these camera angles, but nope. Nothing. I have no reason to give any kind of poo poo about who the gently caress was filming, and the quarter second of time we see as actual found footage at the very end was godawful.

I mean, gently caress's sake. We see Dante in his green room, setting up a camera, then we see security footage of that room of him setting up a camera. I don't give a gently caress if that movie was saying things to make sense in the wraparound, because you don't make your anthology part to explain the wraparound. You just make a good loving movie, and The Magician was a filler episode for a late-season Supernatural knockoff on SyFy.

I loved Bonestorm, and I really liked Alfonso's Magical Wishing Cupboard Of Horrible Genitals but the awkward wraparound and horrible Magicians make me really fuckin' angry.

axelblaze
Oct 18, 2006

Congratulations The One Concern!!!

You're addicted to Ivory!!

and...oh my...could you please...
oh my...



Grimey Drawer

I can 't disagree with most of that but the magic fight and the use of stage magic concepts to kill people was just do silly and done so gleefully that I just couldn't hate. i mean yeah as a found footage film it was incompetent and contained many terrible decisions because the filmmaker obviously had no faith in the genre, but still it made me smile.

Whalley
Mar 5, 2004

Drinking shows a real commitment to becoming a cooler person!


axleblaze posted:

i mean yeah as a found footage film it was incompetent and contained many terrible decisions because the filmmaker obviously had no faith in the genre, but still it made me smile.
I find it really hard to believe, after how incredible the first VHS was (and how pretty good the second one was) that they could only find two filmmakers who actually wanted to make a found footage piece for a third found footage movie in the most incredible addition to the found footage genre since Blair Witch. I mean, the wraparound was just some things happening, one director didn't even finish their film, and one went into a found footage movie anthology with the mindset of "okay but what if I don't do found footage" and ughhhhhhh

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007



Whalley posted:

The first segment loving sucked. Not because it was silly, but because V/H/S is a found footage horror mixtape, not a "low budget cameras I guess" anthology. One of the only things you need to do in a found footage film is give us a reason why this is being filmed, or at least, who is filming. The cameraman is a character in found footage. [...] There was occasional lines like "Dante needed an audience" that made me think they'd do a Chronicle-esque shot of him controlling some cameras, something to make sense of why there was these camera angles, but nope. Nothing. I have no reason to give any kind of poo poo about who the gently caress was filming, and the quarter second of time we see as actual found footage at the very end was godawful.

I mean, gently caress's sake. We see Dante in his green room, setting up a camera, then we see security footage of that room of him setting up a camera. I don't give a gently caress if that movie was saying things to make sense in the wraparound, because you don't make your anthology part to explain the wraparound. You just make a good loving movie, and The Magician was a filler episode for a late-season Supernatural knockoff on SyFy.

I loved Bonestorm, and I really liked Alfonso's Magical Wishing Cupboard Of Horrible Genitals but the awkward wraparound and horrible Magicians make me really fuckin' angry.

It is found footage. The creator of the footage is the cloak, and its reason for filming is to empower Dante.

The basic premise of the short - the same as in Grave Encounters and its sequel - is that real magic is indistinguishable from editing trickery and 'bad' special effects. You're not just seeing film editing; reality itself is being edited and manipulated by the cloak.

For example: the trick where Dante escapes from the police car in front of the big crowd. He's locked in the back, the camera pans away for a second, and he's vanished. In real life, we know how this was done: the police officer is an actor, the crowd is made up of extras, the cuffs are fake, the door wasn't actually locked, blah blah blah. Diegetically, however, the only reality is what we see. The cop is a real cop, the crowd is a real crowd, and Dante is a real magician. When Dante is offscreen, he literally ceases to exist until he reappears onscreen again.

The entire short functions according to this logic. Cameras are manifested out of nowhere, editing teleports people from place to place, etc. It's found footage of real magic.

