|
So the rules are a poster just names a director and picks 6 films and then that director is in and we have to judge based on the random one selected by a random poster with no voting or debate or consensus? That's... weird. This one kind of feels like the World Cup to me over March Madness. I'll pay attention, watch some games, maybe get into it, maybe get some rooting going, but I'll never fully understand the game or get that engrossed beyond just wanting to be part of the bigger group picture. I don't mean to be a spoil sport. My two favorite directors have already been picked with my favorite films not included, so I have nothing really to add at this moment. Vaya con dios. We'll see.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
The Berzerker posted:It says you're in the committee to override stupid decisions so I assume you are able to voice your objections if you think an egregious error has been made on a list Yeah, we'll see. As I said I'll be on board anyway because I love our crew and am happy to be part of it in any way whether its being part of a small council, accidently waging a campaign to make one of my favorite franchises fall to one of my least, or spend a couple of days making a fun video. And I guess even if some of my favorite directors draw some movie that isn't my favorite it will give me an excuse to watch/revisit something less familiar to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
I don't know. I'm trying to wrap my mind around this but if I'm on the committee to stop bad decisions I'd probably most want it to be the idea of deciding Best Director based on single random films. But I'll play along as best as I can. I'll leave obvious ones to people more into it, but this is one I like and think I probably like more than most here. He wouldn't have been on my Top 10 ballot (if we got such things) and I wouldn't want him to win a best director tourney, but I don't know what this is anymore and every tourney needs 12 seeds. Mike Flanagan 1) Absentia (2011) 2) Oculus (2013) 3) Hush (2016) 4) Ouija: Origin of Evil (2016) 5) Gerald's Game (2017) 6) Doctor Sleep (2019) And I guess a couple for the jungle primary? Or they're more than 3 films so I guess more late seeds? I really am not following. But I could see these getting skipped over and I like them, let them have a shot. Or don't? I don't follow. Feel free to skip. I dunno. Ti West 1) The Roost (2005) 2) The House of the Devil (2009) 3) Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever (2009) 4) The Innkeepers (2011) 5) The Sacrament (2013) Lucky McKee 1) May (2002) 2) The Woods (2006) 3) "Sick Girl" from Masters of Horror (2006) 3) The Woman (2011) 4) All Cheerleaders Die (2013) 5) Kindred Spirits (2019) STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Jun 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The big boys will probably still be relatively safe in the early round matchups. Like, there's no draw where Carpenter loses to James Wan or whatever, it's just not gonna happen no matter what the RNG comes up with. Shrecknet posted:Wes Craven Burkion posted:WES CRAVEN BUT DONE CORRECTLY YOU FUCKS Two Wes Craven lists, 9 films named, still no Serpent and the Rainbow or Shocker. Exhibit A in my later "SHAM TOURNEY!" lawsuit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:What is this nonsense, Christine slaps! I only saw it once a very long time ago so it would definitely demand a rewatch to re-evaluate. But god help me if I'm asked to judge Wes Craven, maybe my single favorite director of all time or one who has the most films I love of any director ever, solely by Last House on the Left a movie that actually made me stop watching horror movies for nearly a week during October. My heart will be destroyed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 03:35
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Can't believe I'm the first to do this but here it goes: I'm gonna be completely honest, and maybe this is shameful. But I have no idea who that person is or what any of those movies are. Be kind. I might have heat stroke so I'm not at my senses.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Nice to see Burkion making a list for Tobe Hooper and not including Poltergeist hey-OOO. Exhibit B.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 13:57
|
|
|
I guess we're operating under Kvlt! rules but I think my Flanagan submission is at least as credible as the Paul WS Anderson one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Yeah, I was just making a joke about the late addition. I'm sure Shrek either just missed my post or took my "eh, cut them if you see fit" to heart. Which I meant. I'm not gonna get mad if Ti West or Lucky McKee don't get their chance to lose in the 1st round. Cut them if better options come up. But I do think Flanagan is probably a solid 12 seed at worst.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Ok, if Uwe Boll is making the cut I'm gonna another poser entry I don't think anyone else would put up. This one's actually iffy. Really I think they're more fitting for the jungle primary with 3 legitimate films. But it seems like we're counting anthology segments for other directors and even though Synchronic doesn't appear to have been distributed yet it does exist. So I dunno. I leave it to Shrek and the other small councilors to make the call. As I said Jungle Primary feels more appropriate to me but if you need a spot filler I think they can make the cut. Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead 1) Resolution (2012) 2) Spring (2014) 3) The Endless (2017) *4) V/H/S: Viral (segment "Bonestorm") (2014) – co-director, writer, producer *5) Synchronic (2019)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
