Paranormal Activity movies

Off-Topic Chatter About Anything Non-Amityville
Forum rules
Posts in this section are deleted 5 years after the last reply
Post Reply
User avatar
devilbustedinct
Walking the Burning Fence
Posts: 700
Contact:

Post by devilbustedinct » Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:50 am

HERE BE SPOILERS

My prob with the theatrical ending: Why would a demon want to eat a camera? Or it looked like it tried to eat it, or it did something like eating it, or kissing it, or something goofy that Hollywood would do that made no sense. And it was so nice not to see any CG in the entire film, but then there it was in the last couple frames. Why? Just would have been nice to be pure. That final shot cost more than the entire films budget and strips away the limited budget film that was so admirable.

User avatar
tedbot
not the face!
Posts: 775
Location: Who wants to know?
Contact:

Post by tedbot » Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:01 am

devilbustedinct wrote:HERE BE SPOILERS

My prob with the theatrical ending: Why would a demon want to eat a camera? Or it looked like it tried to eat it, or it did something like eating it, or kissing it, or something goofy that Hollywood would do that made no sense. And it was so nice not to see any CG in the entire film, but then there it was in the last couple frames. Why? Just would have been nice to be pure. That final shot cost more than the entire films budget and strips away the limited budget film that was so admirable.
You don't want to over think it...the last few frames were in the film as a reactionary shot. Give the audience that one last big jump and scream and then the movie ends. I thought it was very well done, it got the reaction it was looking for from the people around me, that's for sure.

I'm still amazed at how well done this movie was for I think I read the budget was $15000. Just proves that a good movie doesn't need a bajillion dollars and a huge special effects budget. All it needs is a good idea and the right people to pull it off.
Are you looking at me?

User avatar
tedbot
not the face!
Posts: 775
Location: Who wants to know?
Contact:

Post by tedbot » Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:52 pm

Just watched the original screener, and there were better and worse parts if you ask me. The ending I felt was really good, but it did need more of a punch for a theatrical ending. Most audiences judge their feelings of a movie by how it ends, if it ends poorly, the entire movie is tainted. If they wouldn't have changed the ending, I think most people would have been turned off by how it didn't have a big bang or anything. I liked the original ending, but I do feel the redone one has more of a bang to it.
Are you looking at me?

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:00 pm


User avatar
KevinW
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 1156
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Contact:

Post by KevinW » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:55 pm

tedbot wrote:
devilbustedinct wrote:HERE BE SPOILERS

My prob with the theatrical ending: Why would a demon want to eat a camera? Or it looked like it tried to eat it, or it did something like eating it, or kissing it, or something goofy that Hollywood would do that made no sense. And it was so nice not to see any CG in the entire film, but then there it was in the last couple frames. Why? Just would have been nice to be pure. That final shot cost more than the entire films budget and strips away the limited budget film that was so admirable.
You don't want to over think it...the last few frames were in the film as a reactionary shot. Give the audience that one last big jump and scream and then the movie ends. I thought it was very well done, it got the reaction it was looking for from the people around me, that's for sure.

I'm still amazed at how well done this movie was for I think I read the budget was $15000. Just proves that a good movie doesn't need a bajillion dollars and a huge special effects budget. All it needs is a good idea and the right people to pull it off.
Like I said before, I like both endings. Granted, for me, the original is more realistic and creepy. The version in theaters, like what has been said before, is more of a shock value, although there is another reason to like it. (highlight text to see it since it contains spoilers) Throughout the movie, Micah had been basically provoking the demon by inviting it in with the camera, Ouija board, etc. To me, when Micah's body is thrown into the camera, it was the demon's way of saying something like, "You want something to film? Here's something for you to get on camera." Both endings work for me.

Kevin
All football is is a bunch of over-pumped jocks on steroids who say they're straight while they smack each other's behinds and chase each other around on a field so they can tackle another guy to play with that guy's ball.

User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
Posts: 1866

Post by msmart112 » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:44 pm

sherbetbizarre wrote:PARANNOYING ACTIVITY
Oh for cryin' out loud...they didn't use the original ending! :wink:
Image

User avatar
devilbustedinct
Walking the Burning Fence
Posts: 700
Contact:

Post by devilbustedinct » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:53 pm

KevinW wrote: Granted, for me, the original is more realistic and creepy. The version in theaters, like what has been said before, is more of a shock value, although there is another reason to like it. (highlight text to see it since it contains spoilers) Throughout the movie, Micah had been basically provoking the demon by inviting it in with the camera, Ouija board, etc. To me, when Micah's body is thrown into the camera, it was the demon's way of saying something like, "You want something to film? Here's something for you to get on camera." Both endings work for me.

Kevin
Interesting way of looking at it (pun intended), but the fact that she is missing and at large? Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the film it can understand the hype, but it's also an interesting illustration of Hollywood tinkering that is unnecessary but saying to us all;

"We have decided that in order for this movie to be more profitable for us, we have chosen to disregard the director's intended vision for the climax of the film and replaced it with what we have deemed more suitable and commercial with only our best interest in mind. You are a generation of YouTube-reality TV-brainwashed simpletons, and statistics show that the moronic majority wins, thus increasing our profits by 62%. Have a nice day and enjoy the show."

User avatar
Jetstar3D
Shiner
Posts: 1196
Location: Sidewinder, Michigan

Post by Jetstar3D » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:02 pm

sherbetbizarre wrote:PARANNOYING ACTIVITY
This is great! They actually spoof all the things that I found 'funny' the first time around

User avatar
Tim
The monkey supplied the glue.
Posts: 639

Just Back From The Theatre

Post by Tim » Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:12 pm

I thought for some reason this movie had captured some ACTUAL paranormal activity on film. I thought because of the high ratings on the net that the people that had seen this had,they themselves, been able to relate to personal expieriences. However, this was not the case.The trailer had me thinking it had finally been documented..........I couldn't be more dissapointed.
"Things of this nature happen quite frequently,and when they happen to families, they usually close the door and they don't talk about it; and unless these things are talked about, they'll never be understood." - Kathy Lutz

User avatar
Chichibcc
Cat Avatar Lover
Posts: 3182
Location: Battle Creek, Michigan

Re: Just Back From The Theatre

Post by Chichibcc » Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:01 am

Tim wrote:I thought for some reason this movie had captured some ACTUAL paranormal activity on film. I thought because of the high ratings on the net that the people that had seen this had,they themselves, been able to relate to personal expieriences. However, this was not the case.The trailer had me thinking it had finally been documented..........I couldn't be more dissapointed.
I know, it's like The Blair Witch Project all over again...that was supposed to be based on "real" footage also...we all know how that turned out. :roll:

But at least the director of Paranormal Activity didn't use that "real footage" gimmick to promote the film, though.
[size=125][i][color=red]Actions speak louder than words....[/color][/i][/size]

User avatar
BillyCigars
American Psycho
Posts: 2692
Location: I Have To Return Some Videotapes

Re: Just Back From The Theatre

Post by BillyCigars » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:31 pm

Chichibcc wrote: But at least the director of Paranormal Activity didn't use that "real footage" gimmick to promote the film, though.
Actually they did. The first frame of the movie is text that reads something like, "The producers of this film would like to thank the families of Micah & Kate as well as the such-and-such Police Department for providing the following footage".
"The old man's still an artist with a Thompson."

User avatar
Chichibcc
Cat Avatar Lover
Posts: 3182
Location: Battle Creek, Michigan

Re: Just Back From The Theatre

Post by Chichibcc » Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:35 am

BillyCigars wrote:
Chichibcc wrote: But at least the director of Paranormal Activity didn't use that "real footage" gimmick to promote the film, though.
Actually they did. The first frame of the movie is text that reads something like, "The producers of this film would like to thank the families of Micah & Kate as well as the such-and-such Police Department for providing the following footage".
Thank you....I wasn't aware of that (I'd still like to see the film, but I've been putting it off).
[size=125][i][color=red]Actions speak louder than words....[/color][/i][/size]

User avatar
devilbustedinct
Walking the Burning Fence
Posts: 700
Contact:

Post by devilbustedinct » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:01 am

To be fair, while it certainly did have that flavor, there was no campaign to depict the film as true, unlike THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT Blair Witch and director Peli claims from the get go it is a work of fiction based on his love for horror films, particularity THE EXORCIST. Definitely more along the lines of CLOVERFIELD where it was also "found footage," but lets hope we never have to explain to someone that it wasn't real.

Incidentally, the DEMAND thing worked pretty good for them. Has it started a trend? Demand BOONDOCK SAINTS II here: http://eventful.com/performers/the-boon ... 00215180-2

User avatar
MerchBoi
Official Gay Mascot of Amityville
Posts: 1154
Location: Everywhere

Re: Just Back From The Theatre

Post by MerchBoi » Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:35 pm

BillyCigars wrote:
Chichibcc wrote: But at least the director of Paranormal Activity didn't use that "real footage" gimmick to promote the film, though.
Actually they did. The first frame of the movie is text that reads something like, "The producers of this film would like to thank the families of Micah & Kate as well as the such-and-such Police Department for providing the following footage".
But they didn't use that gimmick to get folks TO the theatre, and indeed after the film, where credits should be (but aren't) there is a message reading that the events and characters were fictitious.
MerchBoi...resident Gay Mascot for Amityville Horror Truth.

