Name a superior Lovecraftian kino

You cannot.

Attached: Annalation.jpg (1888x1566, 281K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necronomicon_(H._R._Giger)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_(film)
vimeo.com/102372269
therobotsvoice.com/2015/01/7_reasons_we_dont_need_guillermo_del_toro_at_the_mountains_of_madness_lovecraft.php
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

nice dubs

In the Mouth of Madness.

Really more like Hodgson.

Not even close.

The Thing
In the Mouth of Madness
Event Horizon

Alien (keep in mind that Giger was inspired by Lovecraft. Also, assume Prometheus and Aliens never existed)

Attached: p30211_d_v8_aa.jpg (960x1440, 370K)

that's not even lovercraftian, you poof

>t. is unfamiliar with Colour Out of Space
You have no right to an opinion in these matters pleb

Neither The Thing or Event Horizon are Lovecraftian

Pontypool

I cna grant you The Thing, but the movie "Event Horizon" has elements of the Cthulhu Mythos, or possibly takes place in the distant past of the Warhammer 40k universe.

In the Cthulhu Mythos version, the Event Horizon while testing an experimental warp drive encounters beings humans couldn't possibly understand. This causes the first crew to go insane and kill each other/themselves. Sam Neil's character (already emotionally unstable by the death of his wife) then also goes insane when he realizes the horrible truth about what happened to the first crew. He then attempts to return the ship to the warp, bringing more sacrifices to those incomprehensible beings. The original script was also supposed to feature Lovecraftian aliens

I'd argue that The Thing is Lovecraftian in nature. They are dealing with a centuries old horror from space that cannot die buried in thousands of year old Antarctic ice. While not identical, it has some of the same elements. of Lovecraft stories.

Giger's design for the alien was actually inspired by the William Blake poem The Tyger

Its basically a modern At The Mountains of Madness

neither is annihilation you cuck

To add, Carpenter set out to be in that style, I'd also add In The Mouth of Madness to it.


I guess it depends on what you mean by Lovecraftian Horror. If you just mean "Like the Kuthulu Mythos" then it's pretty narrow.
If you mean Cosmic Horrors and the unknowable, then you have a wider range.

that word doesnt mean what you think it means

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necronomicon_(H._R._Giger)

The Blake poem was an influence, but the Lovecraftian title of Giger's artbook and its obvious influence on his artwork, cannot be ignored.

Assuming that Cameron never made Aliens, and Prometheus never existed, the Alien could be seen as the product of a deceased Elder One who piloted a spaceship and left behind millions of eggs. Assuming that the Alien Queen was never introduced, the Aliens reproduced by turning people into eggs.

Also, it is a part of the theme of cosmic horror that defines Lovecraft's work. The xenomorph belongs to an ecology, and possibly a sapient species that is far beyond the understanding and recognition of Man.

its a ripoff of the color out of space with more fancy science

Truly Aliens was the worst thing to happen to the franchise

Welcome the Stranger and Devil's Advocate is the peak of lovecraft elements.

The Pacino/Keanu one?

I always felt it had a more of a supernatural feel with the mass halucinations. And the destination of the ship being hell when the warp drive was activated. This I believe was even mentioned in the movie by Neil. This is the first I heard about Lovecraftian creatures in the original script so I will have to grant you a partial LC element then.

Attached: 1509673538653.png (645x729, 58K)

No, that was Alien: Resurrection. Also Prometheus, AvP 1 & 2 and Alien: Covenant

Aliens was partly because of Fox, but may have also been because Cameron saw pic related - a mural done by Giger. The overarching Xenomorph figure could be seen as the Xenomorph making another alien out of a human, but, a possible interpretation of the mural is that the egg came from a "mother" since the overarching Xenomorph is similar to the Egyptian Sky Goddes, Nut.

Cameron himself painted a painting of the Xenomorph Queen from his own imagining, and the rest was history.

Aliens is not a bad movie. Its just a war movie. Yes, it may have detracted from what Ridley Scott intended for the first Alien movie, but Cameron brought a lot of good things to the franchise in Aliens.

