Horror – Page 2 – Colin McMahon

Marketing Method: Ghostbusters (2016)

Posted on March 4, 2016 by Colin McMahon

So finally, the trailer for the new Ghostbusters is out! Here it is:

So far, the reaction has been… mixed. Some have loved the new trailer and celebrated it as an exciting new entry. Others have had a… different reaction. Well, it’s sparked debate – so that’s something the marketing department did right, I guess?

Let’s get into it.

Speaking from a personal standpoint as someone who has followed the development of this new Ghostbusters, this trailer is confusing. Look at how it starts, “30 years ago, four scientists saved the world…” or something like that. Oh cool, so it’s a sequel right?

Apparently not, no. In a recent interview regarding his new movie, Paul Feig confirmed that his Ghostbusters is a reboot(or remake, whatever the popular term is these days). He even went in-depth to explain his reasoning in avoiding a sequel. Agree or disagree, as director – he gets to make that call. Unfortunately, the people making the trailer must not have seen this interview.

If it's a reboot, then it makes sense to have a "coming together" opening. Here's hoping the film moves a little more quickly than the original. — If it’s a reboot, then it makes sense to have a “coming together” opening. Here’s hoping the film moves a little more quickly than the original.

This did the trailer no favors as audiences received an opening that promised a sequel and went into a lot of shots that frankly looked familiar. Remember this library opening from the original? This one:

Well, here it is again!

Screen-Shot-2016-03-03-at-8.30.06-AM-700x291

Three scientists coming together to fight ghosts?

An additional black Ghostbuster who is not initially part of the team (and probably not a scientist)?

Ghostbusters saving the city of New York from an apparent sudden ghost surge?

Well… okay that one isn’t fair. Every Ghostbusters movie should hopefully involve Ghostbusters fighting ghosts in some way. I would hope. Oh, but there’s also Slimer:

gb6

Point being, for a trailer that opens with the implication of sequel, there is a lot of retreading common ground. This likely goes a long way to explain at least some of the negative reaction. Personally, I think this addresses most of the fair criticism. The rest is subjective but probably a little reactionary.

“The jokes don’t work. The ghosts look CG (spoiler: they are). The writing sucks. The movie isn’t funny.”

Calm down – we’ve seen less than two minutes. Now, have I seen better trailers? I have. That being said, and this is again personal opinion, is too much emphasis being placed on the trailer rather than the team behind it?

Let’s look at another movie coming out soon: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. That film has trailers that are kinda all over the place. The first trailer offered an emotionally charged look at why Batman and Superman would fight. It didn’t get into too much plot, but provided a hook. The second trailer… likely told the entirety of the movie. Seriously, I don’t know for sure but I’m going to bet that after I see Batman v. Superman, I’m going to feel the same way.

That, in my opinion, was not a well put together piece of publicity. It suggested the unending need for more to satisfy the audience.

“Bored with Batman – we got Superman! Don’t like Superman – how about Doomsday? We also got Lex Luthor! Oh, here’s Wonder Woman! Justice League!!!!”

"WE ALSO HAVE AQUAMAN! PLEASE BE EXCITED!!" — “WE ALSO HAVE AQUAMAN! PLEASE BE EXCITED!!”

It cried a certain desperation that Batman and Superman are not interesting enough on their own.

But I am getting sidetracked. At the end of the day, Batman v. Superman is a movie made by Zack Snyder, a director with a… less than steady history (to put it objectively). Man of Steel, Sucker Punch, 300, Legend of the Guardians… Snyder does not have a consistent record when it comes to quality cinema.

Let’s look at Paul Feig, creator of Freaks and Geeks, Bridesmaids, the Heat, and Spy. While I have not seen the Heat (which has the lowest critical ranking of his recent films), that is a more impressive list to me. Spy was one of my favorite comedies of last year and has a trailer that looks:

Okay, I got it. Feig needs to hire some new trailer people.

It is strange to note that Snyder’s name is still being used for advertising, while Feig’s name is left off the Ghostbusters trailer.

Is there something more behind the seemingly incredibly malicious response to the trailer? Remember: people seem to love Star Wars: the Force Awakens, a sequel that had quite a few remake-ish similarities with a New Hope. I’m not going to get into it in this article – my short answer is I don’t know, maybe.

“I thought about it for a very long time. Like, many, many months. No, that’s not right. I was seriously thinking about this for years, really … It kept eating at me, and I really respect those girls. And then I started to feel like if I didn’t do this movie, maybe somebody would write a bad review or something, thinking there was some sort of disapproval [on my part].” - Bill Murray on why he ultimately decided to be in the new Ghostbusters. — “I thought about it for a very long time. Like, many, many months. No, that’s not right. I was seriously thinking about this for years, really … It kept eating at me, and I really respect those girls. And then I started to feel like if I didn’t do this movie, maybe somebody would write a bad review or something, thinking there was some sort of disapproval [on my part].” – Bill Murray on why he ultimately decided to be in the new *Ghostbusters*.

