PDA

View Full Version : The problem with todays kids



aurora
08-26-2009, 06:58 PM
I was just reminiscing about watching the original Halloween when it was released and how freakin scared we made ourselves. Then remembered seeing Jaws and jumping, scared as hell when the head popped out of the boat. Then we had Friday the 13th, and later Nightmare on Elm street and best of all Alien and the alien popping out of a live mans chest (saw it opening night and did not know it was coming).

Those were the days when fright and blood was fresh, new and young and oh so dang good. Today's youth, even the college kids I sit in classes with just don't get that new kind of stuff enough. We just can't seem to make new original movies and freak the heck out of ourselves. We make remakes, sequels, spin offs. But its all stuff we have seen a million times.

The question is who do I pity more the youth that don't get the treats some of us old guys (hey I still claim I'm 25 so shhhh) did? Or should I pity us since we can't seem to create anything truly new and shocking. Have we really written all the great scripts that can be written?

jameswillmott
08-26-2009, 07:31 PM
It's not a question of writing great scripts, they just have to be mediocre enough to turn a profit at the box office. That's all. Movies for the most part don't exist to entertain us.

Why should the studios risk money on a 'new' script when they can be more sure of turning a profit with something 'safe', be it a remake, spinoff, sequel or whatever.

Sad isn't it... :(

danielkaiser
08-26-2009, 07:40 PM
Some of my neighbors scare me more than any of those movies ever did, and today's crop of horror movies are geared toward the lowest common denominator, who just happen to be my neighbors, an hour of Jerry Springer is enough to keep me awake for weeks.

AdamAvenali
08-26-2009, 07:41 PM
this reminds me of a rant that i had a few days ago. i saw the preview for the 'new' halloween movie by rob zombie. did the series really need remade? or was it just a sure thing profit wise? the same thing makes me cringe when i see shows like 90210 and melrose place being started up again.

Mr Rid
08-26-2009, 07:48 PM
...Or should I pity us since we can't seem to create anything truly new and shocking. Have we really written all the great scripts that can be written?

Times are different than when those 'classics' came out, let alone the Hammer days. Today we are assaulted by an avalanche of entertainment glut and exponential shock value. A really big movie in the late '70s might open on at most 700 screens (Star Wars was only on about 40). Today it would be close to 4000. And its gotta be bigger, faster, more. But what's left to do? Horror movies are about: A-creature, B-ghost, C-psychokiller, D-disease. How many times can these things keep scaring us?

When I was managing video stores in the mid-80s, around Halloween a concerned parent came in asking for horror movies for their kids that did not have lot of gore in them. I pointed the family at Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre which the kids had never seen. Most people do not realize there is almost no blood in these movies, and I figured they would be traumatized by the classics. Her kids brought the movies back disappointed and bored by the films. I guess only extreme splatter porn would have satisfied.

The last time a movie scared me was at about age 14 when I stopped cringing in the middle of Dawn of the Dead and started laughing. I kept renting horror movies for years after but I just couldnt fool myself anymore. After working at video stores where I saw everything, I quickly noticed that 99% of genre movies are all the same plot, scenes and characters over and over.

This was when most people still only had 4 channels of TV, & no video or internet. But now... with 250+ channels slamming your retinas from TV, computer & phone, YouTube, Netflix, on-demand... how can you not be bored? How many new plots can be left untold?

Silkrooster
08-26-2009, 08:29 PM
I honestly think for a movie to be "scary" enough it wouldn't be suitable for minors. The remakes today seam watered down. But then I beleive the budget has been cut way back for not only film studios but for premium channel and cable channel studios. Why else would we pay to see a movie that we can get for free due to the age of the movie.
But my post is running off course so its best I stop there.

Titus
08-26-2009, 09:10 PM
Do you wan't to see something scary? whatch The ring, Saw I-VI, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Hostel. There are plenty of good, scary and gore movies.

Nicolas Jordan
08-26-2009, 09:24 PM
I don't think any horror movie has ever really scared me but some episodes of Unsolved Mysteries really got me spooked when I was younger. I think it was a combination of the hosts voice, the music and some of the really spooky stories, especially some of the ghost and UFO stories.

SplineGod
08-26-2009, 09:26 PM
I really liked Jeepers Creepers...
Not really a horror film per se but a great Monstor movie.
I also grew up watcing the creature from the black lagoon, the blob etc.
Those used to give me a good scare too. :)

Cageman
08-26-2009, 09:27 PM
Yeah... The Ring and The Grudge are the two movies that scares me still. I simply can't watch them. Hostel is somewhat on the gory side, but the story is quite scary. I never saw the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but the remake was quite well done and disturbing as well.

Silkrooster
08-26-2009, 09:44 PM
They just don't really do anything for me. Only once in my life was I scared by a horror movie. I was somewhere around six or eight watching the original Frankenstein movie.
A long time ago I took a mental note that these movies are just that a movie.
I think for me I would have to be convinced mentally that it is more than a movie. To do so I would imagine that the room would have to be black, would have to be sitting in one of those video gaming chairs that vibrate, and would have to have surround sound wrapped around my head.

probiner
08-26-2009, 10:02 PM
... and then after you see the zombie movie, without your previous knowledge, friends with zombie costumes and make up, would enter the room trying to bite you, armed with mayonese and mustard...

toby
08-26-2009, 10:03 PM
I was just reminiscing about watching the original Halloween when it was released and how freakin scared we made ourselves. Then remembered seeing Jaws and jumping, scared as hell when the head popped out of the boat. Then we had Friday the 13th, and later Nightmare on Elm street and best of all Alien and the alien popping out of a live mans chest (saw it opening night and did not know it was coming).

Those were the days when fright and blood was fresh, new and young and oh so dang good. Today's youth, even the college kids I sit in classes with just don't get that new kind of stuff enough. We just can't seem to make new original movies and freak the heck out of ourselves. We make remakes, sequels, spin offs. But its all stuff we have seen a million times.

The question is who do I pity more the youth that don't get the treats some of us old guys (hey I still claim I'm 25 so shhhh) did? Or should I pity us since we can't seem to create anything truly new and shocking. Have we really written all the great scripts that can be written?
People feel this way every decade. Decades ago people were griping about 'cheap' bucket's-o-blood shock-movies like Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street - "they don't compare to the classics like Invasion of the Body Snatchers" etc.
20 years from now someone will be saying "why isn't there anything like the classics, like Cloverfield?"

I think Hollywood has stayed pretty much the same, it's just that perspectives change with experience (the kids haven't seen nearly as much as us farts have), and the crappy movies get forgotten, making the past look rosy.

aurora
08-26-2009, 10:19 PM
For me the only movie that actually scarred me, beyond those quick popout things or post movie stormy night ancient cemetery trampings (which is what we did after seeing Halloween) was the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers which I saw on TV when I was sick to begin with but was also just after having a bit of out patient surgery so was in and out of consciousness just enough to make it one trippy experience oh and I was only 5. It actually freaked me out for years.

But its not so much the scare factor its the originality factor. The Ring, yeah that is one of the few rare exceptions as it was pretty original. But a simple shark attack movie which literally emptied beaches for over a year. Well lets just say "Mega Shark versus Giant Octopus" deff won't have the same effect this Sat night.

Cloverfield, was not bad. The monster movie part, not so much it was just barely better then any good old Godzilla movie, but the 1st person camcorder experience that was cool. Although original? What about Blair Witch Project then? Which BTW did nothing for me except bore me.

My quandary is can we still produce a movie that would have the same effect Jaws, Alien, Halloween, ect did? I think Mr. Rid nailed it with the current saturation not only weekly at the theaters but on DVD and TV and now even the internet it is bording on ---- nope. But as always I remain hopeful.

Silkrooster
08-26-2009, 10:25 PM
You might have a point. Quite a few of the newer movies, you are saying to yourself seen it, yep seen that too. But I also think the older movies had more of story behind them.

crashnburn
08-27-2009, 12:14 AM
The blob scared me when I as about 6, gave me nightmares :D. I find the best way to watch these films is on your own, creepier that way. But the amount of films I've seen that were supposed to be scary and just weren't. Splinegod was right about Jeepers Creepers until the monster appeared, then it lost it's creepy edge and to me became funny.

The problem is, to me, that because of all the special effects in films now they show too much. The scariest scene in Jaws is the opening scene to me.......not a shark in site. I've found as I have got older that I prefer psychological horror more than visual horror, gore etc. Although I did find the flashing torture scenes in Event Horizon made me feel disturbed like the effect of blipverts if anyone has seen the Max Headroom film.

