|
I wish I'd have seen the Ring in theaters. The crowd can lend so much to a movie. I saw Mama in a theater with a ton of girls in it and they were losing their poo poo at every reveal and really connected with the mushy scenes. It definitely lends something to movies if the crowd is good and reactive. I'm convinced this is the only reason people have a positive opinion of Paranormal Activity movies. The crowd jumping makes them interesting because they sure as poo poo aren't on their own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
hypersleep posted:I watched The Ring again a week ago...Lots of teenagers and early 20s people, all getting increasingly freaked out as the movie progressed, until we got to the iconic scene where Samara comes out of the guy's TV screen, and people in the audience just loving flipped out. I really wished he hadn't shot the scene where Samara comes out of the TV in a well-lit loft in the middle of the day with a bunch of video-themed effects on the ghost, because it's too artificial for me, it takes me right out of the movie. The rest of it, though, is top-shelf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Craig Spradlin posted:I really wished he hadn't shot the scene where Samara comes out of the TV in a well-lit loft in the middle of the day with a bunch of video-themed effects on the ghost, because it's too artificial for me, it takes me right out of the movie. The rest of it, though, is top-shelf. That part scared the poo poo out of me. I think my heart literally stopped. I can't think of a scene that made me poo poo my pants quite like that since a specific scene in 3 Extremes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
xzoto1 posted:That part scared the poo poo out of me. I think my heart literally stopped. I can't think of a scene that made me poo poo my pants quite like that since a specific scene in 3 Extremes. That's pretty much the effect that part had for me in the original, mostly because it was so fast and claustrophobic compared to the remake. If they'd handled it that way, the remake would have been drat near flawless in my book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I barely even remember this but it sounds so familiar. Also, I used to get the Samhain stuff confused with 2 and 3, was Kneale brought on to massage the franchise or something? What's with all the druids? There's Samhain stuff in part II as well. And Donald Pleasance mispronounces "Samhain." My extreme distaste for the "Michael is Laurie's brother and also a druidic priest or some poo poo" plotline is a matter of public record.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
For all the poo poo Rob Zombie's remake gets, at least it provided a coherent, believable background for Michael. Tons of people bitched about how that "ruined" the mystique of the character, but Michael never had any mystique past the first film anyway! Let Zombie indulge in his redneck white trash obsession for Michael's background. At least he didn't go with loving Druids.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The spiderwalk scene is one of the very few cut scenes I feel is actually pretty good and doesn't throw the movie off. I disagree, it cements what's wrong with her daughter far too early in the film. It's hard not to view it now with the knowledge of what'll happen later on but with the spiderwalk in place Chris would realistically lose all doubt that Regan is possessed and that she killed Burke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
SubG posted:I agree but I don't see an argument here. As I said, some times (I daresay most of the time) the differences are minimal. Sometimes they are not. In either case they're different texts. I don't see the problem. quote:Well, I'm really not particularly interested in arguing for a particular reading (I'm just not that invested in it), but I think I already explained why I think he wouldn't---it would `legitimise' the exercise, which would undo the `argument' for doing it shot-for-shot the same in the first place. But like I said, I'm not really that concerned with any particular reading so much as making the point that we have to read it in some way.  And when I refer to Haneke engaging the audience, it's by enunciating our expectations first in a more general sense like trying to suss out who will live or die (a game I remember playing while watching The Blob remake the first time as a kid). Or by taking back a victory the audience has been wanting by rewinding things. There's nothing general or symbolic in all of that, it's a direct conversation between the film and the audience about what they want and what the film will give them. There are also subtle things going on, like toying with nudity and then removing it or leaving weapons around and then not using them. That gets to some basic expectations where if you see a hook on a chain someone is for drat sure going to be impaled on it. Sulu's Phaser I think they call it. But I think the film is pretty unique in terms of engaging people directly, even more pointedly than Ferris correctly telling the audience that he's not going to be busted by a douchebag in a snooty restaurant. That's