|
Post by garmonbozia on Oct 12, 2016 22:31:59 GMT -5
I'm kind of surprised by a lot of the reactions I'm seeing to Ravager. That said, I do have to confess some amount of disappointment on my first viewing, due to many of the same elements others are critiquing, mainly the sub-par CG and greenscreen work and the rough, hand-held digital look of the film itself. I think a lot of these criticisms would've been minimized if this was released as a series of short webisodes as originally planned. I would have been much more impressed in that format. But we have to be realistic, there was no way this was ever going to be shot on film. These days, very few films are. It's extremely expensive, and this was already obviously made on a shoestring budget with a very small team. Though Coscarelli didn't direct, his hand in the script and the feel of the story is obvious to me. It FEELS like the Phantasm world. The actors bring their all. In particular, Reggie and Michael give some of their best performances ever here. And Angus is as great as ever. The film is obviously a labor of love. And personally, I loved the script and the unifying storyline of Reggie potentially imagining everything due to dementia. Why does this storyline bother everyone so much? The possibility that everything is a dream has been around since the first film! Everything was in Mike's head, unless it wasn't. In Ravager, everything is in Reggie's head, unless it's not. It doesn't negate the whole series, it just riffs off of what we already knew, that there are infinite parallel dimensions, and infinite ways of seeing things. It fits in well with the first Phantasm in that regard. And it's a neat thematic parallel with Bubba Hotep as well (am I crazy or did I even hear the musical theme from Bubba in some of the Reggie nursing home scenes?) I especially love that the first time we see the tall man is as Jebediah Morningside in a post civil war hospital in a nod to the time travel aspect of Oblivion.
I actually loved the ending we were give in part 4. Of course, I was curious what happened after Reggie went through the space gate, but more than that, I appreciated the way the ambiguity and subtlety of what we got allowed for so many different interpretations. Was the entire series just in young Mike's imagination and he was finally accepting the inevitability of death (in Reggie's ice cream truck literally, and on the desert floor figuratively)? Or were we being shown an alternate version of the original Phantasm timeline? Were Reggie and Mike altering the original timeline? Were there infinite timelines? Would their battle with the tall man just continue forever through infinite loops in infinite universes? I loved that (non)ending, and it is essentially unchanged by Ravager in my opinion. In one universe, it's all in young Mike's head. In one universe, it's all in the tall man's head. In one universe, it's all in Reggie's head. In one universe, it's all really happening. It's always been happening. Ravager doesn't definitively say that it was all due to Reggie's dementia anymore than the original Phantasm definitively says that it was all due to Mike's imagination. It's very faithful to the spirit of the series in that way. You can see it any way you want to. Is there any way a series about the multiverse can end other than in multiple choice? So, part 4 feels like a great ending to me on its own, but I feel like, Part 5 is a nice epilogue. A nice, very cheaply made and rough-looking epilogue haha. If you ever wanted to know what happened to Reggie after he went through the space gate at the end of 4, well Ravager is that story. Part 4 is Mike's ending, and part 5 is Reggie's ending. Like everyone else, I do wish we could have had a reunion between Reggie and Rocky but I enjoyed her cameo nonetheless, and it was a great ending to have the whole crew back together to continue the good fight against the tall man through infinity.
I don't really understand people complaining about how there were no "answers" or "conclusions." I respect that viewpoint, but for me, my greatest fear about Ravager was that they would over-explain or try to wrap everything up too neatly. The last thing I've ever wanted from the Phantasm series was easy answers or conclusions. To me, the mystery IS the juice. The series is all about unknowable forces that go on forever. I'm happy they didn't betray that spirit at the end. The only way they could have improved the ending in my opinion is if the last shot was of the tall man pulling Reggie through the back window of the battle-cuda -"It's never over!"
I agree with the criticisms of the CG sentinels. The practical ones look so much better. The CG blood and squibs are also obviously terrible. These are fair complaints. Clearly Ravager is the cheapest of the series, but I love the story and I'm happy it exists. It's a miracle that it does at all, and a testament to the devotion of the cast and crew. It's one last story with the phamily and it's got some great ideas and great acting even if its reach exceeds its grasp. It more than makes up in heart. That's my two cents anyway.
|
|
|
Post by vivalabeck on Oct 12, 2016 23:35:42 GMT -5
I'm on my third watch of Ravager, and this last time I really tried to suspend my disbelief and imagine what they were going for, had they had a better budget - and I actually did enjoy it a bit more. The story is in keeping with the spirit of the originals. We might have expected Mike to be the one hospitalized for his delusions, but Reggie actually is a better choice to depict the ravages of old age, with the dementia storyline tying it all together. Sure it's a twist that comes out of nowhere, but that's what's great about it. I like that there is a whole other layer to the story that we'd never considered - that's what this series is all about. It reminded me of Picard bouncing through time in the TNG finale and also of the Buffy episode "Normal Again." One thing I would have changed would be that Mike and Jody would only be alive in the hospital scenes, to give Reggie a reason to want to live in that world where they are all together. And there should have been more ambiguity as to which reality was real. It seemed like they were really pushing the idea of it all being in Reggie's mind. The apocalyptic world seemed very contrived, with characters just conveniently reappearing without any real explanation. The look of it didn't help either. There should have been more paranoia in the hospital scenes also, so that we're not sure if it is in fact just one of the tall man's tricks. But, they went with the multiple dimension idea to justify everything, which was kind of lazy. Still it's a part of the lore that I can accept, in spite of the flaws in execution. One thing Ravager did accomplish was to give me a greater appreciation of Oblivion, which I'd always considered the weakest entry. I now admire it's strengths so much more.
|
|
|
Post by phantasmal on Oct 13, 2016 2:24:45 GMT -5
Garmonbozia wrote:
After all the money made on Phantasm I - IV, I'm sure he could have afforded a cheap camera and some real film. At the very least, Coscarelli should have shot it himself. Having a different director changed the feel of the movie more than the video quality of the movie. It had more to do with differences in camera work than in film vs. digital.
Strange, to me it felt nothing at all like Phantasm. It felt like a fan trying to "improve" on it, an failing. Miserably.
I agree there. They all hit it out of the ball park. Their acting was the only thing I liked out of the film.
I explained why. It invalidates the other four movies and it's sad and depressing. It's a terrible ending. And of course, it never answers a single question we've all had for almost four decades.
I completely disagree there. In the first film, we're told it was all in his head. In the second film Reggie believes Mike after the Tall Man kills his family. From that point on, throughout the rest of Phantasm II, III, and IV, the Tall Man is real. We don't know how or why he's stalking Mike or what the connections are or any of that. We do know that we can't believe everything we see. But it's pretty well established that the Tall Man is real. Ravager invalidates all that.
I don't see how that can make any sense or how anyone can think that. It goes completely against Phantasm I. Again, in the first film we're told that it was all a dream. But then the Tall Man appears and pulls Mike through the mirror, implying it's real. In Phantasm II, the narrative pretty much cements itself - the Tall Man kills Reggie's family, he's real, and from that point on to the end, it's pretty much the way it is. If the premise of Ravager is that it's all alternate dimensions and all that, then it's just mumbo-jumbo strewn together like modern "art" and pretentious in the extreme, saying nothing coherent while attempting to be "deep" and "meaningful". The fact that no "parallel dimension" answers are given is sloppy and lazy. Just throwing paint at a wall does not make art.
Same here. It can be interpreted several ways, all satisfying. Ravager cannot satisfy no matter how I try to twist it.
What are you talking about? It's totally changed by Ravager! In Phantasm I - IV, it's all in Mike's head, or parts of it are. It's Mike's story. In Ravager, all that is erased. It was never in Mike's head or partly in his head. It was all just the delusions of Reggie' mental illness. It's classic bait and switch. Make us believe one thing, then switch it to something totally different.