I was trying to figure out Adam Wingard's 6 best but whatever. Guess its filled.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:Seeding! Do we want just random seeding, or some sort of ranked list? I can also assign seeds based on where they finished in the Best Franchise bracket (and do randomized for unseeded entries) if that works?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:If one of the council wants to bump a director with only 4 entries from the main bracket, I'll put Park in there. I have it sorted by # of films now, just someone pick a cut As I said earlier, feel free to bump West and McKee if people feel stronger about other entries. I'm not married to them and I doubt anyone else will care. They're safe "bubble" entries. (and Benson/Moorehead I guess). On principle I'd say we should consider bumping 4 movie entries on the grounds that they have a basic advantage if their 4 films are more focused quality than everyone else's 6 and if they're not then it begs the question of if they deserve to be there more. Like I wouldn't say James Whale should be cut from a "Best Director" tournament because he was awesome, but teh fact that his entire catalogue is 3 absolute classics and a 4th great film gives him a huge distorted edge over someone like Carpenter who has like 10 great films but will only get a selection of 6 in this. But again, that's my reservations with this format and we're really not doing "Best Director" anymore so I leave it to the rest of the small council. Just my thoughts. It makes as much if not more sense to bump the "bubble" ones over someone like Whale. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jun 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think you can still say that we're determining Best Director here, just with more than one factor taken into account. So consistency counts, someone like James Whale is going to have that advantage and I think that's perfectly ok, it makes sense that he would. Burkion posted:I don't think you should cherry pick anyone for this kind of thing...but that's literally ALL James Whale has. Yeah, I wasn't saying against Whale. I'm saying we ARE cherry picking in this. And yeah, that might actually benefit a director like Wes Craven with a wider selection of good and bad vs someone like Whale who has a small collection of good. But I also think it makes Whale's "roulette" cycle smaller so its entirely possible we'll vote for Bride of Frankenstein 3 times and never vote for Nightmare or Scream for Wes. We'll see. But again, that's my personal issues with the format and its obvious I'm in the minority so I'll try and shut up more. What's done is done. I have no doubt this will be fun and I don't mean to be a wet blanket just because I didn't get my way. Shrecknet posted:RANKED CHOICE! STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jun 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:Feel like we should maybe allow a little more time and get some extra submissions and then whittle it down by executive committee or through ranked choice cutoff. Like, no offense to some of these submissions, but it would be lame to include some pretty forgettable names only to realize we left off an underrated heavyweight or two. I agree in principle but it feels clear at this stage that collectively patience isn't our strongest virtue or priority.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Fulci? drat.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
Last time I'll suggest this, I promise. What if we just toss out the 16 jungle primary, collect all the names/submissions, and do one big ranked choice jungle primary? Alternative decide who the "automatic bids" are and put the rest in a big ranked choice jungle primary? I think its probably the fairest way to speed this along but also make sure we don't overly snub anyone. And we can keep the movie roulette thing intact even if like Jordan Peele sneaks into a 4 seed or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
Shrecknet, despite my difference of opinion with some of your decisions you have nothing but my respect for your ability to take advice, criticism, and adjust. You are a scholar and a gentleman and are doing a great job, probably much better than I would have done in your place. Of my choices for 1 and 2 I'd say the field is John Carpenter, Wes Craven, James Whale, George Romero, Stuart Gordon, and Dario Argento. Since I think all of them have a chance of being picked and even if they're not they should safely grab a high seed I'm just gonna ditch strategic voting and pick who MY #1 seed is. John Carpenter
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
Its gonna be rough but I have faith that those guys who don't get called will nab themselves a 3 or 4 seed in the vote. We'll see. All the picks so far have been fine selections. Hitchcock and Bava probably would have been the next level of 2/3 seed for me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Asking Kvlt! to pick a director for an automatic bid feels like the definition of fait accompli. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
I hate to point it out but William Friedkin isn't on either the ballot or spreadsheet. Which seems like a big enough oversight that you were the one who called for someone to make a list for him. Besides that that was a surprisingly easy vote for me. I tried to limit myself at first pass to directors whom I loved at least 2 of the films on their list, and that basically filled my list. I ended up throwing in people I thought I'd have to cut and there's no one I have left who I feel bad about as someone who (a) I really feel would have made my own "Best Director" list and (b) won't probably make it anyway from people who are bigger fans of their style. There's a surprising number of films I'm not familiar with though, which speaks really poorly to my own horror fandom still being filled with a ton of holes but also means I'll probably have fun watching new movies during this. But do we still have time as a council to rule on Poltergeist somehow being absent from Tobe Hooper's catalogue? Because what the hell? I've never seen Eaten Alive and I like Salem's Lot a lot, but its definitely not better than Poltergeist. And Invaders from Mars doesn't feel super horror. I mean I'm not saying it shouldn't count, just not over Poltergeist. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
