×

32.1k
32.1k
top 200 commentsshow all 431

[–]AgentOfEris 4204 points4205 points  (180 children)

I’m always so impressed by the ingenuity that a lot of horror movie makers used in achieving their special effects before the advent of CGI. Practical effects are just so more realistic and horror-inducing when pulled off right.

[–]livestrongbelwas 947 points948 points  (38 children)

Check out some of the stuff Rami did for Evil Dead 2, brilliant director!

[–]AgentOfEris 310 points311 points  (10 children)

I love the Evil Dead movies! Very groovy!

[–]atticus_roark 40 points41 points  (0 children)

You got two things going for you. Jack. And shit. And jack just left town.

[–]AerThreepwood 15 points16 points  (6 children)

If you read "If Chins Could Kill", Bruce Campbell's first book, he has a whole big section on the making of that movie and there is some neat stuff. They got the "monster POV, running through the woods" shots by strapping a camera to a board and sprinting with it just off the ground.

[–]livestrongbelwas 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes! I love that book, would recommend!

[–]AerThreepwood 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's one of my absolute favorite non-fiction books.

[–]ddallesa 1 point2 points  (3 children)

He should have been, or replaced Michael Keaton as Batman, he would have been great, can you picture that chin, and his acting style in the Batsuit. I think he would've made a great Bruce Wayne as well. Hell, they should use him now, and make a live action Batman Beyond. Just my opinion.

[–]Jews_up_hoes_down 21 points22 points  (0 children)

His invention of the shakey-cam was revolutionary.

[–]jaspersgroove 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tom Sullivan deserves a lot of credit for that too, him and Raimi made a great team

[–]AvkommaN 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Thing will always be the king of that kind of stuff though

[–]xfritz5375 9 points10 points  (14 children)

Those effects look awful, but it’s part of the charm

[–]Radidactyl 9 points10 points  (13 children)

Well, the first one is a genuinely terrible movie. Evil Dead 2 and the rest seemed pretty good to me though.

[–]xfritz5375 69 points70 points  (9 children)

The first one is not a genuinely terrible movie, it’s pretty great

[–]alligator_rails 17 points18 points  (3 children)

Fuck yeah, it's great. Imho, it went downhill after 2, but to each their own.

[–]Beachdaddybravo 12 points13 points  (2 children)

I never saw the first two, but I loved Army of Darkness and the show.

[–]Radidactyl 4 points5 points  (4 children)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree! To me, it seems like a low budget horror movie without the charm of something like Blair Witch but it also lacked the humor from Evil Dead 2 and so on.

I've never felt the need to rewatch it, nor would I want to, and whenever I introduce the series to people I tell them to skip Evil Dead 1.

[–]xfritz5375 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I enjoyed it far more when watching it a second time. There’s a lot of charm to it, and even though the technical aspects are weak, it’s just full of charm.

[–]muzakx 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Because it literally is a low budget horror movie.

The fact that he was able to do so many cool effects with that small budget is awesome.

[–]altiuscitiusfortius 9 points10 points  (0 children)

2 is just a remake of 1 with more money and a better script . 1 is literally a student film made for twelve dollars

[–]EM_CEE_PEEPANTS 5 points6 points  (2 children)

They made that movie with $90,000 and it was fucking awesome.

[–]HotlineSynthesis 78 points79 points  (48 children)

Its coming back big time. It follows, Hereditary, Midsommar, The Vvitch, The Lighthouse. Very exciting times.

[–]Jeydal 31 points32 points  (44 children)

A24 is amazing, but only Hereditary was a full horror movie. I love Midsommar and the VVitch but they weren't really horror movies, just perfectly unsettling.

[–]HotlineSynthesis 35 points36 points  (1 child)

They're horror to me. To me jumpscares and zero real tension isnt horror I consider those movies true horror. Just my two cents not having a fight

[–]Jeydal 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I can see how someone would call them horror, especially if the anxiety inducing moments (looking at you, Midsommar) build into genuine fear. I just didn't see them being "horror" in a tradtional sense.

Either way, fantastic movies and I will watch whatever A24 sends our way.

