Cabin in the Woods

[Svitska Donkun]

My God. This film had nothing to do with Evolution, and 0 to do with the homosexuality debate. You seem to not understand why the majority see films. That's your failure. You might go to be mentally challenged but a lot of people just want an escape from the bullshit of everyday life.

See, this ideology hurts movies. I love this article by Empire:
http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs ... post/p1094

[RedZillaKing]

Yawn. Terrible rebuttal

You still fail to understand people's motivations for seeing movies.

[Chris55]

No. No it isn't. The average American movie goer is a moron. Box office numbers support this.

I'm not trying to "call you out" when I bring up this question or anything, but what sort of film interests you?

[HikizuruBeat]

I enjoyed Cabin in the Woods. I didn't care for the very end too much, but I mean how else can it end really?
I loved all the monsters coming out and causing Havoc. Definitely one of my favorite parts.

[Svitska Donkun]

No. No it isn't. The average American movie goer is a moron. Box office numbers support this.

I'm not trying to "call you out" when I bring up this question or anything, but what sort of film interests you?

Any film can be interesting as long as it's made in an interesting way and has likable characters.
I'm as excited for the Avengers as I am Moonrise Kingdom.

[Proofpoochie]

Saw the film a second time today. Loved it even more this time!

[Chris55]

[quote="Svitska Donkun"

Any film can be interesting as long as it's made in an interesting way and has likable characters.
I'm as excited for the Avengers[/quote]

Ok, I'm a little perplexed by this. You rail against Transformers and movies like it yet "The Avengers" is basically of the same ilk-which I really want to check out by the way- (save the better acting and the story from what I could tell seems to be more coherent). It's full of special effects, loud noise, will have action figures, 7-11 cups, soundtrack tie-ins and other merchandise all designed by committees at Marvel/Disney (Writing and direction of the film by Joss Whedon notwithstanding) . Basically, everything you hate about movies nowadays. This observation isn't meant to attack you, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from.

I know that if I were to watch any of the Transformers films, I'm not getting the meaning of life or anything. I know the stories aren't all that great either. I do know that I'm getting some beautiful camera work and some top notch CGI work which I know first hand is a pain in the ass to do along with excellent sound design. For me, the "dumb summer movies" are what push the technical boundaries of the medium I've chosen as my career. Here's a shot from my own film which is nearing completion on the CGI work which has taken quite a while to get right and I went through a few artists to get this far. The artist who is with me now came from Transformers: Dark of The Moon, Harry Potter, Battleship etc and he's REALLY worked his ass off to get it right.


(I did my own slight self indulgent color correction-not movie accurate)


I went for an even keel for the film. Awesome VFX/SFX and a great story and I feel it works and I've tried to push the envelope from what people expect from an indie film and I find what I learned in some of the summer movies to be inspiring as to what they can pull off. What I'm trying to say is, don't be so quick to judge these films. Some of them might not be high class entertainment, but there's some beauty in them.

[Svitska Donkun]

Ok, I'm a little perplexed by this. You rail against Transformers and movies like it yet "The Avengers" is basically of the same ilk-which I really want to check out by the way- (save the better acting and the story from what I could tell seems to be more coherent). It's full of special effects, loud noise, will have action figures, 7-11 cups, soundtrack tie-ins and other merchandise all designed by committees at Marvel/Disney (Writing and direction of the film by Joss Whedon notwithstanding) . Basically, everything you hate about movies nowadays. This observation isn't meant to attack you, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from.

See, when did I ever rail against movie marketing? I don't care about 7-11 cups, or merchandising, because its' completely irrelevant to the quality of the film. And I would also NOT say Avenger's is in the same ilk as Transformers, because Avengers has a cast of ridiculously likable characters. Tony Stark for instance is incredibly well written and joyously performed by RDJ. I would see the movie for that alone, but Thor and Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk are in it too. You can;t just consider ALL special effects film within the same ilk. Transformers is SFX for the sake of SFX, Avengers, from what early reports show, has a strong story along the lines of The Empire Strikes Back and Seven Samurai with substantial character defining moments and interactions. Whedon is also extremely talented as a filmmaker. Insofar, it appears to be multiple levels above Transformers in terms of quality. So I'm anticipating it. It may end up being crap for all I know, but as of now, it seems to be quite attractive.