There are legitimate criticisms to be sure, and the most frightening possibility that the studio might be trying to interfere with the movie in a classic example of “wanting it both ways.” That would not bode well.

So is Ghostbusters a sequel or a reboot? Who knows. Hopefully it’s not both.

Is it going to be a good movie? Too early to tell. At the very least, it appears to be in good hands.

Here is a trailer for the original Ghostbusters for contrast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teGxHLo9Qcc

So full of jokes!

A Rose by any Other Name… Can be Confusing: The Thing (2011)

Posted on October 9, 2015 by Colin McMahon

In 1982, one of the greatest horror movies was released. I say this as a fan of John Carpenter, and as someone who really loves Halloween: John Carpenter’s best film by far is The Thing. The film can be seen as a masterwork, both in terms of paranoia/suspense and in terms of practical effects at work. That said, upon initial release – The Thing did not fare well. Many critics (Roger Ebert included) were grossed out by the film’s excessive gore, and found the effects to be a little too real. Carpenter’s The Thing went on to be a box-office flop… with fame and deserved acclaim not being bestowed for many years.

Really? People found this too gross? Go figure.

Sounds like perfect material for Hollywood in 2011, right? So audiences were treated to The Thing again in 2011. Ready for the kicker though? Despite the name, The Thing is not, nor was it ever intended to be (by its director anyway) a remake. This film is a prequel.

A prequel with the same name. Makes… absolutely no sense. So why did it happen? The short answer is: I don’t know. After spending a few hours digging, I have not found an answer beyond this: they did not want the film to have a “:” in the title. Makes sense right? These days there is little that implies Hollywood marketing the way that a colon can. For example, take a look at this unofficial poster art for (one of) the upcoming Jungle Book movie:

That’s right. They’re making two Jungle Book movies at the same time. One is not made by Disney, however, and so it is titled Jungle Book: Origins to differentiate… and to let audiences now that the studio is hopeful for a franchise. Well, I do agree with director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. The Thing: Origins or anything like that would have sounded pretty dumb.

But what about The Thing From Another World?

While 2011’s film was no remake, Carpenter’s sure as heck was. Really, all three films have shared the same basis, and that is the Who Goes There? novella written by John W. Campbell. Say, Who Goes There? would be a great title for a horror movie… oh but it doesn’t have The Thing in it. And everyone knows that, if a movie is to be financially successful, it must name the money-making property behind it.

So, while the director says one thing – I believe another factor strongly went into influencing the title for The Thing: Studio interference. This happens a lot in movies and happened a ton on this one. For example, one of the greatest criticisms leveled against the 2011 film was the effects. Gone were the brilliant practical effects of the 1982 classic, replaced by cheap, fake-looking CGI. What was the director thinking?

The director was all for practical effects. In fact, here is a look at the original effects for the new movie, before they were all replaced in post-production:

Pretty cool looking (although still nowhere near as bloody as 1982). Yet apparently, for whatever reason, the studio did not feel confident in this look. CGI is all the rage after all. ‘Cause this:

Looks so much better than this:

Apparently.

Also, The Thing (2011) lost its original ending, as the studio felt it was too confusing. The original ending featured many more alien designs, and has been dubbed “the pilot ending” by the director. In case you were wondering, we got “the Tetris ending” in the theatrical cut.

The point is: this movie had more than one master, and sadly that usually never works out in the film’s favor. I also know for a fact the script went through at least one complete rewrite from a scriptwriter whose other work has been.. less than stellar.

From the research I have done it appears that two goals were in mind. The first (from the director and crew) was to create a prequel that paid tribute to everything that makes the Carpenter film fantastic. The second was a bid to update The Thing for modern audiences in the 21st century, without risking grossing audiences out this time.

Nothing risky about this. Audiences love computers!

How did it turn out? The Thing bombed at the box office… again. History repeated itself, at least in that respect. Sadly, I don’t believe the 2011 prequel is destined for the same late recognition as the 1982 original, in part for the abysmal effects. The film is simply nowhere near the level of its predecessor, and I don’t believe it would be even if the effects were left alone. The paranoia isn’t there, the performances aren’t there. It is simply… lesser.

This was a film that started out pure but was then corrupted and taken over by an outside force, and in that respect – the title actually makes sense.

It is Fun to be Scared! Five Horror Movies that Entertain More than They Frighten

Posted on September 30, 2015 by Colin McMahon

It’s October again (or close enough) so get ready for a whole month of horror-themed content. I begin by easing into it. Not everyone likes being scared after all. As a fan of horror, I cannot tell you how many times my suggestion to watch a horror movie has been voted do by “Is it scary? I don’t like being scared!”