Hat Thoughts
Jul 27, 2012


axleblaze posted:

I thought the filmmaking on the third one was strong and I really liked the first half. I like playing with the idea of skate cams and the characters were douchey in a very genuine way. Still, the payoff just didn't deliver. The fight just sort of went on and the end felt like a cheap play to half heartedly imitate the end of Safe Haven.

Why douchey?

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD
Sep 14, 2007

everything is yours


axleblaze posted:

It's not so much that it doesn't work in theory, it's just in practice it goes on kind of longer than it should and just sort of feels redundant after awhile. I have no problem with it becoming an action sequence but it's not the best made action sequence and it just sort of lost me, regained me whenever a skeleton jumped out and then lost me again.

Also I regret not jumping in this thread earlier because I really do like posting about how much the other V/H/S movies own and how everyone that disagrees is wrong.

I thought there was so much character in it that it I found nothing in it redundant. The whole segment trades on style and I don't mean that dismissively - it starts off with horror antics and turns into a skate video, complete with post-hoc editing. It's a much better example of the Viral tag than the wraparound, which is explicitly concerned with that.

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!


There was a 4th segment that was all about a serial killer being watched ,but it got cut which is kind of disappointing. I thought the first two segments were great, kind of sort of enjoyed the 3rd. Hated the wrap around.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007



HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

I thought there was so much character in it that it I found nothing in it redundant. The whole segment trades on style and I don't mean that dismissively - it starts off with horror antics and turns into a skate video, complete with post-hoc editing. It's a much better example of the Viral tag than the wraparound, which is explicitly concerned with that.

Again, it's is extremely well-written. The first three stunts establish a pattern - they want to do cool tricks, Camera Guy is exploiting them, and The Man says they're not allowed on the roof or in the streets. Things expand a bit when they're attacked by US Marines (???) while Camera Guy hits on the indifferent hot chick, but they still get kicked out of the skate park. And all of this comes back in the ditch in Tijuana - the indifferent chick, the dumb lackeys, everything. Gas Money serves as a warning of what happens to them if they fail.

The turning point comes when they smash The Man in the face with a skateboard and turn their music back on.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD
Sep 14, 2007

everything is yours


SuperMechagodzilla posted:


The turning point comes when they smash The Man in the face with a skateboard and turn their music back on.


One hundred percent exactly this.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD
Sep 14, 2007

everything is yours


It's a good rhythm of three.

saulwright
Jan 12, 2005


Glad to see lots of people enjoyed it. I appreciated the comedy immensely, but I understand the sentiment that it would've been cool too see a more ambitious approach to the horror.

I think the thing really really suffers from losing its 4th segment by virtue of each segment taking on a greater % of the viewers' overall scrutiny. For example, I think the haunted eyeball segment from 2 is just as low-rent as Magician's, but the latter is getting crushed while the former is largely ignored other than the sex scene. I'm intensely curious what happened re: the serial killer segment and whether or not it will see the light of day.

Also, I totally just took the wraparound segment at face value and chose to see it as some sort of crossover between the first two wraparounds and Twisted Metal. All this magic AI stuff might make some tenuous sense but at the same time, it just doesn't feel worth it to GO DEEPER.

Hat Thoughts
Jul 27, 2012


I didn't even understand what it was supposed to be at face value, anyways I really liked Viral because each short was something that I would've thought was the coolest poo poo on earth at some point in my life.

Hat Thoughts fucked around with this message at Oct 27, 2014 around 19:18

saulwright
Jan 12, 2005


By face value I meant scary ice cream truck drives around, crazy stuff involving videos ensues. That's about as far as I explored things.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007



saulwright posted:

Glad to see lots of people enjoyed it. I appreciated the comedy immensely, but I understand the sentiment that it would've been cool too see a more ambitious approach to the horror.

I think the thing really really suffers from losing its 4th segment by virtue of each segment taking on a greater % of the viewers' overall scrutiny. For example, I think the haunted eyeball segment from 2 is just as low-rent as Magician's, but the latter is getting crushed while the former is largely ignored other than the sex scene. I'm intensely curious what happened re: the serial killer segment and whether or not it will see the light of day.

