Haven't we already seen both Evil Dead II and Dog Soldiers and...

That's a long list.

so will you learn from your past mistakes?

http://www.myspace.com/jayakaemo

Not to mention the "disease/condition changes you into a remorseless super killing machine" story line

Evil Dead, Evil Dead II, Resident Evil (multiple), Day of the Dead, 28 days Later, 28 weeks Later, I Am Legend, Quarantine...

So let me get this right, if I don't like something, I should go do better? If a house builder builds a crappy house, I should drop my job as a pilot and go build a better one? And if I am in a restaraunt and the food is subpar for the price I am paying, I should either go back in the kitchen and cook something better or not complain?

That's the lazy excuse that people use when they do a poor job. If it was my job to think up new kinds of horror movies, I'd do a better one than they have.

Are you one of those people that thinks IMDB boards are only for people who have positive things to say about movies and those involved with them?

Is this your dream post?

Movieguy: I love this movie!
Anothermovieguy: Me too!
Mistermovie: Lets have a contest post thread!
Missusmovie: Ok, but first I want to say I love this movie!
Moviekid: Me too! I love movies. And kittens. Yay!

Well, just sayin', the reason horror mavens keep churning this stuff out - and let's not hold any illusions: the writers and producers of "Splinter" knew exactly what they were ripping off - is because it sells. People like to watch group of attractive young folks get slaughtered. Formulas work.

Okay, that's the cynical perspective. I suppose that it comes down to how you want your work to be remembered. Everyone hopes to make a mint on their film - I doubt even the most hardened no-budget experimentalist "I hate Hollywood and would punch a studio exec on sight because they have no vision and only see dollar signs" cineaste would turn up his nose at massive box office receipts. But still, most people probably put one priority before the other (hell, even George Lucas started out in experimental film). Occasionally, as with, say, "The Blair Witch Project," a genuinely new approach to old tropes yields dividends. But very often they do not, and that's unsettling to a lot of people. And so they stick to what works. In the end, it comes down to being willing to take a risk on an original idea and see what happens. Sometimes it does - "The Blair Witch Project" was shot for twenty-five grand and pulled in over a hundred million - and sometimes it doesn't - "Zardoz".

Taking risks on an original idea: not much originality there, sadly. Oh well. This is an IMDB post, not a screenplay. But look! What I've put forth works! Sure, it hits most of the old signposts, but it makes sense, and I used neat words like "cineaste" and "mavens" and "Zardoz." So they're like my splinters. Now where's my hundred million dollars?

[deleted]

@thorneer - RE: "Judging from the trailer"

So you did not in fact see the movie before enlightening us with your brilliant insight...

Splinter DID NOT have much to do with most of the films you mentioned in your first post.

While i can see how the trailer might make you think that.... it's just not that similar. Movies like wrong turn and the hills have eyes etc. are a of complete different genre. wolf creek... deliverance? Not even close. If you want to really reach, then maybe Splinter is a really distant cousin.

In "Splinter," almost nothing happens in the woods and the camping scene lasts about five seconds and has only a minor plot device/character development purpose. There's no "don't go camping in the woods theme" or anything at all of that nature.

An important plot point is that a convict uses a clever trick in order to hold two people hostage.... and that is what leads to the dangerous scenario the characters find themselves in. They don't get lost in the woods and stalked etc. It's nothing like that, although it may appear so.


The virus/infected point is a valid one, but it does have a bit of a unique aspect to it in Splinter.

While both sides of this argument have valid points, this thread is mostly a misunderstanding.

Either that or the OP doesn't have a clue what he/she is talking about but he/she sounds at least somewhat intelligent so personally, i'm going with the misunderstanding aspect.

so what you're saying is, they shouldn't make horror movies anymore, unless they have never been made. Ever. Well, that's a pretty short list then.