are you even listening to me? THE CABIN IN THE WOODS thread (WARNING: SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILEROS! SPOILIDAD!)

well it's not a direct comparison given how different they are, but by clever meta horror standards i thought cabin in the woods was pretty lacking

Cabin in the Woods seriously has nothing at all to do with reality tv.

I know this kind of horror film in and of itself isn't particularly groundbreaking, and if you went with it or didn't, that's cool, but to say it was lacking in clever meta horror standards feels a bit wtf to me.

There's nothing reality TV at all about this, though I concede it's a bit subtle. The "audience," as such, are The Ancient Ones. All the TV monitors are confusing, because it makes it seem like a broadcast, when in fact the proceedings are being ... monitored.

This movie is meta as fuck. We watch the ritualized actions (cliches) of horror films because they fulfill a primal desire, so here comes a movie that is literally about watching the ritualized actions of horror to appease something ancient. And we watch. Well, some of us do.

so you're saying there were no echoes at all of reality tv in a space where participants are bugged, technicians rig the setting to produce the most entertaining/titillating outcome and everything is captured on camera? riiiiight. it doesn't have to be an actual reality tv show to contain those very obvious overtones.

it's really really not about reality tv. It's about the experience of watching horror movies

to say it was lacking in clever meta horror standards feels a bit wtf to me.

i didn't say it lacked these, i said it wasn't very effective at doing stuff with them.

Yeah. It's not My Little Eye. If anything it's about viewers expectations for fictional Horror, not reality. They have to manipulate and influence the characters so they fit into the boxes the Old Ones expect and act stupid enough to lose.

ah right, well fair enough. would love to see a list of those btw. xpost

even typing out the "old ones" makes me cringe a bit. i mean, it's obviously about watching horror films as well, but the link is that it's about the audience gaze - how we expect to be entertained.

it just didn't do it very well! it makes its point clearly enough but not compellingly. (i mean, i enjoyed the second half but it could've been much better and the first half was just an extended longueur to set up the second half)

There's nothing reality TV at all about this, though I concede it's a bit subtle. The "audience," as such, are The Ancient Ones. All the TV monitors are confusing, because it makes it seem like a broadcast, when in fact the proceedings are being ... monitored.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, April 15, 2012 7:22 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah. and i think how condemnatory you read the movie as being depends on what you think of the ancient ones' need to be fed cliches - i said in post-2005 thread that i saw it as a gentle ribbing of the horror audience, but some see it as more damning

i think lex sort of has a point in that "reality TV" doesn't have to be explicitly invoked in order to justify mentioning the implicit similarities. it's about the idea of sacrifice, youth being destroyed (very literally in this case) in order to satisfy some primal need. this makes it a fine meta commentary on the function of kids in horror movies and the appetites of horror audiences, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to also draw connections between this and the function of shows like big brother and jersey shore.

though that's more an associative tangent than anything the film is apparently trying to address

yeah, but it seems unfair to compare to Hunger Games, which is (in a pretty cackhanded way) explicitly about reality TV.

well yes there are parallels but it's not "doing" reality tv which is what he said. There wasn't anything particularly creative about The Hunger Games either (especially considering it's premise was a total rip-off) but that's a whole other can of worms

Reality TV is specifically mentioned in the movie, but mostly as a punchline.

xpost I think it's less that the Ancient Ones like cliches, it's that they're cliches because they're sort of primal vestigial desires left over from the days of the ancient ones. Ergo, the ancient ones prefer virgins, but it's not important. They want the virgin to die last, but she doesn't have to. They want the whore to show her boobs, but it's more a preference. It's definitely a bit damning of horror viewers, that "we" crave the same cliches, again and again, only to be rewarded with sadism - what does that say about our needs? The movie couches it as the needs of the ancients, but, well..

I know Whedon has said it was conceived specifically as a response to torture porn stuff. It just got delayed and has appeared around that genre's ebb.

