Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

@PyroPihranha- some movies are just love/hate relationships with this crowd.  As long as everyone is respectful, we sometimes get some really interesting discussions of them.  There was one a few years back about whether some films were zombies or infected (came up because Lon got annoyed that everyone was calling 28 Days Later a zombie film.  And then there was the whole Return of the Living Dead debate).

*Mild Spoiler Below if you haven't seen Cabin yet*



@fmv- Cool, I didn't know that either!  And yes, I cameo by her would have been great.  Just as one of the staff- she could have bet on a Freddy-like monster; I would have laughed my butt off.

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

azathoth wrote:

Total Lovecraftian ending.  Some here are not pleased with it, but it was so "Ah, sheeit"

I don't think that type of ending worked quite as well for Cabin, but it's the kind of ending Red State should have had.  Kevin Smith sets everything up for there to be an awesome, terrible "Hand of God" finale but totally pussed out on it.

I recently read that his original screenplay did have that kind of ending but he changed because it would have been too expensive to shoot.  And that's a shame, because it's such a good movie right up to this one precise moment (being vague so as not to spoil it).  Suffice to say, Red State would have been great.  Instead, it's only good, with a major missed opportunity for an ending. hmm

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

That's too bad about Red State it absolutely needed a big finish...it kind of fizzled at the end.

As for Cabin's ending that was such a typical Joss Whedon ending!  He did the same thing at the end of Angel.  Very Lovecraftian ending to it as well.

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

The ending to Cabin just felt like a cop-out, it's not a good to me personally. The whole movie very good up until that point - then it just...finishes and that's that. I wasn't a fan of the ending.

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

LoudLon wrote:
azathoth wrote:

Total Lovecraftian ending.  Some here are not pleased with it, but it was so "Ah, sheeit"

I don't think that type of ending worked quite as well for Cabin, but it's the kind of ending Red State should have had.  Kevin Smith sets everything up for there to be an awesome, terrible "Hand of God" finale but totally pussed out on it.

I recently read that his original screenplay did have that kind of ending but he changed because it would have been too expensive to shoot.  And that's a shame, because it's such a good movie right up to this one precise moment (being vague so as not to spoil it).  Suffice to say, Red State would have been great.  Instead, it's only good, with a major missed opportunity for an ending. hmm

Nah love the way that the religious nuts, indeed even the audience get fooled by the apocalyptic noise (and the reason for it as we find out in the movie). I found it to be some wicked humour. Now Red State is a movie i enjoyed at the cinema, more so than CITW's.

Last edited by Vasquez (2012-10-02 16:59:56)

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

DirtyGirl wrote:

That's too bad about Red State it absolutely needed a big finish...it kind of fizzled at the end.

Supposedly Smith originally ended it with the bells chiming, then everyone's chests' exploding, the religious folks' and the feds' alike.  During the mayhem John Goodman's character covers his ears and closes his eyes, and when he finally opens them again everyone is dead and there's an angel looking down at him with a bloody sword in his hand.  And he looks at JG's character and goes, "Shhhhh."

Total Hand of God ending.  Would have been awesome, I think.

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

LoudLon wrote:
DirtyGirl wrote:

That's too bad about Red State it absolutely needed a big finish...it kind of fizzled at the end.

Supposedly Smith originally ended it with the bells chiming, then everyone's chests' exploding, the religious folks' and the feds' alike.  During the mayhem John Goodman's character covers his ears and closes his eyes, and when he finally opens them again everyone is dead and there's an angel looking down at him with a bloody sword in his hand.  And he looks at JG's character and goes, "Shhhhh."

Total Hand of God ending.  Would have been awesome, I think.


Now that would have been an ending!

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

LoudLon wrote:
DirtyGirl wrote:

That's too bad about Red State it absolutely needed a big finish...it kind of fizzled at the end.

