|
Post by HiderInTheHouse on Jun 9, 2011 5:03:19 GMT -5
Ah, but gimmicks are awesome just for what they are. If only they were still using the variety of them that people saw in the '70s and '80s'; such as the 'vomit bag' given out to movie goers who paid admission to see Mark of the Devil. I find it sad that the only real gimmick for movies these days is '3D'. Since that's pretty much it right now, I'll take what I can get! I love it! It's just another cool and often cheesey way of getting people to see these 'so bad it's good' movies! Whether you love'em or hate'em, gimmicks are just another part of the horror genre that you usually don't see in most other genres except for exploitation. They're just fun in general.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 9, 2011 9:53:52 GMT -5
I say fuck 3D, like I've been doing ever since I initially heard about the practice.
How do you explain crap like Transformers going into 3D, or Disney re-editing their old animated movies to play in 3D theaters, or stuff like Avatar or Pirates of the Caribbean? None of those are horror films, where's the exclusivity to the genre when everything under the sun is released in that format or altered from it's original source to play that way? How is it a practice for the genre when you have those kinds of films participating in it.
|
|
|
Post by HiderInTheHouse on Jun 10, 2011 0:29:00 GMT -5
That's true, I didn't mean to sound like gimmicks were only exclusive to the horror genre, but that the gimmicks that studios come up with in general seem to be the most entertaining when applied to the horror and exploitation genres; and even sci-fi for that matter. I don't see any less fun in a 3D experience though just because it isn't being used specifically for the horror genre. I mean 3D films have been popular since the '50s and were even being used before that in some degree. It's not like it's some radical new technology.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 10, 2011 9:44:42 GMT -5
I know you man, I knew you didn't mean it that way at all, just pointing out a fact: with everything being done in that format, it's going to wear itself out in a few years time like it did in the 40s when the technology was first developed, like it did back in the 50s when it was tried again and then back in the 80s when it was adapted again. It just doesn't work at all and it's only a matter of time before it goes away again.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Jun 10, 2011 10:15:44 GMT -5
We've gone around this issue a few times, GL. I'm with Hider/Inf3ct in this one. Sure it is kind of a gimmick. There are two reasons why it is different this time. First, the modern 3D technology is leaps and bounds beyond the old technology, and it actually looks good and works much better. Also, this is not a gimmick limited to theaters anymore. If you have a 3D capable television and bluray player, you can watch these films at home. When I watch Piranha 3D at home, it looks every bit as garish and flashy in big 3D as it did in the theater. Anyone can do that. Third, the driving force behind keeping 3D in the public eye this time is gonna be video games. They obviously were a non-factor in the 50's and 60's, and even in the 80's Space Invaders and Asteroids were not gonna be the catalyst behind 3D. Today, things are different. Graphics have improved to the point that playing videogames in 3D is gonna be a big deal for a while now. Last and most important, the technology is already there to allow you to watch things in 3D without having to wear glasses. That television currently costs like $15,000, but so did the first plasma televisions. Once that becomes more affordable, and we can all get a 3D set that does not require glasses for around $1000, we will all have them
|
|
|
Post by CT on Jun 10, 2011 10:23:40 GMT -5
3D Video games on a tv that doesn't need glasses would be sweet.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Jun 12, 2011 12:31:51 GMT -5
Hell yes they would
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 13, 2011 9:37:59 GMT -5
We've gone around this issue a few times, GL. I'm with Hider/Inf3ct in this one. Sure it is kind of a gimmick. There are two reasons why it is different this time. First, the modern 3D technology is leaps and bounds beyond the old technology, and it actually looks good and works much better. Also, this is not a gimmick limited to theaters anymore. If you have a 3D capable television and bluray player, you can watch these films at home. When I watch Piranha 3D at home, it looks every bit as garish and flashy in big 3D as it did in the theater. Anyone can do that. Third, the driving force behind keeping 3D in the public eye this time is gonna be video games. They obviously were a non-factor in the 50's and 60's, and even in the 80's Space Invaders and Asteroids were not gonna be the catalyst behind 3D. Today, things are different. Graphics have improved to the point that playing videogames in 3D is gonna be a big deal for a while now. Last and most important, the technology is already there to allow you to watch things in 3D without having to wear glasses. That television currently costs like $15,000, but so did the first plasma televisions. Once that becomes more affordable, and we can all get a 3D set that does not require glasses for around $1000, we will all have them And I still say that those are pure bullshit. Why are we so concerned now with making the picture look good when the movie itself isn't all that entertaining? We're overlooking one critical step in this rush for 3D overload: the movies being adapted into the process haven't really been worth it to be put into the process and are so cheesily inserted into the film that they're so fake and obvious, ruining the flow of the movie because we have to have some lame-ass object-thrown-into-the-camera moment simply to give the fans something to fawn over. Make straight-forward, no-strings-attached films from now on.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Jun 14, 2011 4:23:33 GMT -5
Anyway, back to the movie itself,the latest announcement has Bill Moseley - 'ol Chop-Top himself,has signed on.This time he's playing Drayton,which may possibly be the same character from the first 2,or just a tribute.Either way,I'm pleased by this news,as Chop-Top was the best thing about TCM 2.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 14, 2011 9:46:41 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan of "actors" being announced for a movie for the most part. Half the time I don't know who they are and I have a tough time telling who's who, just give me info about the movie and that will be good for me.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Jun 15, 2011 9:57:52 GMT -5
So, is it a remake or a sequel? To the first series or the remake series? THe more I hear about this, the more I get my hopes up that this will be worth seeing. Still, there are some important questions that have to be answered before I get too excited.
Oh, and GL, I buy that argument. First and foremost the goal should always be to make high quality and worthwhile films no matter what genre or techniques are employed to do so. I have to admit, though, that it is a little weird to hear that particular argument from a proponent of Syfy original films.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 16, 2011 9:40:53 GMT -5
That's just the way they're made, they're not being marketed as having such techniques used for them, and generally in most cases, that's usually the only things wrong with them is the utterly atrocious CGI. The rest of the time they're really enjoyable and have a lot to like about them regardless of that fact. Like what I said before, make the movie entertaining and I can overlook something as useless as crappy CGI if that's all that wrong with it.
And I'm starting to agree with you on your assessment as well. I'm still not sure if we're getting a remake of the original in 3D or the third entry in the rebooted series only now done in the technology, though I'm starting to fear that it might just be a third attempt at making this into a series only now being done in 3D. I'm getting the feeling that third one is the most likely scenario.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Jun 16, 2011 16:53:54 GMT -5
I found this at Bloody Disgusting
"The seventh incarnation is a direct sequel to Tobe Hooper's classic 1974 film that follows the lead character, Heather, who along with her friends, travel to Texas in order to collect an inheritance. The spin? What would you do if you found out your cousin was Leatherface, and he was now YOURS?"
|
|
|
Post by HiderInTheHouse on Jun 16, 2011 20:23:27 GMT -5
oooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 17, 2011 9:40:11 GMT -5
Well, I ain't going to theaters to see it so hopefully it'll allow for a good body-count to distract me from that godawful scenario.
|
|