#Some early 2000s cgi horror

[driftingballoons]

remembering one time in high school where this girl was telling everyone what they “looked” like. One girl got dubbed a plum, another christened as a coconut, and I?

this abomination

[centrally-unplanned]

Watched a bunch of stuff last night, including the Alita OVA from 1993! I thought it was a lot of fun, the thoughts:

--- It did the "obvious" thing of adapting the romance arc with Yugo of Volume 2 as the core, while blending in the events of Volume 1 as sort of backstory and setup as opposed to their own story. This arc is Alita at her most humanized in the early parts of the manga, and its the plot that centers Zalem as the untouchable overlord city most effectively. Any short adaptation is gonna choose this - part of why James Cameron (lol) did the same thing!

--- Speaking of, the manga does not actually have any particular focus on Alita's eyes, but the anime definitely has more than one shot where it establishes them as thematically special. Given that the James Cameron film is famous for going full CGI on Alita's eyes, and he knows about the property from Guillermo del Toro passing him the OVA as opposed to the manga, I think I can see the chain of events that lead to that (ill-fated?) decision.

Her eyes are pretty amazing in the OVA, so I get it! As my previous reblogs showed lol.

--- I think I can break apart the manga into three "concepts": the setting as cyberpunk dystopia, Alita as a character dealing with identity issues as an amnesiatic combat robot, and shounen fighting & levelling arcs. The OVA heavily focuses on the first part, ditching almost all the shounen stuff - its fight scenes are quick and focus on violence & bodily destruction over strength or "fighting techniques", etc. This is great for me, obviously! But it also, almost accidentally, ditches most of her identity issues? Because its less than an hour long, and needs to do a ton of worldbuilding - including even adding in a new character from Zalem to help with that - and is doing Yugo's entire arc, you really don't have time left for Alita's struggles. Yugo actually gets more "inner depth" than she does! She commits to being a bounty hunter, then after that she is pretty much just In Love while Yugo goes through his detailing of his past and collapse.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, it does as a story. Just interesting for something that is known as very "protagonist associated" to have an OVA where she is barely the protagonist.

--- While no Urotsukidoji or anything, this is another one of those OVAs where its reputation, particularly in the west, is as a hyper-violent, gory OVA? And like so many it really isn't. People get decapitated, don't get me wrong, buts its never lingers on those moments. Instead they serve as tone setters for the crapsack world or just are part of the action sequences.

I think in general the OVA era rarely made horror/gore films the way some other mediums/industries did? There are exceptions of course but in the end anime is trying to do too many other things; beautiful animation, focus on character designs, often being adaptations and so doing the plot of those more complex stories, erotic content for audiences that aren't *that* fetishistic on average, and more. All of these priorities compete for space in comparison to having endless jumpscares and blood splatters. So far my track record for watching the famous "gorefest" or "~crazy~" anime is that every one of them is tamer than the rep suggests, and I believe this medium/genre mismatch is why.

--- The biggest question I have around Alita in general is why there was never any more anime? Its weird, right? Its a famous property from a beloved genre, it had a hollywood film for some crazy reason, things like Ghost in the Shell got multi-season anime after all. Why no feature film remake in the 2000's? Why no 13-cour in the 2010's? I don't have an answer to that yet.

Why the initial OVA was so minimal is at least partly answered by Kishiro here:

MNS: Many fans have wondered, why were only 2 anime OAV episodes produced in 1993? YK: It was based on the plan proposed by the animation production company. It might have been better to turn down the plan and wait for a better adaptation proposal to come up, but back then, I couldn't afford to review the plan coolly. At that time, I was still serializing the work and was so busy that I wasn't ambitious to make it into animation.

Essentially he took the "deal on hand", not offering much, because he didn't have the time, money, or business savvy to work the industry for a better proposal. 100% understandable. I don't think the OVA did too well? I can't find a lot of sales figures, but the comments I see are in the "respectable" range, and it didn't get quick or expansive rereleases over time.

More broadly, and again speculative, I think maybe Alita overall isn't that successful? Like sure Kishiro is still out here releasing more sequel manga to this day somehow, but when I look at the "media mix" its just really sparse. No big video game adaptations - it has a PlayStation game in the 90's - it has like a drama CD and a novelization? No big merch waves or tie-ins. I am betting the big anime production committees just don't think its a hot enough property to sell that great. Wouldn't be a bad idea or anything, but not one you have to do like idk Chainsaw Man.

