Paid Members Chris B Posted November 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 9, 2011 Who's seen this? Sarah Greene, Craig Charles and Michael Parkinson deal with a haunted house. I watched it when it was broadcast, and (although I was slightly sceptical) it scared the shit out of me. Â Now, I want to know if anyone else got this other bit, or if it was just me. Â According to Wiki, Sarah Greene didn't hype up GhostWatch before the show. Now, whether she did or not, I remember going into Ghostwatch having seen something about it on The Broom Cupboard, or Going Live or something. I don't know if it was her that did it, but I definitely remember something before the show - because I was under the impression that GhostWatch was going to be an all-night thing, with an opening longer segment, and then updates throughout the night. Â Now, I don't remember where I got this idea from, and it isn't on the show itself - but I remember wanting to watch it, and thinking it was going to be in this format. I'm convinced it's because it was mentioned on kids TV somewhere - does anyone else remember this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeg_&_The_Heads Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I remember Ghostwatch I think the "Ghost" was called Pipes but can't recall if it was mentioned on CBBC or not  I do remember that it was the only thing anybody talked about at school the next day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I remember Ghost Watch. It was great. Completely kayfabed till the end.  The ghost was called pipes, yes.  It was shown BBC1 about 7pm... although people's watches stopped during the shows broadcast  All the hype was about a live ghost investigation taking place. It wasn't put over as a work of fiction... and got decent response!  EDIT: I'm sure there's a torrent for this show kicking about online. Maybe thebox, perhaps demonoid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philo_Vance Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I remember Ghost Watch. It was great. Completely kayfabed till the end. The ghost was called pipes, yes.  It was shown BBC1 about 7pm... although people's watches stopped during the shows broadcast  All the hype was about a live ghost investigation taking place. It wasn't put over as a work of fiction... and got decent response!  EDIT: I'm sure there's a torrent for this show kicking about online. Maybe thebox, perhaps demonoid...  It was 8pm, I believe, scheduled for an hour but ran over by a half hour. It wasn't TOTALLY kayfabed- the opening sequence said 'written by' which was a big enough giveaway, plus it was part of a SERIES of one-off dramas called Screen One. It was ambiguous enough to fool people though. Also, those that phoned the number during the show were told that it was fictional in a recorded message.  Torrents are knocking about, I think I got it from Kickasstorrents or isohunt. Not great quality though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted November 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 9, 2011 I would've loved to have a bash on Sarah Greene was I was 13/14, not so much these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted November 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 9, 2011 I saw Ghostwatch when it got its first play. I'm convinced it was shown at 9pm and before it was show it had the 'Screen One' ident played before it as that was the series of single dramas it was a part of. Despite that, people STILL shit themselves at it, including me, until it went silly at the end. Â The thing is that I can't imagine that people watching it now for the first time can possibly get anything out of it. It must look so silly because, like with the Orson Welles War Of The Worlds broadcast (the effect of which has been hugely exaggerated anyway) it really was all about being there at that moment and watching it and not quite knowing what was going on. Â Now that the legend behind it is all known how can it possibly have any effect? It just will look all rather silly and people would surely be left wondering what all the fuss was about? Â I do remember though on the night they showed it, right afterwards they showed Creepshow and that was the first time I had seen it. That was back when TV stations actually put some thought into their Halloween programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted November 9, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 9, 2011 This came up in the DVD thread a few days ago, so I'm just going to lazily paste what I said there: Â Â I wished I hadn't rewatched it. Ghostwatch had this huge mystique in the ten years between airing and when it first came out on DVD. I can't even remember how many times it'd come up in conversation with people in that time, with everyone agreeing how shit-scary it was. In 2002 though, it was just hokey, and totally robbed of its power through the conventions of TV having bled that live broadcast thing dry for real. It's similar, in a way, to how really iconic movies don't feel the same if you're coming to them late, because all the iconic beats are so familiar through parody or cultural memory, and by all the things that were so original having been done dozens of times in other stuff since. Plus, with the utterly horrific acting of Craig Charles and co. Â Did acting just get better since then? Rewatching it a decade or two later, you're really struck by how a lot of those performances would simply never, ever make it onto screen now. Generally, it feels incredibly flimsy. Then again, TV of that era probably does anyway. I doubt an episode of Noel's House Party would be that different. But for a reality horror, that kind of aging means it doesn't work at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted November 9, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted November 9, 2011 Now that the legend behind it is all known how can it possibly have any effect? It just will look all rather silly and people would surely be left wondering what all the fuss was about? Â Do you mean if people rewatch it, or do you mean if they tried to replicate it? Â Having rewatched it recently, it's actually quite impressive. It's fantastically written, mostly well acted (with a couple of not-so-goods), and paced beautifully. It's honestly still well done, even when you know it's a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted November 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 9, 2011 Now that the legend behind it is all known how can it possibly have any effect? It just will look all rather silly and people would surely be left wondering what all the fuss was about? Â Do you mean if people rewatch it, or do you mean if they tried to replicate it? Â No, if people watch it for the first time now. I can't imagine I would be in the slightest bit impressed by it if I watched it for the first time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted November 9, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted November 9, 2011 Woyzeck - interesting. I disagree on the acting. I think the guests are a bit crap, but Sarah Greene and Michael Parkinson in particular play it totally straight. Â You have to take it as what it is, but I honestly think it stands up well. Yes, it's dated, and yes, there are problems. Perhaps it's because I went into it expecting it to be crap on a second viewing and ended up loving it. Â I watched it a couple of years ago with some teenagers and family members around, and everyone ended up getting really into it and freaked out by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philo_Vance Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I rewatched it recently, and although I can't see anybody being utterly terrified or fooled by it now, it's still a pretty fun watch with some decent moments. As was said in the other thread, the mother's acting lets it down, and I think it would have been more convincing without <-- click on 'spoiler' to show/hide the spoiler the studio being destroyed at the end  [close spoiler] ");document.close();, this was just too over the top. If it had ended with <-- click on 'spoiler' to show/hide the spoiler Greene and the kid disappearing under the stairs and the broadcast suddenly ending with an ident popping up for ages or a 'technical hitch' message  [close spoiler] ");document.close(); it would be way more unsettling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted November 9, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 9, 2011 Here's a link to a short story by the writer, that acts as a sequel: http://www.stephenvolk.net/31-10.pdf  To retread what I said before a little, aside from the shoddy acting and generally lame bits, the reason it worked then and the reason it doesn't work now are exactly the same. When you watch old TV, it has that weird sheen of unreality. Everything's slightly fuzzy, and not only from a technical standpoint, but it's just off. The fashion, the look of everything; there's just a distance there, meaning 80's and 90's TV looks light years ago. Whether that's Mike Morris and his pasty "a face that un-made-up would never get onscreen in 2011" features on TVAM or Jamie Theakston's curtains hair on Live and Kicking, it might as well be a thousand years ago for the amount of connection you can feel with it. Look at the early UFCs. It's the mid 90s, but nobody would doubt you if you said they were shot in 1986. All of Ghostwatch's power came from reeling people in because it felt real, and at the time, from a broadcasting standpoint, it absolutely did. Obviously, that's exactly how shows looked and went out back then. Today though, it feels as real as the opening credits to Game for a Laugh, with Matthew Kelly running down the steps in a colourful jumper, with the sepia faces of spotty housewives and 80's-haired men clapping along.  In a way, it was doomed to age really badly, but were it not so reliant on the reality aspect carrying it through, with a stronger story and better performances, it would have held up a lot better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philo_Vance Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Here's a link to a short story by the writer, that acts as a sequel: http://www.stephenvolk.net/31-10.pdf  It's quite good that story, he won some awards for it I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockbus Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'm certain this was actually based on a "true" story. I remember getting a book out of the library as a teenager a few years after this was on TV which was the story from Ghostwatch, right down to the ghost being called Pipes, two young girls in the family, etc etc. It was published in the 70s so it wasn't a tie in to the series. I can't find any evidence of this book existing anywhere though. It's frustrating me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted November 9, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'm certain this was actually based on a "true" story. I remember getting a book out of the library as a teenager a few years after this was on TV which was the story from Ghostwatch, right down to the ghost being called Pipes, two young girls in the family, etc etc. It was published in the 70s so it wasn't a tie in to the series. I can't find any evidence of this book existing anywhere though. It's frustrating me. Â It's not based on a true story, but they lifted a ton of stuff, including the family set-up, straight from the famous Enfield Poltergeist case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.