Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

I'm shocked, shocked to find that [Movies] are going on in here!

1457910101

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I've used them to differentiate before, but it's really not a good concept. I feel like it fosters wrong thinking on both sides of the divide, allowing the "film" people to look down on movies as popular trash and the "movie" people to look down on films as snooty, impenetrable [forbidden word] art.

    And I think it lets "movies" off the hook for adhering to low expectations. Any movie should be judged more on whether it fulfills its intentions than what those intentions are; but too often the idea of, "it's just a movie, I'm not looking for Shakespeare here" means making allowances for shoddy execution. Independence Day is a fun movie, but it's also bloated, illogical, and cliched; to excuse it by saying "it's not a film, it's just a movie" is to forget that there are great fucking "movies" out there that deliver accessible fun through quality execution.

    We'd do better to not be so divided, and instead talk about what each individual movie is trying to do, and how, and to what purpose or effect. Because fundamentally, both Amelie and Independence Day are trying to thrill, amuse and entertain us; they just approach the task in vastly different ways.

    I think each of those things are actually equally important. There are a lot of really bad movies that "fulfill their intentions" pretty well. I think most Michael Bay films do so, for example. Transformers intended to be a big, loud movie where shit blows up and robots run around turning into vehicles. It wanted to have some easily-accessible humor based on low-hanging fruit. It didn't care if it was plausible or even internally consistent, it just want a bunch of action set pieces with some stereotypical characters bleating some one-liners. It did exactly what it wanted to do, it's just that what it wanted to do was crappy. If I want to take a dump on a piece of cardboard and use it disgust people, it doesn't make me a master artist when I succeed.

    If we look at Transformers vs Terminator 2, we see two very different films. They are both loud summer sci-fi blockbusters with lots of stuff exploding, they're basically the same genre and have largely the same target audience. (Admittedly, Transformers skews slightly younger, but the ways in which T2 succeeds over Transformers have nothing to do with the age gap.) But while Transformers just tries to move from set piece to set piece to justify more action scenes, T2 maintains a plot that is coherent and well-managed and mostly consistent, at least by the standards of time travel plots. Where Transformers just pencils in some broad character archetypes and fills in the gaps with almost-offensive stereotypes, T2 manages to flesh out its characters and give them some nuance. Compare Sam Witwicky, who is basically motivated by "I want to bang the hot chick and not die," to John Conner, who is motivated by a desire for survival, the conflict of whether he wants to - or even can - connect to his mother, his need for a father figure and the fact that the best man for the job is a robot designed to wipe out humanity.

    While both films are trying to be entertaining, and neither one strives to be high art, Cameron understands that a good movie needs to provide emotional resonance for the viewer to truly engage. It wants you to care about these people, because the awesome action scenes are made that much more awesome. In T2, you're rooting for Conner in a way that you never do for Witwicky. You care about the T-800 in a way you don't about Bumblebee. When the T-800 dies, you care. When Bumblebee gets torn apart (or maybe that was Transformers 2 or 3, whatever, they all suck), did anybody really give a shit? Outside of the "oh, hey, I guess I'm supposed to care now" sort of way? Doubtful.

    Transformers and T2 both succeed at what they set out to do, and yet Transformers is a shit movie. Because what it strove for was such low-hanging fruit that admiring it was like admiring someone for managing to tie their shoes. It's really only impressive if the guy tying his shoes has no hands, or is functionally retarded.

    I think it's fair, when judging a movie, to look at its intentions first and foremost. Ask yourself: given what this film tried to do, if it succeeded perfectly, would I enjoy it? If you're honest about Bay's intentions for most of his movies, he's going to fail every time, because even perfect success would make for sucky movies. He's the guy crapping on cardboard. I can tell you, right away, that I'm never going to admire any artwork that consists of cardboard and poop, and so you may as well just keep your pants on.

    I think perhaps the difference here is in what you consider the "intentions" of the filmmaker to be as well.