Yeah, I do wonder how many of the films that got drawn I'll actually be able to watch. But for my own personal viewing habits I think that's ok because even if I can't find the movie in question I'll probably be inspired to watch another film from that guy if I can. That won't affect the vote but at least it will expand my scope. Although, you know, that's another reason why I think judging a director by a random single film instead of their full body of work is a not great ideas but grumble grumble grumble wet blanket spoiled child... But in that light we should probably take Synchroic off Benson/Moorhead's list. Since the film has only appeared at festivals as best as I can tell the odds are none of us have actually seen it or could. I know I'm the one who added it so sorry for that, but that was back when we still had the film number qualifications. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
Another Council Challenge/Query. Do we feel that's a representative selection of Wes Craven's work? I'm resigned to the fact that Wes Craven is gonna be knocked out in the second round because of this format but is A Deadly Friend really anywhere near what should represent him? I've never seen it but there's a reason. I've also never seen Red Eye or The Hills Have Eyes but they at least have some positivity behind it. I also loving despise Last House on The Left and would vote against it vs drat near any film. But I recognize some people like something... like that. It would never come near my list of Wes Craven favorites and I hate it possibly being his sole entry in this. But is A Deadly Friend really even there? I don't really want to haggle over it but I still don't really get how this works. Someone named them so that's now Wes' legacy. I don't want to get into a fight over it or make it a thing but I also am preparing to vote out my second favorite horror director in the first round for making maybe my single most hated horror movie of all time. I don't know if that's what we want or not. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 08:04
|
|
|
I can understand the idea of wanting to spread across the catalogue and avoid sequels when we're forced to cut down 4 or 5 decades of films to 6 films. But it seems like you could do that while also representing what people generally love about Wes. I'm not a big Shocker fan but I'd say its a more loved film of his that would deserve a spot and is unique from the others. I do like Serpent & The Rainbow and People Under The Stairs and think they also speak to Wes' diversity and different things in both his work and the genre in general. I think I think New Nightmare is similar to TCM 2 in a change and shift from the original, and in many ways groundbreaking and a predecessor to what Scream did. I don't know. Like I said, I'm not gonna fight. This is what it is and the first come noms was part of that. I guess if I wanted a different selection I should have posted one first. I was just reading over the spreadsheet again and Wes' really struck me as different from the rest. But maybe I'll finally watch Hills Have Eyes and Red Eye. Once again, I apologize for being a wet blanket. I'll reach acceptance by the time this thing starts proper. I'm working on an appropriate penance. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 09:14
|
|
|
Burkion posted:My dude, stop putting yourself down every post. This is not a serious thing, you don't need to keep flogging yourself over and over and over. You have concerns, list 'em. Say 'em. Own 'em. Don't be so timid about it and stepping back from them all the time. So I hope my final word on the subject in the spirit of us all just having some fun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtlaCoiUycU STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 11:15
|
|
|
I started to check out all the films I hadn't seen and where I could find them last night and then realized there's drat near 500 films in this drat thing and what I was doing was insane! So instead I spent an hour or so making a joke video. Because that's sane. Basebf555 posted:Look at it this way(and just like you keep apologizing for being a wet blanket I will apologize for constantly trying to change your mind): I've said it before, this feels less like a sport to me and more like a table top card game minus strategy. Which is still a perfectly cool way to play a silly game and give us all an excuse to watch movies. Just not, in my opinion, any way to judge directors. married but discreet posted:Imagine being hesitant about arguing which obscure movies that 90% of the population does not remember should be on a google sheet on a gay dead internet forum, in a thread that is specifically about arguing which movies should remain on a google sheet. Rock on my man, this is literally the content we're here for. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:Ah, it's all in good fun, and disucssing the rules is part of it. Agreed. Which is why like I don't want to be some petulant rear end whining that we're not crowning the Best Director. I'm sure by the time the first round starts and I have a bunch of movies I want to watch I'll get over it and just make snide "Sham!" jokes at the screwy matchups that present. I should really just start watching some of the movies now and get over it. Netflix pulled the series I was binging anyway. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I have seen 7 of his 10 films. Editing is a pretty gargantuan task and is already well underway while the film is still being shot. There obviously are insane auteurs who do it all or at least have trusted assistants they can delegate duties to, but I don't think its uncommon for someone who steps out of that role to direct to want to hand off the duties to someone who can focus on it so the director can oversee the bigger task and focus. I imagine he still directs the editing. But he probably doesn't handle the bulk of the work or middle way decision making, just points direction and evaluates cuts and makes final decisions. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