Also, I totally just took the wraparound segment at face value and chose to see it as some sort of crossover between the first two wraparounds and Twisted Metal. All this magic AI stuff might make some tenuous sense but at the same time, it just doesn't feel worth it to GO DEEPER.

The problem is that the previous two frame stories withstood scrutiny and successfully set a tone that elevated the weaker entries. Vicious Circles, which sets the tone of Viral, is easily the worst short of the series thus far.

Clinical Trials may have been kinda dumb in some ways (he has a microphone installed in his eye), but it was internally consistent, and had a strong thematic throughline ("and if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee"*). Even if you didn't like it that much, it was just a tangent from the main story.

To get what's wrong with Vicious Circles, understand that its plot and themes are almost exactly those of the 28 Days Later films - smarter, better-made films from roughly a decade ago.


*"Another way to make this point is to say that the Greek Gods appear to humans in human form, while the Christian God appears as human TO HIMSELF. This is the crucial point: Incarnation is for Hegel not a move by means of which God makes himself accessible/visible to humans, but a move by means of which Gods looks at himself from the (distorting) human perspective: 'As God manifests himself to his own gaze, the specular presentation divides the divine self from itself, offering the divine the perspectival vision of its own self-presence.' Or, to put in Freudian-Lacanian terms: Christ is God’s "partial object," an autonomized organ without a body, as if God picked his eye out of his head and turned it at himself from the outside. We can guess, now, why Hegel insisted on the monstrosity of Christ.

Kino-Eye /Kino-glaz/, Dziga Vertov's Soviet silent classic from 1924 (one of the highpoints of revolutionary cinema) takes as its emblem the eye (of the camera) as an "autonomous organ" which wanders around in the early 1920s, giving us snippets of the NEP ("new economic politics") reality of the Soviet Union. Recall the common expression "to cast an eye over something," with its literal implication of picking the eye out of its socket and throwing it around. Martin, the legendary idiot from French fairy tales, did exactly this when his mother, worried that he will never find a wife, told him to go to church and cast an eye over the girls there. What he does is go to the butcher first, purchase a pig eye, and then, in the church, throw this eye around over the girls at prayer – no wonder he later reports to his mother that the girls were not too impressed by his behavior. This, precisely, is what revolutionary cinema should be doing: using the camera as a partial object, as an "eye" torn from the subject and freely thrown around – or, to quote Vertov himself:

'The film camera drags the eyes of the audience from the hands to the feet, from the feet to the eyes and so on in the most profitable order, and it organises the details into a regular montage exercise.'

We all know the uncanny moments in our everyday lives when we catch sight of our own image and this image is not looking back at us. I remember once trying to inspect a strange growth on the side of my head using a double mirror, when, all of a sudden, I caught a glimpse of my face from the profile. The image replicated all my gestures, but in a weird uncoordinated way. In such a situation, 'our specular image is torn away from us and, crucially, our look is no longer looking at ourselves.' It is in such weird experiences that one catches what Lacan called gaze as objet petit a, the part of our image which eludes the mirror-like symmetrical relationship. When we see ourselves 'from outside,' from this impossible point, the traumatic feature is not that I am objectivized, reduced to an external object for the gaze, but, rather, that it is my gaze itself which is objectivized, which observes me from the outside, which, precisely, means that my gaze is no longer mine, that it is stolen from me. There is a relatively simple and painless eye-operation which, nonetheless, involves a very unpleasant experience: under local anesthesia, i.e., with the patient’s full awareness, the eye is taken out of the socket and turned a little bit around in the air (in order to correct the way the eye-ball is attached to the brain) – at this moment, the patient can for a brief moment see (parts of) himself from outside, from an 'objective' viewpoint, as a strange object, the way he 'really is' as an object in the world, not the way one usually experiences oneself as fully embedded 'in' one’s body. There is something divine in this (very unpleasant) experience: one sees oneself as if from a divine viewpoint, somehow realizing the mystical motto according to which, the eye through which I see God is the eye through which God sees himself. Something homologous to this weird experience, applied to God himself, occurs in the Incarnation."

