fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2898 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2898 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Daphne du Maurier's "Rebecca", 1979 vs. 1997]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Captain America: The Winter Soldier]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Double Indemnity]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Big Hero 6]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Statler and Waldorf; The Muppet Show]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Ashita Dorobou]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Beth, from the Walking Dead]

__________________________________________________

09.

[How to Get Away with Murder]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 031 secrets from Secret Submission Post #414.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The big problem with the village was it couldn't commit to either to its concepts, and also that it had lying marketing. It was marketed as a scary horror, and had a lot of good horror moments until they ripped it out from underneath it about halfway in. First, no one should be tricked into seeing a movie; a movie should be exactly what the marketing promises otherwise it is obtaining cash by deception. Second, it could have been good if it committed to the monsters in the forest menace colonial American village.

Or, it was a psychological/speculative work about the perils of social engineering and trying to live a colonial lifestyle away from a modern world which has become socially toxic. The second half of the movie. Again it could have been great, but it ought to have had that in the publicity and not as a "twist", which would have enabled to set it up properly and have a truly suspenseful twist when a monster supposedly showed up even though the elders thought they'd just made that crap up.

The Village tried to do both, delivered on neither, and just stole people's cash by lying about what it was. Still at least they didn't promise a Kaiju battle-flick observed by Bryan Cranston and turn out to have lied about that, that would have been below contempt.

For the record, I feel that they actually did somewhat follow through on both concepts, but that it takes a little bit of suspension of disbelief to really buy into either. I agree that the marketing was idiotic, but I was actually pretty pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be something other than your run of the mill monster flick... until the "tweest" ending.

And also Godzilla was the worst fucking movie I have seen in about ten years, so there's that.

"First, no one should be tricked into seeing a movie; a movie should be exactly what the marketing promises otherwise it is obtaining cash by deception."

Wow, you must have hated Fight Club.

I thought we didn't talk about that?

I never saw it on first release, but I did watch it recently on dvd at a friend's place. The movie failed to hold my attention, apart from the obligatory meme, but that was completely unrelated to any marketing. It just seemed pointlessly bleak to me. However, if it's marketing and publicity promised one type of movie and it was not that kind of movie; or if the marketing and publicity led people to think the movie was about something totally different, then yes, I would have had a special hell ready for it.

In any other industry advertising one thing but delivering another is called fraud. I fail to see why movies should get a special exemption from that.

[ SECRET POST #2898 ]

Re: "Bad" movies you liked anyway

Re: "Bad" movies you liked anyway

Re: "Bad" movies you liked anyway

Re: "Bad" movies you liked anyway