I don't think those rules even work anymore. Because like Jordan Peele only has 2 movies. So if he advances to the Sweet 16 he'd be out of films if you eliminated on each round. So at the very least you'd have to reset the pools every 2 rounds, or just not eliminate movies, or apply different rules for 6 movie entries and <6 entries. To me the early rounds are always more interesting in these things than the last since its all more open to interpretation and wide. Yeah, upsets don't happen near as much as you like but they happen in the first 2 rounds more than later where these things tend to eventually come down to 1 and 2 seeds. But I guess that's why some people seem to prefer the idea of a 1 or 2 seed falling because of a randomly chosen bad film. But that feels artificial and dull to me. And while I agree its unlikely Jordan Peele wins this I also just think Peele is a less compelling guy to debate every round since he has a smaller body of work. That would be fine if we were just evaluating the directors in whole because then that would either be a plus or minus for Peele voters could evaluate and they could decide whether Wes Craven is better because he has more good films or worse because he has a bunch of bad films. But we're not doing that. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:What about a rule where if a director with less than 4 qualifying films goes up against a director with the full 6, the more prolific director gets to eliminate x(whatever the difference is) number of their films from the draw, only leaving their strongest in. I think in most cases the decisions on which films to take out would be fairly obvious. My impression is Shreck runs this in a way that they're trying to avoid lots of sub debates and noise that would threaten to make it more of an annoying chore (which I admit, is probably the dangerous way my management could probably take this since I'm a pedantic nerd). So like, having to decide what movies to cut a bunch of times each round seems counter to that and like a lot of work. Even if it was "largely obvious" (and I'd again point out Wes' list to dispute the "fairly obvious" assumption) it would still be a bunch of extra work for Shreck to define and clarify. Debbie Does Dagon posted:https://letterboxd.com/debbiedoesdagon/list/bracketology-director-madness/ 1) Thank you for this. Its awesome and helpful. 2) I think you have the wrong All Cheerleaders Die. McKee did a low budget version of it in 2001 and then a big budget remake in 2013. I don't know if the first is available anywhere but I definitely meant to nominate the latter. 3) I'm surprised the list is ONLY 399 films. I'm even more surprised I've seen nearly half of them at 176. Still a lot of work to do. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Yeah, when I was looking last night I couldn't find that one and a bunch of others, especially the Japanese/Korean films. I think Shreck is right that a number of these votes are gonna end up with a film most people haven't and can't see. another reason to vote for the whole director's field where maybe you did see or can see some of their other films...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I can't lie STAC is starting to win me over. I did another pass over and got up to 45%. Any way this goes there's a TON of films I've wanted to see or meant to see that are available so I'm probably gonna have another big horror month. I'm already changing my October plans. TrixRabbi posted:Eh, I think it should be on the respective quality of the films. If Jordan Peele runs up against Herschell Gordon Lewis, Lewis may have been around long enough to have a full filmography but did he make anything remotely as good as Get Out? That's a debate to be had when we get to the matchups and I think it's fair. The directors with smaller filmographies are in here because they've so far proven themselves exceptional in a way that warrants graduation into the big leagues. By their inclusion at all, we're saying they can hold their own against guys who've specialized in this genre for decades. Can two great horror movies beat out entire filmographies is a worthwhile question we'll put to the test. To be clear, I'm not arguing against directors like Peele. I voted for Peele and in my initial proposal of a "Top 10" ballot and a "wildcard" ballot he absolutely would have been one of my wildcards. And yeah, I think its worth arguing how far the strength of Get Out and the other stuff he's done with Us or his influence on Twilight Zone or Lovecraft Country or whatever can take him. I think that could have sparked a lot of fun debate and not just with Peele. Ari Aster, Jennifer Kent, Benson/Moorhead, Chuck Russell, and Roger Eggers are other directors with 2-3 films I voted for and could easily see arguing for depending on their matchups. But that's not what we're doing. And I think that's more interesting than "Get Out vs Last House On The Left". It might be fun to see Peele knock off a legend because of the roll of dice but like... what's the debate there? Get Out is a better film in like every conceivable way. edit: feedmyleg posted:This is why I was advocating for a small bracket where it's one film against one other film. That way people can actually watch the films week to week, otherwise the first