Next Question
RSS
The Shining may have been a "classic" to those who did not read the book. The 1980 movie directed Stanley Kubrick DID NOT follow the book at all. There were no creepy little twin girls, the walls did not bleed, and the ending was way off. So in watching that you didn't really know what was going on or what was to happen next simply because it wasn't how the book was written. I suggest reading the book or watching the mini-series that Stephen King actually had a hand in making.
As for The Blair Witch Project...Could have done without that one completely. If all it takes to become a "classic" these days is to go out in the woods with a camera and run around like scared toddlers then I'll give my 4 year old one tomorrow and be rich by Thursday! And Cube...Amazing concept butchered by over acting! I felt like I was watching something on the Sci-fi channel. I don't get it. Why do so many Sci-fi movies have awful acting? This film had a chance. It was an interesting premise that could have gone far, but the acting is this movies downfall.
Now to the movies at question...I personally haven't seen any of them past 3. Not because I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and curse them for going on this long but because I haven't. I like the 3 I've seen and own them all actually. I give props to them for the creativity that they put into them and the ability yo freak me out after so long. They don't make too many movies that can do that anymore. I will watch them and I will keep being impressed with the fantastic ways you can scare me!
Source(s):
Just me!
Permalink | Report
zenfire
n4thanl
etc.) --> Tell a story, further the plot, and leave the audience
wanting more. Anything continuing past that becomes FORMULAIC.
Here's an example:
The movie "The Shining" is an absolute classic. The pacing is great, each scene builds with horror revealing more
subtleties of the story and backstory and foreshadowing until it's
ultimate climax. The audience goes in not knowing anything -- and left
cringing in their seat not knowing where it is headed. We didn't need
"The Shining II" and "The Shining III" to further our appreciation of
this story, did we? No. The original stands for itself.
Did we really need The Blair Witch Project 2 or Cube 2? NO! Both of
the originals would have been more highly regarded today if they stood
on their own without sequels to diminish their power and sense of
"classicness" and "uniqueness."
Watching SAW II (and onward) you have an idea of the FORMULA of the movie -- and it absolutely diminishes it's worth. If you don't get this, just trust me when I say that the movie "Saw" would have been better off without any sequels.
And THANK YOU Quentin for never having made Reservoir Dogs II. Wouldn't THAT have sucked!
-- Paul (San Diego, Ca.)
P.S. I saw SAW 1. I skipped the rest.
Source(s):
My enormous brain, bulging with opinions.
Permalink | Report
You could pay them to go watch the movies and they would still find an excuse to find fault. It's a psychological thing.
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
January 27, 2009 06:22 AM
Why do so many people dislike the Saw series?
Yeah, they just KEEP coming out with them, and I think they're rumored as far ahead as Saw VII, but despite the assertion that the series has a brain dead plot and only offers gore to an 'unintelligent audience', I find the story to be enthralling, and each new installment only gets deeper and deeper into one consistent plot.
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (1)
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| January 27, 2009 11:32 AM |
As for The Blair Witch Project...Could have done without that one completely. If all it takes to become a "classic" these days is to go out in the woods with a camera and run around like scared toddlers then I'll give my 4 year old one tomorrow and be rich by Thursday! And Cube...Amazing concept butchered by over acting! I felt like I was watching something on the Sci-fi channel. I don't get it. Why do so many Sci-fi movies have awful acting? This film had a chance. It was an interesting premise that could have gone far, but the acting is this movies downfall.
Now to the movies at question...I personally haven't seen any of them past 3. Not because I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and curse them for going on this long but because I haven't. I like the 3 I've seen and own them all actually. I give props to them for the creativity that they put into them and the ability yo freak me out after so long. They don't make too many movies that can do that anymore. I will watch them and I will keep being impressed with the fantastic ways you can scare me!
Source(s):
Just me!
| Asker's Rating: |
Permalink | Report
Reply
zenfire
January 27, 2009 07:31 PM
I read the book and saw the movie. The book the Shining is fine. The movie The Shining is one of the best films EVER MADE.
Tip zenfire for this comment
Report
n4thanl
August 18, 2009 10:51 PM
You have to look at the book and the movie separately, if you ask me.
Tip n4thanl for this comment
Report
Other Answers (3)
January 27, 2009 07:14 AM
Perhaps it is because of this basic tenet of stories (movies / books /etc.) --> Tell a story, further the plot, and leave the audience
wanting more. Anything continuing past that becomes FORMULAIC.
Here's an example:
The movie "The Shining" is an absolute classic. The pacing is great, each scene builds with horror revealing more
subtleties of the story and backstory and foreshadowing until it's
ultimate climax. The audience goes in not knowing anything -- and left
cringing in their seat not knowing where it is headed. We didn't need
"The Shining II" and "The Shining III" to further our appreciation of
this story, did we? No. The original stands for itself.
Did we really need The Blair Witch Project 2 or Cube 2? NO! Both of
the originals would have been more highly regarded today if they stood
on their own without sequels to diminish their power and sense of
"classicness" and "uniqueness."
Watching SAW II (and onward) you have an idea of the FORMULA of the movie -- and it absolutely diminishes it's worth. If you don't get this, just trust me when I say that the movie "Saw" would have been better off without any sequels.
And THANK YOU Quentin for never having made Reservoir Dogs II. Wouldn't THAT have sucked!
-- Paul (San Diego, Ca.)
P.S. I saw SAW 1. I skipped the rest.
Source(s):
My enormous brain, bulging with opinions.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 27, 2009 07:40 AM
Ooh, "If you don't get this, just trust me..."
Awfully sure of yourself! But I guess I have no place to judge.
By the way, don't think that having not seen the other Saw's disqualifies you from making an opinion on them? If you liked the first one, you'll be glad to know that unlike the Friday the 13th type slasher films, Saw concentrates on the development of the same few central characters, over the course of what is actually only a week or so. I suggest you give them a try before you embarrass yourself with your guesses (not opinions).
Wow. I was probably a little on the mean side, but better right out mean than condescending. Sorry if anyone's pride or feelings were hurt.
Report
Awfully sure of yourself! But I guess I have no place to judge.
By the way, don't think that having not seen the other Saw's disqualifies you from making an opinion on them? If you liked the first one, you'll be glad to know that unlike the Friday the 13th type slasher films, Saw concentrates on the development of the same few central characters, over the course of what is actually only a week or so. I suggest you give them a try before you embarrass yourself with your guesses (not opinions).
Wow. I was probably a little on the mean side, but better right out mean than condescending. Sorry if anyone's pride or feelings were hurt.
January 27, 2009 10:40 AM
Because you can't please everyone 100% of the time. The same reason people hate the SAW movies they also hate the Hostel, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Aliens, James Bond, and other series. You could pay them to go watch the movies and they would still find an excuse to find fault. It's a psychological thing.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- teddy13, December 07, 2009 10:09 PM
- eduardk66, December 07, 2009 10:06 PM
- terretta, December 07, 2009 10:01 PM
- hery, December 07, 2009 09:58 PM
- robertnearon, December 07, 2009 09:50 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
