Scream vs. Ringu
 

ok, this might have been done before, but I found nothing on the search thing (*cough cough*), so I'll do it again

In the mid-late 90's, two movies were released in two different countries that had major short-term effects on the horror movie genres of the respective countries, and long-term effects that, while not as major as the immediate effects, are still palpable.

The United States got a little movie called Scream in '96. It started a trend in horror movies in the US of 'cute', self-refferential dialogue, casting popular actors and actresses in the major roles, and (sometimes successful) tries at being witty. Being scary was replaced with individual "scares" (what was once referred to as a "jump"). This didn't necessarily make the movie bad, but it certainly didn't help. The trend produced movies ranging from pretty good (Scream 2, Wrong Turn a while later, etc) from damn awful (IKWYDLS, Urban Legends). Scream its self was very good (IMO), but was bogged down by the movies that used it as a template.

2 years later, Japan got Ringu. Ringu was nigh the pollar opposite of Scream. Scream went for humor and jumps, whereas Ringu went for drama and long drawn out periods of dread or out-and-out fright. It started a trend in Japan of supernatural-type horror, deliberately creepy children (as opposed to the Haley Joel Osment type where it's unintentional), and scariness built on atmosphere. The last one is a bad idea. Atmosphere is impossible to obtain on purpose, a movie just has it. It's like charisma, either a person has it or not. The trend produced one of the greatest movies of all time, Kaïro, and some other notably good ones (Dark Water, from the same director) but also produced some pretty bad ones (Phone and A Frightful School Horror). Ringu its self is in general thought of as a classic, and usually isn't lumped in with similar movies that have come after it, though those are usually compared to Ringu.

The two movies came out around the same time ('bout two years apart), and, for better or worse, revolutionized the individual countries' horror movie industries. The style of the movies shaped the way horror movies were made, if only for a short period of time. The movies had basically the same effect for their respective countries. But their legacies will probably be very different. Scream is constantly lumped in with similar movies, whereas Ringu, as previoiusly stated, is its own movie, and has more or less become the measuring stick.

But you already know all this. So what's the point? Well, what if it was the other way around? What if Ringu was The Ring first? Not the "The Ring" we got that was a remake, but the original. And don't give me that "well, a movie like that would never be made in the states" or "Hollywood would ruin it" because that's not what I mean. It would obviously have different actors and crews and all that, but if it were exactly the same other than that, and was an American movie? Same with Scream. Change who had written it, change the director and actors and all that, but keep it the same and have it be a Japanese movie. We didn't get Scream, we got Ringu/The Ring. They didn't get Ringu, they got Scream (Screamu?) What kind of long-term effects would they have THEN? Would the US have gotten a horror renaissance? Would Japan's horror industry be in the same kind of slump ours has gotten? Or were there more variables in the respective direction they took?



And even if this idea did suck, it's better than the parade-o-shit this folders been getting lately




EDIT: Yeah, put this in Modern Movies if you want

its hard to compare oranges to apples ... this is just too topical.
I know you dont like it - but Ringu - would not have been Ringu in north america .. not that Hollywood would have ruined it .. it just wouldnt exist.

if ringu was released in america ans an american production ...it would have the same effect it has now ... only a select few would see it. North Americs (general audiences) arent ready for an atmospheric horror like that ... they want the Screams, and the Urban Legends ..etc.

A good example is the Grudge. Same Director .. same style as the origional ... and people are panning it left right and centre.
Maybe it doesnt seem right to the real fans .. the american actors cant pull it off ... and the joe public cant handle it because it is too
dreamy and non linear. Most people hate that. They need something they can follow.

I think an American Ringu would be a cult favorite with true fans but thats it.

A Scream in Japan .. not sure how that would have affected anything. It wasnt a revelation like Ringu, it was a rejuvination, or ressurection.

It was successful because it payed homage to the slasher films of the 80's - it found its audience and it was the same audience thats always been here. I'm not discounting the film, i thought it was pretty clever (the 1st one) and i can hardly blame the filmmakers that tried to cash in as the demand was there.

I dont know the japanese demographic enough to know how something like that would have been received ... are they traditionally fans of the slasher genre ?
I would suspect not because it certainly doesnt seem to be the kind of film they embrace. They prefer something far more stylish.

i dont know if that answers the questions you posed in your post.

if I did understand it correctly then i think my answer is that if you 'switched movies' neither would have had the impact they did because of the particular cultural tastes of the respective countries.

So, IYO, the cultures of the countries were a major part of the impact that the movies had on the industries?

Yeah, that makes sense. Japanese culture was a major part of the Ringu movie.

