The Cabin in the Woods *Spoilers from post 180*

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote: »

Doesn't really matter to me if an iconic idea/character etc. get's distorted in a sequel/prequel/spinoff as I can still enjoy the original. Granted you get a lot of slosh, but when you consider 3 of this years most anticipated movies are The Avengers (multi sequel/spinoff), The Dark Knight Rises (threequel) and Prometheus (prequel/spinoff) I wouldn't be too quick to tow the 'damn all sequels etc.!' line towed on the internet all too readily.

Not dismissing the concept of a good sequel at all, but horror series are all to likely to continue on indefinitely (really: can we name many horror sequels that genuinely improve on the original?). Since Cabin in the Woods goes out of its way to achieve finality and a scathingly satirical dismissal of potential sequel opportunities, it stands out as a unique case that actively discourages follow-ups and actually seems to critique the concept. Unless Whedon and Godard were to get back on board with a great idea - given their statements in the film and IRL, that seems wholly unlikely - I think it would be absolutely fantastic if CitW was to remain a glorious once-off. I can only imagine a sequel out of their hands would achieve S. Darko levels of redundancy.

For those reasons, I think we as viewers and fans of the film should make it our business to reject a potential sequel

Galvasean

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

For those reasons, I think we as viewers and fans of the film should make it our business to reject a potential sequel

Stop arguing with me against a CitW sequel as that is clearly not what I am calling for. I have gone on the record more than once on thread saying that I would be interested in a Cube Zero style prequel - something which could ad to the mythology of the original film, but by no means be essential viewing or indeed 'canon' for those uninterested.
Plus, I'm not too big on the 'pitchforks' approach in relation to hypothetical movies we know nothing about.

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote: »

Stop arguing with me against a CitW sequel as that is clearly not what I am calling for. I have gone on the record more than once on thread saying that I would be interested in a Cube Zero style prequel - something which could ad to the mythology of the original film, but by no means be essential viewing or indeed 'canon' for those uninterested.
Plus, I'm not too big on the 'pitchforks' approach in relation to hypothetical movies we know nothing about.

If you're interested in a prequel, that is more than fair enough, and I also think there's no point getting up in arms about hypothetical sequels that will likely never happen. Apologies if I misinterpreted your point, which I seem to have done.

I just personally think Cabin in the Woods acts as an absolutely definitive once-off, prequel or sequel, and it's so rare to see a film of this type that makes that so utterly clear. IMO, it was one of the great strengths of the film as a whole, and it was a giddy feeling to leave the cinema on (even with a very last shot that was a bit silly).

Canis Lupus

Watched last night not having heard of this but seeing great reviews across the board before leaving for the cinema.

I left feeling mostly meh. I'm not sure what it was missing but for me I was itching to just leave towards the last 15 mins. I didn't care what happened. Don't really understand all the hype.

johnny_ultimate

I'm just reading through some of the reviews for the film out there in critics-land, and I'm genuinely rather bamboozled by the amount that dock it points on the basis that it's not scary. I think it's pretty self-evident from even the brilliant title sequence (an hilariously unnecessary jumpy bit) that we were in comedy town?

Galvasean

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm just reading through some of the reviews for the film out there in critics-land, and I'm genuinely rather bamboozled by the amount that dock it points on the basis that it's not scary. I think it's pretty self-evident from even the brilliant title sequence (an hilariously unnecessary jumpy bit) that we were in comedy town?

Perhaps the trailers promos (which I have not watched) paint it as horror?
It's definitely not supposed to be a straight up horror, more a dark comedy which celebrates the horror genre, embracing it completely but not too proud to make light of the silly staples often associated with it.

WoollyRedHat

I got scared once or twice, but only because it was jumpy, am I weird?

Zero-Cool

Just saw it there, thought it was very good! Very Whedon. Is there any scene after the credits? I left when the credits were rolling but noticed the cinema stayed dark. Did I miss anything?

OldeCinemaSoz

i was right!

the trailer for cabin in the woods gave the game away.

:rolleyes:

sad film distributors haven't got a clue!

krudler

fantastic,fantastic stuff, flipped the tired old jock/slut/brain/virgin/stoner character models on their heads and messed around with horror movies, some fantastic one liners, great setpieces and it was...fun, something that movies lack as a whole these days. knew exactly what it was and ran with it. I'd happily sit through it again right now.

