What idiot think about that, its 39 years after theoriginal, the baby taken at the start would make her 39.....
Shes 20something in this, i can accept maybe its set in early 90s but then they use phones and techonolgy not available then. Its like they didnt care at all.
They didn't care, or didn't care to rewrite the film once they actually sat down and watched the original. But apparently they hoped the audience wouldn't care either.
Kate Beckinsale probably wouldn't have appeared in the film had they asked, but I think she might have been a good choice to play Heather Miller. Course she would also deserve a better script to go along with her.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
I actually enjoyed the film...
shareI actually enjoyed the film...
The producer of the film, Christa Campbell, is not bad looking at all, and is an actress mostly known for horror. How the idea to ask her to play Heather was never brought up is beyond me.
shareThe producer of the film, Christa Campbell, is not bad looking at all, and is an actress mostly known for horror. How the idea to ask her to play Heather was never brought up is beyond me.
I remember there was an interview where Christa Campbell said she wanted this to be a really gritty movie. She liked the 2003 remake, but felt it wasn't scary and focused too much on Jessica Biel's beauty.
Well, this one isn't anywhere near as intense as the remake and it's just about as gratuitous with Alexandra Daddario's body.
Yeah, that really bothered me as well. I kept trying to place the film. I thought it was late 80s or early 90s based off the clothing and other set pieces. But then a lot of the tech was much more modern plus the $3.60 gas prices said it was about now which would make the character 15-20 years too old. Very sloppy for something that could've eaiely been avoided.
shareI think the film takes place in the late 90s.
shareI think the film takes place in the late 90s.
I say it does and in the world of the movie, they just happened to have all the modern technology available to them early than in reality. I find it hard to believe the original is now set in the 1990s as some people wanted to believe. The style of the clothes and the cars during the opening scenes are clearly 1970s style, not 1990s. That made sense since it's following a movie that happened in the 1970s. How do you go from 1970s stuff, to 1990s stuff in a direct continuation? But then again, where the hell did all those Sawyer family members come from who were nowhere to be found in the original movie. They just popped up out of nowhere. Talk about an odd transition there.
They were best just following after Part 4 and giving us a new Leatherface that replaces the old one when he dies. The continuity in this franchise is so screwed up, making a direct sequel to the first was a mistake.
I say it does and in the world of the movie, they just happened to have all the modern technology available to them early than in reality.
I find it hard to believe the original is now set in the 1990s as some people wanted to believe. The style of the clothes and the cars during the opening scenes are clearly 1970s style, not 1990s. That made sense since it's following a movie that happened in the 1970s. How do you go from 1970s stuff, to 1990s stuff in a direct continuation?
But then again, where the hell did all those Sawyer family members come from who were nowhere to be found in the original movie. They just popped up out of nowhere. Talk about an odd transition there.
The continuity in this franchise is so screwed up, making a direct sequel to the first was a mistake.
Ugh. Seriously?
The film does skip ahead probably 25 years. But that would take us to the '90s. The movie is not set in the 1990's.
I still question whether or not the writers saw the original movie before making this.
The best bet, if any sense is to be made here, the original movie didn't necessarily happen. The events seen in the opening credits of this film happened. Likely in the late 1980's, but this film is a sequel to that footage alone and not the first movie entirely.
I think it could be done with the right writer(s). But they should also make it a period piece, and not be so concerned with modernizing everything.
Uh, yes seriously. Is there a problem?
Now it's my turn to say "Um, seriously?" here. If it takes us TO the 1990s, then how does it NOT happen in that time period?
I don't see how they wouldn't. How do you have writers write a sequel to a movie they haven't even seen? That would be stupid as hell and very unprofessional.
They certainly knew it happened in the 1970s, so why not make the "present" events look like they happened in the 1990s rather than the 2010s?
Except it IS a sequel to the first movie entirely. The footage goes from the very beginning of the film to the end of it and we see the same actors and characters from that movie. We're getting a recap, otherwise we mind as well tack on the entire first movie and that would be a serious drag. The rest of the first movie happened. We don't see to see all the other scenes than a few of them to be sure of that.
Exactly. If they wanted to make it modern, they should have aged the characters completely or like I said, brought us a NEW Leatherface replacing the old one.
A movie set in the '90s, but with technology not yet invented, and we're supposed to buy that?
That's only if the original events really happened in 1973. Heather was a newborn baby then. No way in hell does Alexandra Daddorio look 39.
She's clearly around 25 in this story. But the modern technology suggests 2012. Heather aged 25 years in nearly two decades?
Yes it would. The story is so sloppy and disconnected from the first, I think a fan script could have done a better job.
Modern technology. Maybe it was cheaper? Maybe they feared a '90s period piece wouldn't relate to today's younger horror crowds? You know, if they even thought of that to begin with.
They call it a sequel, but it can barely connect with the first one. WHERE IS EVERYONE? The other Sawyers? Verna Carson? Where's Hartman and Hooper, and how do they even know the Sawyers? They weren't in the original. They came out of nowhere. Are we to believe baby Heather was present during the first film? Why try to make us sympathize with the Sawyers when the first film already showed us they're clearly monsters? Again, TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D feels more like a sequel to a remake that doesn't exist. But with nothing to work with, they just tacked on footage from the first film.
