The Cabin in the Woods *Spoilers from post 180*

tomissex wrote: »

I saw this last Tuesday and I went to see it again last night. Thought it was really entertaining so I just had to! Someone asked this a couple of pages back but from what I can see I don't think anyone answered. When they're in the cellar Marty's looking at a load of film strips, anyone know what that would have triggered? Or the necklace thing that Jules picks up?

I think the necklace was that huge dragon-bat thing, maybe? Or a giant bug? Was wondering that myself. Would love to know what the film reel was.

Andy!! wrote: »

Possibly the pinhead guy with the blades in his head?

No, that was the puzzle ball that he was holding in his hands.

Seriously not getting the "it's not scary" complaints earlier. Talk about ^whoosh^

It's akin to lambasting Hot Shots for not being a realistic enough war movie.

This will be the first time in a long time I see the same movie twice on the big screen. The expression on the wolf's face alone is worth the ticket price. I love the next shot when it's just lurking in the middle of the screen in the background between the slut/fool characters as they talk. Bradley Whitford stole the show too basically playing Josh from The West Wing.

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Decent chance it was an Evil Dead film reel and would have summoned the Deadites or the Rape Tree.

I figured it might be a reference to seeing as there wasn't anything else I could see a link too.

Seen this last thurs, dont really know what to make of it to be honest. I really liked the concept of it all and it was laugh out loud funny in places but i think il have to see it again to make my mind up properly about it, if that make sence.

Pretty good film and well worth seeing. Thought the humour was a bit lacking actually, not in terms of amount of it, but the quality of it. If it was meant to take the piss out of horror movie cliche's, it done ok but not all that smart.

I really liked the concept though, I always like 'monster and myth's themes in films and it was nice to see the film turn in that direction. The zooming out shot of all the boxes containing the monsters was a particular highlight. I didnt like how they completely stayed away from explaining what happens after the monsters have killed everyone. Do they voluntarily go back down? do they have to be forced back down? etc

What would have been the trigger for the Merman? I remember hearing one of the controllers say something like 'so close to them choosing the Merman'
Was hoping theyd have explained the cellar a bit more too, thought that was a very interesting part of it.

Enjoyed it though, hard to fault much a film with an interesting concept.

Millicent wrote: »

Twas the conch.

Ah right. Nice one, that was bothering me.

Millicent wrote: »

So now that we don't have to do the spoiler thing and we can talk about it, what did people make of the two end characters' actions? Don't get me wrong, I LOVED the film; I understand them refusing to allow the plot to follow its usual course in the context of it being a metaphor for horror writing and thought it worked well on that front.

However, I kind of thought it was a bit dickhead-y that they let the whole world die horribly on some vague principle. I couldn't imagine thinking of my loved ones and letting them die in pain and thought the Director actually made some prudent points on the matter.

Was I the only one?

I felt they were a bit selfish too, and like to think I would've at least given sacrificing myself (well, not me, but the virgin :P) some thought.

But on the other hand, I really just wanted to have the Old Gods rise up to destroy us, or at least know it was going to happen, so I'm kinda glad they made the choice they did . It satisfied some primal destructive urge of mine .

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

If we take the film to be a comment on the relationship between horror film-makers and audience (as has been discussed), and the film challenging that relationship by letting us (the audience) in on that relationship by showing the writers engineer the story (through use of the people in the control room) and, thus, turning that relationship on its head, then the actions of the two survivors at the end was the writers giving the finger to convention, once again. They'd turned everything upside-down through the whole film and the final moment was a mark of defiance against the writer/audience relationship by 'not appeasing the gods' and purposely creating an ending that is, in the conventions of film in general, 'unsatisfactory'.

Ah yeah, I got that, and understood why it was there. It didn't bother me massively but I did kind of think, "Well that's a bit shitty of you." :pac:

I like a good metaphor and all but I don't know that it worked on a basic level. Although, I suppose given all the other deaths, especially a jock hero wiping out spectacularly, it kind of works...

Dunno. Wasn't a deal breaker in any way for me but I thought the "Let someone else have a chance" was a bit thin on a literal rather than metaphorical/parody/didactic level.

Great answer though!