What was the monster in the snow?
I was disappointed not to see the thing attacking people under the snow. If I had to guess, maybe it was some kind of snow worm.
shareTrump.
share
MovieChat Forums > Krampus (2015) Discussion > What was the monster in the snow?
My kids were asking the same thing...the thought it might've been another demented Jack-In-The-Box, but it was probably a snow worm of some kind...its GOOD they didn't SHOW it...leaves a little to the imagination. :)
----
Im gonna punch you in the cooter, I swear to God!
I liked not knowing. My guess was some sort of demonic snow worm. Like a graboid from the Tremor movies.
shareThat is exactly what I thought. Someone ripping off the Tremors movies. To me, that is what ruined the film because every time I saw it, I started thinking of the film "Tremors". The monster in the snow even moved like the graboids (?) in "Tremors".
What I want to see more done with, was the first snowman in the film. It was creepy. Not only did the arms swing in the wind, it changed positions in the yard as the film progressed.
Harry Potter Lives!
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.
Yeah, the snowmen should've been monsters. If they were, they could've been what was attacking people under the snow.
shareYeah, it could have been. It was creepy and none of the others were anywhere close to it. It would make sense. The monster is in the snow and the snowman is made of snow.
shareWhen Howard decides to go after Howie Jr and opens the door there's a small snowman that looks like Howie outside...I think the snowmen are the neighbors that Krampus and his minions already killed.
shareReally? That "ruined" the entire film for you? God you're dumb.
shareReally? That "ruined" the entire film for you? God you're dumb.
Yes, REALLY! I'm smart enough too know that when a director copies (iconic) certian iconic scenes and shots that stick in the audiences' minds from classic movies, like Dougherty did from Ron Underwood's Tremors (1990), it breaks the viewr's willing suspension of disbelief* and the tension and flow of the film. The last thing Dougherty wanted was people thinking that they saw that image before in another film. Dougherty wanted to keep the audience immersed into the world he was creating. That is hard to do if he makes the mistake of copping something famous too closely that people start to remember that they saw that before. Dougherty copied almost exactly shots from "Tremors". Apparently, you had never saw that film. Also the rows of teeth shot of the Jack in the Box? Try almost an exact copy from Ridley Scott's Alien (1979). Or have you forgotten that before Scott switched to a side view of the alien to reveal an another set of jaws that juts out of the alein's mouth, there a few full frontal shots of the alien opening it's mouth to reveal rows of teeth. Or have you not seen that film too?
*You have heard of that term before? "A Willing Suspension Of Disbelief"? In case you haven't, it is the semi unconscious/ conscious act that people do when they read a book of fiction or see a movie or see a play or listen to a story that they know that it is fiction and not real but are willing to suspend that knowledge in order to enjoy that book, tale, movie, or play and be immersed into the story the movie (and extra) presents. That is need on the audience's part in order for the works of fiction to work. Anything too outlandish, illogical, unbelievable, cliche or over copied, or, as stated in this post, famous things copied to closely that the audience members realize the artist is stealing someone else's work, all break that suspension. The story fails.
Harry Potter Lives!
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem. share
Calm down dgranger, it'll be alright.
share"Suspension of disbelief" is as much on the part of the audience as it is the film makers.
For example I could say "Schindler's List was ruined for me because that bloke from Taken was in it and I know he's not really Oscar Schindler - movie ruined"
Pedanticism in this department is not just unnecessary, it's detrimental.
But the thing is that a suspension of disbelief is all on the audience. That is what makes fiction work. The director and the author must do their best not to break it.
If the film fails because you were convinced that the actor was the character was the person he was playing, then ether the actor had failed in his job to convince you that he was the character or that you had associated him with a particular role that you can't believe him as any other role.
The DVD/Blu-ray has an extended version of the scene where they all leave the house after Omi sacrifices herself. As they're walking away from the house, they pass by the very first snowman that appeared (the one with the weird smirk and the top hat) and its head slowly turns to watch them as they pass by. I personally think they should have kept that in.
shareThat sounds like an excellent shot. I personally think they missed out on a couple of awesome opportunities with those creepy snowmen.
shareAt first I thought it was that evil Jack in the box that ate one of the kids in the attic but that thing was never that fast. I think it's just a monster we don't get to see
shareFor some reason I was envisioning a giant killer mole mixed with a sea leopard. I liked how it wasn't picky either, like when it snatched one of the elves that Max knocked off the snow plow.
"IMDB: Where Intelligent Film Discussion Goes To Die" - Scott 'The Foywonder' Foy; Dreadcentral.com
I thought maybe it was the little jack in the box. The one that attacked Beth since we never see it again.
shareI feel like the film ran out of budget for the climax. Everyone starts dying out of nowhere to a monster we don't even see.
If it had been used earlier in the movie and killed off a few minor characters I could have lived with it. But it seemed like an anticlimactic end to the main family.
"The plastic tips at the end of shoelaces are called aglets. Their true purpose is sinister."