MovieChat Forums > Ghostwatch (1992) Discussion > So why was it so effective....?

So why was it so effective....?

posted 18 years ago by userwithnoname
27 replies | jump to latest

As with most of the Brits here, this scared the living daylights out of me. Doing the maths, i was like nine when i watched this. What the??? How can they do that to a kid??? XD

Nah....truly classic moment in British TV history. There are not a lot of memorable moments in life let alone one inspired by a one-off, 90 minutes TV show....Anyway, i wasn't really fooled, even though I actually needed the comfort of watching the ending credits....:-)

So why was it so effective as both horror and spoof. We weren't just gullible! Below are some of the points i can think of....

1) The absence of any hype and anticipation. I remember there were some TV ads shown a couple of days before, but this was nothing unusual. In fact, this probably reinforces the perception of it being a documentary.

2) The ingenious cast of Michael Parkinson (a chat show host) and Sarah Greene (a kids show host). Yes it was that baddd. I actually watched "Going Live" every morning and definitely expecting something lighthearted from the show.

3) Michael Parkinson's studio setting which made the whole thing look more like Crimewatch then a drama. It was also before the reality tv craze, so anything which which was reality tv seemed real!

4) Perhaps the most effective idea was to place the haunting at a council house. I'm sure most Brits, except for the very rich, can relate to this setting. The living room, stairways, and even the front door all created an eerie sense of familiarity. It could very well have been my house that was filmed. Fortunately, my central heating doesn't make noises....

5) The 90s were very different from today. It was a time when British TV casually showed documentaries like "Strange but True", and I remember there was even a show that featured a panel of experts discussing UFOs. It was also the time when shows like X-files drew the most attention. What's more, there was little attempt at skepticism, or criticism of factual content in those days. Because of this, it's unlikely that anyone could ever pull this off again. Richard Dawkins will be happy to know that we are now a lot less susceptible to this kind of thing or TV for that matter.

Regards,

Dave

[–] skutch666 18 years ago

I remember watching this when I was a kid.

It was put on after 9pm and they thought that most kids would of been asleep.

Ghostwatch really shook me up, I couldnt pull myself away from the TV......UT I must say I was really bloody glad that in the credits you found out it was all a hoax because it told you who played the ghost.
lol.

[–] bones_weep_tedium 18 years ago

I remember watching this when I was a kid.

It was put on after 9pm and they thought that most kids would of been asleep.

Ghostwatch really shook me up, I couldnt pull myself away from the TV......UT I must say I was really bloody glad that in the credits you found out it was all a hoax because it told you who played the ghost.
lol.

I'm pretty cynical of the producers to say that because it's on after the watershed they didnt expect children to see it.

For starters, Halloween is the one night of the year that most parents would let their kids stay up later to sllow them to go trick'or'treating etc, and the casting of Sarah Greene would not only attract the attention of younger children, but also suggest to the parents that this programme would be appropriate for them.

Having said that, I am eternally grateful my parents allowed me to watch this when I was only 9 years old. I didnt apprecaite the months of nightmares at the time, but I must say this programme has left a lasting impression and I only wish that I could watch it for the first time again.

-------------------------------------No *beep* *beep* lady, do I sound like I'm ordering a pizza??

[–] rebelwithcause2000 12 years ago

The watershed is there to tell parents that anything they allow their child to watch after that time will be adult oriented and not always suitable for children. They could have put it on right at 9 and it still would have been acceptable.

Yes parents do allow their kids to stay up late on halloween if it isn't a school night, allowing their child to watch something after 9 is at their own risk, a TV channel shouldn't be held responsible for irresponsible parenting.

[–] bones_weep_tedium 12 years ago

Agreed! :)

------------------------------------
No f-----g s--t lady, do I sound like I'm ordering a pizza??

