A Quiet Place Part II

To say I'm excited for this one would be an understatement. Sadly I missed the original in the theater, but I'll be there for this one. The trailer introduces some potentially interesting ideas and analysis on society that I'm intrigued to view and interact with. Anyway, hoping it's as powerful as the first.

I wonder if they fixed my problems with the first one.  Basically that the parents act like idiots most of the time.

TVs Frink said:

I wonder if they fixed my problems with the first one.  Basically that the parents act like idiots most of the time.

Click to expand...

Lol. Would there be a horror genre without idiot protagonists?

Moe_Syzlak said:

TVs Frink said:

I wonder if they fixed my problems with the first one.  Basically that the parents act like idiots most of the time.

Click to expand...

Lol. Would there be a horror genre without idiot protagonists?

Click to expand...

I was going to say yes. But to be fair, one of the most influential horror movies is Night of the Living Dead, which from what I recall has idiot characters. So no, I suppose the horror genre wouldn't be what it was without idiot protagonists. But in this day and age, the horror genre could absolutely persist without idiot protagonists.

Moe_Syzlak said:

TVs Frink said:

I wonder if they fixed my problems with the first one.  Basically that the parents act like idiots most of the time.

Click to expand...

Lol. Would there be a horror genre without idiot protagonists?

Click to expand...

No, but I general have a dislike of horror movies.  I do like smart horror movies, which this one pretended to be.  Which made it disappointing.

Could you link me to your post explaining their stupidity? I don't fully remember the argument.

It's the surface level thought that was put into everything that made it difficult to enjoy for me. e.g. Using woolen game-board pieces while deep inside their sound insulated "bunker" is a blunt way to say "look they are being super quiet" to the audience but going beyond the surface visuals of that idea suggests the monsters have hearing so acute that the families lungs inflating, hearts beating, or eyes blinking when outside would attract them.

The inexhaustible and totally silent electricity supply is the biggest offender (not to mention the magic light bulbs that make no buzzing sound whatsoever). You could write a book on the problems with the logic. I really tried hard not to think about them and enjoy the film for what it was but my brain wouldn't stop interrupting me .

I liked the film. Found it to be super effective and pretty damn tense, despite obvious problems. I'm not sure it needed a sequel though. I feel like it was mostly enjoyable for the novelty of the premise more than anything, and I can't see where they'd go with it beyond doing more of the same, which would be pointless, or making things "bigger", which I think would clash with what made it work in the first place.

TM2YC said:

It's the surface level thought that was put into everything that made it difficult to enjoy for me. e.g. Using woolen game-board pieces while deep inside their sound insulated "bunker" is a blunt way to say "look they are being super quiet" to the audience but going beyond the surface visuals of that idea suggests the monsters have hearing so acute that the families lungs inflating, hearts beating, or eyes blinking when outside would attract them.

Click to expand...

I took that as precautionary. They lost their child to one of the creatures so understandably they'd be on overdrive when it comes to being quiet. It's a good thematic piece to get the audience tense too

The inexhaustible and totally silent electricity supply is the biggest offender (not to mention the magic light bulbs that make no buzzing sound whatsoever). You could write a book on the problems with the logic. I really tried hard not to think about them and enjoy the film for what it was but my brain wouldn't stop interrupting me .

Click to expand...

I don't mind the electricity. They show the waterfall during the movie and after seeing Z for Zacharias, where they build a power generator run by a waterfall during a post apocalyptic world, I just assume they figured something out like that and/or they have solar batteries. The lights would essentially be ambient background noise that the creatures probably are accustomed to. They'd be flipping out at every bit of wind otherwise. Our own brains filter out common noise and remove it from our focus, so I'm ok with thinking the creatures have a similar RAS unit that helps them focus on noise of prey.

Both of the arguments you present are very valid. I think a few explanatory scenes with the above qualities would remove those for me and wouldn't ruin an otherwise gripping experience. Do I hope they explain all of that in AQPII? No. I'm more interested in the human dynamics and the ethical question of if people are worth saving that Cillian Murphy's character is talking to Eyelyn about.

I think it all comes down to how the logic of the film is presented. It doesn’t have to realistic if it works within the logic of the film. People seem to have no problem with Avengers logic that eliminating 50% of the population would only postpone the issues by ~50 years which effects the entirety of the plot of the whole MCU. But a scavenger woman being good at things is inexcusable.

For me, I didn’t particularly have issues with the logic of the first movie. But I simply didn’t find it particularly compelling either.

Duragizer said:

Click to expand...

Certainty interested enough to post..

DigModiFicaTion said:

Duragizer said:

Click to expand...

Certainty interested enough to post..

Click to expand...

Have to find some way to pass the time.

And back on topic. Thanks.

DigModiFicaTion said:

Could you link me to your post explaining their stupidity? I don't fully remember the argument.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming I posted my complaints in the first movie thread.

Found it. A good healthy debate over two threads. Lots of sound arguments.