Attached: f5901a7d75a8ab540e0637dde4ff4d19.jpg (839x1200, 211K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_(film)

>Anderson's initial reaction to the script, which involved the cruise ship Event Horizon experiencing a series of hauntings by "tentacular" aliens having crossed the threshold of their planet or "dimension", was that it bore striking resemblance to Alien (1979), while producer and longtime collaborator Jeremy Bolt felt it was a "terrific concept" but was "very dense" in terms of length and the storyline was "a bit lost." Anderson disliked directing a mimicry of Alien so he gave the script a major rewrite.

Splatoon

AvP is unironically fun Aliens is overrated and incredibly generic and destroyed the mythos, 3 is a trainwreck, Resurrection is a bizarro absurd comedy version, AvP 2 shouldn't exist, Prometheus is failed potential and Covenant is an abomination

>Annihilation keeno!

Attached: 1521229027180.jpg (1056x948, 72K)

Also, I might add, Cameron himself took inspiration from Giger - pic related was Alien Monster IV from the same artbook. Perhaps Cameron chose to take a more simplistic insect explanation to depict the alien, while Scott may have intended cosmic horror, which was what he "tried" to go back to in Prometheus and Covenant.

I'll post the Cameron painting next

Attached: Giger'sAlienMonsterIV.jpg (709x700, 625K)

brb, booting up dos emulator to play darkseed

Play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl to the end.
The wish granter talking russian in your head is a better scene.

>DEH

I thought cameron specifically didn't want Giger to have anything to do with the project because it was too psychosexual/monstrous and he wanted more acceptable designs

Scott didn't intend shit, he's an ad industry hireling. The sooner people stop treating Scott as an auteur the sooner their brains will stop hurting - the thing went to shit because Scott had no more to do with what was valuable on the original Alien than the fucking Akkads had to do with what was valuable about Halloween. He's not an auteur.

>shit just happens and you cant even understand, Morty
the world is so crazy and impossible to understand

Attached: Jon Oliver.jpg (1368x2568, 601K)

Well his first two movies were brilliant
Too bad about everything else being scattered visual excellence in garbage movies

Attached: Ridley.png (2020x1452, 2.94M)

From the same
>Anderson had in mind a "classic haunted house movie", incorporating significant influences to moderately successful horror films such as Robert Wise's The Haunting (1963) and Kubrick's The Shining (1980) because they enforce suspense from the unknown, meaning the ghost or creature was hidden from the viewer, and their endings induced ambiguities of perception in the audience. Anderson, too, said he was interested in the concept of Hell, as well as the idea of "the ship itself being possessed".

>AvP is unironically fun
It was trash. The good moments were with the archaeologist and the comments on Predator hunting ritual. A shame they killed him.

>Aliens is overrated
No...


>and incredibly generic and destroyed the mythos
....agreed.

>3 is a trainwreck

I will defend 3, mainly because it was David Fincher. As in THE David Fincer. David "Seven' Fincher. David "Motherfucking Fight Club" Fincher. The director's cut of Alien 3 really elevates the series barring one or two plot holes, and an ideal version of the movie, that splices in the "dog origin" of the xenomorph, with the additional scenes of the assembly cut, would, imho, put this movie on the same level as the first two. It had a good exploration on the themes of nihilism and religion, and was a fitting send-off to Ridley. Yes, Alien 3 gets a lot of shit for killing Newt and Hicks but, I will say this - Ridley was never meant to have a happy ending.

I do hope that Blomkamp makes the real Alien 5 with Newt and Hicks having survived and made it back home. But Alien 3 works as a timeline where Ripley never got a real happy ending.

>Resurrection is a bizarro absurd comedy version
....I guess. Getting the director of Amelie to direct the movie is a weird fit. I hate it, but, I did like Amelie. Its like getting Shyamalaan to direct a Nickelodeon cartoon movie.

>AvP 2 shouldn't exist, Prometheus is failed potential and Covenant is an abomination

All agreed.

Also, pic related is Cameron's original painting of the Alien Queen.

Attached: james_cameron_-_alien_queen_egg-sac__1_.jpg (628x509, 80K)

>the thing went to shit because Scott had no more to do with what was valuable on the original Alien

I can "make" myself enjoy Prometheus and Covenant for what they were, but Scott seemed to forget mystery is what made Alien so effective.