-Slavoj Zizek, "Only a Suffering God Can Save Us."

axelblaze
Oct 18, 2006

Congratulations The One Concern!!!

You're addicted to Ivory!!

and...oh my...could you please...
oh my...



Grimey Drawer

Clinical trials in V/H/S/2 is so close to being good and it makes it all the more annoying. I mean the whole eye concept is great and it's executed pretty well, the basic story is good and I also really like the story that's going on that it never comes out and tells you. The thing is, it's just not scary. The scares in it and the way they are executed just feels very stale and generally uninteresting. The sex scene, while explainable, also kind of destroys any tension that might have still been there. On paper it's an excellent short and in execution it's still not awful it just has some major missteps that hold it back, that aren't helped by how good the other three shorts are.

bowser
Apr 7, 2007



Hmmm...I think this might be the most consistently 'fun' movie of the series. None of the shorts felt like a complete drag (although the final fight scene in Bonestorm could have been cut by 5 minutes). All 3 of them succeeded in making me want to see them as full length films. The wraparound story was pretty horrible and the shorts/wraparound felt even less thematically connected than they did in V/H/S 2.

Overall I'd say it was the worst in the series but I still really enjoyed it.

bowser fucked around with this message at Oct 28, 2014 around 00:28

Cole
Nov 24, 2004

DUNSON'D

If you watched it without knowing what genre it was supposed to be would you say it was better or worse?

E: play this game with all movies.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007



axleblaze posted:

Clinical trials in V/H/S/2 is so close to being good and it makes it all the more annoying. I mean the whole eye concept is great and it's executed pretty well, the basic story is good and I also really like the story that's going on that it never comes out and tells you. The thing is, it's just not scary. The scares in it and the way they are executed just feels very stale and generally uninteresting. The sex scene, while explainable, also kind of destroys any tension that might have still been there. On paper it's an excellent short and in execution it's still not awful it just has some major missteps that hold it back, that aren't helped by how good the other three shorts are.

It's a different sort of bad. Like you said, Clinical Trials is decently written and conceptually sound, but they do the bare minimum to put the concept onscreen. There's a camera held at eye level, and there are some grey people. Everything about it is professional and adequate.

Vicious Circles has a similar competence at first, but plummets at pretty much exactly the point that the protagonist leaves his house.

When he's outside, he inadvertently films a bunch of other onlookers: three cyclists, the girl getting into the cab, and a dude in pajamas holding a camera. Of these five characters, the red cyclist and the bathrobe guy completely vanish from the film. The other three each get a death scene, so it's pretty clear this scene was setting up an 'everyone is connected' sort of deal - like everyone the protagonist films ends up dead. But something went awry.

The red cyclist's disappearance is easy to explain. In the death-by-dragging scene, he vanishes, and the protagonist is suddenly much further away from the truck than in prior shots. The character's death, which delayed the protagonist, was obviously edited out of the film for some reason.

As for the bathrobe guy, the safe bet is that his scene was cut entirely, and the Mexican barbecue was added in reshoots to replace it. This raises the question: what could have been so bad that the barbecue scene was considered a better alternative?

Whalley
Mar 5, 2004

Drinking shows a real commitment to becoming a cooler person!


SuperMechagodzilla posted:

It is found footage. The creator of the footage is the cloak, and its reason for filming is to empower Dante.

The basic premise of the short - the same as in Grave Encounters and its sequel - is that real magic is indistinguishable from editing trickery and 'bad' special effects. You're not just seeing film editing; reality itself is being edited and manipulated by the cloak.

For example: the trick where Dante escapes from the police car in front of the big crowd. He's locked in the back, the camera pans away for a second, and he's vanished. In real life, we know how this was done: the police officer is an actor, the crowd is made up of extras, the cuffs are fake, the door wasn't actually locked, blah blah blah. Diegetically, however, the only reality is what we see. The cop is a real cop, the crowd is a real crowd, and Dante is a real magician. When Dante is offscreen, he literally ceases to exist until he reappears onscreen again.

