Cabin in the Woods - Grading, Discussion, Spoilers

[lurok]

I was surprisingly bored. But admired that they were at least trying to give a jaded genre a kick up the butt.

[Skywalker]

I actually really enjoyed this. I didn't see it as a mockery of the slasher genre so much as both a satirization and a celebration of it. I only wish that the trailer hadn't given away so much of the twist. There was one death scene in particular, I think, that was robbed of some of its shock by revealing a certain obstacle too soon.

[Mister Fandango]

lurok wrote:

---

I was surprisingly bored.

As was I. I also found the so-called twist (is it really a twist when it's obvious from the beginning?) to be nonsensical, pointless, and poorly conceived. It's amazing how before we had all of this ultra super technology, ritual sacrifices were pretty simple and straight forward. But now we need force fields, underground lairs, and ridiculous ''rules'' (that seem utterly pointless when you're forcing the outcome anyway) in order to get the job done. Nevermind in the end they were just trying to shoot the stoner schlub straight up.

Regardless, I'm not sure how such a "brilliant" twist is supposed to make this movie any different from any other boring horror flick that changes gears in the final act.

Worse, it ends with two idiot teens deciding that the actions of a tiny handful of people mean the entire human species should be wiped out. Who cares that their actions really did have a purpose regardless of how poorly conceived that purpose was on Whedon's part? The world only existed because a few people had to die every so often to appease these all-powerful uber gods. That's a simple fact of this setting. But because these teens don't like that they're the sacrificial lambs, they're not only going to commit suicide (???), but they're going to take the entire planet with them.

Ugh.

[Venardhi]

I liked it, but there was a serious and fantastic movie in there that could have been made if they hadn't been so quick to take every opportunity to undermine the 'reality' and drama. I enjoyed this, but I'm pretty certain I would have enjoyed that other movie a lot more.

[Sci]

Mister Fandango wrote:

---

As was I. I also found the so-called twist (is it really a twist when it's obvious from the beginning?) to be nonsensical, pointless, and poorly conceived. It's amazing how before we had all of this ultra super technology, ritual sacrifices were pretty simple and straight forward. But now we need force fields, underground lairs, and ridiculous ''rules'' (that seem utterly pointless when you're forcing the outcome anyway) in order to get the job done. Nevermind in the end they were just trying to shoot the stoner schlub straight up.

Regardless, I'm not sure how such a "brilliant" twist is supposed to make this movie any different from any other boring horror flick that changes gears in the final act.

Worse, it ends with two idiot teens deciding that the actions of a tiny handful of people mean the entire human species should be wiped out. Who cares that their actions really did have a purpose regardless of how poorly conceived that purpose was on Whedon's part? The world only existed because a few people had to die every so often to appease these all-powerful uber gods. That's a simple fact of this setting. But because these teens don't like that they're the sacrificial lambs, they're not only going to commit suicide (???), but they're going to take the entire planet with them.

Ugh.

1. Whedon co-wrote this with David Goddard, and Goddard directed it. They shared the credit, so you should spread out the blame.

2. Does a system that depends upon victimization and oppression have a right to exist?

[Mister Fandango]

Sci wrote:

---

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.

2. Does a system that depends upon victimization and oppression have a right to exist?

It wasn't a system. It was a fact of the world. Without that system, there would be no world. The only possible variant would be one based on a lottery or other voluntary means of picking the sacrificial victims, 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. It also means that no one, anywhere around the world in any country or any religion, was using such a method since only ONE group of sacrifices was necessary. As the movie made abundantly clear.

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?

Keep in mind that, again, only one nation around the world had to succeed at the sacrifice, which logically means it was to the same group of gods. So, either they just made up random rules to fuck with humanity all around the world and any random killing would work despite the specific archetypes/statues focused on in the actual movie, or Whedon just tacked the "twist ending" on and hoped no one would notice.

[Sci]

Mister Fandango wrote:

---

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.

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?

[Silvercrest]

Didn't The Midnight Meat Train feature something like this?


Edit: I haven't seen the movie, only read about it, so I can't get into a serious discussion. But I'd say the answer to your question is no.

[Mister Fandango]

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.

[Sci]

Mister Fandango wrote:

---

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.

This is a ridiculous assertion, and I have no idea why you're so invested in this issue of "praise/blame only Whedon."

Were you just not around when it became the fad to hate Buffy Seasons Six and Seven? When the Connor arc on Angel fizzled out? Are you unaware how unpopular Dollhouse was?

Joss gets praise and so do his collaborators. And Joss gets criticism, and so do his collaborators. Get over this ridiculous "cult of Whedon" nonsense.

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.

I haven't looked at this thread in months, saw it the other day, noticed your erroneous attribution of everything you didn't like to Whedon alone, and corrected it. That is all.

And I didn't "jump all over you." I said, in total: "1. Whedon co-wrote this with David Goddard, and Goddard directed it. They shared the credit, so you should spread out the blame." That's all. You are the one who chose to try to make that conversation thread into a much bigger deal than it had been.

