Many fans of the show Supernatural know the godliness that is Misha Collins, but unfortunately there are many out there who do not know about the man that makes The Most Interesting Man in the World, and Captain Morgan,look pale in comparison. Truly, Misha Collins is the work of God and it has been said that the mighty man himself took a week long break just to create Misha (along with chocolate covered frozen cheesecake on a stick) After such an event, he went back to work creating the Earth and all! Aw, how could one not admire such a man! He is after all not just an actor, but he is also a baker and a candlestick maker! What little girl did not grow up wanting to marry an actor/baker/candlestick maker? (Namely the last two.) Today's post is dedicated to my dream man and why he is the man I wish to marry. First off, let's look at all the things that make him the manliest of men!
He is not afraid to get in touch with his feminine side.
He is one with nature!
He is a father of high morals and values!
He is a man of excellent taste and class!
He is a man who knows how to get his head in the game and is a true player!
He is a true fashion icon and is the ultimate male model!
He is a man who is not afraid to let it all hang out! Fan Service, anyone?
Note: What other celebrity will gladly show a picture of himself bare-naked on horse in
broad day light for all to see his glory!!!
It was awful within that 20 mile radius riots happened, children became orphans, birds fell from the sky along with airplanes,etc. To this day, Misha is considered a threat to national security.
And last, but not least he is a man of vision! Just watch this!
Wasn't it just wonderful?! A film of such magnitude deserves every possible film award known to man. He not only wrote it, but he also directed and starred in it. Oh, I know it says he only wrote it and directed it in the credits, but deep down all fans know he was also the leading role. Misha is just far too humble to admit that he is just that good of an actor.
Oh,but alas, my poor fan girl heart must sadly admit that he can never be mine. For he is married to the most womanliest of women, Victoria Vantoch.
She has turned many women into lesbians with that vegetable bouquet.
I can't say I can blame him. Who wouldn't want to marry a woman who wrote a book on having successful threesomes? (I must keep note if I'm ever going to have my way with the Winchester brothers) XD
-Sigh- If I can't have Misha, then I'll have to settle for the next best thing. I know! How about Morgan Freeman taking a bath in a casket!
What I have said on here should not be taken too seriously....mostly. Though, in all honesty Misha is in fact a hilarious man and should be followed on Twitter and many should check out his charitable organization Random Acts as well.
We write for the attention of all Hollywood producers, writers, and
most certainly directors of horror cinema over the last couple of
decades. Quite a lot of you have been responsible for a serious crime,
too-often committed against us, the paying horror audience: incompetent
and complacent film making. The growing laziness in the genre has become
more and more obvious, certainly since the turn of the millennium. We
wish to address this by taking a look at some of the major errors you
tend to make; horror from the rest of the world does not seem to make
these mistakes, and so there is no reason you should:
Anyone can make us jump
Okay
so we all love a good jump here and there; trust us, we really do! It
is a great moment when you are sat there... tense, curious, nervous...
and then BANG, the 'thing' happens and the entire screen
(hopefully completely rammed, because this movie is supposed to
incredibly epic) jumps and screams in unison. Indeed, it brings about an
immediate sense of togetherness - camaraderie, if you like, and the
relief laughter and chatter is a very pleasing sound that nobody will
ever moan about.
It should be remembered, however, that this can very quickly be overdone (I’m looking at you, The Woman In Black),
and in fact even with the jump-scares you do use, you need to be
careful that they do not become cheap or unrealistic; the last thing we
want is to be immersed in the atmosphere of a scene and for the wrong
thing make us jump.
You think this means we feel more scared, but sometimes the opposite
is actually true; a badly-judged jump-scare will certainly make us jump,
but will be followed closely by laughter, leaving us detached from both
the horror and the film.
Why does this happen? It all comes down to whether the jump works as
part of the story, and as part of a particular scene. Frank Darabont,
speaking about one particular jump-scare in his adaptation of Stephen
King’s The Mist', said that it was “the oldest trick in the book” that
got the author leaping from his seat when watching it for the first
time.
Brilliant...he thinks he made Stephen King jump; but with that quote
he does actually hit the nail on the head! We all know the jump-scare
can be used to good effect, because it is indeed “the oldest trick in
the book”: the frame is set and then something bursts into it
unexpectedly.
The thing is we can all make somebody jump, it is very
simple; jump out on them, or sneak up behind them when they are not
expecting it and say boo really loudly. That is great, and fun, but
ultimately not scary in the long-term. It should also be pointed out
that film makers with actors, make-up, lighting, set design, hopefully a
scary story to tell, and a long list of other tools to hand should not
be resorting to a simple little trick - one readily available to us at
home - before hoping that a barrage of the same trick will send us home
with a need to tell everybody how frightening the film is.
We won’t.
Hollywood, if that's all you have to offer then I can promise you we will be talking about it at home...just not in the light you may have hoped.
"Using a jump as a pay-off to a building of tension gets tired after a while - trust us"
Please understand this is not to suggest we do not like the occasional good jump. For instance, a film like Rec has
just the right amount of jumps peppered through, but the creation of
tension envelops the moments rather than providing a build up. The
result is that we find ourselves totally shaken by the superb jump, but
not off the hook, as the dread continues to build. Using a jump as a pay-off to a building of tension gets tired after a while - trust us.
Enjoy the silence
It is one of the most basic principles of cinema: the soundtrack aids
the emotional drive of a movie. It tells us when to feel certain
feelings, amongst other things. Sadness, longing, excitement, tension,
and yes, even fear! You have heard of the expression, “over-egging the
pudding” though, yes? Any film that is over-scored is annoying; but in
the realm of terror, it can very easily dispel the fear rather than
enhance it. There are some truly terrifying moments in cinema from
around the world that work because they understand that silence can be
deafening in the right circumstances.