Millicent

sheehy83 wrote: »

Just saw it there, thought it was very good! Very Whedon. Is there any scene after the credits? I left when the credits were rolling but noticed the cinema stayed dark. Did I miss anything?

Nope. I was expecting something at the end so waited till the credits ended and then felt very silly. :pac:

Links234

can anyone tell me, what the

merman

was a reference to?

Xevkin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm just reading through some of the reviews for the film out there in critics-land, and I'm genuinely rather bamboozled by the amount that dock it points on the basis that it's not scary. I think it's pretty self-evident from even the brilliant title sequence (an hilariously unnecessary jumpy bit) that we were in comedy town?

Avoided any exposure to trailers going into the film, and have to say that there was a middle section for me that had plenty of decent scares and tension. I admit, too often a cut to the control room may disrupt things, but I found scenes such as the wolf-dare to have a . . .chill

I may have been enjoying myself so much that I let that happen, on reflection. The film made my week.

jpm4

It was good fun, very enjoyable but I think Scream was a a more cohesive and less laboured satire of the horror genre. Great fun seeing everything running amuck towards the end!

Galvasean

Links234 wrote: »

can anyone tell me, what the

merman

was a reference to?

I'm not sure exactly, but probably

something Lovecraftian, perhaps Dagon. Personally I like to think it's a reference to this guy: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Merman-motu.jpg/422px-Merman-motu.jpg

The King of Moo

I saw this last night and loved it, and I wouldn't really be much of a fan of the Whedonverse.

I like that it doesn't just deconstruct the tropes of the genre and just reveal these tropes and leave it at that, a la Scream.
It did something a lot deeper and looked at what horror really is and why we enjoy it.

I also think the trailers were fairly well-pitched for the most part. They revealed that it's not just a regular horror (I can't believe anyone went into it expecting that!) but not what it really is at all.

Necronomicon

I utterly loved this. I haven't left the cinema with that kind of feeling since Drag Me To Hell, certainly as far as horrors go anyway; it was bordering on giddy. The take on the genre, wonderful homages (

to my eyes it was essentially the cabin from The Evil Dead; and seeing the screenshots of the whiteboard which had Deadite and rape-tree references has me swooning

), the sharp dialogue (wouldn't expect anything else from something co-penned by Whedon), the humour; I loved it.

I'm not sure if I'm alone on this, but I genuinely thought that the film was coming to an end when the 'virgin' was on the pier with the redneck zombie while the party was going on in the facility. That made the actual last half hour or so all the more impactful. Once the creatures were released into the facility I wore a grin from ear to ear that didn't fade even after I was back in the car park.

gazzer

Millicent wrote: »

Nope. I was expecting something at the end so waited till the credits ended and then felt very silly. :pac:

Me too I made my 2 friends wait with me (we were the only 3 left in the cinema) because I was convinced there was going to be an extra scene after the credits .... Possibly Buffy or Angel fighting the demons

Galvasean

Gonna go see this again on Sunday.
Ah shure, why not? Keeps me away from Battleship.

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

Gonna go see this again on Sunday.
Ah shure, why not? Keeps me away from Battleship.

I wanna see Battleship

Nervous Wreck

Something I forgot to comment on earlier. Some people were kinda complaining about

Sgourney Weaver's cameo

being lame cos it

happened only last year in Paul

. What those people are forgetting is, The Cabin In The Woods

was originally supposed to be released in 2010. TCITW did it first; Paul was just released first.

fluke

Aw what a great film, saw it last night with a mate and we both felt at the halfway mark this was gonna be mildly entertaining and that it wouldn't be as smart as it thought it was, but wow did the last 20 mins or so turn the whole film into a great ride.

Killer unicorn go!

IRL_Sinister

What an awful movie.

johnny_ultimate

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

What an awful movie.

Care to elaborate? Curious to hear why.

IRL_Sinister

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Care to elaborate? Curious to hear why.

It was plain old silly. I got what it was trying to achieve but I didn't find it entertaining. It had some good 1-liners but it wasn't scary at any point. It had a bit of tension here and there. Personally found it all-round retarded.