When this was first announced I actually assumed Leatherface would turn out to be a copycat killer. Obviously I gave the writers too much credit.
Well like I said, IN THE MOVIE'S WORLD, you know which is FICTION and not our own reality, the technology advanced further by the 1990s than it would in real-life. Do you not understand that?
It's like all those movies from like the 1920-1960s depicting the early 21st century where there's flying cars and whatnot and we clearly don't have that yet (Back to the Future Part II comes to mind). It's not accurate with reality but it's the case in it's own fictional universe.
Where does it even showcase it being 2012?
It's the story that matters, not the technology.
I wonder if the upcoming prequel will connect to this movie. I think it will since there's a Verna character in it. But the name of Leatherface is different. He's Jackson there, but wasn't he suppose to be "Jeb" here or was that a nickname?
Even works of fiction can have limits. TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D is NOT sci-fi fantasy. It wants to be grounded in reality.
You're actually comparing TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D to old sci-fi films and their depictions of futuristic technology?
It's on Verna's tombstone. It's also set around Halloween.
They wanted that iPhone.
I think vaguely. Jackson is Jed, or becomes him. I think this was meant to be a surprise twist, but over a year ago websites pretty much let it slip. There were re-shoots sometime ago. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they rewrote the twist so one of the other kids becomes Leatherface.
It doesn't have to be a sci-fi fantasy. Even if it's grounded in reality it's still a fictional movie, not real-life.
I'm just making a point here. The future of these movies are too advanced than in reality, but we just accept what they are.
We can do the same for this movie too to get around the timeline goof.
I heard about the tombstone thing and when I went to watch the movie, I couldn't see a date listed on it other than the name. Do you have a screenshot you can provide?
Screw the iPhone. This was not a movie to promote the modern technology. We have television commercials for that.
A fictionalized history with advanced technology IS sci-fi fantasy.
Because they were depictions of the future and what we could accomplish IN THE FUTURE. You're asking me to accept technology that didn't exist 20 years ago as a fact within this film clearly trying to be grounded in realism.
Go to Dan Yeager's Facebook page and try to explain your theory. I'm sure he'd agree the film is (then) modern times. And that's if he even bothers to answer you.
There is no way. The film is so sloppily made that it's impossible. Even on the police reports "1973" is still mentioned. Sometimes a continuity error is just a continuity error.
Yeah, well it's in there. It's in there to stay. And it even kind of played a pivotal role in the film. It wasn't just some background prop you could choose to ignore.
I wouldn't say this movie would be heading into sci-fi territory.
Um, could you accept the recasting of Drayton Sawyer to some one who looked nothing like the original and there being several other Sawyers lurking around the house that couldn't have been there to begin with?
Those alone pretty much ruins the movie's realism so picturing this movie happening in a more technological advanced 1990s shouldn't be hard to swallow
Is he one of the silly makers of this movie?
But we still have to get around it somehow to apply to this forty year gap. I couldn't even see a "1970s" date anywhere when I watched the movie and was looking hard and careful at all the newspapers displayed.
You're making me want to go and watch this movie again.
I know. It shouldn't have been there.
It isn't. You're trying to steer in that territory with your ridiculous theory.
Recasting is inevitable with many sequels, especially since Jim Siedow is dead. And the new Sawyers who pop up is just bad screenwriting. Again, I wonder if the screenwriters had even seen the first movie before writing this.
Oh, yes it is.
Dan played Leatherface. How do you not know that?
Heather looks at a police report about "bodies retrieved from the Sawyer residence" and it says 08/18/1973. An error they missed when they made when decided to crop out any reference to their obvious timeline screw up.
Maybe you should. How many times have you see it? Once?
No, it shouldn't have. But you know, they wanted the film to appeal to modern horror fans who have this kind of technology.
This movie would not fit the bill simply because of some iPhones.
Recasting is inevitable, but they could have picked some one who looked like Jim, not just pulled an actor who previously starred in a TCM movie. But back to the point, have you just accepted in the inconsistency of the Drayton replacement and the extra Sawyers? If so, then why not accept the idea of the movie happening in a slightly technological advanced 1990s?
No it's not! It's only like a fifteen year gap from the movie's release. The movie happens in 1998. Not really a problem there. At last cellphones existed by then
So they cropped out everything else but this one date listing?
They don't think these knuckleheads can't handle a movie if it doesn't have their precious technology in it? Are they paying attention to the phones and cars used or the actual story, killings, and suspense
Wow, you left Manna-Fest speechless! Usually, people just give up in frustration.
11... 92... 12...share
It's a floating timeline, like how the bart and lisa never age in the simpsons despite having 4 or 5 christmas episodes. It's twenty odd years later yet time moves differently, it's fiction. I'm pretty sure dates on newspapers articles were obscured in the film.
shareActually, you can see the date on one papers and graves.
shareIt's a floating timeline, like how the bart and lisa never age in the simpsons despite having 4 or 5 christmas episodes. It's twenty odd years later yet time moves differently, it's fiction.
I'm pretty sure dates on newspapers articles were obscured in the film.
One of the worst written plot holes ever in a film. But, what do you expect from the writers of Jason Goes To Hell?
shareThat's maybe the most forgivable mistake they made, IMO.
I mean, series like Friday the 13th and Evil Dead also have played it kind of fast and loose with continuity. It would have been easy to overlook if the movie had been any good.