In the western fandom spaces its quite well known because of the idiosyncrasies of licensing history, the weird James Cameron factor, and I think a general fascination with anime cyberpunk; the west eats up any of the older cyberpunk properties for its aesthetic in a way that can blind people to the reality of that just being a subgenre in Japan at the time. Alita might just be niche enough that it not getting any wider anime adaptations is no grand mystery.

(But I hope to dig into this question more)

[apoptoses]

Devil’s minion Armand loved blade runner and time bandits, but do you think there’s any newer movies or just ones he found out about later that he took a liking too? And of course i have to bring Daniel into this so what are some of your movie hcs for him?

Oh man, I think Armand is someone who will watch just about anything, but specifically-

-Weird A24 movies, the more psychological and shocking the better. He's 500 years old so he's got a high bar for being surprised, and I think stuff like the Lighthouse would really grab him. It's weird, it's homoerotic, it has undertones of greek mythology he can explain at Daniel. He's into it.

-All those period pieces that came out in the 90s/early 2000s. Daniel finds watching them with him insufferable because Armand sits there and picks at the inaccuracies ("Paris was hardly ever so clean, and no one wore snow white wigs in such a fashion-" "Yeah, yeah, I get it, the costumes suck, we've been over this a thousand fucking times"). But his nitpicking is just a cover to keep it from being obvious that even he is weak for a good Mr. Darcy declaration of love.

-He loves a modern retelling of a classic. Baz Lurhmann's Romeo + Juliet? He was obsessed, seeing Shakespeare molded into something which a modern audience could identify with thrilled him. 10 Things I Hate About You? Daniel spent hours listening to how it was a retelling of Taming of the Shrew. Clueless? "Daniel, did you realize this is based on a Jane Austen novel which was quite popular when it debuted-" "Armand there's literally a thousand articles on the internet pointing that out."

(Lestat joins them on modern Shakespeare nights, much to their mutual delight, and commentates through the entire film)

-He's still a sci-fi fan, he likes things that explore technology humans have yet to develop. He spent time watching Star Trek with Daniel in the 70s and got tickets to the premiere of Star Trek Beyond for him and Daniel in 2016.

-Both of them are Cronenberg weirdos, it's just facts. Videodrome? Crash? The Brood? Dead Ringers? They're into his psychosexual weirdness.

-Daniel specifically enjoys film adaptations of books, for better or worse. Kubrick's The Shining he had mixed feelings on (they changed the ending!!), Lord of the Rings he read as a child and he loved the film version. The Hobbit? Hated. Too much CGI, his vampire senses make CGI so obvious and he'll always prefer a film with practical effects. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? Solid, very fun.

-The sap in Daniel likes movies where the protagonist falls for the monster. The Shape of Water? Edward Scissorhands? He can relate.

-Daniel also has a secret thing for watching vampire movies, the worse the better. He and Lestat had an excellent night in which they drank off some very inebriated club goers, put Twilight on at Trinity Gate and spent the night howling at vampires that sparkle in the sun.

-Pretty much he's in the same stuff as Armand, but Armand has a stronger stomach for horror than him. Put on a Junji Ito movie or something gratuitously painful like Saw and Daniel is tapping out, sorry.

(if anyone else has specific films, feel free to reblog and add them on!)

[booktomoviebrawl]

We are not judging how bad the movie is, we are judging which adapted the book the worst. There are good movies that are bad adaptions.

Propaganda below the cut (spoilers may apply)

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant (originally the Darren Shaw saga/The Vampire's Assistant):

Took on a much more early 2000s teen flick approach to a book that, while initially for younger audiences, had a lot of very dark and Intense moments. The casting was also fairly bad and it really went in a different direction from the novel.

Bad acting, weird script choices, not even Ken Watanabe & Salma Hayek could save it

Characterisation was nothing like the books and it couldn't decide if it was a comedy or horror

Seventh Son (originally The Spook's Apprentice):

The book is a dark fantasy book for children, with fantastical elements that ring true to folklore but still have their own distinct flair, really well written horror centered on the fact that the protagonist is still just a boy, and a very strong theme that the spook opposes the forces of darkness and evil with knowledge and wits rather than heroics. The series as a whole has a lot of digs at established powers, both the Church or the nobles. It also has a mentor that is showed as imperfect from the get-go because of sexist tropes, and a protagonist who criticizes it even at the beginning when he's just a boy. The movie makes the protagonist an adult, turns the spook from an old wise man who practices using a stick (peasant weapon!) to fight and throwing silver chains to immobilize supernatural creatures, into the SURVIVOR of an ORDER OF KNIGHTS, and generally removes all the slow creeping horror to turn it into generic shitty fantasy movie #493, with bad acting on top. And it bombed so bad it probably RUINED the Spook's series chances to ever get a good adaptation, damnit!

