|
|
Post by Dragon Prime on Nov 9, 2014 1:01:33 GMT -6
Also... Lori Strode's nightmare at the beginning of H20 was from her POV. None of the nightmares in any of the A NIGHTMARE From Elm Street movies were from the victims' POV. So there. Har har. I was just pointing out that Glen wasn't the only case of featuring a dream sequence done in PoV style. Apparently you must have a Hollywood manual that has notes on how to write, direct, and film a successful horror film that the rest of us don't know about. I didn't realize there was a set of rules to follow.... but thank you for humbling me in this area. I would have never known oh great messenger of what's what. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Prime on Nov 9, 2014 1:04:36 GMT -6
And actually your wrong BTW... I know there were a few shots in the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street in which we did see what things looked like from the PoV of Jesse at the beginning of the film and Nancy when she was dreaming whilst being awake.
Not to mention scatter shots through out the series in general. Yeah mayne not entire scenes... but here and there for effect purposes.
|
|
|
|
Post by blah on Nov 9, 2014 1:05:55 GMT -6
Why did you twist what I said into…that?  , that's like not what I said at ALL dude. That was pulled out of thin air. All I meant by saying that, again, was that having a scene done through a person's POV wasn't indicative of it being a dream sequence. Nowhere do I talk about quality. |
|
|
|
Post by blah on Nov 9, 2014 1:06:28 GMT -6
And actually your wrong BTW... I know there were a few shots in the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street in which we did see what things looked like from the PoV of Jesse at the beginning of the film and Nancy when she was dreaming whilst being awake. Not to mention scatter shots through out the series in general. Yeah mayne not entire scenes... but here and there for effect purposes. Oh my god that is so far from the point. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Prime on Nov 9, 2014 1:11:45 GMT -6
No... but you made it a point to try to make me sound stupid for bringing up the fact that I mentioned that there have been other films that have used a PoV dream sequence.
Also when you really think about it... what does NOES have to do with how this franchise is handled in terms of... anything.
You came off like there is some sort of guide that Don had to follow so I was just mentioning how there isn't a right or wrong way to film anything.
I could film a dream sequence with the main character actually not being in said dream... would that make it wrong or right by what you're saying.
Anyway... this has gone on long enough so back to topic.
The end scene... I think it was a real event within the CO universe because there was nothing to indicate otherwise. Now linking that and Curse... I think Tiffany has been resurrecting Chucky and killing off and on through out the years.
|
|
|
|
Post by blah on Nov 9, 2014 1:16:18 GMT -6
Yeah. Tiffany could've yet again collected his parts from an evidence depository, painted his face to cover his scars, and then ship him out. Cue Curse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spanky on Nov 9, 2014 1:39:03 GMT -6
Yeah I would have liked to see a scene of Tiffany re-building him again.
|
|
|
|
Post by smngry on Nov 9, 2014 1:44:07 GMT -6
Well to me, right here it looks as though you have a theory about the ending being a dream. Another memeber says it would be more obvious if that was the case. You then say quite clearly that it wasn't obvious Glen's first scene was a a dream. Our point is, no it wasn't obvious, not until they 'wanted' us to know it was a dream. If they wanted us to know the ending was a dream, they would have applied the same touch to the ending as they did to the beginning. Do you even know what you're talking about anymore? Ok, I don't even know how you managed to tie yourself into all these knots. I'm trying to be patient, nice and clear with you. 1) Matt said it was obvious Glen's dream sequence at the beginning of the film was a dream because it was done in a POV. I then said that it merely being POV wasn't compelling enough evidence to suggest that it was a dream. 2) I think the ending was intended to be a dream because it DID apply the same touch as the beginning. That touch being: a child receiving a gift from an unknown sender. It wasn't done through POV obviously, but it still utilized the notion of: a child receiving a gift from an unknown sender. That's all I'm basing my theory on. Who ever mentioned Matt?  1. Sweetface says if it was intended to be a dream it would have been made obvious. You then jump in with the 'Glen's dream wasn't obvious'. But it was they went out of their way to make it obvious. That's why we had a reveal. 2. The fact somebody received a parcel from an unknown sender doesn't make it a dream. That's a cute theory you have, but that's not 'compelling evidence' either. I'm trying to be patient too, along with various other members, as you continuously show your arrogance and lack of respect in the way you address us. It seems every thread you are involved in tends to descend into either a warning about your behaviours or a condescending tone emanating from yourself. You will not be warned again, the next thread this happens in, you're gone. Is that clear enough? |
|
|
|
Post by blah on Nov 9, 2014 1:48:58 GMT -6
Of COURSE it was obvious Glen's DREAM was a DREAM when they REVEALED it was a DREAM because he WOKE UP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spanky on Nov 9, 2014 1:51:29 GMT -6
I think he doesn't get the point, smngry, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee on Nov 9, 2014 1:52:25 GMT -6
And it's because you talk like that, everybody is getting fed up...
|
|
|
|
Post by blah on Nov 9, 2014 1:53:23 GMT -6
He's saying it's obvious that Glen's dream sequence was in fact a dream because Glen woke up right? I'm not arguing against that, I'm actually saying yes, no duh, that's true. I would hope everyone would understand that what they had just watched was a dream.
I'm saying, from the part where Glen was pulled out of the box, to where Claudia tells him he's pissing his pants, it is not obvious that it was a dream sequence.
|
|
|
|
Post by smngry on Nov 9, 2014 1:55:20 GMT -6
Yes. And i'm pretty sure the END would be revealed to be a dream too...
IF it WAS a DREAM...
You can have your opinion. Fair enough. I respect that. But all you're basing it on is the fact Glen received a package from an unknown sender. That's not exactly cast iron proof
|
|
|
|
Post by blah on Nov 9, 2014 1:58:40 GMT -6
Not necessarily. The ending is, as Don said, an homage to Carrie. It's more effective ending on a jump scare, than it is to have a jump scare, have human Glen wake up, and then end.
Yes, I am basing it solely on the fact that Glen received a package from an unknown sender. It's not the end-all, be-all proof. But it's merely a THEORY that I came up with after making the correlation between the beginning dream and the ending of the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by smngry on Nov 9, 2014 2:00:03 GMT -6
He's saying it's obvious that Glen's dream sequence was in fact a dream because Glen woke up right? I'm not arguing against that, I'm actually saying yes, no duh, that's true. I would hope everyone would understand that what they had just watched was a dream. I'm saying, from the part where Glen was pulled out of the box, to where Claudia tells him he's pissing his pants, it is not obvious that it was a dream sequence. Do you know what? I seriously can't be bothered any more it seriously is not going to make sense to you is it? The whole point... Of Glen's dream sequence was that you didn't know it was a dream until they wanted you to... I'm pretty sure if the ending was a dream, they would have applied the same kind of reveal. I'm not bothering any more... It's like a scarecrow masturbating... You're clutching at straws with that theory |
|
, that's like not what I said at ALL dude. That was pulled out of thin air. All I meant by saying that, again, was that having a scene done through a person's POV wasn't indicative of it being a dream sequence. Nowhere do I talk about quality.