    Like, I'd say Transformers is supposed to be "a fun, light action movie". That would be the plan.

    I think what you are trying to say is that Bay wanted it to be "a fun, light action movie where thte characters are crudely drawn and the script is basically non-existent".

    I think everything after the word movie there isn't an intention. It's a failure on Bay's part to achieve his goal, not the goal itself.

    I mean, maybe Bay didn't care that it ended up that way, but that's as much a failure as anything else.

  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    On Man of Steel
    I was shocked, shocked that Superman killed Zod. I don't really read the comics, but on top of all the movies, I do watch all the animated stuff, ect. I remember pretty much the whole audience gasped when that happened. Because I was totally expecting him to just beat Zod senseless, then have him sent someone. Or something. Not break his neck.

    I was also expecting a 'Kneel before Zod' line or reference, but there wasn't one. Which is good they didn't really rely too much on the old Superman move. It was just something I was expecting with so many remakes being built upon references to past films.

    I loved the film (and I'd like to understand why critics seem to hate it) - but this part really messed with me. I don't know if they intended this scene and the repercussions to be more fleshed out than what they did (explaining Supermans actions, taking him in a new direction, or having him commit to never do that again), or if they just didn't know superman and did it because VIOLENCE that's why.

    The scene seems like there is so much more emotion meant to be displayed but they just jump past it.

    h3ndu on
    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
    Robos A Go Go
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    h3ndu wrote: »
    On Man of Steel
    I was shocked, shocked that Superman killed Zod. I don't really read the comics, but on top of all the movies, I do watch all the animated stuff, ect. I remember pretty much the whole audience gasped when that happened. Because I was totally expecting him to just beat Zod senseless, then have him sent someone. Or something. Not break his neck.

    I was also expecting a 'Kneel before Zod' line or reference, but there wasn't one. Which is good they didn't really rely too much on the old Superman move. It was just something I was expecting with so many remakes being built upon references to past films.

    I loved the film (and I'd like to understand why critics seem to hate it) - but this part really messed with me. I don't know if they intended this scene and the repercussions to be more fleshed out than what they did (explaining Supermans actions, taking him in a new direction, or having him commit to never do that again), or if they just didn't know superman and did it because VIOLENCE that's why.

    The scene seems like there is so much more emotion meant to be displayed but they just jump past it.

    I feel you. Maybe a scene with his mother later, where they talk about it, would have helped give him direction in the future. Not sure what their goal was with it, but I'd be lying to myself if I said I didn't like that scene.



    @zagdrob

    My daughter is the same age (Hi5) and she wants to see Despicable Me 2. We really liked the first one, so I'm looking forward to taking her. My kid is totally renegade, she likes it when Gru freezes people and blows stuff up. Her favorite scene in Wreck-It Ralph is when he smashed the go-cart :P

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    h3nduwandering
  • ZealotZealot Registered User regular
  • TexiKenTexiKen 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-Pack Yes! Registered User regular
    Burt Wonderstone really did kill.

    Q8ghZFx.png
  • PailryderPailryder Registered User regular
    regarding man of steel, i liked it
    i was really shocked by the neck thing also, but at the same time i think it fit really well and if they do more, i'm sure it will come up. in many stories, there's some deus ex machina that shows up to allow superman to uphold his ideals and yet everyone also is saved. in this case he had to make a choice between stopping zod or allowing those humans to die.

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Pailryder wrote: »
    regarding man of steel, i liked it
    i was really shocked by the neck thing also, but at the same time i think it fit really well and if they do more, i'm sure it will come up. in many stories, there's some deus ex machina that shows up to allow superman to uphold his ideals and yet everyone also is saved. in this case he had to make a choice between stopping zod or allowing those humans to die.
    True. It's pretty much become run of the mill for Superman to have some means to save everyone. It's why I was expecting him to defeat Zod without killing him and was so shocked at how brutal it was.