Take A Tale Of Two Sisters for example - this contains one of the most chilling bedroom sequences in a horror film since Poltergeist;
and take note of the fact that the director does not insist on bashing
you over the head with a discordant orchestra sting because “that it
will amplify the scare", but in fact relies purely on the natural sounds
of the room. Likewise, in another scene, the atmosphere is deathly-cold
and incredibly tense, through nothing more than the excellent sound of
wind.
In silence, we are tense; we are waiting for something awful, and
that natural sound of what is around us, even if it's pure silence, can
be deafening and creepier than any piece of music you wish to add to the
scene.
Music enhances shocking moments nicely, such as the shower-stabbing in Psycho;
but if you go and watch the scene now and take note of the sound that
leads up to the moment, what do you notice? A shower running. That is
the only sound.
Silence can be your greatest weapon.
Don’t butcher the fear
When
you have all your footage, resist the urge to hack away and re-assemble
every last frame. In horror, possibly more so than any other genre,
what the camera shows us, what we see and when we see it, could never be more important.
Sometimes the way some of you chuck this stuff together can be
mind-boggling, headache-inducing; and, worst of all, not scary. The fear
can be found with the right cut at the right time, so keep away from
the editing studio...
Take a little look at The Birds. Do we really need to
mention that classic scene that is simply one woman sat on a bench while
we know the birds are gathering? We don’t need to see it; we can
already sense what's going to happen. That way, when the shot is finally
panned into view, the true horror of the situation - that is, a
climbing frame crammed with birds - confirms our fears and raises the
suspense to unbearable levels.
One of the greatest examples from overseas is most certainly Ju-On: The Grudge.
I can barely put into words the feeling of realising that creepy little
kid is peering through the banister; he’s been there for how long? Fear presents itself through the unknown and Ju-On: The Grudge makes full use of the fact.
Many of you have taken heed of this already, as shown in the recent Insidious, which, despite its silly final act, does very well in this field. Likewise with The Strangers, there is a moment in the kitchen which is very successful.
Not everyone gets it right though; Gore Verbinski’s take on The Ring features
a re-working of the most frightening sequence in the original, and
makes a complete hash of it by having no sense of pace.
Getting the cut right is a big part of the challenge.
"Get us to care about something, anything, and you will drive the fear deeper..."
Nothing scarier than the imagination
Served as an accompaniment to the previous point, this was a notion associated very heavily with The Silence of the Lambs,
a film which comes to a climax in a room where nothing can be seen. Our
heroine Clarice Starling is feeling her way around a dark room, knowing
the killer is with her, watching. This works as a nice analogy for a
principle of horror that Hitchcock, once again, understood all too well:
Often it is what you do not see that is frightening.
Remember, our minds are dark closets filled with the most messed up,
disturbing thoughts you could imagine, and we love to exaggerate, to go
overboard; usually we just need a little push. So you can show us all
the monsters, beasts, ghosts, blood and guts you like, and there will be
the time and place for that. But you are so frequently better off
giving us a just a taste of it, a hint of what it is we are to be scared about - and then leave us to fill in the blanks.
Remember, The Blair Witch Project? With no need to pander to anybody, they kept everything low-key and ridiculously simple. It could even be argued that Blair Witch is
not technically a great film - but with the marketing campaign giving
it a head-start, it became the most effective American horror of the
decade. Admittedly it hinges on whether you play along with the notion
of being lost in the woods; but at no point do we see the antagonist; at
no point do we even know what it/she is. Instead we hear the right
things at the right times, and we watch as a woman runs through the
woods, clearly having seen something that we cannot. And it is horrible!
H. P. Lovecraft has been a long-standing example of an author who
scares the pants off his readers, all of whom find it extremely
difficult to tell you why they are scared. We all wait on tender-hooks
for the possible Del Toro production of At The Mountains of Madness, which seems to be under strain; but we shall see.
Put simply, keep it simple Hollywood...let us do your work for you, because we are very good at it.
If we care, we will scare
Since the advent of torture-porn, it has been very easy for people
like Eli Roth (a reasonable film maker in his own way) and Rob Zombie (a
not so reasonable film maker), to get away with presenting the most
turgid, infantile filth, often in the form of the most ridiculous,
over-the-top, moronic splatter-fests, and pretend that they have done
something really subversive, clever and scary.
I
have news for people like this: There is no subversion, and there is
nothing clever about torture when there is no drive behind it other than
the question, “How hideous can people be?”.
We know this already. We see real life happen. As for being scary, both Eli Roth and Rob Zombie admire Audition by Takashi Miike and presumably believe that they are paying homage to a master of the genre, because hey, he did a torture scene too!
Indeed he did, and if you go take a look at that film, you will
notice it turns the genre on its head, and consequently the audience; it
is a movie that blindfolds us, spins us in fast circles, and tells us
to pin the tail on the donkey. It makes us care for the very real
characters, so that when the horror finally hits home, it hurts us - and we understand its significance.
Take a look at the Guillermo Del Toro produced The Orphanage or even his own movie Cronos. Both
are films that have sincere themes and exploit honest, human fears -
the one concerning child death and another the subject of ageing. What
does torture-porn talk about?
More often than not the best horror stems from within: our own fears
about life, death, and the tragedy that is sometimes being human. There
is only so much blood and guts being spilled for its own sake that we
can watch before we simply get bored and immune. Themes we care about
never tire. They are about us, they are ideas we must care about.
David Cronenberg is a director whose shocking horror remains a
triumph by virtue of the revolution he brought about: in 'body horror' -
horror of the flesh. Watch The Fly, his re-working of a
classic yet simple fable, and witness a master at work. Using the fly
metamorphosis as a metaphor for our fear of disease - the horror from
which we cannot escape - is a journey into deep-seated terror. To bring
that to a point where we are both mortified and heartbroken for a man
who has become useless in front of his loved one is truly a stroke of
genius.
