MovieChat Forums > Gåten Ragnarok (2013) Discussion > Do you think the monster had more than 1...

Do you think the monster had more than 1 minute screen time?

posted 9 years ago by amsyco13
7 replies | jump to latest

The movie was OK. Nothing great. I watched it last night and kind of forgot that I did.
But it wasn't garbage.

After it ended I couldn't help thinking that the monster was hardly in it. I know many monster movies keep the monster hidden for most the movie, but this was was too little.

I reckon the monster gets less than 1 minute screen time. In fact, I might even go as low as 30 seconds.

I can not think of any other monster movie that I have seen that has less.

**************************
Are you a bug Bill Murray?

[–] RDStrong 9 years ago

It suffered from the fate of most low budget monster movies in that they seemingly could only afford a few minutes of CGI when it came to the monster. Hence why we got to see so little.

[–] prydain17 9 years ago

If you count the baby the monster got 2 and a half minutes of screen time, and maybe slightly more. Several seconds for each time, and I think they used the visual of the monster appropriately, as not seeing is usually way more tense than seeing. Definitely more than your post would lead one to believe though. :)

I have kinda torn feelings about the movie... I expected something to do with Norse mythology. And what I got was a family movie meets Indiana Jones meets... Lake Placid or something. It wasn't bad, actually I found it well filmed, acted, and directed, but the story itself was a tad disappointing.

[–] FourthYear 9 years ago

When budget is limited and your antagonist is going to be CGI, it's probably best to have less screen time at a higher quality, or else you end up with something like the SciFi channel originals.

[–] hg_b1 9 years ago

Do you remember the b&W film 'Blair Witch Project'? Now that lacked visual monsters completely.

[–] amsyco13 9 years ago

I get the budget limitations and everything, but if this is the best your budget allows, maybe you don't make the movie. I mean the monster is a pretty big part of a monster movie. If you can't do it right, make some other movies until you can get the funding together. It would not be the first time a movie was put aside until a more realistic budget could be found.

According to IMDB, it had a budget of about 5 times that of Snarknado.
Then take a movie like The Host, with a budget about twice as big as Ragnarok, but it looks so much better. Of course The Host was directed by a master, so that might not be a fair comparison.

Guess maybe I heard too much hype going into this movie and I expected something more on par with The Host (which again, not fair on my part).

**************************
Are you a bug Bill Murray?

[–] prydain17 9 years ago

The monster in Ragnarok looks GREAT and as clarified has at least three minutes of screen time and the scenes it's not seen are played for suspense. It's seen clearly in full at least twice, when appropriate. Just because it's not in every other scene, why should they have "not made it"? Makes no sense. You have to be mis-remembering.

--

"Betty's voice brought darkness to the land." - Amanda Tanen

[–] number1lakerfan23 9 years ago

I was going to say, thought the monster looked damn good on what was probably a small budget. Plenty of Hollywood made movies have budgets of $175-$200 million dollars and end up with some CGI that looks more iffy than the monster here.