[Legionmaster]

SFX for the sake of SFX

ie. What motion pictures almost exclusively were for almost 20 years.

[Svitska Donkun]

SFX for the sake of SFX

ie. What motion pictures almost exclusively were for almost 20 years.

So? Your point? That was when the artform was in its infancy. Most of those early films were only notable for the ground they broke, and can hardly be considered "good" in relation to more modern films which have evolved to a higher state. The most memorable films of that era are the ones that transcended their time period due to modern techniques used in films today, or are still clever enough to make an impact. Films like, The Gold Rush, Metropolis, and Birth of a Nation. No one gives a shit about the 3 Wizard of Oz films made before the color feature. People don't watch many films of that era anymore for a reason. Most films made back then were simply made to impress the audience, not engage them on a higher level.

[Legionmaster]

SFX for the sake of SFX

ie. What motion pictures almost exclusively were for almost 20 years.

So? Your point? That was when the artform was in its infancy. Most of those early films were only notable for the ground they broke, and can hardly be considered "good" in relation to more modern films which have evolved to a higher state. The most memorable films of that era are the ones that transcended their time period due to modern techniques used in films today, or are still clever enough to make an impact. Films like, The Gold Rush, Metropolis, and Birth of a Nation. No one gives a shit about the 3 Wizard of Oz films made before the color feature. People don't watch many films of that era anymore for a reason. Most films made back then were simply made to impress the audience, not engage them on a higher level.

Hooray! Evidence you have NO IDEA what you're talking about!

I'm talking about 1885-1905, when narrative film was almost non-existent. The medium was always originally about people looking at cool things. Even after the introduction of narrative film, the "cinema of attractions" was still a cornerstone of the medium (both industrially and artistically). This has not changed in over a century. Please actually read academic material on film before trying to bullshit your way to sounding intelligent.

[Svitska Donkun]

I'm talking about 1885-1905, when narrative film was almost non-existent. The medium was always originally about people looking at cool things. Even after the introduction of narrative film, the "cinema of attractions" was still a cornerstone of the medium (both industrially and artistically). This has not changed in over a century. Please actually read academic material on film before trying to bullshit your way to sounding intelligent.

I thought you were referring to the period between 1900 and 1920, but what you're talking about has even less to do with anything. What is your point? Are you insinuating that those older reels of trains coming at the audience are good? Or are you insinuating that the medium was made merely to look at cool shit. Well if the latter is what you are talking about, you are discrediting the entire medium as an artform. See, just because that was the original intent, does not mean that's what film is supposed to be. That logic is retarded. You can barely call them films, if it weren't for the fact they were shot on film. The medium has changed MUCH over a century, as in the early days, moving pictures were a mere novelty until idealistic artists MADE it into an artform. You are simplifying things to a borderline insulting degree.

[Legionmaster]

I thought you were referring to the period between 1900 and 1920, but what you're talking about has even less to do with anything.

The period of which I am speaking about concerns the creation and original distribution of the entire medium as a whole. That very much has bearings on what happens to the medium afterwards. This is how culture works. It builds upon what came before and is directed by other cultural facets of a given time. What film is, fundamentally and aesthetically, very much has everything to do with where it started.

You incorrectly inferred that this means that everything that has been added to film (most notably narrative and synchronized sound) is irrelevant. This is not the case. All aspects of what defines any particular film's aesthetic is equally as much a part of the medium as anything else. Characters, effects, mise-en-scene, framing, sound mixing: It's all part of what the medium of film is about. Artistic excellence in one facet of the medium should be applauded when applicable. Artistic excellence in ALL FACETS, given any film, is impossible. There is no group of individuals who is willing to take the time to sit down and collaborate on a piece that could possibly cover all the bases.