[–]bullcitytarheel 12 points13 points  (0 children)

They're definitely still horror films imo. They're just horror films that aim for being unsettling or disturbing rather than scary. Hereditary was the rare sort of horror movie that managed to do both exceedingly well. I don't think I've seen a horror film executed so perfectly since the Exorcist.

[–]ifhysm 18 points19 points  (28 children)

I think this is pretty spot on, but the opening scene in Midsommar was extremely haunting

[–]Jeydal 13 points14 points  (2 children)

I genuinely thought the film was going in a different direction based on it, but I'm not unhappy with what we got. It felt so off and I'm amazed, but happy, it was made.

[–]ifhysm 7 points8 points  (1 child)

It was a phenomenal flick, and I loved every second of it, but yeah — it didn’t really seem much like a traditional horror movie.

But the cliff scene also fucked me up

[–]Jeydal 14 points15 points  (0 children)

That's why I like A24, they are willing to do something different. I enjoyed when the background melded with itself in a drug induced fashion, it was trippy and added to the uneasy filling.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (8 children)

Are you joking? It Follows, Midsommar, The Witch, and The Lighthouse are undeniably horror movies. They meet the very definition of horror movie.

[–]HotlineSynthesis 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Not the current general audience standard of horror film (that is to say, garbage)

[–]NdamukongSuhDude 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yeah, no idea what this guy is getting to. These were literally top horror films of recent years. There is no one definition. Sure, they are different, but they are their own sub genre of horror.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (2 children)

I fucking hated Lighthouse. It was so difficult to watch how unsettling and jarring it was. I kept wanting it to stop. Such a great film.

[–]bullcitytarheel 7 points8 points  (1 child)

And a masterclass of acting and direction.

That being said, I found it to be more funny than it was scary. Definitely unsettling, though. 2019 was the year for extremely disturbing films with awkward moments of hilarity, I guess, as the sex scene in Midsommar was probably the first time I've ever died laughing at a film that was simultaneously giving me anxiety.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's for sure in my top twenty. Thomas finally breaking and indulging in insanity is so well done.

[–]tomdarch 12 points13 points  (4 children)

But why were they strapped into "race car seats"? It seems totally unnecessary when you're just shooting with the camera upside down.

[–]insanetwit 14 points15 points  (2 children)

The room rotated. (They also used it for Tina's death) So they had to be strapped in while the room flipped.

Thing was, they didn't account for the weight of the blood, and the room started to rotate out of control. (That is why the blood seems to be moving if you watch the scene.)

It poured out the window, and made a huge mess (plus injured a few people who were manning it)

If you haven't see "Never Sleep Again" (the Elm Street documentary) I recommend it!

[–]D-Bot2000Not a bot 37 points38 points  (14 children)

I recommend It Follows if you haven't seen it yet. It's a modern horror film, but with very little CGI. It really nails creeping dread and paralysing terror.

[–]knitted_beanie 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Absolutely terrifying. Saw it in the cinema - which also did the amazing soundtrack justice

[–]Jeydal 15 points16 points  (11 children)

I am an absolute horror nut, but that movie bored me to complete tears. I genuinely didn't get the hype in the slightest and the ending left audibly saying "wait, that was it?"

[–]ifhysm 5 points6 points  (4 children)

I couldn’t stop thinking about this video and laughing my ass off

https://youtu.be/HINYhLtaaxc

[–]Jeydal 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I haven't seen that, but I had a chuckle. Also reminds me of the incredibly slow murder with a spoon.

[–]D-Bot2000Not a bot 2 points3 points  (4 children)

That's fair enough, it's definitely not for everyone, but it's my personal favourite horror film ever.

If you're interested, I did an analysis of it a while ago that I hope explains just why I found it so great.

[–]Jeydal 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I'll actually read that, because I am actually curious what a fan of the film can put into words what they liked about it.

No analysis would make me enjoy it, but I'll see what you have to say.

[–]D-Bot2000Not a bot 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time. No one "has to" like anything, but it makes me happy to see you keeping an open mind like this.

