I think its more like 98/2

hehe i hate scream with a passion, only good thing about it is neve campbells worth a knobbing (and jenny mccarthy in scream3)

So thats a BIG NO NO to Sarah Michelle Gellar then Max?

Scream Part 2

holy shit, don't even mention the sequels

Now come on Spud Scream 2 wasn't that bad

HEHE LOL

/hear we go again on Part 2............................................

@Jynks, very funny!

But she's still hot

I've grabbed that pic and added it to wallpaper randomizer, is pretty cool

well, i liked scream. and i liked the sequels too.
i?m not talking about a favorite here, but i was
well entertained to say the least.
maybe i?m not that pretentious but - we?re talking
about horrorfilms here. b-movies. not hamlet or sompn.
fuck thanx, look at
that dvd-rips section and count how many trashflicks there
are in. and how many people do clicks on them.
i don?t get the impression that the majority
of this board is that prententious and after
innovation or some incredible, ingenius plot.
the way you discriminate those screammovies,
respectively wes craven so much is kinda conspicuous.
i don?t get it. what has this guy done to u?

hey - and wtf about nighmare? if this film wasn?t
something new to the genre at that time it got out then what
will u guys call innovative?

there?s some irrational dislike against wes craven here
i can?t understand. this guy made definetely some good
movies. and some very bad to be honest....

but anyway, it?s all about taste in the end. u like sompn or u
don?t. reflecting this sentence i could have
spared all my writing above, ??rrrgh...well forget about it....

i?m glad we have sompn in common with evil dead.

dead by dawn/ED II is the best horrorfilm ever made and
i don?t think it will ever be pushed from its throne.

and spud: if you?ve phoned/puked/wanked or whatever
during the whole time of the movie how can u judge about it?
and why did u watch it again on tv if it was insomuch shit?

sarah michelle gellar is way too thin now, id snap her in half mate the second it went in

btw i realise ive know opened the way for lots of "jokes" but dont make me take pictures to prove it, sarah wouldnt like it

Well said Gorehound.

It's all down to personal preference but there does seem to be some conspiracy against Scream and Wes Craven in General.
But when you think about it most Horror Directors (and any directors come to think about it!) have only made one or 2 landmark movies and alot of average run of the mill tag my name on the cover films!

John Carpenter, Tobe Hooper, et al have made some baaaaaad ones.

I just find it very puzzling the reaction some people seem to have to Scream/Wes Craven!

I do not hik he makes films any more wez just give projects his "stamp of aproval" so the ycan get funding.. kinda like a producer but with out putting the money up. For that he gets a %, so no need to check the content much.... Should say Craven presents on most of those flicks.

And I really like the original Nightmare on Elm Street as well.

i dont have anything against wes craven i think he makes some good movies, only scream jsut didnt do much for me, but thats my personal preference, one person who i hate most of the time is stephen king, apart from IT! and the Langoliers hes made pretty much shit

Langoliers? Is that a film/tv show?

I liked the short story

Don't agree with you gorehound I feel your totally missing the point (although I half expected paul to respond with a well said, he needs someone on his side hehe), but mostly because your not talking about scream and go onto people bashing craven himself, which just isn't the case.

How is it something against Wes Craven when he merely has a string of substandard films under his belt, scream included and we comment on that? What it is is a dislike of "Craven", referring to his catalogue of films which to me at least aren't pretty too good at all. I'm not going to sugar coat it, they aren't too cracking.



Missing the point again methinks. If its shit its shit. Scream is not a good film in my view, the sequels are even worse. There's crap films in the dvd-rip section and yes, there's bound to be, but there's also a damn sight more films that are deserved of credit too. Scream was just another substandard boring slasher with nothing really new or interesting to offer unless, it seems, you like the writing.



No one has claimed anything of the sort, we deserve to be a least entertained on some level when watching a film and I refuse to bow down to any tat to the contrary; scream deserved no admiration in my estimation and infact to bring this to your Wes Craven bashing point all his films are all pretty run of the mill bar two or three mentions, and even then they are far from perfect. That's simply telling the truth based on one's opinion. Nightmare on Elm Street was one I enjoyed, not a 5 star movie by any account and New Nightmare, which I felt was very enjoyable (and something refreshing). LHOTL is heralded as the dawn of a subgenre of horror, personally I think its a laclustre, low budget mess. The rest of the catalogue doesn't hold many noteworthies, so what am I supposed to say if not a distaste? If you think I'm going to find and murder his children or something that's not what I was trying to say, merely that those films aren't really worth bothering with beyond the big two or so.



You've got it spot on... what has he done? Nothing really.

He's failed to entertain, he's produced a string of films that I'd label as mediocre, he has some fans it seems who go round saying how great the likes of scream is (and seem to label me as some kind of craven basher [unless i've got these accusations wrong?] when I try to voice my opinion that a) Scream is far from great, and hell, enjoyable, a pretty bog standard and mediocre film which had near zero destinable entertainment value b) this pretty much summarises all his films to date ) and worse of all, I've shelled out far too much that seems to get undeserved amounts of attention.

