Re-Take The Cabin

[WanderingFool]

There is, of course, a certain fiendishly delightful symmetry to this particular film to come out telling this particular story in the same timeframe as the remarkably enduring "Re-Take Mass Effect" debacle; which finds game developer Bioware scrambling to placate their infuriated Elder Gods, whose fury at their subjects' latest offering failing to meet their exacting specifications has been shaking the earth beneath their Cabins for almost a month now. As Cabin In The Woods' metaphor was revealed to me at my first screening weeks ago, the plight of Bioware was the first thing that popped into my head. I wonder how many of their employees have seen the movie and if they, like me, found themselves oddly just as sympathetic to the hapless Facility employees as to the Cabin victims?

Oh for Fuck sake...

I think the whole thing about ME3 had finally died down (I havent seen any ME3 threads in the most viewed or most commented threads in almost a week. And now you bring it back up. Is Retake Mass Effect going to be The Expendables and Scott Pilgrim all over again?

 

[The Grim Ace]

If I'm given the perfect 3-course meal, but the dessert is a literal pile of shit, I'm not going to eat the shit and be happy with the amazing meal I just ate. I'm going to complain about the shit. I'm going to make a fuss. I'm going to demand my money back, and then never eat at that restaurant again. But no, I'm being entitled and should just shut up and eat it, right?

That is the best metaphor for Retake that I've seen. It's a damn sad state of affairs that we're fed shit for desert so often and that demanding a fitting desert after such a satisfying meal is now 'entitlement.' Demanding consistency and artistic integrity (like being able to justify the ending) is not too much to ask.

[small]Though, seriously, the FTC suit is a bit much...[/small]

Or you could just, I dunno. Not eat the shit dessert. Desserts tend to be an optional thing to begin with, and we could all do with a few less empty calories.

But you won't will you? It's not that you won't eat there ever again. You'll ***** and ***** and ***** for well over a month. You'll bring it up multiple times in forums that already have people bitching about the shit dessert and completely overtake the front page.

Or you could spend that time making a metaphor that doesn't suck so very hard.

Alright, no metaphor: should artists be held accountable by their audience?

You might have liked the ending but a sizeable amount of people agree that the ending is completely unsatisfactory; like if Super Mario Bros. 3 turned into ET for the Atari for the last ten minutes of gameplay. The artists labored, they promised a satisfying ending, and the audience has not been satisfied. There is nothing wrong with accountability. Yes, there are extremists but they are not the body of the Retake movement. It's a group of consumers that are holding a group of artists for the product they shipped.

 

[Murmillos]

it's more like the other way around here. People are not mad because of the quote, people are mad because they think the ending is bad. I've already mentioned, in great detail, how this relates to the quote from Casey Hudson, apparently you ignored it.

There are many reasons why people mad; each one alone isn't enough to warrant a 'retake' group, but together they show the callousness of BioWares part:
1) Ending not as promised by Lead Developer and EA Managers even after the game had gone into certification. These had been the very same, very specific promises since the production of ME1 (even before ME1 was launched on the 360). People always assumed this was a lofty goal and had expected BioWare/EA to recant during the final development of ME3, but they held onto to that tag line until the very end. Had BioWare/EA not made those very specific promises about the ending, well within the development cycle that they knew those statements would be lies; half of our validation of proof would be dust.

2) The ending, by most accounts of the mast majority who had publicly voiced their opinion, finds the ending does not match the theme, narrative or coherence of the previous 120 hours of game play. The last minute change after being hit by the beam fundamentally ignores its own self and openly insults anybody who took a passing interest in the theme and narrative of the Mass Effect universe. If the Mass Effect was nothing more then a poorly made third person shoot with "too much dialog" then the ending may not have made much of a difference to get worked up over. Its weird, but what ever.. bad ending.. on with gaming. But to anybody who took the time to dig into the history, science, themes, narrative, emotions and context; the ending is flagrantly insulting. Most people in this 'retake' movement would rather have had a bad unoriginal typical cliché ending that still fits the narrative of the game, rather then a last second narrative twist based off a barely used cliché ending that throws away the entire structure of the plot.


Both are bad on their own, but together show irrefutable reasons why gamers may have a valid complaint on their hands.