Perhaps a direct movie switch wasn't the best example...

absolutely ....

look at the italian films - similar to the Japanese they really prefer style over substance.
The major directors borrow from each other - work with each other .. have developed a very distinct style.


american horror cinema (with a few exceptions) is almost devoid of style.

its all about playing it safe ... use the formula that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Americans traditionally prefer quantity over quality ..

more kills, more boobs, more this and that ...
they are too impatient to let momentum build (the excorcist 3 is a glaring exception to this rule)

this reflects the cultural differences between america and europe ..

from time to time someone breaks the mold - in both places .. and those always make for a more interesting film ...

Based on the evidence presented by the effects these movies had, breaking the mold generally just creates a new mold. Not saying molds shouldn't be broken, but the innovation doesn't last long. It's like a camera flash.


As for the style/substance part, one could make an argument that a lot of American horror is devoid of substance as well. But substance over style isn't a bad thing. If the substance works then style might not matter at all, or the style might just come naturally from the quality of the substance.

I think its a cultural thing. A good example would be John Woo.His HK movies were masterpieces of style and substance.i.e. The Killer, Hard Boiled, Bullet in the Head, A Better Tomorrow. As soon as he went Hollywood his movies seemed to lose something in translation.

In this MTV age , here in the states, everything has to be bigger,louder and faster.

We still get a few independent gems once in a while, maybe the tide will turn, but I doubt it.

certainly - style over substance isnt a proven winner all the time ..
and it translates poorly in other markets.
Look at John Woo for example .. everything that worked in The Killer failed in Hard Target because he didnt understand the difference between the Chinese and american audience.
Corny doesnt work well here.
He found his balance in Face Off ..

substance over style works when you have a great cast .. you dont need the ultra-atmosphere or the reliance on the music because the performances work - or the great plot ...

Balance is the key ..

but back to the other point ... cultural differences are everything in cinema ... things that are trivial to us will have a greater meaning elsewhere ...
things that are corny to us are deep and meaningful elsewhere ..

When i think of Hong Kong ganster cinema for example .. as recently as the Woo films - they are still approaching the themes of friendship, women, etc from an american 1930's gangster film perspective. They are influenced by the US films but they were helplessly outdated.
The Japanese caught up to the US style and surpassed it - in a measured and methodical way.. sure they are atmospheric but they are very aware of their own formula too.

italian film .. well, they are a gem unto themselves .. they borrow from america but twist everything to suit their own origional (and entheusiastic) sensibilities ... which is probably why I like them the best ...

strange minds think alike :)

We sometimes have the same thought in our heads urge.....that scares me.

I'm afraid tomorrow is our turkey day here in the states. So I will be loading up on turkey and beer, waiting for the alcohol and tryptophan to kick in and pass out. Perhaps tomorrow night.










mmmmm...turkey salad sandwiches.

i like scream

Danke Schoen

well, we explored the cultural impact on film and how that doesnt neccessarily translate well.

i was thinking its not much different than the culture shifts that happen with time as well ..

movies that worked 40 years ago wont wash now (with most people) because we are more jaded now.

its the same thing really.

fortunately some of use are open minded enough to look at a film and understand that it fits the time and place it was made and enjoy it in that light.

:(

Sadface. It'd be crazy to go there. Maybe Crucial Taunt will be playing eh? ;) :p

all the old bars are going .. like the silver dollar ...
we almost lost the el mocombo too ..

You'd like the Toronto music scene ... it doesnt break in the US which is a shame .. a lot of unheard talent up here...

I bet. Guaranteed better than the scene here.....which is String Quartets......and thats it.

where the hell does one live where there are only string quartets ?

So, in the long term, do you think the impact the movies had on their respective countries' movie industry will have been positive or negative?

I've never seen Ringu, but it's on my x-mas list *sigh*

I think it's visually inferior to The Ring, direction and cinematography-wise, but the story is better (yes, they are different), and the video and Sadako are better

That's what i've heard. To be honest i didn't like the ring, at all. This one sounds kick ass, but anything is better then The Ringaroundmyasshole.

I think the problem with The Ring was that they knew the story for Ringu wouldn't translate very well, and when they tried to change the story to accomodate, they put in too much plot. Ringu has a lot less plot, which makes for a tighter story. The other problem was that Aiden was too in the know about things. And the last scene with Sadako was done WAY better in Ringu.


On the other hand, The Ring had a much better look. The washed-out blue-grey added a bleak feeling to the movie, and the direction was a lot better.

Ya for sure, the look of the dead chick and her coming out of the well. It was the best part imo. But i can't wait to see to, so i know wtf everyone is talking about.

well, the video and Sadako look great in Ringu, too. The two are pretty even on that front

sorry .. i had gone to bed ...(no holiday here)

In Japan there has been a positive impact for sure ..
They are really taken to horror now and with this new interest from the US they will be taking this thing as far as they can.

