Enthusiasm for teaser to The Munsters movie turns to horror after the first trailer is released

Originally published at: Enthusiasm for teaser to The Munsters movie turns to horror after the first trailer is released | Boing Boing


So Rob kept much of the camp of the original series and folks are mad for it? He seemed to be a huge fan of the series growing up so if he saw someone take it down a different path or tone he would probably be the first person to get pissed off about it.

Not saying it would be bad or good, it’s just something you have to consider when adapting campy material. I mean look at what happened to Cowboy Bebop when it made the jump to live action.


Shooting on video often gives that effect. It looks to me like he probably got what he was going for, rather than this being the result of sheer incompetence. Whether one cares for that or not, :person_shrugging: .


Who was expecting a big-budget picture? Rob Zombie is a filmmaker from the Roger Corman school of shoestring shoots; he’s using his stock company of working actors rather than big-name stars (Cassandra Peterson, not credited as Elvira, is the biggest name I see); and the license for the Munsters IP he loves was probably dirt cheap.

It takes a lot to overcome it, especially in a feature film where sets and makeup are very important.


I was more Addam’s Family growing up, but I thought this trailer captured things perfectly.Not really making any comments about the technique, but I loved this trailer. Perfectly as campy as the source. I honestly can’t wait to see this. Grandpa seemed a little off to me for some reason, but that’s the only issue I had with it.


In the case of what I think is wrong here, no, it wouldn’t. The ‘soap opera effect’, as you linked, is a direct result of a HIGHER FRAME RATE (30fps) for video, rather than 24fps for film. Higher frame rates are objectively better. They give you an image closer to what we see with our own eyes. The problem is that we are accustomed to 24fps blur softening things out. That’s a large component of what makes film LOOK like film. In addition, most of industry is COUNTING on that softening so that costumes, makeup and sound stages DO NOT LOOK like costumes, makeup, and sound stages. It’s why every high-frame-rate experiment (The Hobbit Movies, 48fps, Billy Lynch’s Long Halftime Walk and Gemini Man, 60fps), all got savaged over the technology, saying it transformed what should have been dwarves running around ancient caverns into actors in a sea of latex makeup milling around a well funded community theater set.

Virtually every motion picture recording device these days, down to your phone, can be set to record at a variety of frame rates, usually 24, 30, 48, and 60. Maybe 25 as well if you’re in a PAL-based country, and maybe even higher for slo-mo effects.

And EVEN if someone was so dumb as to allow all the new color footage to shot at the wrong (higher) frame rate, there’s established post-processing procedures to correct and retime the footage so it’s more in keeping with other 24fps footage.

I am crossing my fingers that they simply forgot about that step for this trailer, and the movie itself will be better.

I would not bet actual money on it, though…


Looks terrible. Can’t wait to see it.


Rob Zombie goofing around and having fun on a shoestring budget with no stakes? I’m here for it. But then again, I’m a bit of a Zombie apologist.


I wouldn’t either. Converting to 24fps may be an easy fix but it still costs money that Rob Zombie may not have or may not be willing to spend.


This is why I think the look is a choice (and the trailer is inconsistent - sometimes the frame rate is more cinematic, other times it’s more video-look, so someone is making a decision). I’m fine with it. If I had any quibble about the trailer, it’s the sound recording - the dialogue sounds like it was recorded in a box (though that could be a choice as well).


That doesn’t mean they’re objectively “better,” especially in a medium built around aesthetic liberties and willful suspension of disbelief.

Often seeing a movie set or prop in real life can be a jarring experience because the things which seemed so real on screen look cheesy and obviously fake when they aren’t filtered through the magic of the movie camera. Up close and under ordinary lighting the human eye can spot all the details that make the illusion fall apart.


The audio track for the trailer is very un-trailer-like, and the editing not as tight as we’ve come to expect. These are subtle, but add to the sense of “cheapness”.

Also, I hope the whole movie uses a laugh track. I think that would really make the campiness shine.


I think the people whinging are missing the point? The camp look and “low” production values are an aesthetic (did I spell that right?) choice. He’s trying to recreate the feel of the original show, which looked like that, but in B&W.

Seems like it.

Right? His other films look professional and modern, so this was certainly a choice. I think the people that get that will like this, and those that won’t aren’t his target audience anyways.


It’s not my schtick, but I felt like I got what they were going for and not a moment of the trailer felt accidental to me. Doesn’t mean it’ll work, but I thought it was well beyond competent.


When I say higher frame rates are objectively better, I qualified it to mean ‘better’ = closer to the reality we perceive when observing something directly with our eyes.

You are 100% correct that this is not always aesthetically better. I’ve worked in the film industry for close to 30 years and I know exactly how cheesy and obvious real sets, props, and costumes look when observed up close in good lighting.


I was not interested in this. At all.
The trailer makes it seem like it might be better than I thought. It’s great!


Yeah, exactly - I mean, I have no feelings about The Munsters and wasn’t looking forward to (nor caring about) this, but was always skeptical about Zombie being director because I figured he wouldn’t do the campy tone that would be faithful to the source. But he very much did, obviously. It’s only the “cheap (i.e. high-frame-rate) video” effect that seems off to me and not in keeping with the original. I’m not sure what people were expecting/wanting - a gritty reboot?


Which I think was a conscious choice on his part. I think he was not only invoking the show, but also low-budget public access TV shows that showed monster movies.

Probably. His films have thus far been more along the lines of slasher films.



Personally, I’m not a fan of Rob Zombie’s films, so my expectations were never ‘high’ to begin with.

That said, I won’t hate based on the trailer; because it’s not like I was actually planning to go see his latest project anyway.