Material plausability aside, it's simply impossible due to the lack of shared aesthetics across social groups. This is where the more exonomic side of film art steps in. Projects are undertaken to please certain demographics. Every film cannot please everybody. Every film will have lovers and haters, no matter what you do. This is an accepted part of any creative undertaking. People will love your work; people will hate your work. Each individual project gets tailored to pander to a given group or groups. Smaller independent films tend to skew towards a more artistic crowd that has at least minimal knowledge of the facets of film media aesthetics. Avant garde films pander to a high-art crowd. Popular cinema is made for a popular audience. This is pretty basic, and it's fairly exasperating that you cannot grasp this concept. It's a core part of how art is created.

My point, which you clearly cannot infer, is that the original intent of film was to show people things that were amazing. Feats of technology, impressive talents of the human body (musclemen and dancers), and exotic wildlife were staples of early cinema. It was incredibly popular, as people were amazed at the actual photographed images before them. There was a sense of wonder associated with seeing something amazing that you'd rarely get a chance to see otherwise (or see them in a different way). This is the core principle behind the cinema of attractions: some people watch movies simply to see something incredible. As technology would improve, this would also include sound.

The introduction of narrative film (largely due to DW Griffith) would add a non-sensory aspect to motion pictures that would greatly expand the creative possibilities of the medium. Griffith would almost single-handedly coin the majority of cinematic language by the release of The Birth of a Nation. This is a small aside, but I'm including it under the assumption that you think films exclusively tell stories through dialogue, when this is not the case. If you are aware of this already, don't take this as an insult; I'm just covering my bases.

The upshot is that cinema of attractions has never disappeared. It's true that it's largely died out as an all-consuming aesthetic direction outside of avant garde films, but it remains a key facet of popular cinema and many smaller films as well. It's an incredibly large contributing factor to science fiction and fantasy films in particular, as they are geared towards transporting an audience to another time or place. To show them something that doesn't exist. It's the main factor behind the success of the early Hollywood and British monster films and their continued success into the 1970s. Almost every plot is the same, and almost all the characters are flat. Those films were created and became popular with the expectation that there was an audience who really wanted to just experience the monsters on the screen. It's where the current superhero fad hinges. People want to see Spiderman swinging through Manhattan, or Batman kill six henchmen with one batarang. While yes, The Avengers will probably be an enjoyable film for the characters they've created and the conflux of years of preplanning through individual plots, most people are just going to watch it to see Hulk smash and Iron Man fly and Black Widow be chesty. You're simply naive if you think otherwise.

The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, the Transformers films have pushed and reset the limits on both the technological and aesthetic standards of computer generated characters.

That logic is retarded.

This is a coherent, well thought out argument that I simply must yield to. Bravo, good sir, on your quality rhetoric and astute use of basic logical principles to craft such an elegantly simple retort.

You are simplifying things to a borderline insulting degree.

And this is the part where I stop being an adult and just giggle at you.

[JVM]

So...

what's Cabin in the Woods about exactly?

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

So...

what's Cabin in the Woods about exactly?

There's this wood...

And there's a cabin in it...

And horrible, horrible things happen there.

[Gawdziller]

So...

what's Cabin in the Woods about exactly?

There's this wood...

And there's a cabin in it...

And horrible, horrible things happen there.

And that's just the outhouse.

[JVM]

I lol'd twice.

No, but is it a horror or a comedy or what? I'm hearing all sorts of different shit about this movie.

[HayesAJones]

It's hard to define it with a single genre like that, or even as both. It's... a little bit of eveything, and then some. I dunno, can't really explain it. All I can say is-

Go see it.

[Proofpoochie]

It's hard to define it with a single genre like that, or even as both. It's... a little bit of eveything, and then some. I dunno, can't really explain it. All I can say is-

Go see it.

Agreed. Best movie this year so far.

[SoleMan]

Okay, so I went and saw it and...was blown the Hell away by it!

Dude, anyway and every monster movie fan NEEDS to see this badboy! It was funny, it was scary. it was gory, it had every kind of monster imaginable. (Well, except for the best kind, but we'll let Legendary handle that) I loved it, 4.5 out of 5 stars, only becuase "It's the end of the world as we know it" didn't play during the credits. (But even so, I feel fine)