As Cageman said, the Ring and The Grudge are very creepy, they make me feel on edge. But I would consider these more psychological horror than purely about the visual horror aspect.

Matt
08-27-2009, 02:08 AM
Last movie that I remember being scared in was 'Event Horizon'.

DiedonD
08-27-2009, 03:02 AM
The problem is, to me, that because of all the special effects in films now they show too much. The scariest scene in Jaws is the opening scene to me.......not a shark in site.


Yes indeed. They tell way too much. They reach out to you in understanding what its all about. Once you know whats it about, youre not scared.

Which one is scarier.

'A man dies horribly, nobody knows how, and nobody knows why!' I wont even go as far as these latest movies by trying to add a 'You can be next' to it, cause it just suggests that they are trying to scare you in that way.

Just unexplained like that! You make you ties, if youre fast enough!

Compare that to:

'The same man was using a porn site of a special kind, that should you choose to call em over, they will come indeed, but will kill you in the process. So who calls that porn site dies, because the prostitute sold her sould to the devil just to avange men that took advantage of her throughout her life, and payed her half the price instead. And the morale of the story is: Its better not to call prostitutes but find dates. But if you must, dont call that particular one, or dont call that one until theyve sorted it out the ordeal first'

You know! The second one is a bloody documentary! And a horrible one at it! Youve MASTERED the movie long before it can ever excite you, leave alone scare you!

meshpig
08-27-2009, 05:13 AM
They just don't really do anything for me. Only once in my life was I scared by a horror movie. I was somewhere around six or eight watching the original Frankenstein movie.
A long time ago I took a mental note that these movies are just that a movie.
I think for me I would have to be convinced mentally that it is more than a movie. To do so I would imagine that the room would have to be black, would have to be sitting in one of those video gaming chairs that vibrate, and would have to have surround sound wrapped around my head.

I agree, childhood is just some prefabricated BS anyway just like film genres are; if you need a big sign saying "horror film" to be scared/affected by a movie, go directly to the Opera where they have all the words spelled out on huge digital billboards overhead... the f'ing wankers.

On the other hand, I dare you to watch "The Vanishing"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vanishing_(1988_film)

and have the same nonchalance about scary movies:)

jasonwestmas
08-27-2009, 05:59 AM
Times are different than when those 'classics' came out, let alone the Hammer days. Today we are assaulted by an avalanche of entertainment glut and exponential shock value. A really big movie in the late '70s might open on at most 700 screens (Star Wars was only on about 40). Today it would be close to 4000. And its gotta be bigger, faster, more. But what's left to do? Horror movies are about: A-creature, B-ghost, C-psychokiller, D-disease. How many times can these things keep scaring us?

When I was managing video stores in the mid-80s, around Halloween a concerned parent came in asking for horror movies for their kids that did not have lot of gore in them. I pointed the family at Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre which the kids had never seen. Most people do not realize there is almost no blood in these movies, and I figured they would be traumatized by the classics. Her kids brought the movies back disappointed and bored by the films. I guess only extreme splatter porn would have satisfied.

The last time a movie scared me was at about age 14 when I stopped cringing in the middle of Dawn of the Dead and started laughing. I kept renting horror movies for years after but I just couldnt fool myself anymore. After working at video stores where I saw everything, I quickly noticed that 99% of genre movies are all the same plot, scenes and characters over and over.

This was when most people still only had 4 channels of TV, & no video or internet. But now... with 250+ channels slamming your retinas from TV, computer & phone, YouTube, Netflix, on-demand... how can you not be bored? How many new plots can be left untold?

Everyone is horrified by something. The horror genre for the most part has taken the "personally psychological" out of the equation and merely left in the superficial (superficial includes some vague expressions, possibly gore and violence with a few touching moments that we've all seen before so we can at least try, very weakly to identify with the plot and characters) with which is too generic to really accurately describe the need to be hopelessly afraid. I say need because a need is the only reason anyone goes to see a movie in the first place.

COBRASoft
08-27-2009, 06:04 AM
I was told there would be a second movie of Event Horizon about the hell the spaceship has been to all those years. Does somebody know of this? It was by far the most scary movie I saw in my life.
It was around the same time the movie Sphere was at the cinemas. Didn't like Sphere so much though.

meshpig
08-27-2009, 06:44 AM
Everyone is horrified by something. The horror genre for the most part has taken the "personally psychological" out of the equation and merely left in the superficial (superficial includes some vague expressions, possibly gore and violence with a few touching moments that we've all seen before so we can at least try, very weakly to identify with the plot and characters) with which is too generic to really accurately describe the need to be hopelessly afraid. I say need because a need is the only reason anyone goes to see a movie in the first place.

Yes, after WW2 there was a need to categorise "horror", hence how the terms "it's a hit" and "blockbuster" are both still used in the context of movies.

- Where a "hit" was a bomb on target and a "blockbuster" a bombing raid which took out a city block.

DiedonD
08-27-2009, 07:08 AM
It was around the same time the movie Sphere was at the cinemas. Didn't like Sphere so much though.

The Sphere! Thats not Horror, its Science Fiction :hey:

cc3d
08-27-2009, 07:15 AM
wanna scare the hell out of today's kids? Make a movie where the US is hit with a scattering of EMP emitting nukes that knocks out all internet, cell phones and power. Two days w/o twitter and facebook and this country would go to hell! Wouldn't even need zombies (but would want them just the same!)

probiner
08-27-2009, 08:27 AM
cc3d, that sounds like fun horror =)

But thats just the base point, you had to put an entity or life threatning event to spice it up.

Lets see... a internet web site, with similar effects like the ring (This sound like monty python killing joke) that starts to infect all websites, so then the worldwilde autorities have to shut down the internet so nobody dies for that anymore, cause they cant stop the virus or predict wich page will be infected after and kill someone.
After the internet is gone, caos is installed. The world wasnt prepare for that economies go bankrupt, nations live by the force of weapons even more they do now. Boom... Pos-Apocalitic scenario. In the end of the movie a single Alien space ship comes and conquers earth. The attack on the internet was their fault. They are just a simple alien squad, sent to conquer earth, that only need to attack a "simple" thing like the internet to conquer us without resistence. The End

This is so strange and senseless that might even end up in the theaters ;D

Deadlyforce
08-27-2009, 09:37 AM
I remember being scared by those Romero movies, like Day of the Dead and such...Diary of the Dead was a step in the right direction I think, and so different than most of today's movies...
Land of the Dead however was very representative of many of today's "horror" movies: lack of gore effects (which I think are often needed in that kind of franchise) and absolutely no tension...

We are now flooded with bad remakes like Halloween, Friday the 13th etc...

But if one is willing to really look for them, good movies are still there, and I remember being kind of entertained by many of them like Vacancy, Outpost, The Mist to name a few...

aurora
08-27-2009, 09:39 AM
wanna scare the hell out of today's kids? Make a movie where the US is hit with a scattering of EMP emitting nukes that knocks out all internet, cell phones and power. Two days w/o twitter and facebook and this country would go to hell! Wouldn't even need zombies (but would want them just the same!)

Thats no freakin joke. At CU there would be mass murder/suicides if that happened. Heck I don't think it would get that far, I think they would all just simply drop dead within the first 10 minutes. Stimulus underload :lol:

crashnburn
08-27-2009, 10:24 AM
Modern films simply tell you and show you too much. There must have been a huge drop in imagination over the last 10-15 years. I don't need everything about a film shown to me. I want a film to conjure up images in my imagination. That's where for me the fear comes from. I scare myself, convince myself that what I have seen could be true. If a film goes too far, I don't believe it can happen, so I can't be scared of it. So a film has to convince me it's possible and then plant those ideas in my head. It's a skill most new directors don't have.

Films like Saw aren't intended to scare, they seem to me more intent on the shock factor. So either the director doesn't know how to scare people and instead tries to shock and repulse or they are simply very poor at it.

Deadlyforce
08-27-2009, 10:42 AM
Films like Saw aren't intended to scare, they seem to me more intent on the shock factor. So either the director doesn't know how to scare people and instead tries to shock and repulse or they are simply very poor at it.

At first glance yes...But I'm one of the few people (I guess) that really enjoy the Saw series. Not because of the shock factor and gore (though it's fun) but more because I found interesting messages in those movies (especially in Saw III and IV), Saw V being the exception and the weakest link in the franchise (just pure torture porn; be bad and you'll be punished).

There is something to be learned from those movies even if they communicate it in some sick and perverted ways :devil:

New age philosophy for psychos maybe :yingyang: :D

probiner
08-27-2009, 10:43 AM
Yes... repulsive not equal to scary, well said.
A dead corpse is repulsive, but scares you with your fear of injury and death.