Ravager invalidates all your interpretations (similar to mine) about Phantasm. It cannot be all part of Mike's fantasies because he cannot accept death, because it's Reggie having the hallucinations. In Ravager, it's all happening in Reggie's head. In Phantasm I-IV, everything (including Reggie) really exist and/or exist in Mike's head. Ravager is a poorly done mind-$%#@.
I think Ravager made it pretty clear that it was all Reggie's dementia.
I can't see it being faithful to the original series in any way. Like I said, it changes everything. No matter how you interpret Phantasm I - IV, it was always about Mike and what's in Mike's head. Now in Ravager it's like a cheap "gotcha" stunt. It was never about Mike! It was all in Reggie's head! Ha ha! Fooled you! I seriously believe it's because of Coscarelli's obsession with Reggie.
That really doesn't work though. In Ravager, Mike is fine. He's not delusional. It's Reggie who has dementia and he's the one who imagined all of it. Any attempt at implying it's all alternate/parallel universes got lost in the poorly done mess of Ravager and was wasted. The overwhelming message of Ravager is that it was all Reggie's dementia, and when he dies, he dies with his close friends, slipping away into his dementia and its delusions. Sad.
In various interviews and articles, we were led to believe (and outright told) that there would be answers to many questions. None were answered. New and more confusing ones were formed.
Agreed. I didn't want everything wrapped up neatly. See my alternate ending in the other thread for example. But I did expect some answers. Some explanations. Hell, at least some explorations! We never got to really see or learn anything about the Red Planet. We know as little about it now as we did in Phantasm I. Phantasm IV leaves us with several interpretations possible, but at least interpretations that don't contradict all the other movies. They're consistent with the ongoing narrative. Ravager is a "gotcha" cop out.
I'd argue they did just that. Phantasm I - IV is all about Mike, and we know the Tall Man is real starting at the end of Phantasm I and beginning of Phantasm II. It remains that way throughout the series. We don't always know what's real, but there is one internal consistency throughout - the Tall Man is real, and all of this has to do with Mike and his relation to the Tall Man. Ravager says "Nope. Everything you've watched for the last 37 years are just the hysterical delusions of an old man with dementia". It's almost criminal in its terribleness.
I'm glad that at least others can enjoy it. I thought it was a total betrayal and utter let down. As I said, the only thing good about it was that all four original actors, who have been consistently great throughout the series, went out with a bang and did some of their best work. To me, that's the only reason to watch it. It's high praise that four actors can be so good that they can make me want to watch that mess again and again.
|
|
|
Post by phantasmal on Oct 13, 2016 2:29:58 GMT -5
Vivaleeck wrote:
I really wish I could see it that way. To me, it's a cheap mind-f*&%#. It takes no creativity to pull a stunt like that. That's not creative. It's sad. It doesn't even make sense.
As I keep saying, if Ravager is the final answer, then nothing that came before it matters because it was all just a delusion. It's asking us to believe that everything established in Phantasm I - IV was just a joke, and in fact ass us to believe that Mike's delusions and issues were in turn just delusions and issues that Reggie hallucinated during his hallucinations. A man with dementia hallucinating that a friend's little brother has delusions? That to me is crap.
In fiction, there is the concept of internal consistency and logic. Ravager violates that rule utterly, which by definitions makes it a poor story.
|
|
|
Post by garmonbozia on Oct 13, 2016 6:37:18 GMT -5
To me, it's a cheap mind-f*&%#. It takes no creativity to pull a stunt like that. That's not creative. It's sad. It doesn't even make sense. As I keep saying, if Ravager is the final answer, then nothing that came before it matters because it was all just a delusion. It's asking us to believe that everything established in Phantasm I - IV was just a joke, and in fact ass us to believe that Mike's delusions and issues were in turn just delusions and issues that Reggie hallucinated during his hallucinations. A man with dementia hallucinating that a friend's little brother has delusions? That to me is crap. In fiction, there is the concept of internal consistency and logic. Ravager violates that rule utterly, which by definitions makes it a poor story. Well none of Phantasm really makes sense haha. Ravager isn't a final answer. It presets more possible answers and more questions just like Oblivion did. According to the end of the first film, everything before that was an illusion. So does the end of the original Phantasm invalidate the entire film? According to the second film, none of that happened either. Does that also invalidate the first film? In the third film, Reggie is magically okay and not almost dead like he was at the end of 2. Also, he impossibly has his shotgun back and Mike has reverted back to original Mike. The only way to explain this is, yep you guess it, an alternate dimension. Does that mean part 3 invalidates part 2? And part 1? You have never explained why you think the Reggie dementia timeline is so "definitive"? There has never been a definitive timeline yet in Phantasm. There's never been a universe that is the definitive universe. And there are at least 2 potential timelines going on just in Ravager, so how can you say that Reggie dementia is the TRUE timeline? Ravager is completely consistent with a film universe that is constantly hopping to parallel dimensions and pulling the rug out from under the audience. They've done it in every Phantasm film, not just this one.
|
|
|
Post by garmonbozia on Oct 13, 2016 7:52:21 GMT -5
Or let me put it another way, if you are convinced that after the first film, all the events of parts 2-4 happen in one singular, definitive timeline/reality where the tall man is "real" (a viewpoint I neither share nor think is very well supported by the events of the films themselves honestly) then why not choose to view Reggie's dementia storyline the same way he does? That it's not "real", but merely another trick of the tall man? After all, even after Reggie "dies" in the dementia universe, he's still around fighting the tall man in another timeline. Or, if we want to get really heady, why does there even need to be ONE TRUE TIMELINE? To me, they are all equally true and untrue at the same time, in the Robert Anton Wilson sense. In one reality, it was all in young Mike's imagination. His way of dealing with his parents and Jody's death. In another reality, it all really happened. In yet another reality Mike is a completely different person and Reggie has a family. In one reality, Mike becomes the new tall man. In another, he resists and possibly dies on the desert floor. In yet another reality, all of this was in Reggie's dementia-addled imagination from the beginning. In yet another reality, this was just another trick of the tall man who has had Reg in a brainwashing device for ten years. He overcomes this and goes on to fight the tall man through eternity. To me, all of these realities are equally true. And all of them are equally untrue. I reject the notion that we even need a definitive reality in these films at all. That ambiguity is what the series has been built on since day one
|
|
|
Post by phantasmal on Oct 15, 2016 5:42:57 GMT -5
To me, it's a cheap mind-f*&%#. It takes no creativity to pull a stunt like that. That's not creative. It's sad. It doesn't even make sense. As I keep saying, if Ravager is the final answer, then nothing that came before it matters because it was all just a delusion. It's asking us to believe that everything established in Phantasm I - IV was just a joke, and in fact ass us to believe that Mike's delusions and issues were in turn just delusions and issues that Reggie hallucinated during his hallucinations. A man with dementia hallucinating that a friend's little brother has delusions? That to me is crap. In fiction, there is the concept of internal consistency and logic. Ravager violates that rule utterly, which by definitions makes it a poor story. Well none of Phantasm really makes sense haha. Ravager isn't a final answer. It presets more possible answers and more questions just like Oblivion did. According to the end of the first film, everything before that was an illusion. So does the end of the original Phantasm invalidate the entire film? According to the second film, none of that happened either. Does that also invalidate the first film? In the third film, Reggie is magically okay and not almost dead like he was at the end of 2. Also, he impossibly has his shotgun back and Mike has reverted back to original Mike. The only way to explain this is, yep you guess it, an alternate dimension. Does that mean part 3 invalidates part 2? And part 1? You have never explained why you think the Reggie dementia timeline is so "definitive"? There has never been a definitive timeline yet in Phantasm. There's never been a universe that is the definitive universe. And there are at least 2 potential timelines going on just in Ravager, so how can you say that Reggie dementia is the TRUE timeline? Ravager is completely consistent with a film universe that is constantly hopping to parallel dimensions and pulling the rug out from under the audience. They've done it in every Phantasm film, not just this one. To me, the first four make a lot of sense together. Yes, there are some rough transitions between some of the films, but again - as of the end of part one, it's established that the Tall Man is real. This is confirmed in Part II and remains so ever after. After the end of part one, we never go back to the idea that the Tall Man is just a dream. At the end of Phantasm IV, it's possible to interpret it that way, although it seems more obvious that Mike is dying and simply having his life flash before his eyes. The end scene with he and Reggie in the ice cream truck is dream like. It's all pitch dark. The most obvious (and logical) interpretation is that Mike is dying, his life is flashing before his eyes, and Reggie is going through the gate to get the Tall Man. We're expecting a possible Part V. And we're believing the Tall Man is still real. Ravager teases with the idea of two dimensions, but does so in such a poor manner that it seems pretty obvious that the "final answer" is that Reggie simply has dementia. All this parallel dimension nonsense of parallel realities is really only focused on in Ravager, though it's only really bouncing back and forth between Reggie in real reality and Reggie in his dementia. To me it did not even feel like a Phantasm film. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by garmonbozia on Oct 15, 2016 8:56:23 GMT -5
To me, it does not at all seem obvious that Reggie's dementia is the "final answer." If that were the case, why does the Mike of that dimension (demention?) start remembering events that happened after Oblivion and then help Reggie escape the nursing home? And why is Reggie still fighting the tall man in a post-apocalyptic world AFTER he's dead? No, to me the final answer is that in the end, the band is back together, fighting the tall man as they always have and always will do. Maybe in one world, it was all in Reggie's head, but in another world, it was merely a ploy of the tall man to keep Reg, Mike and Jody off the path.