Supposedly Smith originally ended it with the bells chiming, then everyone's chests' exploding, the religious folks' and the feds' alike.  During the mayhem John Goodman's character covers his ears and closes his eyes, and when he finally opens them again everyone is dead and there's an angel looking down at him with a bloody sword in his hand.  And he looks at JG's character and goes, "Shhhhh."

Total Hand of God ending.  Would have been awesome, I think.

And with Kevin Smith , that angel would be Ben Affleck with the armor chest plating resuming his character from Dogma.

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

LoudLon wrote:
azathoth wrote:

Total Lovecraftian ending.  Some here are not pleased with it, but it was so "Ah, sheeit"

I don't think that type of ending worked quite as well for Cabin, but it's the kind of ending Red State should have had.

Your reasoning on Cabin's ending?  I liked how it had the Lovecraftian tone of elder gods coming out for a good smiting.  Just wondering how you would have wrote it.

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

I felt they did a great job setting up the whole "this is for a higher purpose thing" (thank god it wasn't another Cube/House of 9 "It's rich guys getting their kicks" humdinger) but I think with the Lovecraftian/Ancient Ones things they stretched juuuuust a bit too far. 

It made me think, okay, well, the Ancient Ones have been sleeping for thousands of years, which means groups just like the one in the underground bunker, groups located all around the world, have been running this kind of operation for thousands of years, and successfully.  But how did they manipulate and control every little detail of such a scenario a thousand years ago?  Or even five hundred years ago?  Or any time at all before the 20th century, when such high-tech gear, obviously absolutely necessary as witnessed by the bunker scenes, had even been conceived? 

I think if they'd just stuck with plain 'ol regular God I would have bought it more, especially considering that when you look at religion today God has every reason to be pissed because the number of believers decreases on an almost daily basis in this, the age of "science."  Then there would be a reason for God to demand that these human beings he so graciously gave life to yet choose to deny his very existence, sacrifice themselves to him to prevent him from just saying fuck it and destroying existence itself.  Or, you know, some such approach. lol

And another thing.  At one point the new security guard asks how can what the kids do be by choice if the guys are manipulating them every step of the way.  And the guys answer back that all they do is show them the door; it's up to the kids to decide if they want to step through it (paraphrasing).  Think about that for a second...

At one point it's stated that the blonde's hair-dye had been drugged, and that the stoner's weed had been tampered with.  And that was before the kids even got into the car to go to the cabin.  Which indicates that the only thing the kids may have ever done of their own free will, was to decide to go on a camping trip to begin with.  It's even suggested that they were manipulated into picking that specific cabin.  So at no point during the course of the film is anything the kids do by choice.  Even the pheromone mist, despite it being one of my favorite little touches in the movie, goes directly against the idea that the two lovers stay in the woods by choice. 

It's that kind of thing which completely undermines the entire point of the story -- that the kids must, by choices made of free will, sacrifice themselves to the Ancient Ones.

Still, as much as I can't help but pick such things apart, I do still enjoy the film for what it is.  At the very least it deserves points for trying to be original, even if the logic isn't completely sound.

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

DirtyGirl wrote:
LoudLon wrote:
DirtyGirl wrote:

That's too bad about Red State it absolutely needed a big finish...it kind of fizzled at the end.

Supposedly Smith originally ended it with the bells chiming, then everyone's chests' exploding, the religious folks' and the feds' alike.  During the mayhem John Goodman's character covers his ears and closes his eyes, and when he finally opens them again everyone is dead and there's an angel looking down at him with a bloody sword in his hand.  And he looks at JG's character and goes, "Shhhhh."

Total Hand of God ending.  Would have been awesome, I think.


Now that would have been an ending!

I strongly feel that one of the terrifying aspects, indeed my fav aspects of Red State is that it is to a degree grounded in possible reality and so comments on the extreme behaviour of the religious far right and the US's extreme response to terrorism after 9/11 in real life. Therefore the particularly shocking scenes (e.g when one of the ATF agents shoot one of the religious girls and escaped boy in cold blood) are all the more more shocking. If it had a big fantastical ending ala CITW's then, at least for myself it would have undone the rest of the movie and seemed plain ridiculous.

