MovieChat Forums > Lights Out (2016) Discussion > so ummm, what is Diana exactly..?

so ummm, what is Diana exactly..?

posted 8 years ago by himiyio
26 replies | jump to latest

the real girl died, mom was nuts but was released from institution anyways. feels guilty, and conjures up the spirit through her mind?

there is no way that Diana had any evil intent in the first place, she just had a skin condition, was problematic and died from an experimental procedure. so it seems unlikely her spirit would be an evil entity, which by the way, looks about 60 years old. don't usually spirits stay the age they died??

which means...the mom is actually psychic? or that was not even Diana to begin with. which would piss me off, cos here i am dead and fried, and someother demon is messing with my friend pretending to be me, haha.

i dont get the point this movie is trying to make. i know many will come in here, like a wiseass, and say, "well bud, there isn't one!". but i would rather discuss, any points or things i have missed.

Thanks!

[–] boondocksaint1987 8 years ago

Take antidepressants and keep the lights on and you're safe from ghosts with skin conditions seems to be the message. Laughable film.

[–] TearTheStarsOutFromTheSky 8 years ago

I'm guessing a woman that hooked to the mom in life and death.

[–] twwarrior 8 years ago

Yes I thought the same but you forgot one thing. They made it clear in the movie that she wasnt really her friend (when she was alive) because the doctor asks her "Why did you hurt her if she is your friend"? And she replied because I didnt want her to leave. Thats not what friends do. I have a feeling she was evil.

As for what is she.. I wondered the same thing, thats why Im here lol. Seems to be the same case as in other horror movies, someone dies violent death and their grudge continues as a ghost. But this ghost was special because it could be hurt with light. Which allows for movie directors to have lot of jumpscares with the lights on and suddenly off.

[–] sakura_droplet 8 years ago

But this ghost was special because it could be hurt with light. Which allows for movie directors to have lot of jumpscares with the lights on and suddenly off.

Or it's because in life, Diana suffered from a rare skin disorder that meant she had to be kept in the shade or darkness all the time because the light burned her, and she was killed during an experimental procedure that was an attempt to treat/cure her of this i.e. kind of the whole point of her character.

- Another textbook sociopath -

[–] twwarrior 8 years ago

I know?

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

Exactly sakura, it's not new to write a ghost afraid of whatever killed them.

[–] twwarrior 8 years ago

btw officially Diana is vengeful spirit/ghost

[–] himiyio 8 years ago

still doesn't explain why she would continue to age post-mortem. the mind-link between the mother suggests that it is dependent on the living. it is a weak explanation, but its the best that i got. so while Diana died, the mother resurrected the spirit with her guilt *eyeroll* and grows with her through the years.

this movie is just a mess.

anyway, in my country release, they used a poster with a short haired male actor. I realised this guy is not even part of the main cast. the only male actor that was significant was the girl's boyfriend and he had long hair. the link for the poster is below:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ee/45/9c/ee459cdba4c011cc5e60ca5f545edb72.jpg

[–] twwarrior 8 years ago

Since spirits or ghosts are fiction, there are no real "rules" they have to follow. They can age and touch people in 1 movie and the opposite in another.

She was supposed to be a demonic presence originally but james wan suggested she be turned into a ghost to make the drama with the family story or something. I think the demonic thing would be better idea.

The best thing in my opinion in this movie was Diana.

[–] hawkinssouth 8 years ago

I agree with you that the movie was a mess. If Diana was a projection of Sophie, as is clearly shown at the end when Diana is defeated because Sophie is dead and can no longer 'fuel' her, then Diana would only know what Sophie would know. But my impression was that Diana was a self-aware entity, apart from Sophie. Her motivation was to keep Sophie to herself, and Sophie's death may have left her (Diana) feeling pointless, but wouldn't make her evaporate.

Diana did age -- she was not a little girl like she was when she died. She followed people around to locations away from Sophie. She apparently spent time trapped in the basement of Sophie's house. She had a physical form and could be harmed. She knew things Sophie didn't know. So in those ways she did not seem like a projection of Sophie.

This movie seemed slapped together in a hurry, no doubt to capitalize on the success of the short film it was based on. The plot was thin, the soundtrack was non-existent, the characters were one-dimensional. Even the scares were just jump scares. I was not scared in any way except wondering when Diana would jump out at me.

There really was a lot of potential in the story. If Diana had actually been a projection of Sophie's, it would lead to questions like, did Sophie want her children gone to escape the responsibility? Did she sent Diana (perhaps unconsciously) to do her dirty work? Also we could have known a lot more about the living Diana, which could have been interesting.

Mostly this movie was the old trope of "loner has a family thrust upon her and through a traumatic experience learns to love them."

[–] himiyio 8 years ago

I second that there is a lot of potential to the story. The fright potential was already there, with the lights-off and on mechanics, which creates a tense hide-seek element. that is smart and under-utilised. The only other time something similar was put to good use was The Orphanage. There was a similar sequence in the recent Conjuring movie, but it was poorly done I thought.