And you say parts 2 through 4 pretty much fit together but they really don't at all. In my view, each film takes place in a different parallel universe. I think every time a character goes through the space-gate, they shift dimensions permanently and never come back to quite the same timeline. I mean look at the beginning of part 2. That's not even the same house from the first film. The layout is totally different. Reg magically doesn't remember anything from the first film or hell, even the first part of the second film. Ten minutes later in the movie he is literally saying none of that stuff just happened with him rescuing mike from the dwarves and the house blowing up.
Yesterday I watched all five Phantasm films back to back and Ravager fit in just fine and was a great conclusion (as much as anything concludes in phantasm, which is to say not much!) If any of the films feels out of place in the series to me, it's part 2. The only one to feature Mike with psychic powers (though the gold ball gives him tall-man-like telekinesis in part 4.) The only one to feature ANOTHER character with psychic powers (and a psychic link to Mike of course), the only one where Reg gets some loving (Reg never gets the lovin'), the only one with what is clearly a studio-mandated love-interest (eliminated as quickly as possible in part 3), and the only one with a complete lack of surreal dream logic (all of that was excised from the workprint.)
No one has yet provided me with any logical reason why Reggie's dementia timeline should be considered the primary one. Seems that people who dislike the film have glommed onto that element and amplify it above all else in the film when the movie works hard all the way through to never give you any definitive sign WHICH timeline is real. Perhaps only the first film happened. Maybe Reg really died when he was stabbed by the lady in lavender and parts 2-5 are just his DMT death-hallucination (like Natalie posited in another thread) and maybe Mike died at the end of the first Phantasm too and the second through fifth films are simultaneously his DMT death-hallucination as well. Who knows. If the movie HAD given me ONE DEFINITIVE ANSWER (as many fans seem disappointed it didn't) then NONE of this speculation would be possible for me. The series would be a dead thing in my mind. I am so so so glad they did not really give us THE ANSWER. The series can go on as a living thing in my mind. I can continue to see it different ways on different viewings.
As I asked before (never got an answer), if you hate the dementia angle, then why not choose to believe as Reggie does, that all that was merely a trick of the tall man and his brainwashing device, and that Reggie is still out there fighting the good fight with his friends? That is how the movie ends after all.
There are countless ways to view the series so why choose the lens you hate the most?
|
|
|
Post by phantasmal on Oct 18, 2016 2:27:33 GMT -5
Garmonbozia wrote:
It seemed pretty blatant to me, and to a friend I went with. It was the overwhelming impression we both got. I've been watching the films since 1979, he's only seen the original (that he remembers) and Ravager. And we both formed the same impression.
It was all too convoluted and twisted. A film should not require that much mental manipulation to make sense of. That's not a sign of good film making. It's a sign of sloppy film making. Yes, the first 4 films give us puzzling and sometimes contradictory information. But never with such back and forth slop that never ends. Then there's all the newly interjected nonsense about the Tall Man making a deal with Reggie. If you're a good film maker, you simply don't introduce new ideas that will clearly never be explained and that only serve to further obscure the issues in what you know will be your final installment of the franchise. People like closure, at least to some degree. Not new unresolved issues.
To me, there are no "alternate timelines". The first four movies follow each other pretty well - one picking up where the last left off. It's like a serial. Until Ravager.
But I don't think anyone is focusing primarily on one aspect. I hated a lot of things about it. As I said, the special effects sucked totally. The spheres looked one-dimensional in most shots. A lot of the special effects looked primitive even compared to the 1979 original film. Did Coscarelli bother to look at proofs while filming? And if so, did he not notice that the spheres more often than not looked drawn on the film in one dimension, with a flat dull gray color? And if so, why did he allow such slop?
There are a lot of problems with the film. Having it all be chalked up to Reggie having dementia and dying is just the crappy icing on a crappy cake.
We can force interpretations on the film(s) as much as we like. Whenever I watch the original four back-to-back, it seems completely obvious to me that at the end of part one and the beginning of part two, the Tall Man is real and that assumption holds forever after. The franchise became all about Mike, Jody, and Reggie combating the Tall Man. We're slowly given hints in each film that fleshes out the story and hints at explanations. We see an evolution that follows some internal consistency. Ravager on the other hand was just too spacey, too many jump cuts, too many twists - I'm seriously thinking that Coscarelli and Hartman just lazily decided to make it a mess thinking the fans would love it. They would be wrong, in my case at least.
We were promised answers. After 37 years of speculation and fandom, we could (and should!) reasonably expect at least some level of resolution. We never learned anything about the relation between the Tall Man and the Lady In Lavender. We never learned anything about Mike's slow metamorphosis into a Tall Man-like being. We never learned anything about why the Tall Man targeted Mike. We never learned anything about how Jody became a being who can morph into a sphere. We never learned about where the Tall Man came from, or who Jebediah Morningside really is, or how he became the Tall Man. We never learned anything about the Red Planet. We never learned anything about the Fortune Teller/Grandmother. I mean, come on! I never expected everything to be tied up on a neat, well-explained bow. But I did expect at least a few answers. We got none.
Worse yet, we got a ton of poorly injected woo-woo with the Tall Man making Reggie some weird, nonsensical deal - which was never explained in the movie. A good film maker does not inject some new, major plot twist in the last movie and then never explore that plot twist. It's just bad storytelling, there's no other way to describe it. And then with all the constant cutting back and forth and Reggie having dementia and Mike explaining that everything from the first 4 films was Reggie hallucinating - it was a complete mess. I enjoy a film that makes me think. I despise a film that makes no sense and that only convolutes the story into an incomprehensible mess.
Because to me the film seems to end (and obviously so) on a note of tragedy and sadness. Reggie succumbs to his dementia and dies, and we see him drifting off into his last hallucination. It's (as you put it) seeing his DMT death-hallucination. It's not another dimensional reality. It's simply his final thoughts as he died. My friend saw it the same way, and we have very different ways of interpreting movies. If the dimensional alternate reality stuff was supposed to be real, then it should have been made clear. Personally, I can't see how anyone can sit through that mess and not come to the conclusion I did. I tried forcing another interpretation on it, but none feel as if they fit.
|
|
|
Post by phantasmal on Oct 18, 2016 2:36:45 GMT -5
A few other thoughts...
Why did we suddenly see Independence Day sized spheres and why was none of that technology ever explained even to a small degree? For 37 years we have softball sized spheres, nothing bigger. Then Ravager comes out and suddenly we have spheres the size of space ships. WTF?