It's definitely a bit damning of horror viewers, that "we" crave the same cliches, again and again, only to be rewarded with sadism - what does that say about our needs? The movie couches it as the needs of the ancients, but, well..

yeah thats what i mean

i saw it as a gentle ribbing of the horror audience, but some see it as more damning

Yeah - the Ancient Ones strike me more and more as a good metaphor because they're absolute, they need to be appeased. The genre serves a purpose - the movie isn't condemning it from a high art perch ala Funny Games (a good point of ref. considering it was the very first homage in the movie; you made the Haneke ref., right Hungry?), it's very pop and proudly so, albeit detached pop. It just really wants to clear out the stagnant old tropes, squish 'em flat, let something new come along, which I think was alluded to in those final bits of dialogue.

I think by choosing a fantasy setting (vs. the reality setting of "Funny Games") the filmmakers let themselves and us off the hook a little. But then, I didn't leave wanting to punch them in the face, either. So it's a trade off.

I should also note, great use of Nine Inch Nails in the ending credits. They use NIN in the "Avengers" trailer, too. Guess Whedon is on a kick.

Heh: http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/10/11/nine-inch-nails-in-trailers/

(Sorry, back to Cabin in the Woods)

I think by choosing a fantasy setting (vs. the reality setting of "Funny Games") the filmmakers let themselves and us off the hook a little.

If it were a "realistic" context, you'd be positing an alternative, ala Haneke, and implicitly stating the genre as unnecessary. I think Whedon and Goddard love the genre, but just tired of overused tropes.

OTM. this wasn't a critique it was a love letter

or if u prefer an intervention

(but i don't prefer so: love letter imo)

As long as it knows we care.

xpost Huh? Do you mean "you'd" as me" Because I definitely prefer this to Haneke!

This is more critique than love letter, I thought, but it's having too much fun to come off harsh.

SORRY!

More the general abstract "you" i.e. not you, but hypothetical scenario-makers - no offense intended.

I know Whedon has said it was conceived specifically as a response to torture porn stuff. It just got delayed and has appeared around that genre's ebb.

yeah, this movie responds to the genre in much the same way that martyrs does, even using the same basic idea. i'd fault it for that, except that i hated martyrs and loved cabin, so...

It just really wants to clear out the stagnant old tropes, squish 'em flat, let something new come along, which I think was alluded to in those final bits of dialogue.

― "Fourvel - it's like Fievel, but one less." (R Baez), Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:08 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

OTM. this wasn't a critique it was a love letter

...or if u prefer an intervention

― all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:25 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i didn't see it as an attempt to scold or correct the genre and its fans, but rather as an affectionate metafictional game. to deconstruct isn't necessarily to attack.

did anybody else wish the end credits had rolled over a montage of the only ones completely annihilating the world. like with "holiday road" or something instead of nine inch nails? cuz i sure did.

― BEMORE SUPER FABBY (contenderizer), Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:08 AM (19 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^^^ otm!

I sure had a good time watching this movie.

Lots of fun, but *MILD SPOILER I GUESS* the bird hitting the force field in plain sight early on really spoiled the Evel Knievel attempt later as it totally telegraphed the outcome, whereas if that had just been allowed to happen then I'd have been much more WAU *END SPOILER*.

nah, I really liked the bird thing - it seemed like at least half the audience (incl. me) had forgotten about that, and the memory jolt kinda doubled the brainrush I got from the WHAM

this was so awesome, the ultimate by-fans-for-fans horror movie, but unfortunately the whole hilarious Whitford/Jenkins/title card thing is gonna turn off a mainstream audience i think. but fuck it! i loved the shit out of this. i loved that it got a lot of the great bits from both Buffy and Lost as well (so 2007, dudes)

re: the basement, don't forget the wedding dress -> undead ballerina with alien mouth and no face. next time i see this i'll be scanning the hell out of that scene

count me on the side that, yes, while this is a loving tribute to horror films, i interpreted the heroes of the movie basically sitting down and allowing the human race to be killed off horribly is a pretty harsh condemning of the contemporary horror movie audience. but yeah, it's not heneke-level

and bird thing was great! the whole screenplay was pretty damn great tbh

oh and another thing, i liked how the puppeteers' bullshit moralizing about how they "chose" to die at the beginning really doesn't make any sense at all, between the so-called warning from the gas station dude (oh, Mordecai and the speaker-phone) and how they "choose" their form of death in the cellar

what audience would say no to that awesome title card???