Well… of course all the absolute best “pure” horror movies are scary. They wouldn’t be good if they weren’t. Yet I feel that there is a sub-genre to horror that is rarely talked about. Those films that give the chills but also excite us as audiences. After all, it was films like the original Dawn of the Dead that got people asking: “So what would you do in a zombie apocalypse?”

So if you’re looking to get into the Halloween spirit but still wish to sleep fairly soundly at night, I have some ideas for you. Keep in mind, art is subjective – so if you frighten easily: fair warning.

The Visit

Holy crap, M. Night Shyamalan finally made a good movie again. WHAT A TWIST?!

Seriously, for those that haven’t heard, M. Night’s newest sends two kids to meet their long-lost grandparents. Shot in “found footage” style, The Visit treats its audiences to a mix of jolts and laughs. Sounds like a hard combo to pull off because it is.

Deanna Dunagan deserves a lot of credit for conveying a performance that warm, funny, and at times downright horrifying.

What makes The Visit more impressive is that, while balancing these two difficult moods, the film remains fairly grounded and subdued. The films highlighted after this one make no such effort and often reach wacky, near cartoon levels of physical humor. M. Night is able to perfectly capture that level of awkward, tension-relieving laughter that comes when the film’s characters (and audience) realize that the situation is just going from bad to worse.

For those out there getting sick of “found footage” and all its overdone trappings, The Visit has you covered as well; with many scenes intentionally poking fun at the more commonplace jump scares.

Is it creepy: yeah (especially if old people weird you out), but it’s also a lot of fun! Also, there’s very little gore – although it does get kind of gross in certain spots.

Cabin in the Woods

For a long time, the late great Wes Craven‘s Scream was at the top film for meta-horror movie experiences. It still is… but Cabin in the Woods blows it out of the water as a deconstruction of the slasher horror genre. Where Scream merely pointed out where conventions lay, Cabin in the Woods works its entire premise around it.

The film is, you guessed it, about a group of young, attractive college kids renting a cabin in the woods. Without spoiling anything, let’s just say that there is a little bit more going on. Soon the kids are up against a family of murderous zombies and things are getting increasingly dangerous and bizarre.

Look no further than the poster to see what kind of tone the movie operates at.

This is a perfect film for anyone who has ever watched a teen horror film and wondered: “Why is everyone acting like a complete idiot? Why would they do that?”

It’s gory for sure, but there’s a lot of comedy interwoven into the horror formula. All the actors perform like they had a blast making this film. Surprisingly (or not) this movie was written by none other than Joss Whedon (The Avengers) and his friend Drew Goddard and serves as their letter to the horror genre.

Gremlins

Wow, Minions has sure grossed a lot of money recently huh? I wonder where the creators ever got that idea for little, semi-evil, funny monsters that run around causing mischief and spouting gibberish?

Oh yeah, these hyper assh*les.

When Gremlins was first conceived, it was intended to be a much darker, more serious horror film. The gremlins weren’t going to be as funny and were going to kill a lot more people. Luckily, none other than Steven Spielberg came along and was like nah, let’s lighten it up. The result is arguably the most fun creature invasion movie of all time.

This film creeped me out as a kid, but since then I have come to view it as one of the most fun horror films I have. It can ever count as a Christmas movie (as much as Die Hard) since it takes place around that holiday. Is there gore? Yeah, but only if you count putting a gremlin in a blender. And oh that theme song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHsPQMHkI7o

Evil Dead II/ Army of Darkness

I’m kind of cheating here but they are both films in the same Evil Dead series. While the first and fourth (or remake if you will) films are straight horror, the second and third are something else entirely. Watching Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness is like watching live action cartoons… that are adult-oriented. I mean, just watch this:

Yeah, it’s ridiculous. The first three films can be viewed as Ash (the protagonist)’s descent into madness, as he is thrown into a world of demons and other horrors that defy reason. Don’t watch if you can’t stand dismemberment, but otherwise you may never laugh harder at a horror film. Here’s hoping the upcoming Ash vs. Evil Dead can deliver the same level of zany quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIUoUHoPlEs

Trick ‘R Treat

When Krampus comes out: see it. Take your friends, maybe have a drink or two first, and prepare to have a good time. Why do I say that? Because Krampus is directed by Michael Dougherty, the mastermind behind Trick ‘R Treat.

Trick ‘R Treat may be the definitive Halloween film, since it is all about Halloween! The film is an anthology collection of stories centered around the holiday. The importance of checking your candy: check. The importance of decorating a pumpkin: check. The importance of having a great costume: it’s all there. Every rule of Halloween must be followed, and those that break them suffer dire consequences.

Those who break the rules get a visit from Sam, who is none too pleased.

There is nothing more to be said than this film IS Halloween. It’s essential viewing. Not too gory, not too scary, it’s just right. Darn shame it never earned a theatrical release, but there’s hope for the sequel!

There you are, six films to sink your fangs into. In my opinion, they won’t terrify so much as entertain, making them excellent choices for those trying to get into horror this Halloween.