Why did the Tall Man have to shrink the dead bodies to Jawa-size in order to survive on the Red Planet when he himself and everyone else managed to exist just fine when they went there? Remember, in the other 4 films the gravity is crushing and when Mike and Reggie go there, they can barely even crawl. Suddenly they're all walking and running around on the Red Planet in Ravager.
If the midget guy Chunk blew up the Tall Man, then why would the gang have to keep hunting/fighting him?
And why on earth would anyone have a brand new character be the one to kill the Tall Man in the last film as opposed to one of the established main characters of 37 years running?
I can go on and on. It's simply a mess of a movie, I'm sorry. It was sloppy, full of plot holes, full of inconsistencies, it introduced new and undeveloped major sub-plots, it had horribly poor special effects, the new characters were cardboard, etc. It was just a bad film. No other way to say it.
|
|
|
Post by garmonbozia on Oct 20, 2016 18:38:46 GMT -5
Phantasm has never been about closure. I didn't expect an almost 40 year film series to suddenly change styles. None of the three other people I watched the film with took away the Reggie dementia timeline as the definitive one. It's your personal interpretation, or feeling, which is totally fine. But it's not a fact of the film in any way. You didn't address any of the continuity errors of the series I brought up, but they indicate that the first four movies don't follow a singular continuity at all either. You claim I am forcing an interpretation but I didn't have to force anything with my viewing of the film. I accept how I felt. I loved the story though I was disappointed in the FX. I have my issues, but I truly enjoy the film. The special effects did totally suck. We agree on that much. Fortunately, the series is about more than that to me. I personally loved Reggie phasing through dimensions constantly and didn't feel it was hard to follow. It reminded me of Cooper in the lodge in Twin Peaks. I think they wanted to put you in Reggie's shoes so you felt his confusion along with him. So you wouldn't know what was real, along with him. But it's hardly a difficult film to understand in my opinion. We may not have gotten "answers" but that's never been what the series is about. Oblivion gave everyone answers about the tall man and that is most people's least favorite sequel (to me it's clearly the best.) As I've said before, I wanted neither answers nor resolutions. I can't understand why anyone would want that from Phantasm (have we been watching the same series all these years?)
You say: We never learned anything about the relation between the Tall Man and the Lady In Lavender.
We learned in the first film that she is his cypher or avatar or minion.
You say: We never learned anything about Mike's slow metamorphosis into a Tall Man-like being.
They showed the tall man putting the gold ball in mike's head in part 3. He got tall man powers. Not a surprise since the ball in the tall man's head is the main gold one we've ever seen prior. Mike was obviously being groomed to be the tall man/gold ball's next avatar (until part 4 that is, when Mike resists and the ball is eventually removed.)
You say: We never learned anything about why the Tall Man targeted Mike.
To make him the next tall man. Mike was the only one who recognized him and wanted to fight him, hence his only real equal. That was my take anyway.
You say: We never learned anything about how Jody became a being who can morph into a sphere.
Pretty clear to me that the tall man is the only one who would have the power to do that to Jodie. No one else in the series has ever been able to manipulate the spheres.
You say: We never learned about where the Tall Man came from or who Jebediah Morningside really is, or how he became the Tall Man.
We learn in the first film that the tall man comes from a red, alien planet. We learn in the fourth film that Jebediah was a mortician in the civil war era who invented dimensional travel and was then unwittingly possessed by the tall man.
You say: We never learned anything about the Red Planet.
We learned that it is alien and the gravity is weird and it is desolate. We never learned much about the red room in Twin Peaks either but just like Phantasm, knowing too much would spoil the mystery. As Frank Herbert said "Knowing is the enemy of learning."
You say: We never learned anything about the Fortune Teller/Grandmother.
This is true. Another visual mystery I love with no need for any more "answer"
You say the movie obviously ends on a note of tragedy and sadness, but nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion. The movie ended on a note of optimism and endless resistance! Reggie rejected the tall man's "deal", rejected his own death, and continued to fight. Cuz he's a bad m*th*rf**k*r. You have no more evidence that the Reggie-still-fighting-the-tall-man-timeline is any more of a "hallucination" than the Reggie-dementia timeline. You say you just FEEL that way. Totally cool! But that is your subjective opinion. I did not see the movie that way at all, nor did the people I saw the film with, even though we also have very different tastes and ways of interpreting films. Without solid, logical evidence that one timeline has primacy over another (of which there is none in the actual film), all we got is feelings. You and me both. I felt both realities in the film were true.
You say you can't see how anyone could sit through the movie and not come to the same conclusion you did. And honestly, I think that is the core of our disagreement. I can absolutely see why other viewers may not come away with the same conclusion as me. Because the movie(s) never give you a definitive answer one way or another. The first film tells you it's Mike's dream and Ravager tells you it's Reggie's dream. And they both are maybe lying.
You say: Why did we suddenly see Independence Day sized spheres and why was none of that technology ever explained?
Why did we suddenly see gold spheres with lasers, and mini-buzzsaw-blade spheres in part 2? Why did we suddenly see Brain-spheres and eyeball-spheres in part 3? Why was none of that technology ever explained? For that matter why was the technology behind the original spheres from part 1 never explained?
You say: Why did the Tall Man have to shrink the dead bodies to Jawa-size in order to survive on the Red Planet when he himself and everyone else managed to exist just fine when they went there?
Probably a continuity error. Similar to Reggie magically having the quad barrel back in part 3 after throwing it away in part 2. Or maybe the red planet is evolving? Maybe it's being terraformed? Maybe the gravity has changed? Maybe that's not the same red planet? or maybe it is the same planet but at a much later or earlier time? Who knows.
You say: If the midget guy Chunk blew up the Tall Man, then why would the gang have to keep hunting/fighting him?
Um... because just ten minutes prior, the tall man clearly explained there were millions of him in countless dimensions? The tall man has been buried, dissolved, frozen, and even blown up before (Oblivion.) He always comes back.
You say: And why on earth would anyone have a brand new character be the one to kill the Tall Man in the last film as opposed to one of the established main characters of 37 years running?
Who cares? Chunk didn't kill the tall man. Just his current body in that dimension. The movie was quite clear about that. Besides, Rocky "killed" the tall man in part 3. A brand new character (at that time.) But you aren't upset about that. The tall man literally gets "killed" in every movie. It means nothing.
You say: I can go on and on.
I believe you.
You say: I'm sorry.
Don't be. You have a valid opinion just like I do and you have nothing to be sorry for.
You say: It was sloppy
Like every Phantasm movie.
You say: full of plot holes
Like every Phantasm movie.
You say: full of inconsistencies
Like every Phantasm movie.
You say: it introduced new and undeveloped major sub-plots
Like every Phantasm movie.
You say: it had horribly poor special effects
Like every Phantasm movie.
You say: the new characters were cardboard
Like every Phantasm movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2016 14:03:29 GMT -5
You say: It was sloppy Like every Phantasm movie. ... You say: it had horribly poor special effects Like every Phantasm movie. can't agree with these two points at all. every PHANTASM movie was "sloppy"? i just don't see it. horribly poor special effects? no. i'd describe the FX in P1 as simple, adequate at times, ingenious in some cases... nothing that takes me out of the movie. they're fine, & i have no issue with them at all. PHANTASM II's practical effects are wonderful to behold. they always will be, AFAIC. RAVAGER's digital shoot, irritating zooms, weird angles, and pasted-on after-the-fact CGI makes it look like crap. handing the series over to a guy who's only ever directed post-millennium cartoon shows was a colossal mistake, some of his choices are just completely wrongheaded. the acting is often weaker than before, too.
|
|
|
Post by phantasmal on Oct 22, 2016 4:36:29 GMT -5
Garmonbozia wrote: Again, I didn't expect total closure. I expected some answers, as were promised. None materialized. As I said, there are things that can be overlooked and things that cannot. Coscarelli never knew whether there would be a "next part", so it was hard to make each movie seamless. But most of those continuity errors can be explained. For the most part, the movies flow. Consider the ending of Phantasm II and the beginning of Phantasm III. Picks up right where the last one ended. The problem I had with the special effects is that the ultra-poor quality of them made a poorly made movie even worse. And there was no excuse for it. That made it totally unacceptable. It felt sloppy to me. Very, very sloppy. True, but we all expected some answers in the final film. Not everything, not every secret revealed. But some answers. Some. We got none. We only got more questions that made less sense. I loved it! While I like being able to leave it open to interpretation to some degree, I think most fans wanted some sort of answers, to at least a few major questions. As I keep saying, I didn't want everything explained to me or spoon fed. But some answers were expected. At the very least, it should not have introduced tons of new questions that made no sense in relation to the other four movies. And that's what it did. Exactly. It was this or that or the other thing. We never did find out, in the end, what that relationship was. Again, why Michael? Why not Reggie or Jody? And if the Tall Man keeps coming back, or if there are tens of thousands of him (as in Ravager), why would the Tall Man need to transform Mike into another Tall Man? Or anyone, for that matter? See what I mean? Nothing answered. Again, why would the Tall Man need to transform Mike into another Tall Man? Or anyone, for that matter? Reggie wanted to fight him, as did Jody and Tim and Rocky and...etc, etc. Once again, forget even getting answers or resolution. We don't even get any further development of the link between Mike and the Tall Man. It's as if the ending of Phantasm IV never happened. Of course the Tall Man did that to Jody. But why? Why allow him to continue to exist as an enemy with those powers? Another issue that was not explored, answered, developed, or anything. What alien, red planet? Where? What's it called? Is it even a planet, or is it another dimension? Or hell? Or the realm of death? Why does he come to earth? Was Jedediah possessed by the Tall Man? I didn't see that. Is the Tall Man a spirit? How can there be multiple Tall Men if Jedediah is merely possessed by a Tall Man spirit? There can't be thousands of Jedediah bodies to inhabit! Again, no development, no answers, no resolution. We can only guess at the answers. And yet gravity on the red planet works totally different in Ravager than in the other films (as most everything in Ravager does!). Another undeveloped, unanswered question. Look, I don't mind some, or even most questions not being answered. But having NONE answered and more (illogical and contradictory ones) being introduced is not what I call good film making or storytelling. Reggie, the "hero" of the movie, died an ignoble death from a horrible disease with only two people at his bedside and the last thoughts running through his mind were his delusions. I'd say that's pretty sad. The deal made no sense at all. None. It's totally stupid. There is no motivation for it. And vice versa. The problem is that the final film was so sloppily done, there is no satisfactory end to the series. It's sloppy, it's messy, it does not deliver even a single answer, it introduces new things that are illogical and that make no sense and that are likewise never explained. I still insist it goes against the trend of the previous four films. At the end of Pt. 1, the Tall Man is real. Throughout Part II, III and IV, he's real. Then in Ravager he's just Reggie's delusion, as is everything about the first four films. I know Coscarelli has a hard on for Reggie and all that, and wants to make Phantasm all about Reggie, but come on! To even imply that the first four films were all "Reggie's story" is insulting, and makes no sense. The "alternate/multiple/parallel dimensions" argument doesn't work because it wasn't done well or even done at all. It was just a mess of contradictions. It's as if Coscarelli said to Hartman - "Throw whatever crap you like into the series - let the audience make sense of it". Well, after 37 years of waiting, maybe there should have been at least some minimal level of explanation. We were led to believe that was the case. Here is a direct quote from Coscarelli: Really Don? What storylines are tied up? None. What questions are answered? None. And what about that line the Tall Man says about Reggie not even being real, that he's just the Tall Man's bad dream? WTF? SLOP. Exactly. Why weren't we given any answers about any of that. And I would point out that there is a world of difference between different designs of similar sized spheres being introduced in each movie compared to the sudden appearance of starship-sized balls. In P3, we see that the Tall Man is putting brains in the spheres. OK, fine. That was cool. Where the hell did the starship spheres come from? That's a whole universe of higher sophistication and engineering. Never explained. Like everything else. Exactly. Who knows? Maybe, maybe, maybe. The continuity of the red planet was fixed throughout 4 films. Changing it in the 5th film isn't a continuity error. It's called sloppy writing. So why blow him up at all? It accomplishes nothing. And how did Chunk go from blowing himself to bits to only losing a hand and having some light powder burns. Oh, I know. Sloppy writing! Again, in the final film of the series, the main characters should be the one to do the Tall Man in, even if that's just one of the Tall Man's bodies. It completely loses its impact. And Rocky only did so with help from the others. I didn't see any of the other Phantasm movies as sloppy. The special effects in the first four movies was far better than in Ravager. Look at that swarm of spheres in P3 and compare that to the sloppy one dimensional painted on sphere in Ravager. Plot holes and inconsistencies of the original four films were small and explainable, whereas the ones in Ravager were irreconcilable. And above all, the final film in the series is the place to give some answers - answers which were specifically promised. Sub-plots from earlier movies was expanded on in later ones. Bottom line, Ravager stands out like the badly behaved red headed step child that no one likes. Ravager sucked. It dropped the ball, it lowered the standards of the series, it failed to deliver on its promises, it failed to answer a single question or wrap up any storyline, it introduced new, illogical, poorly thought out issues into the series only to leave us hanging forever. It was SLOP!
|
|
|
Post by garmonbozia on Oct 22, 2016 17:19:57 GMT -5
Oct 21, 2016 9:03:29 GMT -5 spookyencounters said:
RAVAGER's digital shoot, irritating zooms, weird angles, and pasted-on after-the-fact CGI makes it look like crap. handing the series over to a guy who's only ever directed post-millennium cartoon shows was a colossal mistake, some of his choices are just completely wrongheaded. the acting is often weaker than before, too.
--------------------------
There's no denying it has the look of a fan-film. And while much of the effects of past sequels were pretty sloppy, Ravager is definitely the cheapest-looking by far with the poor digital effects and consumer digital look. But again, shooting on film was never even a remote possibility just because of the astronomical cost of celluloid itself. I'd rather have a cheap-looking Phantasm 5 than no Phantasm 5 personally, but I can dig that others don't agree.
I can't agree that the acting was weak though. I thought it was some of the best acting of the series easily.
Ultimately, a great Phantasm film and great conclusion to the series for me, while admittedly looking dirt-cheap.
|
|
|
Post by phantasmal on Oct 22, 2016 20:11:48 GMT -5
Garmonbozia wrote: Again, I don't see any sloppy effects on earlier films. For the most part they were very well done. And even if we can point to a relatively poor special effect in any of the real films (Pt. 1-4), that effect would still be far better than what we saw in Ravager. For god's sake, I regularly see better animation on fan films/clips than I saw in Ravager! They couldn't use the digital effect of the spheres from Pt. 3? I'd agree if that were the only complaint. Problem is, that complaint is only one of many, many serious problems with the film. Totally agree there! Great acting all around! The original cast knocked it out of the ball park and across the ocean to another continent! There we totally disagree. Dirt-cheap, poorly written, poorly filmed, illogical, contradictory, sad, failed to produce promised answers, etc, etc...