With
horror often comes a tremendous sense of sadness, or tragedy,
emphasising the terror, driving the story home and haunting us for days
or weeks. These are the films we talk about; these are the films horror
geeks adore. Yes, we enjoy a bit of teen-hacking as much as the next
man, but even with films such as A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Last House On The Left or The Hills Have Eyes,
you are watching work from a film-maker trying to present ideas that
run deeper than the carving-up of flesh; ideas that are supposed to bury
themselves in your head and get you thinking. That is one pivotal
element of the way these films scare - empathy, sense memory - driving
fear deeper.
Stop cheating!
Even the most forgiving horror nerds are becoming frustrated with the
endless stream of remakes - often recreated almost shot-for-shot - just
because you want to make an easy buck. We are wise to the game, and as
much as you might hoodwink a lot of the naive, you are not getting one
over on horror fans; we grow tired of your minimalist imagination.
Unless there is a writer’s strike, there is no reason for it - it is
just cheating and, if we are being honest, the remake rarely has the
qualities that made the original so great, notwithstanding how well-made
it is.
And renaming it does not make the crime any more forgiveable, so please stop doing it.
Conclusion – Trust us, we have a brain
There will always be a lowest common denominator audience out there -
those who cannot keep up with cinema that pushes them to engage their
brains beyond that point required to understand the twist of a Saw movie.
But that's not a reason to water everything down, resort to cheap
tricks and simple, one-dimensional set-ups that do not stay with us for
more than five minutes after walking out of the cinema.
Horror is at its best and most terrifying when it has a brain. The
frustrating thing is that the history of cinema from the West shows that
there have been those artists who have understood the above-mentioned. So what has happened?
You can take this as an appeal to the darkest part of your hearts,
and the smartest, most twisted corners of your collective imagination
that quietly crave to be more daring: Stop playing it down for the
simple-minded audience all the time and start proving that which we
know, you know, to be true - horror can be so much more than “slash and
hack”.
"We want the real monsters, the intelligence, the tragedy, the sadness and the metaphors"
We need the horror that avoids the tired clichés, the torture porn,
the over-cutting for the short attention spans, and the predictable
jump-scares for those who think that these alone create fear. Alfred
Hitchcock did not need such tricks when making The Birds and Psycho; even with Vertigo, which is not a horror movie, Hitchcock was able to create a chilling and genuinely haunting thriller.
William Friedkin, with 1973's The Exorcist, did not need to
resort to such banal methods to create what is still regarded, despite
its relative crudity when compared with modern films, as one of the
greatest horror movies of all time.
David Cronenberg, the director who showed you how to use visual
metaphor to explore the most horrendous themes, is a man whose horror
work was heralded as brilliant simply for being high-brow, for being
about concepts of the fear within, the horror of identity, the very real
terror that comes simply with being human. He made films about ideas for the most deeply-rooted, ugly parts of us to relate to.
We want that sort of horror - it is cleansing, therapeutic and
healthy. We want the real monsters, the intelligence, the tragedy, the
sadness and the metaphors.
In short, we need the horror that runs deeper than a pint of blood
smeared across the screen, in the vain hope it will be enough to keep us
awake at night.
Yours faithfully,
The Audience
A letter that could have been written by any horror fan. Thank you Daniel Elford for wording it all so perfectly. You can see the original here.
Now for the rest of us who are nostalgic for real horror; check out Channel 4's 100 Scariest moments. It's all based off of what viewers chose. It's a bit different from what many American channels would have for 100 scariest moments because Channel 4 is a British channel. There are many predictable moments such as Jaws, Halloween, and what not, but there are some different moments on there as well.
Some highlights
#100 Oncoming Train (Ha! I just find this one so fascinating. Great to know they looked back into history for what scared people
# 94 Cat People (I'm always happy to see this movie getting credit for what it did for horror)
# 89 Atomic Fallout Public Announcement (I would have honestly put this much higher. There is nothing scarier than having the presence of horror being possibly integrated in your everyday life.)
# 80 Snow White (Oh, Disney getting us hooked on scares at such a young age.)
# 72 Alice Cooper... Just Alice Cooper (Haha! Of course.)
#71 Thriller- Micheal Jackson (Still one of the greatest music videos of all time.)
# 54 Dr. Who Theme (Best Television theme of all time)
# 39 Dr. Who and the Daleks (Nothing scarier than a robot with a plunger)
# 25 Buffy-Hush (A very scary episode from my favorite show.)
# 21 Twin Peaks (A very strange and odd show. There will never be anything quite like it.)
It's a solid list, but the rankings are off in my opinion and way too many deserving actresses are left off the list in place of ones that not many have heard about. I just find it a little odd that Lara Parker didn't make the cut as Angelique in the television show Dark Shadows.
Seriously, Lara Parker out babes most modern day scream queens.
The web has been buzzing about Burton's new film "Dark Shadows", especially about the fact that we now have Johnny Depp playing a vampire. The fangirls are all aflutter. For those that don't know Dark Shaodws was originally a television soap opera from the mid 1960s to the early 1970s. It was big back in the day and was a hit with the late comers of the baby boom generation. Just think of it as the Buffy, True Blood, Vampire Diaries, Being Human, etc. of its time, just with a better plot. The show itself has a bit of an impact on pop culture, but I'll get back on that in a latter post.
