Cabin in the Woods

[Talya]

First of all, I'm prefacing this by saying I don't like horror movies. I avoid the genre like the plague, and I wouldn't even be considering seeing this, but for a couple things:

(1) I love Joss Whedon. Cabin Co-writer/director Drew Goddard also worked with Whedon on Angel/Buffy. So I love the team in charge.
(2) 92% on RottenTomatoes, with comments like "a mind blowing horror-film that turns the genre inside-out."
(3) Whedon and Goddard don't like modern horror films, either, which they describe as basicaly being "Torture-porn." This movie is an attempt to revitalize a genre that has gotten predictable of late, and unlike traditional horror, this is apparently anything but predictable.

So...with Cabin in the Woods being such an instant low-budget success, and The Avengers coming out to a possible billion-dollar box-office take, is Whedon going to become an A-List director with hollywood power? Am I suddenly going to see an influx of gems on the big screen that originate from Joss's warped mind?

[ArlEammon]

I just went to wikipedia to see what it was about. I won't spoil anything but I'll just say it works much better as a book than as a movie.

[Reverent-One]

Oh? Whedon did this? That explains why Topher from Dollhouse is in it.

[Talya]

I just went to wikipedia to see what it was about. I won't spoil anything but I'll just say it works much better as a book than as a movie.

Considering how spectacular the movie is being reviewed, that would make a "better book" rather divine, wouldn't it?

[Dienekes]

Now I don't know about the movie, but from what I've seen of the trailers ir really does seem rather cookie cutter. Same generic "high school or college kids get off the grid for probable sex romp and then crazy **** happens." It even has a generic hick to give them dire warnings. The only thing that breaks with the cliche is that the murderer seems to have tech with them in a government or business feel to them, which a look of the government/business villains that Whedon likes to put out seems likely. There is also a joke lampshading the whole splitting up thing but that has been done before.

All told, I wouldn't have given the movie a seconds thought until I saw Whedon's name, but remain a bit skeptic.

[Thinker]

Now I don't know about the movie, but from what I've seen of the trailers ir really does seem rather cookie cutter. Same generic "high school or college kids get off the grid for probable sex romp and then crazy **** happens." It even has a generic hick to give them dire warnings. The only thing that breaks with the cliche is that the murderer seems to have tech with them in a government or business feel to them, which a look of the government/business villains that Whedon likes to put out seems likely. There is also a joke lampshading the whole splitting up thing but that has been done before.

All told, I wouldn't have given the movie a seconds thought until I saw Whedon's name, but remain a bit skeptic.

A deconstruction necessarily employs common elements of the genre so that it can explore the reasoning behind them. Look at Unforgiven, which is basically the deconstruction of the Western and used all of the common tropes and cliches from Westerns.

[Talya]

Now I don't know about the movie, but from what I've seen of the trailers ir really does seem rather cookie cutter. Same generic "high school or college kids get off the grid for probable sex romp and then crazy **** happens." It even has a generic hick to give them dire warnings. The only thing that breaks with the cliche is that the murderer seems to have tech with them in a government or business feel to them, which a look of the government/business villains that Whedon likes to put out seems likely. There is also a joke lampshading the whole splitting up thing but that has been done before.

All told, I wouldn't have given the movie a seconds thought until I saw Whedon's name, but remain a bit skeptic.

Reviewers are saying it goes beyond "lampshading," it's a "genre disection" or "deconstruction." http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreDeconstruction
And half of them seem to use the phrase "it's not what you think." I haven't seen it yet, but it seems it's rather intentionally setting your expectations then throwing them aside, while maintaining the conventions of the genre just the same.

[Dienekes]

A deconstruction necessarily employs common elements of the genre so that it can explore the reasoning behind them. Look at Unforgiven, which is basically the deconstruction of the Western and used all of the common tropes and cliches from Westerns.

Very true, but I'm pointing out this could be a case of "trailer's lie" to the point of annoyance. I've seen the trailer and nothing even indicates anything besides a completely hackneyed plot and setting that is unfortunately still very much in use in serious modern horror films. Now it could be absolutely awesome, but the trailer makes me cringe.

[Dragosai]

Wait.....

Son of a moose! I had no idea Whedon was directing the Avengers movie, or for that matter Cabin in the Woods.

Well there goes two movie off my list to watch.

I know he has a giant fan following but I find his stuff to be utter crap. I also am pretty sure his success should really go to other writers/producers/directors he has/is working with over the years.

Thanks for ruining Avengers for me Talya :smalltongue:

[Comet]

To be fair to the trailer, there are some shots flashing by towards the end of it that really had me on the edge of my seat. Seems like there's more to it than just a cabin and some high-tech spooks playing with youngsters, as far as I can see. Seems like the kind of movie that ends up at a completely different place than where it started, and I really do love those kinds of stories.

And I just went to see Iron Sky! Where am I going to get the money to see this now? Really awkward.