[–]Jeydal 1 point2 points  (1 child)

At the end of the day, you took the time to write an analysis for a horror film you loved. We may like different films, but we both like horror, why not read what you spent time on.

Speaking of, I'm aware of the analogy of the It in the film. Both your interpretation and the more common "STD" one. I'm not sure which one I'd lean towards as I've only seen the film twice and my memory / understanding of it wouldn't be much to go of.

Ultimately it seems that the It is always linked as an analogy of something negative towards or from sex, be it STD, stigma, or rape (as one user in the comments said). But regardless of the symbolism, I just couldn't sit down and enjoy the film beyond a few good shots.

I'm not against a slower film with no big bad monster or thing to be afraid of. Midsommar did an excellent job of coursing uneasiness, all in bright daylight and with a crowd. I'd say A24 has perfected that "slow burn" feel.

It Follows just didn't click, I saw the train of positivity for it on Reddit and I wasn't a passenger.

[–]sanirosan 38 points39 points  (7 children)

I missed the days of practical effects. Imagine what we can achieve when we combine today's make-up, techniques and maybe a dash of CGI.

It's one of the reasons some old movies still hold up today (Alien)

[–]AgentOfEris 27 points28 points  (5 children)

Agreed. One of my favorite horror movies is The Thing if only because I’m always in awe of the effects and puppetry that were done to make the monsters come to life. And the cruddy prequel from a few years back is a testament that cheap cgi is no replacement for well done practical work.

[–]TrogdortheBanninator 8 points9 points  (3 children)

They shot almost the entire fucking movie with practical effects. Then the studio forced them to replace it with CGI.

[–]Owlizard_Empire 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Publisher/Producer meddling is one of the most damning things to creative vision and it almost always ends badly. Blade Runner is an excellent example as the versions made only by Ridley Scott are much better than the original

[–]Ghos3t 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Why don't they just release the original cut of the movie as a special edition then

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apparently they went to the effort to make high quality practical effects for the prequel and just fucked up their hard work with too much low quality cgi

[–]Winterspear 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think that's what makes the old horror movies so much better

[–]TrogdortheBanninator 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Compare the "Freddy comes out of the wall" scene in the original (practical) vs. the remake (CGI).

[–]FlametopFred 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Practical effects and models always look better on film maybe because of the human element and small imperfections

[–]ZoiSarah 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I watched the original Thing a few years back when the sequal came out. Dang that creepy thing with the tentacles and the noise. Scarier than any full bodied walking cgi monster.

[–]DreadnaughtHamster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. ALIEN is scary as hell and there’s no CG in sight.

[–]KajFjorthur 50 points51 points  (53 children)

The only thing scary is the idea of having to clean that up. Bleeding bed? Come on. I'd be more curious as to how as to why. Not to mention the human body has barely 5 L of blood, that's 2.5 large bottles of coca cola. Where'd the rest of that blood come from. Do all the laws get broken to make movies scary?

I just dont get these types of movies, which obviously require the suspension of disbelief, I find it scarier when the situations are realistic. As freaky as cross dimensional beings are that attack you in your dreams. I'll take a psychopath who acts like a decent human being just to trick you into being handcuffed and then brutally murdered to get scared over. Real fears. Teachable fears. Not that no one can find these movies scary, I just cant be put into those situations and not be confusingly comedic, let alone immediately seeking professional help questioning my sanity.

[–]JackAceHole 118 points119 points  (10 children)

I wouldn’t worry about the cleanup. They probably did it above a pool or something (like the flooding scenes from Home Alone) and afterwards the set was probably trashed. The thing you have to worry about is someone fucking up the take and having to rebuild the whole thing because there was a hair in the gate.

[–]TheImminentFate 16 points17 points  (7 children)

Like Titanic

[–]che0730 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Explain?

[–]KaBlamPOW 33 points34 points  (2 children)

A "hair in the gate" will remain in front of the film and create a dark line that sticks into the edge of the film frame as the camera is filming a shot. A hair can ruin the shot and is almost impossible to fix in post production without being removed digitally. From Wikipedia

Has to do with actually shooting and having something on the lens the whole time.