|
|
|
Post by garmonbozia on Oct 23, 2016 9:50:38 GMT -5
I didn't expect an almost 40 year film series to suddenly change styles. They promised "answers" every time a Phantasm movie came out in the past. I know what it means -answers in the form of more questions, a hallmark of the series. Yeah, except for the massive continuity errors. Phantasm V picks up right where Phantasm IV left off. You overlook what you choose to and I'll overlook what I choose to. Still doesn't make your outlook objective Actually, there was a perfectly valid "excuse" for the poor effects. They had no money. Obviously you would've preferred no Phantasm 5 at all, to a cheaply-made Phantasm 5. I understand that, I just don't agree. You could always choose to ignore Phantasm 5 if you hate it so much. That's what I do with movies I strongly dislike. I just ignore them. You still have the first four movies. You didn't lose anything. It felt like I would imagine being transported back and forth through dimensions against your will would feel - disorienting and unfamiliar. Very much like Cooper in the red room in Twin Peaks. If your main character is phasing through realities, unsure of what is real, is that supposed to feel perfectly defined and full of clarity? That doesn't even make sense. It would completely go against the point of that story beat. It's supposed to be disorienting. I thought the effect worked really well. "All" of us did not expect that. I didn't expect that. In fact, it was my greatest fear about the film. Crappy no-budget effects I can handle. Being given some kind of definitive "answers" would ruin Phantasm for me. Different strokes. How can you speak for "most fans"? You can't. You can only speak for yourself. We found out more than enough to be able to enjoy the story. Again, because Michael was the first one to recognize the tall man and lead a resistance against him. That was my take anyway. Why would the tall man need to transform Mike into another tall man? I would guess because his original body (Jebediah Morningside) is obviously deteriorating over time so he needs a new one? See what I mean? Plenty of "answers" if you have a working imagination. I like movie viewing to be an active experience rather than a passive one personally. Just explained my take on that. Sure all those other people eventually came to fight the tall man but Mike was the first. Again, didn't want answers. Didn't want resolution. Of course the ending of Phantasm IV happened (in one timeline anyway.) That's why Mike is no longer becoming a tall man. He took the gold ball out of his head. We don't need further development of a subplot that ended 17 years ago. Phantasm never gives the "why." NEVER. Again, I have to ask why you are a fan of the series at all? This giving of "answers" that only exponentially mutate into more questions is the whole MO of the series. I can understand if that's not your bag, it just amazes me you got to part 5 haha. I know! I love it! Phantasm isn't about resolution. Never has been. (A few of those things were addressed however. Jebediah was obviously possessed by the tall man. They showed that in part 4 when he invents the space-gate. He goes through it for the first time and Mike asks when he's coming back. Jody says Jebediah Morningside never does come back. Then you see the tall man come back through the space-gate, not Jebediah. So yes, that means the tall man's spirit has taken over Jebediah's body. Did you have a different interpretation of that scene? Also, you ask how there can be thousands of Jebediah bodies to inhabit. It was clearly explained in Ravager that there were countless parallel dimensions, and just like they all seem to have a Mike, Reg and Jody, I'm guessing they all have a Jebediah as well.) You get hung up on continuity errors when you don't like the film, but ignore them when you do like a film. I'm not chastising you for it, but that's what you're doing. You say "undeveloped, unanswered question." I say "delicious, unanswerable mystery." Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe. Reggie, the hero of parts 3,4 & 5 (and co-hero of part 2) moves past the death of one of his infinite selves in a parallel reality created by the tall man's technology in order to make him stop fighting. He defiantly continues the fight in perpetuity with Mike and Jody by his side. A great note to go out on and not sad in the least. Unless you arbitrarily decide that only one dimension in the series is real, against all the evidence provided by the previous four films, and Ravager itself. Same motivation the tall man has always had as far as Reggie is concerned, just f**k**g with him! It made no sense at the beginning of part 4 when the tall man just let Reggie go for no reason. Why would he do that? He had him dead to rights. Did he just like f**k**g with him? Again, you ignore the same issues in the films you like. The tall man said at the end of Ravager that even he deserves his fun. And he's referred to his whole operation as a "game" more than once so I assume the deal was just him toying with Reggie again. Not too great a leap of logic there. Pretty well implied and no reason to be spelled out. Yes, except I admit that my interpretation is simply that. I have no illusion of objectivity. But I do go by what the film itself contains. It didn't need to deliver a single answer, I'm glad it introduced new things that are illogical and make no sense and are never explained because every Phantasm film prior has done that, and it's a core tenet of the series. Simple as that. You can insist all you want but as William Blake said: "A firm persuasion that a thing is so does not make it so." You say the tall man was "real" from parts 1-4, of which you have no logical evidence whatsoever, and that's not even getting into the tricky morass of what the word "real" even means. Ontologically speaking, we could start a whole thread about just the nature of the "real" and you might find it a much less solid foundation than you think in our own "reality", not to mention the ever-shifting "reality" of the Phantasm series. The first four films were not all Reggie's story. Part one was primarily Mike's story. Part 2 was split pretty evenly between Reggie and Mike. Part 3 was mostly Reggie's story. Part 4 was mostly Mike's. Part 5 was definitely Reggie's. There isn't a clear delineation like you imagine where Ravager suddenly changes course. Reg has been a more focal character in several of the films. Ravager did not say that Phantasm 1-4 were all Reggie's story or all in his mind. It is offered as a possibility but hardly the only possibility or the primary possibility. Not at all. Dont' know why you insist on taking it that way. It's like you want to be displeased. And if you really can't see any other ways of viewing it, why not just ignore the film instead of getting upset about it? The alternate/multiple/parallel dimensions aspect of the film works perfectly well because it's been an ongoing feature of the series since the very first film, and that continued into Ravager thankfully. If you pay attention to small details throughout the series, it becomes clear that every time one of the characters interacts with a space-gate they either enter a slightly different (or much different) reality, or subtly alter the reality they are already in. You can ignore these signs in the series if you choose to, but they are there. I pointed them out in a previous post. The dimension-hopping didn't begin in Ravager. It began in 1979. Nah, I don't think so. That wily Don! He gave similar quotes about every other film in the series and none of them tied up s**t or answered anything. I knew what to expect. So glad it didn't try to give singular answers to multiversal questions (that's not even possible) and actually, I thought, emotionally, it tied things up perfectly well. I already knew from Oblivion that they would be fighting the tall man forever, so that ending was pretty much unchanged thematically. Oh, the tall man saying Reggie is just his bad dream? Another potential lens to view the story through. That perhaps Mike and Reggie's earth isn't even "real"? Just some conjuration of the tall man's to harvest souls? Another layer to think about. Or maybe the tall man simply meant that metaphorically. Like, he's such a superior being to the humans that they are nothing more than a bad dream in their imagined impeding of his master plan. I loved that line/concept. Phantasm is a multiple choice test with no one right answer, and you are insisting on making the choice you like the least the only one. That's your prerogative I guess. And come on, there isn't a world of difference between all the different spheres in the series and the giant spheres. You actually wanted them to stop the movie to explain the engineering details of the giant spheres? Like, you actually think that would've made the movie better? Again, you ignore the complete lack of explanation of the spheres in the movies you like, but get hung up on it with the movie you don't like. It's a double standard. I thought the giant spheres were great. And a great simple, visual metaphor of an increasing level of menace to the tall man threat. It doesn't need to be logically explained. It's a symbol. All Phantasm has ever dealt in is "maybes." The continuity of almost nothing was fixed in the first 4 films. You just continue to ignore that. Also, they only showed the red planet in part 1,2 and 5. So you can't say it's continuity was fixed in four films because it wasn't even included in two of those films. You don't even know that's the same red planet in Ravager. Hell, we don't even know that's the same red planet in part 2 as in part 1. You can judge Ravager on a different scale than the other films but at least admit thats what you're doing. A continuity error is a continuity error, whether you like the film or not. Why bury him at all? Why dissolve him with acid at all? Why freeze him at all? Why blow him up with a hearse at all? Because that's how all the Phantasm movies end. With the tall man "dying" but not really "dying." Did you actually want the team to kill the tall man once and for all? Now THAT would've been a sad