Author Topic: Yay! Paranormal Activity gets a million demands, goes nationwide next Friday! (Read 6784 times)

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #60 on:** October 18, 2009, 01:46:21 PM »

Quote from: Willco on October 18, 2009, 01:40:48 PM

It's still a limited release too.

Yep, still on just 760 screens.

Ecrofirt · « **Reply #61 on:** October 18, 2009, 02:07:18 PM »

I took my sister to see it last night at the local theater, and she was going absolutely nuts by the end of the film. Terrified out of her mind.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #62 on:** October 18, 2009, 02:09:30 PM »

border · « **Reply #63 on:** October 19, 2009, 02:23:18 AM »

Quote from: Willco on October 18, 2009, 11:56:42 AM

I said in my first review that you can nitpick character motivations to death, and you certainly can, but the film is so immensely enjoyable that those thoughts should hang in the back of your mind. I say "should", because I think it's obvious you just weren't digging the experience.

While I was watching the movie I wasn't really nitpicking motivations, though I was pretty certain that Micah was a douchebag who I couldn't wait to see bite it (and his offscreen demise kinda lacks catharsis, as long as we're on the subejct).

The main thing that actually bothered me in the viewing was the lack of story or explanation or mythology or anything. Consider the demonologist, the message from the Ouija board, the website chronicling another demon-haunting........it's like they built in these hooks for a story to exist, but then completely ignore them. If "amusement park ride" is the bar you are setting then yeah, I guess this movie has about as much entertaining exposition as Disney's Haunted House ride (without the cool walls sinking in thing

).

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #64 on:** October 19, 2009, 02:46:43 AM »

It's a "found footage" film, looking for a strong narrative is futile. It only exists to create the illusion of real life events, not to unfold a complex story. It's merely a tool used to prop up tension.

border · « **Reply #65 on:** October 19, 2009, 06:15:14 AM »

This is sounding a little like the Transformers Defense, i.e. "Because this film is of this genre, you need to lower all expectations to zero."

I don't see why a "found footage" production has to have poor-to-nonexistent mythology or narrative. I enjoyed the way Blair Witch's mythology tied in to the actual film, and liked hearing all the weird theories and ARG stuff surrounding Cloverfield. I haven't seen The Last Broadcast, but it sounds like they at least put a little more work into mythology. It's not the equivalent of demanding a Shakespearean narrative arc out of GI JOE -- a solid story is not something that has to be thrown to the wind for the sake of genre (though admittedly realism might have to be tossed aside).

More to the point though, why even include the Ouija board and the demonologist and the website if there wasn't going to be any resolution to those threads? Is it just padding so they can justify a 90 minute theatrical release? Is it a tease?

Someone that takes Paranormal Acitivity more seriously might argue that there is something a little more intellectual going on --- that the whole movie is about teasing us with small-scale unelaborate scares and red herrings, and then denying us the payoffs we want as a means of commenting on the genre or on life itself. Or maybe the narrative taunts us in the same way that Micah taunts the demon, thereby increasing the audience's bloodlust in the same way that Micah increases the demon's bloodlust. The viewer becomes the villain (see also: Funny Games).

But your position is that this is a rollercoaster meant to defy analysis, critique, etc. So why are there these plot points leading nowhere? If it's a rollercoaster, then the red herrings are the equivalent of having a long, slow steep vertical climb that you think is going to end in a steep vertical drop.....but then concluding the track with nothing but a slow horizontal straightaway. If you want to streamline your rollercoaster, why not dispense with the teases and just give us more steep drops? I guess you could argue that budget is a concern, but having a limited budget strikes me as all the more reason to make your non-scare non-action sequences more compelling.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #66 on:** October 19, 2009, 11:17:28 AM »

Quote from: border on October 19, 2009, 06:15:14 AM

This is sounding a little like the Transformers Defense, i.e. "Because this film is of this genre, you need to lower all expectations to zero."