Mentor gets changed from being part of a long line of people with a cool fantasy job to a discount Templar, cool methods of handling monsters got reduced to just killing them, awesome assassin grandma changed to Default Movie Witch, and more! It's pretty much not the story anymore.

It takes pretty much nothing that I liked from the books with the initial premise and some names being pretty much the only things kept intact.

The plot and world were completely changed. Most of the changes make for a much more generic and, in my opinion, worse story. Spooks in the books are seventh sons of seventh sons who are trained to fight creatures of the dark because seventh sons of seventh sons are able to sense the supernatural. They are hired for jobs by ordinary people, usually exorcising ghosts or capturing creatures like boggarts and witches. In the movie, the Spooks are also seventh sons of seventh sons, but for some reason, they are an order of knights. In the books lot of people think Spooks are charlatans until they come face to face with a ghost or creature of the dark because the world is usually pretty ordinary and peaceful. The setting is inspired by Lancashire and the world feels pretty unique. The setting in the movie is Generic CGI Fantasy Land where everyone has American accents and big CGI monsters are everywhere.

The protagonist Tom and Alice, his friend and later love interest, were aged up like in the Percy Jackson movies. In the books, Tom starts out as a 12-year-old and grows up as the series continues. He starts out very uncertain and wants to stay on his family farm. He only becomes a Spook because he knows he has to get a job to ease the financial burden on his family. He grows into his role as a Spook's apprentice over time. Alice is a pretty interesting character in the books, she is naturally very talented as a witch but struggles with the darker side of her powers over the course of the series. In the movie, they became incredibly generic Hero and Love Interest characters with pretty much no personality and instantly fall in love.

Mother Malkin was a first-book villain, who was mostly only such a threat because Tom was an extremely inexperienced 12-year-old at this point who accidentally released her and didn't realise how dangerous she was. She was monstrous and decrepit and fed on blood. In the movie she is turned into a beautiful seductress and a world-ending threat who can turn into a dragon. They also made her the Spook's lover for some reason.

Tom's mother is a really cool character in the books who pushes him to become a Spook despite him being reluctant and plays a larger role in the later books. In the movie, Tom is the one who wants to be a Spook and his mother doesn't want him to.

I think the character who got it worst was the Spook himself, John Gregory. In the books, he is a former priest at the end of his career as a Spook, he is incredibly uptight and disciplined to an extent that other Spooks find over the top. For example, he has a rule of fasting before a battle that he makes his apprentices follow and he only kills as a last resort. He's tough but usually pretty fair to Tom and explains things to him so he doesn't get hurt. In the movie he is pretty much the complete opposite, he's a drunkard who spends the whole movie making getting angry and fighting and doesn't seem very interested in teaching Tom how to be a Spook. Also, the accent that Jeff Bridges uses is terrible.

I'm not sure the movie would be enjoyable if you hadn't read the books, having read them I hated it, but I feel like it would be mediocre at best even without the comparison. The acting is pretty bad despite the big-name cast. I think you could maybe enjoy it in a so bad it's good kind of way. The books were spooky and pretty charming from what I remember and I think if they had been adapted more accurately, preferably as a TV show, it could have been pretty good. Sorry this is such an essay, I've never hated an adaptation more. It's been a long time since I've both read the books and seen the movie, so if anyone wants to correct anything feel free.

[mdpikachu]

"warm bodies" (movie) (2013) is such a me-core movie. it has horror. it has chemistry off the bat. it has fucked up shit. it has [i actively skip thr spoilers just read a synopsis] and 2000s cringe narrators. recommended. and if u hate it? yeah thats fair.

It has practical effects. It has funny bones. It has bringing humanity to something that didn't. It has that early 2000s shitty cgi that actually looks kinda cute instead of scary at some points. The MC wears a ratty hoodie. The only person to make awful jokes is the narrator and that's to make up for his lack of speech but he's also a teenager in 2010 and we genuinely sounded like that. I still sound like that. it has bringing humanity t-

The only way it can be improved would be doubling the horror.

