Recent comments in /f/movies

Kitahorror t1_ja2mpq4 wrote

Reply to Horror movies - do they deliberately make characters so stupid things to stir the audience emotions up while watching? by geo_gan

I yes such a broad question but I would say that generally the answer is 'no'.

Personally I think a good majority of 'stupid' things aren't really stupid at all. They're a result of someone trying to be 'smarter than the film' and wilfully ignoring alternative reasons for a characters actions.

But if there's a truly egregiously stupid decision it's often very simply 'because the plot needs this to happen'

12

Idunnomeister t1_ja2miyh wrote

Reply to Horror movies - do they deliberately make characters so stupid things to stir the audience emotions up while watching? by geo_gan

You have to remember that we, as an audience, have a larger perception of danger by knowing the genre. The mind's ability to think can be altered by all kinds of things, such as adrenaline and panic. Horror movies do often rely on bad decisions, but so many bad decisions happen in reality without consequences because we're not in a horror story.

There's also the sheer number of horror stories out there, which highlights the poor decisions as tropey and the more aware of a trick, the less effective it becomes. That's where subversive movies like Cabin in the Woods get material from.

I don't think directors are doing it on purpose, but rather they're too attached to their story to realize it. They get deep into each character's reasoning and that can make a trope appear original or acceptable. The audience doesn't spend years bringing the story to life, so they just see more stupid choices. It's a blindspot for the creators.

3

Caiur t1_ja2lb40 wrote

Reply to Same Children’s Laugh in Horror Movies by 5000mg

Very common stock sound effect

I'd like to know if the people who decide to put it into movies / games / advertisements are doing it in a self-aware or in-joke kind of way, or if they're oblivious to the fact that people have been hearing it and noticing it for over 20 years, and they're just being lazy by choosing the first stock sound effect they find

2

Dove_of_Doom t1_ja2l5vw wrote

Reply to Tim Robbins should have won Best Actor for The Shawshank Redemption over Tom Hanks for Forrest Gump by Scmods05

I also just rewatched it, and the subtlety of Robbins' performance also struck me. Dufresne is reserved by nature, and he's struggling to process his new life and the circumstances that led him to Shawshank. There are only a few moments when his stoic demeanor cracks, and they are all the more powerful.

Unfortunately, the Oscar rarely goes to the most subtle performance. More often, it is the most most performance that takes the trophy.

4

Asha_Brea t1_ja2jew5 wrote

Reply to Tim Robbins should have won Best Actor for The Shawshank Redemption over Tom Hanks for Forrest Gump by Scmods05

I disagree.

I like both movies a lot, and while both actors did great jobs with each character, I think Tom Hanks did a better job performing Forrest than Tim Robbins did performing Andy.

If anything, Tim Robbins performance was simpler than Tom Hanks.

​

Tim Robbins might have deserved a nomination (though I don't know who else was nominated that year), but Hanks would have still won.

19

lostpatrol t1_ja2je9b wrote

Reply to comment by Mnemosense in Gladiator Maximus and Lucilla backstory? by Confident_Lock_2032

Maximus was probably a provincial nobility in Spain. He was far too young to be a general of the whole northern army if he worked himself up from a soldier. He also moved casually enough among the senators, civilians and leaders that he would have been upper class for a long time, if not since birth.

7

SomeBoxofSpoons t1_ja2ivsv wrote

Reply to Question about Banshees of Inisherin? by Past-Confusion-3234

I saw someone describe this movie as a “parable”, and I think that summarizes the tone pretty well. It’s not really a movie that’s trying to feel completely realistic, so it has the characters go to exaggerated places while acting out grounded conflicts.

1

lizzpop2003 t1_ja2gdy0 wrote

Reply to I finally decided to see the first Saw film after all these years. Mixed reaction. by Any-Satisfaction-770

You should watch the second one. While there is more gore to it, it's a legitimately good film that builds on what the first one set up well and has some excellent twists and turns. After that, they get too convoluted and more obsessed with the spectacle of it, but the second one is still just trying to be a good movie.

18