No, it's just a fact when dealing with "found footage" films - they're not meant to be powerful narrative films. By their very definition, they're meant to mimic real-life, and real-life does not lend itself to lengthy exposition and complex narratives.

This is like complaining about the storytelling of a YouTube video of an earthquake.

Quote

I don't see why a "found footage" production has to have poor-to-nonexistent mythology or narrative. I enjoyed the way Blair Witch's mythology tied in to the actual film, and liked hearing all the weird theories and ARG stuff surrounding Cloverfield.

There's just as much of a "story" in Paranormal Activity (albeit the mythology is stronger in Blair Witch, a lot of it built up from the Internet), and you cite stuff not included in the movie as evidence of a strong story in Cloverfield?

C'mon.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I can certainly see where character decisions might rub you the wrong way, but don't get testy because of the format. So you didn't like the concept - big whoop.

And yes, I measure films on what they are trying to be, not what I want them to be. It's obvious that this film is aiming to be a spook house ride and it succeeds at that.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #67 on:** October 19, 2009, 11:26:02 AM »

Also, I will take an asshole boyfriend (which contrary to your opinion, do exist) over the entire cast of Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project, who not only lacked common sense, but were by and large, very annoying.

And this is coming from someone that liked Cloverfield...

(... but would probably fast forward the first thirty minutes.)

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #68 on:** October 19, 2009, 11:52:46 AM »

Quote from: Willco on October 19, 2009, 11:26:02 AM

(... but would probably fast forward the first thirty minutes.)

Yeah, I would too.

It's only 85 minutes long and the first 20-25 minutes are some stupid party.

Mupepe · « **Reply #69 on:** October 19, 2009, 12:50:59 PM »

I'd really like to see how you could pull off a found footage film with a truly fleshed out narrative and not breaking that 4th wall completely down. If they did it, most of the people currently complaining would just end up complaining about "how convenient they found that/caught that on film/they were there/etc"

the lack of narrative is one of the charms of this genre IMO. I know enough to creep me out, that's all that is needed. The need to over explain every little thing is something that really destroys the creative imagination of the audience. It's something most of us think we want and in the end, our own imagination can come up with a million more scenarios that are ultimately more satisfying than what can really be fleshed out in a less than two hour film that's presented in such an inhibiting genre.

BlackMage · « **Reply #70 on:** October 19, 2009, 01:23:48 PM »

I saw this the other night and I would like to say the main chick in the movie has some fine ass titties. ::motorboat

BlackMage · « **Reply #71 on:** October 19, 2009, 01:31:20 PM »

Quote from: mojovonio on October 19, 2009, 01:28:58 PM

You could fuck her face. Between her two chins.

thats not nice. she could lose a few pounds but she was cute.

BlackMage · « **Reply #72 on:** October 19, 2009, 01:41:48 PM »

Quote from: mojovonio on October 19, 2009, 01:34:33 PM

You don't have to set your standards THAT low.

I'm actually quite picky.. which is probably why I don't have a girlfriend :'(

BlackMage · « **Reply #73 on:** October 19, 2009, 01:44:14 PM »

Quote from: mojovonio on October 19, 2009, 01:43:35 PM

Aw, its ok. But hurry, breast reductions are getting popular!

thats a FILTHY lie!!!!

Ecrofirt · « **Reply #74 on:** October 19, 2009, 02:31:39 PM »

I've got to tell you all honestly, that Katie girl was totally goddamn bonable.
Beautiful girl, beautiful.

BlackMage · « **Reply #75 on:** October 19, 2009, 02:36:20 PM »

Quote from: Ecrofirt on October 19, 2009, 02:31:39 PM

I've got to tell you all honestly, that Katie girl was totally goddamn bonable.
Beautiful girl, beautiful.

see this man has good taste.. i mean look at his wife.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #76 on:** October 19, 2009, 02:37:32 PM »

Quote from: Ecrofirt on October 19, 2009, 02:31:39 PM

I've got to tell you all honestly, that Katie girl was totally goddamn bonable.
Beautiful girl, beautiful.