[Talya]

Thanks for ruining Avengers for me Talya :smalltongue:

Okay. While I don't get how people could avoid liking the best shows ever on Television - Buffy/Angel/Firefly/Dr.Horrible (Dollhouse started slowly), everyone knows Whedon was responsible for those. Let me ruin some other stuff for you:


Toy Story - Screenplay
Titan A.E. - Screenplay
Atlantis: The Lost Empire - Screenplay
Speed - Partial Screenplay (Whedon wrote almost ALL of the dialogue)
Captain America - Script-doctoring (which means the final screenplay was his.)
Much Ado About Nothing (2011) - Director

You are right, though, that he is credited for several things that he did very little in. For instance:
Alien Resurrection - The final movie didn't maintain a single line of dialogue or plot element he wrote. Nevertheless, he's credited as one of the writers
Twister - contained almost nothing that he wrote
Waterworld - another movie he's credited on where his input was completely ignored
X-Men - Whedon admits that in this movie, they did keep a single bit of dialogue of his dialogue (and only one bit). Nevertheless, he's a cowriter.
The one bit of Whedon's dialogue they kept in X-Men:
Wolverine: "It's me."
Cyclops: "Prove it."
Wolverine: "You're a ****."
Cyclops grins and nods.

[Tebryn]

If you like what amounts to a somewhat nonsensical downer ending than you'll like it. If you don't care for those avoid this at all costs.

[Dienekes]

Okay. While I don't get how people could avoid liking the best shows ever on Television

Huh? Whedon had nothing to do with Rome, the Sopranos, Monty Python, Breaking Bad, or the Twilight Zone.


Toy Story - Screenplay
Titan A.E. - Screenplay
Atlantis: The Lost Empire - Screenplay
Speed - Partial Screenplay (Whedon wrote almost ALL of the dialogue)
Captain America - Script-doctoring (which means the final screenplay was his.)
Much Ado About Nothing (2011) - Director

Now you're being unfair
Toy Story: Was the last of 4 writers, and arguably had the least influence on the story.
Titan A.E.: Was fired (or he left, I forget) and most of his dialogue was altered
Atlantis: Lost Empire: Was crap.
Captain America: Whedon himself says all he really did was add in some character connections not that he wrote the entire final script

Hell if you're adding these to his list you might as well add Alien Resurrection, Lion King II, Waterworld, and Twister. Which you mention but give Whedon's excuses why they didn't work. Which is part of what annoys me about the man and his fans. Whenever something good is done, it's him, but if something goes bad or less well than expected it is suddenly someone elses fault.

This is coming from a fan, believe it or not. But there is something about the hero worshiping about Whedon that sets me off. Maybe it's because I actually straight up didn't like Buffy, Angel, and Dollhouse (admittedly Alan Tudyk was awesome), maybe because his X-Men comics started off well before going straight off the deep end, could be a hundred different things but I do not think he is the greatest thing of all time and the ground he walks on should be adored. He can make mistakes, and it is completely fine that some do not like his work.

[Talya]

Huh? Whedon had nothing to do with Rome, the Sopranos, Monty Python, Breaking Bad, or the Twilight Zone.

Ha. I hate Rome, The Sopranos, and Breaking Bad.
Monty Python was admittedly amusing, but one needed to be sleep deprived or high to truly appreciate much of it.





Now you're being unfair
Toy Story: Was the last of 4 writers, and arguably had the least influence on the story.

It's actually the other way around. The last writer often has the most influence on the screenplay. In this case, Pixar took steps to ensure this was recognized. Whedon initially went uncredited while several other cowriters got screenplay credit. On current releases, Pixar has changed this and Whedon is the only writer listed. The story idea was not his. The dialogue was all his.


Hell if you're adding these to his list you might as well add Alien Resurrection, Lion King II, Waterworld, and Twister. Which you mention but give Whedon's excuses why they didn't work. Which is part of what annoys me about the man and his fans. Whenever something good is done, it's him, but if something goes bad or less well than expected it is suddenly someone elses fault.

Maybe because...it's true. Let him have his way, it's wonderful. Mess with it, it gets screwed up. Whedon is horribly underappreciated, and is the greatest genius television and hollywood have had in decades. Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers if successful stand a good chance of changing that underappreciation, and giving him the A-list cred he deserves.

[Dienekes]

Ha. I hate Rome, The Sopranos, and Breaking Bad.
Monty Python was admittedly amusing, but one needed to be sleep deprived or high to truly appreciate much of it.

And that is absolutely fine. Different strokes for different folks and all that junk. Personally while I really enjoy Whedon's ability to turn a phrase, Breaking Bad has more interesting character development, Rome is as close to perfect as a tv show can be, and the Sopranos was one of the most interesting characters in tv history.


It's actually the other way around. The last writer often has the most influence on the screenplay. In this case, Pixar took steps to ensure this was recognized. Whedon initially went uncredited while several other cowriters got screenplay credit. On current releases, Pixar has changed this and Whedon is the only writer listed. The story idea was not his. The dialogue was all his.

In general, yeah, but I remember reading that Whedon actually made very few changes during his rewrite. It's been awhile though, could be wrong.


Maybe because...it's true. Let him have his way, it's wonderful. Mess with it, it gets screwed up.

Again, his X-Men comics, the Serenity comic (specifically Shepherd's Tale), hell my favorite show of his had a few less than stellar episodes (Oh Heart of Gold and The Message, why do you suck so much?)


