Post by CougarBob on Jul 26, 2008 12:11:10 GMT -11
This episode should do its part to appease those who claim that GHI declare every location “haunted”. Neither location in this episode met that standard according to the team (whichever version you happen to choose, in this case), and I’m sure that fits the expectations of the audience just fine. After all, when you have no evidence, you have no reason to call a location “haunted”. That’s something a lot of paranormal investigators seem to forget.
It stands true even when the client desperately wants to believe that the location is haunted. In both cases, I had the sense that the clients had made up their minds, and they were only looking for validation from GHI. In the first case, I think the team’s own experiences helped to mitigate the disappointment in the lack of evidence. In the second case, however, the client seemed like he was on the verge of questioning the team’s integrity for daring to challenge the legends and claims.
I think it would be interesting to see more of that. I’ve often said that I would love to see more of the cases without evidence and with plenty of debunking, and given the storied locations in play on this series, that would put them at cross-purposes with the client’s desire for validation a lot more than we’ve seen. Handling the client is one of the most difficult challenges out there, after all.
This episode is also interesting for two other reasons. It was good to see Kris Williams out of her usual role with TAPS, even if she basically fulfilled the same function in Donna’s absence. I think it prepared the audience for the inevitability of cast changes on the horizon. It’s a little early for so much shuffling around, but “Ghost Hunters” used to juggle TAPS members each and every investigation, so I don’t find it off-putting in the least.
Case #1: Charleville Castle, Ireland
Compared to the second case, this was a funhouse. I’ve been on investigations where everything seems to happen precisely where the investigators and cameras aren’t, and it’s just as exciting and frustrating as it appears! It’s annoying to experience exactly what the client reports without ever getting a shred of it on film, especially when it involves objects being tossed around.
I thought the EVP was questionable at best. I can see where they made the assumption that it was a child’s voice, but it could also have been an animal. Considering that they thought it was a rather muffled child’s voice, it’s a tough call.
I’m not sure the video “evidence” was interpreted correctly, either. While I can understand their theory about the door, there are other explanations that probably should have been debunked. For example, the light could have simply blown out! I also wonder how Barry could have missed a light going out when there were so few sources of illumination.
But, in the end, they made the right call, avoiding the declaration that the location was “haunted”. I would say, however, that it was a location worth investigating further.
Case #2: Samlesbury Hall, England
Like I said before, I think the client at this location was quite annoyed with the lack of evidence. It was obvious from the length of the walkthrough and the brevity of the footage that there wouldn’t be much to see (other than the most annoying decorating style ever conceived). I think this is one of those instances where the team spent more time dealing with the intentionally false legends than actually investigating (which is, in the end, what they’re supposed to be doing!).
I’m not sure what I think of the new team member. I’m sure part of the problem was her nervousness in front of the camera, but Brandy was a bit more reserved than Donna or Kris had been. On the other hand, she’s obviously not meant to be mere eye candy, so the production company might actually be learning something from earlier criticism.
John Keegan
Reprinted with permission
Original source: c. Critical Myth, 2008
All rights reserved
Link: www.criticalmyth.com
It stands true even when the client desperately wants to believe that the location is haunted. In both cases, I had the sense that the clients had made up their minds, and they were only looking for validation from GHI. In the first case, I think the team’s own experiences helped to mitigate the disappointment in the lack of evidence. In the second case, however, the client seemed like he was on the verge of questioning the team’s integrity for daring to challenge the legends and claims.
I think it would be interesting to see more of that. I’ve often said that I would love to see more of the cases without evidence and with plenty of debunking, and given the storied locations in play on this series, that would put them at cross-purposes with the client’s desire for validation a lot more than we’ve seen. Handling the client is one of the most difficult challenges out there, after all.
This episode is also interesting for two other reasons. It was good to see Kris Williams out of her usual role with TAPS, even if she basically fulfilled the same function in Donna’s absence. I think it prepared the audience for the inevitability of cast changes on the horizon. It’s a little early for so much shuffling around, but “Ghost Hunters” used to juggle TAPS members each and every investigation, so I don’t find it off-putting in the least.
Case #1: Charleville Castle, Ireland
Compared to the second case, this was a funhouse. I’ve been on investigations where everything seems to happen precisely where the investigators and cameras aren’t, and it’s just as exciting and frustrating as it appears! It’s annoying to experience exactly what the client reports without ever getting a shred of it on film, especially when it involves objects being tossed around.
I thought the EVP was questionable at best. I can see where they made the assumption that it was a child’s voice, but it could also have been an animal. Considering that they thought it was a rather muffled child’s voice, it’s a tough call.
I’m not sure the video “evidence” was interpreted correctly, either. While I can understand their theory about the door, there are other explanations that probably should have been debunked. For example, the light could have simply blown out! I also wonder how Barry could have missed a light going out when there were so few sources of illumination.
But, in the end, they made the right call, avoiding the declaration that the location was “haunted”. I would say, however, that it was a location worth investigating further.
Case #2: Samlesbury Hall, England
Like I said before, I think the client at this location was quite annoyed with the lack of evidence. It was obvious from the length of the walkthrough and the brevity of the footage that there wouldn’t be much to see (other than the most annoying decorating style ever conceived). I think this is one of those instances where the team spent more time dealing with the intentionally false legends than actually investigating (which is, in the end, what they’re supposed to be doing!).
I’m not sure what I think of the new team member. I’m sure part of the problem was her nervousness in front of the camera, but Brandy was a bit more reserved than Donna or Kris had been. On the other hand, she’s obviously not meant to be mere eye candy, so the production company might actually be learning something from earlier criticism.
John Keegan
Reprinted with permission
Original source: c. Critical Myth, 2008
All rights reserved
Link: www.criticalmyth.com