Paranormal Activity

[Jennifer Walters]

The camera egged the demon on, the powder egged it on, but the thing that really set it off and made it powerful was him bringing the Oujia board into their home.

 

[Heretic]

What empowered the demon was communication. The only expert in the film states this.

The Ouija board was a HUGE mistake. The threats Micah made, calling the demon out...that was a huge mistake.

The camera...it was a recording device in the home, and an unused source for amateur porn. The movie didnt get into it being anything more than that. You can assume it egged the entity on (and if you do, then you must agree that the entity liked the camera and appreciates it and would never do anything to harm the camera). I prefer to just go with what the expert in the film said.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I think the demon did come more often because of the camera at first. It knew it was being watched and was putting on a show for Katie and Micah to try to break their spirits. The oujia board and the taunts it what really really empowered it to the point it could possess Katie and kill Micah.

 

[omid17]

the couple fighting and freaking out caused negative energy too, they should have listened to that guy

 

[Crook]

I am not calling my opinions, opinions...you are.

Mhm. Then explain this gem:

Actually, my opinions about this are FACTS. I can back up every opinion I have of this movie with dialogue and video straight from the film.

I am calling my stance FACT. Facts that are backed up by the movie. My OPINION is that the movie is not scary, but it is a FACT that things I say happen in the film, actually happen in the film.

This is all dandy, if it weren't going off a flawed concept. You cannot have a stance, and have it be fact. Concurrently, you cannot have an opinion and back it up with fact. The two are completely different positions.

I said that the ending showed [blackout]the girl attacking the camera with her mouth...a clear assault on the viewers of the tape...and that makes no sense in the context of the film.[/blackout] Some have explained that away stating that the entity was angry about the camera and that the camera gave it strength (and that it likely did things after the movie ended that prove me wrong). I am RARELY angered by things that empower me to achieve my goals...and I will continue to go along with what the ending showed, not what might have happened afterward. I KNOW what made the entity stronger, because the movie clearly tells us what does (hint: it isnt the camera).

What powered the entity was the provocation and interaction, which one could argue the Ouija board, the camera, and Micah, were all extensions of.

If you were truly taking the ending at face value, then you would not assume [blackout]the entity was attacking the viewers, in the context of the film. It attacked the camera, period.[/blackout]

 

[Poetic Chaos]

What empowered the demon was communication. The only expert in the film states this.

The Ouija board was a HUGE mistake. The threats Micah made, calling the demon out...that was a huge mistake.

The camera...it was a recording device in the home, and an unused source for amateur porn. The movie didnt get into it being anything more than that. You can assume it egged the entity on (and if you do, then you must agree that the entity liked the camera and appreciates it and would never do anything to harm the camera). I prefer to just go with what the expert in the film said.

People aren't saying the camera itself empowered the demon (maybe JustaBill is). They're saying the affect it had on the couple did. The presence of the camera put stress on the relationship that created a negative energy. The expert states the demon would feed off negative energy.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I'm saying the camera affected Katie and Micah and their relationship in one of two ways which in turn both empowered the demon.

1. It allowed them to catch what the demon had been doing during the night, leading them to become stressed about the situation, Katie's spirit to break, causing Negative Energy, that the Demon fed on.

2. It caused a rift between Katie and Micah. Katie didn't like the camera, wanted it gone, blamed it for the demon showing up more. Cause issues between them, fights, and more negative energy which further broke Katie's spirits to the point that the demon was powerful enough to take her over, leading to the ending.

 

[Heretic]

Mhm. Then explain this gem:




This is all dandy, if it weren't going off a flawed concept. You cannot have a stance, and have it be fact. Concurrently, you cannot have an opinion and back it up with fact. The two are completely different positions.


What powered the entity was the provocation and interaction, which one could argue the Ouija board, the camera, and Micah, were all extensions of.