That's the girlfriend, right? All I did was stare at her dirty pillows the entire film.

BlackMage · « **Reply #77 on:** October 19, 2009, 02:45:04 PM »

Quote from: Willco on October 19, 2009, 02:37:32 PM

Quote from: Ecrofirt on October 19, 2009, 02:31:39 PM
I've got to tell you all honestly, that Katie girl was totally goddamn bonable.
Beautiful girl, beautiful.

That's the girlfriend, right? All I did was stare at her dirty pillows the entire film.

do you have me on ignore or something?!

border · « **Reply #78 on:** October 19, 2009, 07:10:54 PM »

Quote from: Willco on October 19, 2009, 11:26:02 AM

Also, I will take an asshole boyfriend (which contrary to your opinion, do exist) over the entire cast of Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project, who not only lacked common sense, but were by and large, very annoying.

Except I saw the movie with a theatre full of douchebag meathead boyfriends and judging by how scared shitless they were by a movie about a ghost, I would probably wager that they would not start fucking around with an actual ghost. I guess the problem though is that he's just unsympathetic, not unrealistic. Could a person that might act as he does exist? Yes, but you can say that about even the most poorly crafted characters I'd think.

Quote from: Willco on October 19, 2009, 11:17:28 AM

No, it's just a fact when dealing with "found footage" films - they're not meant to be powerful narrative films. By their very definition, they're meant to mimic real-life, and real-life does not lend itself to lengthy exposition and complex narratives.

Quote from: Rob Thomas on October 19, 2009, 12:50:59 PM

I'd really like to see how you could pull off a found footage film with a truly fleshed out narrative and not breaking that 4th wall completely down. If they did it, most of the people currently complaining would just end up complaining about "how convenient they found that/caught that on film/they were there/etc"

I don't think I'm really asking for a grand narrative -- just some fleshing out. It wouldn't have killed the movie to have had the demonologist show up and explain some stuff.....nor would it have ruined anything to have Micah properly decipher the Ouija board message or dig deeper into the website chronicling the previous haunting (shit he already does some exposition from those demon books). As I asked earlier, why include that stuff at all if you aren't going to do anything with it?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #79 on:** October 19, 2009, 07:16:53 PM »

I don't think any of those elements were pointless inclusions, but they went as far as they needed to go. I could address your criticisms on a line-by-line basis, but our fundamental disagreement will almost always come down to a lack of narrative. I feel Peli setup the film as much as he needed to, and let the sounds and tension do the rest. You don't.

I will say that the entire movie is told through a handheld, meaning your getting snapshots of someone's life. It's impossible to ask for much more. I don't think you would have been satisfied unless they brought the camera out of the house, and at that point, you're getting away from the purpose of the film and an introduce all the meaningless bloat that plagued both The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield.

Its lean, minimalist story only serves to increase the tension, going into detail about demons and such would only ruin that.

bork · « **Reply #80 on:** October 19, 2009, 08:07:10 PM »

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

There you go, guys. The final word.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #81 on:** October 21, 2009, 03:56:42 PM »

yay!!!!!!!

demi · « **Reply #82 on:** October 21, 2009, 06:46:38 PM »

Cool downloading now. Will watch on my big screen tv with surround sound.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #83 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:03:50 PM »

I don't know how downloading it and watching it by yourself would enhance it either. Make some friends and see it in the theaters you fucks.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #84 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:09:14 PM »

demi doesn't have any friends.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #85 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:11:48 PM »

seeing horror movies at home in the dark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a theater. always.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #86 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:13:04 PM »

Nope, you're wrong.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #87 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:15:32 PM »

there's nothing scary about being in a giant auditorium with tons of people around you. being at home, in a dark room is much more conducive for being scared.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #88 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:17:54 PM »

the only time i've ever been remotely scared by a movie is when I watched [REC] at midnight on my computer. headphones on, all the lights off. scary.

demi · « **Reply #89 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:25:35 PM »

Wow that movie was awful. I'm glad I didnt pay for it.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #90 on:** October 21, 2009, 10:51:16 PM »

you're the world's worst troll

border · « **Reply #91 on:** October 21, 2009, 10:57:12 PM »

Quote from: fistfulofmetal on October 21, 2009, 09:15:32 PM

there's nothing scary about being in a giant auditorium with tons of people around you. being at home, in a dark room is much more conducive for being scared.