This isn't anything against the man, but I don't give out any credit to his films (as i've explained why) and fail to see why many people hold him in such high regard.



But they have made absolutely brilliant movies, which in my opinion Craven hasn't done (despite all his contributions), and are well deserved of the credit they get (cronenberg for example too). Carpenter has Halloween, The thing, Damned, Mouth of madness, etc. which are better than all of Craven's films you see, not just one of them but all of them. Carpenter has proven himself both as an innovator and as being able to put out quality on many occasions and doesn't just ride one or two minor accomplishments. He's done some utter shit as of late, but that doesn't deviate from him being a great director, producing films that (i'm going out on a limb) Mr Craven will never reach the standard of, and so late in his career doubt he'll produce a film that I think a excellent (New Nightmare is probably the Craven movie I've enjoyed the most, as said). Cronenberg, well nuff said. Top class movies like Videodrome, the fly, etc. put him head over heels above the rest of the crop. Hooper has a string of decent films, fine not as good as Texas Chainsaw, which is outstanding, but well worthy. Now all of the director's mentioned have produced bad films (some in abundance), but they've done some damn good ones. Which I don't believe Wes Craven has really done yet. Does that hammer in why people are speaking in distain against mr Craven Paul I rate a director by their accomplishments, and hence I'm not really a fan of Craven, its not because he made a bad film, its because he hasn't really made a good film

Nightmare on Elm Street stands up as the only real accoplishment in terms of "its a good film" (and not something that relied totally on being there at the time, like I believe is the case with LHOTL).

Scream may seem to be a film I'm picking on, and you have to believe me when I say, its not the background, the cinematic significance, nor the hype, and most certainly nothing to do with the name on the tin or any of that tat; i just think its a boring film and I really do not, and would not like to watch it again. And won't



Is it pretty obvious yet?

right that's my two cents, unless someone is going to nitpick it. I think I summarised it all fine though?

I think the short story is, Scream just isn't very enjoyable for bucket loads of people. Some, like me, simply find it as boring as watching some drivel like Big Brother (that mind numbingly boring tv show that many found fascinating for some reason which is beyond me ). Some people find it mediocre but won't mind watching. Some find it good but nothing special, and it seems some found it brilliant and refreshingly original (which I just can't find beyond a few subaspects).

its a tv movie, its pretty good but its one of the rare cases where hollywood money and effects couldve actually benefitted a movie



yet when i say how i think personally imo that empire strikes back, matrix reloaded or any of the lord of the rings films are totally contrived shite your ready to string me up by the testicles while shoving red hot pokers up my arse and taunting me about how tehre can be only one deep space 9

"hello mr kettle, my names mr pot, may i say your looking rather black today"

i rest my case

Ah but Spud, you can not deny that Wes Craven HAS in a broader sense of the term made films that have by box office takings/reviews/peoples opinions or what ever, classified him as one of the horror BIG BOYS along side Hooper/Carpenter/Cronenberg.

Craven proved he was an innovator with Last House on the Left, even if YOU HATED THE film and thought it was pure SHITE, the fact is that it was ground breaking.
Nightmare on Elm Street HAS to be the in the TOP 5 of the MOST well known/recognisable Horror figures/movies EVER!

So if you personally think those films are crap, you have to agree or at least see that the majority of people welcomed those movies and they have stood the test of time.

It's like i could slate Cronenberg till the cows come home but it would still be a known fact that his contribution warrents praise!

None of what I'm saying I'm quoting.
So I personally am not saying that Craven was an innovator with LHOTL, just that it is stated he is, pick up any genre book on the subject/era and you will see a chapter on that film!
Just like you would see a chapter on Videodrome, TCM or Halloween!

Just becuase some1 thinks those films are crap doesn't mean that they were not ground breaking and deserving of what they have become.
Craven got to the point were his name on a poster would sell becuase of his work on those HIGHLY KNOWN films.

So I see that Craven in the list of horror directors would probably be bottom and no where near the likes of Cronenberg.
But you can't scratch him off the list coz you personally thought his efforts were crap

Basically when people talk about films or directors in this light, I feel that you have to take on and except certain "faiths".
OK one might think that Craven has never made a decent film, or maybe that Croneberg has yet to make any sort of coherant movie that you can follow or make sense off, or that Carpenter made one good slasher film and never looked back etc etc.
But certain films and directors, no matter what a person believes them to be, have earned their right to cult or high status.

Now I'm gonna shut up, but have enjoyed this little topic today and really loved discussing something I (and I hope you) feel passionate about!

No offense at all was meant and no attempts to change peoples views or anything, just get mine accross

Thanks Guys, it's good to have people (all be it electronically)) that you can seriousley have a proper discussion about the stature of Wes Craven as a Director or the fact that Scream sucked

Not many people I meet in real life care so much about horror, and infact films in general!