The entire short functions according to this logic. Cameras are manifested out of nowhere, editing teleports people from place to place, etc. It's found footage of real magic.

Nothing in the short even remotely alludes to this. If that was the intent of The Magician, they didn't have to go as far as Chronicle literally having a character tell Andrew "you're just using that camera as a shield," but they could have at least attempted it other than having a one-off line saying "Dante needs an audience."

And gently caress, that didn't come across as "the cloak" either - we see directly, before the cloak even existed in the reality of the film, that he loved to walk around and film himself and get the attention of other people.

Besides; the cloak had no reason to film the SWAT crew opening up a wall safe that we were explicitly told existed, nor did it spend time filming itself away from Dante. The shot where Dante has just finished having sex with his assistant would have been greatly improved if the camera has been hovering above while he slept, then the cloak fell on him and woke him up, only to see Dante act as a willing slave to the cloak's needs. It would have given those allusions you talk about.

It was just full of hosed up, lovely writing and terrible concepts. It was full of early comic book "character says the thing while doing the thing" instances, and ended with one of the most embarrassing deliveries of one of the most embarrassing lines I've heard an actor say in years.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007



Whalley posted:

Nothing in the short even remotely alludes to this. If that was the intent of The Magician, they didn't have to go as far as Chronicle literally having a character tell Andrew "you're just using that camera as a shield," but they could have at least attempted it other than having a one-off line saying "Dante needs an audience."

And gently caress, that didn't come across as "the cloak" either - we see directly, before the cloak even existed in the reality of the film, that he loved to walk around and film himself and get the attention of other people.

Besides; the cloak had no reason to film the SWAT crew opening up a wall safe that we were explicitly told existed, nor did it spend time filming itself away from Dante. The shot where Dante has just finished having sex with his assistant would have been greatly improved if the camera has been hovering above while he slept, then the cloak fell on him and woke him up, only to see Dante act as a willing slave to the cloak's needs. It would have given those allusions you talk about.

It was just full of hosed up, lovely writing and terrible concepts. It was full of early comic book "character says the thing while doing the thing" instances, and ended with one of the most embarrassing deliveries of one of the most embarrassing lines I've heard an actor say in years.

The entire short is spent establishing how the magic works, and then lets loose with it. You have to pay attention.

The cloak created such things as the man-on-the-street interviews and the historical footage to sell the reality of the illusions. Brisk editing and constant voiceover distract you from basic questions like why the documentarians put murder footage in their film, and how they accessed the woman's webcam.

That's sleight of hand.

And Dante, you'll recall, was not the only one to use the cloak. Both characters are shaping reality into competing magical narratives.

Hat Thoughts
Jul 27, 2012


SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Brisk editing and constant voiceover distract you from basic questions like why the documentarians put murder footage in their film.


Faces of Dante

sticklefifer
Nov 11, 2003

TOO EASY

I wonder if a Director(s)'s Cut of this will come out at any point. There are definitely some things missing from the wraparound, and the 4th segment is conspicuous by its absence.

Some people are wondering why the cameras were filming in the Dante segment, and why it steps out of found footage: It doesn't. There's very clearly a part where the documentarian tells his cameramen "Keep filiming" when the SWAT team comes in and the subsequent confrontation starts between Scarlett and Dante. The cuts and the non-handicam looking footage are because there are several cameramen around the stage area wearing steadicams. So yeah, it looks professionally shot, because it is. And it's being filmed because there are people there who were instructed to film. But it's still literally "found footage" because it's footage that was found and compiled.

sticklefifer fucked around with this message at Oct 28, 2014 around 17:55

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007



Hat Thoughts posted:

Faces of Dante

That's exactly it. The entire short is a magic show, and the allegation that Dante has actually been sacrificing women is the number one thing that sells the illusion. The cloak includes the graphic death footage in order to enhance Dante's mystique. That's why Dante is forced to film himself murdering the women.

  • Locked thread
«8 »