If you were truly taking the ending at face value, then you would not assume [blackout]the entity was attacking the viewers, in the context of the film. It attacked the camera, period.[/blackout]

Again you are completely misunderstanding English.

YOU are calling what Im saying opinions. I am saying that they are facts. I am NOT confusing the two, but you are still unable to figure out that I am mocking the fact that you still think facts are opinions...

You probably arent this stupid...and instead are arguing this tiny little point just as a swerve from the fact that I'm RIGHT.

As far as the ending [BLACKOUT]the entity was not attacking the camera...it was eating a chunk of it. Thats what you do when you bite at something. The movie shows the entity bite the girl, and later sniff at the guy...when it deems the guy dead, it leaves him alone and bites at the camera. Why would the entity bite a non-living piece of machinery??? It makes no sense. What DOES make sense is that the studio thought it would be SUPER DUPER SCARY to show the entity attacking the viewers in a scene ripped straight out a hundred other bad films (I mentioned Ghost Rider being an example). I have seen people (not you) post that it "probably just bit at it, then grabbed it and threw it against the wall"...but that isnt what the film shows. Again...if you assume that the camera empowered the entity (which i do not) then the entity wuld have no beef with the camera at all. So...we are left with the entity either attacking something it shouldnt give a darn about...or we're left with the entity doing something really scary for the sake of the audience. That is my point! The ending makes no sense in the context of the film and was a cheap ending that ruined what should have been the emotional peak of the film.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Heretic]

People aren't saying the camera itself empowered the demon (maybe JustaBill is). They're saying the affect it had on the couple did. The presence of the camera put stress on the relationship that created a negative energy. The expert states the demon would feed off negative energy.

I agree that the film does show that the camera put stress on their relationship (so, I am saying that your opinion is actually a fact, which will cause some heads to spin at the sheer complexity of it all)

What I still disagree with...and the film itself offers no basis at all for...is WHY did the very last second of the film happen??? The entity is in total control now...one could argue that the camera helped it. It is obvious that the entity chose not to destroy the tape, since we are watching it in a theater...so what was the reasoning there???

Simple. The studio thought itd be a heck of a thrill for the audience to add a jump scare that contradicts the world the film created.

 

[Crook]

Again you are completely misunderstanding English.

YOU are calling what Im saying opinions. I am saying that they are facts. I am NOT confusing the two, but you are still unable to figure out that I am mocking the fact that you still think facts are opinions...

You probably arent this stupid...and instead are arguing this tiny little point just as a swerve from the fact that I'm RIGHT.

No, I am not misunderstanding English, you are simply misusing it. In your efforts to explain your satirical position, you still opted to use words in their improper usage, which is where I've been correcting you. If you want to say "I'm stating facts"....then say it, instead of needlessly adding "my opinion/stance is fact" which just sounds stupid.

As far as the ending [blackout]the entity was not attacking the camera...it was eating a chunk of it. Thats what you do when you bite at something. The movie shows the entity bite the girl, and later sniff at the guy...when it deems the guy dead, it leaves him alone and bites at the camera. Why would the entity bite a non-living piece of machinery??? It makes no sense. What DOES make sense is that the studio thought it would be SUPER DUPER SCARY to show the entity attacking the viewers in a scene ripped straight out a hundred other bad films (I mentioned Ghost Rider being an example). [/blackout]

Well those are two separate discussions in their own right. As such, interpretations of one cannot intercede into the other. Perceptions of the decision the entity made (film context) vs. perceptions of what the studio thought would be cool (outside context). Using one to discount the other wouldn't make much sense if you're technically not even referring to the same thing.

[blackout]I have seen people (not you) post that it "probably just bit at it, then grabbed it and threw it against the wall"...but that isnt what the film shows. Again...if you assume that the camera empowered the entity (which i do not) then the entity wuld have no beef with the camera at all. So...we are left with the entity either attacking something it shouldnt give a darn about...or we're left with the entity doing something really scary for the sake of the audience. That is my point! The ending makes no sense in the context of the film and was a cheap ending that ruined what should have been the emotional peak of the film.[/blackout]

And this would still be opinion because it relies on the presumed notion that [blackout]the camera didn't in some form empower the entity[/blackout]. Given that the opposite could be argued, it changes the circumstances as to how the ending is perceived.