Mess with it, it gets screwed up. Whedon is horribly underappreciated, and is the greatest genius television and hollywood have had in decades. Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers if successful stand a good chance of changing that underappreciation, and giving him the A-list cred he deserves.

Is he really underappreciated? Honestly his name pops up and all I ever hear about is praise for the guy, for Buffy, for Firely, and so on. He's a niche writer, and works that niche very well. And I have no problem with being a fan of the guys work to the point of near blindly liking everything with his name stamped on it, I have that for an author or two as well. But it gets to the point where people heap praise on him for things he had little to do with such as the Captain America example you just gave. Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely worked hard on that movie and deserve to be recognized, not overshadowed by someone who is much more popular and by his own admission did much less work.

[Seraph]

Joss Whedon is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is, and his fans are not nearly as cosmopolitan as they present themselves as.


Whedon is horribly underappreciated, and is the greatest genius television and hollywood have had in decades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

[chiasaur11]

If you like what amounts to a somewhat nonsensical downer ending than you'll like it. If you don't care for those avoid this at all costs.

Nonsensical?

They foreshadowed it from the start, if you were watching right.

Saw it today. Good movie. Solid cast, lot of good jokes. Definitely not a conventional dead teenagers flick.

Highly recommended. And any more would be telling.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Only review I heard of it (on British radio film review program) was pretty damning.


It's actually the other way around. The last writer often has the most influence on the screenplay.

Multiple writers are usually a result of horrible behind the scenes politics that confuse things completely.


Maybe because...it's true. Let him have his way, it's wonderful. Mess with it, it gets screwed up. Whedon is horribly underappreciated, and is the greatest genius television and hollywood have had in decades.

Whedon is a control freak.

You only have the final result, so its easy to see the damage done by inept meddling. But that doesn't mean you can assume what was there before the meddling was any better.

[Bouregard]

And I here I thought you talked about http://freecabinporn.com/

(despite the name it's entirely safe for work, but not related to the movie)

[thompur]

Nonsensical?

They foreshadowed it from the start, if you were watching right.

Saw it today. Good movie. Solid cast, lot of good jokes. Definitely not a conventional dead teenagers flick.

Highly recommended. And any more would be telling.

I completely agree with this, although I think I enjoyed it a little more than you did.:smallbiggrin:

[Selrahc]

It's actually the other way around. The last writer often has the most influence on the screenplay. In this case, Pixar took steps to ensure this was recognized. Whedon initially went uncredited while several other cowriters got screenplay credit. On current releases, Pixar has changed this and Whedon is the only writer listed. The story idea was not his. The dialogue was all his.

Whedon's a pretty big name. I'd bet writing "Screenplay: Joss Whedon" on a movie box sells more copies than any of the other screenwriters involved in the project. Which definitely wasn't the case back in 1995 when they initially released the thing, back before Buffy had even started.

I'd say the "reality" of who actually contributed the most to the script is pretty ephemeral, so the fact that Pixar just goes with the guy whose name adds cachet is unsurprising.

[irenicObserver]

So is this a thread abou Whedon's merits or a thread about the movie, "Cabin in the Woods"?

[General Patton]

Now I don't know about the movie, but from what I've seen of the trailers ir really does seem rather cookie cutter. Same generic "high school or college kids get off the grid for probable sex romp and then crazy **** happens." It even has a generic hick to give them dire warnings. The only thing that breaks with the cliche is that the murderer seems to have tech with them in a government or business feel to them, which a look of the government/business villains that Whedon likes to put out seems likely. There is also a joke lampshading the whole splitting up thing but that has been done before.

All told, I wouldn't have given the movie a seconds thought until I saw Whedon's name, but remain a bit skeptic.

If I remember the trailer correctly, that hick seems to be in on the whole thing, serving as an advance scout/guard outside the main perimeter. In that way, it severely reminds me of Fallout 2, specificly the Navarro Outpost for the Enclave. They've got extremely advanced tech and one ordinary looking guy at a gas station outside the base keeping everyone away, except those who might be useful pawns in their machinations.

[Selrahc]

Movie good.
Funny, logically consistent, scary in places. Highly recommended.
Definitely not cliche.

[Sunken Valley]

How many jump scares?

Also, how many moments of "quiet menace"?

I'm a nervous wreck.

[Skeller]

the Serenity comic (specifically Shepherd's Tale),
I believe that was actually written by Zach Whedon not Joss. But I digress. Any movie created in opposition to the current trend of horror movies towards snuff films has my support. Not sure if I will get a chance to see it in theaters but I would like to.

[Dienekes]

I believe that was actually written by Zach Whedon not Joss. But I digress. Any movie created in opposition to the current trend of horror movies towards snuff films has my support. Not sure if I will get a chance to see it in theaters but I would like to.

Both of them are given credit actually, and I believe that Joss was the one who planned the backstory for Book which is really where the piece falls apart.

Disappointing really, since Book's background was one of the most interesting little mysteries in the show.

In any case, I can sort of agree with you on the change in modern horror, but largely I've stopped finding about all horror frightening for quite some time now so that might be playing a part of my cause for skepticism. From the guys in the thread it seems like it could be a fun show and if I remember I might rent it sometime down the line.

[Selrahc]

How many jump scares?

Also, how many moments of "quiet menace"?