I particularly disliked the part where

they were in the elevator and they were surrounded by all the other 'deaths' in the boxes.

. That part was terrible and was like looking at a horrible production of a kid's horror movie. Don't even get me started on how terrible the ending was.

Nervous Wreck

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

It was plain old silly.

That was kinda the point...

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

I got what it was trying to achieve but I didn't find it entertaining. It had some good 1-liners but it wasn't scary at any point.

It's not a horror film...

IRL_Sinister

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

That was kinda the point...



It's not a horror film...

Yes I know that was the point, but you'd never have gathered that from the trailer. I dislike silly movies, especially when I pay money for them. It's not my cup of tea, as suggested by me saying I did not find the movie good. I, according to the policies and rules of this forum, am entitled to say such opinions.

I know it's not a horror film. At no point did I say it was. I said it wasn't scary because one of the captions, alongside funny, was 'scary'. I did not find a single moment of it scary. It was very predictable. Guy and girl go to woods, get killed. Guy stands by window, gets pulled through. I KNOW that's the point. I just did not like it. I'm sure there are many people out there who do, probably many who saw this as fresh and new but I was not one of them nor did I enjoy this at all.

dan1895

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

That was kinda the point...



It's not a horror film...

Not what the trailer would have you believe though. If I had been expecting something silly I wouldn't of wasted my time going to see it.

vangoz

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

Yes I know that was the point, but you'd never have gathered that from the trailer. I dislike silly movies, especially when I pay money for them. It's not my cup of tea, as suggested by me saying I did not find the movie good. I, according to the policies and rules of this forum, am entitled to say such opinions.

I know it's not a horror film. At no point did I say it was. I said it wasn't scary because one of the captions, alongside funny, was 'scary'. I did not find a single moment of it scary. It was very predictable. Guy and girl go to woods, get killed. Guy stands by window, gets pulled through. I KNOW that's the point. I just did not like it. I'm sure there are many people out there who do, probably many who saw this as fresh and new but I was not one of them nor did I enjoy this at all.

It has silly parts, but to call the overall movie silly would be a bit far stretched. It has intellegence and self awareness woven throughout, it makes you think on a few levels what the creators are trying to repesenbt with the various plots.

For example, I felt the Gods were in fact us the audeince, the people runnig the cabin represent the writers and the proccess they go through writing a script, the mistakes commonly made and especially the abundance of deuce ex machina they're are guilty of (ie the feramones, the purge monsters button, the little girl zombie)

People have different tastes and thats fine, but its not fair to judge something and call it stupid if you dont grasp the basic concept.

IRL_Sinister

vangoz wrote: »

It has silly parts, but to call the overall movie silly would be a bit far stretched. It has intellegence and self awareness woven troughout, it makes you think on a few levels what the creators are trying to repesenbt with the various plots.

For example, I felt the Gods were in fact us the audeince, the people runnig the cabin represent the writers and the proccess they go through writing a script, the mistakes commonly made and especially the abundance of deuce ex machina they're are guilty of (ie the feramones, the purge monsters button, the little girl zombie)

People have different tastes and thats fine, but its not fair to judge something and call it stupid if you dont grasp the basic concept.

I do grasp the basic concept. The concept of the 'virgin' was interesting. It was actually a very clever spin on the traditional 'cabin in the woods' (best term i can come up with) story/plot. I think you're thinking too much about it though when you compare the guys 'underneath' as the guys who wrote the movie. I think the Gods thing at the end was a piss-take.

EDIT: Although they at least did leave the most likeable character alive at the end.

johnny_ultimate

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

EDIT: Although they at least did leave the most likeable character alive at the end.

Emmm... God?

johnny_ultimate

Oh and a spoiler warning added for I'm sure obvious reasons. No need for tags, everyone else proceed with caution.

IRL_Sinister

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Emmm... God?

Well, almost right to the very end :>

razorblunt

Saw it tonight really enjoyed it, liked the whole "i'm coming back with cops and choppers" build up.
Thought the bike itself might have been a nod to 8 legged freaks

Pointless nitpicking plot holes in a film like this, but

wouldn't the heart rate monitors have indicated who was dead and who was in fact alive still?

