or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The Cabin in the Woods - Post Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Cabin in the Woods - Post Release - Page 16

post #751 of 974

Not to completely derail, but Search For Spock makes a convincing argument for reversing "needs of the few... or the one". Kirk and his entire senior crew give up everything to restore Spock because they can't not try. "If I didn't, the price would have been my soul."

post #752 of 974

They have to misbehave and be punished for their actions.  A willing sacrifice can't "sin" on purpose in order to make themselves eligible. 

post #753 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

Thing is, the adults willingly sacrificing themselves wouldn't work.  There are very specific demands, it's not just a call for blood.

 

Right. Dana would have to kill Marty, and from a Jewish perspective, that's a no-no. You may not murder to preserve life, with some exceptions-- but their situation fits none of the exceptions, since Marty isn't an aggressor and Dana killing him wouldn't really be self defense. Interestingly, Judaism does allow for self-sacrifice in order to prevent transgressing (in regards to particular sins), but I'm not sure if Marty willingly offering himself as a sacrifice falls under that criteria. 

 

Though I do think it would have worked in the film-- at the point where they're in the chamber, Marty just has to die. It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me; in fact, the Director seems to be urging him to give up his life, so I wonder if the Ancient Ones actually would have been appeased had he offered his own life/taken his own life willingly. That just makes me want to get to September 18th even faster so I can watch this again.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilTwin View Post

I'd suggest Nietzsche as a possible interesting philosopher for an article. There's got to be a lot written on sacrifice, both self and of others.

 

 

Awesome. I'll definitely check him out, then-- thanks so much! 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post

Not to completely derail, but Search For Spock makes a convincing argument for reversing "needs of the few... or the one". Kirk and his entire senior crew give up everything to restore Spock because they can't not try. "If I didn't, the price would have been my soul."

 

This and the Wrath of Khan stuff is all interesting to me, too-- I just don't have time to respond to it in full, but I will when I do! I promise!

post #754 of 974

 I think it's also worth noting how the whole operation seems to be a dark, government secret. The government doing something immoral for the "good" of the people isn't unheard of.  (Of course, one could argue that the preservation of human life on Earth is for the greater good.)

 

Of course,  the notion of sacrifice changes, IMO, when there's a direct good received. I think that's a distinction between Cabin in the Woods and The Wicker Man where there's no evidence at the end of the latter that the sacrifice means anything.
 

An interesting article I found on Nietzche's views on sacrifice is at http://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=philosophy-facultypubs

 

Sweitzer has an interesting quote on the matter too:

“Humanitarianism consists in never sacrificing a human being to a purpose”

 

I'm sure there are plenty of quotes on the matter. And there are multiple ways to look at it. Arguably Marty sacrifices the world to end the "immoral" operation. Which sacrifice to the Gods is more moral?

 

Now, I don't think Cabin in the Woods contemplates that question much. By the time it comes up, we have Unicorns, Werewolves, etc. running wild and a ticking doomsday clock and there really isn't time to ponder those questions in any great depth. While I think Cabin in the Woods does make statements about horror films, some of which I do quibble with as I think horror has done a good deal to rejuvenate itself in the last decade, there's more meat on those bones than I think there is about the big moral question at the end.

post #755 of 974

I will again disagree with your last statement there-- the entire climax is all about that question. The big ending scuffle between Marty, Dana, Werewolf, the Director, and Patient Buckner all sparks off because of that question. I would argue, in fact, that these characters clash with one another as representatives of both sides of that question, with Marty embodying the "never sacrifice" side and, well, everyone else speaking for the "sacrifice" side. You're talking about a good twenty minutes of the film that revolve around the notion of sacrifice in one way or another (and I'm saying twenty not arbitrarily but to denote that the Director monologues to Dana and Marty over loudspeaker about the necessity of their deaths the minute they set foot in the facility). Maybe Cabin is more about horror and horror movies and horror fandom, but it's absolutely about that question of sacrifice. I don't think you can make a movie in which human sacrifice is an integral element without that question being legitimately on the table.