Also did u know it was a book first? I did. It also has a blooper reel on youtube that spoils nothing

[staghunters]

As promised, on August 6th the Basement will be screening Ginger Snaps! Here's the post for preparation if you wanna join in!

What?: Ginger Snaps is a 2000 horror film starring Katharine Isabelle and Emily Perkins as two sisters with a facination for anything morbid. The film is directed by John Fawcett, who co-created Orphan Black.

Ginger and Bridget have a motto: "Out by sixteen or dead on the scene, but together forever". When Ginger gets attacked by a wild creature, the dread of growing up and apart is suddenly the least of their issues.

Why should you see it?: It is regarded a (cult-)classic by many. Coming-of-age horror can be seen as starting with this one. It's commentary on puberty through a werewolf lens is not done before, nor has really happened since (no, Teen Wolf doesn't count as horror to me). On a technical level, it opted for practical effects instead of jumping on the early yet clunky CGI train. The film is all the better for it.

(Michael Gingold for Fangoria, May 10 2001)

Some warnings!: Some expected warnings of body horror and gore. There's elements of self-harm (both real and fake in the context of the film). There is a (somewhat famous) montage early in the film of staged deaths and suicides by the sisters.

SA and animal death are some big ones. I'm gonna have to skim the movie to see where exactly they happen, but will try to give a heads up on time while we are watching.

When?: Sunday 6th of August at 10PM/22:00 CEST! (this was listed wrong in the poll that went out for the August 13 film. I'm a dumbass)

Link to the kosmi room will be shared here ~20 minutes in advance.

[roskirambles]

Honorable mention: Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Movie remakes, the always contentious subject matter. Even worse in the realm of horror films, and moreso if the work in question is considered a cornerstone of the specific genre. You stray too far from the line and critics will rip you to shreds. Which makes quite surprising this remake helmed by Zack Snyder with a script by James Gunn actually succeeds in being compelling, if in mostly detached from the original, having barely anything to do with Romero’s classic in either tone or messaging and just sharing the mall setting. All the better, since it allows it to stand on its own.

For starters this is a post 28 Days Later zombie film, which means the zombies themselves are fast and hyper aggressive. More importantly, however, it is a post 9/11 zombie film. This translates directly into it’s frenetic, grungy and often rapid firing visual language with editing that inter-cuts with media coverage. Same goes for the themes, the way mass hysteria is depicted clearly mirroring that of the immediate aftermath of the incident at the World Trade Center, along with the paranoia of others representing a potential danger. As such, trust and humanity in the midst of hell are easily some of the most valued things to have, giving levity, warmth and even humor to a grizzly, violent story that from the onset is clearly not likely to end well.

That doesn't mean some of the early 2000's trappings don't rear their head, like the overwhelming editing tricks like the bits of stuttery framerate, the outdated CGI, some unintentionally uncompelling and destructively stupid survivors, and a third act that tip toes the line between meaningfully action packed and just "videogame like" (as Romero himself put it). In spite of this, it achieves what it sets out to do with flying colors, for many standing side to side with the 1978 original.

[kylesvariouslistsandstuff]

Oh looky, I just watched something that all the cool folks are into. Or, were into?

THE AMAZING DIGITAL CIRCUS...

It's been out for two months now, so I'm - as usual - late to the party.

Kind of like a barfed up '90s utopian scholastic hodgepodge purgatory with an ominous and grim underbelly, probably an indictment of capitalism making one's desires unattainable and one's subsequent pursuit of such desires a one-way ticket to insanity... Or maybe not. The characters are instantly likeable and cool, and work off of each other so well. The variety in design, even within the characters themselves... just so neat- It's also lowkey funny. "Gloink" is such a late '90s kids show/game word for something.

As someone who grew up in the late '90s/early '00s, this was right up my alley. My immediate thoughts were basically... This is a lot like colorful (and sometimes educational) PC games of the era, wacky textbook covers, things like I SPY, and a Dreamcast-exclusive game called PEN PEN TRIICELON. One of creator Gooseworx's influences on the project was a CGI Japanese children's show called POPEE THE PERFORMER. In some ways, POPEE does kinda fit into this wild and varied aesthetic that was so prevalent in a pre-9/11 era.