Yeah, I'd argue that there is a greater likelihood that an audience will completely fucking ruin this film for you than there is a chance that they will somehow enhance it. My audience was not particularly rowdy, but there were still douchebags making dumb jokes and comments......idiot girlfriends narrating events and asking stupid questions. My personal pet peeve is when something unclear or mysterious happens and some stupid idiot has to immediately ask what is happening. eg:

**Katie is catatonic, curled up on the ground and clenching something in her hand tightly**
Girl 3 Seats Away (at normal speaking volume): "What is she holding?"

Me (in my fantasy): "Holy shit you dumb fucking cunt, maybe if you'd wait 5 seconds before blurting out a stupid question that half the theatre hears, just maybe the movie would show you the answer!"

**camera cuts to reveal Katie's hand opening, she is holding a crucifix....Dumb Girl exits auditorium in tears**

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #92 on:** October 21, 2009, 11:19:41 PM »

Then you live in Fucksville. Find a place or theater with cool people. My local one is in a college neighborhood, and I haven't experienced that tardedness here at all. Inglorious Basterds was an awesome experience seeing it in a big theater. The uncomfortable shifts during the last scene, hoo-boy.

border · « **Reply #93 on:** October 21, 2009, 11:23:52 PM »

People are just like that with horror movies. Never had any such problems with non-horror stuff that I've gone to see.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #94 on:** October 21, 2009, 11:34:26 PM »

Quote from: BrandNew on October 21, 2009, 11:19:41 PM

Then you live in Fucksville. Find a place or theater with cool people. My local one is in a college neighborhood, and I haven't experienced that tardedness here at all. Inglorious Basterds was an awesome experience seeing it in a big theater. The uncomfortable shifts during the last scene, hoo-boy.

comparing seeing a horror movie in a theater to seeing an action/drama? you're not too bright.

Horror is a very personal genre. It's better to see it with a smaller audience in a more confined location. Being in a giant crowd kills the tension completely.

Action movies are great for audiences because you want to have the big swooping reactions from everyone. It adds to the experience.

but hey, if you prefer seeing it in theaters then whatevs. i would never go see a horror movie in theaters. ever.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #95 on:** October 21, 2009, 11:37:25 PM »

Quote from: fistfulofmetal on October 21, 2009, 11:34:26 PM

Horror is a very personal genre. It's better to see it with a smaller audience in a more confined location. Being in a giant crowd kills the tension completely.

Disagree completely.

BlackMage · « **Reply #96 on:** October 21, 2009, 11:54:17 PM »

personally i'd rather see PA at home in the dark by myself so i can jerk it to Katie's melons.

border · « **Reply #97 on:** October 22, 2009, 01:12:20 AM »

Quote from: Willco on October 21, 2009, 11:37:25 PM

Quote from: fistfulofmetal on October 21, 2009, 11:34:26 PM
Horror is a very personal genre. It's better to see it with a smaller audience in a more confined location. Being in a giant crowd kills the tension completely.

Disagree completely.

The only horror films I've seen in theatres recently were Paranormal Activity and Drag Me To Hell, and people in the audience talked almost completely all the way through them. If someone is disrupting an action film or drama it's pretty easy to tell them to shut the hell up. When it's 5 or 6 groups of people it becomes a good deal more difficult to combat since you just look like some bitchy stick in the mud.

OTOH I can't think of an action/drama/genre film in the past few years where there were loud or disruptive audience members that weren't almost immediately called out.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #98 on:** October 22, 2009, 01:16:51 AM »

When I went to see A Serious Man [latest Coen brothers movie] there were only like seven people in the whole room. But there was this one guy that laughed really loud at a lot of stuff. I didn't mind it too much because he laughed at pretty much the same stuff I did.