I know not everything is great, and there are a lot of 'samey' movies ... but i look at horror - in general - like this :

The beauty of a digital camera is that you are more apt to take hundreds of pictures. 5 or 10 will turn out to be great.
Plus you learn a lot as you go.

in the horror film industry if hardly any horrors are being made then the percentage of good ones will be low. If a lot are being made there will be a number of turds but a higher percentage of good films. Plus filmmakers will branch out and explore new ideas because even they know they cant keep producing the same junk over and over .. it will cease to be profitable.

back to the question .. in north america ... the most prolific horror makers .. well things are usually pretty stagnant. It isnt a great culture for film. Everything had been done to death and there just dont seem to be any new ideas, or anyone willing to risk filming them. I dont need to give examples .. its glaringly apparent.
Not to mention we are taking Japan as a major influence now.

That is the NA culture of business. No risks. Maybe because the economy hasnt been so great lately. Actually that is probably the largest cultural force in american film .. no one can afford the risk.

so i think in some countries the impact has been positive.
Especially the countries with room left to grow in the industry.

In america film is faltering ... its become a big fat old monster that has taken to eating itself because it is too lazy ro unable to chase anything new to consume.

So, both movies' impact has been positive, IYO?



speaking of digital cameras, it seems that 28 Days Later has started a new trend (in the states at least), at least a visual trend, of using digital video cameras. The most recent example is Open Water, which was apparently very good. Do you think this will be a new trend or just a quick...experiment isn't the right word but something along those lines

wasnt lucas using hi-def digital as well ? especially created for him ?

If it's cheaper to do and can look as good - you're damn right it will be a new trend .. It will be a new standard.

Celluloid will be replaced some day before long.

I dont know what the process is .. are the films converted to celluliod for projection at the theatres ?

either way .. if there is a cheaper method that has been developed to rival film then it will be done.
Its probably handier for post production too as I imagine there is more flexibility for mixing and effects ?
(i dont know because i'm not a filmmaker - i'm just guessing)

at any rate i like the idea if the resulting medium is smaller and hardier and there is no loss to the quality.

well, a lot of people are using digital instead of film (there was even a little featurette on the Once Upon a Time in Mexico DVD where the director talks about how digital is better than film), but I was more referring to using the digital video cameras where it looks cheaper. 28 Days Later didn't exactly look cinematic, but it looked good, the homemade look helped the feel of the movie. I think it'll be a trend, but mostly for low budget movies.

like i said, if they can make it better for cheaper - absolutely it'll be a trend.
it'll still take good filmmmaking to make it look good though ...

sadly, i didnt even realize 28 days later was digital .. i was too into the film to notice !

watch a movie done with film and watch 28 Days Later after, the difference is really noticable

Seems to me that Digital would have it's ups and downs.......You'd get a lot better picture to start with, so it would be a lot easier to clean up.....Add to that about any filter you can imagine and you have a lot of options......You can make digital look however you want.......Just about anyone with a digital camcorder, and a computer can make a movie, where as celluloid would require a bunch of special equipment, not to mention the developing and having to clean up the graniness that celluloid is known for......Seems to me that digital would be quite a bit easier to work with, and the possibilities of what you can do with it are vastly greater than that of film......I think it will soon take over, although I doubt celluloid film will ever completely go away.....

i'm sure programs or whatever will be developed to recreate the exact look and feel of celluloid ... iif it hasnt already been ..

with the colour and picture filters on Ulead I'm sure you could get it to look like film

Duplicating Film Digitally is very easy.....It's pretty much a point and click filter as far as I remember......

not quite. It's filtering, but there's not just one filter. There's an "old film" filter, but it's mostly monochromatic and looks almost cartoonish. I'm working on getting a combination down where it will look more like regular type film, but it's still a work in progress

Some of the ulead filters seem to be a little cumbersome and time consuming to reach the desired effect.......But once you get it, the effect looks really good......

yeah, I was doing an AKIRA AMV, and for part of it I wanted it to be 4:3 and look like old TV, and it took me a half hour to get it to look right.

My main project right now is to do ghosts, or whatever transparent type people you want. I think I've got it in theory, but I don't have access to the camera to test it.

EDIT: I think I've got it looking pretty film-like. Try:
Hue & Saturation: 10, 10
DiffuseGlow: 20, 1, 1

And for the widescreen, I do 100%, 75%

what does that mean ? what project were you converting to look like old TV ?

(and the software used to do it)

I was using Ulead 8, and footage from AKIRA, to do an AMV (Anime Music Video), for the first part of the video, I wanted it to look like old TV footage (4:3 ratio, bad quality, kindof a blueish colour, etc), but since my source footage was the SE DVD, it took some work to get it to look how I wanted. I used the cropping, the duotone and some other filters to get it to look right

what music are you using ?

is this a popular thing ? AMV ?

I feel so unplugged ...