 

Now, with my traditional disagreement out of the way, thank you for the Nietzsche/Schweitzer info. I'm already poring over the essay and looking up sources on humanitarianism, so I think I'm well on my way toward getting the rest of the essay sorted out. THIS is the reason I come to CHUD-- you all are awesome. 


Edited by agracru - 8/25/12 at 7:53am
post #756 of 974

Let me add that while I do believe that Cabin in the Woods does raise the question about sacrifice, I think the audience/we have done much more to explore and debate the implications than the film does. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I do subscribe to the notion that if the movie makers wanted to send a message they should call Western Union, but I think that they do have more ideas regarding the form of horror movies that are more fleshed out in the movie. Regardless, the film acting as a springboard to deeper discussion is a legitimate success and argument for the film as art.

 

In that regard, Cabin in the Woods has been a spectacular success and one of the best threads on Chud. Beats saying "that ruled/sucked" without any deeper thoughts.
 

post #757 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilTwin View Post

Let me add that while I do believe that Cabin in the Woods does raise the question about sacrifice, I think the audience/we have done much more to explore and debate the implications than the film does. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I do subscribe to the notion that if the movie makers wanted to send a message they should call Western Union, but I think that they do have more ideas regarding the form of horror movies that are more fleshed out in the movie. Regardless, the film acting as a springboard to deeper discussion is a legitimate success and argument for the film as art.

 

In that regard, Cabin in the Woods has been a spectacular success and one of the best threads on Chud. Beats saying "that ruled/sucked" without any deeper thoughts.
 

 

I don't know how I missed this comment, but well-said and I agree with you-- the movie fleshes out the meta horror stuff much more. But for me the big takeaway that I keep rolling around in my head is the sacrifice stuff, and I think the fact that we've gone this many pages talking back-and-forth about both of these different sides speaks volumes about the movie's better merits.

post #758 of 974

Agracru, don't know if I'm too late here, but I think Thomas Hobbes wrote a lot about the state, i.e. society in general, vs. the individual. "Leviathan" is, I believe, the key work.

 

EvilTwin, I think the movie puts the ideas out there very clearly for debate. Its a horror-comedy, not a philosophical tract, but the filmmakers have clearly thought about this stuff (the more so since Whedon already explored this in some detail in Angel S5). The fact that it's left to us to explore the moral and philosophical consequences of what happens is a feature, not a bug.
 

post #759 of 974

Not too late at all. I'm waiting until the week this hits Blu-Ray before I publish anything, and I'm still doing my research for the philosophical side of the essay. (I'm also meeting with my rabbi to talk about the ending. Which is maybe the weirdest reason anyone has ever spoken to a Rabbi ever.) So thanks a bunch! I'll take a look at Leviathan, too, and read up a bit on Hobbes. Between him, John Stuart Mills, Jeremy Bentham, Nietzsche, and Albert Schweitzer, I think I'll have plenty to be going on with. Hope I can tie it together well enough, and in time for my own deadline.

post #760 of 974

Oddly enough, I had a bit of a reading of the film that brought in the Enlightenment state of nature theorists: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Especially seeing as how Hobbes and Locke use the State of Nature story to basically justify a certain kind of cultural power (monarchy with Hobbes, markets/merchants with Locke), and how Rousseau uses the idea to critique the ideas of power and culture themselves. Nothing I bothered following through on myself, but the film struck me as being angrily Rousseauian (which would make it Nietzschean, I guess).

post #761 of 974

I suspect that part of my issue with how the movie finally plays out is the choice of music to end the movie with. It certainly could have been more ominous, ambivalent, etc., but really it's a "Hey! Tequila!" choice.
 

post #762 of 974

So, I talked to my Rabbi about on Monday. It may have been the weirdest reason anyone has consulted a Rabbi about anything ever. 