Now, I know you're just going to assume that I'm a Whedon fan who's pretending to be a fan of Goddard's for the sake of an argument with someone on the Internet, but I can tell you that I've been a fan of Drew Goddard's since I saw his brilliant, brilliant Buffy episode "Selfless." I also enjoyed his contributions to the episode "Conversations With Dead People," and his work on the fifth season of Angel, including "Lineage" and "Origin."

Am I as big of a fan of Goddard's as I am of Whedon? No. Does this mean I am not also a fan of his? No.

I really don't know how to engage you in a conversation about this film if you assume that anything someone else says to you about their enjoyment of a given writer is not said in good faith and is just a lie to score points.

So I guess Whedon had zero input in the movie, then.

No, and I neither said nor implied that.

However, the fact remains that Goddard was the co-writer, and was the director. And in the world of film, the director bears greater responsibility for the film than anyone else.

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.

Because that's what it is.

This organization had to exist in order to keep the world turning.

So its agents and leaders claim.

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.

These people were professional murderers who profited and found levity from their victims' suffering according to arbitrary standards that even the Director herself admitted were determined by culture, not by the monster being appeased.

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

We don't have anything presented to us by Whedon and Goddard. We have allegations presented by the Organization and its agents. Because there is a such thing as an unreliable source of information, we have no way of knowing how accurate those characters' assertions are.

(And, yes, Whedon has a history of featuring large organizations that claim one thing and turn out to have been lying. The Watchers Council's claims about the nature of Vampires and of the Slayer were later shown to be false, but vis a vis the evolution of Spike and by the revelation of the Shadow Men in "Get It Done.")

Who said they were ever defeated?

I seem to remember one of the Organization's people claiming that the monsters were subdued and then afterwards appeased by annual human murder victims. I can't find a transcript; if I'm remembering erroneously and you can prove so, I'll thank you for the correction.

who's to say there isn't a global government that's researching this?

... because a global government would be a government, and therefore able to compel legal obedience and levy taxes. It would be impossible for a global government to exist without the knowledge of humanity; otherwise, it's not a government, it's just a conspiracy that encompasses officials from different national governments.

And even if there were -- so what? It's still nothing more than an example of institutional corruption. The word "government" does not inherently make an organization's actions legitimate.

And, finally, who's to say it's not a democratic system?

This is a joke, right? A conspiracy to abduct innocent people and murder them in order to appease the bloodlust of a hostile monster living beneath the surface, without informing society of this issue and formulating a response based upon the will of the people.... this is democratic? It's not a democratic system if an existential threat to a nation -- or the world -- is kept secret from the public at large.

Meanwhile, you have yet to answer my question:

Does a system that depends upon victimization and oppression have a right to exist?

[Mister Fandango]

Sci wrote:

---

I haven't looked at this thread in months, saw it the other day, noticed your erroneous attribution of everything you didn't like to Whedon alone, and corrected it. That is all.

Yet, remarkably enough, when you did read through the thread months ago, you didn't once "correct" any of the people praising Whedon and Whedon alone.

Funny how that works out.

[Sci]

Mister Fandango wrote:

---

Yet, remarkably enough, when you did read through the thread months ago, you didn't once "correct" any of the people praising Whedon and Whedon alone.

Are you really going to make a big deal over my not having corrected some folks -- both praising him and criticizing him; see stj's posts, for instance, for a fairly critical stance on the film -- on including Goddard when this thread was active five months ago?

Seriously?

[Immolatus]

Sci wrote:

---

Are you really going to make a big deal over my not having corrected some folks -- both praising him and criticizing him; see stj's posts, for instance, for a fairly critical stance on the film -- on including Goddard when this thread was active five months ago?

Seriously?

all I wanted to know was how they caught all those monsters and kept them locked up in glass cages

[Kestrel]

Sci wrote:

---

When the Connor arc on Angel fizzled out?

I think "fizzled" doesn't quite fit. "Burst into flames, flailed about, tripped and was impaled on rebar, then rose as a zombie and was shot in the head" would be more accurate, though doesn't quite catch the skin-crawling-awfulness that was the Connor arc in Angel S4.

[Mister Fandango]

Sci wrote:

---

Seriously?

You're the one who decided that it was something important enough to bring up and emphasize, so yes, seriously. That said, I apologize that my particular criticisms were enough to cause you to nerdrage on the topic. Doubly so if my pointing out of your hypocrisy only increased that rage, as it clearly has. Consider it dropped completely.

Immolatus wrote:

---

all I wanted to know was how they caught all those monsters and kept them locked up in glass cages

I know what you mean. What I want to know is why they had all those monsters locked up in glass cages to begin with. Or, more correctly, why monsters were being used at all, let alone why it was required for the sacrifices to pick which one was going to slaughter them.

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out why they had a force field. Thor attempting the jump and failing miserably would have been far more humorous anyway.