Plot Synopsis:
In the year 1752, Joshua and Naomi Collins, with young son Barnabas, set sail from Liverpool, England to start a new life in America. But even an ocean was not enough to escape the mysterious curse that has plagued their family. Two decades pass and Barnabas (Johnny Depp) has the world at his feet-or at least the town of Collinsport, Maine. The master of Collinwood Manor, Barnabas is rich, powerful and an inveterate playboy...until he makes the grave mistake of breaking the heart of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green). A witch, in every sense of the word, Angelique dooms him to a fate worse than death: turning him into a vampire, and then burying him alive. Two centuries later, Barnabas is inadvertently freed from his tomb and emerges into the very changed world of 1972. He returns to Collinwood Manor to find that his once-grand estate has fallen into ruin. The dysfunctional remnants of the Collins family have fared little better, each harboring their own dark secrets. Matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer) has called upon live-in psychiatrist, Dr. Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter), to help with her family troubles. Written by Warner Bros. Pictures
I have yet to see a trailer, but at the moment I'm feeling a bit iffy on how the film is going to turn out. There is a certain atmosphere to Dark Shadows that doesn't seem present in the preview shots. Just look at the group image at the top of this post and the new group shot, there is a definite eerie feeling to the original that the new image doesn't seem to capture. I'm not afraid to say that I'm not a fan of Burton's more current films and I'm a bit worried about how the material is going to be treated. It seems to me that the film is going to focus more on the campy comical atmosphere of the show instead of the dramatic horror aspect of it. Of course it's still too early to tell, so I'm hoping for the best.
Can't touch this.
There is much noise about Johnny Depp's look in the film and well even though I think the make-up job in the pic above is a bit wonky looking, I'm not surprised that they are trying to stay close to how Johnathan Frid (Original Barnabus Collins) looked on the show.
Those that wish to learn more about the show can check out The Dark Shadows website or the Wikipedia page.
This holiday season The Muppets made their comeback in theaters. (By the way it's pretty awesome and makes me nostalgic for The Muppets.) Anyways back in the day The Muppet show was one of the biggest things to hit television back in the 1970s. Due to its popularity there was a never ending supply of celebrities who wanted to appear on the show. My personal favorite appearances were from Alice Cooper and Vincent Price. Today we are going to take a look at those episodes. Below is Part 1 from the Alice Cooper episode.
Yeah.... Weird things tend to happen when Alice is on The Muppets.....
Below are segments from the Vincent Price special. (Sadly the complete show isn't on youtube.)
Wasn't that just grand? If only we could combine the genius of Vincent Price and Alice Cooper and have them perform together with people dressed up in weird spider costumes.....wait....
Score!
-Horrorwood Doll
P.S. (You can own the episodes with Alice Cooper,Vincent Price, and Marty Feldman for the insane price of $35 on Amazon. A sad price considering I got mine for $1 at Goodwill. -_-)
Greetings. I know now is the season for horror and this is the time most horror blogs really like to strut their stuff. I have lifes little engagments along with other projects, that keep me from making this blog a priority. -sigh- maybe one day I'll have more time to focus on this little blog, but this is sadly not the time.
Well enough of my sorry excuses. Now, is the time reflect back on our most fond memories of our youth. If you were a child of the 90s/ early 2000s then you will remember Fox Family's 13 Nights of Halloween. For 13 nights, we had films and shows that were sure to frighten and excite young and old. During, the day many films and shows were shown that were for the whole family, but once night had come it was time for films and shows, that were made for a much older/braver audience.
These past few years, I've began to notice that the 13 Nights of Halloween are no longer, well horrorfying. Every single film show is family friendly and there is nothing for the more mature audience. The channel is now ABC Family (A Disney Owned Channel), so naturally you're just not going to get the frights that Fox Family used to dish out. Another reason why, we no longer have these shows is probably due to parent complaints. Don't parents know, that being freaked out by a scary movie/ show is a part of childhood. Goodness, as a child I was scared by many things, but I enjoyed every minute of it.
The show I missed most from 13 nights of Halloween line-up was a reality show called Scariest Places on Earth. In every episode they would dump a group of people in some of the most creepiest places in the world and have them wander around, while random things were rigged to spook the unwanted visitors. This was awesome and my favorite portion of the show was when the haunted history of each destination was talked about in detail. Add, Linda Blair as the hostess and the voice of Zelda Rubinstien from Poltrageist as the narrator and you had a show, that was sure to please any horror fan.
Now, keep in mind that quite a few of the things that happened in the showe were complete BS! There were times when things were fabricated and events were often staged. The show was just so darn entertaining, that you could not just resist. Being a small thing in the early 2000s, I often has a hard time getting to sleep after and episode. Hell, I still might have a hard time getting to sleep after an episode.
My personal favorite was the episode of Poveglia-The Italian Island of the Dead. For those who have seen the show, what was yours?
I don't quite understand why I have come to like True Blood so darn much. Admittedly, the show has quite a few issues when it comes to the whole writing and character development department. The show does in fact seem to be getting better with each passing season and the more the show separates itself from the books the better off it will be. I'm terribly excited for this next upcoming season because the show seems to be putting more and more focus on how vampires are treated like some kind of race/minority in the human world. I'm also excited to see to see that Godric and Alcide are returning to the show. Season 4 will start on June 26th.
Due to the fact that there was in fact an interview with Charlaine Harris in Boulder Weekly, which is a newspaper that I'm able to pick up at my college. Pretty interesting even though I'm not really fan of the book, but it's interesting to here what opinion the author has on the show itself. I'll post some of the highlights on here, but those who are interested in the books themselves can check the rest of the article out here.
BW: Do you watch True Blood?
CH: I do. They are nice enough to send me — almost always — an early screener, so I get to see it before it’s on TV.
BW: Lucky
you! Do you find it strange to see characters that came from your head
on the television screen being developed in ways that didn’t come from
you?
CH: At
first it was, but I think I’m used to it now. It seems like every
season — we did just finish the third season — it seems like with every
season the two paths diverge a little more, so it’s really not like
watching my story so much.
And that’s OK. I knew that was going to happen. Alan [Ball, who created True Blood based
on Harris’ books] discussed that with me before he even started
filming, and actually I’m content with that, because if they were just
filming the books, that would be boring for me. This way, I don’t really
know what’s going to happen, and I find it quite exciting.