what I'm getting at when I say it's quite separate from other things because it isn't even just using the audience to reinforce the plot or characters but that the audience's expectations becomes part of the proceedings in the film. It's also why, early on, I suggested Funny Games shouldn't be seen early on in someone's horror viewing career. You need to have a set of expectations for any of that to work or else it's just a set of occurrences. Now if there are other films like that, I'd love to give them a viewing. But this goes way beyond stuff like letting the black character live to the end of the film. quote:It's not the willingness to kill, it's the willingness to victimise. This is actually highlighted by the fact that Paxton, the survivor from the first film, shows up at the beginning of the sequel just to get decapitated. He killed, but only for survival. So he's not a victimiser, and therefore is a victim, and so is killed. Todd wants to be a victimiser, but in the event is unable to commit the act, and so is not a victimiser, and therefore is a victim, and so is killed. Stuart does not want to participate at first (Todd is dragging him along for the ride), but when Todd dies he is willing to kill for revenge. He kills, but only for revenge. He is not a victimiser, and therefore is a victim, and so is killed. Beth starts out as a victim, but is willing to become a victimiser. She does not kill to survive or in a fit of emotional revenge, and she doesn't kill cleanly (using the gun she literally has in her hand), she kills using sexual violence. She's a victimiser, and therefore she is no longer a victim, and lives. I had to look it up, but the survivor from the first Hostel goes out of his way to kill someone at the train station. And not just efficiently kill him, he cuts off his fingers first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFjcphOcc50 I wouldn't mind your reading of the film but I can't get past the numerous people killed by the main characters in both Hostel movies as well as the necessity that the survivor in Hostel 2 be rich in order to survive. If victimization was so crucial, I'd just assume they would Thunderdome it. Elite Hunting Club is a rich person's enterprise. If a survivor who cuts off fingers before killing someone doesn't deserve entry, was he just not being violent enough?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
I think I told this story here once but when I went to see The Ring in theaters the place was packed and right at a very quite point of high tension my then-girlfriend's cell went off (keep in mind at a time when cells were not ubiquitous) and 5 rows of people leapt out of their seats. It was wondrous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
My parents went to go see The Ring in theaters on Halloween night, and they ended up sitting behind a group of high school kids. About midway through the movie, one of the girls got up to go to the bathroom or something. A few minutes later, when the movie was building towards one of the big scares (can't remember which one), the girl came back, in a dirty white dress with her long, black hair pulled down over her face. My parents noticed her, but all her friends were fixated on the movie. She crept up on her friends, and at the moment of the reveal, she pounced on them. Half the theater freaked right the gently caress out. They said it was one of the best movie experiences they've ever had, and I've always been jealous as hell of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
My drycleaning bill would be astronomical if I got jumped that way. (I am a super fraidy cat and imagine obvious jump scares every night while I'm wandering through my darkened house  )
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Soylent Green posted:I disagree, it cements what's wrong with her daughter far too early in the film. It's hard not to view it now with the knowledge of what'll happen later on but with the spiderwalk in place Chris would realistically lose all doubt that Regan is possessed and that she killed Burke. I think its a little redundant and on the nose, yeah, but I really like that it happens so fast and clearly from Chris' perspective that you can almost not be sure it happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
hypersleep posted:For all the poo poo Rob Zombie's remake gets, at least it provided a coherent, believable background for Michael. Tons of people bitched about how that "ruined" the mystique of the character, but Michael never had any mystique past the first film anyway! He didn't need any "believable background" though. The mystique is the most important part of the character; the whole point behind Michael Myers is that he's an average boy from the suburbs who becomes "The Shape" - a nonhuman personification of evil. I agree the sequels ruined that, but I think there's a still a lot of potential in the concept. I would love, for example, a Halloween film where the protagonists speculate on Myer's motivations but, in the end, have to confront the fact that pure evil can exist. I think providing your antagonist with a motivation can work, but sometimes monsters need to stay monsters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
