The ones they had for this film were stupid. "You didnt explain Diana", oh please plus these idiots couldnt figure out who the guy in the opening scene was EVEN THOUGH THEY SHOWED PICTURES OF HIS FAMILY, LIKE WTF! The original cut sounds like it would have been a lot better than the final cut
It doesn't think. It doesn't feel. It doesn't give up...
What guy? What family?
shareIt's not possible to figure Diana out because the film simply doesn't explain it enough and it is inconsistent when they do. I've seen you post several times insulting those who "couldn't figure it out" but you've yet to explain what is being missed. I do film analysis for fun, and this film just does not explain things. It's what happens when you take a short film and greenlight a major picture out of it on a limited time frame.
What is Diana?
Yes, the film says she was a mental patient who would burn like a vampire in light, but why does she become a ghost with that form as well? Especially when the film breaks the rule of "don't put it in the script if it has no reason to be there". Why did the mother say she's not a ghost, don't be silly ghosts don't exist. I mean yes you could say she's insane, but she was lucid enough to take her pills and it was a commonly used foreshadowing technique for a plot twist that never came: if she's not a ghost, what is she?
Why is she? Why is she tethered to Sophie. Why is she a ghost/demon/thing. She is new in horror and defies all previous rules, so some backstory was necessary that wasn't given. I came up with one, here: Diana found an old book in the hospital library about black magic and was caught trying to cast an eternal bond spell on sophie. The spell would have taken Diana's spiritual being out of her body and cast it into Sophie, effectively taking her over(think Scanners). She was interrupted, so the spell only half worked. Instead of being bonded forever , she's only bonded as a dark malevolent spirit that partially exists in reality and partially is stuck in an alternate dimension(not a ghost) where she can sometimes seemingly teleport, but also sometimes is stuck in the physical reality where she can't teleport nor travel without opening doors. She can also still die, since she didn't actually die in the hospital, but only if the spiritual link is severed permanently(death of sophie) or she's killed in the dark where she's vulnerable. Sophie's daughter could have learned this from a second hospital file(just the spell casting) and then the short run time could also have been fixed with the inclusion of another creepy scene after the house where they travel to the abandoned hospital and find the book and the spell to learn what happened and why, and then the mother could have opted to kill herself there. There. that explains everything. Sure, it's a glorified Supernatural episode, but at least it fits into everything the film lacked. It's not spoonfeeding it's just a fact that the film, while enjoyable, severely lacked in exposition.
That's the whole reason David is doing a sequel. He wanted to continue to story as well as go more into depth about Diana. I feel like he didn't want to cram it all in to one movie. Which makes sense. Too much happening in one movie is not good.
shareNo offense but that backstory sounds awful. I've explained this several times on different threads but I said Diana shouldnt have a huge backstory because the only reason humans are scared of the dark is because its unknown, thats why some people who are scared of the dark sleep with the lights on so they can know whats around them. I would much prefer that Diana is a unknown demon that attaches itself (like a parasite) to mentally ill people
shareSo....you keep insulting people for "not being able to figure out" a film with very little explanation in it, but then turn around and say that it's good the film doesn't actually explain anything, because it makes things creepier.
So which is it?
No idea how they recruit their test audience members, but they (the generic "They") always seem to go for the lower end of the acceptable target audience scale. I guess they think smarter people will just put up with anything.
But what the Hell would be wrong with a smart film every once in a while?!
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.