    Maybe in the sequel, they can show him having issues with what he did. I like Superman having issues. Makes him seem real. One of my favorite parts was the x-ray vision scene. Cause he was scared as his powers developed. I also like how he couldn't control his hearing in the same scene.

    Another scene I liked was when he let Kevin Costner die. He had the power to save him, but didn't, because he trusted his dad. I could feel his frustration at the situation.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    CaptainNemoHarry DresdenCommunistCow
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    I really liked Man of Steel. I think that the sequel will be a lot better now that everything's established.

    Also, I fucking love Darkman.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • DurkhanusDurkhanus Commander Registered User regular
    Although Man of Steel didn't strike a chord with me,
    I think that it was decent overall. I like that they started off with Zod and huge destruction as superpowered aliens trashed the planet. I also think that the neck snap can be parleyed along with the "god-like alien" thing, into a believable motivation for Lex Luthor to find a way to kill Superman. If they can find someone who can be as charming and charismatic as all fuck to play such a Luthor, it could make for some decent character drama.

    Robos A Go Go
  • PailryderPailryder Registered User regular
    Durkhanus wrote: »
    Although Man of Steel didn't strike a chord with me,
    I think that it was decent overall. I like that they started off with Zod and huge destruction as superpowered aliens trashed the planet. I also think that the neck snap can be parleyed along with the "god-like alien" thing, into a believable motivation for Lex Luthor to find a way to kill Superman. If they can find someone who can be as charming and charismatic as all fuck to play such a Luthor, it could make for some decent character drama.

    i was a little giddy when
    during the final fight there were trucks that had lex-corp on them...it didn't draw me out but got me a little excited for what could come next. i actually want more of these stories!

    quantumcat42
  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    I got really lazy with my movie watching when Netflix made it too easy to watch endless reruns of my faves, so I'm making an effort to brush off the dust. Last night I hunkered down and did a marathon of a few things that have been in my queue for years: Chinatown, Slither and The Last Temptation of Christ.

    Last night was a pretty good night.

    And I really thought the generic pop knowledge surrounding, "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown," would lessen the impact of that line, but goddamn that was rough.

    Edit: Also, Slither puts that abortive The Thing remakequel to shame. The CGI was just functional, but the practical work was gloriously squicky.

    OneAngryPossum on
  • Karrde1842Karrde1842 Registered User regular
    Just got back from This is the End. I had a great time, but I can see how it definitely wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea.

  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    Karrde1842 wrote: »
    Who Framed Roger Rabbit is definitely up there. An all around great flick. But it gets beaten out by others that I personally find just a bit better.



    Who framed Roger Rabit will always be special because it is how I first saw a porno. I rented it and settled down to watch it with a friend (i was 8 or 9, he was a year younger), while my mom took a nap in the other room. I only remember a few details (such as the porno involving a christmas tree), but according to my mom we were being loud and obnoxious, not letting her sleep, and then we got really quiet which is how she knew we were doing something we weren't supposed to.

    You see, back in the old country, vhs piracy was rampant in video rental joints. They would copy a movie on a bunch of tapes, then when it became less popular overwrite some of those with another movie. I had caught on to this early on, and realized that with some shorter movies I could watch back half a longer movie for free. in this case, they had taped Roger Rabbit over what most have been some marathon christmas setting porn.

    Smrtnik on
    steam_sig.png
    Tiger Burningwandering
  • VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    Faora/Antje Traue was the highlight of the movie for me. me-yow!

    Harry DresdenShadowenh3ndu
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Faora was exceedingly easy on the eyes. And awesome in her fights. And had cool armor.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
    Shadowenh3nduXenogear_0001
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    So I turn on the tv and Robocop is on. I forgot how good this movie is, its Terminator 2 before Terminator 2.

    Dealing with all the redubbed words is kinda lame though.