JP Money posted:The crowd can lend so much to a movie. I agree, but I hate it for horror movies. I like to get immersed in the movie and all the people talking, screaming, yelling at the screen for the dumb poo poo the characters do ruins it for me. Comedy movies, action movies? Hell yeah! Put me in opening night with a packed theater full of people laughing and fist pumping through the explosions. Love every minute of it. Just not for horror movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
This may be a silly request but does anyone have any good recommendations for lighthearted and even humorous horror ish flicks? The main example would be "The Frighteners", a movie I really enjoy. Something along those lines, with a few scares but a lighter tone than most horror.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
priznat posted:This may be a silly request but does anyone have any good recommendations for lighthearted and even humorous horror ish flicks? The main example would be "The Frighteners", a movie I really enjoy. Something along those lines, with a few scares but a lighter tone than most horror. Severance is a good horror comedy though I don't know if I'd but it as having a "lighter" tone. It gets a little grim near the end but there's a great little scene of a dude trying to fit a severed foot into a mini fridge. The ever classic House.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
priznat posted:This may be a silly request but does anyone have any good recommendations for lighthearted and even humorous horror ish flicks? The main example would be "The Frighteners", a movie I really enjoy. Something along those lines, with a few scares but a lighter tone than most horror. Evil Dead 2 Dead Snow Tucker & Dale vs. Evil Re-animator The Cabin In the Woods Shaun of the Dead Drag Me to Hell Dead Alive/Braindead.(Especially this one!-same director.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Watching Severance now, and I have been meaning to watch Cabin in the Woods for some time, forgot about that one! Great list and a few are on Netflix even.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
priznat posted:This may be a silly request but does anyone have any good recommendations for lighthearted and even humorous horror ish flicks? The main example would be "The Frighteners", a movie I really enjoy. Something along those lines, with a few scares but a lighter tone than most horror. Along with everything already recommended (especially Dead Alive), Slither and Night of the Creeps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
priznat posted:This may be a silly request but does anyone have any good recommendations for lighthearted and even humorous horror ish flicks? The main example would be "The Frighteners", a movie I really enjoy. Something along those lines, with a few scares but a lighter tone than most horror. It was mentioned in the last couple of pages, but Arachnophobia fits this bill perfectly. Also Bats, with Lou Diamond Phillips. And Ghostbusters (kinda). Plus Sleepy Hollow, if you don't mind a film that wallows in superfluous elements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
So completely seconding House, Dead Alive, Night of the Creeps but I'd also add Tremors, Dead Alive precursor Bad Taste, and Killer Klowns from Outer Space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Because if the differences are minor I think it's possible to argue that they're not essential elements which is the genesis of this whole discussion. Your stance seems so binary which really defeats any discussion about what is an essential element of a film. This is a situation that, for example, those interested in biblical scholarship find themselves in. In any (serious) scholarship, reference will be made to a particular text, edition, translation, codex, or whatever as a matter of course when discussing the text. This in no way precludes talking about commonalities between different versions, developing a (literally) canonical version from multiple texts, and so forth. But one can't just pretend that the differences aren't there, or hand-wave any difference away as being `not significant'. Why? Because what counts as `significant' is entirely dependent on how you're approaching the text. If you're looking at, for example, a book from the Torah entirely as a story, then differences between two ancient sources may not be significant. But the same differences might be of paramount importance if you're interested in source criticism (e.g., tracing how the material was changed over time) or if you're approaching it as a subject of theological importance. Similarly, if you look at, say, Blade Runner you can't say whether any given difference is `significant' without first enunciating what `significant' means, and this in turn depends on whether you're asking something like, `Is Deckard a replicant?' versus `How has Blade Runner influenced later films that reference it' versus `What does the film say about what it means to be human?' Ape Agitator posted:And when I refer to Haneke engaging the audience, it's by enunciating