Last edited by Vasquez (2012-10-03 09:14:47)

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

Well, one of the points of Red State was to show how Parks and his cult, like so many other zealots, twisted, contorted and interpreted the word of God in order to suit their own demented viewpoint and agenda.  And as the stand-off escalated and the body count rose higher and higher -- and notice it was Parks and his cult which shot and killed first, thus instigating the firefight -- the more the situation deserved a divine intervention.  And when I heard those church bells chime I thought, "Oh, man...this action thriller is now about to earn the title 'horror' by having God come down and reign death upon the hypocrites"...Smith wimped out and gave us some silly nonsense about locals playing church music on loudspeakers (!).  This film not only sets itself up for an apocalyptic ending, it flat out deserved one.

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

LoudLon wrote:

Well, one of the points of Red State was to show how Parks and his cult, like so many other zealots, twisted, contorted and interpreted the word of God in order to suit their own demented viewpoint and agenda.  And as the stand-off escalated and the body count rose higher and higher -- and notice it was Parks and his cult which shot and killed first, thus instigating the firefight -- the more the situation deserved a divine intervention.  And when I heard those church bells chime I thought, "Oh, man...this action thriller is now about to earn the title 'horror' by having God come down and reign death upon the hypocrites"...Smith wimped out and gave us some silly nonsense about locals playing church music on loudspeakers (!).  This film not only sets itself up for an apocalyptic ending, it flat out deserved one.

I guess because i think its horrifying elements are its concepts and certain scenes i find it interesting that it makes un question who are the real extremists - the religious cults views and actions or the ATF's 'leave no witnesses' agenda

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

About what Loudlon is saying about the kids having choices.  Obviously they are allowed to tamper with the kids thoughts, but cannot force them to do anything.  I think that is what Whitford was saying.

I kind of had a problem with the scene where they close the bridge.  Let's say that Thor wouldn't have slammed the RV into reverse and the rocks would have just fallen on the car.  Would the ceremony have been completed?  I feel like it would have even though it was the people in the control room doing the killing.  Once the control room realized they are about to fail, It seemed like they are allowed to do anything in their power to make sure the kids die.  There are exceptions allowed also like the virgin which just goes to show, not everything HAS SET RULES.   I think 99.9 percent of the time when these ceremonies happened, they were completed without much strain.  This was the one time we were seeing the people in the control room having to go to extreme measures like possibly killing the kids when the bridge collapsed.   This movie was showing the ONE time other than 1998 that the kids actually beat the Gods.  I think once it got to the point where the people in the control room might not be able to appease the Gods by killing the kids, then some of the Rules fly out the window like the virgin not REALLY being a virgin.

Last edited by ExplorerPOD (2012-10-03 11:07:09)

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

@Lon-
For the "what did they do 500/1000 years ago," I just figured they could find religious nuts to voluntarily do it.

*Spoilers*



I did have a problem with the "they have to step through the door" part.  Once they activate one of the items in the basement, it doesn't matter what any of them do.  The monster(s) is activated, and if say one kid does nothing wrong at all, it's still going to kill him/her.  I think the worst part was when they were going to explore together, Whitford releases a gas, and the one guy says, "we should split up."   What the hell kind of gas is that?  The Split Up Gas© from Acme Industries?

You know me, I loves me some Lovecraft themed stuff, so it probably biased me.  <shrugs>

Last edited by azathoth (2012-10-03 11:08:28)

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

Haha I hear what you are saying but I think the Gas is a form of gas that just makes you dumber probably.  Kirk was a smart dude and the smart thing was not to spit up. 

I think you guys are taking what Whitford said too literally.  They are allowed to tamper etc...

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

^^
Yeah, Lon and I will dissect a movie down to individual lines sometimes.  We're freaky like that.  lol

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

Gone are the days of suspension of belief wink I just watch and enjoy. smile

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

I might buy it just to stab it.