I never SAW those movies... but from what i saw passing by sounds more like circus then cinema.

I don't like horror/scary movies, but many times i can't stop watching them... It's that "sublime" thingy: An encounter with a force that would destroy you, but is watched from a safe distance, but still with a powerfull effect on the observer :P

Deadlyforce, you must like V for Vendetta a lot then... =)

Sekhar
08-27-2009, 11:04 AM
It's just much harder to impress these days, what with us having seen everything there's to see. And it's not just with movies, horror or otherwise. Still, Final Destination did manage to disturb me, and I doubt I'll be able to watch the 3D version coming up.

shrox
08-27-2009, 11:48 AM
The movie that scared me as a kid was "The Blob". I was afraid of going to theatres for a long time after that.

I have never seen "Saw" and I don't really care to.

cresshead
08-27-2009, 12:04 PM
wanna scare the hell out of today's kids? Make a movie where the US is hit with a scattering of EMP emitting nukes that knocks out all internet, cell phones and power. Two days w/o twitter and facebook and this country would go to hell! Wouldn't even need zombies (but would want them just the same!)

go watch bbc's survivors tv show..either the 70's origional or the 2008 remake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPKk204nOTk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yicb-J8_NNU

shrox
08-27-2009, 12:18 PM
They don't have Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YunO4Wc8E28

cresshead
08-27-2009, 12:19 PM
survivors on the net....

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/entertainment/watch/v16403689zJZ5edk

adamredwoods
08-27-2009, 12:42 PM
The accessibility of making media is greater these days... hi-def video, computer effects, etc. Just look at YouTube and what it's done to video.

So therefore: cheaper movies= more movies= more crap. We just need to develop better filters to find the good stuff.

cresshead
08-27-2009, 12:50 PM
The accessibility of making media is greater these days... hi-def video, computer effects, etc. Just look at YouTube and what it's done to video.

So therefore: cheaper movies= more movies= more crap. We just need to develop better filters to find the good stuff.

best filter?
new/recent=crap

i'd say that works for 98% of tv programs and 90% of films

geothefaust
08-27-2009, 01:17 PM
Last movie that I remember being scared in was 'Event Horizon'.

Yep same here. I still enjoy getting a creepy feeling when I watch it. It's a good one.


That and Dagon. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264508/

wacom
08-27-2009, 02:00 PM
I think it's just over exposure as some are saying. My wife has NEVER seen a horror or thriller film all the way through.

I'm extremely jealous of her. When we watched the Lord of the Rings she was literally unable to watch the screen and was clutching to and almost breaking my hands! When we watch a detective/crime film on even PBS, if they show "stalker cam" and a shadow of a knife about to come down she's on pins and needles!

We had to turn off the shinning BEFORE anything was shown- 20min into the film! The tension created by the editing made her to nervous.

I stopped having that experience for the most part when I was 14. I think people see too much, and they expect it to be shown graphically in front of them. We look at films/videos as 2D images in almost a conceptual mind set, while people like my wife are transported INTO those places and situations. To her Alien IS real while she's watching it, not just some FX shot to critique the lighting on.

We just have to find a way to get back to saying more with less, and making the film in 80% the person's head again IMHO. How...I have no idea, though some actual pacing wouldn't hurt...

Most of the problems have little to do with budget IMHO, in fact, in some cases more is less...

OK after some thought, the last film to "freak me out" wasn't a horror movie, but was the French film "Cache". There were a couple of scenes, but the one where the guy suddenly slits his own throat was REALLY shocking to me and most of the other people in the audience. The thing was, it was unexpected, and paced into so well that your mind just flipped.

I was also thinking, and maybe it's not true at all, but maybe it's the image overload coupled with how actually protected todays kids are!? If you've never been in real danger, never tasted your own blood, never been in serious trouble then how can you relate? Everything IS just a movie to these kids who are coddled by their folks IMHO. I don't like watching people get hit in movies because...well I've been hit and hit people (when I was a "kid") and it's not fun. Nothing too serious- normal playground and such things, but it's enough.

I don't think a lot of current Vets would like to see more realistic war movies either- no mater how much gore they watched as kids. The difference between it just being a screen and you relating to it really is all in the head.

COBRASoft
08-27-2009, 04:07 PM
I know it's a classic, but Psycho from Hitchcock was very scary in its time. The music played a big part in this. Also Birds comes to my mind.

Mr Rid
08-27-2009, 04:13 PM
The movie that scared the Count Chocula right out of my sphinctor like no other was the cheap, made-for-TV Dont Be Afraid of the Dark... when I was 8. Have heard and read so many comments by others who as kids were similarly traumatized by those creepy little whispering men with veiny, volcano heads. I dont know how many weeks after I was sleeping with the lights on, cowering under my sheets, and swore I kept glimpsing movement in the dark corners, and little glowing eyes peering at me from behind air vents waiting for me to drift off, and drag me under the house to some unimaginable hell.

To an adult, it is a cheezy bore. But in spite of the lackluster execution (have read it was entirely produced in 2 weeks) there is a kernel of something effective, certainly on kids, about things that go bump in the night, being vulnerable in the dark, in the shower, and asleep. I think the grim ending is what stuck in every kid's sugar soaked synapses. Little gnome-men still creep me out, like in The Gate.

And yes, there is a remake in the works, that might actually be good since Guillermo del Toro is producing. I'd rather work on that life-changing movie from my childhood more than a lame Star Wars franchise.

76630 76631

Attack of the Mushroom People is another goofy movie that somehow managed to terrify more kids.
76633 76634

Deadlyforce
08-27-2009, 05:15 PM
Deadlyforce, you must like V for Vendetta a lot then... =)

Didn't see that one! I'll put it on my list of things to watch then :)

As a kid, I remember being more easily frightened...the one that come immediately in mind is Lamberto Bava's "Demons" at the age of thirteen...quite an experience at the time 8~

Shiny_Mike
08-27-2009, 06:33 PM
When I was a kid, nothing scared me more than, "The Exorcist". Lot of intense scenes, good shock value, great make-up and practical effects, and just plain scary. Still one of my favorites..

THREEL
08-27-2009, 08:46 PM
One word: "IT" Another made-for-TV movie. You'll never look at clowns the same way again. In fact a lot of kids are scared of them to begin with.

Silkrooster
08-27-2009, 09:59 PM
I think some of you have hit the point. These newer movies are showing who is doing the killing way too early in the movie. The movie needs to build suspense.

Mr Rid
08-27-2009, 11:41 PM
When I was a kid, nothing scared me more than, "The Exorcist"...

Exorcist was so disturbing because it treated the fantastic subject matter dead realistic, building so slowly, letting the viewer conjure where it was all headed. That and Silence of the Lambs are the only adult horror movies I can even think of offhand. Most genres are just so contrived and aimed at pubescents.

I remember The Changeling (with George C Scott, not the Jolie thing) was barely PG, yet had me backing my chair up against the wall for fear of what might lurk up behind. A lingering shot of a piano key depressing by itself was more unnerving than any goreporn.

Silkrooster
08-28-2009, 12:13 AM
I believe psychological is scarier than gore anyway. Which is why building suspense is so important.

crashnburn
08-28-2009, 12:20 AM
A definate case of less is more.

revengeofmonty
08-28-2009, 12:39 AM
The Thing (Carpenter), Ring (Japan), Blair Witch. Those are the only movies that have truly scared me. I was working in a video store and VHS was still dominant at the time when I saw Ring.

(As an aside, check this out - http://www.mandiapple.com/snowblood/ringdvdcompare.htm. DVD revisionism gone mad? Original Tartan version all the way IMHO).

Cageman
08-28-2009, 02:34 AM
The Others (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0230600/) scared me as well... Very good movie I might add, and no gore as far as I remember. Suited more to adults, for sure.

gatz
08-28-2009, 03:17 AM
A few years ago at the theatrical re-release of the "restored" Exorcist I was paying attention to the audience. What struck me was that the major set pieces (masturbating with the crucifix, peeing at the party and the sublime cursing during the ceremony) received hardy laughter, not "I'm laughing because I'm uncomfortable" but genuine laughter. While the scenes of idol desecration and (new to the release) second hand depictions of Reagan's fowl language inspired gasps. I was shocked because the response to the subtle material and the "broad" material seemed inverted.

DiedonD
08-28-2009, 05:37 AM
A definate case of less is more.

Nobody can stimulate better than oneself! Its a matter that all these CG showoffs need to relearn if they are to make a good movies once more!