A few of both.
If jump scares really bother you, you might not want to see it.


Any movie created in opposition to the current trend of horror movies towards snuff films has my support.

It's not really a case of being against the trend, so much as examining and playing with it.


Everybody dies.
As in, everybody in the entire movie. With often grisly death scenes that could sometimes be right out of a torture flick.

The difference is that for the first 3/4 of the film, almost all of the horror elements are undercut into comedy by the observers. In the last 1/4, the horror death is played much straighter but is playing through a different narrative course than the cliches of the earlier segment.



Backstory musings:
The sacrifices needed to be "incarnations of youth" along a specific mould, but shifting and adapted for culture. So the Japanese cultural incarnation of youth is a bunch of schoolgirls? I guess that explains the perfect record... Certainly an easier bunch to kill than the relatively arcane requirements for the Americans.

[Skeller]

Both of them are given credit actually, and I believe that Joss was the one who planned the backstory for Book which is really where the piece falls apart.
Looking it up you are right. Zach wrote the story based on an outline by Joss.


Disappointing really, since Book's background was one of the most interesting little mysteries in the show.

In any case, I can sort of agree with you on the change in modern horror, but largely I've stopped finding about all horror frightening for quite some time now so that might be playing a part of my cause for skepticism. From the guys in the thread it seems like it could be a fun show and if I remember I might rent it sometime down the line.
Agreed.

[Sunken Valley]

A few of both.
If jump scares really bother you, you might not want to see it.


Do you have numbers? One or two is okay. But more is too scary. I intend to have protection when I go to see it.

Also is there anything at the end of the film? Anything at all even a jump scare

[chiasaur11]

Do you have numbers? One or two is okay. But more is too scary. I intend to have protection when I go to see it.

Also is there anything at the end of the film? Anything at all even a jump scare

Definitely more than one or two.

The last bit of the film is just brutal. I mean, it's funny in an Army of Darkness way, but there's a lot of awful ways to die. And the inbred redneck pain cult zombies are definitely fond of jump scare tactics.

As for the ending?

Well, you could say that.

Almost wish some REM had been playing, all I can say.

[HamHam]

I didn't really notice any jump scares. Not that aren't blindingly predictable. But then formula is the point.

[Jerthanis]

I saw it, and I think it was really well put together in a lot of ways. It was really, really funny, and was pretty scary. There were plenty of jump scares, but that wasn't ALL there was as far as terror is concerned. Overall though, I'd call it 60% comedy, 10% mystery, 30% horror.

It isn't really concerned with keeping the twist under wraps. If it isn't spoiled for you, you'll still figure it out before the first half is done and the movie knows this well enough that it doesn't treat the reveal as if it's some huge weighty proclamation that stuns everyone to their core.

To say it turns the horror genre on its ear or something is a lot like saying that Scream turned the horror genre on its ear. Yes, we're aware there are ways people behave which are illogical in horror movies, and setups that seem like they're contrived... yeah, we know... you can stop commenting on it movie makers. If this wasn't such a funny movie for other reasons, I'd be ready to say at this point, "We got the joke, it isn't funny anymore" but this movie really DOES make it funny.

The only real weakpoint is the last 1/3rd or so, where things just start getting a bit too convenient for me. Things existed and happened and dialogue was spoken in an order which perfectly led to the climax. It's hard to describe, but Whedon's strength is his good dialogue and his biggest flaw is when dialogue is TOO good. When it fits the narrative too well, when it becomes so clever that it becomes out of character, when characters are too nonchalant because being nonchalant would be funnier...

But yeah, a horror movie with a likable cast and a great premise, not TOO many cheap scares (although not devoid of them), a very good movie overall that I would recommend to anyone who isn't disturbed by brief depictions of particularly gory violence and who has a good sense of humor.

[Brother Oni]

Monty Python was admittedly amusing, but one needed to be sleep deprived or high to truly appreciate much of it.

Or British. :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

It looks silly to be honest, just going by the preview. So you got stereotypical, to the point of cliché, set-up, with some techno-magic explanation. Nothing about it looks exactly appealing.

[Sunken Valley]

As for the ending?

Well, you could say that.

Almost wish some REM had been playing, all I can say.

I meant post credits. Is there anything post-credits or during the credits? I like films which have something in or after the credits

[Selrahc]

It looks silly to be honest, just going by the preview. So you got stereotypical, to the point of cliché, set-up, with some techno-magic explanation. Nothing about it looks exactly appealing.

The only way to answer your complaint properly is to heavily spoil the plot of the movie.

As best I can do without spoilers: All of the stereotypes are examined and explained. Doing so is more or less the entire premise, and it is executed in a clever and amusing fashion. If you are sick of horror movie cliches, then you are *exactly* the type of person the movie is aiming towards.

[Ravens_cry]

Not surprising ,given that Joss Whedon is involved.
If I'm sick to death of one thing, it's meta. It can be done well, but often it plays out like "Look, we're doing the exact thing we are complaining about, but we are complaining about it so that makes it OK."
I don't know for sure, like I said I saw only the preview, but yeah, that was my take. For me, the preview failed to arouse any interest.

