Quote:
Originally Posted by neverending
And Roshiq, I understood what you were saying. I still disagree. "Familiarity leads to contempt," as they say. Overexposure of the monster more often than not results in less horror/suspense/fear, whatever you want to call it. Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas, The Descent, Night of the Demon, that one movie I love that I can never remember the name of with the invisible brain/spinal chord monsters, IT, Alien; the list could go on and on of movies that were more effective because they showed the actual creatures sparingly.
|
I also love those films that you mentioned, Lee (Hammer's Snowman, Descent, NOTD and I guess Castle's
Tingler was that spinal chord monster!) and we know all those films got much more for the viewers than just revealing/showing off a monster at lose and that's the point I've also maid in my very first post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by roshiq
But that doesn't mean I'm against "less monster - more humans" sort of monster flicks but the thing is it all highly depends on the final pay-offs and in that case make sure you have a great human or survival story with really well developed characters that we'll care about & great script (like JAWS, Alien or even THE MIST) on your table before going to make it happen. And this thing is really tricky, challenging & demands quite a caliber from a film maker.
|
And their "effectiveness" not only comes 'because they showed the actual creatures sparingly' but also (as I said) they had so much intriguing aspects in their storyline & characters (their fear for unknown, internal turmoil, struggle, mistrust, frustration, isolation, helplessness etc.) that made the viewers engaged & involved with the plot so heavily that sometime we actually care or worried less about when & how the monster is going to attack next or when they would finally going to reveal the monster. My point is, to come up with a that kind of story & great script is challenging & demands a great film maker to capture those moments so effectively; and in case if he/she failed on creating & delivering those things in the movie then we as the viewer losing on both sides...neither we'd get to see a monster properly nor we had something to get along with in the movie. And that's why I'm saying if you got an interesting concept for monster then at least gave it a fair amount of screen-time (& that doesn't mean or have to be 'overexposure'). Like in the 2008 movie
The Burrowers (I wish I could remeber more, but at the moment I can't recall some other other examples) they kept the monsters mostly in the dark & not revealed properly at any point in the movie; moreover though the western premise was something new & interesting but couldn't able to come up with interesting & likable characters & events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neverending
In King Kong, for instance, we are terrified the first time we see Kong, but as the film goes on, and we see he's just a big lovesick teddy bear, we begin to pity him, and by the end of the film, we're not scared of him at all; in fact, we're rooting for him.
|
Yeah..and I think that's one of the goals in KING KONG...at the end the viewers will eventually root for him; as that ferocious, huge gorilla from Skull Island actually got a lonesome romeo or human like heart beneath his gigantic & terrifying figure. The character & motivation of Kong required that amount of screen time; it they wanted to keep him totally terrifying all through the way then they might implemented the 'less exposure' approach or won't feel the need to show him that much.
06-19-2014, 11:44 AM
