|
|
Post by lynn on Nov 5, 2011 4:11:17 GMT -5
Yes, i agree with all your points Tracy. I like the slow revealing of everything we'd already guessed from episode one. Makes me feel smart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Nov 5, 2011 7:06:22 GMT -5
Oh yes, this show is officially a trainwreck.
The Halloween episode is such exquisite cliche' that it's hard to comment on. "The dead can walk freely on Halloween" was the exact plot of the True Blood finale. Plus the gay guys are such stereotypes that they're a cliche of another stripe.
Who's not a ghost at this point?
I also love how the pregnant mom is having baby pains and they rush her off to the hospital with almost no concern on the part of their daughter, who they leave in the crazy house with the single restriction of "don't answer the door". Then when the enraged murderer shows up demanding money the dad's just like "we'll be home soon". Jesus Christ, this show is awful.
Even when his dead girlfriend shows up as a ghost he just slams the door in her face like "problem solved". This is definitely not a horror show for horror fans. The writers clearly aren't fans either, because it's apparent that they only watch horror movies for the purpose of stealing material.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Nov 5, 2011 7:45:35 GMT -5
And, not to nitpick, but when they do their crazy Doctor scenes, are they just using the opening march from Coppola's Dracula? Sounds just like it.
|
|
wilson
Robot Monkey
Posts: 154
|
Post by wilson on Nov 7, 2011 15:20:02 GMT -5
And, not to nitpick, but when they do their crazy Doctor scenes, are they just using the opening march from Coppola's Dracula? Sounds just like it. That's exactly what Kim and I thought! I don't hate it in the same fashion that you do, Sean, but it's definitely a wreck. For some reason, I keep watching...I just can't turn away....maybe it's like Night and Day. I just want to see how bad this can get. Sorry, Sean. That was uncalled for. True, but uncalled for. |
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Nov 7, 2011 16:51:48 GMT -5
Yeah, I know stink like a dog knows stink.
I have to admit, I'm still watching. It's like True Blood for me, where it's just a big stupid soap opera. But I think True Blood is having more fun with it whereas I feel like these smug assholes think they're getting away with it.
Like I did, with Night & Day. That's right. Say what you will, but nobody got their money back.
|
|
wilson
Robot Monkey
Posts: 154
|
Post by wilson on Nov 8, 2011 7:28:17 GMT -5
True Blood is a different story. That show is offensively stupid from the bad dialogue to the terrible southern accents to the dopey story line. I don't get it. I just don't get it.
I think vampires have been a done deal for me since the 90's, though. I never understood Buffy, either...and just like True Blood, my wife watched that religiously. Something about vampires that just don't seem to get me too excited anymore. The Lost Boys is the last vampire movie I remember watching that I actually enjoyed...and I was 12.
TODD BROWNING'S DRACULA OR GTFO
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Nov 8, 2011 18:18:53 GMT -5
they haven't brought much to the table lately. Let Me In was good, but 30 days of night was disappointing. I liked Buffy, but not for the vampire angle. True blood i take as more of a spoof (and so was Buffy), so I don't think of them as contributing to that genre.
|
|
|
|
Post by drivebyluna on Nov 9, 2011 1:07:53 GMT -5
I actually really enjoyed 30 days of night. It was graphic and real, not goth.
|
|
wilson
Robot Monkey
Posts: 154
|
Post by wilson on Nov 9, 2011 13:16:16 GMT -5
I forgot about Let Me In. I didn't think I would like it, but I did. I agree with you, Sean...30 Days of Night was disappointing. The concept sounded good, but it just didn't do it for me.
Fright Night (the original)! Now that's a movie!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Nov 9, 2011 16:52:17 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not saying I hated 30 Days of Night, but I wanted it to bring back scary vampires. The story didn't work well enough to be believable.
I like Fright Night because it's a classic archetype vampire story. The remake wasn't bad; it tried to follow that formula too.
Researching Dracula made it feel more like vampires have never been cool. Maybe the good ones are the exception.
|
|
|
|
Post by drivebyluna on Nov 9, 2011 17:06:13 GMT -5
What exactly in the story didn't work for you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Nov 10, 2011 12:35:39 GMT -5
The cell phone thing was dumb. Is it easier to steal everyone's cell phone or to take out a cell tower? Even when they're in the middle of nowhere they have to have some device that explains why cell phones won't save them. Even though I'm sure out there other means of communication are more heavily relied upon in case of emergency anyway. Best to say nothing than to introduce details that draw attention to the holes in the story.
As much as I like scary vampires I didn't find them scary because they behaved so stupidly. These are predators, they're planning a meal (one might assume something they've done plenty of times), not a battle. This isn't a last stand situation, so you'd think they could pull it off with fewer casualties.
I like the idea that they take over the town and people are holed up in the attic afraid, but whenever people fight back the vampire death toll is out of control. And Josh Hartnett is a vampire for 2 seconds and he's able to beat the head vampire in a fight. This took me out of the idea that it was supposed to be scary.
The vampires have the whole town isolated. Why not turn Hartnett and get the only local authority on their side, then quietly eat people one family at a time? Or disappear him and replace him with a vampire-friendly impostor? Even in a small town people aren't going to notice right away that their neighbors are being eaten, especially when they're mostly staying indoors to avoid the cold.
The movie's not awful, but I think they were so excited that they were bringing back monster vampires that they abandoned all subtlety. So the vampires immediately turn an overwhelming advantage into a wholesale failure.
The idea of vampires in Alaska is something I've always thought they should do, but that idea is sort of wasted here. I always imagined vampires would seasonally migrate to Alaska when there was no sun, but these guys don't know what they're doing enough to communicate that idea.
And why do vampires always use the town psycho as their messenger? He always acts like a weirdo and screws everything up from minute one. I know this is a nod to the Renfield archetype, but have vampires never read Dracula either? Renfield turns on Dracula in the end, and isn't particularly useful to him to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by drivebyluna on Nov 11, 2011 1:26:45 GMT -5
The vampires have the whole town isolated. Why not turn Hartnett and get the only local authority on their side, then quietly eat people one family at a time? Or disappear him and replace him with a vampire-friendly impostor? Even in a small town people aren't going to notice right away that their neighbors are being eaten, especially when they're mostly staying indoors to avoid the cold. I can definitely understand this point. |
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Nov 11, 2011 8:38:57 GMT -5
Like I said, I liked the movie. But their need to make it more of an action film ruined an opportunity to do something really scary.
People going to a remote town that was already controlled by vampires would have been a better story.
|
|
|
|
Post by jubei on Dec 15, 2011 2:45:00 GMT -5
why wont this show end
|
|