Basq

Just saw this this and absolutely loved it!

Although myself and girlfriend were in a quiet screening with probably 5 other people. This is a film that thrives on a good audience, and that wasn't present in the screening I was at.

Three stars of the show were Whitford, Jenkins and Kranz. All 3 were excellent in their respective roles - I always liked Kranz in 'Dollhouse', and here's hoping we see more of him.

The horror movie (first 45 minutes) were the weaker part of the movie for me.. while fun, it did feel a little familiar. The film shone when we were in the facility.

Unlike others, I didn't have a problem with the big red Purge button.. if I was being very sensitive, I'd be wondering why it was in an unlocked room.

Shame to see a movie sit on a shelf for a few years before release... this movie did show it's not always a bad sign (a lá 'Take Me Home Tonight').

Goddard and Whedon just gave the US horror genre a well needed shot in the arm.

johnny_ultimate

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

Yes I know that was the point, but you'd never have gathered that from the trailer. I dislike silly movies, especially when I pay money for them. It's not my cup of tea, as suggested by me saying I did not find the movie good. I, according to the policies and rules of this forum, am entitled to say such opinions.

I know it's not a horror film. At no point did I say it was. I said it wasn't scary because one of the captions, alongside funny, was 'scary'. I did not find a single moment of it scary. It was very predictable. Guy and girl go to woods, get killed. Guy stands by window, gets pulled through. I KNOW that's the point. I just did not like it. I'm sure there are many people out there who do, probably many who saw this as fresh and new but I was not one of them nor did I enjoy this at all.

Not in anyway dismissing your opinion, as you frequently point out that you know it wasn't a horror film. But it seems you're criticising it down to the marketing (which was a very, very hard job for a film of this type, especially when they couldn't really give away any of the story's unique selling points) and what the film isn't. It has no more need to be scary as Scary Movie, albeit one is a genuinely clever genre deconstruction and the other is merely a series of lame pop culture references. CitW, IMO, is only predictable in the way the puppetmasters in the film are making it predictable. While the overall plot structure does follow traditional structural beats, there are enough surprises and twists along the way to make it worthwhile. As I've said before, one of my favourite aspects of the film was the drip feed of information concerning the 'grand scheme' in the first hour: the revelations in that regard were consistently unusual and unexpected.

It just seems a common criticism running through this thread and some of the more negative critical responses to it: that Cabin in the Woods is not scary, and that therefore is a flaw of the film. If so, does the same criticism apply to Evil Dead 2? It and CitW are to me comedies that happen to take place within a traditionally horror environment, and any light scares we get along the way are a welcome bonus. That Cabin in the Woods so actively goes out of its way to insist that it is not a horror - pretty much every generically creepy scene is followed up by a laugh out loud piss-take of it, such as the brilliant bit with the Harbringer - that I really don't think 'it's not scary' is in anyway a fair or accurate critique of what the film actually is, which is a satire first and foremost.

If one doesn't enjoy it even on those terms (most crucially, if they didn't find it funny or entertaining) that we cannot begrudge or argue against that: a lack of consensus, after all, is only to be encouraged. But Cabin in the Woods is a film I've frequently seen criticised for reasons I personally deem somewhat unfair and inaccurate.

jpm4

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Not in anyway dismissing your opinion, as you frequently point out that you know it wasn't a horror film. But it seems you're criticising it down to the marketing (which was a very, very hard job for a film of this type, especially when they couldn't really give away any of the story's unique selling points) and what the film isn't. It has no more need to be scary as Scary Movie, albeit one is a genuinely clever genre deconstruction and the other is merely a series of lame pop culture references. CitW, IMO, is only predictable in the way the puppetmasters in the film are making it predictable. While the overall plot structure does follow traditional structural beats, there are enough surprises and twists along the way to make it worthwhile. As I've said before, one of my favourite aspects of the film was the drip feed of information concerning the 'grand scheme' in the first hour: the revelations in that regard were consistently unusual and unexpected.