I particularly appreciated its veering towards a dream-like... Maybe, trance? Almost? I love it when animated media, and most media in general, takes on a sort of irreality, and can sometimes be ambiguous as to what's happening and what isn't. Particularly this scene towards the end where protagonist Pomni is running through endless sterile rooms, until briefly coming across a boxy late '90s PC. The void, too... Visceral flashbacks to being at my Compaq in, like, 2000-01... Playing a game where there was nothing beyond the environment I was in. Just endless sky and nothingness. That kind of thing always brought an eerieness to that era's games, to me. Hey, that's why the "Lethal Omen" game from GEMINI HOME ENTERTAINMENT really worked for me.

This sort of unsettling spin on past, and possibly outdated aesthetics, has arguably been done to death. Especially after the explosion in analog horror and FIVE NIGHTS AT FREDDY'S, but I'm quite impressed with AMAZING DIGITAL CIRCUS' more digital yet-still-vintage take on this sort of thing. Wait... Stuff from 2000 being vintage? That's a dreadful thought... It's also cool to see more productions embrace how early CGI can be unnerving for some, too. An underrated aspect of early features and shorts, for sure. This married a lot of that, and I appreciated it for doing so.

[moonstruck-stormy]

☘️for your FL OCs :)

Speaking both of them I have split my heritage into two. Rook is south Asian and Wren is Irish. Both are gender non conforming in some way. Wren is an affectionate given nickname (adopted as a name) for their bold and feisty personality. Rook is a chosen name because he thinks corvids are cool.

______

Rook first bc he’s on my mind constantly rn, but I forgot to take my psychiatric medication (do not recommend but inspiration is inspiration) one night and I had a vivid fever dream (gonna set up the character account after my semester is completely over lest he takes over my brain like a fungus and I’m his host. )

In the dream I was a sewage treatment plant worker lost in the sewers on a job, and instead of trying to get out I started talking to the rats and the mother gator with a clutch of eggs that will never hatch because it’s so cold, and they kept telling me how lonely they were because they were, and I tried to help them but i couldn’t no matter how hard I tried, and a person came from the depths of the sewer water to tell me they were suffering because of me. Definitely not the weirdest stress dream I’ve had.

We’ll see what that dream brings me in choices. I’ve yet to chose an ambition for him.

_____

For Wren (for hearts desire) they mainly bc I like card games (used to play a lot with my extended family) and I like body horror, but I completely understand if other folks don’t like it. Bc I can’t stand movies like the saw series my cousins did a movie marathon of saw and I checked out. A lot of folks don’t like all horror and I can empathize.

In a sense, I like horror that makes me question things, and also horror that can be spun in a wild way because of characterization. Like a character that takes the horror in stride or is bold and blunt with the horrors. First character in mind for me is the main character in season 2 of Gregory Horror Show (an early 2000s CGI horror anime). I was inspired by that because it was my first step into horror, and the ending of that season is similar in vibes to one of heart’s desire’s ending.

Plus it sorta reminds me of old ocs when I was 13 rping as shapeshifters who were confident on the Monster Kingdom forums (an old monster capture app that had a thriving RP community I think the app is defunct now tho, but it makes me very nostalgic :) even if I don’t remember my old username or my friends usernames)

____

The two characters’ differences entail that Rook is stressed and has steadfast morals while Wren is fast and loose and is sort of a bad person even if they don’t directly hurt people. I normally like making characters who are bad people bc it’s interesting and fun, and I like making selfish characters just as much. I feel guilty to be selfish irl, but it feels great to explore character dynamics based off of it.

There are characters who are selfish and don’t realize it and characters who are selfish and know and don’t care who they hurt when they take. For Wren the harm they can do isn’t processed because they think them knowing not to hurt anyone is good enough. Rook would absolutely chew Wren out for their indirect harm they’ve caused. He is afraid of the innocent being hurt. I wonder how I can make Wren realize they hurt people, and I wonder how I can break Rook <3

Oh no I rambled

[spooky-brandon]

Uh oh a lot of film critics are trashing Gary Dauberman's Upcoming film adaptation of

Stephen King's Salem's Lot. Calling the film Soulless heartless nonsense and questioning King's taste in movie's because King has been raven about the film on Twitter (X) for months and months now and demanding WB's to release the picture on MAX after the studio cancelled the flick's theatrical release back in 2022.

Anyways I never ever let critics determine what films I watch because 90% of the time I end up loving movies they hate while hating the movies they label as must see. Anyways as some of you know I have called Stephen King the Kevin Smith of the horror genre because King seems to love every new horror film.