post #763 of 974
post #764 of 974

THAT
 

IS

AWESOME

post #765 of 974

Loved that one of the cells was for the 50 Foot Woman. 

post #766 of 974
Bradley Whitford MVP. He just sold this concept from his first lines. Otherwise fairly solid film, clever, and pretty amusing. I had a silly smile on my face during the entire last 15 minutes. Too bad Weaver's cameo was semi spoiled. She has a distinctive voice and the second I heard it over the loud speaker I knew who it was.
post #767 of 974
I almost wish this film were an actual horror movie, because the painting in the cabin and the diary in the basement were terrifying.
post #768 of 974

Curious why people still think Cabin isn't an actual horror movie. Of course it is. If we accept the premise that people watch horror movies as a means of suppressing thoughts about the things that really, truly scare them, then this is horror at its purist. The film ends with that defensive wall we keep between ourselves and our fears being totally shattered, and our real fears-- embodied by the Ancient Ones-- bursting out of the ground to destroy the planet. 

 

I think it's fine to treat the movie as a fun lark but I think it's way off to treat it as, well, "not-horror". That just seems incorrect.

 

Also published the first half of my essay. The second half might take longer than expected, even though I've cut down on sources and am going to be leaning heavily on doing a Judaic theological reading of the movie.

post #769 of 974

It's way more overtly joke-y than a standard horror film.  I think that, rather than any of the metatextual stuff, is what has people quibbling about genre.

post #770 of 974

Oh yeah, I totally get that, but I think the meta-textual stuff really firmly establishes that it is a horror film, even if the surface is defined by a pervasive black sense of humor. 

post #771 of 974

There are tons of horror-comedies, though. From Evil Dead to the jokier Child's Play or Nightmare on Elm Street movies. Hell, even the Night of the Living Dead movies are satirical as much as they are horror flicks.
 

post #772 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

Curious why people still think Cabin isn't an actual horror movie. Of course it is. If we accept the premise that people watch horror movies as a means of suppressing thoughts about the things that really, truly scare them, then this is horror at its purist. The film ends with that defensive wall we keep between ourselves and our fears being totally shattered, and our real fears-- embodied by the Ancient Ones-- bursting out of the ground to destroy the planet. 

 

I think it's fine to treat the movie as a fun lark but I think it's way off to treat it as, well, "not-horror". That just seems incorrect.

 

Also published the first half of my essay. The second half might take longer than expected, even though I've cut down on sources and am going to be leaning heavily on doing a Judaic theological reading of the movie.


Well, because it's not scary. That would be my reason. It seems far more concerned with the ideas it's playing with than in being a horror film.

post #773 of 974

But the ideas are on some level horrifying. We're talking about the premeditated slaughter of innocents who fit arbitrary labels in order to sate a group of destructive urges. Maybe its not viscerally scary, maybe its not disgusting, or moment-by-moment disturbing (although I think in some cases it is), but the ideas its playing with are very much horror ideas. I'll put it to you this way: Bride of Frankenstein is not a scary movie. It doesn't just border on camp, it finds the boundary line and dances on it. Its more interested in its ideas about who has the right to create life than it does about frightening its audience in any real major way, but does that make it not a horror movie?

post #774 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post


Well, because it's not scary. That would be my reason. It seems far more concerned with the ideas it's playing with than in being a horror film.

 

Of course it's scary. I mean, V/H/S is probably the scariest horror movie I've seen all year, but Cabin is scary when it needs to be and deals with a lot of ideas that are genuinely frightening (e.g. institutionalized evil), as opposed to viscerally frightening (e.g. demon lady eating all of your friends). 

post #775 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

There are tons of horror-comedies, though. From Evil Dead to the jokier Child's Play or Nightmare on Elm Street movies. Hell, even the Night of the Living Dead movies are satirical as much as they are horror flicks.
 

 

I was making the distinction distinctly between jokey vs satirical, which horror fans are more accustomed to.  And while there are certainly jokes in Child's Play or NOES, they are largely specific to the horror concepts.  The speaker phone or "TEQUILA!" gags could be transplanted into any sitcom/romcom and still pretty much work, whereas Freddy's one-liners don't really translate to non-slasher scenarios.  