    Also, Im pretty sure Ive only seen the first Robocop despite thinking Ive seen Robocop 2. But whats with the ED-209 squealing like a pig when it falls over?

    camo_sig2.png
  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2013
    Just think of it as the hydraulics failing and making that god awful sound before he falls.

    EDIT: Also gotta love how Robocop's Detroit now looks better then actual Detroit.

    Nocren on
    newSig.jpg
    ShadowenDanHibikih3nduemp123Harry DresdenXenogear_0001SmrtnikL Ron Howard
  • Thorn413Thorn413 Registered User regular
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Haven't seen a movie that caters directly to me more than Event horizon yet.
    It's a great, almost seamless, fusion between my two fave genres, (hard) scifi and horror; It's visuals are very well-crafted; Curiously high-profile and competent cast, and plenty of other little filmmaking details that just makes it thouroughly enjoyable.

    Alien, Sunshine, and Event Horizon are a three way tie for best sci-fi horror in my mind, I have tried to pick between them but I just cannot do it.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Does The Thing count as Sci Fi horror? The Thing is pretty damn good.

    camo_sig2.png
    Deadfall
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    emp123 wrote: »
    Does The Thing count as Sci Fi horror? The Thing is pretty damn good.

    It totally does.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    Mike DangerOneAngryPossumHarry DresdenShadowen
  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    Thorn413 wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Haven't seen a movie that caters directly to me more than Event horizon yet.
    It's a great, almost seamless, fusion between my two fave genres, (hard) scifi and horror; It's visuals are very well-crafted; Curiously high-profile and competent cast, and plenty of other little filmmaking details that just makes it thouroughly enjoyable.

    Alien, Sunshine, and Event Horizon are a three way tie for best sci-fi horror in my mind, I have tried to pick between them but I just cannot do it.

    Sci-Fi Horror is perhaps my favorite sub-genre. I'd say that Alien and Thing are the clear winners. (Though I still need to see Sunshine). Jurassic Park is a clear winner as well, but I'm not sure I'd classify it as Sci-Fi Horror. It's Sci-Fi and it's (at least partially) Horror, but I'm not sure the two interact sufficiently for it to count as "Sci-Fi Horror".

    As for Event Horizon, I like it, but it suffers from some problems. It's just a little too weird and the characters (who aren't Sam Neill) are really sort of interchangeable.

    And I'll still defend Prometheus as a good Sci-Fi Horror movie, just not in this thread :)

    Have you seen Pandorum? It has an interesting premise and has interesting characters, but isn't quite as scary as, say, Event Horizon. That said, I think it was great and I'm disappointed it didn't do very well.

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    I seem to remember liking Pandorum, but now I'm having a hard time remembering the specifics. Guess it's going on the rewatch list!

  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    I seem to remember liking Pandorum, but now I'm having a hard time remembering the specifics. Guess it's going on the rewatch list!

    Pandorum is the in-universe name for dementia caused by too much time in space (i.e. cabin fever). And the ship they're on is a colony ship.

    Does that help? (Neither of those are spoilers)

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Oh, I have vague recollections of the film and it's plot, and a few scenes stick out, but like, 90% of the movie and plot are a complete blank. Just the overall synopsis and the vague sense that I liked it.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Pandorum was good, as was Alien. I'm not a huge fan of horror films in general, but those two were good.

    h3ndu
  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    I think I'd put The Mist above Event Horizon as it doesn't devolve into the silliness that EH does. EH has great atmosphere and promise, but loses it toward the end.

    OneAngryPossum
  • Thorn413Thorn413 Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Does The Thing count as Sci Fi horror? The Thing is pretty damn good.

    Somehow I totally forgot about The Thing.

    Okay then, four way tie.

  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    I think I'd put The Mist above Event Horizon as it doesn't devolve into the silliness that EH does. EH has great atmosphere and promise, but loses it toward the end.

    Well, to be fair The Mist definitely starts slamming the emotional chords a little too hard at the end. Only off key moment for me in an otherwise amazing movie.