The other part that holds potential, is that Diana might not even be the spirit/entity she claims to be. And that the thing that has attached herself to Sophie could be much darker, much worst. Maybe something more elemental that functions separate from human motives, like loss, anger, etc.

It would make Diana itself a scarier creature, because all along we thought she was just angry or vengeful. There are often darker things that operate outside of these themes. some just find joy in torture or causing pain (as a process of sustenance), and is not necessarily a by-product of being treated badly. Those are worst because there is no redemption or reasoning.

Thank you for your comment!

[–] nl_pics 8 years ago

It doesn't really count, but David F. Sandberg (the director of the film) released his original treatment for the movie. Obviously, a lot of it was changed. It seems as though when James Wan read the treatment, he thought they should make Diana more of a ghostly entity who was a real person at one time, rather than the demon she was in Sandberg's treatment.

In Sandberg's original pitch, Diana is an ancient demon that latches onto people in moments of intense grief. She befriends these people, then uses their body as a conduit to come into our world and cause havoc.

Personally, I think they shouldn't have changed any of David's treatment. It was a pretty solid story. You can read it here: http://dauid.com/Lights_out_treatment_20140530.pdf

[–] himiyio 8 years ago

I think I liked this version better!

[–] nl_pics 8 years ago

Yeah it's a pretty damn solid treatment. I actually really wish they didn't change it.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

Um, Diana is NOT an extension of Sophie, she simply attached herself to her; it seems clear she formed a psychic attachment after her death, like the real mental hold she had on Sophie when she was alive. So it's rather simple: she was exactly like sociopaths in real life who form an attachment to one person, exert whatever control they can over them and will do anything to keep them near. She made Sophie her one link to anything other than herself, including friendship and human relations, then eventually life itself. Ghosts have been portrayed with physical aspects before because it's part of their entity, the part that remains from life (just as the soul is usually supposed to be able to feel). Diana kept her memories of pain and fear from light, so it was the ultimate weapon against her.

[–] Tyler-A-Arse 8 years ago

It was very unclear as to what Dirty Diana really was exactly. Too much inconsistency with her character.

[–] himiyio 8 years ago

"Dirty Diana"... are u sure you watching the same movie as the rest of us?
get off pornhub! haha.

[–] Tyler-A-Arse 8 years ago

get off pornhub! haha.

It's more like xhamster.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

Of course there's a way she had evil intent, she was a manipulator and wanted to control the mom's life. She began that pattern while in the hospital.

[–] wteutonin 8 years ago

In the file that Rebecca is reading they plainly say that Diana had a way of messing with people's heads and she did that with young Sophie. Possibly Sophie wasn't even that sick, she might have started with a mild disorder that Diana aimed to worsen in order to keep Sophie in the hospital. When she died, Sophie got better and was discharged, went on with her life, got married, had a daughter. When her husband left, for whatever reason, Sophie fell into depression, and that's what brought Diana back. I guess, her fear of light is both physical and metaphysical - she was drawn to life by darkness in Sophie. And that's why she is anchored to Sophie.

All that said, I was half expecting a cliche turn of events with them discovering that it was Sophie herself flipping between schizophrenic identities. That was plausible (with a stretch, given the hardly human constitution of Diana) until the scene where Sophie is trying to tell Martin about Diana and both of them are clearly present in the room. Probably, the director was exploring a possibility of running with a schizophrenic explanation until late in the movie.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

The husband didn't leave, Diana killed him.

[–] wteutonin 8 years ago

No, Sophie's first husband (father of Rebecca) left for unknown reasons when Rebecca was a kid (they never showed him in the movie). Martin is Sophie's son from her second husband, the man whom Diana killed in the beginning.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

Rebecca very clearly told her mom that Diana killed him shortly before the end.

[–] wteutonin 8 years ago

Can you support it with a quote? I don't have the movie to rewatch and check, but I am pretty sure she was only ever talking about Sophie's second husband who was killed by Diana. The only time they talk about Rebecca's father is when she asks Sophie "Have you heard from my father?" Which is a bulletproof indication that she thinks her father is alive somewhere.
Since there is a mystery as to why he walked away from his family is not addressed, it is still plausible that Diana killed him and Sophie might have known about it - or not - but it is not addressed in the movie anywhere. Rebecca thinks her father left them when she was small, and she thinks he is alive.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

Yeah, in the beginning. When her mom turns the gun on Diana, she tells her Diana killed "dad". This was also implied in the old drawing she made of her family, that Diana took and crossed out her father.

[–] auroranavarro 8 years ago

In the ending scene right before Diana throws Rebecca off the railway (or whatever you call it), she says something along the lines of "I'll take you to where I took your father!"

Ermagerd sergnerterrrrrrrr