[–]Kalfu73 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Kinda like the blood spatter on the lens in "Children of Men" during THE long shot of the movie.

[–]PlanetLandon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You just made me realize I should watch that movie again (or at least the three long shots).

[–]TheImminentFate 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They actually flooded a set for the scene where the boat starts sinking, and had to reset to do more takes - which involved cleaning, drying and setting everything back up

[–]pUmKinBoM 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So I watched the documentary that came with the DVD boxset and they said they actually didnt plan that out at all.

According to them the blood started to leak out of the room and down towards the electrical equipment so the crew (including Craven and Englund I think) had to haul ass out of there out of fear of being shocked to death.

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (31 children)

It's not that the bed is bleeding, it's the fear of being the kid who dozed off listening to music only to be pulled into the bed and coming out as a fountain of blood. That's not even counting the question of what Freddy actually did to the kid offscreen.

[–]neroburn451 15 points16 points  (2 children)

I bet you're real fun at your distilled water and salt-free cracker parties.

[–]anoxy 10 points11 points  (2 children)

That’s nice, so watch one of the plethora of “realistic” serial killer movies? Stranger Things was one the best and most popular series of the last decade and it’s all unrealistic sci fi.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

He was killed in his dream by Freddie which is convenient excuse but it works

[–]kotn5813 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you like practical effects I'd recommend tora! Tora! Tora!. It's about pearl harbor and is all practical effects. It even features a real plane crash

[–]Owlizard_Empire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Practical effects are overall better imo, even if cgi can look more realistic sometimes It’ll always feel more real to see a practical effect to me.

[–]thetransportedman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They’re timeless. Can,t critique the realism and graphics if you use actual liquid in this case. It’s frustrating that directors now a days usually rely on cheap cgi

[–]stealthynotion[S] 450 points451 points  (53 children)

FYI, the director and DP were strapped upside down in their seats. Additionally, the set could rotate 360°. Source: https://m.ranker.com/list/behind-the-scenes-elm-street-glen/orrin-grey

[–]Sanctussaevio 235 points236 points  (0 children)

And the rotation failed at least once, flooding the set with fake blood.

[–]shawnisboring 165 points166 points  (44 children)

Why not just flip the camera and keep themselves upright?

[–]CX52J 132 points133 points  (40 children)

Since it's harder to take a picture and line things up when you can only see an upside down version of the final image.

Edit: Filming is an art. It's like how some photos look better mirrored and some don't. Like a picture of an empty field with a single tree looks better on the right side rather than the left because we read left to right and it makes it more visually pleasing. (Same reason why websites usually stick their logo's on the left side). So kind of like that.

If it was a stationary shot then it's kind of odd they didn't set it up before hand. Maybe it was just easier with the limitations of the times?

[–]RoastMostToast 31 points32 points  (29 children)

So why not just flip it in post?

[–]jazzycrusher 71 points72 points  (10 children)

In 1984 they would have had to flip the image using an optical printer rather than digitally. This would involve a bit of time, effort, and expense compared to the click of a button these days, but most importantly it would add another generation of image degradation to the clip and the image quality would be noticeably worse than the shots surrounding it.

[–]YourMJK 14 points15 points  (3 children)

You wouldn't have to flip (i.e. mirror) the image, just rotate it by 180°.
Couldn't you just turn the film strip upside down and then flip it to achieve that?

[–]jazzycrusher 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Possibly. I’m confused by your wording. You first say you wouldn’t have to flip it, then you say to turn it upside down “and then flip it.”

If you’re simply turning the film strip upside down, the framing would be misaligned, as the image is not perfectly centered because 35mm leaves room for the soundtrack on the side.

[–]YourMJK 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sorry, it's hard for me to explain it just using words.
With flipping I'm meant physically flipping the film, because otherwise it would also be played in reverse. But I just realised that that wouldn't work with normal 35mm film, so nevermind.

It would only work with IMAX film where every frame is sideways (turned by 90°).
With that you could just physically flip the film strip along it long axis resulting in each individual frame being flipped (not rotated) upside down.