[Seraph]

If I'm sick to death of one thing, it's meta. It can be done well, but often it plays out like "Look, we're doing the exact thing we are complaining about, but we are complaining about it so that makes it OK."
I don't know for sure, like I said I saw only the preview, but yeah, that was my take. For me, the preview failed to arouse any interest.

pretty much. first rule of writing: just because you acknowledge something you do is stupid does not make it any less stupid.

[Dragosai]

Whedon is horribly underappreciated, and is the greatest genius television and hollywood have had in decades. Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers if successful stand a good chance of changing that underappreciation, and giving him the A-list cred he deserves.

I hope not, I for one don't think Hollywood needs another writer/director/whatever that gives us stereotypical laughable female roles. Hollywood is doing more than fine in that regard already.

Also I don't want a writer/director/whatever that does not understand outer space is not a straight line, to be involved in anything ever.

[Axolotl]

This film is amazing, seriously it's brilliant.

The set-up given in the trailer isn't the twist, before seeing the film I thought that the trailers gave away the whole film but they don't it has alot more cool ideas and it spreads them throuhout the movie.

It's not just a spam-in-a-cabin film with a little meta twist. It's spam-in-a-cabin film that takes all the convential cliches and tropes and then takes them apaqrt and reuses them in a way that's familiar and fresh, it's twist is itself twisted, twice. And the climax is frankly brilliant, like the best ending I've ever seen to a film.

Literally the only problem I had with the film was that the cinema showed trailers for horror films before Cabin in the Woods just made them all look dated and silly.

To put in comic book terms, this isn't just Watchmen for horror films, it's Watchmen and Kingdom Come for horror films and the only reason it has less to say than Watchmen is because horror films have less substance than superheroes.

[Ravens_cry]

I
Also I don't want a writer/director/whatever that does not understand outer space is not a straight line, to be involved in anything ever.
What exactly are you referring to?:smallconfused:

[Dragosai]

What exactly are you referring to?:smallconfused:

Probably have derailed the thread enough but to answer; I am referring to Serenity where he uses a hackneyed and just not smart plot device where the protagonists must fly "through" reaver space. Ya know reavers the the degenerated insanely suicidal violent things that can somehow still pilot, maintain and modify space ships.......yeah so many, many things awful about that.

[Tavar]

I'd point out that flying through Reaver space doesn't require space to be flat.

[Ravens_cry]

I'd point out that flying through Reaver space doesn't require space to be flat.
<off topic/>Except it does. You could go around, below, above, all the cardinal directions that are ignored when space is basically treated as an ocean. </on topic>

[Talya]

I generally have this complaint more in Star Trek (every DS9 "blockade" for example, why didn't they go around it?).

Firefly is easier to suspend disbelief - limited fuel supplies, a ship on a shoestring budget, slow sublight speeds without FTL...all would culminate in that straight line being far more appealling.

I had a far more difficult time with the solar system construct with dozens of relatively climate-friendly worlds and moons.

[Ravens_cry]

The Wormhole at least provided a focal point that could be blockaded and/or mined.
Apparently the hand-wave for Firefly is that they were terraformed a long time before the events of the show. But that's some pretty uber-tech.
Even in Star Trek, terraforming is considered a big deal.

[Talya]

The Wormhole at least provided a focal point that could be blockaded and/or mined.

The Dominion forces blockaded DS9 so far out from the station that when the federation task force that was assigned to retake DS9 broke through, they used the warp drive for several minutes to get there.

Likewise, 12 bajoran impulse ships blockaded a freakin moon from romulan warbirds, from well outside of transporter range.

[Ravens_cry]

Yeah, this is something that rarely gets much mention in Star Trek. I guess we're hating on Firefly because it tries to get other things right, like silence in space. Just like people hate on Star Trek's errors more than Star Wars due to it's occasional lip service to the laws of physics.

[Talya]

Yeah, this is something that rarely gets much mention in Star Trek. I guess we're hating on Firefly because it tries to get other things right, like silence in space. Just like people hate on Star Trek's errors more than Star Wars due to it's occasional lip service to the laws of physics.

Whedon doesn't pay any attention to physics at all. If you watch the special features on the Firefly DVDs, he says he's terrible at "sci-fi" because he's not a very scientifically minded person, and relies on other staff to correct more egregious mistakes in that regard.

[Ravens_cry]

Whedon doesn't pay any attention to physics at all. If you watch the special features on the Firefly DVDs, he says he's terrible at "sci-fi" because he's not a very scientifically minded person, and relies on other staff to correct more egregious mistakes in that regard.
Thanks, as if I need another reason to dislike the guy.:smallfrown:

[Axolotl]

<off topic/>Except it does. You could go around, below, above, all the cardinal directions that are ignored when space is basically treated as an ocean. </on topic>The planet they want to get to is in reaver space, so in order to get to it they need to go through rever space. It can be in as many dimensions as you want and they'd still have to go through reaver space.

[Tavar]

Except, from what we see when they get to Miranda, it seems the planet is in the middle of Reaper held space.

Also, fuel costs matters. If it takes twice your fuel supply to go around, then you can't really afford to do so.


As for the Blockade in Star Trek, the Blockade force moved out in order to intercept the relief force, if I remember correctly.

