Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Halloween 3 (201?)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I think Rob should come back and do the third, but have there be NO Laurie. [SPOILER]Laurie died in the DC version so leave it at that[/SPOILER]. Have Michael,Loomis, and Annie to be done with. Now he should Have Brad come back and have it revolve around his deteriorating life, and the Case of Michael Myers. If the actors are signed for the 3rd film then have them do flashbacks pertaining to the court case. Make it a drama, with minimal Horror.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Pister View Post
      I think Rob should come back and do the third, but have there be NO Laurie. [SPOILER]Laurie died in the DC version so leave it at that[/SPOILER]. Have Michael,Loomis, and Annie to be done with. Now he should Have Brad come back and have it revolve around his deteriorating life, and the Case of Michael Myers. If the actors are signed for the 3rd film then have them do flashbacks pertaining to the court case. Make it a drama, with minimal Horror.
      Oh! Oh! Oh! And let's make it a made-for-tv movie for the Lifetime Channel!

      Tori Spelling can play the Judge!
      Last edited by ResidentofEvil; 08-11-2010, 01:04 PM.
      Always check your candy.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oh-the-horror View Post
        Sorry, but "I like something and that's my opinion" is a bullshit cop-out. Of course there are standards, even when discussing something as seemingly-subjective as movies. I mean, if you have a movie where the lighting is all sorts of fucked, the framing is off, the acting is bad, the script is littered with plot-holes, etc, you can objectively look at it and say it's very good. Some people can still find enjoyment out of that, and yeah, that's where their own feelings will come in. Like I said, I enjoy my share of really bad horror movies, but I'm not going to try to tell you that Rats: The Night of Terror or Slugs are good movies. They aren't.

        I never once said that if I don't like something, it must be bad. I can think of movies that I think are very sound, very well done, but they do nothing for me. That's where the opinion/personal perception part comes in. Some things, I'm just not into, no matter how well made the movie might be.
        The problem in your argument is determining WHO sets the standard. Is the standard simply a function of frequency? If convention rules all, then the standard is not an aspect of film but of conformity and tradition.

        Comment


        • Except that great films come out all the time and are hailed for their orginiality, so it can't all be tradition. It's a really interesting path to go down and try to determine how these standards are set, but can you really deny the standards? If a movie does a poor job at telling its story, can you really say it's good? Would anyone really set out to try to make a piece of crap?

          At any rate, it does stand that there is a difference between liking something and appreciating it. Maybe someone doesn't dig on something like, say, Citizen Kane; alright, but if they really try to sit there and say it's a "bad" movie, I don't think I can take them seriously. No matter who determined them (and really, it is some tradition and respected voices within the industry), you've gotta have them. Otherwise, it'd just be chaos.
          Oh, the Horror!--Reviewing all decades and all sub-genres since 2008!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oh-the-horror View Post
            Except that great films come out all the time and are hailed for their orginiality, so it can't all be tradition. It's a really interesting path to go down and try to determine how these standards are set, but can you really deny the standards? If a movie does a poor job at telling its story, can you really say it's good? Would anyone really set out to try to make a piece of crap?

            At any rate, it does stand that there is a difference between liking something and appreciating it. Maybe someone doesn't dig on something like, say, Citizen Kane; alright, but if they really try to sit there and say it's a "bad" movie, I don't think I can take them seriously. No matter who determined them (and really, it is some tradition and respected voices within the industry), you've gotta have them. Otherwise, it'd just be chaos.
            Exactly. There are objective criteria in critiquing the quality of a film.

            Example like your Citizen Kane, which is a movie I love, but my own example... The Winslow Boy, my mom loves this movie, so I watched it, and I hated it. But I can see the acting is fantastic, it's a good movie, it's done very well, I just didn't like it.

            This is the objective vs subjective debate and it's put to rest years ago. The argument there is over.

            Who sets the standard? Was the question... just like we know when air is breathable and when it's poisonous, it's a visceral response.

            We know when a movie has good pacing and when it doesn't, we know when that lack of pacing is done on purpose to do non-linear or wacky things that just work, and when they don't. We know when actors have chemistry and when they don't, when a film has good music and when it just has nothing... there will always be subjectivity therein, but that's where experience comes into play.