[–] NottinghamshireRipper 18 years ago

I have said this many times on this board, but in addition to the points you made, the scary thing is the subtle ghost appearances. We are so used to horror being 'in your face' that we become uneasy when we think we MAY have spotted him, but can't be sure. I think it was a great idea to have the specialist deny the sighting at the very beginning as well, when there was obviously something there.

I had the good (in a way) fortune of never hearing about this until I was 20, and I was informed by my friend about the only film he has ever been scared through. Upon hearing that it was a badly acted affair with Craig Charles and Parky, I couldn't resist. It still scared the hair off my chin.

[–] evilbungle 18 years ago

for me it was effective as we were so unused to it, it was only the over the top ending that gave it away, if they had finished it a few minutes from the end it would have had a much worse affect. I had a friend who left the room about half way through, threw up and then went and watched casualty downstairs with my parents, he was affected much worse as he still thought it was real.

one good point was the telephone number, the same one as the crimewatch and going live number, a number you trust and link with real shows. and the subtle stuff helped as well, hollywood has picked up on that a few times but not nearly enough for my liking.

[–] roybatty-12 18 years ago

watched that yesterday, i was deeply interrested cause of the comments i saw on imdb, what a disappointment ! i really have NO idea at all why people think it was effective...even if it is now 15 years old, even if people where young at the time it aired...nothing happens, everything, i mean EVERYTHING looks SO staged ! please explain! thx

[–] userwithnoname 18 years ago

If you've read my post and the hundreds of others here on this matter, you would know why. It's to do with how the whole thing played out, as opposed to the effects or acting, which is absolutely nothing compared to today's reality tv standards. i personally wouldn't bother with the dvd and expect it to have the same effect on me as it had 15 years ago. The whole thing might even be laughably silly because of how much tv, popular culture, technology and expectations have changed. Btw, you do realise that the spoof for me lasted only until the credits showed, by which time it was pretty obvious what it was.

[–] roybatty-12 18 years ago

first, thanks for your answer ! dont get me wrong, i'm 33 so i know how TV shows looked at that time... that is not the point, i saw this without having read anything regarding the plot (only very positive comments) so i was not aware it was fake, thold it was going to be kind of a "real" documentary about host investigations, and guess what? after 5 minutes of obvious bad performances from everybody, you can tell it is fake, and of course you don't bother anymore about what is happening, sicne there is no suspense left, and THEN, only then, the fact that it is really aged, makes it unwatchable...

don't know if i'm more clear with how i feel about this show, but my point was, i'm not a kid feeded with CGI'S effects, and even if i was 15 when it was aired i couldn't believe anything that was on the screen (well at 15 maye ;-) but certainly not if i was older, and if i'm not mistaken there is a lot of people posting here that were adults when it was aired

[–] userwithnoname 18 years ago

Well, for one thing, the live factor is gone. We all watched it live on Halloween remember. Actually, i can understand why the show wouldn't have the effect it had 15 years ago. I've been doing a lot recently for the nostalgic factor like watching old tv shows, playing old video games etc. For most part, i have been disappointed. Never underestimate how expectations for things particularly media-related change over time. Something you once thought was brilliant might turn out to be mediocre at best. I'm not really talking about CGI here, but the expectation even for things like acting....I watched the show at the age of nine and i can honestly say that even if i watched the show today at that age, i wouldn't be fooled....It not just about effects, age and standard. It's also about time and place, which in this case was early 90s Britain...

[–] carloshache 18 years ago

I'm Swedish (but have lived in the UK) and I've seen Ghostwatch on a pirated DVD some year ago.. and I must admit that it was really scary even though I knew that none of it was real. Maybe me and my brother worked ourself up a bit, but the first time we saw it it was really freightning.
What's scary is probably the subtetly of the short film, that you only see Pipes pretty briefly. It's really scary, and the "voice" of the young girl being examined, still scares me.
That Ghostwatch has aged don't de-horror it a bit. The ageing of the flick only makes it scarier and more interesting I believe.