Again, the camera was part of the antagonizing the entity had been given. True, by itself it is merely a stationary object that has no value. And this is why some would understandably take the position that the creature doesn't give a damn about it. Conversely, by association with the capturing of the events, and Micah/Katie's acceptance of the camera as a tool to communicate with the creature, it functions almost an accomplice. Therefore, it could be argued the camera aided in the negative energy the creature fed off of.

 

[Poetic Chaos]

Again you are completely misunderstanding English.

YOU are calling what Im saying opinions. I am saying that they are facts. I am NOT confusing the two, but you are still unable to figure out that I am mocking the fact that you still think facts are opinions...

You probably arent this stupid...and instead are arguing this tiny little point just as a swerve from the fact that I'm RIGHT.

As far as the ending [blackout]the entity was not attacking the camera...it was eating a chunk of it. Thats what you do when you bite at something. The movie shows the entity bite the girl, and later sniff at the guy...when it deems the guy dead, it leaves him alone and bites at the camera. Why would the entity bite a non-living piece of machinery??? It makes no sense. What DOES make sense is that the studio thought it would be SUPER DUPER SCARY to show the entity attacking the viewers in a scene ripped straight out a hundred other bad films (I mentioned Ghost Rider being an example). I have seen people (not you) post that it "probably just bit at it, then grabbed it and threw it against the wall"...but that isnt what the film shows. Again...if you assume that the camera empowered the entity (which i do not) then the entity wuld have no beef with the camera at all. So...we are left with the entity either attacking something it shouldnt give a darn about...or we're left with the entity doing something really scary for the sake of the audience. That is my point! The ending makes no sense in the context of the film and was a cheap ending that ruined what should have been the emotional peak of the film.[/blackout]

Going by your logic, your view of the ending makes unproven assumptions as well. We see Katie approach the camera but it cuts out before she even touches it, much less eats it. There is no view from the inside of her mouth. The only logical explanation is that there was a blackout or an EMP that cutoff the camera before she touched it.

I'm not even gonna touch your argument with Crook.

 

[Anjow1060]

I dug this movie.

The CGI for the last 2 seconds kinda killed it all for me. But I do have to say that the 2nd to last occurrence when

Spoiler

she was dragged from the bed and down the hall

, that was the scariest thing I've ever seen on film in a movie. Good for a single viewing, but I don't think it'll get me again like Exorcist, Halloween or Salem's Lot does.

- Jow

 

[FrostBite]

It sounds like you're trying to condescend, but I've never been scared by any supernatural film -- demons, ghosts, you name it -- with the exception of The Shining and maybe a few others I can't think of, off the top of my head.. Once I hear God or Satan in a horror film, it usually becomes off-putting.

How was I condescending? I was just saying, this movie wasn't scary in general regardless of religious beliefs even to the people who do believe in these things/claim to have seen these things. I wasn't talking down to you or anyone else. If anything I was agreeing, and then expanding the audience to whom it wouldn't be scary to. Yeesh.

And, while that may be true for other horror films for you (which I didn't know it was by the time of my posting) it begs the question--why would you go see a movie called "Paranormal Activity" if the title itself infers the existence of ghosts which would, blatantly be off-putting to you in the first place?

 

[danoyse]

Good, glad to see that TAC didnt like it either...my point remains that people who liked this are likely to accept any stupid excuse for a sequel...since they accepted one of the dumbest endings I've ever seen.

Heretic, you can think what you want about the movie, but I see no need to start attacking people who liked the film. You want to be respected for your opinions? Try respecting the opinions of others as well.

Speaking of opinions...

