The Bloodcast: Ep. 85: Chelsea Peters

Download This Podcast
Right Click Link and “Save Link As”
     

  32

The Bloodcast shakes things up this week when co-host Ryan Turek is out of town. Have no fear! Clarke Wolfe has a plan: Chelsea Peters. Not only is Chelsea about to embark on directing her first horror feature, she has worked for Blumhouse Productions for over three years. This week Clarke and Chelsea will discuss what goes into making a low-budget horror film, the Blumhouse model, Chelsea’s biggest horror influences and that whole “women in horror” thing. Follow Chelsea on Twitter @StardustChelsea and for updates on her feature film debut, including the teaser, visit http://chelseastardust.com/.

Art by Daniel James Baker.

Don’t forget to like our Facebook page and follow @TheBloodcast on Twitter!

Follow @_RyanTurek and @ClarkeWolfe on Twitter for the latest and to chat about this week’s episode.

  • Gabbi Cordero

    Just because this is the first solo endeavor with Ryan away for press, I wanted to believe this Bloodcast would go off without a hitch. Face-palm. Let me first say that I hope the best for Chelsea Peters. I hope she gets to be the goal that she’s after for a prominent female presence in Horror and film as a whole. When she mentioned that in Hollywood that “bad people seem to be rewarded”, ain’t that that truth.

    Two comments at the beginning and end of this podcast just rolled my eyes. I’ll lead into my opinions with a foreword. I neither need people to agree with my tastes or demand that other people’s preferences cater to me. I recognize who the co-host on this show is and they should be allowed to express their fondness for sub-genres, directors, etc. Lastly, I would not of course expect any bashing for a guest or of their associates.

    Having said all this, Clarke gushing and endlessly fawning over Blumhouse has reached nauseating proportions. To support a studio of one’s choice is one’s prerogative, but to peddle hyperbole and bold face lies as gospel is quite a different affair. The first comment that raised an eyebrow only to be proceeded by eye rolling was “the four major titles that blumhouse put out between lords of salem, dark skies, insidious chapter 2, and the purge were all so completely different…” while i will readily admit that i have not seen lords of salem, the fact is that it’s rob zombie and he hasn’t earned any support from me. now then looking at these films, what i see are 3 of the 4 are low quality, supernatural, bargain basement, lowest bidder attempts (lords of salem, dark skies, insidious chapter 2) or 3 of the 4 are bottom of the barrel films that attempt to confine the tepid scares to a house (dark skies, insidious chapter 2, and the purge). You may say that dark skies isn’t supernatural because it’s aliens, and where i would tend to agree, the plot is presented as a ghostly threat with rearranged furniture, a refrigerator pilfered, and the child experiencing seizures. More to the point, in my opinion, none of these films are any good. Praising variety in this case comes off as a cover up for a gross lack in quality.

    Now the purge i could go on about how this movie is a rip off of episodes of tv (star trek return of the archons, and one of the anthology tv shows where a family prepares for the one night of the year where the dead rise from the earth), but instead i’ll just highlight how blumhouse’s penchant for isolating horror to a house came to a head in 2013. it hindered the threat in dark skies and greatly compromised the plot of the purge by confining the action to a house. why, if you are attempting to portray a globe spanning premise would you narrow it to a single location? when you think of a world-building concept that the purge clumsily handled does home invasion sub-genre come to mind? allow me to quote the examiner, “this is really just poor film making on the cheap intended to fire up controversy by pretending to be edgy while simply recycling an old Star Trek plot.” i don’t know what blumhouse’s comfort zone issues with only doing spirit films or “scary” movies in a house is all about but maybe call a spade a spade instead of blindly professing how diverse they are.

    “between something like amityville and insidious… i don’t think that there’s a throughline.” you’ve got to be kidding me. SUPERNATURAL THAT’S YOUR THROUGH LINE. the absolute and total refusal to create a characterization in your villain. let’s just look at this year alone for the precious gem that is blumhouse: the marked ones (spirits), oculus (spirits), the purge anarchy (action thriller, funny how they abandoned the horror part), jessabelle (spirits), you mentioned amityvillen and insidious, both dealing with the spiritual realm. it amuses to no end a recent podcast that aired where the topic of discussion was “are audiences getting bored with the supernatural” and yet blumhouse is exempt from blame, they are simply above reproach in spite of the fact that they revel in ghosts and spirits and scares-in-a-house. because this studio is too precious they not only escape unscathed but are actually praised for their “diversity”? credibility seems a bit lacking. it’s only in cases where their output is unwatchable like para-boredom 4 or dark skies where any word of protest is raised yet their somehow this alter deserving of praise. Pandering

    • Ryan Rawlings

      Nothing about Lords of Salem is “low quality” or “bargain basement”.