|
Post by GL on May 24, 2010 9:40:20 GMT -5
But then we're right back into the zombie discussion: one similar facet that shows up doesn't make it so when there's so many other factors present that don't indicate it. Ooh, you've decided against CGI, that alone shouldn't be the only criteria needed. There should be a lot more (like content, tone, film-making style, etc) in it before it should be considered.
The intent is there, but the execution should also follow through.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on May 24, 2010 10:31:08 GMT -5
OK:
Content: The film has cameos from several horror/exploitation legends (particularly Fred Williamson and Tom Savini). Much like Grindhouse, the film is divided into two halves and each half is a model of seventies style exploitation genres (the first includes the abduction of the family, and it hints at some pretty gruesome stuff like rape, sexual assault, and brutal murder at least on Richie's part)
Tone: The film is again a combination of two classic 70's exoloitation genres. A combination of a more mainstreamed type of abduction/family assault type film ala Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, House on the Edge of the Park, etc. The second half is a bloody vampire film in which the vamps have as much in common with a Fulci style zombie film as they do with more traditional vampire mythology (here comes GL's head exploding).
Film Making Style: Along with the cameos of major exploitation stars, keep in mind that the film was made by Tarantino and Rodriguez, both of whom are famous for their adherence to 70's exploitation filmmaking styles. If anything, these directors have been accused of ripping off these films. They have never been accused of being too modern.
This was an old school classic. By any measure.
|
|
|
Post by CT on May 24, 2010 14:25:17 GMT -5
Nicely put
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on May 25, 2010 7:00:14 GMT -5
My savior
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 25, 2010 9:41:16 GMT -5
Well, now had that been the original post (as there's well thought-out and reasonable explanations for everything) I'd have gone along with it. I don't agree with some (I don't really give a fuck about any of the people in this, so using them as cameos just goes right over my head) and then there's the Tarantino factor on my end, but again, I would've gone along with it from the start had that been the original post instead of just putting out the statement without anything to support it.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on May 26, 2010 8:56:46 GMT -5
You dont give a fuck about Tom Savini? How the hell could you consider yourself a horror fan then.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on May 26, 2010 9:34:43 GMT -5
Well, I certainly care a lot about Tom Savini, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is required of every horror fan. I mean, some people would jump all over me because I don't care for Fulci, but I know that I am still a horror film even though I feel that way.
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 26, 2010 9:43:14 GMT -5
You dont give a fuck about Tom Savini? How the hell could you consider yourself a horror fan then. I don't care about that kind of stuff. People, actors, they're all the same to me: just a face in the crowd about to be slaughtered. So there's people who show up in these films often, big whoop.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on May 27, 2010 8:04:23 GMT -5
Well I most certainly disagree, first off Tom Savini is one of the most influential individuals in horror movie history, its safe to say that without him horror, particularly in he 80s would not be the same. Lets just think about Friday the 13Th, probably the most influential horror movie of the 80s, it set a new standard and showed what could be done with a low budget and innovative effects, which they were at the time. Tom Savini work added a new dimension of realism into the realm of gore effects and changed the way movies were made.
And Tom Savini isn't known as an actor. He is one of the special effects gods, and I think if most people were honest about why they love horror, particularly the hey day of the 1980s, they would say its for the amazing gore effects of such films, Tom Savini is a tremendous part of that, to hate Tom Savini is to hate 80% of what is modern horror.
Your comment makes no sense anyway, you say its all about the "slaughter" well without Savini you wouldnt have the slaughter, it certainly wouldn't be as good.
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 27, 2010 9:49:00 GMT -5
A film's historical significance means nothing to me. I base a film on what it brings to the table isolated solely within itself with no other outside influences, and only afterwards when I manage to come up with a final score do I attempt to place any kind of ranking to them. And only then it's due to the score being placed against other such films of the genre, so basically, a historically significant film won't get special treatment on my end, it has to win me over the same way as any low-budget DTV shlockfest released to the market.
I will say that Savini has done an exceptional amount of work in the special effects field, but frankly, that's about it. So he managed to do work in a variety of films that I've enjoyed, that's about as deep as it goes. Was he a contributing factor to these films? Undoubtedly, but for me to say that my enjoyment of the films rested solely on his shoulders is an outright lie, since I could care less about the technical areas present in films. At the end of the day, as I mentioned earlier, he just so happens to be a name that pops up frequently in films I enjoy.
And let me refer to your last comment with the following: Friday came out in 1980, Bird with the Crystal Plummage came out in 1970. He wasn't the first person to do the effects for a person dying on camera, he won't be the last. It's a technique that was done long before he came into the public arena, it was done without him on a spectacular amount of films at the same time, and it'll be done long after he's gone.
And personally, I've always cared more about the version of on-screen death meted out, not the effect of it. You can be a master gore artist, but if you give me ten slit throats and a couple stabbings, granted expertly done as they can be, I'll still prefer a film that has a killer utilize more variety in his kill method, even if the effects won't come off as well.
|
|
|
Post by CT on May 27, 2010 9:57:42 GMT -5
Your last paragraph tells me why you like Fulci so much!
|
|
|
Post by Jen on May 27, 2010 12:46:45 GMT -5
I mean, some people would jump all over me because I don't care for Fulci, but I know that I am still a horror film even though I feel that way. Except for Don't Torture a Duckling, City of the Living Dead and Lizard in a Woman's Skin, I don't really care for Fulci either, so I know exactly what you mean. I have had many a fan tell me I wasn't a "true" horror fan because I don't like The Beyond....
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on May 28, 2010 5:32:24 GMT -5
Bird with the Crystal Plummage came out in 1970!
Your telling me that movie had more of an influence on 80s horror then Friday the 13th?
How many horror fans saw that film and how many fans saw Friday the 13th, its hardly a comparison.
Who said Tom Savini was the first? I said he was the best and most influential, who added to special gore effects a level of reality that before was not known.
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 28, 2010 9:40:50 GMT -5
And what did I say? Historical significance means absolutely jack squat. I don't care what's more influential, I care about the quality of the film. If I think a film sucks, I don't care how important it is to the genre, I'll bash the hell out of it. If I end up liking some shot-for-shot remake that has no business ever being made, I'll enjoy it because I thought it was a good film. Significance, history, trivia, genre actors/actresses, backstage rumors, all of those and other, similar factors have absolutely no impact on how I feel about the film. What I see when I put the film on and press PLAY on my player is what matters to me.
He may indeed be the most important, and an argument could be made that he's the best (I'd say Gianetto di Rossi personally, but that's just me) but again, back to what I said earlier, I only go as deep with that is he just so happens to be a name that pops up frequently in films I enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on May 28, 2010 11:49:25 GMT -5
When you look at how much Friday the 13th (and its sequels) were influenced by Italian cinema (particularly Bava's Bay of Blood, which isn't acknowledged nearly enough for my taste), Friday the 13th is probably not the best example of Savini's importance to the genre to be honest. The argument that more people saw Friday the 13th doesn't really hold weight for me either, because obviously the filmmakers themselves were influenced by those films. That being said, Friday the 13th is dreadfully dull in every way except for the effects, so there's that. I'm not saying he is not great at what he does or he's not important to the genre, but there was lots done with special effects before Savini. He didn't get there on his own, and the influences on HIS work should be noted, and SEEN.....
|
|