The Ring, The Grudge, The Others, The Thing, The Saw - Not scarry for me. Especially not The Others or The Thing. Balkan documentary wars, and movies are way scarier than those.

Excorcist stroke me a bit scarier, but perhaps its because I didnt dared watch it back when I was a teen :D

And IT too got to be a documentary. Once they started explaining the source of power of the clown, which was making people scared to begin with, you immediately went with a 'Aha, so I wont feed the monster and itll starve out!'

The best way is to give no explanations, or explanation that dont have a counter attack that can aid the viewer in keeping oneself calm while watches the horror movie.

aurora
08-28-2009, 07:51 AM
I think after reading thru the thread an trying to figure out what I'm really trying to figure out here is this.

Movies such as Jaws, The Exorcist (good one Rid, forgot about that one), Halloween, Alien, these movies made a huge cultural impact, especially Jaws and Alien. In this group I guess you could add Star Wars as well but at this point I'd like to restrict it to fear events. Can we still create a movie that could literally effect an entire population to the extent that say Jaws did when during a long hot summer the beaches were left basically empty of bathers and swimmers?

Take for instance the coming movie 'The Forth Kind'. While thinking its original it real just steals from several classic stories which have been used ad-nausem in an attempt to be shiny, scary and new. Ten bucks says it bombs fast and hard.

Of course we have the remake/retelling of Halloween(2), yet another sequel to Saw, not sure what its about but I bet theres tools and blood and yep thats about it. Then theres something like Avatar, being transcended from human to an alien creature, alas that was a childhood nightmare of mine that I had several times freakin the heck out of me. But in avatar it will become a heroic thing of beauty and not fear. Should prove to be interesting.

archijam
08-28-2009, 08:05 AM
Halloween.

We studied the structure in final year English Literature :thumbsup:

- Two distant but gradually converging paths, that of Michael and the main character ..

- Each killing taking place in a continually more confined space .. from an open field 'outside town' to the last moments hiding in the cupboard .. WITH the killer ... and then the release of tension literally out the window :). All time classic film.

Mr Rid
08-28-2009, 07:40 PM
I think after reading thru the thread an trying to figure out what I'm really trying to figure out here is this

....Can we still create a movie that could literally effect an entire population to the extent that say Jaws did when during a long hot summer the beaches were left basically empty of bathers and swimmers?...

I dont see how. As I was mentioning, audiences these days are far more exponentially jaded and inundated, as the glut of entertainment saturation just keeps swelling.

Younger people today just can not comprehend the impact Star Wars had like no other movie in history because it was a such a different time when virtually NO ONE knew what a visual effect was, or a blue screen, or a miniature, or merchandising, or anything about how a movie was made. There was no home video, internet, no books, magazines or 'making-of's to spill all the secrets. So it all seemed like wondrous magic that resonated all over the world like you will never see again. Now every 12 year old knows what CG is.

In 77, people ate up every thing with 'Star Wars' stamped on it, unaware of the commercial manipulation. They just LOVED it and wanted to own any piece of it. Now we just roll our eyes at the shameless pandering for our money with Happy Meal tie-ins and Jar-Jar cereal or whatever, over the latest formula, pixel blitzkrieg.

Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders basically turned B movies into A movies by applying giant budgets. Before that, most horror and sci-fi were cheezy low-budget affairs. Lucas and Spielberg were adept at mixing adventure and humour, and using merchandising profits to pay for the next collossal budget. Thus the blockbuster formula took over the studios.

I think when you watch something like Road Warrior, you are engaged by a sense of real danger because you are instinctively aware that the stunts and exlosions all really happened in front of a camera, and that real people were risking life and limb and equipment to capture spontaneous events that actually occured. Nowadays with battling CG creatures, I am totally bored because nothing real is at stake. Its just expensive pixels being pushed around on the screen... when a pixel explodes, who cares?

Matrix fights were exciting (where stuntmen were actually injured), but the sequel with all the digital Smiths was boring to me because again, it is just about post flash and noise where no risk was taken (other than money), and it can be tweaked endlessly, the whirling camera moves are unnatural, and compositions become motivated by FX spectacle rather than characters. In a mostly digital action scene, there is nothing spontaneous or real at stake, nothing actually happened except a lot of mouse pushing. All I am watching is software.

But unlike photorealism, cartoon animation elicits a very different kind of suspension of disbelief in viewers, and invokes more unguarded emotions. It is also how comic book readers thought Wolverine's big-eared, yellow spandex looked cool, but the same outfit in a live action movie would only be laughable. Different rules of suspended disbelief apply.

aurora
08-28-2009, 08:28 PM
Again, you nailed what I think just perfectly. Sadly, but perfectly. I don't think its impossible just extremely rare and now a days dang near improbable. That's why I'm not sure to pity the youth that missed the excitement of those earlier films. Or us because' we screwed ourselves over.

Mr Rid
08-28-2009, 09:03 PM
I've wondered if it would have helped if filmmakers and visual FX artists never revealed how their tricks are done, in the same way magicians do not. Maybe it would preserve the magic for audiences. But FX artists' egos leap at the chance to spill the pixels.

76682

Titus
08-28-2009, 09:17 PM
I've wondered if it would have helped if filmmakers and visual FX artists never revealed how their tricks are done, in the same way magicians do not. Maybe it would preserve the magic for audiences. But FX artists' egos leap at the chance to spill the pixels.

76682

I feel the same.

Mr Rid
08-28-2009, 09:29 PM
Imagine if audiences today had absolutely no idea what CGI was, or how movies like Lord of the Rings or Pirates of the Caribbean were done.

Imagine if you could go back just 40 years with a dvd player and show a filmmaker or producer even the crappiest Star Wars prequel, how it would just blow their minds.

76687

Mr Rid
08-29-2009, 12:28 AM
I don't think it makes one bit of difference. Watching old movies from the 50's and 60's with the low-tech effects doesn't hurt how I view the movie at all.
Watching the ants in the movie THEM I KNEW they were giant puppets, but that didn't take away from it at all. We KNEW the spaceship in Forbidden Planet wasn't real the same as in all of the spaceship movies of that time period. It didn't make a difference. Look at the old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers spaceships from the 30's. I remember watching them in the 60's and thinking they were great. Hell... you could see the wires holding them up - I STILL immersed myself in that world and it was loads of fun.


Well, enjoying 'the wires' in a kitchy way is not the same as being transported in awe in the way I was referring to. I love old sci-fis with their tacky effects, but old Flash Gordon serials were never going to change my life the way Star Wars did, because there was a big difference in how convincing they were. And everyone has a different level of awareness that affects how they perceive... everything. A lot of people believe Chris Angel is for real, or in vampires, or that angels and demons exist. Many obsess over celebrities and confuse the characters they play with being somehow real. Look at Trekkies. Kids of course, are even more confused by what they see in a movie, even after you explain it to them.

There are so many people in the movie biz today who will tell how their inspiration to work in movies began with the first time they stared in wonder at Star Wars and asked, 'How the hell did they do that?!... I know there are no real TIE fighters... so what the hell am I looking at?' The experience changed so many lives, including my own. Seeing the original Star Wars today for the first time, and I mean an original print with all the glaring matte lines and flaws, would not begin to affect me now as it did then. There is a vast difference in my level of awareness.

As an adult, you may be entirely aware of how an illusionist is doing all his tricks yet still enjoy the showmanship and execution, but that is not the same as a naive child or person being mystified into wondering if magic is real.



It doesn't MATTER (IMO) if people know how effects are done. They still know it is an effect.


Yes and no. Most people watching a movie enter into a similar state as when they dream. The unconscious suspension of disbelief is an amazing thing that makes movies and literature work. Being in a lucid dream where you have influence over what is happening is not the same at all as the typical dream state where you are subject to dream events that may trigger overwhelming anxiety. Your level of awareness makes all the difference. Viewers may allow a movie to affect them in a raw visceral way similar to a non-lucid dream.

Why do people cry or scream in fright in a movie if they are perfectly aware it is all fake? Tarantino often comments on the phenomenon of how predominantly black audiences tend to talk and yell at characters on the screen. I experienced this the first time in a screening of Color Purple where I was the only white dude. I had no idea why, but everyone was talking and exclaiming at the screen... and this was just a boring drama! The audience became more entertaining than the movie.

I managed video stores in the mid-80s and sometimes wore a Batman costume for promotion. It was pretty convincing as I had fitted fake foam muscles underneath the spandex, and wore eye makeup like Michael Keaton. As I walked around, you just cant believe that full grown adults would keep a fearful distance, staring at me wide-eyed because they believed they were looking at THE Batman. Teenage girls would gawk and giggle nervously. Kids ran up and hugged my knees, 'I love you Batman!' All different levels of awareness from my own.

