nat
Growing Tail
Posts: 365
|
Post by nat on Sept 15, 2009 3:10:57 GMT -5
Alright, I always thought the first two Ginger Snaps movies were about Brigitte, breaking away from her sister and becoming her own person. And I always thought that this was such an original story, since it seems like everyone else would have made it a " Sisters bond that can never be broken" movie. But then I watched the third and my heart was crushed when I discovered that it was what the story was, only you couldn't tell by the first two. Now it has taken one of the decades most groundbreaking horror series, and turned into something among the ranks of the Final Destination movies. Anyone share this feeling? If this doesn't make sense, I apologize, I've had a few tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Zack Flak on Sept 16, 2009 10:11:22 GMT -5
I agree with you here. The third movie was quite different than the first two and I think you just have to consider it an "extra feature". The first two were a wonderful story about Brigitte becoming her own person, yes. The third seems to simply be a hypothetical "what if" story, not a true prequel. "What if Brigitte wasn't as strong as we know she is?" "This would happen." You know?
I still enjoy watching this film though, as I think it can stand alone as a fairly good movie as long as you separate it from the others. Plus, it's more Emily Perkins on film! Yay!
|
|
Boehlke
Alpha Wolf
2nd in command
Wild things in the North Eastern Valley
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by Boehlke on Jan 31, 2010 8:26:51 GMT -5
I don't think it ruined anything. It was different yes... One could argue that it differs, and takes another approach than the two previous movies, and you are right, they did. I find it to be a good thing though.
After seeing most movies out there, heh, atleast it feels like it. You start to feel that you have seen it all. And you get down to movies that either work, or do not work. To me, even though it was different from the two previous movies, I found it working for me. Perhaps because it was different from something already different.
|
|
|
Post by lordhowl on Feb 2, 2010 0:32:08 GMT -5
I never really had the emotional commitment to this movie to have it really ruin anything. I'll tell you why: it's about two characters who look just like Brigitte and Ginger Fitzgerald and who have the same names. However, it's not the Brigitte and Ginger I know from GS. I mean, they have none of their memories, they were raised in a totally different time, totally different world even. They would not recognize the world the 21st century Ginger and Brigitte knew and lived in, and vice versa.
Now, how can I consider them to be the same characters? They're not. I mean even if all that is uncanny, it might was well be coincidental.
The story tried to show that in some way the latter day Ginger & Brigitte were predestined by the actions of the earlier day ones, but then it ends by showing that predestiny, despite some god's opinion of his power over people, is bullshit.
Now, I like this movie, it's a good werewolf story on its own, but I don't see it as having any strong connection to the original GS.
However, on your point about the theme of Brigitte's independence, it really doesn't make sense in a series to keep on playing on the same theme. I thought GS Unleashed was really about Brigitte recovering from the bond shattered in GS.
|
|
nat
Growing Tail
Posts: 365
|
Post by nat on Feb 2, 2010 1:06:49 GMT -5
Well, I also thought some of the acting was sub-par. And the character of Hunter bothered me a tad. It seemed a little too much of a stereotypical magical-Native American. And I thought that his stereotypieness was contradictory to the previous secondary-characters of the GS series. Almost all of which had alot of substance or an over abundance of quarkyness to make up for the lack-there-of.
|
|
|
Post by lordhowl on Feb 2, 2010 8:03:19 GMT -5
Well, I also thought some of the acting was sub-par. And the character of Hunter bothered me a tad. It seemed a little too much of a stereotypical magical-Native American. And I thought that his stereotypieness was contradictory to the previous secondary-characters of the GS series. Almost all of which had alot of substance or an over abundance of quarkyness to make up for the lack-there-of. Yes, you're right, and it did it with little or no knowledge of anything about Native American spiritualism. And they named him just "Hunter," too. But they did an equal job with the Christian minister, too. Which is another reason to disassociate it from the rest of the series. You can enjoy it more. Neither of the latter two movies had writing on par with Karen Walton's. That's what was really missing.
|
|
Boehlke
Alpha Wolf
2nd in command
Wild things in the North Eastern Valley
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by Boehlke on Feb 2, 2010 9:01:15 GMT -5
Haha, this is like discussing the bible...
|
|
|
Post by lordhowl on Feb 2, 2010 19:29:52 GMT -5
Haha, this is like discussing the bible... I wish I knew in what sense you meant that. I guess GS: Back to the Beginning would be part of the Apocryphia.
|
|
nat
Growing Tail
Posts: 365
|
Post by nat on Feb 3, 2010 1:36:46 GMT -5
If by that you mean I don't acknowledge it's existence then yes, very much like the apocrypha..
|
|
|
Post by lordhowl on Feb 3, 2010 19:54:04 GMT -5
To explain my feelings about this movie: I was so disappointed with Unleashed, which had such a promising plot concept, that I really never gave this film near that level of emotional investment.
