MovieChat Forums > Ghostwatch (1992) Discussion > Wasn't impressed then, less impressed no...

Wasn't impressed then, less impressed now

posted 14 years ago by spookycopter
5 replies | jump to latest

I was 16 when I first watched this with my family on the BBC and really really thought it was terrible at the time. The acting was awful, the cast list was published in the TV magazines re-enforcing that it wasn't real. Additionally, there has never ever been any evidence of ghosts on camera that stands up to scientific scrutiny. As if ghosts would suddenly appear on schedule?

I can't believe what a reputation this has (off the back of the sensationalist - Ghostwatch killed my son article). Seriously - how could anyone above the age of 10 have fallen for this?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DeusExKatrina 13 years ago

People fall for movies like The Fourth Kind, which are about as realistic as a humanoid mercenary taco truck. As far as found footage goes, Ghostwatch is pretty realistic. The fact that they had the balls to use real BBC personalities is decently impressive. Not everyone reads TV magazines, eh? There are found footage movies with full credits in the film that still manage to convince people they're real.

[–] straker-1 12 years ago

I just wanna say that 'Humanoid Mercenary Taco Truck' is a superb name for a rock band. Oh, and the guy who said this wasn't scary...seen that reaction often. People will get seriously shocked by something, then think that their nuts will drop off if they admit they were frightened, so they pretend the opposite. Even though NO-ONE ELSE CARES either way. It's sad macho posturing.

I watched GW last night...found it disturbing and clever, rather than outright frightening, though some moments made me jump! Trouble is, Paranormal Activity and so on have run the GW idea into the ground and the original - which is less inane than the copies - starts to look a bit 'soft' by comparison. And then there's the fact that the BBC were/are HUGELY risk-averse with sex and (to a offensively lesser extent) violence. They are quite stupidly conservative even today. Were people seriously expecting maddening terror on BBCTV? Dream on. Not when boobs are deemed more obscene than stabbings or blood - you know what I'm talking about. Violent movies are just fine....but a naked breast? HIDE THE CHILDREN FROM THE OBSCENITY OF THE NUDE BOOB!! PUT THEM IN THE CUPBOARD WITH A CONSOLE GAME WHERE THE HERO RUNS OVER PEDESTRIANS IN A SPORTS CAR!! THAT'S PERFECTLY ALRIGHT!

[–] rebelwithcause2000 12 years ago

It was viewed by something like 11 million people, a lot of whom did not read the radio times or tv listing magazines. A lot of people turned over to it after it had begun, so didn't know it was a piece of drama. It was fronted by actual TV presenters and appeared to be real, nobody had done anything like it before on TV, so it's not unbelievable that a lot of people thought it was real.

Even the bad acting can be excused because sometimes normal people act up for the camera and can seem un-natural in a documentary setting. Perhaps there has never been any evidence of ghosts caught on camera, but the average person doesn't know that, add to it the fact that they could call a telephone number (which if they got through told them it was fictional, but the lines were jammed with callers so lots never heard that message. All these factors contributed to a large number of the public being honestly scared by it because they thought it was reality.

The suicide story aside, it was also blamed for episodes of PTSD in children.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]