BW: I
asked for questions from Sookie Stackhouse fans on Facebook and
Twitter, and this question comes from LisaRenee1234: “Has the HBO series
made it harder for you to write these books?”
CH: Not
really. At first I was scared there was going to be a conflict, but
I’m so far ahead in the story that it really hasn’t turned out to be a
problem. They’re filming book four, and I’m writing book 12.
BW: There
are some significant differences between the series and the books. For
one, Lafayette dies early in the series, but HBO and fans loved Nelsan
Ellis’ performance, and so he’s alive in True Blood. I’m really happy about that, because I adore his character.
CH: Me too. Nelsan is just great.
He is really fabulous, and he owes his survival to his talent.
BW: Do
you think it’s easier for people to read the books and then watch the
series or watch the series and then read the books? Either way, they
develop expectations.
CH: I
don’t know, because I’ve never been in the position of just watching
the series and then trying to read the books. I did get a lot of readers
from the series, and I like to think the series got a lot of watchers
from the book. So I think from that point of view it’s been a very
successful cross pollination. And there are people who would never read
the books anyway, and likewise some of my readers just don’t watch
television, so I think it’s been as good a cross-pollination as we could
get.
BW: The
message of the books seems to be, “Be yourself, and be tolerant of
others,” with the vampire community’s struggle for acceptance seeming to
parallel the civil rights and gay rights movements. In fact, both the
books and the HBO series have a strong gay theme. Was that intentional?
CH: Sure. I mean, I’d have to pretty dumb not to realize what I was writing. That was a conscious decision.
Johnny Depp fangirls can now rejoice becaue there is now going to be a film where Johnny Depp is a vampire. If you haven't heared the new Tim Burton is directing a film adaption to the 1960s supernatural soap opera Dark Shadows. The film is set to debut May 11th, 2012 and is supposed to follow the life of the vampire Barnabus Collins. It has been known that it's been Johnny Depp's lifelong dream to play Barnabus Collins. Beleive it or not the show Dark Shadows was a huge thing for the children of th 60s and 70s. The show also left a huge impact and you'd be pretty surprise by how much it has influenced the horror genre or the world in general. (Probably, should do a post on this.) Anyways in an interview for Entertainment Weekly Johnny, states "I do remember, very vividly, practically sprinting home from school in the afternoon to see Jonathan Frid play Barnabas Collins. Even then, at that age, I knew – this has got to be weird. I loved it. I loved the show,” he says. “This soap opera with gothic vampires. I knew, ‘This is not All My Children.’”
In another article Johnny Depp talks about his approach to the vampire.
"My approach to Barnabas will be on the flaws and insecurities of a vampire,” he revealed. “Having been in a coffin for 200 years, he experiences the absurdity of a world that he’s just entered, where macramé owls hanging on a wall or fake fruits on a dish are widely accepted. From where he comes, in the 18th century, it would have been ludicrous. I want to see a vampire who’s 200 years old or more, experience television for the first time.”
The film has been cast and it's been reported that the filming process is currently happening. Here is the current known cast list. A bit dissapointing to see that a few of my favorite characters will not be included in the film,but what do you expect whenthe film is limited to a 2-hour time restraint.
Cast
Johnny Depp- Barnabus Collins (Great actor, but will probably differ from Johnathin Frid's version.) Helena Bohman Cater-Dr. Julia Hoffman (Freakin called it.) Chloe Moretz- Carolyn Stoddard Eva Green-Angelique Bouchard (Angelique is my fav. character. I'm not sure how I feel about Eva Green in the role because I haven't seen much of her work.) Michelle Pfeiffer-Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (In my opinion Michelle should have been Angelique. No one plays delightfully crazy like she does. Not to mention she actually resembles the orginal actress a bit more apperance wise.) Thomas McDonnel-Young Barnabus Collins (Not surprising since he has been described as looking like a young Johnny Depp.) Jackie Earle Halie-Willie Loomis (Perfect casting here.) Bella Heathcote-Victoria Winters Gulliver McGrath-David Collins
For those of you who watched Cartoon Network back in the 90s you might remember these commercials that aired for the Scooby movies that used to play. It's pretty interesting to see that Cartoon Network got away with refrencing a horror film like Scream, then again if I remember right back in grade school the most popular costume was in fact ghost face.
I must say that the animation in this trailer is really good, even better than the majority of animation that is used for most cartoons these days.
Random fact: Did you know Mathew Lillird who played Stuart in the first Scream is now the voice of Shaggy in Scooby-Doo cartoons?
-Horrorwood Doll
P.S. I do in fact like popcorn with my Scooby movies.
I'm honestly surprised by how many people have not heared about Elvira. I mean she is the queen of f*#@$ing Halloween. I can't exactly say that I grew up watching her movie macabre, but I did grow up watching her movies. -sigh- it seems such a shame that I did not get the chance to view Elvira's Movie Macabre first hand. Oh, but wait....
Elvira: The Mistress of the Dark is back and has proclaimed her spot on public television. You now can catch Elvira hosting the chessiest of horror films every Friday,Saturday, or Sunday night. (Check your local listings to find out when Movie Macabre is playing for you.) I can now know what it was like for the children of the 80s by watching Elvira's Movie Macabre every Saturday night at 10 p.m. :D
This is the intro for Elvira's Movie Macabre. I can honestly say that I love the theme song "What Can I do" by the Black Belles. I would love a chance to go that theatre. :D
Why not take Elvira home with you? You can now purcahse a double feature of Elvira's Movie Macabre and have your own personal Elvira movie nights when ever you want. And best thing yet none of those darn commercials. You can now take home classsics such as Frankenstein's Castle of Freaks, The Devil's Wedding Night, They Came from Beyond Space, The Werewolf of Washington, and more delightful movie classics that you will come to love and cherish forevers and forevers. Purchase these timeless classics here.