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

Fulcento wrote:
ExplorerPOD wrote:

Cast members? Who cares what the cast members say about it.  Do the writer's and director's feel that way?

I hear you man I am the same way about movies when they are overhyped.  Cabin in the Woods has definitely gotten a ton of hype.  I despise movies like Inception because people feel it is way better than it actually is.

I didn't know barely anything about Joss Whedon before I went in.  I saw this film knowing literally nothing about it.  I have seen so many horror movies it is ridiculous and was able to catch all the homages on the first viewing.  I said to my friend, do your realize what we just saw?  His mind was more blown than mine.  Whedon and Goddard made a brilliant brilliant film whether it is overhyped or not.  You are right, it being the best mainstream horror Scream is purely opinion, but I am not close to the only one who has said that.  I also thought that right after leaving the film and it seems a ton of people coincidentally feel the same way.

There is just so much to appreciate about this film though..

Stuff like when "the black guy" is driving the RV and telling "The Virgin" that everything is going to be fine, and giving this great motivational speech, and then BAM.  A straight up knife through the throat.  You can say it has all been done before but it is NOT normally done with such a great writer/great young actors.  Perfect timing and perfect direction.  The kills all come so fast.  When the Buckner family set up to cut the blonde girl's head off, you just see for a split second this family cutting this girls head off as if they have done it thousands of times before.  The way Whedon and Goddard put this movie together is seriously unparallelled.


The cellar for example.  I'm sure you know this but the Cellar is filled with literally hundreds of things that activate all the monsters.  Literally every single thing that was placed in that room, Goddard the director placed with his very own hands.  He has a back story for every single one of the monsters.  When he came up with the idea for the Diary which summoned the Buckner family, he had Whedon write it.  Whedon literally wrote a whole back story to the Buckner family and handed it back to Goddard.  This movie goes so much further in depth as far as this type of thing is concerned than most horror.  Creating all these monsters and not just using CGI is another reason this movie is just ahead of it's time(or behind it).  The merman, the werewolf, all of the Zombies, the Hellraiser monster.  You cannot sit here and say that this movie is not on another level artistically when it comes to creating monsters.

I am not trying to get you to like the film, I am just giving you reasons as to why I and so many others might love it.

I mean the fricken Merman(an obvious homage to the creature from the Black Lagoon) eats Brad Whitford and blood literally spits out his blow hole, and then onto the next scene.

How many times have you watched it?  Not saying you will change your mind but there is just sooo much to see in this film that it is worth multiple viewings.  The dialogue with the guys in the control room is just so perfect as well.  Whedon and Goddard wanted these guys to kind of be a metaphor for the type of people that go to work every day making weapons of mass destruction, and they just act casual about it.  These guys were literally betting on who was going to die and how just for fun.

You've mentioned the crew's opinion about the movie a couple times.  What the actors feel about the movie should have nothing to do with it.  These actors know nothing about the horror genre and are just actors, just like every other movie.  They realized they made something special, so maybe they were arrogant about it.  They are actors.  If you are letting that effect your opinion of the movie at all you are making a big mistake.  Whedon and Goddard were not at all trying to end the horror genre.  If anything they brought it back.  BIG TIME.


Excellent post but I detested it and found it to be a rather smug and mocking film.
My anticipation may have clouded ones judgement but I was expecting a mindlessly entertaining carnival ride of gruesomeness ala 'Demon Knight' or 'Planet Terror', both of which display a savvy knowledge of the genre without bashing us over the head with such dunderheaded self awareness of the cliches and conventions of the horror genre and throw them in our face like we're fucking stupid. "Look dude, look what we're doing! We're turning the slasher genre upside down with our genius! We're re-writing the formula single handed. Look at how edgy and creative we are. Look at us.LOOK AT US." Er, no thanks, with that level of subtelty I'll politely piss off and watch 'The Evil Dead' instead, a film made by a guy who knows how to use exposition.

