View Single Post
Old September 9 2012, 05:54 AM   #82
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "Don't blame me--I voted for Jaresh-Inyo!"
Re: Cabin in the Woods - Grading, Discussion, Spoilers

Mister Fandango wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post
1. Whedon co-wrote this with David Goddard, and Goddard directed it. They shared the credit, so you should spread out the blame.
It's always funny how facts like that only come up when Whedon's getting criticized, but not when he's being praised.
Oh hogwash. The success of Angel, for instance, has as much to do with the contributions of David Greewalt (Angel's co-creator), Steven S. DeKnight, Tim Minear, Sarah Fain & Elizabeth Craft, David Fury, Drew Goddard (sorry, I did mis-remember his name), and especially Jeffrey Bell. And Firefly was Tim Minear's baby, too -- "Out of Gas" is perhaps the single most popular episode, and he wrote and directed it. Names like Douglas Petrie, Drew Z. Greenberg, and Jane Espenson also have fanbases from their work on Buffy. Joss Whedon is not the Hypnotoad sucking up all glory.

And The Cabin in the Woods is as much Goddard's baby as Whedon's, if not more so. Goddard's talked about how a lot of the movie was influenced by his having grown up in Los Alamos and seeing how surreal it is to have a community whose major industry is building horrible weapons of mass destruction.

2. Does a system that depends upon victimization and oppression have a right to exist?
It wasn't a system.
Of course it's a goddamn system. You think society isn't a system? It is. The world is a system.

It was a fact of the world.
According to the people whose business it is to victimize innocent people, sure. That doesn't mean they're a reliable source of information.

The only possible variant would be one based on a lottery or other voluntary means of picking the sacrificial victims,
Fascinating how no one's considered the idea of alerting the peoples of the world and perhaps fashioning a democratic response to this issue.

Or the possibility that if the monsters were defeated once, they could be so again. Perhaps more permanently, in an era of atomic weaponry.

but obviously that wasn't an option else any number of people within the organization would have willingly gave up their own lives in place of the chosen victims.


That's a good one. Yeah, because the sadists running that facility were ever so virtuous and empathetic, weren't they? Very self-sacrificing.

Be real: This Organization, whatever it was -- and we don't know if it was government, or some ancient cult that had grown rich, or what -- is a prime example of institutionalized corruption.

What's more worrying is what we saw of the Japanese method. Apparently, an entire class of preteen schoolgirls would have appeased these gods in place of the "rules" required of the victims we saw in the United States. Or, amongst those preteen girls, was there a whore, a virgin (meaning all the others have been 'touched' at least once), and a stoner amongst them, and all those other poor girls were just being killed so the Japanese works could wank one off or something?
Given how flexible the American branch of this Organization was about these so-called "rules" -- if the "rules" were really that important, I doubt that a non-virgin would have actually been useful for the "virgin" sacrifice -- I think the film was fairly clearly implying that those rules had more to do with the culture doing the murdering than with what the monsters actually wanted.

ETA:

Now, answer my question. Does a system that depends upon victimization and oppression deserve to exist?
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote