Post by CougarBob on Aug 24, 2008 7:34:52 GMT -11
This represents the end of the first season for GHI, and while this has been a relatively short introduction for the spinoff, that sting is mitigated by the knowledge that a second season is already commissioned. It’s likely that the GHI seasons will be shorter because it’s more expensive than its domestic parent. Besides, if “Ghost Hunters” will have 25 episodes in its fifth season, there’s not a lot of time in the schedule for GHI.
I was expecting Pilgrim Films to put together one of their typical pre-hiatus finales. Usually this involves one of three things: an episode with “astonishing” evidence at a location to be heavily promoted in future “paranormal retreats”, an episode with special guest stars, or a live extravaganza. (Pilgrim also loves to mix those items together.) So I was a bit surprised to discover that this was a far less sensationalized finale than, say, the debacle at “Frankenstein’s Castle”.
The past few episodes have been filled with cringe-worthy moments, largely attributable to some member of the team. This episode was mostly a victim of editing. There were signs of interesting investigation tactics here and there, and considering how often the episodes make the team look less than logical, that was a step in the right direction. But this should have been at least a 90-minute finale (if not two separate episodes), and the choppy treatment shows.
It would be lethal to any paranormal investigation show to feature too much real-time footage. The live shows demonstrate how tedious that can be. Also, the investigators are only human, and believers and skeptics alike can get uncomfortable when the team seems a bit too “real” and flawed. But if GHI (and similarly, TAPS) is always being lauded as scientific and innovative, why not show that side more?
Setting aside any discussion on the validity of the methods, theories, or equipment, there were some interesting ideas in this episode. Barry’s decision to use two identical cameras, one “normal” and the other altered to remove the software filters, to take pictures at the same time for comparison? A great idea that got way too little time or explanation in the episode. The explanation for “triangulation” was garbled and really had nothing to do with actual triangulation, but the goal made sense and more time on the idea might have given it clarity.
Case #1: Banffy Castle, Romania
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Andy has great enthusiasm, and often does great debunking work, but the guy needs to think about his personal safety a little more. What if Andy had gotten stuck in that tunnel? (Granted, they might have checked it out first before filming the sequence, since the cameraman was suspiciously waiting for him at the bottom, but it’s still a bad idea!)
I loved the idea of using the two cameras at once. The resulting photos weren’t conclusive, but it was definitely intriguing. One of my fellow investigators has been using a similar concept, and it’s always great to see concurrent sources of data. If they could do that with some of types of equipment, it would be a step in the right direction.
The personal experiences were interesting, but given how well some of the items were debunked, I think Robb’s summary was right on the money. I was a bit concerned that they would declare the site “haunted”, given recent examples.
Case #2: Poienari Castle, Romania
This investigation was given the short stick in editing, and it would have made a lot more sense to give this more time and depth. I have no doubt that the team was thorough, despite the site’s challenges, but the coverage was almost content-free.
The “triangulation” method is anything but, since true triangulation means monitoring from three different points to determine the location of something within the space defined by those points. This was just a more proactive mode of investigation, and in my view, a smart one. If there’s limited time, why not spend the first hour or two collecting data, conduct a preliminary review, and then focus the majority of equipment on the most active area? It’s precisely that lack of responsiveness that has been criticized in the past.
This is especially true on sites where the reports are vague or practically non-existent. It amounts to taking a survey of the site and determining if anything unusual is happening, then focusing on getting the data necessary to explain it (or not, as the case may be). It’s certainly a viable idea, done correctly.
It’s simply unusual for a season of this franchise to end without “stunning evidence” or a site being declared definitively “haunted”. I think I prefer it that way.
John Keegan
Reprinted with permission
Original source: c. Critical Myth, 2008
All rights reserved
Link: www.criticalmyth.com
I was expecting Pilgrim Films to put together one of their typical pre-hiatus finales. Usually this involves one of three things: an episode with “astonishing” evidence at a location to be heavily promoted in future “paranormal retreats”, an episode with special guest stars, or a live extravaganza. (Pilgrim also loves to mix those items together.) So I was a bit surprised to discover that this was a far less sensationalized finale than, say, the debacle at “Frankenstein’s Castle”.
The past few episodes have been filled with cringe-worthy moments, largely attributable to some member of the team. This episode was mostly a victim of editing. There were signs of interesting investigation tactics here and there, and considering how often the episodes make the team look less than logical, that was a step in the right direction. But this should have been at least a 90-minute finale (if not two separate episodes), and the choppy treatment shows.
It would be lethal to any paranormal investigation show to feature too much real-time footage. The live shows demonstrate how tedious that can be. Also, the investigators are only human, and believers and skeptics alike can get uncomfortable when the team seems a bit too “real” and flawed. But if GHI (and similarly, TAPS) is always being lauded as scientific and innovative, why not show that side more?
Setting aside any discussion on the validity of the methods, theories, or equipment, there were some interesting ideas in this episode. Barry’s decision to use two identical cameras, one “normal” and the other altered to remove the software filters, to take pictures at the same time for comparison? A great idea that got way too little time or explanation in the episode. The explanation for “triangulation” was garbled and really had nothing to do with actual triangulation, but the goal made sense and more time on the idea might have given it clarity.
Case #1: Banffy Castle, Romania
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Andy has great enthusiasm, and often does great debunking work, but the guy needs to think about his personal safety a little more. What if Andy had gotten stuck in that tunnel? (Granted, they might have checked it out first before filming the sequence, since the cameraman was suspiciously waiting for him at the bottom, but it’s still a bad idea!)
I loved the idea of using the two cameras at once. The resulting photos weren’t conclusive, but it was definitely intriguing. One of my fellow investigators has been using a similar concept, and it’s always great to see concurrent sources of data. If they could do that with some of types of equipment, it would be a step in the right direction.
The personal experiences were interesting, but given how well some of the items were debunked, I think Robb’s summary was right on the money. I was a bit concerned that they would declare the site “haunted”, given recent examples.
Case #2: Poienari Castle, Romania
This investigation was given the short stick in editing, and it would have made a lot more sense to give this more time and depth. I have no doubt that the team was thorough, despite the site’s challenges, but the coverage was almost content-free.
The “triangulation” method is anything but, since true triangulation means monitoring from three different points to determine the location of something within the space defined by those points. This was just a more proactive mode of investigation, and in my view, a smart one. If there’s limited time, why not spend the first hour or two collecting data, conduct a preliminary review, and then focus the majority of equipment on the most active area? It’s precisely that lack of responsiveness that has been criticized in the past.
This is especially true on sites where the reports are vague or practically non-existent. It amounts to taking a survey of the site and determining if anything unusual is happening, then focusing on getting the data necessary to explain it (or not, as the case may be). It’s certainly a viable idea, done correctly.
It’s simply unusual for a season of this franchise to end without “stunning evidence” or a site being declared definitively “haunted”. I think I prefer it that way.
John Keegan
Reprinted with permission
Original source: c. Critical Myth, 2008
All rights reserved
Link: www.criticalmyth.com