Combine that with his (imo) attempt to tie the Blade Runner universe with the AI universe and you end up with the two movies full of delicious ingredients that just don't taste good when all combined.

Pic related you are now aware Ben Wheatley could expertly capture Lovecraft's dreadful, uncaring atmosphere.

Attached: KillList.png (780x478, 240K)

brainlet detected

The Duellists isn't brilliant, it's an overlong adaptation of a clever short story by a director who doesn't understand its ironies but knows how to make shampoo commercials.

>I do hope that Blomkamp makes the real Alien 5

I bet you want del Toro to make At the Mountains of Madness as well.

Ridley Scott should just stick to adapting good content, or getting good writers. Gladiator was good, but Robin Hood wasn't. The Martian deserved its Academy nomination, but Covenant was trash.

A movie like The Martian convinces me that Scott still has a great director in him. A movie like Covenant convinces me that he shouldn't touch his old works again.

>seemed to forget
Scott didn't know to begin with. The same goes for Blade Runner.

Ben Wheatley, though, makes Ridley Scott look like a viable human being. Dreadful director.

>tie the Blade Runner universe with the AI universe

*Alien universe

AM1200, a 40 minute short movie starring the coroner from Wind River (and many other things). It's a perfect little movie and it's online in its entirety. One of the best Lovecraft-inspired movies I've ever seen, and with a shoestring budget.

vimeo.com/102372269

Would you consider that a good or bad thing? Honest question

no u

Bad for both and actually for similar reasons.

Both would pull off the aesthetic but shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the stories and directing.

Please for the love of god tell me they didn't say kino.

Attached: pepe.png (1000x700, 85K)

The Martian is a joke. You have bad taste.

Well I liked District 9. Elysium was okay, and I feel Chappie suffered mainly because of Die Antwoord. Blomkamp strikes me as the kind of guy that needs the right supervision, or rather, the right studio execs - the kind of studio execs who made District 9 happen, and not the ones who made Chappie happen. I think Blomkamp can do something right.

>stories and directing.
Now I am curious as to why you think this. I will admit that Del Toro has his peculiarities and had a specific vision/interpretation for The Hobbit and Hellboy, which may have detracted from the source material. The same could've applied to Blomkamp.

Del Toro's Hobbit would have been amazing, and an honest effort, unlike what we got.

Now it's gonna be a franchise, who knows, he might get another shot, post-Oscars?

Just for form's sake you can't deny the first film to use Lovecraft's "Elder God's" theme: The Haunted Palace(1963). And it's actually pretty good horror.

Attached: THP63-book1.jpg (719x309, 28K)

I personally hope that Del Toro's vision of the Hobbit is as a singular movie/story. Coming to think of it, I do hope he gets the shot. Mainly because we already had two cinematic adaptations of the Hobbit and, honestly, I don't want people to have only the Jackson films as their understanding/approach to the Tolkien mythos. Rankin-Bass and Bakshi had some itneresting ideas, and even the BBC and NPR radio adaptaions brought new stuff to the plate. A Del Toro adaptation that doesn't pander to the Jackson film would definitely be interesting.

Very underrated. If only AIP had let Corman make a Lovecraft series.

You now what pisses me off? That the named the movie after Edgar Allan Poe's story when it was a Lovecraft movie.

I can sense both authors rolling in their graves

I seem to remember that he was going to make maybe two films, but he wouldn't stretch it further. If he makes it, I hope it's just one. I agree, the Jackson ones are shocking, not just wrong about the book but bad cinema, period.

This guy does a good job summing up why a lot of people don't want him to write and direct an adaptation: therobotsvoice.com/2015/01/7_reasons_we_dont_need_guillermo_del_toro_at_the_mountains_of_madness_lovecraft.php

I'll say again though - would LOVE to see his creature designs in a Lovecraft movie but there is zero chance he would limit himself to that while another filmmaker directs.

I blame it more on the fact that the Hobbit films were in development hell and Jackson had to rush the movies. For what its worth, a truncated Hobbit trilogy, that reduces everything to two movies at most, and leaves out all that shitty padding, would be "alright". Not good or great, but "alright".