[Robert Blackletter]

<off topic/>Except it does. You could go around, below, above, all the cardinal directions that are ignored when space is basically treated as an ocean. </on topic>
Spoiler as still off topic
Having never watched any firefly I may be far offbase but could there be other reasons for a straight line through bad guy space rather then a longer route though safe space? low fuel? a time constraint? something like that?

[Tavar]

Spoiler as still off topic
Having never watched any firefly I may be far offbase but could there be other reasons for a straight line through bad guy space rather then a longer route though safe space? low fuel? a time constraint? something like that?

Those could be factors, but there's also the fact that the place they're going for seems to be in the middle of Reaver space: at the very least there are plenty of Reaver ships right around the planet.

If you're going to a location held in the middle of a sphere, it doesn't matter what direction you come from, you're going to have to go through the sphere.

[Muz]

I can't help myself--spoilered for off-topic about sound in space.

Yeah, this is something that rarely gets much mention in Star Trek. I guess we're hating on Firefly because it tries to get other things right, like silence in space. Just like people hate on Star Trek's errors more than Star Wars due to it's occasional lip service to the laws of physics.

First of all, I like Firefly, so that's not where this is coming from, but people complaining about sound in space in movies/TV shows--or holding up the lack of sound in space as some indicator of excellence--drive me nuts. (I don't mean to be criticizing you, personally, Ravens_cry. Your comment only brought the subject to mind. :smallsmile:)

Sound in space comes from the same darned place that the music does. No one ever complains that there's no music in dramatic moments in real life. It's just a style choice, it's not more or less "correct" unless the characters themselves can hear it.

End rant. :smallsmile:

[Eakin]

Whedon doesn't pay any attention to physics at all. If you watch the special features on the Firefly DVDs, he says he's terrible at "sci-fi" because he's not a very scientifically minded person, and relies on other staff to correct more egregious mistakes in that regard.

He doesn't pay attention to physics in his fantasy series, although there the characters have actually commented that "it's metaphysics, not physics" as a hand wave for that sort of thing. I'm generally a Whedon fan, if I have to pick a side.

Anyway, having seen the movie, I'm going to say that I loved it and had a blast. I managed to go in completely unspoiled about the story beyond what you'd find out in the first 5 minutes, and that's absolutely what I'd recommend to anyone else with interest in the film.

Anyone else think that this was an idea Whedon had for Angel, season 5, but couldn't fit it in? The whole thing screamed "Wolfram & Hart's film division," right down to Amy Acker.

Favorite gags were the Merman (the blowhole was a nice touch), the Harbinger on speakerphone, and the death by unicorn during the Act 3 carnage.

Did anyone else notice that four of the five teens were "miscast" by the agency? If you leave out Shaggy (don't remember the character's actual name) The two guys could have switched roles, as could the two girls. I'm sure this was intentional to let the audience see how the organization was twisting them into the archetypes they needed for the ritual.

EDIT:
Also, a question I just remembered:
What was the significance of the "power surge from upstairs" that prevented them from caving in the tunnel? Was that supposed to be Shaggy, or the interference of a higher/lower power?

[chiasaur11]

He doesn't pay attention to physics in his fantasy series, although there the characters have actually commented that "it's metaphysics, not physics" as a hand wave for that sort of thing. I'm generally a Whedon fan, if I have to pick a side.

Anyway, having seen the movie, I'm going to say that I loved it and had a blast. I managed to go in completely unspoiled about the story beyond what you'd find out in the first 5 minutes, and that's absolutely what I'd recommend to anyone else with interest in the film.

Anyone else think that this was an idea Whedon had for Angel, season 5, but couldn't fit it in? The whole thing screamed "Wolfram & Hart's film division," right down to Amy Acker.

Favorite gags were the Merman (the blowhole was a nice touch), the Harbinger on speakerphone, and the death by unicorn during the Act 3 carnage.

Did anyone else notice that four of the five teens were "miscast" by the agency? If you leave out Shaggy (don't remember the character's actual name) The two guys could have switched roles, as could the two girls. I'm sure this was intentional to let the audience see how the organization was twisting them into the archetypes they needed for the ritual.

EDIT:
Also, a question I just remembered:
What was the significance of the "power surge from upstairs" that prevented them from caving in the tunnel? Was that supposed to be Shaggy, or the interference of a higher/lower power?

Film seemed to indicate it was a Marty Party. He's crafty.

[Somebloke]

Saw it.

Loved it.

Whedon doing what he does best, when it works.

My girlfriend is enjoying herself picking out the plotholes, but as far as I am concerned, hey, it was fun.

The carnage scenes after the release is easily the best part of the movie. Any horror fan will have a field day picking out the references.


Also: Angry molesting tree!

[Riverdance]

First of all, I'm prefacing this by saying I don't like horror movies. I avoid the genre like the plague, and I wouldn't even be considering seeing this, but for a couple things:

(1) I love Joss Whedon. Cabin Co-writer/director Drew Goddard also worked with Whedon on Angel/Buffy. So I love the team in charge.
(2) 92% on RottenTomatoes, with comments like "a mind blowing horror-film that turns the genre inside-out."
(3) Whedon and Goddard don't like modern horror films, either, which they describe as basicaly being "Torture-porn." This movie is an attempt to revitalize a genre that has gotten predictable of late, and unlike traditional horror, this is apparently anything but predictable.