One Halloween myself (as Batman) and an employee (in a zombie mask & wielding a machete), staged a little fight on the roof of the videostore where a small crowd in the parking could look on, and another employee was videotaping in the crowd. Grown women began screaming in panic, and one of them even ran in the store to call the police... to report what... 'Batman is in trouble!'... on Halloween?!

76691
I learned that 70mm film projected at 60fps can affect viewers in a profoundly different way than the typical 35mm at 24fps when I experienced the first Showscan (developed by Douglas Trumbull) exhibit in Dallas at one of the two experimental theatres in the country (the ride-theaters today are nowhere near the same). Brainstorm was originally intended for Showscan but was never quite approved.

It began with a cheezy 16mm projection of a roller coster ride POV, then the film appeared to break, and the house lights came up as if there was a tech problem. We could see partially thru the translucent screen as lights came up behind and a technician walked in to fix a piece of equipment and spoke to the audience... I came to realize that I was the only person in that room aware we were looking at a projection the whole time. The image looked perfectly real in a way it is hard to comprehend without seeing it, with an almost unnerving clarity. The unique sound system pinpointed the apparent position of the man as he walked back and forth, and pressed his face against the screen at one point. He throws a switch, the image shifts, and we were suddenly catapulted into a different world.

I suddenly felt quite vulnerable as everything was magnified in its effect. You could make out every single pore on the actors' faces, and traditional makeup would be readily apparent. The most startling event was the sound of an approaching car engine slowy growing in volume as the man looked around a room for the source. We realized it was coming from behind a very large mirror on a wall. Suddenly, a car crashed thru the mirror, toward camera. Except for myself, every person in that theatre jumped out of their chairs to one side or the other, to dodge the car. It was unbelievable. A horror movie in Showscan would literally cause heart attacks.
Another similar account here- http://my.nero.com/index.php?__path=Blog%3A%2F%2FDisplayBlogComposite %2FIanFarquhar%2F7100886&NCSS=a100j0K6xDA2R184QAHPXXen23Whrn1mZ85n#0

76689

"Producer Sherwood Schwartz tells of having received, in 1964, after the first six or seven episodes of "Gilligan`s Island" had been on the air, a visit from Commander Doyle of the United States Coast Guard. Commander Doyle presented Schwartz with a batch of telegrams, some addressed to Hickham Field in Honolulu, some to Vandenberg Air Force Base, some to other military bases. While the wording of the telegrams varied, in substance they all said the same thing: "For several weeks now, we have seen American citizens stranded on some Pacific island. We spend millions in foreign aid. Why not send one U.S. destroyer to rescue those poor people before they starve to death." The telegrams were not jokes. They came from concerned citizens.

Schwartz commented on this "most extreme case of suspension of belief I ever heard of." "Who," he asked, "did these viewers think was filming the Castaways on that island? There was even a laugh track on the show. Who was laughing at the survivors of the wreck of the S.S. Minnow? It boggled my mind."

JCG
08-29-2009, 12:54 AM
So, apparently, it's not really the fact that special effects secrets have been revealed that makes the movies less scary (at least, it's not the most important factor; it must have some effect). The audience in that 60fps theater was probably just as aware of the basic information in the "making of"s as the average audience of any other movie theater.

The fact that they were jumping out of their seats while most movie audiences are incapable of being impacted to that degree by similar images anymore seems to point at exposure to the effects themselves as the main factor, not exposure to information on how the effects are created.

That audience was exposed to a new type of effect that they had never seen before, just like we were when "A New Hope" came out, and our grandparents were when Frankenstein came out. The fact that the effect is visually new causes an impact, even though the technique used to create it is the same used (and exposed) in other movies.

When we were blown away by Star Wars there still weren't any "making of" videos that exposed any of the makeup tricks in Frankenstein. Yet, it was already incapable of scaring us. We had seen too make episodes of the Munsters for that image to be scary anymore.

After 10 years of watching 60fps movies twice a week, I don't think anyone will be jumping out of their chair in one of those movies... then, they will have to make sure to have the the holodeck ready.

Mr Rid
09-01-2009, 05:25 PM
So, apparently, it's not really the fact that special effects secrets have been revealed that makes the movies less scary (at least, it's not the most important factor; it must have some effect). The audience in that 60fps theater was probably just as aware of the basic information in the "making of"s as the average audience of any other movie theater.

Well a general audience was not aware of much about filmmaking/FX in 1983. No dvd 'making ofs' around yet. Keep in mind, it was not just the 60fps, but a 4k image with flawless digital-like clarity, brightness and rock-solid registration. The Showscan theater's were located inside Chucky Cheese's of all places. So I suspect that many of these people just wondered in from the lobby to see something neat, without any idea what it was. A friend and I had read about it ahead of time when we went to see it. We were blown away, BTW, and went to see every new Showscan film presented then.

My point is not just about awareness of how FX are done, but familiarity with cinematic manipulation in general. This can come from merely watching the same type of movie over and over. But my friend and I worked in a video store and we studied and saw a LOT of movies, and shot our own little stupid epics in the backyard on video, and I had practiced sleight of hand for many years as well.

So when the Showscan projection started with scratchy 16mm of a rollercoaster, I immediately recognized the manipulation from being aware of filmmaking technique as well as timing and misdirection in stage magic. I knew it was a setup to surprise the viewer by contrast when the real thing came on. The audience was appropriately duped and mocking the crappy presentation as if that was Showscan, as they were unaware of the manipulation that was obvious to myself. I enjoyed this on a different level, much more so than the audience at that point. When the real thing popped on, it was maybe even more satisfying to me in realizing the audience's surprise.

After the 'film break,' other cues in the staging of segment with the man talking to the audience also told me it was fake, even though the image appeared quite real. When the man first entered the backstage, they even had the forethought to add the ambient sounds of Chucky Cheese coming in thru the door. My friend was rather film savvy but even he fell for it and thought a real person was walking and talking in front of us. When the car crashed thru the mirror, I felt the urge to duck, my friend actually did duck, but then the rest of the audience actually left their seats. Thats how convincing Showscan was then! At that point, everyone in that theatre knew perfectly well what they were seeing was fake and projected... so why did they jump? How can people perceive something as fake and yet dangerously real at the same time?

Watching a movie, TV or even the internet can very quickly induce a state of low frequency alpha wave emissions from the brain. A brain close to REM or dream sleep emits the same alpha waves where the mind is very susceptible to suggestion, and rational, conscious thought takes a side or back seat.



The fact that they were jumping out of their seats while most movie audiences are incapable of being impacted to that degree by similar images anymore seems to point at exposure to the effects themselves as the main factor, not exposure to information on how the effects are created.

Yes. Its' not just knowledge of the technical aspect. Repeated exposure to the same cliche plot devices and forumla contrivances can cause movie manipulation weariness, and suspension of disbelief starts to give. Audiences today are bombarded by the slickest CG in every commercial on TV. Very different from the predominantly drab, low budget commercials from when I was a kid.

I was a total movie junky when I first started working at a video store in '83, and took home several movies each night. At first it was all horror and action. Very soon I noticed the similarity in plots, staging, and character types being used over and over. If a scene was particularly effective, I would analyze how it worked by watching it repeatedly, and in slowmotion, even count the number of frames in a shot to determine timing. Within some weeks I found myself becoming bored with most pop genre movies, because they used the same formula gags. I started seeking out the more original directors, and foreign films I found more engaging due to more innovative technique. My awareness of cinematic manipulation changed the way I perceived movies. A viewer does not have to be aware of specific technique, but may become weary just from overexposure to that technique.

I think Saving Private Ryan first used that high speed shutter look in the action scenes, although there they were just trying to emulate archival footage. I think it was really Gladiator that used that technique to heighten the action moments. Now every action movie emulates that trick, and it becomes standard action movie vocabulary.



When we were blown away by Star Wars there still weren't any "making of" videos that exposed any of the makeup tricks in Frankenstein. Yet, it was already incapable of scaring us. We had seen too make episodes of the Munsters for that image to be scary anymore..

And we were well used to color, over the more abstract black-n-white days. I always read that most people dream in black and white which is unfathomable to me. My dreams have always been in vivid technicolor.



After 10 years of watching 60fps movies twice a week, I don't think anyone will be jumping out of their chair in one of those movies... then, they will have to make sure to have the the holodeck ready.