It just seems a common criticism running through this thread and some of the more negative critical responses to it: that Cabin in the Woods is not scary, and that therefore is a flaw of the film. If so, does the same criticism apply to Evil Dead 2? It and CitW are to me comedies that happen to take place within a traditionally horror environment, and any light scares we get along the way are a welcome bonus. That Cabin in the Woods so actively goes out of its way to insist that it is not a horror - pretty much every generically creepy scene is followed up by a laugh out loud piss-take of it, such as the brilliant bit with the Harbringer - that I really don't think 'it's not scary' is in anyway a fair or accurate critique of what the film actually is, which is a satire first and foremost.

If one doesn't enjoy it even on those terms (most crucially, if they didn't find it funny or entertaining) that we cannot begrudge or argue against that: a lack of consensus, after all, is only to be encouraged. But Cabin in the Woods is a film I've frequently seen criticised for reasons I personally deem somewhat unfair and inaccurate.

You can't blame people for ending up in the cinema watching this and expecting or hoping to see a horror - not everyone is a horror film, Evil Dead 2 loving nerd to be blunt about it, and into post modern ironic piss taking or whatever. As much as I liked it, I felt that it could have injected a few more scares without taking anything from the basic premise. Scream managed that pretty well if I remember right.

Nervous Wreck

jpm4 wrote: »

You can't blame people for ending up in the cinema watching this and expecting or hoping to see a horror - not everyone is a horror film, Evil Dead 2 loving nerd to be blunt about it, and into post modern ironic piss taking or whatever. As much as I liked it, I felt that it could have injected a few more scares without taking anything from the basic premise. Scream managed that pretty well if I remember right.

There's a number of things it 'could have injected' without taking anything from the basic premise.' Just because you were wanting/expecting a horror doesn't mean the film-makers have to adhere to that.

Fysh

Are we seriously fielding concerns about how it wasn't scary enough?

I mean, yes, fine, the marketing struggled with this one, but...honestly, I don't see how you could get past the conversation about driving with a giant bong and not realise this is a film that doesn't take itself seriously.

Certainly you can't get past the whole Mordecai "I'm on speakerphone" bit without realising that the film really, really doesn't have much interest in adhering to the rules of the genre it's satirising.

Yes, it could have offered up some more convincing conventional scares...but that would have worked directly against its very obvious intent, which was to rip the piss out of the by-now-stagnant conventions that all too many films in the genre seem to feel forced to follow.

If the complaint is "Cabin In The Woods wasn't enough like the new Friday 13th/Nightmare On Elm Street/etc" then, well, why not go and watch those films instead? What little of the advertising I saw made it clear this wasn't going to be a conventional slasher (as did the presence of Joss Whedon's name in the writing credits).

jpm4

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

There's a number of things it 'could have injected' without taking anything from the basic premise.' Just because you were wanting/expecting a horror doesn't mean the film-makers have to adhere to that.

I didn't expect anything - like I said I got where they were coming from and enjoyed it. But as far as I know this is a film on general release, not playing on some obscure cult film festival circuit. It was always likely to attract people "not in the know", who pay the same as anyone else and are entitled to an opinion. Of course that opinion can be picked apart like any other, but if it's implied that it's somehow an inferior opinion to others because they haven't spent their lifes watching films like Evil Dead 2, then I think that is just elitist.

jcsoulinger

jpm4 wrote: »

I didn't expect anything - like I said I got where they were coming from and enjoyed it. But as far as I know this is a film on general release, not playing on some obscure cult film festival circuit. It was always likely to attract people "not in the know", who pay the same as anyone else and are entitled to an opinion. Of course that opinion can be picked apart like any other, but if it's implied that it's somehow an inferior opinion to others because they haven't spent their lifes watching films like Evil Dead 2, then I think that is just elitist.

I would have to agree with this, the vibe I get from the people defending this film is, if you dont like this film your a moron.

IRL_Sinister

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Not in anyway dismissing your opinion, as you frequently point out that you know it wasn't a horror film. But it seems you're criticising it down to the marketing (which was a very, very hard job for a film of this type, especially when they couldn't really give away any of the story's unique selling points) and what the film isn't. It has no more need to be scary as Scary Movie, albeit one is a genuinely clever genre deconstruction and the other is merely a series of lame pop culture references. CitW, IMO, is only predictable in the way the puppetmasters in the film are making it predictable. While the overall plot structure does follow traditional structural beats, there are enough surprises and twists along the way to make it worthwhile. As I've said before, one of my favourite aspects of the film was the drip feed of information concerning the 'grand scheme' in the first hour: the revelations in that regard were consistently unusual and unexpected.