    Etiowsa
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Splice is pretty good sci-fi horror. There's also Scanners, and some other Cronenbergs--including his The Fly, which is really excellent.

    I guess what I'm saying is, fuck Event Horizon.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    I think I'd put The Mist above Event Horizon as it doesn't devolve into the silliness that EH does. EH has great atmosphere and promise, but loses it toward the end.

    Well, to be fair The Mist definitely starts slamming the emotional chords a little too hard at the end. Only off key moment for me in an otherwise amazing movie.

    Oh god.

    The Mist's ending. I'd completely forgotten about that.

    EH28YFo.jpg
    zagdrobwebguy20
  • Thorn413Thorn413 Registered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Thorn413 wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Haven't seen a movie that caters directly to me more than Event horizon yet.
    It's a great, almost seamless, fusion between my two fave genres, (hard) scifi and horror; It's visuals are very well-crafted; Curiously high-profile and competent cast, and plenty of other little filmmaking details that just makes it thouroughly enjoyable.

    Alien, Sunshine, and Event Horizon are a three way tie for best sci-fi horror in my mind, I have tried to pick between them but I just cannot do it.

    Sci-Fi Horror is perhaps my favorite sub-genre. I'd say that Alien and Thing are the clear winners. (Though I still need to see Sunshine). Jurassic Park is a clear winner as well, but I'm not sure I'd classify it as Sci-Fi Horror. It's Sci-Fi and it's (at least partially) Horror, but I'm not sure the two interact sufficiently for it to count as "Sci-Fi Horror".

    As for Event Horizon, I like it, but it suffers from some problems. It's just a little too weird and the characters (who aren't Sam Neill) are really sort of interchangeable.

    And I'll still defend Prometheus as a good Sci-Fi Horror movie, just not in this thread :)

    Have you seen Pandorum? It has an interesting premise and has interesting characters, but isn't quite as scary as, say, Event Horizon. That said, I think it was great and I'm disappointed it didn't do very well.

    I think I might just have a weakness for that unspeakable unknowable Lovecraftian stuff and Event Horizon did a good job of hitting those buttons. It is true that the characters don't really shine, in fact I think that Sunshine is my favorite sci-fi horror crew by quite a healthy margin.

    I still cannot believe that The Thing slipped my mind. For some reason I tend to think of it as a pure horror movie rather than Sci Fi, but I have zero excuses for that.

    I haven't seen Pandorum, I will need to see if Netflix has it.

  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    Taranis wrote: »
    I think I'd put The Mist above Event Horizon as it doesn't devolve into the silliness that EH does. EH has great atmosphere and promise, but loses it toward the end.

    Well, to be fair The Mist definitely starts slamming the emotional chords a little too hard at the end. Only off key moment for me in an otherwise amazing movie.

    Oh god.

    The Mist's ending. I'd completely forgotten about that.

    I was talking about that movie once with a friend and about how brutal the ending was. After getting permission for spoilers, I told him about it and...

    D:

  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Splice is pretty good sci-fi horror. There's also Scanners, and some other Cronenbergs--including his The Fly, which is really excellent.

    I guess what I'm saying is, fuck Event Horizon.

    The Fly. There's the champ. Grimy, gory, human, and Jeff Goldblum as a hot scientist with the power of both a grown man and a regular fly.

    Holder of the Sci-Fi Horror Championship.

  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2013
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Thorn413 wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Haven't seen a movie that caters directly to me more than Event horizon yet.
    It's a great, almost seamless, fusion between my two fave genres, (hard) scifi and horror; It's visuals are very well-crafted; Curiously high-profile and competent cast, and plenty of other little filmmaking details that just makes it thouroughly enjoyable.

    Alien, Sunshine, and Event Horizon are a three way tie for best sci-fi horror in my mind, I have tried to pick between them but I just cannot do it.