[–] ungreat 17 years ago

I watched it when it was broadcast in 92..me and the then new wife sat down to watch it..bloody hell,it scared us then!! It worked at the time because it was an assumed live broadcast..which worked well

We have it on DVD..and watch it now and again..it still has the power to shock,even now!!

[–] darrenegeorge 11 years ago

i think it was because it was so unlike anything that had came before it, and it hd credible presenters, i mean michael parkinson ffs, comparible to having operah winfrey on it. with no advertisments, no hype, literally nothing about it to make you feel as though it was fake.it was set up to look real. i think the acting was really not the issue to be honest, because most people would have watched it thinking that the family were playing a hoax anyway, so the fact that the family were wooden with their acting was kinda expected. i think craig charles, sarah green and parkinson did a great job personally.

the fact that you often saw glimpses of the ghosts yet no one reacted to it also gave you the creeps, i mean this show was truly pioneering. obviously it will not have the clout these days compared to all the other similar programmes, but back then there were no ghost hunters, ghost adventures, most haunted, paranormal activities etc etc. there was also no internet, i had to wait til the next day to see if sarah green was on tv. i was nine at the time (same as most people seem to have been) and even though i saw the name of the guy playing pipes, i still had trouble sleeping for weeks. the only film that has ever, ever affected me, and i absolutely love it for that!

amazing amazing program, and really love them to do an upto date version

[–] cosmic_quest 18 years ago

i really have NO idea at all why people think it was effective...even if it is now 15 years old, even if people where young at the time it aired...nothing happens, everything, i mean EVERYTHING looks SO staged ! please explain! thx

I suppose many of us are thinking back to watching it when we were kids. I too thought it was brilliant but then, I was only eleven when I saw it and too young to think logically or suspect the BBC of being involved in such a hoax. I haven't seen it since but I'm afraid if I did, it'd be ruined for me because I would see how fake it was.

"I always pretend to root for Gryffindors but, secretly, I love my Slytherin boys."~ Karen, W&G

[–] hornygrimbridge 18 years ago

it was so effective coz it was staged like crimewatch, with trusted presenters who have never done acting before, it was allegedly live, and i bought all that was happening hook, line, and sinker, suppose towards the end when the studio becomes cursed i realized and thought how clever!!!!!
getting the dvd is on the way to me. cant wait 2 watch it, coz i saw it last time back in 1992.

[–] Pulling_punches 13 years ago

I think for me the reason that it worked was mainly due to the fact I would have been approx about 9 years old...

I remember EVERYONE at school watched it and the next day were all saying that it was completely true... each with a different story as to how they knew or about how someone they knew had been affected by it.

"Hell is a place much like London"
Shelley

[–] velvoofell 12 years ago

These days the BBC would probably drown the thing in incidental music - just like new Doctor Who where every raised eyebrow and fart seems to deserve full orchestration.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] davejessop-1 12 years ago

Dowling is scarier than Pipes :D

Agree with others that say it worked because it was supposed to be live and also the presenters were known for factual TV

Half Irish, Half German - hated by all. But at least I'm not Welsh

[–] Crystal-Lake-Chiller 12 years ago

I watched this again last night to coincide with the 20th anniversary. I had seen it live back in '92 when I was 14 and it scared the hell out of me as I (and my gullible parents) thought that it was a real programme. I saw it again for the first time a few years ago, so could remember a fair few things that happened during the 90 minutes.

It's fair to say that when you first watch it back again, it does look and feel a bit shoddy. The girls (particularly the younger one) are not great actresses so you see through it. But as it progresses it somehow immerses you into the whole story and it does feel more believable even though you know the reality.

Sceptics say that it was obvious from the very start that it is a fake as their is a writing credit underneath the names of Parkinson and so on before we are taken to the studio for the first time. But it appears so quickly that you don't have time to read it and so this would have been completely lost on us.

It has lost some of its edge for obvious reasons but it still has some decent moments that makes your skin crawl and let us not forget that this was way ahead of its time and successfully hoaxed millions of people!