 

Or something.  I don't know anyone who is actually adamant about this not being a "real" horror movie.

post #776 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

I was making the distinction distinctly between jokey vs satirical, which horror fans are more accustomed to.  And while there are certainly jokes in Child's Play or NOES, they are largely specific to the horror concepts.  The speaker phone or "TEQUILA!" gags could be transplanted into any sitcom/romcom and still pretty much work, whereas Freddy's one-liners don't really translate to non-slasher scenarios.  

 

Or something.  I don't know anyone who is actually adamant about this not being a "real" horror movie.

 

Disagree, since they're playing off the knowledge that people actually *are* dying. You could do those gags on Community, but it wouldn't have the same weight since they'd be dealing with, you know, losing a Batman DVD instead of killing innocent teenagers. The jokes in Cabin break a tension that just isn't generally present in non-horror films.

post #777 of 974

They take on an added dimension because of that context.  But they are still jokes that are structured like those of a sitcom rather than a horror film. 

 

I guess my point was that horror fans are used to a certain type of humor in the genre (gross out/slapstick and one-liners primarily), and Cabin goes a bit broader with its punchlines.  It makes for a different feel that some apparently feel undermines the horror-ific elements.

post #778 of 974

I actually don't disagree with your point on the nature of the humor, but like you I don't really think that that usurps the film's status as a horror story.

post #779 of 974

I don't think calling Whedon's humor writing "sitcommy" is inaccurate. He broke in writing for Roseanne after all, of course he's been generally trained in that style of writing which is all about setting up the punchline. The Avengers has a lot of the same type of humor. Nothing wrong with that, but I do think it's a tricky tightrope to walk between that type of humor and horror.

post #780 of 974

I did not mean it as a slight at all, in case that wasn't clear.

post #781 of 974
Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

 The speaker phone or "TEQUILA!" gags could be transplanted into any sitcom/romcom and still pretty much work...

 

Doesn't the speakerphone joke pretty much specifically rely on it being a horror movie scenario? The fact that it's undercutting the Ominous Exposition?

 

Though now I kind of want to see a romcom starring the Harbinger.

post #782 of 974

You could do it with any vaguely weighty-sounding topic of conversation.  It hits harder because it's soooo ominous, but it's not the type of gag you see in a lot of slasher flicks.

post #783 of 974

PLOT HOLE ALERT!!! Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but it doesn't make sense that the Buckner's would have their own torture room in the Cabin. This implies that the cabin is theirs specifically and not an artificial, catch-all construct. Does the sugarplum fairy have a room too? What about the Merman or Hell Lord? 

post #784 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

You could do it with any vaguely weighty-sounding topic of conversation. 

 

Not to dissect this to death, but I disagree. It's only absurd because it's Lovecraftian gibberish from a cultist, who you don't expect to have access to modern technology. If it was "Mister President, cracks are appearing in the Greco-Bolivian alliance!" there's no joke. Why *wouldn't* something like that be over a speakerphone?

 

 

Quote:
Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but it doesn't make sense that the Buckner's would have their own torture room in the Cabin. This implies that the cabin is theirs specifically and not an artificial, catch-all construct. Does the sugarplum fairy have a room too? What about the Merman or Hell Lord?

 

That's FORNICUS to you, buddy.

 

But seriously, why wouldn't the cabin have a layout that can be reconfigured depending on the monster that gets summoned? Isn't it all implied to be kind of a holodeck sorta thing anyway?

post #785 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

 

But seriously, why wouldn't the cabin have a layout that can be reconfigured depending on the monster that gets summoned? Isn't it all implied to be kind of a holodeck sorta thing anyway?