            There's so many pitfalls to this type of discussion, and so many variables, and so many examples it's just not even worth debating over.
            KITTYSAFE.NET
            Facebook | Website
            | For Mews, News, Reviews, Poetry, Music and Ideas |

            Comment


            • It's insufficient to say an aspect of film is like an autonomic physiological process. There are extracontextual elements at play, many I suspect are sociological: a matter of culture and the desire for peer acceptance, which would explain the filmic differences between countries.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Haine View Post
                It's insufficient to say an aspect of film is like an autonomic physiological process. There are extracontextual elements at play, many I suspect are sociological: a matter of culture and the desire for peer acceptance, which would explain the filmic differences between countries.
                That's fine, like I said there is more going on than I have interest in discussing, as in expounding the dharma of film. I would rather take it as it comes.
                KITTYSAFE.NET
                Facebook | Website
                | For Mews, News, Reviews, Poetry, Music and Ideas |

                Comment


                • Yes, but even someone who isn't from said country could watch, read, and learn about those films and figure out how that society would consider them great. I'm not a huge, huge fan of the handful of Bollywood movies I've seen, but I wouldn't jump right in and say they're shit. I decided to actually learn a bit about why the films are like they are, and it makes me view them a bit differently. I'm still not going to praise Mahakaal to the high heavens, but I do kind of see why it was made like it is.
                  Oh, the Horror!--Reviewing all decades and all sub-genres since 2008!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oh-the-horror View Post
                    Sorry, but "I like something and that's my opinion" is a bullshit cop-out. Of course there are standards, even when discussing something as seemingly-subjective as movies. I mean, if you have a movie where the lighting is all sorts of fucked, the framing is off, the acting is bad, the script is littered with plot-holes, etc, you can objectively look at it and say it's very good. Some people can still find enjoyment out of that, and yeah, that's where their own feelings will come in. Like I said, I enjoy my share of really bad horror movies, but I'm not going to try to tell you that Rats: The Night of Terror or Slugs are good movies. They aren't.

                    I never once said that if I don't like something, it must be bad. I can think of movies that I think are very sound, very well done, but they do nothing for me. That's where the opinion/personal perception part comes in. Some things, I'm just not into, no matter how well made the movie might be.
                    No matter who set the standards, no matter when, its still 100% opinion based. Who ever put these standards in place was doing so based on how they felt. So I dont see how basing whether or not something is good on nothing more than that is a cop-out.

                    I do see what your saying, I just disagree with you.
                    Bad lighting, acting, and plot are right up some peoples ally. Some people like black velvet paintings of Elvis. I wouldnt want one but I also dont think its up to me to try and convince them its bad due to some made up standard.
                    Movies


                    MUSIC

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kupotek View Post
                      I would rather take it as it comes.
                      So, you'd rather assume the purely personal, subjective role in film criticism and avoid appeals to popularity.
                      Originally posted by Clockwork Black View Post
                      No matter who set the standards, no matter when, its still 100% opinion based. Who ever put these standards in place was doing so based on how they felt. So I dont see how basing whether or not something is good on nothing more than that is a cop-out.

                      I do see what your saying, I just disagree with you.
                      Bad lighting, acting, and plot are right up some peoples ally. Some people like black velvet paintings of Elvis. I wouldnt want one but I also dont think its up to me to try and convince them its bad due to some made up standard.
                      I agree. Film tends to be less standardized and more trendy, even in the underground.
                      Last edited by Sam Haine; 08-11-2010, 01:52 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Clockwork Black View Post
                        No matter who set the standards, no matter when, its still 100% opinion based. Who ever put these standards in place was doing so based on how they felt. So I dont see how basing whether or not something is good on nothing more than that is a cop-out.

                        I do see what your saying, I just disagree with you.
                        Bad lighting, acting, and plot are right up some peoples ally. Some people like black velvet paintings of Elvis. I wouldnt want one but I also dont think its up to me to try and convince them its bad due to some made up standard.
                        Yes, but you see what you just did there--you said that something that was "bad" (lighting, acting, plot, etc.) could be up someone's alley, which is exactly what I've been saying. People can like bad, campy things; who doesn't? All I'm saying is that I can take someone more seriously if they admit that something can be shit, even if they like it.

                        For example, I really dislike Zombie's Halloween movies, but I can respect someone a bit more if they say they like it because at least it has Michael Myers in it, even if it's not good. I will take them more seriously than someone who will try to tell me Zombie's Halloween is a good movie. Because it's not.
                        Oh, the Horror!--Reviewing all decades and all sub-genres since 2008!

                        Comment


                        • I love it when people tear apart things from end to end to anatamize their opinions. Are you people even watching movies to enjoy them or are you just watching so you can find things to nit-pick at and label as "bad" or "good" so you can come back here and have a 10 page discussion on how "Your opinion is wrong!"? Good golly bananas,folks.
                          Always check your candy.

                          Comment


                          • I think a real discussion of a movie is much more productive than 10 pages of people saying "I liked it," "it sucked," etc.
                            Oh, the Horror!--Reviewing all decades and all sub-genres since 2008!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ResidentofEvil View Post
                              I love it when people tear apart things from end to end to anatamize their opinions. Are you people even watching movies to enjoy them or are you just watching so you can find things to nit-pick at and label as "bad" or "good" so you can come back here and have a 10 page discussion on how "Your opinion is wrong!"? Good golly bananas,folks.
                              Bananas suck.

                              Comment


                              • yay! i really liked rob zombie's first 2

                                SAY NO TO DRUGS

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X