[–]otterom 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes. Yes you could.

[–]tomdarch 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Simply flipping it while printing would be much less expensive, and by 1984, the quality of one extra generation wouldn't be a problem.

I haven't seen this, but it's been described as a set that flips. Sounds like a character starts off in the frame with the set right-side up, then gets sucked into the bed (and I assume the set flips then) and that's followed by the fountain of blood pouring out straight up.

[–]jazzycrusher 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Film stocks and optical printing techniques definitely improved over time, but generation loss would always be a concern. Even as late as 1998, Wes Anderson talked about how he built a giant binocular-shaped wooden frame to put in front of the camera for a binocular POV shot in Rushmore because he didn’t want to lose image quality by doing an optical matte.

[–]Worried_Corgi 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That is not the reason.

[–]Worried_Corgi 4 points5 points  (1 child)

??? they want gravity to pull blood to the ceiling, so they have to flip the set.

If you're asking why they didn't mount the camera in place it's because it seriously limits their shooting options. The room was built to rotate with the camera fixed in place. Which means that they can shoot the room and then turn the room and it's not apparent to the camera, it just looks like gravity is changing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uokeVw6ldDI It's a much more interesting effect than just gluing the set to the ceiling.

[–]k_boss31 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This is what I’m wondering. Seems a little pointless to literally be upside down

[–]Frankensteinfeld 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Another Cool Fact:

Johnny Depp was taking his friend Jackie Earl Haley to audition for the role of Glen, but Johnny was picked even though he didnt audition...BUT...Jackie would later go on to play Freddy in the "NOES" remake!

[–]WeHaveIgnition 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I think Johnny deep almost died filming this scene.

[–]ziggaroo 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Johnny Deep is his porn name.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I also think they used this set for the scene where Freddy drags the girl up and down the walls/ceiling while her boyfriend is forced to watch. It’s the first death of the movie, and most gruesome in my opinion.

[–]tomdarch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the set could rotate 360°

Ah! For simply an upside down shot, it would be totally unnecessary to be strapped in upside down. But a rotating set makes the seats totally make sense.

[–]ghosthostjbo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They didn’t anticipate the weight of the water throwing things off and it sent the room spinning. Towards the end of the scene, you can see all the water flowing in the same direction. The documentary Never Sleep Again gives a great look into the series as a whole but also this scene.

[–]DesertSalt 268 points269 points  (26 children)

[–]hiiamrob 61 points62 points  (16 children)

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points  (4 children)

Even more slightly very less OG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-ewKxGqy2g

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (3 children)

[–]stupidosa_nervosa 19 points20 points  (1 child)

Every time I've seen this girl over the last 2 years she has a cast on her foot.

[–]panzerkampfwagen 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That's a moonboot.

[–]Twizzler____ 6 points7 points  (9 children)

How did they film that?

[–]ReckoningGotham 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Breaking 2 actually used the exact same rotating set as nightmare on elm street

[–]LynkDead 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Interesting how much stronger the effect is (to me) when they use an actual person (who I assume is strapped to the "floor") to hold the camera rather than just locking the camera in place.

[–]Dr_Lu_Motherfucker 22 points23 points  (6 children)

Wtf?! How?????

[–]Biblical_Shrimp 26 points27 points  (0 children)

The entire set is rotating.

[–]saadakhtar 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Lashings.

[–]CpowOfficial 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Damn it's a good thing they didn't run out of stormlight.

[–]Davecantdothat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

ONE TAKE. Wow.

[–]no1dookie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the link.

It's clearly rotating, so creative.

[–]nightmaremain 51 points52 points  (3 children)

Same goes for the scene where the blond one is on the ceiling with freddy

[–]thewispo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

TINAAAAA!

[–]MILF4LYF 147 points148 points  (8 children)

Who else flipped their phones?

[–]boot20 46 points47 points  (2 children)

As a 10 year old this freaked me out so bad.

[–]UnhelpfulMoron 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I was 6 when my family was on holiday in America. Stopped over in Vegas on the way to Disneyland and mum and dad left my older brother and I in the room alone while they went to gamble.