 

A holodeck is kind of stretching, but the cabin being able to reconfigure like the rubik's cube poster art did occur to me. Not established in the film whatsover, but still, I will accept this mulligan. 

post #786 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

 

Not to dissect this to death, but I disagree. It's only absurd because it's Lovecraftian gibberish from a cultist, who you don't expect to have access to modern technology. If it was "Mister President, cracks are appearing in the Greco-Bolivian alliance!" there's no joke. Why *wouldn't* something like that be over a speakerphone?

 

 

The joke is a guy getting distracted from his big dramatic monologue by an everyday, relatable annoyance.  You could do that in a variety of contexts to varying degrees of effectiveness, but more to the original point, it is a captial-J Joke, in a genre where the humor tends to be more physical or dry.  

post #787 of 974

FYI this is happening right now: http://io9.com/5944666/cabin-in-the-woods-director-drew-goddard-is-live-on-io9-and-taking-your-questions

 

And this one should help not settle your current debate:

 

 

LittleToyBoat  32 minutes ago  SHARE
 
My friends and I have argued this back and forth since the movie came out-- Is Cabin in the Woods a funny horror movie, or a comedy with horror elements?

REPLY

 
 
avt-medium.pngMisterGoddard @LittleToyBoat  21 minutes ago  SHARE
 
I'm never good at categorizing my work. The truth is it's sort of in the eye of the beholder anyway. Whatever you think is right, and your friends are clearly wrong.
post #788 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

PLOT HOLE ALERT!!! Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but it doesn't make sense that the Buckner's would have their own torture room in the Cabin. This implies that the cabin is theirs specifically and not an artificial, catch-all construct. Does the sugarplum fairy have a room too? What about the Merman or Hell Lord? 

 

This has been discussed, and I do forgive you. It's not explained whatsoever in the movie, but here are the two conclusions we came to earlier in the thread:

 

1) Each monster has its own themed "room"/"area" located around the environs of the cabin. This seems a bit tricky, since a group of teens could summon the Doctors and still end up stumbling into, say, the Merman's grotto. Which would be weird and make no sense. Sadistic doctors are chasing the kids down, and they wander into the lair of an aquatic monster? Come on. That's just silly. No, more likely is,

 

2) The room is configured as a theme room depending on the monster that gets chosen. So for the Buckners, it becomes a torture chamber. For the Doctors, it might become, say, a gore-splattered operating room. For the Dismemberment Goblins, some kind of abattoir. A machine shop the robot. And so on. The Angry Molesting Tree probably doesn't need a room, now that we're talking about it, but you get the idea.

 

Also, good on Drew for not coming down on one side or the other. Still, if you don't think this is a horror movie, you're a poop head.

post #789 of 974

Watching this right now for the second time and noticed that there is TOTALLY a Left 4 Dead Boomer almost directly right-center during the big cube reveal.

 

post #790 of 974
Anyone know if the io9 chat will be archived?
post #791 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

 

1) Each monster has its own themed "room"/"area" located around the environs of the cabin. This seems a bit tricky, since a group of teens could summon the Doctors and still end up stumbling into, say, the Merman's grotto. Which would be weird and make no sense. Sadistic doctors are chasing the kids down, and they wander into the lair of an aquatic monster? Come on. That's just silly. 

 

That would be embarrassing.  They'd almost have to rig up some sort of super-elaborate system to manipulate the victims' behavior and drive them only into the areas that were appropriate to the particular theme just to make it work. 

post #792 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

That would be embarrassing.  They'd almost have to rig up some sort of super-elaborate system to manipulate the victims' behavior and drive them only into the areas that were appropriate to the particular theme just to make it work. 

 

 

To be safe, I +1 you anyway.

post #793 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

That would be embarrassing.  They'd almost have to rig up some sort of super-elaborate system to manipulate the victims' behavior and drive them only into the areas that were appropriate to the particular theme just to make it work. 

 

Har har. In seriousness, they can control the victims, but not the monsters. They can influence the kids as much as they want to get them into the right/wrong place, but they can't really do dick about the monsters; in the case of the Buckners, yes, facility control puts the kids into the torture room, but the techs have no control over the monsters and I could see scenarios come up where things are less than ideal and the kids wind up wandering into a pre-set-up area for another beast entirely.

