Paranormal Activity 2

[fiend_skull]

Originally Posted by dub2001

Correct me if I am wrong but is that not exactly what was done in the Blair Witch. as far as using a "home" video image as part of the plot, its been done in several movies like cloverfield, quarantine, diary of the dead, district 9..........so what i dont understand is how that aspect of the film could be considered original.

As far as my opinion of the movie,to each his own. I understand the movie itself and the plot or how slow it was is not what made it bad to me. What I didnt like about it was the believability factor and the Hype they tried to give it in the previews.Ultimately it led to disapointment. I am a ghost story nut so paranormal type movies are what really get me going.This movie was supposed to be an actual account of what happened through their own video camera and for that to work it has to be believable.
If the sequel is anything like the first one they should have used one of the original endings and left it at that. The director they have for the second one might make it worthwhile, guess we'll just have to wait till October to see.

1st off, they use the camera in a different manner than Blair Witch in how they build suspense and how they correlate with the story. With using the fast forward technique they were able to play with the audience's head by telling them "when they slows down, something is suppose to happen." With small things happening each night people were constantly on edge waiting for something big to happen. If they had a big thing for every night, then the entertaining factor of a build up would lose all of its intensity.

2nd off, the footage in the film was not suppose to be the "true story" they based it off of. One of the people who helped work on the film was connected to a paranormal investigative team where they have stocks of videos with clips similar to some of the stuff in the movie.

How the movie was built was very original and takes after Hitchcockian styled suspense and horror.

[dub2001]

Originally Posted by fiend_skull

1st off, they use the camera in a different manner than Blair Witch in how they build suspense and how they correlate with the story. With using the fast forward technique they were able to play with the audience's head by telling them "when they slows down, something is suppose to happen."

ok, ill give you that, I dont remember seeing any other movies that use time lapse to build suspense in that way. So not so much original in the sense of using home cameras but in how they are used.

Originally Posted by fiend_skull

2nd off, the footage in the film was not suppose to be the "true story" they based it off of. One of the people who helped work on the film was connected to a paranormal investigative team where they have stocks of videos with clips similar to some of the stuff in the movie.

How the movie was built was very original and takes after Hitchcockian styled suspense and horror.

I didnt mean it was supposed to be the true story, just that it is supposed to be portrayed as a true story of what happened to this perticular couple through their own camera. Could be that im just picking it apart too much, which I do alot.
Maybe one of these days everyone will see my version of suspense and terror.

[dub2001]

Originally Posted by Elvis_Christ

Blair Witch Sure it did it a long time before it but it was more a successful case in marketing rather than any sort of ground breaking cinema.

As far as marketing goes paranormal activity definately fall into that catagory. it was a film that would have never made it to theaters had it not been for the great marketing. Showing us trailers of the audience freaking out to show us it was so scary instead of letting scenes from the movie do it. There were not enough scenes in the movie to make an interesting trailer, dont think people sleeping and a burning ouija board would have done it so they use a great marketing campaign to get people to watch it.

If anyone wants to, make your own trailer of the movie using only scenes from the movie and it actually be good and show the suspence and be better than the "theater audience" trailer and I will officially bow to you. I dont think it can be done

[_____V_____]

[nightmare_of _death]

I watched the trailer a few days ago, and had read somewhere that it was removed from some theaters for being too scary........It wasn't that bad in my opinion( not scary enough to be removed from theaters at least). I do hope its scarier than the first one though.

[ida.poltergeist]

Oh god no. Sure, Paranormal Activity was a nice movie all in all. Didn't find it too scary because of certain clichées. Like foot prints of a 'demon' that looked more like the one of a reptile (or a goddamn ostrich) and the whole banshee screeching thing going on. And the ending(s) were all pretty boring. Like someone simply had run out of ideas. But still, it had some great moments.

I simply fear that the sequal will have quite a budget to work on and of course they will use it. Making it as flat as most horror movies out there right now. More clichées and most likely lots of added 'special effects' with blood and gore. .. Well, I like blood and gore but I don't find it scary. At. All. So basically the things I liked in the first movie may very likely be replaced with the very same clichées I didn't like in it.

But yeah, that's just my opinion.

[Nini_luv5]

Am I the only one who really doesn't know how to feel about this movie?
I mean I like the first one but not to the extent where I would buy it.
The trailer is some what vague but up for ample disscussion

tell me what u think :D

Trailer link posted below
v
v
v

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qt_002jXjs

[neverending]

Check it out- only 6 posts below this one:

http://horror.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53768

[_____V_____]

Even the ads for Paranormal Activity 2 are enough to give us goose bumps.

Don't believe it yet? Have a closer look at the haunted-house sequel's first official poster -



Paranormal Activity 2 is playing a wicked game with us, you know. A clue here, a hint there, and whatever you thought you knew, you suddenly don't.

Sure we've seen that frame before from the trailer. In the trailer we saw snapshots of this baby (a baby, this baby, another baby, who knows?), held in the arms of two people, another shot of the same child crawling into the middle of the road.

Then elsewhere in the trailer a dark female figure appears in the doorway. Is it Katie from the original Paranormal Activity? Is it someone entirely different? Is it another woman possessed by the same demon?

What could that dog be barking at? Could it have something to do with the fact that our little baby friend there doesn't have a reflection in the mirror?

Possibly.

And that's only the beginning.

A new version of the trailer has been released on the movie's official site. An initial run though doesn't seem to reveal anything out of the ordinary.

Watch it again.

This time, around the half-way point of the trailer, when you see the kitchen, take your mouse and drag the progress bar back a few seconds. (It isn't an exact science; give it a couple of tries.)

The trailer seems to take over and we're "treated" to some seriously fear-inducing images.



***WARNING: POSSIBLE HUGE SPOILERS FOLLOW***



Fortunately, thanks to the Internet, this has all been broken down frame by frame- http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/09/15...r-easter-eggs/


***END OF SPOILER WARNING***



What does this all add up to? Nights with the covers pulled over our heads as we await the movie's Oct. 22 release date, of course!

What do you think? Ready to get scared all over again?

[arkoff56]

I liked the original PA. I found the characters annoying, but overall it was a effective thriller. I think a part of its tremendous success were the subtle shock scares it offered. Its the only movie where moving bedsheets can phase me. The mainstream audience really only looks for jump scares in their horror, nowadays.(and maybe some gore) And I can definitely see why it gained such popularity.

The first movie was sorta built on the tense stationary camera scenes, with the story cut in between. I don't see how PA2 or any of the following sequels will be any different. I do hate redundant sequels, but that wont stop hollywood from running franchises into the ground and then some. That said, I will be seeing PA2 as I will the "last" Saw sequel.