lol. best title card use since Drag Me to Hell, imo!

this was so awesome, the ultimate by-fans-for-fans horror movie, but unfortunately the whole hilarious Whitford/Jenkins/title card thing is gonna turn off a mainstream audience i think.

what audience would say no to that awesome title card???

― Hoo Nu Cookies (crüt), Sunday, April 15, 2012 11:19 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark

literally 5 people walked out of the movie at that point. it was only like 3 minutes into the film! i didnt get it at all, who the hell sits through 40 minutes of trailers just to go 'nah, i'm good' at the title card? maybe they were waiting for another movie to start or something....

they probably snuck in, lol

oh yeah, and my guess is "Killing Machine" was that giant mechanical scorpion thing

oh yeah, and my guess is "Killing Machine" was that giant mechanical scorpion thing

yeah, i just didn't see that on the betting borad

i liked how the puppeteers' bullshit moralizing about how they "chose" to die at the beginning really doesn't make any sense at all, between the so-called warning from the gas station dude (oh, Mordecai and the speaker-phone) and how they "choose" their form of death in the cellar

yeah, we were told the kids had to transgress in order to earn their punishment, but their transgression consisted of what, toying with some abandoned trinkets in a basement?

yeah...

they also had to be manipulated into the trangressions because the Old Ones expected a certain type of behaviour but in reality those people aren't so easily scaled down into obvious types. except maybe the stoner guy.

apparently they're marketing this as a wacky comedy now? just saw a version of the TV spot w some turd doing lame "comedy" reactions over top. on adult swim, so maybe special for that, i dunno. was horrible.

i think this para from the slate review is otm:

Perhaps because it cultivates this audience disengagement from the main characters’ fate—we’re rooting for our own entertainment, not their survival—Cabin in the Woods rarely comes across as more than a cleverly constructed meta-cinematic puzzle. It’s often funny and smart, but seldom deeply involving, and practically never scary. The last 10 minutes or so suffer from that problem not uncommon in high-concept movies, whereby the story paints itself into a conceptual corner and the forward motion flags.

(which is to say, i'm finding it more fun to think about this film and its various rabbitholes afterwards than i did to actually watch it.)

Sure, I'll concede that. The film chose the meta route above all else, and what it gained from that it lost on other fronts. Though ironically the only solution may have been another huge cliche - these beat up kids triumph over ultimate ancient evil, say, or that we're in some stupid dystopian world that can be changed. It's telegraphed early on that society deserves to crumble, so I credit the film for fulfilling the prophecy, as such.

Inconsistency unrelated to enjoyment: how can such a regular huge-scale save the world ritual that takes place across the globe and regularly puts dozens of young people in danger at the hands of supernatural creatures, a game of sorts run by several hundred staffers and scientists and soldiers, possibly remain a secret?

The most subtle joke of the film, possibly: that in the first few minutes it's revealed that the closest it has ever come to failure was chem department's fault, and that it turns out the turn of events in this scenario was largely chem's fault again.

Other subtle joke: when the "virgin" is making out with dude on the couch, pushes him away gently and says "I've never done this before." Then she gives this split second what the fuck am I talking about look when she realizes she's spouting nonsense.

her very first scene is about sleeping with her teacher!

(actually is that another subtle joke - the "athlete" is introduced by talking about textbooks, the "scholar" by catching the ball)

the whole hilarious Whitford/Jenkins/title card thing

The title card thing is a total lift from Eastbound & Down, in execution, soundtracking, and even aesthetic (filling the whole frozen frame)!