Well, I hope you've learned your lesson. 

Except that it didn't. The world wasn't set on fire, but no one had to write it off, either and make apologies. It wasn't an expensive movie (especially compared to the budgets of its competition) and it ranked #3 at the box office on opening weekend, right behind The Hunger Games and The Three Stooges. It made over $66 Million worldwide (yes, I'm counting outside the US, because it matters and America isn't the only place that exists on Earth). It did well enough for Lionsgate, they picked up Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing", a black-and-white adaptation of a Shakespeare play, with no big stars (which I am very interested to see, don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to make a point, here).

Also of note: If we operate under the assumption that you're correct about the film's earnings, that still doesn't necessarily justify or explain the "spoiler" on the lenticular (huh, spell check doesn't seem to know that word) cover. In fact, going back over your post, a couple of your sentences appear to be contradicting your theory. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that almost no one saw it in theaters, so in order to make a good sale on home video, many of the monsters where highlighted on the box cover to entice newcomers who might see it and go, "Hey, cool. This looks like all the Horror movies for the price of one!". Otherwise, they were only left to sell to the converted, which by your estimation is too small, so fuck it?

The thing is, the theatrical trailer already told you there were numerous baddies to be found in the movie, which is really all the box art here is doing anyway. The context or "twist" is still a safely kept secret. Plus, they're not going to try to sell to those who have already seen and liked the movie because they don't have to/need to. They already know those people will buy. They're more or less a foregone conclusion. This is about grabbing new viewers. People who are either exclusively home entertainment consumers, or those who missed the opportunity to see it at the cinema. The time to preach to the choir is mostly reserved for special editions or double-dip releases later down the road.

This post is way longer than I initially intended, but my point is simply this: The Cabin In The Woods, all things considered, made a nice amount of money. Just because something doesn't make a mint, doesn't mean it's a hardcore failure that folks should be ashamed of. Just sayin'.

Cotterpin, may I ask a question? What , in your opinion, are the dumb ideas in the film?  I think the film is a clever celebration of all sorts of horror films, it includes the good ideas and the dumb ones that accompanied those films.

Wow.

Well, the movie doesn't bother me, but seriously well said. You raise a lot of good points quite well.

I love this forum.

Estimated Production Budget: $30 Million (Wiki)
BoxOfficeMojo Theatre Gross: $66 Million (BOM)

Avengers it was not...but doubling up the production budget while in theaters for a Rated-R, relatively low-budget horror movie with no established branding (original IP), seems like a solid success.

Last edited by BBQ (2012-11-19 18:15:21)

Who was this movie aimed at? It wasn't funny enough to be a comedy. If it's a horror movie, it's one that hates horror movies. I wanted to love it (I liked Tucker and Dale vs Evil quite a lot), but it didn't give me much to hang on to. The film makers seemed to be fighting with themselves as to whether to follow the tropes or subvert them. The sequence that introduces the kids is a complete mess.

The movie is really well made, and I had some fun with it, but it seemed to indict a straw man for the most part (most horror movies don't have a cursed object, for example, and most horror movies trap the characters in a far more inventive way than blowing up a tunnel). The best part was Whitford and Jenkins' joyless reaction to the first kill.

And the ending... what the fuck? The reason you don't tell a story about the world ending is that the audience knows the world didn't end, so what the fuck point are you making by saying your characters made the world end?

I just rewatched it last night and I still love the hell out of it, but there are valid criticisms one can bring up.

The core problem is that it's not at all successful as a horror movie, until maybe the last 20 minutes (which really make the movie in my opinion). Of all the monsters they could go with for the "movie within the movie" section, zombies just seem like such a lame copout. If you seriously just replaced them with werewolves, or something cooler, I think the movie immediately gets stronger and works better in its genre. Without that, much of the movie ends up feeling like a Spoof movie, there's a degree of sincerity missing.

I think an interesting comparison point would be Scream (and this is a movie I'd really like to see a DIF on at some point), because that film largely does all the same genre deconstruction of Cabin in the Woods, but it's still a very effective horror film with some really harrowing and intense sequences. It's both an excellent slasher movie, and an excellent meta-commentary on slashers, whereas I think Cabin nails the commentary, but doesn't really work on a thriller level. Scream also did all this almost 20 years ago, so it's funny to see Cabin in the Woods talked about like some revolutionary thing that's never been tried before.