Exactly. Tech wont stop until we have duplicated reality with smells and touch. Maybe we are already lost in just such a sim. 8~

Mr Rid
09-01-2009, 06:42 PM
Precisely. How many of us HAVE the ability to suspend our disbelief - even knowing how an effect is accomplished? I would assume that most of us HERE can do that. For those who can't, I feel sorry for you.

Megolopolis, you have misperceived an exaggeration of what I was trying to say.

Reading an article about CG is not likely to render a moviegoer suddenly incabable of enjoying all FX movies and forever limit their reaction to pointing and jeering. But rather knowing how all the tricks are done, including any and all aspects of filmmaking, can significantly affect your level of susceptibility. It just isnt the same as before you were naive. As I said, you can be aware of how a magic trick is done and still enjoy the show and the craft. But its hardly the same response as when you have no idea how the trick is done, or perhaps are unaware that there even is a trick occurring at all. Oz meant something quite different before Toto pulled back the curtain. Santa Claus does not mean the same thing to you now is it did when you were 5. A victim of the show Scare Tactics is hardly going to react the same way if they knew the whole time that the situation was a setup. A director does not begin to experience watching their own movie the same way an audience does. A dream that seems scary while you are asleep, may seem pretty silly after you think about awake (being chased by a giant sock monkey). Children are much more impressionable than adults. Violence in movies bothers me more now as a responsible adult than it did when I was younger when I just thought it was cool. Your level of awareness effects your reactions to things. I dont know how that can possibly be denied.

The tornado in Wizard of Oz is still eerie and convincing today because the 'trick' is mostly unknown and undetectable even to a modern eye spoiled by expensive digital slickness- there are no matte lines or wires or any obvious trick. If I didn't know, I might assume they rear projected footage of an actual tornado. But if you dont know what rear projection is or anything else about filmmaking, then you have little choice but to be mystified which only makes the experience more immersive.

In '77, most people did not really notice the matte lines around the spaceships in Star Wars that are GLARING today (matte lines were wiped out of todays dvds), because audiences are accustomed to something different, no matter if they are aware of the actual technique. I have an old laser disc of Star Wars that evokes the original feelings I had as a kid, better than the new dvds do because it has the same drab color temperature, graininess, and rough edges and sound that made up the character of the movie as it appeared in the theater in 1977, and with none of the goofy CG creature bullsheet added (already dated looking for CG).



Not true. You are talking about two different periods of time. People in the 30's and 40's could EASILY suspend their disbelief and be transported to Mongo. Do you think that just because Star Wars changed your life in '77 that many others' lives did not change due to Flash Gordon in the 30's? Different times/different people. They would not change YOUR life today, but they DID change many others in their own time.

How is my statement not true? I said "my life". I was never referring to anyone living in the 30s(?). At age 12, Flash Gordan serials would not impact me the same as Star Wars IV did. And a '77 print of Star Wars would not have the same impact on me today, as it did then. One of the unprocessed '77 prints of Star Wars in mono (how many theaters showed it then) would also not have quite the same affect on a viewer as the heavily restored versions today. Subtle changes in color timing, and editing may drastically change the impact.

Am reminded how the whole 'Greedo shooting first' alteration is the most deplorable thing Lucas has ever done, in a bizarre attempt to alter the character arc of Solo. Absolutely STUPID that he would ruin his own classic with such a mess. It does not make any sense whatsoever in concept or in plot, and it just comes off as confusing and technically awful looking. Unbelievable. The FX artists involved must have been shaking their heads.

Aside from visual FX, common cinematic technique evolves over time as well. Cinematographers, and editors use common visual language that is psychologically familiar to audiences and cues them in attempt to evoke emotions and direct attention in much the same way an illusionist does. Audiences are generally unaware of them. But new techniques work there way into popular film over time, sometimes the technique is not digestible at one point in time, but more so at another. For instance, the way Bladerunner was not widely embraced until 10 years after its release.

Its not just the seamlessness of FX but the whole style of execution that affects believability. It is why some directors tend to produce 'better' received movies than others. Some bags of tricks are more effective than others.

Most early movies (and Flash Gordon serials) used very standard, unimaginative rhythms of 'establishing wide shot...then cut to medium...then to closeups for emotion. Next scene, back to wide...med...closeup.' Most scenes play out in wide profile. This is rather unengaging for audiences today. But then Orson Welles came along and re-invented cinema vocabularly overnight. The TIE Fighter attack in Star Wars is also an underrated landmark in action film editing. All the space battle shots were extraordinarily dynamic for a time when all previous space FX shots before were static. The way Lucas used old WWII dogfight footage for the animatic was truly innovative.


And how many people do you think were affected by King Kong? Different times, same kind of people. There will ALWAYS be those who are deeply affected by what they see - something new and interesting and different. And seeing Star Wars IV today.... would you appreciate it any less? Do you remember how it made you feel? Or have you forgotten the wonder you saw that first time?

People in the 30s were used to a very different cinematic language. Of course Star Wars would not affect me the same now for the first time as it did then. Given all the other FX/fantasy films I've seen since '77, it would appear dated now, in every aspect. I marvel at the time period it was made in and remember how it made me feel back then, but it certainly does not invoke the same wide-eyed wonder at age 12, no.



...A blanket statement saying that everyone who knows how an effect is done ruins it for everyone and they are unable to suspend their disbelief is simply not true..:

It sure is. I never said anything like that.



I have never heard this and I'd like to know where this info comes from. Doesn't sound correct to me anyway.

I would think it would come from your own moviegoing trips into suspended disbelief. The brain slips into a low freqency alpha state when watching movies, TV or internet. Advertisers are well aware of the suggestibility of viewers.



Why? Because they can immerse themselves in the flick - as I'm sure you very well know. They WANT to be entertained. If you walk into a theater with the expectation that you're going to tear it apart or just not like it... it's alot more difficult to suspend you disbelief. And from a different point of view as you watched the audience, someone else would NOT have been entertained more. It is a matter of perspective. Apparently you did not enjoy The Color Purple very much.

Mmm, I honestly dont know what you are saying here. I was making an observation about different levels of awareness of the process of filmmaking, affecting how immersed a viewer may be. I wish I could be as naive as the person yelling at a character on a movie screen, 'Watch out behind you!' I can enjoy the same movie that guy does, but we each definitely have different degrees of disbelief suspension. I dont expect the character on the screen to turn to me and say, 'Oh, hey thanks man. I almost died just then!'



Well, in all honesty that is YOUR interpretation. Anyone who would think that you WERE a real batman would need some serious help. IMO, you are dramatizing the responses to your costume.

Please... how many people do we see and watch on the evening news that have the brain power equivalent to a spoon? But then we're not talking about THOSE people. The point is made... there are MANY gullible people who are just waiting to be fooled. We ALL know this is a fact.:

I worked in retail for 14 years. I am describing a large percentage of people, not a small one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVfdTDfbvMs Most people in this country are amazingly simple minded. I mean, a majority voted Bush into a second term. They believe in vampires, angels, spooks, Batman and sky cake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w

We all want to dream and escape.



Anyway... if you have found that KNOWING how something was done prevents you from suspending your disbelief... :

Never said that.

Mr Rid
09-01-2009, 08:19 PM
S...
After 10 years of watching 60fps movies twice a week, I don't think anyone will be jumping out of their chair in one of those movies... then, they will have to make sure to have the the holodeck ready.

BTW, that push for greater immersion is why Cameron has been pushing the stereoscopic 3D. He also wants 4k, 48fps to become the standard movie format.

Ever since being shocked by Showscan in '83, I have been hoping for that resolution to return to the medium in a cost effective way. I try to go see IMAX, and 70mm theatrical screenings of films like 2001 and Baraka (showing in September, at the Egyptian in Los Angeles for anyone interested) for the greater image clarity. But now digital has made 4k and 60fps within practicality.

Trumbull's experiments in increased frame rates found that the brain does not perceive greater clarity past 60 fps. 120fps looks the same as 60fps.

HD TVs are trying to do this now with the feature that claims to 'remove motion blur.' The TV is actually doubling the amount of frames in a signal, the same way Twixtor does in After Effects/Fusion. Then it outputs the image at 60 fps, coupled with 120 hertz scan. The eye sees more information passing in front of it at a higher rate so the image looks much more vivid. But there is heavy artifacting in fast moving subjects. You can do the same experiment with Twixtor and make a QT that plays at 60fps. Your computer monitor is probably not 120 hz, but you should see a difference in image clarity.

meshpig
09-02-2009, 02:28 AM
... That and Silence of the Lambs...