Again hope I haven't been out of place with any posts, can be a problem with forums, people can read/interpret things differently!
All I wanted was a discussion not an arguement

who wouldve thought ginger snaps 3 could provoke such a response hehe

i personally ahte nearly everything stephen king has made (see above but 1 post) but it doesnt mean i wont accept he is obviously a talented author as he is incredibly famous worldwide and very popular, jsut hes not my cup of tea, but sometimes from spuds posts i get the imppression of "you WILL obey my opinion on views and i pity anybody who dare stray from the path of righteousness will be loaded on trains heading for the camps..... "

well ok maybe spud doesnt come across QUITE that bad but sometimes you do come across as being somewhat stalinesque in your opinions imo.

ps: dont shout at me because i dont care about courting controversy

IS there a link for that TV Movie maxpayne2409?

@paul, I think your missing the point with that little ditty, I don't rate director's too much unless they make at least one film that I can at least enjoy (he's done that once or twice), they are, afterall director's with the sole purpose to make good films and make money; and if they deserve my up most respect they've got to make something I rate very highly. I know Wes Craven is regarded in the same sense as those other director's I haven't denied this, infact I've mentioned it at nausea (why would I have cared if his name was on the tin if I didn't think he was one of those director's that makes you take note?). I've said LHOTL was one of those major films, many, many times over if you read upa bit. I wouldn't dispute these things and haven't. What I have disputed is that I don't think any of his films are that good (and for a director, this is a problem), not at all in most cases... and I feel it mighty odd that you are trying to force on me some respect for a guy as a director of films, that in my view has merely made a string of substandard films. He certainly brought a lot of great concepts, but he's failed miserably to capitalise on any of them in my view. To be honest, I think he's a better writer/story writer than director in many respects, however, I'm speaking about his films and nothing more.

I think a re-read of my big explanation, and take this into account, he's a director and yet he hasn't made an film that I'd say is outstandingly directed, despite all he's contributed, might help get what I'm trying to say. Therefore I don't think he's any really good director, I haven't said he hasn't contributed with concepts or subtexts in his work (he did a lot of work establishing 80s horror, and 'changing' 90s horror), what I am saying is that his films are pretty much subpar. Don't take this as any personal insult about him, where he is today, or anything of that nature, that's ignoring the fundamental criticism that I don't particularly like his films.

So, why I ask once again, must I lie to myself and to you and claim that he is anything beyond a mediocre/okay director, who's films haven't really entertained? Especially in the light of a lot of the praise he seems to receive.



oh dear We'll pretend you didn't say that



Fair dos, not for everyone, but I'd go out on a limb and say his films are deeper and clever than Craven's efforts tenfold. He has done a lot of stuff that you might consider weird or unfollowable, although you can at least appreciate good direction and technical aspects in all his works if this is your opinion. However, The Dead Zone, The Fly, etc. are all both easily followable and directed to a standard that should render that arguement null and void (that is unless you dislike those for some other reason that you haven't mentioned).

There's a string of Cronenberg films I rate highly.



I've heard it before, but no one has convinced me that they don't rate any of his later work too, particularly Madness and The Thing. However if its your opinion, stick to your guns





Depends, if you mean I know what I like, and I know what I don't like, and aren't going to change my opinion because someone else contrasts with that opinion, yes, of course, then it wouldn't be my opinion afterall would it I like to linger on the negative sometimes, but I guess that's because it would be better for something to be right next time

I'm not negating anyone else's opinion (which I hope you didn't mean by stalinesque ) I'm merely pointing out why I don't agree, and why I feel like that. Unfortunately it normally takes a lot of doing



Come on, The Shining, Carrie, Stand By Me, etc. are all good Stephen King based films. hehe

However, "I don't like Stephen King" can't relate to "I don't like Wes Craven/Carpenter/etc" simply because Stephen King is merely a writer (bar the odd incident), his ideas are great (but his writing style is very offputting to lots) but the finish product on the scream normally has little to do with him beyond that. He writes the stuff, its up to the director to interpret it and put it on the screen, its upto the screenwriters to cut it up into what they feel is best. It's been proven that in the arms of an excellent director, it makes exceptional viewing (see the titles listen above in my opinion). However, if the director in question doesn't know how to handle the text, it can preduce in the crap we've come accustomed to (even good director's can mess up if they don't portray a decent story, and sense of direction... see Hooper).

Stephen King is only directly responsible for the basic story in these cases, he normally doesn't write the screenplay or have any input after the initial story, and thusly I think its unfair to say that you hate his work (unless of course your referring to his novels, then fair do's... I think he's put out a lot of crap amongst the odd great.. just that damn writing style) in reference to the films. In that respect they are directly out of his control (although no doubt they'd mostly be crap if he directed anyway )

@jynks, yup:
http://www.dead-donkey.com/modules.php? ... tent&id=82