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.
«9 »
  • Locked thread
Emissary666
Sep 6, 2010



SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The film is a hybrid of pseudo-documentary films like Blair Witch and 'immersive' POV films like Maniac. The supernatural events appear exclusively on the footage from the bluetooth headset cameras. Other cameras - the drone, the handheld cameras, the trail cams - pick up absolutely nothing unusual. This is on the surface: different types of footage stand for different things.

The 'objective' documentary footage (there is nothing supernatural, they are just being scared by animal sounds and whatever) is in collision with the subjective fiction (the character is hunted by her literalized nightmare of a witch that appears onscreen). The film expresses this concept through the fictional conceit that these specific headset cams can record hallucinations. Much is made of the headcams' 'sci-fi' properties, like that they are all connected to central hub via GPS - information that has no bearing on the plot.

Important question: have you gone through the movie and checked to ensure that the headcams are only getting supernatural stuff and the handhelds aren't? Based on your previous analyses, I am inclined to believe that you are not the type to make objectively false statements to fit your interpretation, but far too often I have encountered people who do just that.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Xenomrph
Dec 9, 2005

AvP Nerd/Fanboy/Shill


quote:

I am inclined to believe that you are not the type to make objectively false statements to fit your interpretation
I've got some bad news for you

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007



Emissary666 posted:

Important question: have you gone through the movie and checked to ensure that the headcams are only getting supernatural stuff and the handhelds aren't? Based on your previous analyses, I am inclined to believe that you are not the type to make objectively false statements to fit your interpretation, but far too often I have encountered people who do just that.

There is no conspiracy against you. I saw the film in theaters, and paid close attention. If someone would like to go shot-by-shot to confirm what I've written, then by all means.

If I've somehow missed one or two counterexamples, then what I've written still holds for the vast majority of shots in the film. And, as it stands, neither you nor I can think of a single such counterexample.

On the other side, we have the masses of textual evidence that support what I've written: like the scene where the medical professional examines a 'magical' wound and finds nothing unusual. Or the entire ending scene where the witch explicitly does not appear in the viewfinder of the handheld camera. Objective versus subjective.

Emissary666
Sep 6, 2010



SuperMechagodzilla posted:

There is no conspiracy against you. I saw the film in theaters, and paid close attention. If someone would like to go shot-by-shot to confirm what I've written, then by all means.

If I've somehow missed one or two counterexamples, then what I've written still holds for the vast majority of shots in the film. And, as it stands, neither you nor I can think of a single such counterexample.

On the other side, we have the masses of textual evidence that support what I've written: like the scene where the medical professional examines a 'magical' wound and finds nothing unusual. Or the entire ending scene where the witch explicitly does not appear in the viewfinder of the handheld camera. Objective versus subjective.

Fair enough. If I ever rent the movie for the commentary, I'll be sure have a watch through to confirm your theory.

Rubiks Pubes
Dec 5, 2003

I wanted to be a neo deconstructivist, but Mom wouldn't let me.

Bluray is on sale for $10 at target and Amazon right now if anyone is holding out.

Egbert Souse
Nov 6, 2008



Most of Kino's Buster Keaton releases are now OOP*, but they have clearance on the 15-disc set for $100
https://www.kinolorber.com/list/vie...keatonclearance

They are replacing the four public domain features with two double feature releases and already replaced the shorts with an updated edition with the Arbuckle films.

Xenomrph
Dec 9, 2005

AvP Nerd/Fanboy/Shill


Egbert Souse posted:

Most of Kino's Buster Keaton releases are now OOP*, but they have clearance on the 15-disc set for $100
https://www.kinolorber.com/list/vie...keatonclearance

They are replacing the four public domain features with two double feature releases and already replaced the shorts with an updated edition with the Arbuckle films.
Is one of them a found footage movie?

I'm only half joking.

Rubiks Pubes
Dec 5, 2003

I wanted to be a neo deconstructivist, but Mom wouldn't let me.

Finally bothered to watch this last night. I don't get all the hate. I thought it was great and very tense. Agreed that some of the ending could use some further explanation.

Leavemywife
Feb 7, 2012

Taking the term "Koopaling" to a whole new level since 2016.


Grimey Drawer

I think if you watch it without a really good sound system, that will affect your enjoyment of the movie. When my wife and I saw it in theaters, it was super spooky and being able to hear all of the little sounds really helped that along. Renting it a few weeks ago, on just our TVs speakers, it was not as good.