 

Besides, I like the idea of the room re-configuring more. Ties back nicely to the poster.

post #794 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

Curious why people still think Cabin isn't an actual horror movie. Of course it is. If we accept the premise that people watch horror movies as a means of suppressing thoughts about the things that really, truly scare them, then this is horror at its purist. The film ends with that defensive wall we keep between ourselves and our fears being totally shattered, and our real fears-- embodied by the Ancient Ones-- bursting out of the ground to destroy the planet.

I've always felt people watch horror films to exorcise cultural demons relevant to the time they live in.  That is why horror has ebbs and flows of popularity with varying genres taking center stage at particular times to accurately reflect the gnawing subconscious of the society that produces them.  From the Universal horror cycle and German expressionism assisting folks in dealing with the physical and emotional fallout of World War 1 to the glut of torture-related films post Iraq invasion and Abu Ghraib helping Americans sort out their complicated feelings toward what vengeance we wrought post 9/11, the horror genre has always been there.  Cabin in the Woods is a marvelous example of what happens when a peoples becomes so self aware, they are no longer able to feel scared, only to knowingly mock themselves and the world they live in, shrugging toward apocalypse and self-immolation as a reasonable alternative to the hollow, meaningless of existence. 

 

It's also super funny and has cool-ass monsters. 

post #795 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

 

Har har. In seriousness, they can control the victims, but not the monsters. They can influence the kids as much as they want to get them into the right/wrong place, but they can't really do dick about the monsters; in the case of the Buckners, yes, facility control puts the kids into the torture room, but the techs have no control over the monsters and I could see scenarios come up where things are less than ideal and the kids wind up wandering into a pre-set-up area for another beast entirely.

 

Besides, I like the idea of the room re-configuring more. Ties back nicely to the poster.

 

I don't understand where you get the idea that they don't have a degree of control over the monsters, or why it would be a big deal if Fornicus were to chase the kids into a Mer-cave with no mermen in it.

post #796 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

I don't understand where you get the idea that they don't have a degree of control over the monsters, or why it would be a big deal if Fornicus were to chase the kids into a Mer-cave with no mermen in it.

 

a) For one, Sitterson and Hadley never do anything to influence the Buckners. Their job involves spraying Stupid Gas into Curt's face and locking everyone in their rooms. I assume that if our boys in the booth had any measure of control over their favorite redneck zombie torture family, they'd be making use of that control, but they don't. Their modus operandi seems to be, "let the monsters run wild in the closed-off environs, drug the kids, manipulate the structure of the location". In fairness, it seems to work pretty well, other than Marty magically hacking up Judah Buckner.

 

The bigger evidence to me is that facility-wide, the response to the system purge can be characterized as "panicky" if I'm being generous. Yes, we're talking about everything being loosed on the techs; it's not a case of the dismemberment goblins getting out and bisecting a couple of dorks before being wrangled and recaptured. But if Sitterson and Hadley have even a degree of control over the monsters, I imagine that they would exert that control even in a situation of the scale they face at the end. Instead, Sitterson tries to open the emergency "oh shit monsters" hatch and Hadley picks up a sub machine gun. 

 

Of course, the counter to this is that all of the technicians' and chemists' methods of control exist within the environs of the cabin, so they literally have no control in the facility. I'm willing to accept that. But I don't really buy the idea that Sitterson and Hadley had any control over the Buckners during the ritual. The way the film plays out doesn't really support that notion for me.

 

b) Well, it would pierce the illusion, wouldn't it? Here we have Fornicus stalking the teens and they wander into an underwater cavern coated with merman slime and littered with bones. Or something. It just wouldn't fit with the terror that's after them. But maybe the merman grotto isn't the worst example; it could just be seen as an environmental feature. What if the dismemberment goblins chase them into the doctor's operating room? Or the clown's fun-house? That would be kinda odd, and I feel like it's in the interest of the ritual to maintain a semblance of continuity. It's never stated that that's an integral part of the ritual, but I get the impression that making the entire event seamless is part of the job.