Sleep deprivation is a one way ticket to temporary psychosis.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bAzTNM 12 years ago

It was cheap and nasty. Well-known presenters, using their real names, in it.

More importantly, I think, a ton of people tuned in later and didn't catch all the credits at the beginning.

My Website - http://www.barryskelly.co.uk
From Scotland

[–] josie77 12 years ago

For me, aged 14 at the time and watching it at the house of my best friend who lived above an undertaker's, it was the fact that nothing like this had been on tv at the time that led me to believe what I was seeing was real. It had been billed briefly as a 'documentary' and as an audience, who were we to sit down and watch with cynicism? We weren't used to being fibbed to in this way! Reality tv hadn't been invented and we assumed that Sarah Greene and Michael Parkinson were to be trusted! Repeated viewings years later make me feel silly for buying into the charade but I would still rate this as a masterclass in hooking into a nation's fear of the unknown; the noises in the night explained by a concerned parent as 'just the pipes' was genius. By today's standards it's clunky and the acting is ropey but it ticked all of the boxes when it came to the whole modern day haunted house story. Add to this the 'real' phone calls and the deadpan delivery of the experts and you have a hugely effective formula for a groundbreaking format which has been the inspiration for many a dodgy tv show since.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] richard6 12 years ago

I was fortunate enough to be one of the original people in the UK to watch Ghost Watch as a 15-year old when it aired 1992. At the time of viewing I was intrigued with the story and honestly at times unnerved by the composition, yet, never for once beheld it other than fiction. I classed it as a well-produced drama. I was not surprised by the reaction in the press the following day. Yet, was surprised of how many people considered Ghost watch to be real. I think fear had over-ruled common sense. Did they real think all this takes place in an average house-hold on a Saturday evening? For one (no spoilers!) the ending gave it away, secondly, it had Craig Charles as a reporter and lastly too much hyperkinetic poltergeist activity in such a short space of time. Ghost Watch was ground breaking TV at the time, and still attracts discussion today. I have only viewed it once and that was twenty years ago on its original airing and can still, though vaguely, remember certain scenes today.

[–] arizonabay6-671-900060 12 years ago

Watch it again, you can find it easily on google video. Its a truly great bit of TV, its got a real dark streak to it that is actually unnerving despite some atrocious acting and silliness. It still holds up well.

It actually works really well now as a satire of corny 90s TV - the palpable sense of dread that gradually engulfs this awful TV show is really well done.

[–] Undutchable1939 11 years ago

It was one of the scariest and most memorable tv experiences of my life.
I can't believe I saw it when I was 20, in my memory I was a lot younger.
Probably home alone or in my room.
Being Dutch I enjoyed watching the BBC but my parents generally wanted to watch Dutch tv.
I wish I remembered the details.

Anyway, I had no idea it was fake till the very end.
When things went completely nuts in the studio I realised it couldn't be real and was so relieved but also excited about being fooled in such a great way.
The trickery was brilliant.
Besides what everybody already mentioned (cast, location, etc) I also loved how the ghost stuff happened.
Nothing was happening, you were staring at the image and there was absolutely nothing going on... then people start telephoning the studio... they see something in the curtains... they play it back and AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHH!!!
There is a shape in the curtains!!
How could you have missed it?!!
Only years later I could pause and play back the broadcast and noticed that there was nothing the first time around.
So nobody saw anything... till they played it back for us.
Brilliant.

The only bad over the top bit was the ending, but as I said, to me that was a huge relief so I'm glad they did what they did.
Without that ending I might have ended up never sleeping again ;)

Of course today we probably wouldn't have been scared so much, we've seen a lot of fake stuff.
I guess that makes us who were (too) young at the time, not sure what we were watching and preferably alone and/or in the dark, very very lucky :)

Complaining about mistakes is almost as bad as complaining about complaining about mistakes.