It just seems a common criticism running through this thread and some of the more negative critical responses to it: that Cabin in the Woods is not scary, and that therefore is a flaw of the film. If so, does the same criticism apply to Evil Dead 2? It and CitW are to me comedies that happen to take place within a traditionally horror environment, and any light scares we get along the way are a welcome bonus. That Cabin in the Woods so actively goes out of its way to insist that it is not a horror - pretty much every generically creepy scene is followed up by a laugh out loud piss-take of it, such as the brilliant bit with the Harbringer - that I really don't think 'it's not scary' is in anyway a fair or accurate critique of what the film actually is, which is a satire first and foremost.

If one doesn't enjoy it even on those terms (most crucially, if they didn't find it funny or entertaining) that we cannot begrudge or argue against that: a lack of consensus, after all, is only to be encouraged. But Cabin in the Woods is a film I've frequently seen criticised for reasons I personally deem somewhat unfair and inaccurate.

I don't get why you keep focusing on the horror part.

Anyway, as I stated I disliked this movie and thought it was awful.

Fysh

jcsoulinger wrote: »

I would have to agree with this, the vibe I get from the people defending this film is, if you dont like this film your a moron.

I don't think you're a moron, so much as I think that "Cabin In The Woods was alright, but it would've been better if it was more like every other slasher released in the last ten years" is a silly complaint, because you can just watch those slasher films instead.

johnny_ultimate

jpm4 wrote: »

You can't blame people for ending up in the cinema watching this and expecting or hoping to see a horror - not everyone is a horror film, Evil Dead 2 loving nerd to be blunt about it, and into post modern ironic piss taking or whatever. As much as I liked it, I felt that it could have injected a few more scares without taking anything from the basic premise. Scream managed that pretty well if I remember right.

jpm4 wrote: »

I didn't expect anything - like I said I got where they were coming from and enjoyed it. But as far as I know this is a film on general release, not playing on some obscure cult film festival circuit. It was always likely to attract people "not in the know", who pay the same as anyone else and are entitled to an opinion. Of course that opinion can be picked apart like any other, but if it's implied that it's somehow an inferior opinion to others because they haven't spent their lifes watching films like Evil Dead 2, then I think that is just elitist.

Now that's being unnecessarily defensive. Where was it ever suggested that a love of Evil Dead was in anyway a mandatory prerequisite to enjoying this film? Sure, it may mildly enhance one's enjoyment of it if they spot the references to Deadites and Raping Trees. But I used it merely as a comparison to counter another argument being made here: and if we can't use comparisons when discussing film for fear of being labelled elitist, well then we'll lose one of the great tools of film criticism. I'd imagine that even the most casual of viewers would be able to spot the ripping apart of genre conventions here.

As said, if all of you didn't enjoy Cabin in the Woods on its own terms, then who are we to argue with that? Many people didn't find it was funny enough, for example. What's wrong with having a healthy debate about it though: heck, I'm fairly sure that's the reason this here film board exists And we fans of the film are merely suggesting that on a purely objective level, some of the arguments being made are unfair. Is there anything wrong with disagreeing with accusations that it's silly (as, for an inherently ludicrous and OTT film, it's actually very smart), not scary enough or featured misleading marketing (which ultimately is a criteria one cannot really judge the finished work on)? No, nor is there anything agreeing with said accusations if you feel strongly enough about them. We'll sure as heck debate it with you though They're the only real arguments I've heard against this film, and I heartily disagree with all of them, so I'll certainly reply to them!

Healthy debate is always welcome, but to suggest that anyone who argues against someone else is calling the other person a moron for making a simple, throwaway comparison is unfair IMO.

jcsoulinger

All this heated debate is giving me a husbands bulge!