Also, the studio execs who rushed the Hobbit movie were not the same people who okay'ed and greenlit the LotR trilogy. Put it into perpective: the LotR trilogy was seen with pessimism from execs and was not expected to do well. After it did well, they pretty much wanted the Hobbit as three movies to cash in on the name.

>This script invents several lead characters. Why not make one of them female?

Fuck off.

Most of the criticisms seem valid, but not that.

The whole concept was bad, however much time he'd have had, using every bit of material Christopher Tolkien can't prevent you from having to pad out what should be a gorgeous little kids' film could only result in a cynical object.

I'm almost certain that all the stuff about the LotR not being expected to do well is bullshit. You don't spend that much if you don't expect success, and you don't leave success to chance if you spend that amount of money. It's like if people said that Avatar was a risk - not by the time you've brainwashed casual moviegoers into buying tickets, no.

>this guy does a good job summing

I just finished reading it. I find that his problem isn't so much with del Toro, particularly, as it is with AAA studio films these days. Its the same kind of shit we had since even the 80s. Studios can and will fuck up films. And sometimes its not just the director or the script writer.

My other problem with the blogpost is this
>My gut feeling is that this story should be left alone. Films and books are different, and if translating means too drastic of a change, what’s the point?

See, this is the exact kind of thinking was agaisnt SNyder making the Watchmen movie. Or, to sue a far mroe apprpriate example, would have detracted Jackson from adapting/directing LotR. Did Jackson do a disservice to the Lord of the Rings? yes, but mainly from a purist perspective. The point of adaptation, while it can be seen cynically as a means to get audiences to pay money for a watered down version of an original, an adaptation can also, perhaps ideally, be seen as a gateway to the text for those who are interested and want to learn more.

I always read that as sarcastic.

>Oh of course let's invent a love story and add female characters

If you read before it, the complaint is that the woman isn't neccesary enough, and is basically off-screen.

>See, this is the exact kind of thinking was agaisnt SNyder making the Watchmen movie. Or, to sue a far mroe apprpriate example, would have detracted Jackson from adapting/directing LotR. Did Jackson do a disservice to the Lord of the Rings? yes, but mainly from a purist perspective. The point of adaptation, while it can be seen cynically as a means to get audiences to pay money for a watered down version of an original, an adaptation can also, perhaps ideally, be seen as a gateway to the text for those who are interested and want to learn more.

You're making great points but what makes me standoffish about del Toro is he never once has mentioned themes, atmosphere, story, etc. when it comes to wanting to adapt Mountains. He only ever went on and on and on and on about his creature designs. Lovecraft is way more than tentacles but that seems to be Toro's main focus.

>Did Jackson do a disservice to the Lord of the Rings? yes, but mainly from a purist perspective.

No, he didn't get the tone at all right, and spiritually it means nothing, it's vacuous. Good moviemaking of its type, but the tiny flame of magic was snuffed out entirely.

>The point of adaptation, while it can be seen cynically as a means to get audiences to pay money for a watered down version of an original, an adaptation can also, perhaps ideally, be seen as a gateway to the text for those who are interested and want to learn more.

That doesn't make sense at all. All the people I know who saw the movies before reading the book have found the book an unbearable chore to read, and have only read it once.

>Lovecraft is way more than tentacles

Yeah, but most of the rest of him is literary. I mean, it's things you can write about feeling but can't make exist visually. Or lore.

I think that is a fair point. Del Toro does strike me more as a creature guy then a "plot" guy. The true horror of Lovecraft wasn't so much how the creatures looked, but the larger implications of what his beings meant, that is, the themes of cosmic horror. In contrast, Pacific Rim was pretty dumb. Pan's Labyrinth and the Shape of Water, while good, had fairly simple stories.

>he didn't get the tone at all right, and spiritually it means nothing, it's vacuous. Good moviemaking of its type, but the tiny flame of magic was snuffed out entirely.

Like I said, a purist perspective. If you are a casual fan of fanatsy and/or the Lord of the rings - say, someone who saw the rankin/bass Hobbit and a Bakshi LotR on TV - the thought of them doing a live-action film with effects would have been cool. Plus it tapped into the D&D and other fanatsy buffs who liked that kind of stuff

Again, thats the casual perspective. Its not the same as the Tolkien puritsts who understand Tolkien's background and beliefs in mythopoeia, as well as the udnerlying spiritual themes of LotR. Yes, the Jackson films did not capture those, but it was not meant to. A more authentic adaptation, imho, would be the BBC radio adapation.

