View Single Post
Old September 9 2012, 10:21 PM   #84
Mister Fandango
Fleet Captain
Re: Cabin in the Woods - Grading, Discussion, Spoilers

Sci wrote:
Oh hogwash. The success of Angel, for instance... [blah blah blah]
Yes, yes. As I said, Whedon gets all the credit for his success unless some rabid fanboy needs to rationalize why something he does is horribly nonsensical, stupid, and mistake-ridden. Then they start mentioning everyone else, and even pretending to spread the fanboyishness to other people to show just how they don't praise him and him alone. (But only to disprove how they do. At all other times, it's really Whedon and Whedon alone.)

Case in point: It's funny how you don't jump on all the other people throughout the thread who ''mistakingly'' gave Whedon all the credit when they enjoyed the movie.

And The Cabin in the Woods is as much Goddard's baby as Whedon's, if not more so.
So I guess Whedon had zero input in the movie, then. Otherwise, all of these mistakes and stupid concepts would have been brought up and eliminated with his cohorts, no?

Of course it's a goddamn system. You think society isn't a system? It is. The world is a system.
Your use of the term implied it was something that didn't have to exist, but existed because a bunch of people wanted to do it like this. That wasn't the case at all, as the world was presented to us by Whedon. This organization had to exist in order to keep the world turning. Not a single person we saw actually wanted to be there. They were just jaded by years and years of having to endure these duties and found levity where they could. It's no different than doctors or morticians making jokes/bets about corpses and other morbid things.

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.
Just to point out: All their deaths meant nothing anyway. Whatever rules are used in this world -- and we only have what Whedon presented us as facts, so yay, he still gets the blame for everything -- they were apparently very specific and without very specific murder victims, the entire world would end. As it was about to at the end of the movie, despite dozens of people being slaughtered by all kinds of random monsters.

Or the possibility that if the monsters were defeated once, they could be so again. Perhaps more permanently, in an era of atomic weaponry.
Who said they were ever defeated? If they were, no deal would have had to have been made to begin with if they had their asses handed to them. If anything, the deal is how they were defeated, if there was a war to begin with. And by "defeated" I mean "allowed humanity to live by accepting the sacrifices rather than just wiping them off the face of the planet."

Also, since you seem to feel its okay to make stuff up, who's to say there isn't a global government that's researching this? They clearly developed all-powerful forcefields and bioweapons, none of which they actually needed in order to get the job done. So why did they invent them in the first place? Oh yeah, probably in response to the threat these gods possess. But even with that technology, they knew they didn't stand a chance, so they had to keep appeasing these gods with the original deal they made to save the world.

And, finally, who's to say it's not a democratic system? "Democratic system" doesn't mean "everyone knows everything and votes on each and every topic." If it does, however, I must have missed the checkbox about how I wanted every dollar of my taxes spent the last time I was at the voting booth.
Mister Fandango is offline   Reply With Quote