"The last chance,
The last dance,
One moment in time.
One song,
Doesn't last that long.
Life turns on a dime.
The wheels of fortune seem to pass you by.
Tomorrow there's a dawn again.
A dream can still be born again.
Take a chance,
While there still is time.
Because life turns on a dime."
-IN MY LIFE

User avatar
BillyCigars
American Psycho
Posts: 2692
Location: I Have To Return Some Videotapes

Post by BillyCigars » Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:25 pm

Which is unfortunate in a sense. I remember how much marketing the Blair Witch Project did pre-release. They even had a "documentary" on the History Channel or some such thing which led people to think it was real, making it that much scarier. I bought it into - it was fun :D
"The old man's still an artist with a Thompson."

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:47 pm

'Real' scary horror films mostly a creepy wink at fact

The ad campaign for "The Fourth Kind," a new movie about people abducted by extraterrestrials in Alaska, claims the film is based on true events and includes documentary footage. The producers seem to have created Web sites that "report" on the background.

This sounds suspiciously like the Internet campaign that promoted "The Blair Witch Project" 10 years ago, with its claims that the "found video footage" was real.

"The Fourth Kind" is one of several recent films to take the "true story" formula to extreme lengths. "Cloverfield" was a hit with its mysterious campaign and hand-held video format. The box-office topping "Paranormal Activity" generated buzz with its video approach, and that film's director is now working on a UFO movie called "Area 51."

Some trend spotters are calling this faux-documentary formula "horror verité." In an article for Video Watchdog magazine, film historian David Kalat uses the term "fictuality" to describe something he traces back to the origins of cinema in the 1890s, but he says the trend is exploding now.

"And that I'd credit to the spread of consumer video cameras and YouTube," Kalat says. "Fake documentaries in the past had a certain dryness to them. Even something funny like 'Zelig' is a pretty quiet kind of film. But now that making real documentaries is easy and cheap and ubiquitous, it means that fake documentaries also have more currency."

Kalat says storytellers and classic Hollywood always have been about making the story feel realistic, but standards of realism change over time.

"We now are more inclined to accept as realistic something that mimics what we might see on the news or shoot on a cell phone," he says. "I think it's interesting and noteworthy that the rise of fictualities is coincident with a growing trend of ? popular real documentaries."

He mentions Michael Moore's films as well as "Super Size Me" and "King of Kong." Reality TV is also a factor.

"I don't think genuine documentaries have ever flourished on mainstream movie screens like this," Kalat says. "I think the two phenomena have to be related."

Here are 10 milestones that tried to confuse the audience with allegedly true tales of horror.

"Haxan": This 1922 classic purportedly was a documentary about superstitions of witchcraft and devil worship, though its dramatic re-enactments (and sheer fiction) turn it into a horror movie. This expensive and popular production never played in the United States until a version circulated in 1968 as "Witchcraft Through the Ages." It eventually influenced "The Blair Witch Project."

"The War of the Worlds": Orson Welles' famous Halloween radio broadcast (Oct. 30, 1938) was in the form of news bulletins interrupting regular programming. This reportedly confused some people who weren't paying close attention to the disclaimers or the program schedule. The same "live broadcast" shtick was used for the 1983 TV movie "Special Bulletin," about a nuclear disaster, and the 1994 "Without Warning," which were accompanied by frequent disclaimers.

"Chariots of the Gods": This 1970 film is one of several curious "documentaries" based on best-sellers that make questionable claims, in this case about alien visitation. It was nominated for an Oscar for best documentary and was later shown on TV in a version called "In Search of Ancient Astronauts." Similar examples are the 1979 film of Hal Lindsay's "The Late, Great Planet Earth," about biblical prophecies, and 1981's "The Man Who Saw Tomorrow," about Nostradamus. (Both were narrated by Orson Welles.)

"The UFO Incident": Amid the '70s resurgence of interest in UFOs came this unusual, fact-based TV movie about a couple who recall their abduction under therapy. James Earl Jones and Estelle Parsons played Barney and Betty Hill, subjects of the 1966 best seller "The Interrupted Journey."

"The Legend of Boggy Creek": This low-budget 1972 docudrama raked in millions with its story of a Bigfoot-type creature in Arkansas. It mixes interviews with re-enactments. In an interview at the Web site House of Horrors, Dan Myrick (one of the "Blair Witch" directors) says, "Shows like 'In Search Of,' 'Chariots of the Gods' and 'The Legend of Boggy Creek' were huge influences on us. It was their 'reality based' format that creeped us out as kids."

"The Amityville Horror": Beginning with a best-selling "nonfiction" book in 1997, a whole franchise sprang up around the allegedly haunted house on Long Island, N.Y. The first movie was made in 1979 and, like "Boggy Creek," was a huge hit, thanks partly to its claims to be a true story.