John Malkovich and his overacting scares me more than anything Anthony Hopkins could come up with:D

DiedonD
09-02-2009, 03:37 AM
John Malkovich and his overacting scares me more than anything Anthony Hopkins could come up with:D

He said that, to be an evil character you either overreact aggressively, or become this silent dark dude!

And so he said, it is the second he prefered!

But that never did scare me! Even when he tried to in Dr. Jackyl stuff.

Cause there was always a sense of that stupid big character that loved the bunnies in him. That and silenced evil werent all THAT much different.

meshpig
09-02-2009, 04:39 AM
He said that, to be an evil character you either overreact aggressively, or become this silent dark dude!

And so he said, it is the second he prefered!

But that never did scare me!

John Malkovich's problem is that he could never be the dark dude like Robert de Niro can be because firstly he doesn't understand that "evil" doesn't exist. In every case he can only overplay the part!

Remember "Heat" where Al Pacino was the LAPD DI and Robert de Niro the super cool bank robber?

Directed by what's his name who did "Starsky and Hutch" years ago... no good and evil there and no overacting either.

DiedonD
09-02-2009, 04:46 AM
Yeah I know that movie. There may have not been good an evil there, but that was just an acition movie!

Come to mention it, Im so fed up with De Niro!

He never did seemed the dark dude, scary to me neither!

He was just always that cold assertive character! Cant he play anything else?

meshpig
09-02-2009, 04:54 AM
That sounds more like Hollywooditis or inflammation of the Hollywood gland?

Just used De Niro as an example though I think he's by far a better actor than that silly JM.

DiedonD
09-02-2009, 04:59 AM
That sounds more like Hollywooditis or inflammation of the Hollywood gland?

Just used De Niro as an example though I think he's by far a better actor than that silly JM.

Hollywooditis! That some sort of new global pandemy or something? ;)

Im just fed up with him. You know. How much more of that 'look' of his can anyone still take seriosly over the decades?

But yeah, he is better than JM.

meshpig
09-02-2009, 05:29 AM
Hollywooditis! That some sort of new global pandemy or something? ;)

Im just fed up with him. You know. How much more of that 'look' of his can anyone still take seriosly over the decades?

But yeah, he is better than JM.

Oh, me too it's long gone but we'll live into our 90's and be able to laugh about it somewhat.

Definitely some global pandemic, hardly new though:)

DiedonD
09-02-2009, 05:33 AM
Speaking of action movies. The ones that dont only pose looks, but the ones that actually have their hands dirty seem to be the latest public interest!

James Bond comes to mind. He is no longer as charming, but fights more real, getting all dirty and wet on the way too.

It seems the present is fed up from the looks aswell, and want characters that arents ashamed of having more real sweat, more dirt and other irregularities on the movies.

tischbein3
09-02-2009, 12:04 PM
The question is who do I pity more the youth that don't get the treats some of us old guys (hey I still claim I'm 25 so shhhh) did? Or should I pity us since we can't seem to create anything truly new and shocking. Have we really written all the great scripts that can be written?

Nope, since fx and camera technology became cheap, people are able to display / explain MORE, than rely on the viewers mind / imagination.
Wich has quite uneffective if you want to focus on the viewers (personal) fears.


- think of the sharks screen presence in the sequels of jaws.
- compare alien / aliens /alien 4
- imagine what kind of movie cloverfield would have been without actually displaying the monsters ;)

etc...

Hard to explain with a long day behind me / in a foreign language, but it comes down to the fact, that it seems some movie makers have been mpre corrupted by the power of abillity to display things, and thereby lost the ability to keep enough void inside the horror to fill it with the viewers own imaginations fear / other feelings.

just some thoughts



Edit:
Now imagine what movie you actually could create by trigering the movie experiences todays kids have...

DiedonD
09-03-2009, 12:21 AM
Nope, since fx and camera technology became cheap, people are able to display / explain MORE, than rely on the viewers mind / imagination.
Wich has quite uneffective if you want to focus on the viewers (personal) fears.


- think of the sharks screen presence in the sequels of jaws.
- compare alien / aliens /alien 4
- imagine what kind of movie cloverfield would have been without actually displaying the monsters ;)

etc...


My point exactly!

Noone can stimulate (fear or joy) better than oneself!

Even the most briliant of artistic horror expression wont fear a person that has fear from heights for example! A phoby of snakes perhaps!

And the bad part of having that technology thus beeing capable to precisely express the ideal fear stimulating object has its disadvantage in exactly that!

Its too precize, thus doesnt effects a broader number of viewers!

'It is approaching!' leaves more room for all people with live object phoby's, victims of assault, traumatized people, and even the 'normal' people to be stimulated in fear. Than if you were to compare to a wonderful show in precision of what exactly is approaching your risking that it may not be the right kind of a fear inducing object, that is so different in all of us! Youre not hiting it! And theres noway you can hit everyone by beeing too precize!

In a rough example, the person with Snake phobia, will calm down if sees something totally unrelated even to lizards! A burning skull, is a relief, when noticing that it wasnt what was implied by the 'It is approaching!' comment!

Unless they are humanity, worldwide concerns, you cant hit em all with one object. But those that do cover up the world arent as horror then! Terminator isnt scary, not to me at least! They tend to be SF more!

meshpig
09-03-2009, 11:25 PM
...

Edit:
Now imagine what movie you actually could create by trigering the movie experiences todays kids have...

Doubtless it's all very well for us old farts (speaking for myself) to sit around prognosticating about the future of kid's movies but the first big screen flick I saw was 2001 ... a space odyssey.

The great thing about it was that it did nothing for me as a cohesive movie experience aged 9, so I kind of hated it too but it made me think.

I don't suppose kid's these days are any less capable of figuring stuff out for themselves but the fact that visual effects generate too much information isn't just their problem.

Personally, I think film has sort of lost the plot generally. Admittedly I don't go to film festivals but then if they're that tucked away...

In the 1970's the working hypothesis was that Digitisation would dramatically alter what it means to be "Modern"... hence "the Post Modern Condition" was a term used to describe the interlude where uncertainty prevailed.

These days I think one can be pretty certain that Celluloid film is on it's last legs and digital "film" isn't the same thing just as Photoshop and mucking about in a darkroom aren't.

- There never was any "post Modernism", only the shift from analog to digital. Makes sense here but not everywhere else.

Vincenzo
09-04-2009, 12:14 AM
When I was six years old I could get a good scare from a horror movie, nothing scares me now. Perhaps its because I am so manly, or perhaps its because the movies are using the same script over and over. Todays horror flicks need to be watched after consuming mass quantities of vodka, then they are pretty funny.

revengeofmonty
09-04-2009, 12:37 AM
@meshpig It's interesting you mention post modernism - would you agree that there isn't a prevailing philosophical movement/school of ideas behind most film production these days?

meshpig
09-04-2009, 02:10 AM
@meshpig It's interesting you mention post modernism - would you agree that there isn't a prevailing philosophical movement/school of ideas behind most film production these days?

I absolutely agree except post modernism isn't a philosophical movement imho. It's more a confusion of cause and effect where in the US they took it up as the encore from the Continent.

Now you can't even decide for yourself;

http://www.iep.utm.edu/deleuze/

who never said a word about it... hence the "post Modern Condition".


m

meshpig
09-05-2009, 07:14 AM
...

Damn, no debate?

DiedonD
09-05-2009, 07:23 AM
Damn, no debate?

Yeah, its so bad that there is none when one is so needed isnt it? :D

Well, change the topic, and loosen up your words while youre at it. They dont have to be THEEE most articulate ones! Go simple, but maintain position and manner. Thus you can invite more into it than that.

Mike_RB
09-05-2009, 08:11 AM
personally LOST has been the most suspenseful thing I've watched in a long time. Particularly the pilot and season 1.

meshpig
09-05-2009, 08:15 AM
Yeah, its so bad that there is none when one is so needed isnt it? :D

Well, change the topic, and loosen up your words while youre at it. They dont have to be THEEE most articulate ones! Go simple, but maintain position and manner. Thus you can invite more into it than that.

Easy for you to say, my second language skills aren't as good as yours though I think "postmodernism" is a well enough documented topic ( at least in the west) where most have an opinion.

I was just waiting for revengeofmonty to clarify whether he meant
"postmodernism" as the icon of there not being any "movement" in film these days or whether he meant "postmodernism" as the Yanks do in some more or less ridiculous reinvention of the old world relations between the French and the Americans.

tischbein3
09-07-2009, 10:53 AM
There never was any "post Modernism", only the shift from analog to digital. Makes sense here but not everywhere else.

