Re-Take The Cabin

[mikerdna]

I had a different take and an alternative ending.

I think the employees were totally believable in their belief that they were keeping evil forces chained up by doing evil things to placate them, all for the greater good of the world.

However, this assume that "the man upstairs" on the red phone, presumably God, permits and is involved in these experiments, in order to keep his arch-rival in submission for the greater benefit of humanity. Plausible, if you accept a less than perfect God, and many do. You can have a good/evil polarity with ; or a order/chaos polarity with character flaws.

ALTERNATIVE ENDING:

HOWEVER, I had hoped that rather than the (presumably evil) elder gods in the bottom of the pit, I had been hoping that all the GOOD gods (greek, roman, American indian, Jesus, Ahura Mazda, you name it) were actually in the pit, and some trickster/and/or/god of chaos (not evil) was in charge (i.e. "man upstairs") and using the ritual sacrifices of the Cabin to taint the good gods, de-power them, and elsewhere to retain supremacy over the world by locking up his competition.

The employees would be well-meaning dupes, tricked into keeping the good guys locked up, and only by a perfect performance of mankind (remember all those failed experiments?) could the good gods be released, which is what was happening (like hitting the lottery, so surprised was everyone). As the experiments failed due to the better half of humanity overcoming evil, the rumblings increased, the good gods were awakening and breaking out of their chains. Finally, the good girl didn't kill the funny guy to save herself. In the alternative last scene, a flood of angels, gods in toga, Thor with his hammer, etc come out and thank the two survivors and kick some evil/chaos bad-ass and bring a new era of peace and magic to the world.

What do you think?

 

[mikerdna]

Well, I'm glad people at least talking about ME3 so much. Could we get back to the movie?

 

[Dr.Nick]

Oh look Movie Bob harassing the Retake Mass Effect movement again. Surprise surprise.

 

[Raesvelg]

It doesn't really deserve to be called a "movement", let's be honest here. It's a video game. It's not people trying to cure cancer, or depose a dictator, or anything that actually matters.

It's people complaining that they didn't like the last five minutes of a video game.

 

[JoelChenFA]

what he did to the Aliens franchise should earn him a spot in one of the Inner Circles of Hell

Really do some research on these things before making such ridiculous claims. Whedon didn't do anything to the Aliens franchise, that was all the studios and the director.

Know what you're talking about before posting on the web. And, while you're at it, recognize that you're not a telepath and, as such, can't actually read the mind of someone whose post you've read. If you were less presumptuous and self-indulgent in these matters before posting, you'd recognize that just because the director "ruined" Whedon's "vision" doesn't mean that Whedon's take on the movie was any good. Here's a hint: it wasn't. His script was shit. The director "ruined" what began as an awful piece of crap, giving Whedon plausable deniability. If he'd have made Whedon happy, the film would still be shit.

By your criteria no movies that are a statement about life for the lower classes can exist because the people making t have money so should shut the fuck up, regardless of what they went through to get there.

How the hell is Cabin In the Woods "a statement about life for the lower classes"? And while we're at it, how am I telling moviemakers not to make that?

You've just started making things up.

Cabin In the Woods implicitly says "We, the movie makers, are sick of making bad media for terrible audiences."

Bob repeats that implication, declaring it nearly explicit.

I accept Bob's premise and point out a serious flaw -- that the movie-makers don't have a damn thing worth complaining about.

You claim that I said that movie makers therefore can't make "a statement about life for the lower classes" -- something I didn't say. Ever. Didn't even come close to that. The movie makers weren't even talking about the lower classes, they were talking about a narrow group of rich people, namely themselves. They were saying that they have to make schlock and blaming the audience of schlock for said schlock -- an audience that isn't entirely "lower class" and doesn't even come close to including all of the "lower classes," no matter how you're defining them.

What the hell are you going on about?

I'm not talking about making money. I'm talking about getting to make the art and tell the stories that you want to, which is where he constantly gets screwed.

Bullshit. He only gets screwed when he tries to make a movie or show AND, simultaneously, tries to make unseemly amounts of money at it. Careful now, you've misstated my point entirely and forgotten the only relevant bit. You aren't talking about money, but I am, and just because you'd like to forget it doesn't mean you can put words in my mouth. Money IS the point. He doesn't get complete creative control when the studios are paying him because it's the studios' film. Is that fair? Well, back up: is it fair that he's a gajillionaire? Fuck no. And that injustice is so gross, so overwhelmingly horrible, that his little pity party doesn't mean shit in comparison.

And, once again, he can make all the art he wants, he can even make money at it (something his not-famous peers can't even always do, even if they pay their dues and deserve to!), he just can't rake in millions.

So he's being a little *****.

The Geek God that wanted more? Maybe the Giant Hand at the end was his?

 

[mikerdna]

If you don't like the movie or game ending, get out the camera and make your own, and pretend the original didn't exist. Don't let reality get the last word!

 

[keserak]

Let's take a look at this here argument.

Me: So, I'm going to assume that you haven't read Joss Whedon's draft? (I even go out and point that it's not gold, but not even close to the disaster the movie was)

-- aaaaaaand that's a lie. Look, it's upthread. I made it very clear that the script stank on ice regardless of the director's interpretation AND pointed out you were acting like an arrogant jerk for assuming I haven't read the script -- which you're still doing.

Is it possible for you to put your own head any further up your excretory canal?

, I follow that up with a quote from the author, describing the difficulties of getting the draft to the screen when everything was going against you.

It's all subjective!

Bullshit. I didn't say "it was all subjective," I said your claims that the script was "good" was completely fact-free -- which is why you're strawmanning and lying here.

If you have read Whedon's draft, I'd ask what was so awful about it. But since you clearly haven't --

-- aaaaaaand that's a lie. You know at this point you said something you shouldn't have, that I hadn't read the draft, without evidence, and now you're doubling down.

I have no idea why your ego is so fragile that you can't admit that you had no cause to say what I had or hadn't read, but hey, if the internet is cheaper than therapy, I guess this is how it has to be.

Bit of advice: basing your well-being on the quality of Whedon's work is hardly a healthy mental outlook. Good luck with that.