    Sci-Fi Horror is perhaps my favorite sub-genre. I'd say that Alien and Thing are the clear winners. (Though I still need to see Sunshine). Jurassic Park is a clear winner as well, but I'm not sure I'd classify it as Sci-Fi Horror. It's Sci-Fi and it's (at least partially) Horror, but I'm not sure the two interact sufficiently for it to count as "Sci-Fi Horror".

    I dunno if I'd label Jurassic Park as horror though... I mean, I think of the Dinos as forces of nature just kind of doing their thing, not out of any malicious intent or psychological need, but because they are just really large and extremely dangerous animals.

    Nocren on
    newSig.jpg
  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    Nocren wrote: »
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Thorn413 wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Haven't seen a movie that caters directly to me more than Event horizon yet.
    It's a great, almost seamless, fusion between my two fave genres, (hard) scifi and horror; It's visuals are very well-crafted; Curiously high-profile and competent cast, and plenty of other little filmmaking details that just makes it thouroughly enjoyable.

    Alien, Sunshine, and Event Horizon are a three way tie for best sci-fi horror in my mind, I have tried to pick between them but I just cannot do it.

    Sci-Fi Horror is perhaps my favorite sub-genre. I'd say that Alien and Thing are the clear winners. (Though I still need to see Sunshine). Jurassic Park is a clear winner as well, but I'm not sure I'd classify it as Sci-Fi Horror. It's Sci-Fi and it's (at least partially) Horror, but I'm not sure the two interact sufficiently for it to count as "Sci-Fi Horror".

    I dunno if I'd label Jurassic Park as horror though... I mean, I think of the Dinos as forces of nature just kind of doing their thing, not out of any malicious intent or psychological need, but because they are just really large and extremely dangerous animals.

    If Sci-fi Horror is all about the perils of technology and scientific endeavors, then I think Jurassic Park qualifies.

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Nocren wrote: »
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Thorn413 wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Haven't seen a movie that caters directly to me more than Event horizon yet.
    It's a great, almost seamless, fusion between my two fave genres, (hard) scifi and horror; It's visuals are very well-crafted; Curiously high-profile and competent cast, and plenty of other little filmmaking details that just makes it thouroughly enjoyable.

    Alien, Sunshine, and Event Horizon are a three way tie for best sci-fi horror in my mind, I have tried to pick between them but I just cannot do it.

    Sci-Fi Horror is perhaps my favorite sub-genre. I'd say that Alien and Thing are the clear winners. (Though I still need to see Sunshine). Jurassic Park is a clear winner as well, but I'm not sure I'd classify it as Sci-Fi Horror. It's Sci-Fi and it's (at least partially) Horror, but I'm not sure the two interact sufficiently for it to count as "Sci-Fi Horror".

    I dunno if I'd label Jurassic Park as horror though... I mean, I think of the Dinos as forces of nature just kind of doing their thing, not out of any malicious intent or psychological need, but because they are just really large and extremely dangerous animals.

    If Sci-fi Horror is all about the perils of technology and scientific endeavors, then I think Jurassic Park qualifies.

    It's not, though. Or Alien doesn't.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    gjaustin
  • Joe DizzyJoe Dizzy Registered User regular
    Now the Hangover-movies aren't really known for their deep-felt emotions, poignant moments or heart-felt stories, but part III....

    ...was pretty fucking awful.

    I think I preferred the first two movies, when I considered them just a mindless exercise in subtextual misandry and gross-out humour. Part 3 on the other hand, with its focus on Alan's "growth", just reveals itself to be utterly tone-deaf in the way that it tries to pass off its characters and their relationship to one another as anything but circumstantial connections between various types of irredeemably selfish individuals.

  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    Nocren wrote: »
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Thorn413 wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Haven't seen a movie that caters directly to me more than Event horizon yet.
    It's a great, almost seamless, fusion between my two fave genres, (hard) scifi and horror; It's visuals are very well-crafted; Curiously high-profile and competent cast, and plenty of other little filmmaking details that just makes it thouroughly enjoyable.