Oh well I'm definitely going to check the movie out on October 3rd all I ask for is a fun horror movie it doesn't have to blow me away just be fun and please for the love of god don't be another film only made for the sole purpose to push someone's (writer, director) political agenda.

BTW was it just me or did anyone else think some of the special effects in the trailer look like horrible CGI from the early 2000's?

[thejacksmit]

First Take Classics: The Mummy (1999) - let's pretend Tom Cruise never ruined the franchise

SYNOPSIS: At an archaeological dig in the ancient city of Hamunaptra, an American serving in the French Foreign Legion accidentally awakens a mummy who begins to wreak havoc as he searches for the reincarnation of his long-lost love.

25 years ago Stephen Sommers and a group of producers had an idea to take the iconic 1932 Universal Monsters story and modernise it for what was, at the time, a very lucrative blockbuster market. What they ended up doing was starting what would become a goliath of a franchise with associated theme park rides, sequels, and, dare I say it, that failed reboot in 2017. With the reissue playing to surprisingly packed houses, it felt like the right time to get this one online.

Sommers used the 1932 original as a loose inspiration, instead choosing to create a little action/romance rather than hard horror, and it worked - the resulting 2 hour 4 minute film he wrote and directed would save Universal after some pretty rough box office flops. Paced very well, written with intent, and shot incredibly smartly for the time by Adrian Biddle, the technical side of things certainly pleased audiences, and this is before we mention the CGI. It may look pretty rough now but the boffins at Industrial Light and Magic definitely had some fun making this one. Plus, who can argue with a Jerry Goldsmith score? On a more nerdy level - the current UK re-release is from the Blu-ray master, so for the first time the 14 seconds that were cut to allow a 12 rather than a 15 certificate in 1999 are restored for a modern 12a rating.

Now it would be wrong not to mention Brendan Fraser's performance. This was the role which put him on the map, and looking back 25 years on, with his Oscar for The Whale in hand, it is a crying shame it took him this long to get the love from the industry he deserved - holding his own with Rachel Weisz and John Hannah alongside him, he is the glue that held this film together. Supporting a very likeable trio is Kevin J O'Connor, Jonathan Hyde, Oded Fehr, a young Omid Djalili, and of course Arnold Vosloo as the one this film is all about - Imhotep. It's a cast that gets the job done and gets it done well, and importantly a film that has stood the test of time unlike a lot of these early 1990s blockbuster releases. Last night in a ridiculously packed screen 1, there were MANY fans of the film (and the franchise) in-screen, even quoting the comedic lines. It's a beloved Universal IP, and a cracker of a way to finish 12 hours of films.

THE VERDICT

Yes, the CG might not hold up as well on a remastered 4K print that Park Circus have sent out to cinemas - but this is the version of The Mummy that should be remembered within a crowd-pleasing blockbuster context. Sommers of course tried (and failed) to do the same to Van Helsing in 2004, but it cannot be understated how important this film was for the action/horror blockbuster genre going into 2000, especially as follow-up The Mummy Returns introduced a certain Scorpion King to Hollywood...

RATING: 4/5

[kosher-martian]

Need some insight from someone who has either a decent understanding of color theory / film trends of the 90s and very early 2000s and/or computer animation from the same period.

I was perusing Reddit while I waited for my normal Friday meeting with my boss and stumbled across this post, itself a screenshot of an argument on Twitter concerning the UHD 4K remasters of Lord of the Rings. (So here we are on Tumblr, talking about Reddit talking about Twitter. Thanks internet.)

To save you a click (and because I'm really only interested in the comparison and not the pointless argument) here's a crop of just the side-by-side comparison. Original DVD releases are on the left, with the remaster on the right.

As you can see, in the course of making the remaster they've elected to dye the entire movie that particular shade of "Late Harry Potter Movie Puke Green" that we all know and... have opinions about.

I'm not sure about the second picture (the statue) but I think the shot of Rivendell is taken from Fellowship, which was released in 2001. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like CGI in the 90s and very early 2000s often had this bright, hazy look to it. Unfortunately the only other examples that came to mind immediately were Jurassic Park (1993) and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999)

And I first I thought it was maybe because the latter two films utilized Industrial Light & Magic, but then I started looking elsewhere:

Dragonheart (1996)

My apologies for pulling this one out of our collective memory hole, but ... Disney's Dinosaur (2000)

Well, surely it's because of the examples have been dinosaurs, dinosaur-like aliens, and dragons, right? But it can be seen to a lesser degree in other examples.