Or better yet you can catch five of the original Movie Macabre for free on youtube here. (I'm guessing it's the original show from the 80s.)
If you didn't know about Elvira before, now is your chance to get aquainted with the Mistress of the Dark. (She'll most likely get mentioned on this blog from time to time, so it's for the best that you know who we are talking about.)
Horror has a known history of being shunned at the Oscars for whatever reason. Probably because the genre is typecasted as being all about blood, guts, and over sexualized screaming teenagers. Even when an insightful horror film comes along and decides to contend with the big boys at the Oscars it still gets overlooked even though most horror films are far more intelligent then people give them credit for.
I suppose it would be interesting to take a look back at the over all history that the Horror genre has had with the Oscars. Has it really been as left out as many say?
In 1932 horror makes an appearance when the classic"Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde" picked up nominations for Best Cinematography, and Best Writing, Adaption. Surprisingly Fredric March wins Best Actor for his portrayal of the mad doctor in the film.
In 1936 Universal's crown jewel of horror classics "The Bride of Frankenstein" is nominated for Best, sound recording. (Not much, but hey at least it got a nomination for something."
In 1961 Alfred Hitchcock influential classic "Psycho" was nominated for Best Actress, Best Black/White Art Direction, Best Black/White Cinematography, and Best Director. Note: Alfred Hitchcock was nominated for best director only four times by the Oscars and he never won. The Oscars was nice enough to give him a memorial award though.
In 1963 "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane" took center stage by picking up nominations for Best Sound, Best Cinematography Black/White, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress for Bette Davis. It only won one award for Best Costume. Random Fact: Did you know that the Oscar supposedly got it's name from Bette Davis naming the award after her ex-husband , Harmon Oscar Nelson, Jr.
In 1969 the Roman Polanski was nominated for Best Adapted screenplay for "Rosemary's Baby". Ruth Gordon took home Best Supporting Actress for her role in the film.
In 1974 "The Exorcist" was nominated for Best Picture, Director, Actress, Cinematography, Editing, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, and Art Direction. It won Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Sound.
In 1975 the horror inspired comedy "Young Frankenstein" is nominated for Best Screenplay and Best Sound.
In 1976 Jaws changed things up a bit by winning Best Editing, Best Film Score, (Rightfully so) , Best Sound, but unfortunately didn't win Best Picture when it lost to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. (At least it was nominated)
In 1977 Sissy Spacek was nominated for her role as Carrie in the Stephen King adapted film "Carrie". Piper Laurie was nominated for Best Supporting Role Actress.
In 1980 James Cameron's classic "Alien" won for Best Visual Effects. It was only nominated in one other category, which was Best Art Direction. The darn thing should of had nominations such as Best Actress, Best Director, and Best Film. Darn it, Oscar's if Disney found Alien important enough to feature on its great movie ride you could have least given it proper recognition at the Oscars. -sigh- Another example of some good old horror snubbing. That same year The Amittyville Horror was nominated for best musical score.
In 1982 An American Werewolf in London won for Best Makeup.
In 1983 Poltergeist was nominated for Best Visual Effect, Best Sound Editing, and Best Score.
In 1987 "Aliens" won Best Sound Effects and Best Visual Effects. It was nominated for Best Sound,Best Original Score, Best Film Editing, Best Art Direction and Sigourney Weaver was nominated for Best Actress. (She should have won though. -_-) That same year " The Fly" wins for Best Makeup.
In 1989 the Tim Burton horrorish comedy Bettlejuice won for Best Visual Effects.
In1991 Horror makes a splash in the scene by having Kathy Bates taking home an award for Best Actress in the film "Misery"
In 1992 an amazing thing happened "The Silence of the Lambs" swept the Oscars winning Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay.It was also nominated for Best Sound and Best Editing.(Yeah, I know people bitch about it being more of a thriller than a horror, but many thriller films branch out from horror and "The Silence of the Lambs is one of them.) The Adams family was nominated for Best Costume Design that year. (The first film I ever saw by the way.)
In 1993 Francis Ford Coppola's "Dracula" won Best Costume, Sound Effects Editing, and Makeup. It was also nominated for Best Art Direction. The horror comedy "Death Becomes Her" wins Visual Effects. Oddly Alien 3 was nominated in the same category.
In 1995 Neil Jordan's "Interview with the Vampire" was nominated for Best Art Direction and Best Musical Score. Tim Burton's horror related film "Ed Wood" won Best Supporting Actor and Makeup, Kenneth Branagh's 'Frankenstein' was also nominated in that same category.
In 1996 David Fincher's "Se7en" was oddly only nominated for one Oscar Nomination, which was Best Film Editing. I honestly wonder about the Oscars sometimes. I mean if the Oscars loved 'The Silence of the Lambs" they should also love "Se7en".
In 2000 the now highly controversial M. Night Shymalan's "The Sixth Sense" earned six nominations including Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Editing. Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hallow" was nominated for Cinematography, Costumes, and won an award for Art Direction.
In 2001 Three horror films were nominated for Best Makeup these were "Shadow of the Vampire", "Hallow Man" and "The Cell".
In 2007 Guillermo Del Toro's horror fantasy "Pan's Labryinth" was nominated for Best Original Screenplay, Best Score, and Best Foreign Film. Luckily the Oscars decided that the film did in fact deserve a few awards so the film won for Best Cinematography,Art Direction, and Makeup. (We are expecting great things from you Mr. Toro. Hopefully you can bring the Academy to truly appreciate the horror genre.)
In 2008 Tim Burton's delightful musical adaption of "Sweeney Todd" won for Best Actor, Best Art Direction, and Best Costume Direction. (Homicidal barbers get to be well dressed and groomed.)