ending! How did Jody go from being alive to suddenly dead from a car wreck and it's all Mike's dream? Was that sloppy writing? How did Reggie completely forget about Mike's house blowing up and an army of dwarves ten minutes into part 2? Was that sloppy writing? How did Reggie go from clearly dying from grievous wounds at the end of part 2 to barely scratched and totally fine at the beginning of part 3? Was that sloppy writing? How was it that Reg was cornered and trapped by spheres and clearly about to be killed by the tall man at the end of part 3, but then is let go for no reason whatsoever at the beginning of part 4? Was that sloppy writing? Again, when it suits you, you ignore in the previous films the same issues Ravager has. It would have been nice if Mike and Reggie were the ones to do it (and I wasn't a fan of killing off Jane like that, but at the end of the day that's what secondary characters are for in a Phantasm film) but it ultimately didn't matter to me because the tall man isn't dead. They are still driving off into the sunset to continue the war at the end of the film. It was a pit-stop, not the end of the race. My imagination continues past the edge of the final film. Without a doubt, Ravager has the worst effects of the series, so you can keep bringing that up and we can keep agreeing on it I guess? I'm just saying this is a series where the seams were always showing (which actually adds to the scrappy charm for me.) Remember, until Ravager, the cheapest film was the original Phantasm which was made for $300,000. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $987,000 in 2016 dollars. Almost a million dollars. Ravager was made with $200,000 in 2016 dollars. Almost a fifth of the budget of the original film -a fraction of the budget they had on the 1979 Phantasm. Everyone can shout all they want "why wasn't it shot on film? Why weren't the effects better?" but that will not negate market realities. The swarm of CG spheres at the beginning of part 4 did look better than the ones in Ravager, but adjusted for inflation, Phantasm IV's budget was more than 4 times greater than Ravager's budget. Let that sink in. A friend of mine made a local feature in 2001 and spent almost $50,000 just on the film itself, the celluloid. So keep that in mind folks. We could have gotten no Phantasm 5 or a digitally-shot, super cheap Phantasm 5 (and if you prefer no Phantasm 5, then just ignore it. Part 4 makes a great ending as well.) There was exactly zero chance of Ravager ever being shot on film (which isn't to say elements of it couldn't have been better shot even using digital. But there, I think it's important to consider that this began as a web-series and so probably didn't have the same cinematic considerations in the beginning stages. By the time it was in later stages, it was too late to refilm earlier segments. Again, the budget issue. But as I said in my original post, I think Ravager would've been a lot better received if it was released in small webisodes gradually before eventually being compiled into a feature-length. I think people would've been more understanding of the limitations in that format.) Plot holes in the previous Phantasm films were no different in size or scope than those in Ravager, and hardly "irreconcilable", they're just easier to focus on in a film you don't like. The only way that Ravager stands out from the rest of the series is in its severely restricted budget, which I hope I've put into some context above. Plenty of people like it, whether you imagine they all agree with you or not. It was a good film, delivered a great conclusion, kept true to the spirit of the series, was extremely gratifying emotionally, contained the best acting of the series, and went out playing by its own rules without ever selling out to Hollywood in order to get a bigger budget or better effects. It wrapped up the series thematically and emotionally without betraying the core mysteries. It introduced interesting new conceptual lenses through which to view the series with new eyes, new theories, new interpretations, or not! It was a Phantasm film through and through.
|
|
|
Post by phantasmal on Oct 23, 2016 22:18:20 GMT -5
I have better things to do than engage in an encyclopedia-sized back and forth, so I'll just touch on the important points here.
Garmonbozia wrote:
They promised "answers" every time a Phantasm movie came out in the past. I know what it means -answers in the form of more questions, a hallmark of the series.
They never promised to wrap up story-lines and then not deliver. They did provide more revelations in each movie though.
Nonsense. Fans with no money have put out trailers and shorts with far better special effects. Coscarelli has far more money than most fans will ever see. He has no excuse for such primitive, amateurish effects.
No, I would have preferred no Phantasm V to the sloppy crap that is Ravager. A cheaply-made but well done Phantasm V would have been fine.
I call that a cop out.
No, but a lot of us did. I've seen a fair share of bad reviews.
I think you're being too slavish to the idea of "no answers". Some clarity or revelations would not have hurt the series.
I know plenty of fans who wanted at least some answers.
We found out nothing. Nothing at all. None of the questions I listed were ever addressed in any way.
I already addressed this. Why would he need Mike's body when he already has thousands of other bodies? It makes no sense. This isn't suspense or mystery - it's sloppy writing.
Which is why you liked it. You wanted nothing, you got nothing. I on the other hand wanted something. I expected a far better film. Not slop.
We've been given partial answers all along. For example, in Phantasm I we are shown that the Tall Man is crushing down bodies to ship to the Red Planet. That's what he's up to in Morningside. In Phantasm II we are shown that the Tall Man is real and that Mike is not imagining him. In Phantasm III we see that brains are powering the spheres. In Phantasm IV we are shown Jedediah Morningside and that he becomes the Tall Man. That sorta thing. It's a slow resolution, but we know more with each film.
I think you're confusing answers with canon and/or forced interpretation. No one expected all the answers or even a final interpretation. In each of the earlier films , we're given more information. Maybe not clear answers, but some level of explanation, of revelation, of resolution. The story evolves. Until Ravager, when it gets thrown to hell.
Yes, I remember the scene quite well. Loved it. Again, if the Tall Man (singular) is possessing Jedediah Morningside (singular), then why are there 10,000 Tall-Man-Possessed-Jedediah-Bodies?
Mike says that's a theory. It's never claimed that's what's going on.
Dropping a piece of equipment and then having it again later is a very minor, easily explained continuity error. Blowing yourself to bits only to show up later with only one hand missing is sloppy inattentiveness to continuity.
It's not Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe. Either an explanation is given or it is not given, objectively speaking.
It sounds to me like you're making excuses for Coscarelli. Clearly the scene was important and meant something. Too many people are hiding behind "well we never really know what's going on" as a way to avoid criticism of the shortcomings of the film.
But see, it's not like every other Phantasm film. In the previous films we're constantly fed more information - from the fact that the Tall Man is actually real to the fate of Jody to the origins of the Tall Man, to how the spheres work, etc. We're always learning more, peeling away layers of the onion on the way to the truth. Which is of course part of the fun. Not knowing for sure. Ravager throws the onion out and swaps it for an orange. Just terrible!
The films tell the story. In Phantasm I, Reggie says the entire thing was Mike's bad dream. Then the Tall Man grabs him, telling us he is real. Coscarelli had no way of knowing there would ever be a Phantasm II, so it ended on a note that said the Tall Man is real. Phantasm II verifies that because Reggie's family is killed and at that point there is no more switching between "is it a dream" and "is it real". From the end of Phantasm I on through Phantasm IV, we're never asked to believe that it's all just a dream. It becomes a more linear story that evolves with each film.
Then Ravager throws it all into the meat grinder and makes a mess of it.
It really wasn't part of the original films. The alternate/parallel reality thing really only comes about in Ravager.
That's nonsense. They go back and forth in a linear manner.
No, in previous films he promised new information and we got some. He promised that storylines would be wrapped up in Ravager and he lied.
I'm just not into mental masturbation, which is all that is.
Uh...YEAH! The introduction of Independence Day starship sized spheres takes things to an insane new level.
It's not a double standard, and we see the earlier spheres being powered by brains. I'm not talking about a technical examination of how they work. What I mean is, for 4 films we see the same standard sized spheres. Suddenly in Ravager the Tall Man has spheres the size of starships. It's a huge leap that requires massive, massive resources. It begs for explanation. Its never given. It's crap.
Oh, that's logical. It wasn't features in parts 3 or 4, so it's ok for part 5 to completely contradict parts 1 and 2. Good lord.
Again, I'm not into the mental masturbation that some fans seem to love so much. Questioning what it real and what is not is one thing. Making continual, countless excuses and engaging in countless forced interpretations is just jerking off. Sorry for the sexual connotations there, but that's what it is.
No, but the final "kill", in a properly written, well-directed film, would belong to one of the main characters - not some newly-introduced, undeveloped nobody.
It would have been called good storytelling to have Mike, Jody, and Reggie doing it instead of some cardboard character. The "final kill" that we see on film belongs to the heroes. This is just another example of s**t-poor writing. Phantasm fans deserve better.
