[DoctorEldritch]

@DracoTarot I think it works best with thrillers or detectives, something like And Then There Were None

Ah, well, I have seen a few based on The Grönholm Method play, but most of them were rather meh.

It is very nuanced. Remind me, were bodies only naturally decomposing though, or if you left a carcass in the woods then wild animals would eat it? I don't remember I ever really checked that bit while playing.

[DracoTarot]

@DoctorEldritch I guess there are many factors to consider with those types of movies and in the end the movie will either be bad or good but detective, thriller and mystery seem to fare well.

I forgot to mention that predators and other creatures will interact with the corpses. I've seen crabs crawl over a corps near a river and when you stand next to the copse for a while you will notice they are collecting pieces of flesh and take them to their burrows. There are also coyotes near bodies sometimes and it seems they will take some body parts.

[DoctorEldritch]

@DracoTarot Well, to be fair, in Lovecraftian, there are two instances of horror that complement each other, one comes from isolation and another from vastness. That is, there is a vast terrifying scope that humans with their limited minds can't hope to comprehend, and ancient powerful beings and forces lurk there and it is terrifying, but therein comes the fear that humans are trapped in their small, limited reality and means to understand it, and by comparison, it is terrifying to contemplate how isolated in senses and abilities they are.

For me, "isolation movies" tap into that category, not in the Eldritch way, but in a way that is more human-scaled, with small isolated places. But the same principle applies: in most of those films those isolated are tested or toyed with by some enigmatic powerful (or knowing-more-than-the-rest) party. There is an appeal to that.

Oh, that was a good detail, not enough developers care about little but world-building details like that.

[DracoTarot]

@DoctorEldritch In a sense those scenarios work well and need to exist in all aspects not only through Lovecraftian. It's like the Ying and the Yang. One cannot exist without the other. Keep people captivated on both sides of the spectrum.

I get the appeal and it seems you like the psychological aspect of it in isolation movies. Toying with people's minds and having no trust in each other is scarier than having a supernatural experience.

It's a good detail indeed. They really thought of everything.

[DoctorEldritch]

@DracoTarot True, Lovecraftian is just a tad more illustrative example because of its lore, but it can be any setting. I mean, many space movies: Odyssey, Alien, etc. operate on the same principle: the vastness of space vs the isolation of a tiny metal ship adrift in it.

Ah, well, thrillers like that are often psychological. Not sure if they could work otherwise, if you take the psychological out, you may just be left with horror. On the subject of this, I can't remember if we touched on it, but have you seen Heretic yet?

[DracoTarot]

@DoctorEldritch Sci-Fi movies based on the same principle are my favourite.

I did watch Heretic and overall I was impressed with the movie. The script is well-written and the concept is spot on within a religious point of view. I mean what is scarier than believing in a higher power that controls our every move? Hugh Grand used narrative in great detail and when religion plays a part in this it makes people think more about the concept.

[DoctorEldritch]

@DracoTarot Like what, for example? I don't think there are that many purely sci-fi movies like that? Alien has a fantasy element, and even the Odyssey has that Monolith plotline, even if it is technically classified as science fiction. I am trying to think about a purely sci-fi example with no fantasy elements like that...

For me, Heretic was good but a bit...basic, I want to say? It is saved by the charisma of Hugh Grand and is excellent as an example of that, but if you take it away, and replace Hugh with someone less charismatic, then the philosophy in the first part of the film is rather basic and done before, and "dungeon" in the second is a bit weak too.

But my two biggest issues with it are firstly, that the whole plan seemingly depended on where the bike key was. If Sister Paxton put a key in her dress pocket, then he would not be able to unlock it and, assuming there was not enough time to cut it (and I'll admit that there may be provided he has the right tools) then Elder Kennedy would see the bikes when he came around. But I'll let it slide as it may indeed be possible to cut the chain relatively fast without the key. The second issue though has no excuse, and it is leaving a letter opener lying around. I mean, seriously, if you plan something like this, make sure your trap has no sharp objects your visitors could use, it's Maniac 101. Amateur hour...

That is not to say I did not like it, it is a good film, but I think it over-relies on the quality of delivery rather than the substance of the message. But with Hugh, you can allow to do that.

[DracoTarot]

@DoctorEldritch Interstellar can be classified as purely Sci-Fi depending on how you look at it. Then there's Sunshine. A team of international astronauts is sent on a dangerous mission to reignite the dying Sun with a nuclear fission bomb in 2057. V for Vendetta can also be classified as pure sci-fi in a sense.

I also noticed most you've mentioned and thought it was done a bit amateurish. On the other hand, we can spot and point out all the little details that matter and the ones that don't.

Most people do not even bother to look deeper at the scenario as it plays pans and only watches for entertainment purposes. I think most directors and producers do not care much about finer details and know that 90% of the time people watch for entertainment purposes and not to criticize.

I was impressed by how detailed Hugh went into the Religious aspects and he presented himself well in the movie. I must agree if they chose someone else for the role it may have not been a good movie at all.

[DoctorEldritch]

@DracoTarot I would not go that far for Interstellar, it was pure sci-fi for most of it, but then they had to do that whole watch-hand thing... It is soft sci-fi for me now. Gravitation is better in that sense, I think. V for Vendetta is more of a social and political action thriller, if it does have sci-fi elements, it puts almost no accent on those, I think? Where does it have strong sci-fi elements?

I meant it more as not the film is amateurish, but the behaviour of the antagonist is as far as leaving something that can be used as a weapon just lying around. That's sloppy for someone who managed to capture that many people already, so from a villain logic point of view, it breaks the immersion. Yes, you are seemingly so smart and educated in your arguments, but a rookie mistake with a letter opener is very foolish. And you are right, I tend to overanalyze films, my doctorate is connected to them, so it's an occupational hazard thing. Most people probably will not be bothered by details like that as much.

Well, it may not been a good movie at all, or it may have been a whole different movie. If we replaced Hugh with, for example, George Clooney or Daniel Craig, we'd probably still get a decent movie, though a very different one.

[DracoTarot]

@DoctorEldritch I think the stronger Sci-Fi elements came into play within the 1984 movie. When V for Vendetta was released in 2005 most of the strong elements were in existence since the 1984 release and V for Vendetta is seen more as a dystopian science fiction – and that’s what we’re living through right now.

I'm with you on this one and the whole scenario does not fit well. I think they may have intentionally written the script that way. There are many examples where a villain or serial killer slips up one way or another.

The letter opener is a good example of that and in every movie like that the victim needs in some shape or form have something that will count to their advantage against their enemy.

By not giving some sort of advantage to a captive or victim most of the film will end up with the villain having the upper hand and winning. People may not like the concept as much. I know I would and also will prefer most movies where the villain is left standing.

While I'm not much of an educated person I still tend to learn more in your direction and know exactly what you mean. I'm both open-minded and critical on certain occasions.

Detail is also important to me. 😊

Here I go being all sceptical again and in my opinion, I can't see George Clooney playing the role. He does not have the edge and seriousness for me. On the other hand, Willem Dafoe would have been a good candidate for the role. His whole demeanour would have given the movie an edge.