>All the people I know who saw the movies before reading the book have found the book an unbearable chore to read, and have only read it once.

If we're using ti anecdotes, when I read LotR - and this was when I was a kid, way before the movie came out, I only mainly followed the journey of Frodo and Sam. I had read the Hobbit in full, and was more interested in what happened to Frodo.

Upon being older, and watching the Jackson films, I revisited the movie, but read the other half of the Lord of the Rings, mainly the journey of Aragorn as a king-to-be. I'm not saying everyone will get into Tolkien after watching the Jackson films, but that is the hope that at least someone, at least one person, does.

Mike absolutely did, he also used it wrong.

The Void

The Ritual

>implying it wasn't strugatskyan kino

i thought for a while that i'd love to see this game made into a 9 or 10 hour mini but i realized it'd just end up feeling like a TWD season mashed up with Tarkovsky's film and the silent hill flick.

Attached: annihilation-tarkovsky.jpg (3400x5060, 2.59M)

would have seen it if not for the BLACKED scene. cannot subject my gf to jewish propaganda.

oh sweetie

He's right though. ITMOM is Lovecraft for people who don't know the genre beyond surface level spoopy tentacles and DUDE LITERATURE BECOMES SOCIAL CONSCIOUS BECOMES REALITY LMAO.

The movie would have been good if the first 80% of the movie wasn't just a collection of boring scenes about women talking about their feelings.

I just finished this. I liked it. they honestly couldve gotten rid of the entire first 15 minutes though

Just saw this and Arrival and loved it. What do I watch next

Why all the Prometheus hate? I can understand Covenant for its pace, though conceptually the rest was good - for a 'cerebral' movie.

Have you not considered that this was something ridley wanted to make for its own sake? Maybe he wasn't TRYING to re-capture anything -- it sounds like that's what you're perceiving it as, or wanting it to be, and are let down by your own expectations. Its just what it is, in its own right. I felt that going in, it was going to be less mood and more storytelling. Because that's precisely what it is, an explanation. Its also philosophical and constantly opening up a dialogue with the audience - however surface level you might see that as, the average person might not. It's pretty straightforward and enjoyable imo. Alien is the "haunted house" of the series and is more about mood, darkness, surfaces, the hunt and the hunted. Alien is obviously more "lovecraftian" in that sense, that and the loss of control and orientation the characters experience, which is made worse with each passing revelation. Prometheus doesn't seem to be "trying" to be any of that, it looks like it's on its own completely different wavelength which is not robbing the story of anything, just expounding upon the circumstances which create the confrontation we know as "the alien"... all the mystery of alien has to do with is the encounter of the alien it self. The setting and the behavior of the creature lend to that. Prometheus if anything is more about David than anything else, who is equally as ambiguous and mysterious as the alien, both intertwined. I think they need to make David more believable as a "lovecraftian" entity, if anything.

I'm genuinely curious why you think Prometheus is shit

nice. thanks user

It's the best there is, but only because good Lovecraftian movies don't exist.

HELP I'm stuck on sci-fi after annihilation and need my fix

Heeeeeeeelp meeeeee

ex machina

Would someone just make a Sup Forums approved Contemporary Sci-Fi list/image
I'm getting sick of recommending the same god damn movies every thread.

>Moon
>Under The Skin
>Ex Machina
>Sunshine
>Arrival
>Blade Runnder 2049
>Primer
>Edge Of Tomorrow
>Her

This movie is unironically B-movie-good.

Attached: 1522302985206.png (970x1198, 1.41M)

Even though I agree with most of those Ive gotten lots of hate for voice my appreciation of several of them. There is no such thing as Sup Forums approved

He said Kino-plex, in reference to what some Euro's call cinemas.

No, you and everyone on Sup Forums use it wrong you damn fool.

yes pls

He said "They go to the kino, or the cinema"

this
it was O'bannons work more than ridley scott

He's right though

Thanks, I've seen a lot of those, but a few slipped under my radar.

Does she get raped by the alien at the end?

Most underrated post in this thread.

I recommend adding time lapse to that list