The body horror thumb abominations from Spy Kids (2001) for example:

And the animals in Jumanji (1995)

And I get that these are all daytime shots, but I swear even in nighttime shots the CGI is brighter. (I don't have an example for this one).

Can someone with a better understanding of color and/or CGI explain to me what it is that I'm detecting? Is it just the uncanny valley? Is it something to do with the limitations around lighting CGI models from that period? Is it just me? I've had this theory for a while but I can't put my finger on what exactly I'm detecting.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2023

I watched H.P. Lovecraft's Dagon (2001)

I decided I needed something ridiculous to make me laugh. So, why not watch a ridiculous movie and try and explain why Stuart Gordon can make a better B-horror film than most.

On a trip at sea, two couples end up on an island of human/fish hybrids who worship the god Dagon.

Director Stuart Gordon is no stranger to H.P. Lovecraft adaptations. In fact, Gordon's two best films are Lovecraft adaptations, and are considered two of the best horror films of the 1980's. I'm talking of course about Re-Animator and From Beyond. Both amazing, both hilarious, both worth your time. If you like gross horror with a sense of humor.

This film, made in the early 2000's is something I've been told to watch before and, even while knowing that it was directed by Stuart Gordon, I could never really work up the excitement to see it. I fully admit that what I'm willing to forgive for low budget B-films of the 80's, I'm not so willing to forgive for B-films of the 2000's. It's a preference thing. "My shitty movies look better and are better than your shitty movies." But, I'm moving past my idiosyncratic nature to check this out.

First off, Gordon might be making a film that looks, at first sight, like syfy channel trash. But, his filmmaking talent is evident in his cuts and the way he moves the action and story. If you were to ask me where the syfy channel movies are weakest, it's in their flat attempt at the action on screen. They have low budgets, but refuse to use technique to liven up those restraints. Gordon is capable of giving his action urgency, with nothing more than clever shots and angles. His movies are interesting to watch, even when they are underwhelming to look at.

Something else is, Stuart isn't bogging it all down by using boring or needless backstory and/or cliche' attempts at character building. Syfy films, or even big budget disaster films, will always try and fill in some "divorced dad becomes the savior" backstory. Not here. This is a B-horror film, and in both his writing and direction, Gordon moves us almost immediately into the story, which keeps things fun and light and keeps us having a good time. We aren't here for deep character studies. We are here to see some gross, weird and horrific stuff, and to laugh a bit.

So How Does Dagon stack up in his filmography?

Gordon is using his low budget in most of the right places in this film. He's built a believable enough island with believable enough fish people and some really enjoyable cheap practical effects. The CGI stuff is so shitty in some places it makes me sad, but that's par for the course since the year 2000.

Like I said, the lack of cliche' character development isn't a total negative here, but it's met with character's who don't have enough personality to carry us along or to care all that much about them. The actors are doing a fine job, but I long for the days of Gordon's collaborations with Jeffrey Combs, an actor who could turn any role into a spectacle you can't take your eyes off of.

The story, for better or worse, is very true to Lovecraft's style of writing. By that I mean, the movie is lacking in detail. Guy lands on island, island has fish people, weird fish god, spooky, slimy.

In the end it's ok. It'll do for a cheap bad movie night or something fun and simple for B-horror fans to kick back with. 13 year old me would have been happy after bringing this back home from the video store. It has blood, weirdness and boobs.

Basically, while it's not exactly a classic of the genre, like Stuart's other work, it's not without it's charms.

For everything it lacks, Dagon is a million times better than any Syfy channel turd. If the Syfy channel, or a production company like The Asylum actually gave two shits about producing quality B-horror, we might have a lot more like Dagon. Very flawed low budget films for sure, but with actual talent behind them, worth seeing for the sole purpose of a good time at the movies.

[dghorrorremakes]

Horror Remakes: The Rundown

Love them or hate them, horror film remakes and reboots are a frequent in the horror film industry in terms of production and review. From the year 2000 all the way to present day, the subgenre of horror films in remakes of cult classics, has been a large topic of discussion and has consumed the horror genre for years.