So...with Cabin in the Woods being such an instant low-budget success, and The Avengers coming out to a possible billion-dollar box-office take, is Whedon going to become an A-List director with hollywood power? Am I suddenly going to see an influx of gems on the big screen that originate from Joss's warped mind?

I am sold. I have exactly the same outlook on modern horror, but this sounds great. That it isn't "torture porn" is exactly what I needed to hear to want to see it. Thank you Joss Whedon for being wonderful. :smallsmile:

By the way, while we're on the topic of Joss Whedon, today I heard a rebroadcast of This American Life which featured Joss Whedon's directors commentary from Dr. Horrible, but it is no ordinary commentary. Why is it not ordinary? Because he sings it and it's all about why he doesn't like doing directors commentaries. :smalltongue: It was awesome.

[Eakin]

By the way, while we're on the topic of Joss Whedon, today I heard a rebroadcast of This American Life which featured Joss Whedon's directors commentary from Dr. Horrible, but it is no ordinary commentary. Why is it not ordinary? Because he sings it and it's all about why he doesn't like doing directors commentaries. :smalltongue: It was awesome.

Actually, the entire commentary track to Doctor Horrible is its own musical. You can listen to the whole thing here (http://www.youtube.com/user/CommentaryTheMusical?feature=watch)

EDIT: "It came from pain" god I love these people

[Riverdance]

Right, my bad. Maybe it was that what he sang was a separate song he'd written about doing director's commentaries? I can't remember. Anyways, thanks for correcting that Eakin. :smallwink:

[chiasaur11]

Right, my bad. Maybe it was that what he sang was a separate song he'd written about doing director's commentaries? I can't remember. Anyways, thanks for correcting that Eakin. :smallwink:

It was the song Heart(broken), I think.

Tick, tick, tick of your heart?

It's a song from Commentary about commentary.

[Eakin]

Right, my bad. Maybe it was that what he sang was a separate song he'd written about doing director's commentaries? I can't remember. Anyways, thanks for correcting that Eakin. :smallwink:

So he did a musical commentary on the musical commentary he made for a musical.

That's a few too many layers of meta for me to wrap my head around

[Brumski]

Great movie

It has something that you don't see that often anymore, a plot that slowly gets revealed that isn't spoiled by the trailer and whatnot, just for the people that are commenting about this movie with only having read reviews and seen the trailer.

There's a couple scenes I really like where it seems like a "Betrayal at House on the Hill" movie (the cellar and the later "system purge," s*** just hits the fan).

My suggestion for a better ending:
have the virgin girl turn into a werewolf real quick and kill the pothead, diverting the end of the world. The ending is the main thing that I think is meh.

[Axolotl]

My suggestion for a better ending:
have the virgin girl turn into a werewolf real quick and kill the pothead, diverting the end of the world. The ending is the main thing that I think is meh.That would just be a massive cop out though. Creating a moral dilemma for the protaganist and then having external factors solve it is cheap and lazy. It would have really hurt the film for me.

Also that would mean the film wouldn't end with ancient gods destroying the world, which I feel is just a bad move overall.

[Zen Monkey]

Minor question:
Why does that button even exist? When would it ever be a good idea to use it?

I imagine the designer built it, then said "I'm going to go sleep on a pile of loaded guns now, with some hyperactive monkeys running around, seems like a solid plan."

[Eakin]

Minor question:
Why does that button even exist? When would it ever be a good idea to use it?

I imagine the designer built it, then said "I'm going to go sleep on a pile of loaded guns now, with some hyperactive monkeys running around, seems like a solid plan."

Well, if there was some sort of catastrophic failure above it could be a way to pull all the monsters into the facility instead of letting them out into the world. Presumably there would be other steps to take besides just hitting the button, like getting everyone in the facility to a bunker or other safe place first and calling for backup from the other facilities.

[Friv]

I assume that the button could actually exist for the purpose of purging a facility that has gone rogue or otherwise been invaded and overwhelmed from above, rather than for purging the actual monsters.

Why it doesn't require extensive ID and passwords and such, when everything else does, I do not understand.

[Dienekes]

So, I saw it. It was alright. Not revolutionary or amazing, but alright.


I'm curious about what the movie was trying to accomplish. If it was trying to be scary then they shouldn't have cut to the controllers since every time they did all drama and tension that was built up was completely lost. If they were trying to be funny, well they succeeded a bit there (I have to admit I was cracking up at the ridiculously long time it was taking to kill the last girl when the controllers were celebrating), but still it annoyed me, maybe since I used to like a good horror that it seemed to just fail to actually complete their scary moments.

Also, was anyone else really disappointed by the choice of monster? From what I saw of the creatures released at the end, literally every option would have been more interesting than zombie red-necks.

Also, did anyone like the controllers much more than the college students? I mean, I know they were explaining why skank was acting skanky, dumb jock was acting like a dumb jock and so on. But even with the explanations I couldn't see them as anything more than shallow stereotypes. While the controllers were at least fun.

[irenicObserver]

That was the whole point. Both you and the Ancient Ones ended up not enjoying it.

