Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wayside" data-source="post: 2605337" data-attributes="member: 8394">Hey man, unless they actually put the title on screen while the episode aired, there's not much chance of me seeing it. Which is good for them, actually, because I might've just skipped last week's ep and returned for this week's if I'd known what was coming.The effects of cannibalism in the Wendigo myth are campy and a tad overdone, sure, the former being a function of the latter. That's part of the comedic genius of Ravenous. Wikipedia points to a few more than maybe two or three media presentations, and Wikipedia is far from exhaustive. If we weren't already getting hit with staples of the genre in the second episode I'd be singing a different tune, but it seems a little early to me to be getting this generic stuff. As far as horrifying and grotesque go, if you find anything about Supernatural so far horrifying or grotesque, that's great for you, but it takes a little more than a really bad costume and makeup job or a lady in white clothes to get to me. Some better direction would be nice, for starters. Horror's all about how you frame things. Otherwise, Shaun of the Dead would be horrifying and grotesque too, right? Because there's flesh eating there, so it must be creepy. I did appreciate how they kept the Wendigo visually in the peripheral for most of the episode, but then later you get a good shot of it and it's really pretty silly looking.Now, we've only seen two episodes so far, and Supernatural has plenty of room to grow. I doubt there's any show I couldn't say the same thing about based on its first few episodes. But yeah, ep 2 was a big disappointment from where I sat.</blockquote>

Verification