Look, as most people who have a problem with ME3 end, understands and is willing to accept that the ending doesn't have to be an ending that makes us "happy", but it has to be an ending that we can accept and understand. I don't have to like an ending, but I have to 'understand' the context for which is frames from.

I can't respect the ME3 ending in any capacity, but ME3 ending doesn't respect me in any capacity, a view shared by many many others.


Also, there are no adept metaphors to use, as games are both art and product. We don't have to eat at a specific place of business, but if that restaurant no longer makes food that people find edible, people may stop going there which may affect their ability to do future business. If a painter isn't able to keep specific promises about paintings, word will get out that this painter doesn't keep set promises, people may stop buying their future paintings to which may affect their ability to earn a living.

We really like this restaurant/painter. We have really enjoyed their product/art in the past, and we wish to continue to enjoy more of it in the future; that is why we feel we are entitled to tell said restaurant/painter that we didn't like their current meal/painting and may withhold future business if they don't correct the features we dislike.

Edit: and this is also why we feel entitled that we expect the restaurant/painter to correct their current work, because it does not live up to the expectations that they themselves set. Gamers didn't put these "exceptions" out there, BioWare did it themselves; and god forbid anybody tells us we are wrong because we expect them that they should.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

it's more like the other way around here. People are not mad because of the quote, people are mad because they think the ending is bad. I've already mentioned, in great detail, how this relates to the quote from Casey Hudson, apparently you ignored it.

There are many reasons why people mad; each one alone isn't enough to warrant a 'retake' group, but together they show the callousness of BioWares part:
1) Ending not as promised by Lead Developer and EA Managers even after the game had gone into certification. These had been the very same, very specific promises since the production of ME1 (even before ME1 was launched on the 360). People always assumed this was a lofty goal and had expected BioWare/EA to recant during the final development of ME3, but they held onto to that tag line until the very end. Had BioWare/EA not made those very specific promises about the ending, well within the development cycle that they knew those statements would be lies; half of our validation of proof would be dust.

2) The ending, by most accounts of the mast majority who had publicly voiced their opinion, finds the ending does not match the theme, narrative or coherence of the previous 120 hours of game play. The last minute change after being hit by the beam fundamentally ignores its own self and openly insults anybody who took a passing interest in the theme and narrative of the Mass Effect universe. If the Mass Effect was nothing more then a poorly made third person shoot with "too much dialog" then the ending may not have made much of a difference to get worked up over. Its weird, but what ever.. bad ending.. on with gaming. But to anybody who took the time to dig into the history, science, themes, narrative, emotions and context; the ending is flagrantly insulting. Most people in this 'retake' movement would rather have had a bad unoriginal typical cliché ending that still fits the narrative of the game, rather then a last second narrative twist based off a barely used cliché ending that throws away the entire structure of the plot.


Both are bad on their own, but together show irrefutable reasons why gamers may have a valid complaint on their hands.

Look, as most people who have a problem with ME3 end, understands and is willing to accept that the ending doesn't have to be an ending that makes us "happy", but it has to be an ending that we can accept and understand. I don't have to like an ending, but I have to 'understand' the context for which is frames from.

I can't respect the ME3 ending in any capacity, but ME3 ending doesn't respect me in any capacity, a view shared by many many others.


Also, there are no adept metaphors to use, as games are both art and product. We don't have to eat at a specific place of business, but if that restaurant no longer makes food that people find edible, people may stop going there which may affect their ability to do future business. If a painter isn't able to keep specific promises about paintings, word will get out that this painter doesn't keep set promises, people may stop buying their future paintings to which may affect their ability to earn a living.

We really like this restaurant/painter. We have really enjoyed their product/art in the past, and we wish to continue to enjoy more of it in the future; that is why we feel we are entitled to tell said restaurant/painter that we didn't like their current meal/painting and may withhold future business if they don't correct the features we dislike.

Edit: and this is also why we feel entitled that we expect the restaurant/painter to correct their current work, because it does not live up to the expectations that they themselves set. Gamers didn't put these "exceptions" out there, BioWare did it themselves; and god forbid anybody tells us we are wrong because we expect them that they should.

good god...if he refutes you, then he must be trolling. seriously you can PICK your reason for wanting the ending to change, because there are so many things about it that are off, not to mention all added up it is an extremely nasty situation, i do not see how someone could possibly call someone entitled if they actually did some research on it (not to mention everyone is entitled, it is 60 dollars you spent on something, it's not something you watched on tv or saw while walking down the street.)