"Cannibal Holocaust": This 1980 item is one of several Italian cannibal movies with gross-out elements. The plot follows the search for missing filmmakers in South America, and the last half of the film shows their recovered footage, which documents their unfortunate experience.

"The Blair Witch Project": Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez made this no-budget monster hit of 1999, which masquerades as the lost footage of an ill-fated documentary project. Their production company, Haxan Films, is named after the 1922 movie mentioned above.

"The Last Broadcast": Premiering before "Blair Witch" but lost in the shuffle until its similarities caught attention, this is another digitally shot faux-documentary about the sad fate of three filmmakers who disappeared in the woods looking for a mythical creature, in this case the so-called Jersey Devil.

"Cloverfield": Another huge hit that takes the form of video footage supposedly recovered from a disaster, this film uses elements of a monster movie to reference the fear and sadness of memories of 9-11.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainme ... 88052.html

User avatar
devilbustedinct
Walking the Burning Fence
Posts: 700
Contact:

Post by devilbustedinct » Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:09 am

No, please don't start another crappy franchise:

#1 PARAMOUNT WANTS TO SET UP MORE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY HOME VIDEO CAMERAS

Paranormal Activity was shot on a budget of $15,000, acquired by Paramount Pictures for $300,000, and the studio spent less than $10 million on marketing the movie. However, the biggest little horror movie since those kids got lost in the woods in The Blair Witch Project has already taken in over $60 million. It looks likely to top $100 million in the U.S. alone and is currently the #1 movie in America, so it's not really surprising that Paramount is looking at developing a Paranormal Activity sequel. Following up a surprise hit can be a disappointing endeavor, however, as Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 and Sacha Baron Cohen's Brüno demonstrated. On the other hand, there are cases where it's worked, such as the Saw franchise (the box office sensation of which was only slowed down when Saw VI opened up against... Paranormal Actiivty). Paramount is currently only looking into whether a Paranormal Activity 2 "makes sense," but given that it's pretty cheap to set up a few digital videocameras in someone's house, with a friend under the bed to tug on the sheets, it seems likely that Paramount will decide to try again. For the amount of money they spent on G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, they could make (and market) another ten Paranormal Activity movies.

User avatar
Chichibcc
Cat Avatar Lover
Posts: 3182
Location: Battle Creek, Michigan

Post by Chichibcc » Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:00 am

If they did do a sequel, I wouldn't be surprised....they're obviously going to spend money on films that will bring in the most revenue, and the first film has shown that it's definitley capable of doing that.
[size=125][i][color=red]Actions speak louder than words....[/color][/i][/size]

User avatar
tedbot
not the face!
Posts: 775
Location: Who wants to know?
Contact:

Post by tedbot » Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:40 am

There's always a chance that a sequel can be good, you should never just discount a movie cause there's a 2 or 3 in the title, or the chance of another movie. But recapturing the feel of this movie will be very difficult, as well as the buzz. That sort of thing happens very rarely. Paranormal Activity sort of took on a life of it's own, and a sequel is bound to disappoint. I'd love for them to do something unique like trying to capture a real haunting on film this time or something like that, but undoubtably, it will end up like Blair Witch 2 or Exorcist 2 and just be a steaming turd.
Are you looking at me?

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Post by Dan the Damned » Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:43 am

#1 PARAMOUNT WANTS TO SET UP MORE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY HOME VIDEO CAMERAS

Paranormal Activity was shot on a budget of $15,000, acquired by Paramount Pictures for $300,000, and the studio spent less than $10 million on marketing the movie. However, the biggest little horror movie since those kids got lost in the woods in The Blair Witch Project has already taken in over $60 million. It looks likely to top $100 million in the U.S. alone and is currently the #1 movie in America...
I don't know too much about the making of this film, but I hope to God that the guy who made it had a deal where he'd get a cut of the profits (the gross, not the net). If he just outright sold it for $300k, that would piss me off (knowing the filmmaker got raped by the studio)...

---SPOILER WARNING---

BTW, I saw a TV commercial for this last night, and they showed a couple of seconds of that final moment, where the body gets thrown at the camera. When I was watching the original ending, I was expecting the girl to walk up to the camera and say something creepy or make a scary face (Hollywood cliche ending), but it didn't happen. Another thing I thought might happen would be the screams coming from downstairs, and then the camera being picked up by the ghost and brought downstairs to show the bodies (and you can see the camera in the mirrors, floating on its own). Would that be cliched, too? :?

User avatar
BillyCigars
American Psycho
Posts: 2692
Location: I Have To Return Some Videotapes

Post by BillyCigars » Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:05 pm

I like that idea Dan! Gave me a chill just visualizing it!
"The old man's still an artist with a Thompson."

Post Reply