Goldstein

jcsoulinger wrote: »

I would have to agree with this, the vibe I get from the people defending this film is, if you dont like this film your a moron.

you're

Galvasean

If people don't like the film for not being scary enough when it is not meant to be scary that is hardly the film's fault. You can blame the marketing people for misleading, but discrediting a film for lacking merits it was not meant to have is a bit unfair.
By that logic somebody could have seen this trailer, expected The Shining to be a comedy and then criticized the film for not being funny enough. It's not the film's fault people were tricked into thinking it was something different.

jpm4

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Now that's being unnecessarily defensive. Where was it ever suggested that a love of Evil Dead was in anyway a mandatory prerequisite to enjoying this film? Sure, it may mildly enhance one's enjoyment of it if they spot the references to Deadites and Raping Trees. But I used it merely as a comparison to counter another argument being made here: and if we can't use comparisons when discussing film for fear of being labelled elitist, well then we'll lose one of the great tools of film criticism. I'd imagine that even the most casual of viewers would be able to spot the ripping apart of genre conventions here.

As said, if all of you didn't enjoy Cabin in the Woods on its own terms, then who are we to argue with that? Many people didn't find it was funny enough, for example. What's wrong with having a healthy debate about it though: heck, I'm fairly sure that's the reason this here film board exists And we fans of the film are merely suggesting that on a purely objective level, some of the arguments being made are unfair. Is there anything wrong with disagreeing with accusations that it's silly (as, for an inherently ludicrous and OTT film, it's actually very smart), not scary enough or featured misleading marketing (which ultimately is a criteria one cannot really judge the finished work on)? No, nor is there anything agreeing with said accusations if you feel strongly enough about them. We'll sure as heck debate it with you though They're the only real arguments I've heard against this film, and I heartily disagree with all of them, so I'll certainly reply to them!

Healthy debate is always welcome, but to suggest that anyone who argues against someone else is calling the other person a moron for making a simple, throwaway comparison is unfair IMO.

I'm not sure what you're on about re The Evil Dead 2 comment - I wasn't aware you had referenced it at all, I was using it to identify the type of film fan that is likely to lap up The Cabin in the Woods, that's all. I could have used another reference point, that was just a handy one.

As for the rest of your post....."Debating is good" basically right? I certainly agree with that. I think I've put a reasonable point into the mix, take it or leave it as you will.

I never said anyone was being called a moron BTW.

Fysh

jpm4 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're on about re The Evil Dead 2 comment - I wasn't aware you had referenced it at all, I was using it to identify the type of film fan that is likely to lap up The Cabin in the Woods, that's all. I could have used another reference point, that was just a handy one.

As for the rest of your post....."Debating is good" basically right? I certainly agree with that. I think I've put a reasonable point into the mix, take it or leave it as you will.

I never said anyone was being called a moron BTW.

I question the assertion that "not everyone is some obscure-film-loving nerd" counts as an auspicious start for a reasonable and well-argued perspective in a debate. Especially not when you appear, from the beginning, to be on some anti-elitist fight the powah vibe. (Maybe that wasn't deliberate, but it's certainly how it has come across so far).

This film was made to appeal in particular to film fans who've seen a lot of horror films, including a lot of very flawed films that are nonetheless still beloved (in some cases understandably, in others less so). Perhaps you're not one of them. Perhaps you're not a fan of the genre and thus don't see what people are making a fuss about. That's fair enough, but it's a bit rich for you to be on some anti-elitist crusade when you're using said crusade to dismiss the opinions of film fans just because you disagree with them.

Given that Scream is the obvious comparison for this film, and that both Scream 2 and 3 suffered badly from trying to follow the very conventions that the original film mocked, I don't agree with your suggestion that the film could have been more of a serious horror while thumbing its nose at the various silly contrivances that are now considered staples of American horror films. That would just take the teeth out of any bite the satirical elements might have had.

If you want to watch a truly nasty horror film, I suggest you check out the likes of Martyrs, Switchblade Romance, Frit Vilt, The Tunnel or Kill List. I'm sure Otis Driftwood can offer plenty more suggestions too.

mikhail

jcsoulinger wrote: »

I would have to agree with this, the vibe I get from the people defending this film is, if you dont like this film your a moron.

In fairness, that's about the level of 90% of film discussion. It's rare to find people with the vocabulary and patience to figure out what they actually mean and express it clearly. To be honest, I read this forum for the opinions of fewer than half a dozen contributors.