half of the bracket is just going to be a popularity contest. I found myself having to do that in the preliminary round where there were a handful of filmmakers whose entire body of work I'd never seen. I get that. Its definitely much more doable to go through maybe 5-10 films you haven't seen in a week than like 5-10 filmographies you're not familiar with. Putting aside the "movie vs catalogue" debate I just think there's gonna be a problem with availability. I've never heard of Herschell Gordon Lewis before this. I've never seen any of his movies. Exactly 1 of his films on the list is available for me to watch, and that's on Kanopy which I only get 3 rentals a month for. I can watch that and get SOME sense of Lewis but there's a 4 out of 5 chance if he makes the tournament that I'll have no chance to watch his film and I'll never even consider giving him my vote regardless of what he's up against. Similarly I've seen 1 Jean Rollin film and 4 of his other 5 are on Kanopy. I've seen none of Koji Shiraishi Noroi and Norio Tsuruta and couldn't find any of their films online with a quick search last night. So they're all in a tough spot to begin with for my vote and if it comes down to 1 film I can't get then it doesn't matter if I can get ahold of others. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
Kangra posted:Going film by film means at most 126 films to watch for the competition, and the obscure directors likely get knocked out early anyway, so it doesn't seem that bad. And I'm in the camp that there needs to be some reason for the elimination brackets, otherwise you might as well just use the ranked-choice poll as your result and spend a little time discussing the picks. I think we lose that if an "upset" is just happening because the dice drew a good/great film vs a bad/mediocre/ok film.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
I disagree completely. Whale's only got 4 films but its a pretty amazing 4 films. Whale would unquestionable be one of my top seeds and was one of the guys I was considering giving my automatic bid to. I think he'd absolutely put up a fight against anyone, including the big guns. I keep using Wes Craven so I'll keep doing it here. As much as I love him do I think his entire positive collection is as good as Whale's four films? I don't know. Do I think Wes' fairly sizeable bad catalogue counts against him vs Whale even doing well in a situation like Frankenstein where he was clearly not at the top of his skill or knowledge? I think that's a real debate to be had, much more than "movie X vs movie Y". I honestly think that the idea we have to handicap the field to help Whale get his respect is rear end backwards and diminishing to a drat impressive body of work.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
I'm sure that's true but I think practically we probably don't have many people in this field who (a) were poo poo on by the system and (b) were unable to showcase their skill despite that. Sadly those people probably mostly just got lost to history. So I'm not sure what this really accomplishes.* But like, does that mean you agree with me that this format inherently favors directors like Peele and Aster who have smaller catalogues and handicaps directors with large catalogues like Wes and Carpenter? *Its good at the very least that we are talking about more obscure directors and their films and that there's a lot of films and directors that weren't on my radar before that are now. SOME of that might come from these matchups and possible upsets, but I'm not sure its any more that would have come if we had just done this the other way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
I can respect elevating lesser appreciated names especially since this tournament is a sham and not for Best Director but is Joe Dante really one of those? But I'm suddenly irrationally terrified Wes won't make the tournament or will be a 13 seed or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
I've gotten the vibe that we're all content to turn our heads and mutter "gently caress those pricks."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
I imagine if we threw Polanski in there a lot of us would resist voting for him and he'd get a low seed anyway so he'd just fall to a high seed. We probably get the same exposure for a more obscure director just by letting someone else take Polanski's spot in the tournament. If we're agreeing that the point of this is to expose ourselves to stuff rather than venerate the true and deserving king of horror then there's no real point in including Polanski since we've either seen his stuff or we really don't want to expose more people to him and build more respect for his work. He's had more than he deserves. Like I almost feel like we should just pull Nightmare and Scream from Wes' list and replace it with People Under The Stairs and Serpent and the Rainbow in the name of "expose" over "venerate". And then just follow suit with the other big wigs. Also I apologize for besmirching Tobe Hooper's Invaders from Mars because I actually had it confused with Tim Burton's Mars Attacks! That's my bad. I'll be watching Hooper's film tonight in penance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Yeah, I didn't realize until the last couple of years how drat eclectic Hooper is. I always thought of him solely as the TCM guy but Poltergeist, TCM 2, Lifeforce, Salem's Lot... he's all over the place and he makes it all work. I now understand why Burkion included Salem's Lot and Invader from Mars and left out Poltergeist and am more sympathetic to us adopting that approach across the board.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
I've had Amer on my watchlist since you talked it up but like... they seem like another case of not terribly convenient to get hands on directors.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 21:02
|
|