HorrorMovieFans.com

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:It Follows created such a great platform for modern horror. Other films need to figure out what It Follows did to make it work.

There's gotta be a balance though. It Follows did a great job with a lot of things especially building anticipation without the cheap pay-offs, but there were some moments I can recall not feeling cinematic enough, not appropriately emphatic. You need pay-offs to some degree, they just can't be so damn cheap as they are now.

The lack of cinematics was another positive for me in It Follows. Horror films aren't really supposed to be cinematic, imo. Look at the original TCSM...

I think I'm trying way too hard to want to like IT. lol. There is so much promise, but it's shown that it could easily let us down. I've already conceded that Curry's Pennywise will not even be touched. But that was kind of to be expected, any way. But a lot is riding on this new guy, too. Pennywise's personality is what made IT so great, and it wasn't even moderately gruesome.

You're right that TCM wasn't cinematic, but we really need to give more credit to what a truly incredible film TCM is to understand why it worked so well. It is so damn raw.

I still felt devoid of pay-offs from It Follows in a way I wasn't with TCM, but that's also my favorite horror movie ever so that was always gonna be a tough sell for me.

When horror is cinematic, it's too predictable. You know the jump scares are coming. They literally set up scenes for it. A jump scare is supposed to be just that. A jump scare. Do it once or twice in a movie. So many horror flicks got carried away with trying to reenact Paranormal Activity's jump scares. And even the found footage shit. Those movies work like once every ten years. Stop. :p

It's only the laziness of the horror industry right now that you feel you can't distinguish between a movie being cinematic and just having jump scares though.

Jason wrote:When horror is cinematic, it's too predictable. You know the jump scares are coming. They literally set up scenes for it. A jump scare is supposed to be just that. A jump scare. Do it once or twice in a movie. So many horror flicks got carried away with trying to reenact Paranormal Activity's jump scares. And even the found footage shit. Those movies work like once every ten years. Stop. :p

In today's world, what is the point of releasing a movie to cinemas if it is not cinematic? That is the whole point of the big screen and high end sound.

Otherwise, release it direct to the consumer either via VOD, DVD, or cable. Why pay movie theater prices for something that does not utilize the format?

In the 197Os and 80s, you watched F13, TCM, NOES, Halloween, etc on the big screen because other formats were not viable. They were not going to be played on the networks, and pay channels like HBO were not creating original content. Basic cable was all syndication, reruns, and sports.

It Follows even did the jump scares right. When the rock hit the window toward the beginning of the movie. Nobody expected that.

Foo wrote:

Jason wrote:When horror is cinematic, it's too predictable. You know the jump scares are coming. They literally set up scenes for it. A jump scare is supposed to be just that. A jump scare. Do it once or twice in a movie. So many horror flicks got carried away with trying to reenact Paranormal Activity's jump scares. And even the found footage shit. Those movies work like once every ten years. Stop. :p

In today's world, what is the point of releasing a movie to cinemas if it is not cinematic? That is the whole point of the big screen and high end sound.

Otherwise, release it direct to the consumer either via VOD, DVD, or cable. Why pay movie theater prices for something that does not utilize the format?

In the 197Os and 80s, you watched F13, TCM, NOES, Halloween, etc on the big screen because other formats were not viable. They were not going to be played on the networks, and pay channels like HBO were not creating original content. Basic cable was all syndication, reruns, and sports.

Superhero movies are the main ones to thank for that over the last ten years. And I think the taste of today's basic audience is more to blame for the lack of quality in movies than anything. I'll bet people would sell out theaters for a movie about apes taking over the world if it were cinematic enough...

Or did that already happen? :p

Just consider for a moment the history of cinema.

- they went because it was air conditioned
- they went because it was in color
- they went because it was 3D
- they went because it had sex and violence (porn was once limited to theaters)

So as these things changed and became available at home, movies had to change. Right now, it is all about stars and spectacle. Characters are interchangeable with stars. You can only see Spider-man, Tom Cruise, Iron Man, Will Smith, etc in theaters.

It's not about stars at all today actually. Really it's pretty crazy how little weight actors and actresses carry in film marketing now. In the 90s, a movie headlined by some of the most recognizable actors and actresses was a guaranteed mild box office success. Nobody cares now. Franchises carry weight and so do filmmakers like Tarantino, Nolan, Scorsese. Independent projects with no names are on a level playing field now.

everyone stop trying to equate "cinematic" with tedious lazy spectacle. (like overdone jump scares and such)

Headhunter wrote:It's not about stars at all today actually. Really it's pretty crazy how little weight actors and actresses carry in film marketing now. In the 90s, a movie headlined by some of the most recognizable actors and actresses was a guaranteed mild box office success. Nobody cares now. Franchises carry weight and so do filmmakers like Tarantino, Nolan, Scorsese. Independent projects with no names are on a level playing field now.

Directors can be stars as well.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:It's not about stars at all today actually. Really it's pretty crazy how little weight actors and actresses carry in film marketing now. In the 90s, a movie headlined by some of the most recognizable actors and actresses was a guaranteed mild box office success. Nobody cares now. Franchises carry weight and so do filmmakers like Tarantino, Nolan, Scorsese. Independent projects with no names are on a level playing field now.

Directors can be stars as well.

That's fair. It is big directors' projects and franchises that earn 90% of the buzz in the industry at this point. Are there any actors who can guarantee a hit on their star power alone?

Adam Sandler.

Holy shit. IT creeped up on me. I thought about looking for the book and trying to read it before the movie comes out, then I realized it's only a month away.

Nice little trailer breakdown, too. Dude needs to not yell at us, though.

Jason wrote:Holy shit. IT creeped up on me. I thought about looking for the book and trying to read it before the movie comes out, then I realized it's only a month away.

Still possible if you read it in all your downtime

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Jason wrote:Holy shit. IT creeped up on me. I thought about looking for the book and trying to read it before the movie comes out, then I realized it's only a month away.

Still possible if you read it in all your downtime

Thought that for a split second, then realized I'm going back to work at 12 hour days, 6 days a week on Monday. Not happenin. :p

I am sure it's more so because we've all had Curry's voice ingrained in us for the character, but the voice might take some warming up to. I kinda get what they're going for with the first part, the higher pitched squirrely-ness. But when the iconic line came, was kinda torn in meh-ville. I can dig the laugh, though.

Also, not sure if that has anything to do with this.

http://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/it-experience/

I dug it, but Curry had one of the best voices of all time (I put him up there with James Earl Jones and Morgan Freeman), so it's hard to measure up.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:I dug it, but Curry had one of the best voices of all time (I put him up there with James Earl Jones and Morgan Freeman), so it's hard to measure up.

It's true, it's damn true. Especially for sinister voice stuff. Even his black blob in Fern Gully even when singing was nothing to be fucked with, I'll tell you what.

Curry already won.