We stayed up and this was on the TV. He made me watch it and I refused to sleep on a bed for the remainder of the holiday and just slept in the floor.

[–]TheRiteGuy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah. This was one of my first horror movie moments that's cemented in my mind. That scene was just so crazy for some reason.

[–]xerxerxex 43 points44 points  (0 children)

That scene always freaked me out. He had no chance to save himself and his surprised scream was awful to hear...

[–]no1dookie 26 points27 points  (0 children)

This scene ruined my childhood. I seen this at 6 by accident at my babysitters house one night. Alone. In the bedroom. On The bed. After dark....wtf

Man I got chills seeing this, I'm 41.

FWIW I seen it as an adult and it didn't bother me. Especially that vs. Modern effects.

[–]j_marquand 73 points74 points  (15 children)

I bet this is still cheaper and more affordable than CGI even these days.

[–][deleted] 65 points66 points  (13 children)

And looks better.

Seriously in awe at how much CGI costs and how shit the results often are.

Also “cheaper and more affordable” are the same thing. Bit redundant.

[–]BryceFromTarget 28 points29 points  (3 children)

Completely agree about the pricing, but I’m gonna have to disagree on cgi looking bad (to an extent). However, it very much depends on the movie (and genre at that too), as some directors go beyond over the top on cgi causing the film to look more fake than real. But I have to say a decent chunk of CGI scenes nowadays would baffle the average viewer at what is considered cgi v raw footage, and the difference in picture quality it makes. Have you ever watched one of those YouTube videos that breaks down every layer of cgi added to a scene in a movie? Not only is it a neat little way to see every minute detail being changed, but also it really gives a perspective on how much is actually changed.

[–]Dinierto 6 points7 points  (1 child)

CGI has some areas it works really well, better than practical effects, and the opposite is also true. CGI is getting better every day of course, but then you also have the skill of the studio to take into account. There are people who aren't good at it, just like everything else. CGI has worked really well for things like cars or buildings for a long time, but only recently is it getting good at portraying organic things.

[–]BryceFromTarget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly this! Thank you for the informative addition.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mindhunter blew me away with the use of CGI. I couldn't believe it when I looked up on YouTube how the show was made. I wouldn't be able to tell you which scenes are real or not.

[–]j_marquand 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yup, you're correct (both with the shits and awes and also my language)!

[–]Eppshome 18 points19 points  (0 children)

This movie was a total mindf*#k when it came out. Such an original concept executed well.

[–]Jackaboyyyy 16 points17 points  (4 children)

Fun Fact: When first shooting this scene, it went horribly wrong with the “blood” spilling out on set and hitting open wires, electrocuting crew members. Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger) and Heather Langenkamp (Nancy Thompson) were both on set when this happened. Thankfully, neither were electrocuted. This is most likely due to Robert picking up Heather and running away from the blood with her.

(This story was provided by Robert Englund himself in the booklet that came along with the Nightmare series collection on DVD.)

[–]Videgraphaphizer 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Came to see if someone posted this. I always find it hilarious that Freddy Krueger saved Nancy that night.

[–]Bitch_Muchannon 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Doesn't electrocution imply someone died?

[–]Akuba55 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, I think they meant shocked. Unless someone did die

[–]HapticSloughton 159 points160 points  (15 children)

While I appreciate the visuals, how else did you think a low-budget horror film in 1984 was going to do this?

[–]JackAceHole 56 points57 points  (8 children)

Yeah, there are plenty of examples of this type of “special effect” throughout film and television and if you thought about it for a second, you’d realize how it was done.

Lionel Ritchie

Electric Boogaloo

Poltergeist

[–]Tobar_the_Gypsy 8 points9 points  (1 child)

According to OP’s source, Wes Craven lent it to Electric Boogaloo

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Is no one gonna comment on how creepy the channel that uploaded that last clip is? Like wtf

[–]randuser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol, those were kinda great tbh. Also creepy

[–]Chicken-n-Waffles 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Gotta say Fred Astaire blows Lionel Ritchie away. Lionels is just so boring in comparison.