In 2010 the beautifully filmed "Black Swan" was nominated for five Best Picture, Best Director, Best Achievement in Editing, and Best Cinematography. Natalie Portman was able to take home the Best Actress award for her role in the film. Oh yeah "The Wolfman" remake was able to earn Best Makeup category.
Yeah, I suppose the Oscar snub of horror isn't too bad when you look at it. I mean at least it gets mentioned here and there, but would it kill the Academy to actually put more horror films in the top contending categories. After all chances are that horror film that is overlooked is far more likely to be remembered and beloved for years to come.
82nd Academy Award tried to appease us horror fans by doing a tribute to horror. Let us see how Successful they were.
-_- Besides the fact Twilight was involved at all I'd say the tribute was descent. There were quite a few films I wouldn't have expected in the tribute, but more variety in the films would have been nice. Eh maybe this means The Oscars will take more interest in horror; after all Black Swan was able to pick up quite a few nominations. Only time will tell.
True Blood is a show that has been often compared to Buffy as of late, but how similar are they? Which show is the superior? I took the time analyze both shows on the things that really count to see which one of these shows is the superior vampire drama.
Opening Theme:
Buffy: The music in Buffy begins with the organ music of old and is then quickly shot down by the upbeat guitar riff of today. The theme by Nerf Herder really does a great job summarizing what the show is all about. The ways of the past are no longer relevant and new era has stepped forward. The young woman who goes into the alleyway is no longer the victim; she is now the hero. The overall theme is fairly simple, the main cast of characters have clips shown from past and the current seasons. The opening has a ton of energy and is fast paced to reflect the current generation.The music is clearly what made the intro so memorable.
True Blood: I have to admit True Blood's theme makes me a tad bit uncomfortable and at first I didn't even like it. The more I had a chance to view the opening I began to really appreciate the imagery and the moody music by Jace Everett. The opening theme shows off religious imagery along with imagery of human sexuality. The point of showing off these two contradictory themes is to show how excessive religious vigor and human sexual energy and lead to corruption in the human soul. The opening sequence in True Blood is art in its own right and manages to still stay relevant to the show.
Victor: True Blood
Main Character:
Buffy: "Into every generation a Slayer is born: one girl in all the world, a chosen one. She alone will wield the strength and skill to fight the vampires, demons, and the forces of darkness; to stop the spread of their evil and the swell of their numbers. She is the Slayer." It just so happens that this slayer happens to be a blond valley girl cheerleader named Buffy. (Odd name, right?) It just so happens that Buffy has been given the power and ability to protect the world from the forces of evil. From the sound of it our main heroine doesn't look to promising, but you'd be wrong. Joss Whedon had to rebuild his creation after the 1992 film with the same name destroyed the vision he was trying to create. She was ahead of her time when it came to having strongly written heroines for television. Buffy was strong, but she could also be vulnerable and like many other young adults was unsure about the world around her. Like many many of the characters on the show Buffy grew as a person and matured. I don't think many forms of media at the time had a character quite like Buffy and because of that she has become a real pop icon.
True Blood: Sookie is a waitress in Bon Temps and has the gift of telepathy. So a vampire walks into a bar. (Sounds like the beginning of a joke doesn't it?) Sookie has never met a vampire before and finds out that she is unable to read his mind and thus the plot is put into motion after this single meeting. Sookie i a sweet southern girl, who everyone seems to love. Hell, I even like her and find her character endearing like everyone else. During the first season she is fairly well developed and I honestly have to give the girl props for being proactive in life and danger situations without the aid of super strength and agility. However Sookie's character seems to get pushed to the side during the second season and seems to no longer develop. It really is sad to see that the main character is no longer the shows main interest and any character development quickly begins to diminish.
Victor: Buffy (True Blood wins in the odd name category. Sookie is just so much fun to say.)
Supporting Cast:
Buffy: There is quite a range of characters on Buffy and everyone has their favorite. The characters in Buffy might be equipped with supernatural abilities, but they seem like real people. One of the strongest aspects to Buffy is the character development. The characters on the show evolve and change over time. The character you see in the first season is not the character you see in sixth season. This character development is never forced and makes sense as the story goes on. The character investment on Buffy really pays off because the viewer comes to really know the character and really cares about what happens to them.
True Blood: True Blood also has a cast of characters and are equally as likable. The problem with True Blood is that the majority of True Blood's characters fail to progress and evolve like the characters of Buffy. More often than not a character on the show is used for a plot device and nothing else. It becomes really hard for the viewer to care about a character when the other characters on the show barley blink an eye when someone they love dies.
Victor: Buffy
Humor:
Buffy: Lets face it Buffy is a pretty funny show. The reason why Buffy is so beloved is because it never took it self too seriously and was able to convey any message the show had in a fun manner. The show was often quite serious, but there were probably more humorous moments in one episode of Buffy than one episode of True Blood. At times the show can be pretty campy, but it's intentional and the viewer is laughing with the show and not at it.
True Blood: Much of the humor seen in True Blood is mostly due to actors overacting (Namely Stephen Moyor) words and sentences that normally wouldn't be funny are now down right hilarious. The humor in the show is a bit spaced out and in the end tries to put up a more seasoned mature front. The show can be quite humorous at times,but the humor depends on the more comic relief characters, while each character in Buffy shared the comic relief responsibility.
Victor: Buffy
Vampires: Buffy: The vampires in Buffy are apparently so bad that a teen girl must be called upon to fight them. In my honest opinion the vamps in Buffy never seemed to be all that threatening especially the normal everyday vamps. I have a problem being intimidated by something that can't even regularly bathe. The vamps on the show don't seem to be very well organized and figure out the fact that if they joined together a slayer would be little to no problem at all. They also don't have a very impressive kill count and seem to be quite careless when it comes to their actions.