 

[irishda]

God, if there's one things critics love, it's self-aware, meta bullshit respective to their mediums. Fuck I hate that stuff.

I appreciate movies that work for a message, but as one of the contributors pointed out:

I haven't seen so many people miss the point of a movie since Moulin Rouge. But it also appeals to my inner sense of Smug to watch it play out. There are basically three groups of people here:

Group A: The people who, in the process of their complaining, are inadvertently demonstrating the criticisms this movie levies at them.

Group B: The people who enjoy the movie at face value, unaware of the subtext. It's making fun of you, laughing at not with you, and you're laughing right along without realizing it.

Group C: The people who watch groups A and B with a certain sense of smug (or maybe sadistic) satisfaction, the way a young boy might watch ants roast under a magnifying lens... only superficially realizing that they're enjoying the same "guilty pleasures" they accuse the "lesser" groups of being slave to.

No one is safe, and that's what makes the whole thing great!

this movie isn't FOR anyone that isn't a horror movie director who can empathize with the struggles of the controllers. Those who don't care enough about the horror genre to recognize the tropes would really just find this movie confusing and pretty ridiculous. And when the horror genre inevitably changes its tropes, these points will be lost and Cabin in the Woods will just remain as a movie for buffs familiar enough with horror movie history to recognize what it's going for.

That's the inherent problem with meta works. The constantly shifting nature of any media means any sort of self-reflective work won't endure.

 

[RTK1576]

I just went to see the film and enjoyed it greatly. Funny thing is, I didn't really catch the "fans are the Elder Gods" thing, because, let's be frank, there are those of us who appreciate horror that DOESN'T follow the formula. But it does make the meta make sense.

However, that's where we stop the agreement.

1) Sucker Punch. Bob, I know you think this film is misunderstood. But... no, just no. I will merely list this video as my argument as to why this film fails.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/fbv/bmbe/34445-bad-movie-beatdown-sucker-punch

And if the point of that movie is to make us feel complicit in these girls' fates... I'm sorry, but not only does it fail, but the whole idea is stupid.

2) Again with the Mass Effect business, Bob. I would have liked for you to have the sense to move on, like I was trying to. Strike two, Bob.

Strike three will be when Bioware's "extended ending" comes out and you get to belittle the other side of the debate all over again.

 

[Dastardly]

this movie isn't FOR anyone that isn't a horror movie director who can empathize with the struggles of the controllers. Those who don't care enough about the horror genre to recognize the tropes would really just find this movie confusing and pretty ridiculous. And when the horror genre inevitably changes its tropes, these points will be lost and Cabin in the Woods will just remain as a movie for buffs familiar enough with horror movie history to recognize what it's going for.

That's the inherent problem with meta works. The constantly shifting nature of any media means any sort of self-reflective work won't endure.

And I don't think that's a bad thing. I mean, people who don't speak Polish are probably baffled by movies in Polish with no subtitles that are dialogue-heavy, but that doesn't mean they have no value.

 

[maninahat]

It's kind of an interesting idea, though I can sympathise with those disgruntled audience members. You sit down to watch what you expected to be a horror movie, but then it stops ten minutes in and shouts "haha, this is not a horror movie at all! Its now a rom com! Cheating the audience is clever, and to show exactly how clever it is, we'll feature an audience surrogate in the story, who's just as annoyed by the switch up as you are!" I wouldn't blame audiences if they were unimpressed by that.

As for myself, every review has made it clear that it isn't going to be a standard horror movie, so I won't feel deceived. I was unimpressed when Sucker Punch tried that sort of switcheroo:

[Snyder's brain] "I know, I'll make the crass girl and gun flick, but I'll use a framing device which criticises crass girl and gun flicks. Brilliant! Looks like I can have my cake and eat it."

No you can't. You can however make a boring action film with a self-defeating message. Don't think it is clever to cheat the audience (it isn't), and don't expect everyone in the audience to enjoy a movie's meta-fictional, post-modernist wankery.