And the fact is, this one didn't really promise anything. Looking at it objectively though, it was a notch above average for the low-budget horror genre. It reminded me in some ways of the old Hammer movies with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, only with Emily Perkins and Katharine Isabelle-- and that's a vast improvement right there.
And, as I said, the "joke" that it had with the prophecy was an excellent twist.
The problem with both of the sprequels is that there just wasn't as much commitment to the writing. In 2000, if they could have convinced Karen Walton to write the sequel, given her the idea they had in Unleashed and made it in 2003, they would have again had a small masterpiece. Same with this one, except a writer different than Karen Walton might have handled it given that time.
|
|
|
Post by lordhowl on Feb 3, 2010 22:24:24 GMT -5
If by that you mean I don't acknowledge it's existence then yes, very much like the apocrypha.. Apocrypha. Pardon my Italian.
|
|
nat
Growing Tail
Posts: 365
|
Post by nat on Feb 3, 2010 22:47:10 GMT -5
I understood.
|
|
|
Post by sophielovessam on Jun 1, 2010 14:03:53 GMT -5
I felt with this movie it just wasn't the same. If it hadn't been linked to the GS Series it probably would have been a good movie anyway. But if i had seen this one first I don't think I would have the same love affair I have with GS today.
For me, Ginger Snaps is about these two outsider weirdo girls and in Snaps Back they're sort of like that except its not the same. Ginger is the sassy, fiesty one.. always quick minded and has something to say. We get an essence of that in Snaps Back but not very much. Their relationship isn't really the same either, I don't know how to explain it but it's just not.
And also, I think everyone knows that I was going to say this, but the fact that Sam's not in it again annoys me. The Indian is a poor substitute. For me, Sam really completed the movie.
|
|
|
Post by epiklow on Jun 1, 2010 15:21:24 GMT -5
Hahaha. I agree with the Sam part. I really thought he was going to be in it. They even brought back Jeremy the librarian!!
|
|
|
Post by sophielovessam on Jun 1, 2010 15:39:26 GMT -5
Yeah, I mean why bring back Jeremy and not the amazing Sam :L
|
|
|
Post by Grim The Weird on Jun 1, 2010 16:49:03 GMT -5
i actually love all 3 films but GS is hands down my favorite. not to put down the other 2 films though. the thing about "the begining" is that, they wanted to make it in a early time period setting were superstition ruled daily life to try to explain "the curse" a bit better. they say"once a werewolf always a werewolf" wich suggest that the werewolf attacking ginger and briggit in GS wasent just a chance occurance, that it was destiny. besides, "the begining" has alot more werewolfs so thats a plus. add to it the slightly diferent story line while keeping the original main characters and you have a really good movie tha can stand on its own. i do agree, that sam could had been brought back to the movies, but it wouldnt make much sence in "unleashed" since we all saw him die... so to wrap it all up we gotta love these films for the pure briliant storyes they tell, either you love them all as a series, or you try to dive them.
|
|
|
Post by sophielovessam on Jun 2, 2010 11:02:02 GMT -5
I love them all, I mean.. they're better than like any movies around (in my opinion) and yeah, I agree it would have been better to mabye leave him out in unleashed but they could have brought him back in Snaps Back.. so I'll say that Snaps Back didn't so much ''ruined'' it but certainly wasn't just as good as the first two
|
|
|
Post by lordhowl on Jun 2, 2010 18:31:23 GMT -5
Yeah, I mean why bring back Jeremy and not the amazing Sam :L First of all, I don't know, but maybe Chris Lemche didn't want to be in the other movies? We don't know if he was offered anything . . .
|
|
|
Post by Grim The Weird on Jun 3, 2010 11:11:47 GMT -5
true, we dont know but we can all agree that he is a good actor and would have been great if he was included somehow in the other films.
|
|
|
Post by sophielovessam on Jun 3, 2010 11:19:12 GMT -5
^ Agreed.
|
|