    Alien, Sunshine, and Event Horizon are a three way tie for best sci-fi horror in my mind, I have tried to pick between them but I just cannot do it.

    Sci-Fi Horror is perhaps my favorite sub-genre. I'd say that Alien and Thing are the clear winners. (Though I still need to see Sunshine). Jurassic Park is a clear winner as well, but I'm not sure I'd classify it as Sci-Fi Horror. It's Sci-Fi and it's (at least partially) Horror, but I'm not sure the two interact sufficiently for it to count as "Sci-Fi Horror".

    I dunno if I'd label Jurassic Park as horror though... I mean, I think of the Dinos as forces of nature just kind of doing their thing, not out of any malicious intent or psychological need, but because they are just really large and extremely dangerous animals.

    I don't think malicious intent is required for horror. Neither The Thing or the xenomorph in Alien ever have malice established. It's more an issue of the protagonists being powerless, combined with the film involving the audience in the dread and terror that accompany that.

    And even if malice was required, the velociraptors are portrayed as highly intelligent predators. Their tactics are identical to those a malicious human would apply, so our natural reaction is to label them evil. They may not be evil in the strictest sense, but that doesn't affect the emotional beats of the story.
    If Sci-fi Horror is all about the perils of technology and scientific endeavors, then I think Jurassic Park qualifies.
    I think that simply discussing the perils of technology is still just Sci-Fi. For example, Minority Report is about the perils of technology that allows seeing the future but has no substantial elements that are associated with the horror genre.

    I have trouble defining Sci-Fi Horror, because even the clear example have some substantial differences between them. I would say that it requires some kind of "alien" (whether an actual extraterrestrial, a modified human, or a machine) that cannot be reasoned with. It's designed to invoke fear of the unknown (more so than other Horror). It reminds us that humanity is all alone in the darkness - or even worse, there are monsters in the darkness. And then the theme of the movie usually revolves around Hubris (e.g. Event Horizon), Identity (e.g. The Thing), or Loneliness (e.g. Pandorum).

    Jurassic Park does have the theme of Hubris and the antagonists can't be reasoned with. Yet, the dinosaurs ARE knowable and the presence of peaceful dinosaurs (veggiesauruses) undermines the horror. So I think my overall categorization is that there are scenes of Jurassic Park that are spectacular horror scenes (e.g. the T-Rex scene or the Kitchen scene), but the movie itself is not a Horror movie.

    An example of a similar movie with a good horror scene that isn't a Horror movie is Return of the King. Jackson draws on his experience with Horror movies in the scenes with Shelob, but the movie itself is clearly not Horror.

    NocrenSmrtnik
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Horror films absolutely do not require an evil villain. Relentless forces of nature with inhuman motives are perfectly relevant antagonists.

    see: Jaws

    Mikey CTSMild ConfusionCaptainNemo
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    @gjaustin

    I think you have an excellent and well thought out post...but I have to disagree. I would have to say Jurassic Park is sci-fi horror in the same genre as The Mist. In fact, taking away the twisted ending of The Mist, the two movies are very comparable.

    You have the 'humans are bastards' line running through both movies - Nedry fucking up the computers in Jurassic Park, the crazy religious cultish stuff in The Mist. The creatures - dinosaurs in JP and the animals in The Mist weren't necessarily malicious, evil, or anything like that. Just forces of nature with their own motivations.

    I believe that in The Mist, there were a few creatures that pretty much didn't give a shit about people or weren't malicious. There was that gigantic thing that we only saw the leg of, and I think there were a few other things that weren't harmful or dangerous - parallel to the non-aggressive animals in Jurassic Park. It's been a long time since I've watch The Mist, so I can't remember too well.

    I definitely think JP didn't aim to be as much of a horror as The Mist, but it definitely had enough horrifying traits that it's the same ballpark.

    RocketSauce
This discussion has been closed.