ITT: Shitty movies /tv/ tricked you into watching

Split

these threads don't work as intended. /tv/ is known for having shit taste in films, so if /tv/ says it sucks then it's a masterpiece.

>>81520596
what are you fucking gay

There's more anti-Void posts than positive. Is this reverse shilling?

>>81521796
So, BvS isn't good, using that logic (good = bad and bad = good). Okay. You saved me. Thanks anon.

>>81522171
BvS is shit mate, that's exactly the point

File: the void rundown.png (2MB, 2920x7344px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2920x7344px

>>81520596

i watched it last night.

i gave it a 7/10

the horror effects were 9.5/10

it's good shit.

Do you remember a movie that was about I think 5 or 6 girls that got lost the way back home and they're being chasing by a woman?

File: 1491638922507.jpg (182KB, 800x1132px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 800x1132px

>>81522136
Stop playing 4D Chess... with yourself.

Expand Dong instead.

>>81520596
>give my shitty movie attention

get shot, your film sucks

>>81523195

it's pretty good. 9/10 you've never seen it.

>>81520596
really obvious shilling. your movie is trash.

>>81520596
>tfw The Void's marketing team is using reverse-psychology to shill their film
Well played. :^)

>>81523773

it's a pretty good movie

>>81523870

enjoy that tinfoil hat

it's a legitimately decent flick, that's why it's garnering buzz on /tv/

>>81523907
I agree that it was a pretty nice movie that I enjoyed. But the number of anti-void movies seems suspicious.

>>81520596
I watched Event Horizon because a bunch of people on here were jerking over it.

It wasn't completely terrible, but I can't understand why people thought it was scary. Wouldn't recommend.

>>81523975

you know people on 4chan are, in the largest part, of low quality.

and they're easily influenced by memes.

it's sick, but people will actually get a kick out of shitting on a movie like the void for no real reason, and the more people do it, the more amusing it is for them.

>>81524063

things aren't really scary in movies when you grow up, anon.

unless you're one of those people who can stand in the dark and make themselves scared.

>>81520596
>tricked
Literally all threads since release have been about how bad it was, are you retarded?

>>81524136

this is the weird thing. 500 threads about how shit it was. i watch it and it's pretty cool.

??? what gives ???

File: large_tRLOAiimxC3IOftUXzqhJ2L41FR.jpg (70KB, 400x567px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 400x567px

gib (you)'s pls

>muh lovecraft
>muh cosmic horror

Best part is it wasn't either of these things in way, shape or form. I can't even give this movie a rating because that would imply I liked something in this bland, featureless mess with literally nothing going for it acting-wise, set-wise, music-wise or design-wise. By the fucking books cliche-ridden mess.

>funded on indiegogo

THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM.

>>81520596
Fuck you.

I don't want any more ghosts. I don't want more jump scares. I don't want poltergeists. I don't want demons. I don't want possession. I don't want prequels. I don't want sequels. I don't want found footage BS. I don't want slashers.

Body horror, cosmic horror, and monsters are the fucking best.

I couldn't care less how good or bad it is, it just matters that it's different. Same thing with Babadook and it follows. Both are meh but they're at least somewhat original and interesting because of that.

>>81524174
Why didn't you like it

>>81522204
So that means it's actually a masterpiece, following your logic.

>>81524259
Spoilers please

>>81524389
Guess what you got, anon? The safest body horror movie ever made, funded by by fanboys on Indiegogo who got lied to. Also, it's not cosmic horror, because that would imply the writers knew what that was and could use the genre conventions to portray it, which they couldn't, and didn't.

>>81524504

yes, it ABSOLUTELY was cosmic horror by definition, several times over. the writers were very talented.

the void was good shit.

>>81524504

the only things that made the void 'indie' in any way, was hollywood bullshit that was absent. it didn't seem low budget at all.

>>81524504
I can accept safe I think.

As long as its different man. That's literally all I care about. I haven't seen it desu, but I fully intend on it eventually just so that I can get any idea about how it is.

Lets do a quick recap of 2017 horror:
>Get out
Maybe good? Haven't seen it, but seems like an interesting satire/horror tone.
>Bye bye man
rip off of sinister which was a rip off of slender man
>Annabelle
Another shit sequel to a shit sequel to a shit spin off of a so-so jump-scare movie. Insidious 1 was kinda novel tho
>Rings
Autistic reboot
>More insidious
Sad.
>MORE SAW
How the fuck do they do this?
>MORE amity ville
Boo a haunted house spooky
>It
Another sequel. Cautiously optimistic but lookslike pennywise is terrible casted and designed. Otherstuff looks good
>The dark tower
Will be terrible
>Jeepers Creepers
Again.
>Patient Zero
Zombie/Purge rip off
>Friday the 13th
Still
>Leatherface
Not even pretending its about the original anymore. Just the supervillain leather face bullshit.

Its all shit.

>>81524773
In your opinion, because it's of the highest value to me, how are the conjuring movies?