Inglorious Basterds gets away with it though. Probably, because Tarantino wasn't attempting some sort of smug satire of punters (despite burning down a theatre full of them).

 

[keserak]

Metalix Knightmare: You're wearing plaid.
Me: Given your behavior, it's more likely you're wearing plaid since the attitude you're portraying isn't civil.
Metalix Knightmare: [commits blatantly uncivil behavior after being told literally nothing worse than what he himself said and gets modded]

See Bob? This is what I'm talking about. Just like the audience you decry, you're in an area where your supporters on this point will do something obnoxious, have it pointed out, and then claim victimhood and escalate said obnoxiousness. Retreat from this.

You're aware you're talking about Joss Whedon here right? I mean I could understand saying this about Michael Bay or something but Whedon constantly tries to do new things and constantly gets screwed by studios and audiences. I mean look at Firefly, aired out of order ruining the plot just because the original pilot was too different. Dollhouse, shit-canned (which led to a really rushed ending that showed he had some interesting ideas for where the show was going. The Buffy movie. Changed by the studio to make it more 90's friendly. If there's one thing you have to admit about Whedon (and he does have his flaws, like blaming everyone but himself when something he makes is bad) he at least makes what he wants to make and doesn't just phone it in for a quick buck. This is the guy who made Dr. Horrible's sing-along blog and then just put it online free to watch just to prove a point and then, when it was eventually released to buy, the money went straight to pay cast, crew and other expenses.

You're proving my point. I know he's screwed by studios. Not that I appreciate even half of what he's done -- Dr. Horrible is good, but I never liked Buffy and what he did to the Aliens franchise should earn him a spot in one of the Inner Circles of Hell -- but, again, the point is, if he wants to make art, he has a shot at it. So he doesn't make money when he does. So fucking what. Cry me a goddamn river. There are millions of creative persons who have no money and no chance to make money with their art. Humanity is run by soulless, monstrous empires and they have created a culture that ruthlessly slaps down talent while uplifting hacks and ass-kissers and, in an almost torturously backhanded exception, elevating the occasionally skilled artist. He made it big. Good for him. Now he can shut the fuck up.

Because when he makes Dr. Horrible and makes nothing from it, he's still making rent. He's still has the power on. He has the best health care on Earth and his family wants for nothing. I'm not begrudging him that. He may even rely on his good fortune to maximize the quality of his work, and since Dr. Horrible was so extroardinarily good (not as good as The Forth Installment That Should Not Be Named Was Bad, but nothing will be that inversely good until Science can combine orgasms with white chocolate ice cream) I gotta go further and say more power to him.

But if he's going to whine that making all that dirty dirty money forces him to do dirty dirty things while the rest of us would literally kill to make even a fraction of money (literally -- do you think anyone would join the military if it didn't pay?), then Whedon needs to go to his Extremely Rich refrigerator, get some Extremely Rich milk, and have himself a nice big bowl of shut the fuck up.

P.S. -- noting, once again, that this point does not mean that I'm claiming Cabin In the Woods is bad. Not saying that.

 

[Fapmaster5000]

I love the way this thread is evolving. "interesting thread. But you insulted me!" Next paragraph "Mass Effect 3 I HAS FURY!"

Bob didn't insult you. This movie was not aimed specifically to spoof the ME3 debate - the game didn't exist when the movie was created. But the narrative fit the debate like a glove. So it was just an odd coincidence that the movie was released on the heels of this big fan protest when a company decided to step away from established formula. The point is completely lost on some people I guess.

Someone in this thread is definitely failing to understand, I'll grant you that. Please go up the thread and read my post about "bad versus broken" to get where most (civilized) people stand on the ending. Yes, there are twats. There always are. Keserak addresses that point in the post directly above yours.

Anyway, once you've read those points, then come back. There is a massive difference here, and it's not based around "like/don't like".

I read your post. All you managed to do was make my point for me.

Then you're thicker than the average bear. There is a definite difference between "bad" and "broken". Further, Bioware is not compelled to fix the ending, but they would be in a lot better place if they did. Further still, there is virtually nothing between Cabin and ME3 that is actually relevant for direct comparison, beyond surface similarities. An ocean and an oil spill share a lot of properties, but they're two completely different beasts.