Wheee! Full, official Piranha 3-D trailer!

Dr. Whiggs

I remember seeing this in theaters back in January.

Ken Begg

Maybe a different one? This one supposedly went up yesterday.

Dr. Whiggs

Maybe slightly; I’m not sure if I remember seeing Doc Brown in that one. Though I may be fabricating memories.

The Rev. D.D.

Well, I like the design for the piranha; the CGI’s not too bad; outboard motor as a weapon is always good; looks to set up some great carnage, which is good since the original was a bloodbath; and really nice-looking cinematography, especially in the underwater cave sequence, which was nicely done (and perhaps an homage to Pitch Black?) Since it’s a prehistoric critter and not an EEEEEVIL gub’mint ‘speerment, hopefully we can minimize/eliminate any possible human villains.

However, if that scene does not live up to the original’s orgy of death, it’s going to be a huge disappointment. There’s a lot of potential for Jaws “homages” (looked like a couple were possible just in the trailer), which in this day and age need to be done VERY carefully, cleverly, and sparingly, or you’re just going to infuriate the audience. I hope they don’t spend a lot of time with the partying teens ’cause I don’t care about them except as fish food, although not much chance of that.

I’m sure it’ll be a better film per se than Mega Piranha was. Now, if it ends up being as much fun as the latter, we could really have something here. I’ll cross my fingers and hope for the best.

Dr. Whiggs

Ken, I’m curious as to why you’re so stoked to see this despite your professed discomfort with gory films. Does your love of cheese outweigh your distaste of meat?

Ken Begg

Dr. Whiggs — Well…monsters. I love monsters, and we just don’t get a lot of them anymore. (And I LOVE undersea monsters, which sucks, because good ones of those are particularly rare.)

But yes, I cringe every time I hear things like “This is going to be the bloodiest movie ever!” Actually, though, I don’t mind blood, it’s just that I’m not a huge fan of gore. And I have to say, even though the super hard-R approach now doubt has the Dread Central crowd deliriously happy (not a shot, Scott, I love you guys), I’m not sure it’s the best thing for the film. This seems targeting the Geek crowd, and as I’ve noted in the past, movies aimed explicitly at the Geek crowd, even ones that are really good (Snakes on a Plane, Grindhouse, Slither) seldom do terrifically well at the box office.

Now, 3-D is blazing hot right now, so that should help. Even so, previous 3-D horrors that were also really gory–My Bloody Valentine, Final Destination–did well, but not super well. MBV made 51 million domestic, which was fine because it had a $15 million budget, but FD made $64 million off a $40 million budget–not so great. Both did pretty well overseas, however (FD made an additional $115 million foreign), so I’m sure that’s part of the calculation. They seem to be sitting on the budget figures for Piranha 3-D, so it’s hard to get a sense of how much they need to make back to make their nut. (Generally twice the budget, more or less.) Holding that info close to the vest suggests they either spent fairly high–say, $75 million–or so little that they don’t want to spook fans that the F/X will suck.

Time will tell. But really, no matter how gory, IT’S A PREHISTORIC PIRANHA MOVIE IN 3-D. I’ll not only be there, I’ll be seeing it opening night at the midnight show, so that I can see it with the goofiest audience.

Rock Baker

What do you know, a new movie (and an obviously stupid one at that) that I really, REALLY want to go see at the theater! (I wonder if our local drive-in will be booking it, and if drive-ins can even do 3D)

Foywonder

“even though the super hard-R approach now doubt has the Dread Central crowd deliriously happy (not a shot, Scott, I love you guys)”

Dread Central crowd? Most of the horror community would fall into that category. I’ve gotten into it with gorehounds that think any horror movie not R-rated is a detriment to the genre. I’ve always been more of the opinion of how they use the gore rather than just demanding quantity. I think going over-the-top with the gore will work in this case given the whole movie seems to be shooting for an over-the-top tone and it’s clearly being done in the spirit of fun. Unlike say the Hostel or Saw films, where the gore is clearly done with a mean-spirited tone and designed to make audiences wince. I don’t know about the movies box office potential; it’s a still a silly looking horror movie about prehistoric piranha eating spring breakers; the appeal to anyone outside a select audience seems nil to begin with.

Ken Begg

Scott: I’m sure you’re right; after all, you know a LOT more about the modern horror movie community than I do. However, yours is about the only site dedicated to (mostly) new horror movies that I go to, because frankly I find the films now mostly uninteresting. So your site is the one where I’m exposed to the gorehound set that wants EVERY horror movie to be gory, and positively resents any that aren’t.

I recognize that some films have to be gory, even if it’s not my bag. Slasher movies, for an obvious example. I guess I’m just weirded out by the concept that it isn’t REALLY horror if it’s not R-rated. There are many shades of ‘horror,’ and to me, ‘scary’ is a good one, and movies don’t have to be gory or even bloody to be scary. I guess what I don’t get is the fans who like gory more than scary, because to me that’s not really what horror movies are about. (Although I wouldn’t call people like that sick until they’re watching real life stuff like Faces of Death.) The last ten years have provided many genuinely scary, PG-13 rated films: Sixth Sense, The Ring, Drag Me to Hell, etc.

I agree with you by the way. Piranha really should be gory, because, you know, it’s a cheesy, ’70s-style killer fish movie. Will it be scarier than Jaws, which was only PG? I highly doubt it. But it hopefully will be really, really fun.

Rock Baker

Am I in a minority when I note that I find gore needless because I find it so goofy? Even in a war movie, over the top gore tends to break my cooperation rather than enforce it. It seems, somehow, cartoonish. My brother on the other hand, he loves that stuff. His library is filled with weird bloodbaths from Japan (more modern stuff I don’t really want to touch). Both of us, however, agree that the one film that makes both of us jump no matter how many times we see it is -get ready- The Monster That Challenged The World. The bit where the guy at the dam gets grabbed from behind is, even when we’re ready for it, the most sudden and disturbing thing we’ve ever seen. The scene is creepy, a sudden shock, and even legit scary stuff, but has not one drop of blood.

And wouldn’t a movie like this feature, more than anything, churning waters foaming with red? I’m sure we’ll get some dismembered limbs hurled at the camera (in 3D!) and all, but would there really be a lot of GORE gore with all that water washing around?

Ericb

I love Monster That Challenged the World. It’s one of the first movies I bought when I got a DVD player. The diver getting the life sucked out of him was the scene that always freaked me out.

Elizabeth

I totally agree with everyone saying that gore is not necessary for, and can in fact be detrimental to, horror movies.

On the other hand, if I’m going to see a movie about killer fish, I want some fucking splatter, okay? That’s what they’re for.

Ken Begg

Liz, if you and Charles come down and join Holly and Paul and I for the midnight show, I’ll cover the tickets and Super Dawgs.

BeckoningChasm

You know, it looks like fun, and I might be tempted to see it in the theater, but that last shot in the trailer (the fish sitting there glaring at the victim girl) just looks stupid. It takes the “just kidding!” thing and shoves it in my face.

I agree with the argument that gore isn’t necessary for a horror film; I just wish there was a similar argument that camp and stupidity were equally unnecessary.

Related Posts