Although it seems to be a gamble as to whether or not a horror remake of a successful original film is going to be popular, there have been several films over the course of the past 20 years or so, that have proved remakes can be just as successful as the original. Films like Carrie directed by Kimberly Peirce, Dawn of the Dead by Zack Snyder, and Evil Dead by Fede Alvarez have all become proven examples of horror remakes that were very successful upon release to the public.Although it seems to be a gamble as to whether or not a horror remake of a successful original film is going to be popular, there have been several films over the course of the past 20 years or so, that have proved remakes can be just as successful as the original. Films like Carrie directed by Kimberly Peirce, Dawn of the Dead by Zack Snyder, and Evil Dead by Fede Alvarez have all become proven examples of horror remakes that were very successful upon release to the public.

Aside from their successful counterparts, we are periodically reminded of the dangers and challenges that come with remaking classic, original horror productions. In films like Halloween and Halloween 2 directed by Rob Zombie, and Psycho by Gus Van Sant, we are reminded how remaking previous shots and scenes can go terribly wrong in being too unoriginal and boring.

The early 2000s saw an influx of successful horror film remakes in films such as Dawn of the Dead in 2004, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre in 2003. Remakes like these were produced successfully in providing a modern take on the same plot that had previously brought success to the films that have become household names within the horror community.

There have even been some recreations of previous horror films that were produced and directed so well that they are often regarded as being better than the original films that proceeded them. Pictures like The Ring from 2002 and House of Wax from 2005 proved that if done correctly, remakes within the horror genre can be considered by some to be even more successful than the originals themselves. This is in large part due to the revamping of the plot within the films as well as technological advancements in CGI and special effects.

There have been numerous examinations into the reasons for the success of film remakes within the horror genre over the years. One aspect of examination into why these films have been mostly successful and in popular demand, lies in what aspects of the modern films are different from the original productions. A large belief that has come from this research suggests that more violence and sex scenes, with the help of technological advancements, has been a large contributor to the success of these various remakes within the genre of horror that was popularized within the early 2000s.

All in all, the recreation of horror films, particularly those that started being produced in the early 2000s, have shown the best and worst when it comes to cinematic production of horror within the industry. Even to this day, we are gifted with some great remakes stemming from cult classics and are also made aware of some remakes that should have been aborted before they even started.

[wizardspotion]

some of my visual inspirations

(films pictured: Nope, Hereditary, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Constantine, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, Parasite)

i love films with strong visuals and interesting colour palettes. Directors like Ari Aster, Jordan Peele and Wes Anderson play a lot with symmetry, using all shots wisely and use framing to depict characters mental states and the situations they are in. I also enjoy the colours of all films listed- like how Three Billboards has a strong orange colour throughout the film, with Mildred's blue jumpsuit being used to contrast and show her ostracization from the rest of the town after putting up her billboards. Bong Joon-Ho on the other hand uses orange to represent neurosis and anxiety in Parasite, so its really inspired me on how i can play with colours in different ways to create an emotional effect on someone who is looking at my art.

(films pictured: Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse, Coraline, The Prince of Egypt, Kung Fu Panda, The Book of Life, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole)

Animated films have of course inspired me too. I love films that work with line of action, strong shapes and interesting character design. Into the Spiderverse was a life changing film for me changing the way i looked at design and how beautiful animation, especially cgi, could be. every frame from the film is a masterpiece, and im so excited for how its already changed the animation industry and how traditional practices are now incorporated into the digital. Owls of Ga'Hoole was also extraordinarily beautiful for its time and uses lines of action to enhance its action shots wonderfully. Prince of Egypt, Coraline, Kung Fu Panda and The Book of Life also have some of the best character design and shapes used for said characters I've seen, showing me how distinct characters can look and how their appearance strongly affects the way we interpret them. I also love how each film uses real world elements in their designs, like each of the furious five being inspired by martial art techniques and forms, Book of life using Mexican & Mayan culture and Spiderverse using Black hip hop culture as inspiration.

(illustrators pictured: Andy Price, Naoki Urasawa, Hajime Yatate/Sunrise Studio, Masahiro Ito)

other works that inspire me are comic book illustrators like Andy Price, early 2000s/late 90s manga and anime and horror video game concept designers, my favourite being Silent Hill's Masahiro Ito. all have inspired me in many different ways- but especially when it comes to linework, stylization, simplification and framing.

[helladventurers]

My brain is going some surprising places lately with my dreams, I'm enjoying this 🤣

Last night i had a dream about a fake 90s/early 2000s low budget horror series, complete with shitty early cgi, and the dream basically consisting of a bunch of episodes of that show 🤣🤣🤣 this combined with the musical dream i had earlier this year surprises me

(description in the tags is really long so don't click it unless you wanna hear about this dumb fake ass dream horror show)