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #99 on:** October 22, 2009, 01:37:43 AM »

Quote from: Willco on October 21, 2009, 11:37:25 PM

Quote from: fistfulofmetal on October 21, 2009, 11:34:26 PM
Horror is a very personal genre. It's better to see it with a smaller audience in a more confined location. Being in a giant crowd kills the tension completely.

Disagree completely.

I saw The Ring in a packed theater, and it was the best horror movie experience of my life. You could almost literally feel the tension in the air, everybody was on the edge of their seats and jumping at every single thing. It wasn't as good or as scary when I saw it again at home.

border · « **Reply #100 on:** October 22, 2009, 02:26:49 AM »

I don't deny that a good audience can make a movie even better -- but right now I think your odds of getting a good audience are pretty bad. You can roll the dice and maybe luck out on an early matinee during school hours, but it's worth remembering that with a movie like this you only get 1 shot. To paraphrase a popular dandruff shampoo ad campaign, you never get a second chance to see a good horror film for the first time. If assholes and goofballs ruin it for you on that first viewing, then it doesn't really matter if you can see it in peace on DVD....it won't have nearly as much effect if you see everything coming. If you have a good home theatre setup, I'd advise that you buy a ticket, walk out, and go download the DVD Rip.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #101 on:** October 22, 2009, 03:08:49 AM »

It's odd that you'd bring up Paranormal Activity and Drag Me to Hell, both films that I saw in theaters that benefited from the audience immensely. Disposable White Guy and I had the time of our lives during Drag Me to Hell because of audience reaction.

border · « **Reply #102 on:** October 22, 2009, 07:27:11 PM »

Drag Me To Hell was kinda my fault a little bit, since I saw it on the wrong side of town....so to speak [/Borys]

BobFromPikeCreek · « **Reply #103 on:** October 24, 2009, 09:55:45 PM »

I just saw it, but apparently the ending in the version I saw is different from the theatrical version. In the one I saw

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Katie murdered Mica and then got shot by the police

[close]

Kinda lame. Hope the other version's is better.

Oh, and Katie was pretty hot aside from some weird neck fat she had going.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #104 on:** October 24, 2009, 10:18:23 PM »

Quote from: BobFromPikeCreek on October 24, 2009, 09:55:45 PM

I just saw it, but apparently the ending in the version I saw is different from the theatrical version. In the one I saw
spoiler (click to show/hide)
Katie murdered Mica and then got shot by the police
[close]

Kinda lame. Hope the other version's is better.

Oh, and Katie was pretty hot aside from some weird neck fat she had going.

Yeah, you're watching the screener, you dirty pirate.

That was the original ending, Green Man. Spielberg and some of Dreamworks finest thought the film would benefit from a more traditional "shock" ending. He was right.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #105 on:** October 24, 2009, 11:26:27 PM »

multiple endings? i downloaded the movie so i saw the

spoiler (click to show/hide)

cop ending

[close]

i read about the other one tho

spoiler (click to show/hide)

some CGI shock face ending?

[close]

.

sounds lame. glad i downloaded it.

movie wasn't really scary. it was tense and there were a few jump scares, but the "day-time" stuff was really boring. i was sitting here waiting for the bedroom scene so i could see something interesting. best part of the movie was the

spoiler (click to show/hide)

very first "major" event. when the giant BOOM occurred and swaying chandelier.

[close]

6/10

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #106 on:** October 24, 2009, 11:37:17 PM »

How could something be considered one of the scariest films of all time if it only "works" in a theater? Stuff like Alien still makes me uncomfortable, and The Exorcist is still creepy regardless of where I am

I'm more curious than in a critical mood. Many of my friends say it's good to ok, but all say it's scary

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #107 on:** October 24, 2009, 11:42:13 PM »

I really don't understand how seeing a horror movie in a theater can be scary. Where does the tension come from? The fear? You're in a crowd. You're completely safe. Being alone or_mostly_alone and in a dark room makes you feel vulnerable. How can I feel scared when I know I'm going to walk out to a car in a little while? It's such a detached experience. Whatevs.