Emissary666
Sep 6, 2010



Rubiks Pubes posted:

Finally bothered to watch this last night. I don't get all the hate. I thought it was great and very tense. Agreed that some of the ending could use some further explanation.

A lot of the hate does not come from the movie itself as it does from its relation with its predecessors. If it were a stand-alone film, it would be received more warmly, but the many stylistic divergences do not seem to be welcomed by those who appreciate the original Blair Witch Project.

K. Waste
Feb 27, 2014

MORAL:
To the vector belong the spoils.


Emissary666 posted:

A lot of the hate does not come from the movie itself as it does from its relation with its predecessors. If it were a stand-alone film, it would be received more warmly, but the many stylistic divergences do not seem to be welcomed by those who appreciate the original Blair Witch Project.

The funny thing is that there are no stylistic divergences from The Blair Witch Project. Blair Witch is just better shot.

The perceived differences all come from superficial narrative gimmickry, which isn't really a matter of 'style' as it is the filmmakers rather cleverly building upon seemingly insignificant events from the original and using it as the basis for making a fusion horror and time travel sci-fi movie.

Xenomrph
Dec 9, 2005

AvP Nerd/Fanboy/Shill


Emissary666 posted:

A lot of the hate does not come from the movie itself as it does from its relation with its predecessors. If it were a stand-alone film, it would be received more warmly, but the many stylistic divergences do not seem to be welcomed by those who appreciate the original Blair Witch Project.

I think it's a bit of a balancing act. Mimic the original film too closely, and audiences will say "why bother? The original did it first and/or better". Stray too far, and you get fans of the original saying "it doesn't feel like a Blair Witch movie, it's just coasting on name recognition". I think some of the new stuff it brought to the table worked pretty well (the earpiece-cams), some of it didn't (the body-horror felt out of place), and some had potential but felt under-utilized (the RC drone was a neat way to modernize things, but it wasn't really used in a way that was scary or had an interesting payoff).

Rubiks Pubes
Dec 5, 2003

I wanted to be a neo deconstructivist, but Mom wouldn't let me.

Does anyone have a screen grab of when James sees Heather in the house at the end and also the hand knocking Ashley out of the tree

MacheteZombie
Feb 4, 2007

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

Xenomrph posted:

some of it didn't (the body-horror felt out of place)

I've heard this several times and I don't agree with it. The 1st one maybe didn't show too much body horror, but Josh (iirc maybe it was Mike) having his tongue sliced off and packaged up as a present for the crew was some gross stuff.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

K. Waste
Feb 27, 2014

MORAL:
To the vector belong the spoils.


Xenomrph posted:

I think it's a bit of a balancing act. Mimic the original film too closely, and audiences will say "why bother? The original did it first and/or better". Stray too far, and you get fans of the original saying "it doesn't feel like a Blair Witch movie, it's just coasting on name recognition". I think some of the new stuff it brought to the table worked pretty well (the earpiece-cams), some of it didn't (the body-horror felt out of place), and some had potential but felt under-utilized (the RC drone was a neat way to modernize things, but it wasn't really used in a way that was scary or had an interesting payoff).

This is what I mean about the difference between superficial narrative gimmickry and style, and the importance of that. The RC drone is not there to modernize things, it's characterization. The characterization is that indie prosumer filmmakers buy a bunch of 'light-weight, easy-travel' crap that doesn't make their "documentary" more visually compelling. The joke is that the drone is used twice, and fails in its utility half the time. It was stupid to bring it out in the first place - with such dense foliage not only its mobility, but its very ability to convey basic visual information is sabotaged. The characters didn't bring it because it was motivated - the characters brought it because they're addicted to the pretense of modern convenience without actually calculating what it's supposed to help them achieve functionally or aesthetically, what they're going to learn and discover through the project of documenting this absurd mission to solve the mundane mystery of how rear end in a top hat's sister got lost in the woods. That the drone is only used twice is proof of its superfluousness, and that the second time it's not even to get a shot, but simply to scout an escape route, does the job of reinforcing the relationship between character and dramatic tension.

In this sense, the use of the RC drone is exactly as well-motivated and sufficiently utilized as the Hi-8 camcorder and 16 mm camera. Just as with the RC drone, the characters are not using this technology because it's 'modern.' They are using it because they have no money for sufficient film stock, or professional/union crew, and are, more generally, part of an aspirational 'creative class' of prosumer, hack filmmakers. The RC drone is an elaboration on a phenomenon which is even more relevant in 2016 than it was in the mid-to-late '90s.

  • Locked thread
«9 »