True Blood: The strongest aspect of True Blood is having vampires being a treated as a race separate from humans. I love their whole vampire rights movement and I think the show accurately portrays what would happen if vampires came out of the coffin and admitted to the world that they actually exist. The world would flip its shit that is what wold happen. Some people would love vamp while other would come to tolerate them. There is of course the humans who would right out fear the creatures and them to be an abomination to god. Those who fear them have a right to be because the vamps on True Blood can start some shit up. The vamps on the show are organized and can honestly cause a lot of harm to the world around them. The vamps on True Blood are truly terrifying.
Victor: True Blood (I would honestly love to see how Buffy could hold out against a True Blood vamp.)
World:
Buffy: The world of Buffy is filled with vamps, witches, werewolves, demons and other supernatural folk. They all seem to be drawn to supernatural hot spots such as Sunnydale and are supposed to keep a low profile. I however find it hard to believe that the majority of the human race is not aware with what is going on around them. The supernatural beings on Buffy do a terrible job of keeping their existence a secret. I understand that there are forces trying to keep things under wraps, but they can only do so much. Also the world seems to be facing an apocalypse every Sunday. What did the planet do when Buffy wasn't around?
True Blood: I mentioned before that the vampires on True Blood are organized. They have a set of rules to protect themselves and to keep attention off of them. Like humans they have a source of authority and when certain rules are broken the correct actions take place. The supernatural beings on True Blood also seem to be just as low key as the vamps and try their best to keep their identity. The supernatural beings on True Blood are much more believable, but they are also more dangerous. The world also seems to not to be also facing a complete apocalypse every week.
Victor: True Blood
Plot/Theme:
Buffy: Buffy is a show known for its memorable storylines and complex themes. At face value Buffy at times seems to be a supernatural show with a lot of fluff, but it's quite the opposite actually. I don't think any show dealt with the human condition the way Buffy did. Joss Whedon decided to make a teen show that took many of the issues teens face and turn them into an allegory of some kind. The series of course progressed over time and the issues that only affect teens began to become a thing of the past. The show evolved and grew along with its audience and began to focus on issues that have to do with human beings in general. Joss Wheadon was brilliant when it came to creating story arcs. There were many times when a plot point was referenced two seasons prior to its debut. The show is still remembered to this day for being innovative and cutting edge for the time. To fully understand the show you honestly have to watch it. (Just ask and I will direct you to some terrific episodes.)
True Blood: True Blood is a show that has its fair share of admirable storytelling however the plot seems to be pushed to the background and the show's only focus at times is to just pair off characters just so they can sex each other up. The series can be brilliant at times when it's dealing with the vampire rights conflict or tangoing with a supernatural beings whose only goal is to meet her god. The majority of flaws seen on the series mostly has to do with the source material and only seems to really shine when the writers of the show decide to do their own thing. Once the series decides to do away with following the story arcs of the books; the better off the show will be.
Victor: Buffy
The Count
Buffy: 4
True Blood: 3
Legacy: True Blood is a good show in its own right, but Buffy is still the superior show even after all these years. The show was able to deal with complex themes and create memorable characters.The show was often times lighthearted, but it never talked down to its audience and wasn't afraid to bring up issues that were often overlooked by television at the time. The lasting impact of Buffy is enormous and the popularity of the show has launched the Buffyverse. Buffy has been used in college courses across the country in psychology, women studies classes, etc. The show has given birth to a spin off series called Angel and has produced several spin offs in other medians. The legacy of Buffy is continued on in comic form and she might see a new film in the future. The old girl has even been mentioned once or twice in the show True Blood. Buffy has proven time and time again that she is going no where and she will be going on strong for many years to come putting fear in the undead hearts of vampires everywhere.
Dexter is a show that I'v been watching for awhile now, but for the longest time it just flew past my radar. There is just something so intruiging about a serial killer who kills other serial killers. I finally had the chance to view the show from season 1 to season 4 and all I can say is that the show is brilliant. I honestly love it and personally think that it is one of the best shows to air the waves of television.
Quick Synopsis: "A likable Miami police forensics expert moonlights as a serial killer of criminals whom he believes have escaped justice."
There is quite a lot of blood on the show. ( Those of you who enjoy films like Saw and Hostel should be jumping for joy) Due to the fact the show often potrays murder in a realistic manner; I've had no choice but to turn my head away from the screen due to some of the more grotesque moments.
(I'm a wimp like that. -_-)
Dexter and his eternal psychological struggle is where the show really shines. He really is an interesting character and it's his complex character that keeps the viewers wanting more. Dexter has a code that his father taught him and that is to never kill an innocent human being. Since Dexter has an eternal need to kill the code his father ,Harry taught him is what has saved Dexter from being caught by the authorities.
The first season of Dexter was adapted from a novel by Jeff Lindsay. The series of books and the show differ greatly after their first installment.
The show has been nominated for many awards including the Golden Globes, Emmys and the Scream Awards.
Check out the first episode on YouTube
(Not for squemish viewers and those underaged definantly need parental guidence)
If you have any spare time play the Dexter detective investigation interactive video youtube game.
Those of you who are fans of CSI, Law & Order, Bones, Without a Trace and those other crime dramas should adore this show. The scary thing about this show is that it has inspired several individuals to go out and copy certain actions that Dexter performs. The show is often quite gorey and brutal at times, but this show can not make an individual do some of the things that are depicted on the show. In my honest opinion this show should never be shown to someone who is currently of unstable mind or anyone under a mature age. (In other words do not show this show to a nine year old. I don't care how mature you think they are a show of this nature is not good for them.)
You can catch the show on Shotime even though it is currently on it's off season, but luckily the show has been renued for its 6th season.
"Needless to say I have some unusual habits, yet all these socially acceptable people can't wait to pick up hammers and smash their food to bits. Normal people are so hostile. " -Dexter