our expectations first in a more general sense like trying to suss out who will live or die (a game I remember playing while watching The Blob remake the first time as a kid). Or by taking back a victory the audience has been wanting by rewinding things. There's nothing general or symbolic in all of that, it's a direct conversation between the film and the audience about what they want and what the film will give them. I'm also completely befuddled by your claim that `there's nothing general or symbolic in all of that'. What do you actually mean here? The way I parse, for example, the `rewinding' bit is this: Haneke observes that audiences like the catharsis of revenge violence, and disapproves of this. We can tweak the exact wording around this if you'd like, but I think that's the central thesis. Therefore, when one of the erstwhile victims gets one over on the bad guys, the audience feels good. So Haneke steps in to overtly remove this. To make the audience stop to think, hey, I was just feeling good because someone just got killed. As I said, we can futz around with the verbiage, but that's the way the scene `works'---those are its moving parts. I object to this on several counts. First, and I think this is a little beyond the scope of what we're talking about right now, I'm not convinced that we need to turn our noses up at catharsis. Catharsis violence isn't `ice cream'. There are legitimate questions to be raised about it, but I think blanket condemnation is reductive and silly. But that's Haneke's thesis, so let's just roll with it. The large problem, I think, is that by negating (that is, not just not depicting but in fact depicting and then undoing) the cathartic violence to deny the catharsis, Haneke ends up having to spin out the rest of the film (until, as his characters tell us, there's enough for a feature film). At the end of which the audience certainly has been exposed to violence---they just haven't gotten catharsis from it. This necessarily implies that Haneke's argument (whatever exactly we think it is) justifies the use of violence in some way that, by Haneke's argument, catharsis does not justify it. We can twiddle around with the word `justify' here if you'd like, but if we don't take the film as being facially hypocritical (and I don't think we should), then we have to live with the fact that the film is explicitly removing the `traditional' catharsis in order to substitute some other inflection, interpretation, whatever you want to call it for all the murder and sadism. Right? With me? The problem I see with this as a general matter is twofold: first, it argues, in essence, that depiction of violence is something that is more or less acceptable entirely on the basis of the ideological justification offered for its inclusion, which strikes me as problematic for reasons I can get into if you'd like (but somehow or other I'm guessing we're going to have to spend some time wrangling over the minutiae of my characterisation of Haneke's argument first); and second, it incorrectly ascribes to these unspecified `other films' (which nobody, Haneke or anyone arguing for him in this thread, has offered an enunciation of) a vacuity of the sort of analysis that Haneke is offering as his substitution for catharsis---that is, his argument is presumes that the `other films' by virtue of the fact that they offer catharsis are not also engaging in any sort of analysis, engagement with the audiences expectations, or whatever else you wish to attribute to Haneke's use of violence. Of course you're going to have some number of violent disagreements about my description of Haneke's argument above. What I'd ask, in the interest in making progress here, is that you concentrate on the structure of the argument, not some specific word that you disagree with (as we've been through with `excuse' and so on previously). My point is that Haneke isn't merely making some observation about violence, right? He's depicts a particular cinematic use of violence, and then using a fourth-wall breaking technique to undo that thing, and then substitutes something else. In this lies his argument. I'm talking about what that argument is. Saying that he's engaging the audience's expectations or whatever doesn't get us any closer to dissecting what, in fact, that argument is and what that tells us about the rest of the film. I hope all that makes sense. Ape Agitator posted:If victimization was so crucial, I'd just assume they would Thunderdome it. Elite Hunting Club is a rich person's enterprise. If a survivor who cuts off fingers before killing someone doesn't deserve entry, was he just not being violent enough? And I'm not saying that membership in Elite Hunting has nothing to do with privilege. In the first film it definitely does. In the second film, I think Roth goes out of his way to make the point that it isn't just privilege---I mean, this is one of those things that isn't even subtext, we get exposition explaining it. My reading is that Roth is arguing, in Hostel: Part II, on a relationship between privilege and victimisation. The fact that we get mirror role reversals that outline this perfectly seems too obvious to be written off. To me, anyway. Like I said, you can interpret the film any way you want. SubG fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Feb 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