[Dienekes]

That was the whole point. Both you and the Ancient Ones ended up not enjoying it.

That's actually a really stupid point for a movie to make the audience not enjoy it.

[Eakin]

That was the whole point. Both you and the Ancient Ones ended up not enjoying it.


That's actually a really stupid point for a movie to make the audience not enjoy it.

Different criticisms here. The ancient Ones didn't enjoy it because it wasn't the by the books troperific cliche storm of a ritual they demand, without any major variations. It sounds like Dienekes didn't like that it sort of tried to tell two stories at once and didn't in his view, balance them properly (assuming I'm reading his post right and not putting words in his mouth).

I too enjoyed the controllers more than the college kids. The controllers storyline was presenting something a little more novel than the paint by numbers horror flick happening in the cabin. Certainly the movie wouldn't have worked without both, though.

[Dienekes]

Different criticisms here. The ancient Ones didn't enjoy it because it wasn't the by the books troperific cliche storm of a ritual they demand, without any major variations. It sounds like Dienekes didn't like that it sort of tried to tell two stories at once and didn't in his view, balance them properly (assuming I'm reading his post right and not putting words in his mouth).

I too enjoyed the controllers more than the college kids. The controllers storyline was presenting something a little more novel than the paint by numbers horror flick happening in the cabin. Certainly the movie wouldn't have worked without both, though.

This is pretty much what I'm trying to say. The cliched horror story was pretty standard fair, nothing too scary or interesting going on. But every time they even started to build up some suspense they switched to the controllers goofing off, laughing at hicks, swearing at school girls, and giving toasts. It took me completely out of the moment. Now it would work if they did it once or twice, but every single time they build up any shock and suspense they switch over. So it more or less failed as a horror.

As a comedy, the controllers had some decently funny moments, but nothing that really had me going. On a whole they were more interesting than the college students, but they were just sorta funny. So it was just average as a comedy.

So we're left with a meh horror and comedy hybrid. Never delivering any really big laughs or fully committing to any truly scary horror. So while it wasn't bad, it just fell flat, to me at least.

[irenicObserver]

I enjoyed it for it's slightly meta look at the horror genre. I wouldn't find the frame plot scary, the generic storyline of teens being isolated, building tension from being slowly picked off by some (super)natural force that they may or may not deserve. I found the idea of a universe that has an actual justification for these things to happen rather interesting, and quite funny. It left me wanting to see more honestly.

[Philistine]

I'm with iO. As far as I was concerned there was no, that is zero, chance that the Cabin story was going to be scary. At all. Ever. It's 2012, and the "small, isolated group of people get picked off one at a time by (zombies/lunatic(s)/alien(s)/whatever)" formula has been done to death - so much so that even the jump scares have become painfully predictable. I enjoyed this movie because it felt like the filmmakers had come around to the same way of thinking, and then decided to have a little fun with it.

I really think the Cabin story is a parody. A sly, dry, subtle, and really really dark parody, rather than a broad comedy like "Tucker and Dale Versus Evil," but a parody all the same. No, it's not scary - but it never once felt like it was meant to be. That goes all the way down to the selection of the most boring monsters in Control's stable as the antagonists. Of course zombies aren't that interesting, that's why the writers picked them - and why the zombies were the perennial pick of the unimaginative Maintenance Department. (Which also seems like a jab at the recent prevalence of zombies in entertainment media, as does the pointed distinction drawn between generic zombies and the "Zombie Torture Family" for the betting pool.)

The other thing is, the Cabin story isn't really "the movie." It only establishes the movie, provides it with setup and frame. But that's why the movie opens on the Control story - for that matter, that's why the opening credits play over paintings of human sacrifice in various different times and cultures. And that's the reason why the film pulls away to Control any time the Cabin story threatens to get any real momentum or suspense going: what matters is the impact of events at the Cabin on the people in Control, because the Control story really is "the movie." And obviously that's why the final act of the movie is "Control Goes to Hell."
But with all that said, I freely concede that this movie is not for every taste. It's not remotely as lighthearted as you'd expect from a parody, weirdly more reminiscent of "Dr. Strangelove" than of Mel Brooks. If that's not your cup of tea, then good for you! You're most likely a better, saner person for it. I enjoyed "Cabin in the Woods" immensely; the movie made me smile and smile. And be a villain. In Denmark. No, wait...

[Dienekes]

I actually love dark comedy, hell in my opinion the funniest part of the movie was also the darkest "joke" (When the final girl is being murdered very slowly in the background while all the Contollers are partying, had me in stitches).

But I didn't think it was all that funny. Flashes of hilarious here and there, but nothing really to write home about. Personally I think the movie could have been a very interesting short story focusing completely on the Controllers and their job, but a full movie mixed with the college kids just felt divided. I can say the concept was definitely interesting, but interesting and entertaining aren't exactly the same thing.

Maybe it's because pointing out and laughing at how cliche you're being doesn't actually seem all the funny to me. Which is essentially the whole movie. The college kids do something cliche, and we cut to the controllers explaining why the college kids are being cliched. I think that each time this happened it was supposed to be funny, as though calling themselves out on their own cliches makes it all better. But for me, it doesn't, and after the 3rd time it starts getting a bit annoying.