But this movie wouldn't have been scary in any context. It was 1 minute of jumpy scare tricks then 15 minutes of boring day-time drama, then 1 minute of jumpy scares... rinse and repeat for 80 some-odd minutes.

OptimoPeach · « **Reply #108 on:** October 25, 2009, 12:02:38 AM »

I really don't understand how seeing a horror movie at home can be scary. Where does the tension come from? The fear? You're at home. You're completely safe. Being in an audience or sizable group of people is contributory to an atmosphere of palpable suspense and foreboding. How can I feel scared when I know I'm going to tab out of my media player and jerk off to lolis in a little while? It's such a detached experience. Whatevs.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #109 on:** October 25, 2009, 01:02:35 AM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on October 24, 2009, 11:37:17 PM

How could something be considered one of the scariest films of all time if it only "works" in a theater?

Because it's designed to be nothing more than a thrill ride - literally - and you're comparing it next to actual films. The Exorcist and Alien are examples of great screenplays that came together with a great crew, well rounded casts and talented directors.

It should be compared to The Blair Witch Project, [REC] and Diary of the Dead - not legitimate classics.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #110 on:** October 25, 2009, 01:13:49 AM »

comparing this to REC. smh

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #111 on:** October 25, 2009, 01:15:25 AM »

I agree, it's much better.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #112 on:** October 25, 2009, 01:18:47 AM »

theres like maybe 5-10 minutes of stuff in this movie that can be construed as "scary". the rest is just you watching an annoying couple argue. so boring.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #113 on:** October 25, 2009, 01:25:08 AM »

Friday estimates:

Paranormal Activity - $7,600,000
Saw IV - $7,000,000

BobFromPikeCreek · « **Reply #114 on:** October 25, 2009, 01:45:25 AM »

Quote from: Willco on October 24, 2009, 10:18:23 PM

Quote from: BobFromPikeCreek on October 24, 2009, 09:55:45 PM
I just saw it, but apparently the ending in the version I saw is different from the theatrical version. In the one I saw
spoiler (click to show/hide)
Katie murdered Mica and then got shot by the police
[close]

Kinda lame. Hope the other version's is better.

Oh, and Katie was pretty hot aside from some weird neck fat she had going.

Yeah, you're watching the screener, you dirty pirate.

Hey. I wanted to give them my money but they didn't want to give me the opportunity. I pay for my movies when people let me.

BobFromPikeCreek · « **Reply #115 on:** October 25, 2009, 01:51:14 AM »

Oh, and I'm with FFM on the setting debate. Alone and in the dark is much creepier than a big public theater with screaming teenage girls.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #116 on:** October 25, 2009, 11:09:58 PM »

About to go see this in the theatres. Hope it's fairly packed.

Ecrofirt · « **Reply #117 on:** October 25, 2009, 11:58:12 PM »

How does the screener version of the movie work? Is it the exact same cut, but with multiple endings? Is it the cut that was originally screened in theaters in 2007? I'm interested in seeing the 'original' ending.

Ecrofirt · « **Reply #118 on:** October 26, 2009, 12:43:24 AM »

Quote from: dcharlie on October 26, 2009, 12:26:19 AM

Quote
How does the screener version of the movie work? Is it the exact same cut, but with multiple endings? Is it the cut that was originally screened in theaters in 2007? I'm interested in seeing the 'original' ending.

yeah, it's the original ending - no alternatives shown.

Felt a bit... i dunno... too long? A little unclear?
From what i read, the new ending seems much better.

I wonder why a screener would go out with the non-theatrical ending... Weird.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #119 on:** October 26, 2009, 01:29:04 AM »

Because it was the original screener that Dreamworks let folks view internally.

News:

Author Topic: Yay! Paranormal Activity gets a million demands, goes nationwide next Friday! (Read 6784 times)