Actually, my opinions about this are FACTS. I can back up every opinion I have of this movie with dialogue and video straight from the film.

No, they are your OPINIONS, which are completely subjective depending on your point of view.

You saw the movie one way, others saw it another - this is not hard to figure out. But let's try to be a little more respectful with the conversation please.

 

[marcvader]

Boy am I glad I saw the first version and not the "Hollywood" one. Much more fitting i think.

 

[Nightmare]

Ive only saw the theatrical ending so far.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I didn't like this movie, everyone doesn't need to get pissy and attack the stuff I do like.

I havenb't seen this yet, but I have to say, people shouldn't be attacking you for that. You should be able to have your own opinion.

Well, I'll probably watch this online. I heard it was boring and not scary, and i don't want to waste money on something like that.

 

[terry78]

As movie nerds, we're all failing to ask the most important question.



How would the Ghostbusters have handled this.

 

[Crook]

That would be the equivalent of calling pest control when there's an alligator in your backyard, terry.

 

[FrostBite]

As movie nerds, we're all failing to ask the most important question.



How would the Ghostbusters have handled this.

The same way Ray Stantz reacted in Casper.

"Who you gonna call? Somebody else!"

 

[Matt]

Most people don't walk into theaters with checklists of what they already know, like you apparently do. Some just actually watch and experience the movie while it happens. And the fact that you've seen the scares doesn't necessarily make them less scary to see again. Seeing them in context of the film and not a clip montage has a different affect.

As has been said, the sounds weren't "give aways" for a lot of the audience. They were tension builders. Yes, you knew something was about to go down. But you didn't know what (unless you brought your checklist).

Has the "attack the audience/camera" bit been done? Yes. Do those 2 seconds completely shatter the movie? Not for me.

Honestly though, only one of your opinions has really bothered me Heretic. And that's you think this movie relied on jump scares. That just shows me how little you understood what was going on. Quick cuts, sudden movements and loud noises are the tools used to engineer those kind of scares. This movie had none of those with the exception of [blackout]Micah being thrown at the camera[/blackout] and [blackout]the loud crash before the moving chandelier.[/blackout]. The rest are simply to unsettle you and ask yourself wtf is going on to these people.

Agreed. And that is why I felt that this movie was scary. While it did make me jump a few times, for the most part it was more a "WTF," experience while in the theater. The real scare for me came hours later when laying in bed at night, with the lights off and I began to think about the movie and then every little noise from the house creeking to the dog walking to a loud car engine outside scared the hell out of me. For me anyhow, the movie got into my head and its been awhile since any movie has done that to me, so IMO it succeeds as a horror movie.

 

[terry78]

Anytime I see a shadow creeping along a wall or something and I ain't moving, I jerk my head around to search.

 

[Kane52630]

hey you guys you know what this means, its going to be on the next scary movie or whatever those crappy movies are called

 

[Matt]

Anytime I see a shadow creeping along a wall or something and I ain't moving, I jerk my head around to search.

Bingo. This isn't the type of movie that's going to scare you while you watch it. Its going to scare you AFTER you watch it. Now that may cause some to argue that it is not a good movie, but I disagree in that regard too. Aside from fulfilling the most base goal of any horror movie (scaring the audience), I also felt that it built a strong relationship between the viewer, Katie, and Micah. I felt for them. I was concerned about their fates, etc. Another mark of a good horror movie. Make your audience care about the victims. I can see why some would dislike this movie, but I feel like it suceeds on every level.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Bingo. This isn't the type of movie that's going to scare you while you watch it. Its going to scare you AFTER you watch it. Now that may cause some to argue that it is not a good movie, but I disagree in that regard too. Aside from fulfilling the most base goal of any horror movie (scaring the audience), I also felt that it built a strong relationship between the viewer, Katie, and Micah. I felt for them. I was concerned about their fates, etc. Another mark of a good horror movie. Make your audience care about the victims. I can see why some would dislike this movie, but I feel like it suceeds on every level.