Depends on what you are refering to if we take this Quote from wiki / oxfort dictionary *** a basic definition:


The Compact Oxford English Dictionary refers to postmodernism as "a style and concept in the arts characterized by distrust of theories and ideologies and by the drawing of attention to conventions."


I would actually say, this describes 80% of what you can find on youtube pretty well. ;) (and yes, some of the stuff people do to themself there really scares the hell out of me)

bigger movies are quite restricted to go this way, since they are much more bound to monetary investments / interests. Wich will allways pefers "saver"/"proven" concepts/scripts for gaining money.

meshpig
09-08-2009, 03:14 AM
Depends on what you are refering to if we take this Quote from wiki / oxfort dictionary *** a basic definition:


I would actually say, this describes 80% of what you can find on youtube pretty well. ;) (and yes, some of the stuff people do to themself there really scares the hell out of me)

bigger movies are quite restricted to go this way, since they are much more bound to monetary investments / interests. Wich will allways pefers "saver"/"proven" concepts/scripts for gaining money.

... as a brief art fad in the late eighties where there was some confusion about the "avante garde". Hence "transavanrgardism" and "postmodernism".

There is also the attempt by intellectuals and sociologists in the US to say the era we live in is "post modern" because also "post Industrial" characterized by the rise of digital technology.

Confounded also by and confused with the French philosophical movement of the 1950's and 60's known as Structuralism ( the idea of deep structure in language... as opposed to Behaviorism) whose later proponents came to be known as "post-Structuralist" in the early 1970's as “Deconstruction” ( the applied philosophy as it were )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

is a kind of involution of Structuralist concepts.

Ahem!

- "Modern" means today and tomorrow, as in the present over the past. "Just now" or as the yanks like to say, right now.

"Post" or after the Modern is really only a figure of speech since the future is infinite, it doesn't exist yet so there can't be anything after it... as far as I can see the word was first used by a C19 British Parliamentarian to denote the end of modernism, as in derisory.

revengeofmonty
09-08-2009, 04:08 AM
I'm asleep, I'll come back later and try find some coherent thought. :D

meshpig
09-08-2009, 04:42 AM
I'm asleep, I'll come back later and try find some coherent thought. :D

And a good afternoon to you sir...

Mr Rid
09-08-2009, 03:45 PM
Ism's in my opinion are not good.

http://blueprint.freedomblogging.com/files/2007/12/ferris_bueller_shower.jpg

revengeofmonty
09-09-2009, 02:00 AM
Okay I'm back....let's get ready to rambllllllllllle.

My previous comment I guess (as I haven't really analyzed it and am genuinely rambling) is couched in the fact that I don't necessarily believe people are being taught/encouraged to critically analyze what they are shown/fed/read/hear, and consequently don't have a perspective/viewpoint of their own that is based in any particular school of thought or ideology.

(This is particularly the case in the UK/Australia, I can't say for the rest of the world).

revengeofmonty
09-09-2009, 02:30 AM
Further to this...perhaps the dominant ideology/school of thought is consumerism - movies are made with consideration to their marketing potential. Can we make t-shirts, stickers, backpacks, games, toys, tie-ins...how much money can we get from this product outside of the film itself? Then how many sequels can we make to milk this profit?

Films that stimulate, that provoke aren't the ones made for mass appeal.

'The problem with todays kids' is partially, that the poor buggers don't stand much of a chance. They are flooded with so much information and so much useless information, so much stimulation so rapidly that they have less time to critically analyze what is useful and what is not (which they aren't encouraged or nurtured to do in the first place).

Silkrooster
09-09-2009, 10:56 PM
I think the basic message that is being taught is to not trust what you see or hear in video, photo's or other media that is pushed in front of us. One way or another it is manipulated.

meshpig
09-10-2009, 05:23 AM
Okay I'm back....let's get ready to rambllllllllllle.

My previous comment I guess (as I haven't really analyzed it and am genuinely rambling) is couched in the fact that I don't necessarily believe people are being taught/encouraged to critically analyze what they are shown/fed/read/hear, and consequently don't have a perspective/viewpoint of their own that is based in any particular school of thought or ideology.

(This is particularly the case in the UK/Australia, I can't say for the rest of the world).

The irony is it's also endemic in Universities. Every 2 bit Humanities PhD can be turned into academic merchandise, regardless of whether it's of any use or of value to anyone.

wrightyp100
12-09-2011, 09:05 AM
The Dark Crystal freaked me out as a kid. The one scene in particular was the torture scene where a podling (cute innocent creature) has his very soul drained out of him so that the skeksis )evil vulture like creatures) can drink it to stay young. Stays with me to this day.

Chris S. (Fez)
12-09-2011, 09:23 AM
...the torture scene where a podling (cute innocent creature) has his very soul drained out of him so that the skeksis )evil vulture like creatures) can drink it to stay young. Stays with me to this day.

My avatar for years on this forum. Finally caved to the pet trend.

jasonwestmas
12-09-2011, 09:57 AM
My avatar for years on this forum. Finally caved to the pet trend.

Oh I thought you had a Pod-Person as your pet!

jasonwestmas
12-09-2011, 10:31 AM
I was just reminiscing about watching the original Halloween when it was released and how freakin scared we made ourselves. Then remembered seeing Jaws and jumping, scared as hell when the head popped out of the boat. Then we had Friday the 13th, and later Nightmare on Elm street and best of all Alien and the alien popping out of a live mans chest (saw it opening night and did not know it was coming).

Those were the days when fright and blood was fresh, new and young and oh so dang good. Today's youth, even the college kids I sit in classes with just don't get that new kind of stuff enough. We just can't seem to make new original movies and freak the heck out of ourselves. We make remakes, sequels, spin offs. But its all stuff we have seen a million times.

The question is who do I pity more the youth that don't get the treats some of us old guys (hey I still claim I'm 25 so shhhh) did? Or should I pity us since we can't seem to create anything truly new and shocking. Have we really written all the great scripts that can be written?

I think scare factor depends on a more personal reality regarding the superstitious nature of someone's imagination. In other words the likelihood of something bad happening outside typical circumstances. I think today, subliminally many are taught by our parents, friends and media that we are indestructable for the most part and that we have a long time to live. WE may be taught that BECAUSE we want it to be true.

So I think many children today, the ones that are well sheltered and "SAFER" are taught that everything dangerous should be thought of objectively and dangerous things are in fact nothing more than a fantasy 99% of the time. Things that are scary, we are told could never actually happen because it is a freakish rare occurrence if at all possible. Further interpretations of what defines danger usually has to do with the inexplicable. for example Ghosts, Magical Goblins and Demonic Possessions. It's that line between what someone truly believes as fantasy verses possibility that has an impact on the fear center of the imagination.

I just think Children today also grow up faster and reach conclusions of danger factor at a much earlier age and visuals don't necessarily have an impact on that. One can look objectively at a film and just see pretty colors, it is completely possible to block out all subjective content if one does not believe in it. That could be a form of desensitization.

I personally believe in the supernatural, the inexplicable. . . but not in the way Hollywood makes it out to be, it's much more complicated than that, therefore I tend not to get as scared because I already am. I wouldn't have it any other way ;)

jasonwestmas
12-09-2011, 11:15 AM
Times are different than when those 'classics' came out, let alone the Hammer days. Today we are assaulted by an avalanche of entertainment glut and exponential shock value. A really big movie in the late '70s might open on at most 700 screens (Star Wars was only on about 40). Today it would be close to 4000. And its gotta be bigger, faster, more. But what's left to do? Horror movies are about: A-creature, B-ghost, C-psychokiller, D-disease. How many times can these things keep scaring us?



It's not about the ingredients it's how they are mixed together to effect someone's belief system of dangerous things. Things can be as ugly and you want them to be but the presentation has to be able to violate someone's sense of security in a believable manner. Make them "feel" like this could happen to them tomorrow if not 5 years from now.

In order to be truly entertained by fright however there has to be something interesting in the plot that gives the viewer a sense of hope. That hope can be shattered several times during a film. It is then the question of will these characters get what they are seeking and when will that need to be "safe" be met? How likable and classy are they and do they get what they deserve? How do I identify these characters with myself? These kinds questions fly through the viewer's mind from what I can tell and determine viewer interest. It's risky for sure from a financial backing context to make sure these questions appeal to a lot of people.

hazmat777
12-09-2011, 11:44 AM
The problem is STRESS. Here's a helpful solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sk-YHHoB2g

jasonwestmas
12-09-2011, 11:46 AM
hehe, people with too much stress don't have an urge to see horror movies.