Now, I'm no fan of breaking down the conventional walls of the genre, I find it lazy and vexing and at best doing so is disrespectful and at worst is destructive to the genre. It was neither a horror, nor a comedy, nor a horror/comedy. It was simply an excercise in smug self promotion from an insufferable upstart who believed he was being creative when in reality he was damaging the horror scene. I bloody well hope to high heaven this doesn't start a new trend in post-modernistic-crap-fest-pretentious-tripe-in-the-woods-horror-lite-shite.

It's about as subtle as as a fucking steamroller and the constant dunderheaded self-referential conceit is just an excuse to unleash a torrent of awkward, distracting exposition through each and every character's dialog. The writing is terrible and juvenile and the hackneyed crap that the makers themselves proclaim to be ridiculing, oops, sorry, I meant, homaging has been done far better in many films before. Unless this clever little film was a ruse metaphor for the horror film industry, or horror fans expectations or whatever. If that's the case then The Cabin in the Woods isn't just lame, it's insufferably pretentious and insulting.

Now, you may think I'm a rather jaded viewer who simply can't abide deconstruction in horror but no, for eg - I adored Leslie Vernon, a film which parodied and toyed with the tropes and cliche's of the slasher sub-genre but had an intelligent script. The Cabin in the Woods however sounds like it was written by a thirteen year old schoolgirl who'd just watched 'Scream'.

I'd give it 3/10.

Haha love this post.  I love the movie but "insufferably pretentious and insulting" makes me laugh.  You have a way with words for sure.  I saw Behind the Mask last week and Cabin in the Woods definitely came to mind when watching it.  I liked Behind the Mask but didn't love it, thought it was cool.  I am really into 80s horror.  Cabin in the Woods basically focused on 80s horror and I just see it as a homage a little bit more than a deconstruction.  Not my favorite film ever and not necessarily getting better with each viewing, but there are things about it that just do it for me.

What do you think about Cabin Fever?

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

^^
I know you're not asking me, but I didn't really like Cabin Fever.  It seemed like stuff just happened, with no real reason.  But I LOVED the kung-fu kid- and in the special features there is a clip of him funking out!

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

Haha.  I saw Cabin Fever one time and it was in the theater. I was probably 16 with some friends staying at a Cabin, and we drove into town and went to the movie.  We all enjoyed it and I just remember it being a very self aware Horror movie.  A homage for sure, but this was before I really started paying attention to movies.  You didn't like it?  I've been wanting to watch it again because from what I remember, it was pretty decent.  It definitely fits into the mold of the stereotypical group of teenagers, which is always fun especially when done with decent acting.

Last edited by ExplorerPOD (2012-10-12 14:05:16)

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

^^
It was a decent movie, nice FX, but I couldn't really find a strong plot in it. 

**Spoiler**

Just "water is contaminated," bad stuff happens.

**End Spoiler**

Funny thing- Vampy saw Twister in a drive-in theatre when it came out.  And it was a rather stormy day.  You can imagine how they reacted when the drive-in scene in Twister showed up, lol

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

Yea...

It is definitely one of those that seem to have been on the Director's of Cabin in the Woods mind when shooting...One of about a hundred films but there are just some that fit into the stereotype so well.

Night of the Demons comes to mind.  Group of kids going to a cabin/house.  One scene where the good looking blonde is dancing reminds me of the one in Cabin in the Woods. 

Evil Dead of course.  Waxwork. House of Wax.  Pumpkinhead.  All similar to Cabin in the Woods before Cabin in the Woods brings out a thousand monsters.

Watching a movie like Pumpkinhead, you can almost imagine Jenkins and Whitford in the control room controlling everything.  I don't think about it much, but it crosses my mind a time or two and I love it.

Last edited by ExplorerPOD (2012-10-12 14:14:38)

Re: Who here bought Cabin in the Woods?

^^
Oh, hell, now I'm thinking of them controlling a robot-Pumpkinhead running around!  lol