Oh, it sank in, trust me. It sank in that fans with no money whatsoever have made better special effects on their laptops at home with exactly zero budget. Nothing you say is going to excuse or defend that. I would be ok with the digital shooting - IF the special effects weren't so horribly below any sane standard.
No, the earlier plot holes were easy to explain. The plot holes in Ravager were galaxy-sized black holes.
Doesn't matter. Budget has nothing to do with poor storytelling, poor directing, poor story design, and poor everything else. Even when it comes to special effects, again, kids on their laptops in mommy's basement have done better with zero budget. You simply can't defend that.
And a lot of people hated it. Some people went into it wanting/needing to like it, and they'll engage in whatever mental gymnastics they need to force themselves to like it. Others genuinely like it. Some hated it. I'm in the latter group.
It didn't deliver any conclusions by any stretch of the imagination, except for the sad and pathetic interpretation that every film was just a massive dementia-induced delusion that Reggie has been suffering from for 37 years now. It wasn't true to the spirit of the originals, it was emotionally empty and un-gratifying. I will admit it did have some of the best acting. Too bad that can't make up for a crappy story. It went out with a sad whimper, not a bang. It went out without ever giving the fans any sense of resolution or closure. It sucked.
It was crap. It wasn't a Phantasm film by any stretch.
|
|
|
Post by garmonbozia on Oct 24, 2016 8:38:27 GMT -5
Your obsession with 'answers' certainly seems all-consuming. I guess I was more concerned with getting an entertaining phantasm film than with having 37 years of minutiae over-explained to me. You accuse me of 'mental masturbation' (a term you disconcertingly seem to apply toward any form of thinking at all) yet perhaps you are the one over-thinking things? Quite curious. You speak with authority on matters of filmmaking but I'm guessing you have never actually worked on a film yourself. Your generalizations about film-budgeting and effects capabilities are not backed with any facts whatsoever and show an ignorance of process in my opinion. You keep speaking of fans with no money making better effects, but have provided not one single visible example of such. Even so, the effects are actually one of the least important things to me in the film. I enjoy the characters and the story and the speculation that the trademark phantasm ambiguity allows for. Even if some insist on seeing nothing but 'jerking off' metaphors there. And when you can't acknowledge valid points or defend your positions, you fall back on insisting that anyone who disagrees with you is doing mental gymnastics or forcing an opinion they don't really hold. I mean, there's no way anyone could simply just disagree with you is there? Unthinkable! Your arguments have no cohesive rationale. You simply trot out monosyllabic keywords repeatedly such as 'slop' and 'crap' -I do love a healthy debate but frankly, am unmoved by these primitive non-arguments. Repeating the same simplistic proclamations while ignoring my counterpoints isn't a debate or a discussion at all so I'm not surprised you grow weary of doing so.
I hate that you didn't enjoy the film, but others do. It's just something you'll have to live with. If I had reduced the entire affair to only one dismal and reductive interpretation, I would probably hate it too. That is simply not how I see the film. It was enjoyable and even moving, with extremely limited resources; a true labor of love that I am thankful for, warts and all.
|
|
|
Post by phantasmal on Oct 26, 2016 4:24:11 GMT -5
Garmonbozia wrote: I'm not obsessed with answers by any stretch of the imagination. I just wanted some closure and yes... some answers. Or at least a revelation or two. Not just a bunch of twisted obfuscation. Maybe it's a reading comprehension problem you're experiencing, because I never said I "wanted 37 years of minutia answered". I expected a fitting and proper closure, and (I'll repeat it again carefully, in the hope that this time it'll sink in)answers to at least a few questions or riddles. Nothing more than at least the level of revelation we've seen in previous sequels. Each sequel gave us a little more back-story. Ravager was like getting to the last chapter of the book only to find a bunch of pages missing. It's strange how you project the "over-thinking" accusation at me. I'm not the one taxing my brain to come up with dozens of possible explanations and excuses for a s**t-poor ending to a magnificent franchise. Whether I've worked on a film is utterly irrelevant and a statement of desperation at best. Let me guess. You're Martin Scorsese in real life, so you're the only person entitled to an opinion? Sigh. Nor will I. I've argued with your type before. Been there, done that, don't care to waste my time watching you obfuscate the issue. No matter what I reference, it won't matter to you. You've convinced yourself that Ravager is good because you wanted it to be good. The material is out there for anyone who wants to find it. You clearly have a reading comprehension problem, because I have repeated this a hundred times to you. The poor special effects was just one of many, many complaints I had. Not close to being the most important. Not even in the top five. Of course it's unthinkable! I'm always right! Ok, Mr. Scorsese. It's a shame I didn't go to film school with you so that I could come up with some polysyllabic industry-lingo that in plain English means "crap". I assumed you're intelligent enough to understand such simple words. But considering you have that nasty reading comprehension problem, I can see why my posts trouble you. I've addressed your counter-points. Again, try a reading comprehension course. Well gee whiz Mr. Scorsese. You really didn't think I was going to go out and kill myself just because Ravager sucked, now did you? How the audience sees the film depends on the writer and the director. If they do lazy, sloppy work, well...the audience gets to call it for what it is. If they fail to produce the desired result in the audience, then they've failed at their jobs. I know plenty of people who feel that clearly Coscarelli meant it to become all about Reggie given his man crush on the character, and that came across very strongly in the film. I'm hardly the only fan that felt that way. I'm just a little more outspoken and willing to gore the golden calf than most. Mr. Scorsese, you speak of it as if Ravager were the second coming of Gone With the Wind, with just a few errors. I see it as a giant lump of crap (the film itself in almost every aspect) gilded with gold foil (the great acting). The gold wrapper doesn't transform it from crap into gold. Coscarelli is not an alchemist.
|
|
|
Post by garmonbozia on Oct 26, 2016 23:08:12 GMT -5
Sorry again that you didn't get what you wanted from the film. I genuinely hate that it was a negative experience for some fans. Definitely a divisive movie no matter how you look at it. However, there have been as many positive reviews as negative, and I doubt that everyone who enjoyed it had to convince themselves to do so. It didn't take any "taxing" of my brain to consider various interesting possibilities in the film, just some daydreaming and mind-wandering. Considering different theories is one of the most fun parts of watching the Phantasm series for me and my "type." And fun is the opposite of taxing! As for reading comprehension, your repetitive posts consistently require very little. They aren't troubling, merely depressing. You've repeated the words "crap" and "slop" plenty of times for your nuanced opinion to sink in just fine. Thanks for your contribution. Maybe we can finally leave the thread open for some others who might have something to say, or just let it die, rather than this continuing, repetitive, angry monologue of yours. I love a debate, but not when it's so deadly dull. My comment about your lack of practical filmmaking experience was hardly irrelevant, or a statement of desperation. I was merely noting your seemingly obvious lack of knowledge of the process and realities of working within a budget. A suspicion you've now confirmed. Hence, ignorant statements like "After all the money made on Phantasm I - IV, I'm sure he could have afforded a cheap camera and some real film" (you have no idea how much actual cameras or film even costs, or how little profit the Phantasm sequels made apparently); or when you fail to understand simple concepts such as: a movie made with less than a fourth of the available resources of Phantasm 4 is going to very obviously look like it was made with less than a fourth of the available resources of Phantasm 4. I'm hardly a Scorsese as you so wittily put it. In fact, I've never worked on anything with the budget of Phantasm Ravager. Just production and crew work on some short independent films and local commercial work, and never as a director. Still, I have worked closely with local directors and have some elementary knowledge of filmmaking and how expensive and difficult it is. But it doesn't take a Scorsese to do basic math. So your ignorant proclamations are meaningless to me and contain no weight. They show a general aversion to critical thinking that ultimately devalues your position. I respect your right to your opinion but find that opinion itself to be childishly ill-formed. To say nothing of the tedious, overbearing way you try to bludgeon everyone on this board with it. I like your Holy Mountain reference though.
|
|