✦ dr puppy pepper ✦

im watching youtube to pass the time and. this girl is talking about how tcm is great, but the 2003 remake is arguably much more brutal, and how the original is "more like a snuff film", and 2003 is "more like a poster on your brother's wall" (paraphrasing here but its basically that)

which........ i mean, opinions opinions, yknow, everyone can have them, but i dont necessarily agree? i would argue 2003 is the most "brutal" or "snuff"ey, if you wanna call it that. tcm2003 is LITTERED with unnecessary violence and gore (i mean that in a good way btw! love tcm2003). i mean, for fucks sake, they switched out nubbins' kinda unsettling scenes in the back of the van for a woman SHOOTING HERSELF, and then the whole shot of the camera coming in through the hole in her head?? come on. come on.

tcm didnt have nearly enough budget to be "brutal" in the same way as 2003. its scary in that its tense, its drawn-out, and its just generally upsetting. but its in no way "like a snuff film" - i mean, i dont even recall a lot of actual kill scenes. forgive me if im misremembering, but... i dont remember nearly as much actual chainsaw massacre-ing as there is in tcm2003

anyway. this is nitpicky and obviously says Nothing about which one is the "better" film - of which its always hard to say anyway, because art is subjective, horror is subjective, and just because i prefer tcm doesnt mean this girl cant prefer 2003! thats totally fine! thats not the point.