Does anyone have any recommendations for giallo movies? The top two I keep hearing about are Deep Red and A Bay of Blood/Twitch of the Death Nerve, but are there any others worth watching?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
Just finished "Tucker and Dale vs Evil", loved it. Really funny send up of the genre while not being moronic like the "Scary Movie" type garbage. Tyler Labine is especially great, I've been a fan of his since Reaper (a sadly underrated show). Severance was good too, I especially enjoyed how maggie always "made sure" the guys were dead
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
MmmDonuts posted:Does anyone have any recommendations for giallo movies? The top two I keep hearing about are Deep Red and A Bay of Blood/Twitch of the Death Nerve, but are there any others worth watching? Torso/Bodies Bear Traces of Carnal Violence, Don't Torture a Duckling, The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, Black Melly of the Tarantula. Basically anything Bava, Fulci or Argento is goddamned classic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
Volume posted:I agree, but I hate it for horror movies. I like to get immersed in the movie and all the people talking, screaming, yelling at the screen for the dumb poo poo the characters do ruins it for me. Same here. I only watch them at home. (Unless it's like Cabin in the Woods or something like that) It's funny, but I only use my sound system for horror movies as well. I'll watch action films with the TV sound. To be fair though, non-horror is only like 2% of my viewing habits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
A bunch of Mario Bava movies are up on Netflix too. Although I asked about them earlier in this thread and was just told most of his aren't "'giallo' per se" so look out for that I guess?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
MmmDonuts posted:Does anyone have any recommendations for giallo movies? The top two I keep hearing about are Deep Red and A Bay of Blood/Twitch of the Death Nerve, but are there any others worth watching? What Have You Done to Solange? (best giallo / movie ever, IMO), Tenebre, The Red Queen Kills 7 Times, Lizard in a Woman's Skin, Seven Bloodstained Orchids, The Case of the Bloody Iris, The Forbidden Photos of a Lady Above Suspicion, Perversion Story / One on Top of the Other... all are essential giallo viewing. I always recommend the trashy nonsense ones too, like Sister of Ursula, Giallo a Venezia, Iguana with the Tongue of Fire, In the Folds of the Flesh, Death Carries a Cane, New York Ripper, and the king of trash giallo cinema, Strip Nude for Your Killer. Your best bet is to start with Argento and Bava, then check out other directors, like Sergio Martino, Massimo Dallamano, Luigi Cozzi, Umberto Lenzi (his giallo films are always good and worth watching, even if you hate his cannibal movies), Armando Crispino, so on. Fulci made a ton of top notch giallos that sometimes get overshadowed by his zombie / splatter films. To me, even a bad giallo is still fun to watch. It's hands down my favorite genre, I've been interested in them since I first discovered Deep Red in the late 80s. I have hundreds of them on VHS, DVD, and now thankfully Blu-ray. Name a title and chances are I've seen it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Bava's stuff on Netflix isn't all giallo, is what I meant, Blood and Black Lace definitely is. Black Sunday and Black Sabbath are not. Speaking of Fulci, I'll put another one in for New York Ripper and Lizard in a Woman's Skin (jesus, that title).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
The New York Ripper is so great. It's both brutal and absurd. I like the two giallos Aldo Lado directed--Who Saw Her Die? and Short Night of Glass Dolls. They're not really as slashery violent as others but they are put together really nicely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
We should have a 64 seed tournament bracket voting on the best giallo name ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
hypersleep posted:Can you imagine if the movie came out now? Would Samara post her video to YouTube? Would people who watch it have to copy it to a thumb drive and leave it at a table at Starbucks for the next unlucky sucker to find? The idea of mass distribution of the tape got covered in the short film Rings, when a kid tries to put the tape in a VCR at a best buy and show it to everyone in the store to escape his curse. For how terrible the sequel was, I felt like Rings was a fairly creepy, natural extension of "what happens when the tape gets loose in a world with the Internet where everyone talks about everything?" Also, regarding the "leave the thumb drive" thing - IIRC, they did a bit of viral marketing for the movie here they would leave unlabeled copies of the curse tape on people's windshields in cities with a post it note saying "watch this or I'll die." Does anyone remember the website with a bunch of found footage