The Energon Pub

News Credits: 767 · by **Dead Metal** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:26 am

Yea have you seen the new E.T. movie? I have and I rather liked it, you can't tell it's E.T. till when they trick him into revealing his footprints and yes they are so E.T.
The movie's called "Paranormal Activity" and was first released in 2007 in the US but is now seeing a whide release in international theatres. It's E.T.s first horror movie and he actually kills a few people, maybe cos in this movie he has the roll of a badass invisible demon that stalks this chick just cos he can.
I also think it's the best "bullsh*t we found real footage of horror stuff" movie ever, yes indeed this movie is far better than Cloverfield since this used a cool new invention in camera technology called a "tripod" and the guy actually knows how to hold a camera whenever he dosen#t make use of this cutting edge technology.
While it's about as scary the original E.T. movie, it's still pretty interesting and entertaining, you'll seriously have a blast!

News Credits: 1 · by **Venomous Prime** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:30 am

Paranormal Activity is TERRIBLE. I was bored out of my mind. Watching a couple argue and sleep for over and a half? No thank you.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:11 pm

Dead Metal wrote:yes indeed this movie is far better than Cloverfield since this used a cool new invention in camera technology called a "tripod" and the guy actually knows how to hold a camera whenever he dosen#t make use of this cutting edge technology.

In Cloverfield, a tripod would only have been a hassle. Remember that they only ever stayed in one place for only a few minutes, setting up a tripod would have been pointless seeing as how they'd have had to take it down as soon as they finished setting it up. And even carrying it with them would have slowed them down seeing as how "Run like hell" seemed to be the only workable problem-solving solution. Also, let's see you keep a steady hand when a giant-ass monster is destroying your home town and everything you ever loved.

News Credits: 1 · by **Scatterlung** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:24 pm

Shadowman wrote:
Dead Metal wrote:yes indeed this movie is far better than Cloverfield since this used a cool new invention in camera technology called a "tripod" and the guy actually knows how to hold a camera whenever he dosen#t make use of this cutting edge technology.

In Cloverfield, a tripod would only have been a hassle. Remember that they only ever stayed in one place for only a few minutes, setting up a tripod would have been pointless seeing as how they'd have had to take it down as soon as they finished setting it up. And even carrying it with them would have slowed them down seeing as how "Run like hell" seemed to be the only workable problem-solving solution. Also, let's see you keep a steady hand when a giant-ass monster is destroying your home town and everything you ever loved.

You gotta argue against something, haven'tcha? :lol:

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:42 pm

Scatterlung wrote:
Shadowman wrote:
Dead Metal wrote:yes indeed this movie is far better than Cloverfield since this used a cool new invention in camera technology called a "tripod" and the guy actually knows how to hold a camera whenever he dosen#t make use of this cutting edge technology.

In Cloverfield, a tripod would only have been a hassle. Remember that they only ever stayed in one place for only a few minutes, setting up a tripod would have been pointless seeing as how they'd have had to take it down as soon as they finished setting it up. And even carrying it with them would have slowed them down seeing as how "Run like hell" seemed to be the only workable problem-solving solution. Also, let's see you keep a steady hand when a giant-ass monster is destroying your home town and everything you ever loved.

You gotta argue against something, haven'tcha?

Everyone except me is always wrong, so I feel compelled to explain how they are wrong. And if they aren't wrong, then they're just agreeing with me.

News Credits: 767 · by **Dead Metal** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:50 pm

Shadowman wrote:
Scatterlung wrote:
Shadowman wrote:
Dead Metal wrote:yes indeed this movie is far better than Cloverfield since this used a cool new invention in camera technology called a "tripod" and the guy actually knows how to hold a camera whenever he dosen#t make use of this cutting edge technology.

In Cloverfield, a tripod would only have been a hassle. Remember that they only ever stayed in one place for only a few minutes, setting up a tripod would have been pointless seeing as how they'd have had to take it down as soon as they finished setting it up. And even carrying it with them would have slowed them down seeing as how "Run like hell" seemed to be the only workable problem-solving solution. Also, let's see you keep a steady hand when a giant-ass monster is destroying your home town and everything you ever loved.

You gotta argue against something, haven'tcha?

Everyone except me is always wrong, so I feel compelled to explain how they are wrong. And if they aren't wrong, then they're just agreeing with me.

Cloverfield still sucked.

News Credits: 1 · by **Venomous Prime** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:41 pm

Cloverfield was far better than Paranormal Activity. At least something was going on in Cloverfield. The only "scary" thing about Paranormal Activity was how the chick put up with such a douchebag.

News Credits: 767 · by **Dead Metal** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:09 pm

original sin wrote:Cloverfield was far better than Paranormal Activity. At least something was going on in Cloverfield. The only "scary" thing about Paranormal Activity was how the chick put up with such a douchebag.

It was still awesome watching it and taking the piss while my friends shat their pants. :lol:

I don't think Paranormal Activity was even supposed to be scary.
But I did like the basic story behind it as that was really interesting and I do hope that the sequel that's been announced will be made in the traditional way and we'll get to see ET.
I just generally hate this whole genre of shaky home video movies as they do have really interesting concepts behind them sometimes but fail do to the shaky camera . I still can't believe people are scared by this movie, ore that it would have almost ended up as being R rated, WTF?!

News Credits: 3 · by **Name_Violation** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:24 pm

blair witch did it first and best

News Credits: 1 · by **Venomous Prime** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:16 am

if you mean best at making me laugh my ass off at its patheticness, then yes, Blair Witch did it the best.

News Credits: 1 · by **Scatterlung** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:08 pm

Blair Witch was like, this film where like, stuff happened...

IMO.

by **Evil_the_Nub** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:00 am

Has there ever been a good movie done in the shaky camera style? When will Hollywood learn? The movies would be 10,000X better if they were shot decently.

News Credits: 1 · by **Scatterlung** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:44 am

Evil_the_Nub wrote:Has there ever been a good movie done in the shaky camera style? When will Hollywood learn? The movies would be 10,000X better if they were shot decently.

Most of Frost/Nixon was on shaky-cam but I don't think it was quite the same...

District 9?