Cabin in the Woods

[Joker]

I thought this movie awesome. It's one of those movies that simultaneously exemplifies and satirizes a certain genre and I loved every bit. Next to being a fun humorous romp, it has so many meta levels which you can ponder on and discuss with your friends.

For me, the experience was made all the more complete as some British tourist was tripping his jiblets off on shrooms. About 30 minutes in during one of the quieter moments he says out loud:
"No, this is bull****, this isn't real. I'm not staying here, this isn't real. 5...4...3...2...1."
He does the countdown a couple more times (I've been told, that's what you're suppose to do if you have an uncomfortable or bad trip) and after a couple more statements of disbelief we didn't hear from him again.

This movie has a lot of references to other movies but I couldn't figure one out. Who are the guys in white masks tying people up?

 

[frankthedm]

This movie has a lot of references to other movies but I couldn't figure one out. Who are the guys in white masks tying people up?

A thrill kill group or maybe Lawyer-Friendly Cameos of The Strangers (2008)? I wish I had taken a better look at the

Spoiler

betting board

.

And speaking of things I want to see again, Does ANYONE know if that animal sacrifice painting was real painting / pre-existing illustration or was it made just for the movie?

 

[Janx]

One thing I thought was confusing (as in, after the movie, it still didn't quite make sense), was the whole Swede, American, Japan thing.

[sblock]
The said the Swedes got taken out, Japan was always number one. Then they show the Japanese girls stopping the evil. It's understandable that they'll reverse the intent of the language used to confuse the audience initially, but by the end of the film, I still see a contradiction in their statements. Anybody else understand the logic better?
[/sblock]

As to the movie premise itself:
[sblock]I though it was pretty obvious once it is revealed the kids are under observation that this would either be:
a) a science experiment of some sort
b) a controlled feeding to something (fear, victims, blood, whatever)

In many ways, B was more ethically justifiable, and so it was.

[/sblock]

 

[RangerWickett]

[sblock]Everyone got taken out. Even the Japanese. The crew were just surprised, because the Japanese had always been successful before.

The Swedes were taken out off-screen.[/sblock]

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Really liked the movie. Remains me of one of my dm:s who liked to make movie-like horror-one-shots with a twist.

I miss those games.

Ok but movie was good, characters were interesting and funny. I liked it. Now I just have to convince my sister to see the movie, but she really dislikes horror (my complite opposite in that). How can I explain that it wasn't that scary. Mmh. Maybe I just lie.

 

[Janx]

I have just been given Joss's Thesis, as explained by my movie-watching friend:
[sblock]
Joss is having a play on the horror movie genrea and how it has to be the way it is.

He shows the Japanese, who have REALLY scary films, effectively a 100% success rate, because the Japanese film makers give them what they want.


Sweden, Russia just gives them scary trolls or whatever legendary stuff they have.

America has some really varied and wierd stuff. But we're jaded on it. We complain about why would the kids ever do something as dumb as splitting up, etc.

Now we know why they have to do those things. The 2 old men, represent the Directors of the film. Sigourney is the Producer. And the audience, is the Elder God.

What happens when the kids don't do stupid things so they can get killed, the audience isn't happy.
[/sblock]

 

[Remus Lupin]

Janx,

I would shift things slightly. Who you identify as the producer is actually identified in the film as the director, and your directors are actually noted by Joss's co-writer as being the writers, in other words, the two of them. You're right about the audience though.

 

[Janx]

Janx,

I would shift things slightly. Who you identify as the producer is actually identified in the film as the director, and your directors are actually noted by Joss's co-writer as being the writers, in other words, the two of them. You're right about the audience though.

yes. My mistake in transcribing his points, I shifted those roles down a level.

In any event, I thought it worth bringing up, given the lack of conversation on the point Joss was making about the genre and how he embedded it.

I hadn't quite caught the titles given the people, which makes it more blatant the analogy he draws from the staff running the show and the actual movie making process.