about a haunted house investigation, and you could switch between places cameras and time stamps to get the story? I played with it for, like, 30 minutes when I first saw it and I'd like to spend more time with it now. If its not complete garbage, of course. ...is it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:We should have a 64 seed tournament bracket voting on the best giallo name ever. This is easily the best idea ever posted on the internet. Films should also get to enter multiple times if they have different titles around the world. Sitting here now and thinking about it, it'd be awful hard to top Bodies Bear Traces of Carnal Violence. Iguana With The Tongue of Fire and Your Body Is A Locked Room and Only I have The Key would be strong contenders though. Can't forget the immortal and straight to the point "Naked Girl Killed in The Park" which is giallo at it's essence in a title anyway. Giallo rulles. I'd like to recommend the modern giallo "Amer" now by the way. Go watch it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Nothing could top Bodies Bear Traces of Carnal Violence. Anything with an animal name in it, or involving death doing something, carrying, walking, etc., love those titles. The Blue Eyes of a Broken Doll... poetic, almost. Jess Franco has one called The Corpse Packed His Bags. Always quite fond of that title. But do Franco giallos really count as true gialli? Are there American giallo films? I'd consider most of DePalma's thrillers to be gialli... Blow Out, Body Double, maybe Raising Cain, definitely Dressed to Kill. Dressed to Kill is more of a giallo than 90% of giallo films made in the 80s. Is Shattered a giallo? It bears all the tell-tale signs of the genre. Basic Instinct? I've spent more than a few hours doing something impossibly boring at work while thinking about this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
I've never seen a Giallo film. I'm not sure why I avoid the genre altogether, but I always have. I think it's because anytime the genre comes up there are pages and pages of gushing affectionate love for them and I don't want to become one of "those people"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Is Death Walks on High Heels a Giallo? Because I saw that in the cinema and that poo poo was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
ultraviolence123 posted:Nothing could top Bodies Bear Traces of Carnal Violence. Anything with an animal name in it, or involving death doing something, carrying, walking, etc., love those titles. The Blue Eyes of a Broken Doll... poetic, almost. Jess Franco has one called The Corpse Packed His Bags. Always quite fond of that title. But do Franco giallos really count as true gialli? Are there American giallo films? I'd consider most of DePalma's thrillers to be gialli... Blow Out, Body Double, maybe Raising Cain, definitely Dressed to Kill. Dressed to Kill is more of a giallo than 90% of giallo films made in the 80s. Is Shattered a giallo? It bears all the tell-tale signs of the genre. Basic Instinct? I've spent more than a few hours doing something impossibly boring at work while thinking about this. I can think of two in addition to the DePalma stuff, which is blatantly giallo: Maniac and Cruising.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
I hate it when it seems like I've seen everything worth seeing. Especially when it feels like I've seen everything scary. Reading the discussion on the Ring makes me wish I could watch that all over again, from fresh. *sigh* How is Ju-On? Is it scary? I want something loving terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Boxman posted:Also, regarding the "leave the thumb drive" thing - IIRC, they did a bit of viral marketing for the movie here they would leave unlabeled copies of the curse tape on people's windshields in cities with a post it note saying "watch this or I'll die." They did this at Comic Con the year before The Ring came out. Back then you could actually buy your ticket day of so there would obviously be a huge line with people giving out free stuff along the way. They had put a bunch of unmarked VHS tapes in a beat up cardboard box off the side of the line; very sketchy all in all. To this day popping it in my VCR and seeing the tape, and then seeing it again in theaters has been the most freaked out I've ever been. So kudos marketing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
Injuryprone posted:They did this at Comic Con the year before The Ring came out. Back then you could actually buy your ticket day of so there would obviously be a huge line with people giving out free stuff along the way. They had put a bunch of unmarked VHS tapes in a beat up cardboard box off the side of the line; very sketchy all in all. To this day popping it in my VCR and seeing the tape, and then seeing it again in theaters has been the most freaked out I've ever been. So kudos marketing. Someone I went to college with had one of those tapes, and said he got it from a box in the student center. I always just figured he got it mailed to him and was playing along, but it's cool to think about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 18:55
|
|