 

Plus, if you have that room in the house designed to be reconfigured, the techs have a much easier job pushing the victims into it. I mean, the entire reason Holden and Dana discover it is because they get locked in their rooms while the Buckners try to get at them through the windows; Holden finds the room in the floor. The way that Sitterson and Hadley operate suggests that this is part of their method; they've used this approach before. If that makes sense.

post #797 of 974

I'm not sure what the issue is here exactly.  The cabin obviously has lots of adaptable features, and Sitterson and Hadley's entire job is to set some monsters loose to terrorize the kids within some very loose parameters.  To that end, they can wrangle the monsters somewhat effectively, if not operate them by remote control, and keep the "inappropriate" parts of the environment sealed off.  It's what they do.  It's all they do.

 

I also don't get any indication, aside from some alluded-to finickiness by the Old Ones, that the ritual will be ruined if the kids run into a fun house when they aren't being terrorized by killer clowns. They'd go "wtf, clowns???" then keep running from the dismemberment goblins, right?

post #798 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

I'm not sure what the issue is here exactly.  The cabin obviously has lots of adaptable features, and Sitterson and Hadley's entire job is to set some monsters loose to terrorize the kids within some very loose parameters.  To that end, they can wrangle the monsters somewhat effectively, if not operate them by remote control, and keep the "inappropriate" parts of the environment sealed off.  It's what they do.  It's all they do.

 

I also don't get any indication, aside from some alluded-to finickiness by the Old Ones, that the ritual will be ruined if the kids run into a fun house when they aren't being terrorized by killer clowns. They'd go "wtf, clowns???" then keep running from the dismemberment goblins, right?


I don't know why you're characterizing this as an "issue". It's really just a matter of interpretation. The cabin is adaptable, Sitterson and Hadley are really good at their job, and they have a number of tools at their disposal to do their job successfully. But I'm going off what we see them do. We don't see them do anything to manipulate or wrangle the Buckners whatsoever. We do see them manipulate the victims and the environment. So the only conclusion I can come to is that they have no real ability to control or direct the monsters, other than by influencing the victims to do dumb things like fuck in a patch of moonlight out in the spooky dark woods or hop into the RV and drive off without checking it for hidden monster surprises first or split up to secure the cabin.

 

And I didn't say that it would ruin the ritual. In fact, I pointed out that that's not one of the ritual's defined parameters. So I doubt the Ancient Ones would care if the werewolf chased the teens into the killer robot's machine shop. I'm really only saying that it would be weird, and would pierce the illusion and the narrative that Sitterson and Hadley are crafting through the ritual. Maybe that's really only relevant to the meta-textual elements we read into the film. That said, they're probably interested in making the whole event look seamless if only to cover their own asses. Sitterson freaks out when Marty discovers the wire; he probably wouldn't be too thrilled if the victims stumbled across incongruous elements while attempting to survive an attack by the merman, either.

post #799 of 974

I thought you were suggesting it would have some impact on the success of the ritual if the "illusion" was broken.  Sure, it would annoy Sitterson and Hadley's sense of professionalism, and it would tip off the victims that something even weirder than an Angry Molesting Tree was going on, but that doesn't seem to matter overly much.  The ritual can apparently still be completed after the full monstepocalypse has broken out, so obviously keeping the seams hidden is a preference, not a requirement.  

post #800 of 974

Maybe some of the incongruous elements we do see are meant for other monsters, like the one-way mirrors were meant for a Doctors scenario and the weird painting had a place in the Dismemberment Goblins' mythos. And they would've been removed or modified after an alternate monster was selected if they hadn't already been discovered. Maybe there's a manual for the evil robot in a desk somewhere that was swiped when they read the diary.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The Cabin in the Woods - Post Release