That being said, I think the writing in Cabin is outstanding, I think all the character setups, interactions, and payoffs are excellent, and I find it very rewatchable (its also EXACTLY 90 minutes long, which is nice).

Last edited by bullet3 (2013-03-18 01:30:28)

Okay. Let's watch whichever one was being satirized by the giant invisible electric fence. What is that from? Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

I love how Whedon & Goddard wrote the screenplay. Three days in a split level trading pages back and forth.

Yep and it would have been like every other damn movie out there.

Give me a good angry old gods take over the earth every once and a while, why always with this belief in the unmovable purity and logic of humanity, ugh.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? That's your argument? Why should I tell you any story about a fictional character then? Why should anyone care about what happens to them, we know they don't exist. Why bother telling me the story of Tyler Durden, obviously he didn't really exist, obviously the downtown core of banks has never actually been blown to smithereens. So why the hell should I watch that movie? I know it didn't actually happen.

the audience knows the world didn't end... give me a break.

/angryrantover

I'll give you that the actual thematic point of the destruction could be played out a little more, but I'm fine with the idea that these 2 20-somethings just got fucked around so hard by this god damned system that they are perfectly happy in that moment of flooded emotion and anger to just go "Burn the motherfucker". But seriously, to use the idea of "The audience knows it's fake so why bother." Nuh-uh, not goin there.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2013-05-30 17:45:36)

Agreed, but you know what? She wasn't there. And neither was anyone else. Just the 2 of them in a fucked up situation they had no control over, having to deal with things so over their head.

I think I'm kinda getting at a theme here. NO ONE IN THIS MOVIE IS IN CONTROL OF ANYTHING. EVER. Every one is being manipulated. Right up until the very end. Only at the very end, when it's Dana and Marty, and they had a choice. And they choose each other over the human race. In my opinion a perfectly human thing to do. I would instantly call bullshit on anyone that thinks they could go through all the shit they just went through and then when confronted with a choice like that go..."Well alright then, I'll put all the pros in this column. Mmhmm...and then. I'll put all the cons in this column. Perfect!" No, you would be an emotional wreck barely able to form two cogent words together at the best of times.

Granted in the heat of the moment YOUR reaction might be different, and you might shoot the other person and save the world, but that's not what happened here. That's not what these specific characters did. When faced with the choice between each other and the world, they choose each other. But they chose something, it was a choice. There's nothing logical about the ending, it's purely a chain of base human reactions leading to a situation that led to a single choice that led to this ending.

Which frankly I think is an awesome choice for the film makers to make, not just because it means there's finally a movie where humans don't reign all victorious and the old gods are once again vanquished, but because it doesn't put any actual "this is right" or "This is wrong" on it. It's 2 people made a choice. And now we all die. End of movie.

Frankly I think that's about as close to real human nature and real life as it gets.

North Korea gets a little twitchy tomorrow. One man decides to push a button. A choice. Suddenly I wake up in a nuclear wasteland. Everyone dies. End of story.

EDIT: I think my point may have gotten a bit muddled, so I'll try to lay it out as simply as I can. I think people get to caught up on trying to analyze why Dana and Marty did what they did, as though their actions in that scene are the outcome of level headed thought and analytic thinking, when (I think) the movie makes it perfectly clear that we are dealing with two people on the very brink of their sanity who are given a choice between killing the living human being directly in front of them, the same person they just spent the entire day dealing with this shit with, and who on numerous occasions saved each others ass, or saying enough with the killing let it all burn (An action which has no understandable consequences to them at that moment, it's something so much larger than them, something they can't even begin to comprehend. And so in that moment, the two of them chose the choice they had where they could feel like they're were in control...not killing each other.

Again, logical on the grand scale of the universe? Fuck no. Understandable from these 2 people at that moment, and under those circumstances. Personally I say hell yes. ANd that's why I love it. Because unlike the traditional Hollywood ending this would have, where in some master feat of human purity and goodness they mange to save the universe; CITW says nope, we're human, we fuck up, we're vulnerable, and sometimes that ends bad. End of movie.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2013-05-30 19:30:18)

Ah lol, I had the literal image of Ripley busting in there and being like fuck this shit, and torching them both.

My version is funnier.

Good. At least the movie made you feel something about the characters. Which puts it above most movies.

/youseewhatIdidthere