7 Responses to: Paranormal Activity 2 Trailer Pulled In Texas Theaters…Wusses

1. Lou

   July 5th, 2010 at 4:28 pm

   “Let’s be honest here, there is absolutely nothing scary about the first or second movies other than the awful dialogue and complete lack of cinematography”

   Okay, Let’s be honest here. The movie was clearly suspenseful, as blatantly demonstrated by the amount of talk the first movie generated. Secondly, the dialogue wasn’t awful; quite frankly, it had a very natural time flow which made plenty of sense. Lastly, who are you to criticize cinematography? Sorry, I must have missed your name in the list of successful cinematographers. For the chance that you’re ignorant to the production of the film, it had a budget of about $10,000, meaning cliche SAW-like filming wasn’t an option. The first-person style used for Paranormal Activity provided a new, fairly unused typed of cinematography which added to the originality of the film.

2. Brian

   July 5th, 2010 at 8:34 pm

   Cinematography?! It was shot as a home video, or did you miss that fact with your hands over your eyes?

3. zeelyn

   July 5th, 2010 at 9:02 pm

   I admit, I wasn’t a fan of the first movie and nor am I looking forward to the sequel. But after watching the preview, I am glad they pulled it for the Eclipse showing on Guam. Mostly for the fact that my daughters are Twilight fans too and I brought them to the watch the movie. Mind you, my Tween daughter couldn’t scare easily, but my almost 9-year old would have freaked out.

   So, although I agree that is wasn’t that scary… I’m still glad they pulled it from the previews list for Eclipse.

4. Sue

   July 6th, 2010 at 8:39 am

   I liked Paranormal Activity, I found it to be one of the scariest movies I’ve ever scene. It’s not uncommon for the theater to show previews of soon to be released movies that are rated R before a PG 13 movie. I saw the preview yesterday before Eclipse (PG -13) and I will be going to see Paranormal Activity 2. The preview was scary but I would never complain to the theater owner about it. Let’s face it, it’s a horror movie, of course the preview is suppose to be scary, it was shown before a vampire movie, not Toy Story 3. It worked!

5. Peter “Paparazzi” Fielder

   July 6th, 2010 at 11:05 am

   Brain, I laughed the entire time…”ohhhh scary….wooooo…noises…wooo..” Give me a break. These cheap movies like Blair Witch that rely on a last second scare aren’t worth the money. My wife and I couldn’t stand it, we watched the whole time thinking it would get better and it didn’t.

6. Peter “Paparazzi” Fielder

   July 6th, 2010 at 11:07 am

   Lou,

   You gave into my point. $10,000 doesn’t allow for…..regardless of price it’s crappy cinematography.

   The guy in the film was just annoying to listen to…I went with a big group…theater was crowded and just about everyone questioned why they even went to see it….One person fell asleep…

7. Midwinter

   July 8th, 2010 at 1:57 am

   Lou: “Sorry, I must have missed your name in the list of successful cinematographers”

   I must admit I’m not sure what this particular fallacy is called, but it’s surprisingly common. The idea being that unless you’ve demonstrated skill in a certain field, you’re not qualified to criticise those who work in that field.

   Where this fallacy is used, the person using it generally does so in order to deflect criticism from something that they themselves support. However, they rarely make any mention of the necessary corollary: in this case, unless Lou’s name is also in the list of successful cinematographers, then s/he does not have the authority to make a favourable judgement.

   The argument fails because it is inconsistent: if applied properly, then only acknowledged experts can be permitted to express opinions, and then only in their own specific field.