|
Fair enough, but I felt the opened ending was more of a horror tactic to be a bit more unsettling. It kind of make me wonder if they can play off the first one and still keep that really suspenseful feel. There is a couple ideas running my head how they could do it, but it probably would be easier to kind of branch off more than to play off the first one.
|
If you payed attention to the story, they showed how the demon has been inhabiting a series of young women. At the end they tell how the police found the man's body, but hers was nowhere to be found. So, she is out there possesed by the demon, or has become the demon. We'll meet some new characters and she, as the demon will start tormenting them. They may even have the new victim be a child, since in the first one they dropped hints about how the woman had been experiencing phenomina since she was a kid.
|
Well that's kind of what I was thinking they should do, but what I was wondering is if they would just leave her and have the demon bother someone else or actually include her into the next one.
|
The challenge will be making a film as original and startling as the first. It wasn't the story that made Paranormal Activity so good- really it's just a standard possesion tale. What made the film was the self-reflective technique of making the video image itself part of the plot. They will have a challenge to equal the first.
If they do the video thing again, it will just be repeating the first film. If they just tell a standard follow up story, what will make it stand out? |
Hollywood.......gotta love it. ANd just wait until the Paranormal Activity 2 bonus UNCUT, UNEDITED, Directors cut DVD comes out. OOOOOH I cant wait.
|
I dont understand. Original? The blair witch project was filmed with the same "technique" and I think it was much better, in a way almost believable. I have to admit I did sit through the whole movie telling myself'" ok, something good is about to happen to make this worthwhile" just to justify myself sitting there waiting for something worthwhile to happen. It never did. I had my suspicions from the get go that it would be "that type of movie" simply because "they couldnt show you but 3 seconds of the movie in the trailer. Heck if they would have shown anymore no one would have watched it. was it the worst movie I have ever seen? not by a long shot, but it is a movie I would encourage people not to waste their time with. As for a sequel, lets hope not.
But hey, thats just my opinion of the"Film" |
The first three words of your post pretty much summed it all up for you.
|
Quote:
|
You are correct, those first three words do pretty much sum it up for me.Thats why I put them there. The rest of the words just explain why I posted the first three. If you would be so kind as to help me understand.
Quote:
As far as my opinion of the movie,to each his own. I understand the movie itself and the plot or how slow it was is not what made it bad to me. What I didnt like about it was the believability factor and the Hype they tried to give it in the previews.Ultimately it led to disapointment. I am a ghost story nut so paranormal type movies are what really get me going.This movie was supposed to be an actual account of what happened through their own video camera and for that to work it has to be believable. If the sequel is anything like the first one they should have used one of the original endings and left it at that. The director they have for the second one might make it worthwhile, guess we'll just have to wait till October to see. |
Blair Witch was nowhere near as effective as Paranormal Activity. Sure it did it a long time before it but it was more a successful case in marketing rather than any sort of ground breaking cinema.
PA was something special and was infinitely more classy than Cloverfield, [REC] and Diary of the Dead. I hope the sequel does the original justice. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:41 PM. |