>>81524564
Shillpost

>>81524672
It was literally funded on Indiegogo, watch the credits

>>81524773
But it's not different. My biggest problem with this movie is hadn't a single original bone in its body. It didn't bring anything new to the table, it didn't present any ideas in any interesting or different ways. It was just so utterly by the books. This movie already exists in a dozen different forms. You could replace the monsters with demons and the cult with devil worshipers and there'd be absolutely no difference to be made, because there is no thematic content in this movie, there's no dynamism or artistic flair. It's a very broadly painted story shat out by crowdfunding whose budget clearly went into its effects and even then they were stiff and uninteresting.

I'm not saying horror isn't shit right now, it is, but The Void is just another ass-spray to add the pile. It's a literal nothing movie.

>>81524869
Its been a while.

I thought it was good for the genre. They're not bad, they're just standard. It was worth a watch but I wasn't wowed at all.

I mixed up annabelle with insidious.

Conjuring one was pretty decent to be fair. I still haven't seen

The last great horror movie I watched was Funny Games from Haneke. Videodrome was fun but a bit overrated, the Fly is amazing for effects but also a bit overrated since its so simple and short. Jacobs ladder is great as well.

Oh. The VVitch was pretty great for a recent horror movie imo.

>>81525073
Fuck. That's disappointing if it ends up being true for me.

Movies in general are shitting the bed rn since the industry only invests in "safe" bets. It must be hard to do lovecraft-type horror, but it really would be great to see it.

Idk anyone director that could pull it off properly. The idea of making something horrifying without showing anything doesn't jive with modern movies anymore. Almost none of them are "atmospheric" unless they're more detective/noir based like Seven and Zodiac.

>>81525073

being funded by indigogo doesn't mean it was an indie movie.

>>81525073

>muh originality

fuck off, liberal snowflake. it was enjoyable, being enjoyable is more important for me.

File: a90cdfb4c77f15d458a7b58aa56a0c16.jpg (12KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x236px

>>81520596

i kind of liked it, will certainly re-watch it eventually... the ending reminded me of Event Horizon

I don't know, I was quite happy to see a movie without CGI... plus, it's a Lovecraftian artpiece, no matter how bad those get, they are never that bad for my personal taste...

>>81525263
I never said it was. What's your point, exactly?

>>81525331
>doesn't read the whole post because a word triggered him into buzzwords

I guess you also like being talked down to as an audience member and don't mind filmmakers not taking risks or trying to give you a new spin on a tired idea, which is what I actually said if you had bothered reading all that, but if you're content to be shat on by bad filmmakers, you should enjoy it. Just turn off your brain, bro!

>>81520596

Watchmen

>>81525162
If you're going to see it, which if you are interested in doing, you should, you have every right. But I would strongly recommend not paying. If you like it, buy a copy or find a screening, but don't pay first. I personally do not think they deserve it. Void's another safe movie. Everyone who backed gets to feel good they helped 'make a movie'.

Lovecraftian horror just doesn't translate well to the screen. Horror is a genre of implication, and the written word is the most powerful medium for that, because it all takes place in your head. On a screen, it's solid, quantifiable, you lose some of that mental fuzziness when someone designs a monster. Making a movie out a Lovecraft story is hard for a bunch of reasons, the main one being this is the 21st century. We've lived through modernism, post-modernism, dada-ism, deconstructionism and more. When Lovecraft wrote, they didn't even teach evolution in schools, the Scope's Monkey Trial about the controversy took place in 1925, for fuck's sake, a year before The Call of Cthulhu was written. Western outlooks on the world were very, very different, they lived in a much more overtly volatile world of constant innovation, discovery and change. Lovecraft was an up to date science nerd who was around when Einstein was creating the theory of relativity. He used all this new shit we learned in stories, referenced, was influenced by it, and it was weird and cutting edge to readers. Unfortunately, that's kind of lost on us, because it's all so common-place now. The other reason why it's hard is because horror is a hard genre anyway, it's easy to fuck up and you need the absolute right concoction of visuals, sound design, reticence and music to make a consistent atmosphere. And just blasting monsters out is anathema to actual horror.

>>81525552
>>81525552
Thanks anon.

I actually hadn't even thought about how early Lovecraft's work was. I read the Mountains of Madness last summer and enjoyed it a fair bit but completely forgot that it was written way back in 1936. The idea of there actually being people that lived on Antarctica might have actually been concievable back then.

>>81525514


>being given something you enjoy is like 'being shat on'

you enjoy being shat on?

are you a cuck, a feces fetishist, or a masochist?

>>81525645
No problem, I like talking Lovecraft.

Consider that he tried to make penguins scary. That's how new all this stuff was. Mountains of Madness is a love letter to the Antarctic Lovecraft was obsessed with, he just thought it was the tightest shit, so the stuff in that story was up to date and relevant at the time. People were still exploring that place, nowadays, there's research stations and people live and work down there in them. There's tourism! It's still nigh-inhospitable and all, but our general view of it couldn't be more different. It was still a frontier back then.