Fun! I was thinking of buying it as a gift. That price seems both "fully expected" and also "not something I'm tempted to jump in on". The figure in the article seems more detailed than this one, and also that one has a gun. But you've done nice research here, thanks.
Really, mizerock! I was hoping to find it for, you know, $19.99 or something like that, given it was (partly) a Shout! Factory gimme—but those prices are out of the question.
I watched this one several years ago, without first watching the initial entry. Did I "ruin my experience", if I assumed all along that I would be watching every entry in the franchise eventually? Or are there arguments to be made that my experience of watching the 1st one, several years later, will be just as good? Or maybe even "better"? Or at the very least, "not appreciably worse"?
which was why the producers wanted the "sequel" to use the original movie with a few added scenes. Good for first-time director Lee Harry saying the movie needed to be more than that, even if he ended up having to use half the film anyway.
I watched this movie again, after finally watching the original. I think I liked it even better the 2nd time. It really wouldn't work at all without the actor Going Big. And I was fascinated by how they used the footage from the first movie to change the original story in a few ways. How does the younger brother even know this stuff, to recall it? His brother told him! And seeing how, in this version of events, the older brother was hired at toy store specifically to play Santa. And Santa robbing the convenience store: now that's happening in the movie inside the movie, instead of setting up how the Santa that killed his parents started off his evening.
Was the new footage really shot for $100k, in a week? That seems impossible. Sure, there is lots of recycled footage from the original movie, a ridiculous amount, but even so: impossible! Car stunts, murder effects. Heck, I couldn't imagine shooting "orderly sets up tape deck, doctor walks in, meets and chats with Ricky" all in less than a full day. All of the cuts, the blocking, it looks so simple, but filmmaking is HARD. I guess the director was really an editor, and that experience helped him plan it all out in advance and shoot quickly, and he knew the resulting footage would all fit together nicely? The cut from Ricky holding a gun to his head, to holding fingers to his head, back in the hospital: it looks professional, it doesn't happen automatically.
I cannot defend anything about this movie, but somehow it managed to "work" for me. Somehow.
That figure is hilarious. A quick search suggests that it is a fan creation and not an official product, right?
But can you get it on Etsy?
I almost started searching there.
I don't want to know! I don't need this!
Shout! Factory used to offer it as a promo, but they ran out in 2017.
You can get it on eBay, but maybe you should ask Santa to get it for you b/c it ain't cheap! https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p4432023.m570.l1311&_nkw=silent+night+deadly+night+figure&_sacat=0
Fun! I was thinking of buying it as a gift. That price seems both "fully expected" and also "not something I'm tempted to jump in on". The figure in the article seems more detailed than this one, and also that one has a gun. But you've done nice research here, thanks.
OH, I see now, there are two versions, and the one for the 2nd movie does indeed seem to be the one pictured here. SWEET.
No sale! But still SWEET.
Really, mizerock! I was hoping to find it for, you know, $19.99 or something like that, given it was (partly) a Shout! Factory gimme—but those prices are out of the question.
Glad to know my Google-Fu was useful!
I watched this one several years ago, without first watching the initial entry. Did I "ruin my experience", if I assumed all along that I would be watching every entry in the franchise eventually? Or are there arguments to be made that my experience of watching the 1st one, several years later, will be just as good? Or maybe even "better"? Or at the very least, "not appreciably worse"?
We'll see.
Most people didn't see the first one (Siskel and Ebert went after it pretty hard!):
https://youtu.be/Ph3lfukgfeU?si=jzGIkLD5zKN5fxlz
which was why the producers wanted the "sequel" to use the original movie with a few added scenes. Good for first-time director Lee Harry saying the movie needed to be more than that, even if he ended up having to use half the film anyway.
I have a ticket to see it on the big screen on December 18th!
I watched this movie again, after finally watching the original. I think I liked it even better the 2nd time. It really wouldn't work at all without the actor Going Big. And I was fascinated by how they used the footage from the first movie to change the original story in a few ways. How does the younger brother even know this stuff, to recall it? His brother told him! And seeing how, in this version of events, the older brother was hired at toy store specifically to play Santa. And Santa robbing the convenience store: now that's happening in the movie inside the movie, instead of setting up how the Santa that killed his parents started off his evening.
Was the new footage really shot for $100k, in a week? That seems impossible. Sure, there is lots of recycled footage from the original movie, a ridiculous amount, but even so: impossible! Car stunts, murder effects. Heck, I couldn't imagine shooting "orderly sets up tape deck, doctor walks in, meets and chats with Ricky" all in less than a full day. All of the cuts, the blocking, it looks so simple, but filmmaking is HARD. I guess the director was really an editor, and that experience helped him plan it all out in advance and shoot quickly, and he knew the resulting footage would all fit together nicely? The cut from Ricky holding a gun to his head, to holding fingers to his head, back in the hospital: it looks professional, it doesn't happen automatically.
I cannot defend anything about this movie, but somehow it managed to "work" for me. Somehow.
I've heard this elsewhere.
You're piquing my interest, Nabin....