[–]JackAceHole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I couldn’t remember the older film where they did this so I didn’t include it in the examples. Someone else posted it.

[–]dat_grue 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the Lionel ritchie one it’s hilarious to watch the guy who’s supposed to be playing guitar not actually play anything that looks like the sound

[–]Supersnazz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I haven't seen that movie since I was a kid. Didn't notice how hot the mother was.

[–]Clemburger 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Anti gravity movie sets

[–]iDelkong 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Damn dude, ima be honest, I grew up on these movies and I never noticed it was Johnny Depp lol... crazy

[–]TheScribe86 2 points3 points  (0 children)

His first movie I think

[–]ungoogled 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Omg. I wasn’t supposed to be up when my parents were watching this when I was like eight. I snuck downstairs, watched this scene from the back of the living room undetected, and ran back upstairs. I laid awake for a long time that night. On the floor.

Now that I’m an adult, I’m sure my parents knew I was there and they don’t remember any of this today.

[–]MovieDetailsModBotDoesn't reply to PMs.[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

A user vote has concluded that this is a Movie Detail.

These votes are in a trial run period, give your feedback here: https://redd.it/drz5gq

Is this a repost? Help us keep on top of them here: https://redd.it/duc8tf

[–]fourfingerfilms 23 points24 points  (14 children)

Not that this ain't cool, but there seems to be a lot of posts that are just straight up movie trivia, not details.

[–]zaxtonous99 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Heres a detail, the mechanism broke slightly while filming causing all of the blood to pool to one corner making the effect extra creepy!

[–]fourfingerfilms 1 point2 points  (2 children)

That’s still kinda just trivia to me. Still cool though!!!

[–]ohmygoddude82 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Wes Craven was fucking awesome. RIP

[–]SpicyGorlGru 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And the room started to tilt when doing that effect so that's why the blood starts moving at a diagonal angle

[–]StrangeQuark32 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So cool to see how creative some people can be. Wes Craven was actually a professor at my college, and he based the setting on the actual Elm Street on my schools town.

[–]tipsygrape 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I watched it at the drive-in as a teen and it fucking terrified me.

[–]itsameshawn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The set also became unbalanced and the room began to tilt and the grips lost control. Some injuries happened due to this.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

When I was like 10 I asked my older sister what periods were like and she sent me a link to this scene. I was upset to say the least.

[–]imexpy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

another fun fact about this scene: one of the crew members dumping the blood was electrocuted by the light fixture on the ceiling-floor

[–]JakeZoso311 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also, when Tina dies in the beginning and she’s being dragged on the ceiling, in that shot they used a rotating room. So she’s actually crawling around on the floor. There’s a shot in that scene where Rod is looking at her on the ceiling from the floor and he was strapped in upside down to achieve the shot.

Edit: spelling

[–]fiveminl8 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My father took my friends and I to see this in the theater. Being teenage girls....we all screamed at this scene. My father just laughed at us.

[–]HiSuExorcist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hope he’s wearing it upside down.

[–]cristinamariposa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe that they also misaligned the room a little bit which is why in the shots where his mom is reacting you can see the blood starting to tilt to one side of the ceiling

[–]iamthicc69 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I know I'm a little late to the party, but Glen's "room" was actually a set used for a number of horror films involving scenes that required massive amounts of liquid. Another notable example of this set was in The Stuff (1985) when it was used for a scene where a guy's head explodes and sends foam everywhere, flooding the room.

[–]AppalachianMudWizard 1 point2 points  (2 children)

They used this exact set in The Stuff (1985)

[–]JohnLocke815 0 points1 point  (5 children)

And if I remember correctly the blood pump broke and poured out all this blood. It wasn't supposed to be nearly that much or that forceful

[–]MR-0P 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always thought this was quite obvious and I watched this film even I was quite young

[–]SUPERSONIKNINJA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And wasn't the reason that the blood went to ome side was bacause the rotation room short circulated and made all the fake blood electrical and the blood started to make the room rotate for to one side

[–]-Listening 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A MILLION TIMES THIS! THIS IS THE LAKE!!!!!