The Horror Franchise: Yea or Nay?

[BillyG]

I think at one point there WERE plans for Hostel 3 and Roth said he had no desire to make a 3rd because it was just a cash grab. Good for him. I actually REALLY like Roth, and wish his output was more prolific. At least in writing if not directing. Even if Cabin Fever was derivative of so many other horror films it wasn't another bland sequel that elicited zero emotion. It had a visual flair and some awesome gore (shaving your legs after that one, ladies?).

[IggytheBorg]

If Hostel counts as a franchise w/ its 2 entries, then I guess there's 1 more I've seen every film in.

[Lisa]

Yeah, I can't get into the "torture porn" offshoot of the horror movies. Good, basic horror, I can't watch the really horrendous stuff that's popular now.

[Timothy225]

I'm pretty much down for anything, really. Question pertaining to this thread - how would you define flicks like Argento's Three Mothers trilogy, or Bava's Demons films? Granted they're sequels but they always felt more like stand-alones to me.

[Bobby Bear]

I'm totally down with horror sequels. If I'm into a property, I'm very likely to stay with it until it's dead. And hey, it gets rebooted, that's swell too.

I know going in the odds are against sequels bettering their predecessors, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy myself along the way. I'm of the same view of sequels that I am of reboots; the original is still its own thing - having something else come along won't tarnish what came before.

Of the "modern" slasher franchise villains, I've always preferred Michael Myers to Freddy and Jason. Don't get me wrong, I like 'em all, but a silent, hulking white-mask that just walks after its prey and still catches up to them is just a fantastic idea. Even though the quality of the execution (pun very much intended) varied massively after the original Halloween, that franchise still gets my "favourite" vote. Freddy silver, Jason bronze.

Actually, Tall Man Silver, Freddy Bronze, and Jason an honourable mention.

There are few things in the world I enjoy more than skimming the channels late at night, stumbling upon a dodgy horror sequel, and ending up an apologist by the end... against all reason.

[Timothy225]

I always liked Michael Myers too, and really was kind of "meh" over Rob Zombie's take. I will give credit where credit's due, the scene in Zombie's film where a young Michael looses his shit and coldly dispatches his bully was brilliant and harrowing in it's execution, but seeing his entire background get revamped like that took something from the character, I thought.

That seems to be the trend I'm noticing, there's this need to overexplain things in remakes - I could give two shits if Michael Myers came from a dysfunctional family. I thought the first one was creepier because a normal kid from a normal family just killed his sister for no reason. Myers was just "born evil", with no real explanation (although there is an allusion to some old source of evil in the novelization).

[Bobby Bear]

Agreed 100%, Tim. It's amazing how many professional filmmakers overlook the oldest trick in the horror book - less is more. Give the audience a little credit, folks. As you say, I don't need to know if Michael puts semi-skimmed milk in his cereal but whole in his coffee. NO NEED!

I'm prepared to take all the (deserved) flak this admission warrants, but I even liked the "Thorn" stuff they brought in towards the end of Pleasence's run. Yes, it was a bit daft but, compared to the day-time soap stuff we've seen explaining away these things in more recent years, it looks almost "good" now.

At least, Ruddsy's Halloween outing didn't have Michael talking. That's gotta be rule #1 in The Big Book of Horror No-No's.

[Timothy225]

*brofist* although I became less and less enamored of the franchise after part 4 (don't get me started on Halloween 5 - ugh). I agree wholeheartedly on the "less is more" approach - too much info could lead to the audience into a different direction than what is originally intended. Case in point: knowing Michael's background in the Zombie version, one could develop a kind of sympathy for the character (he's nice to his baby sister, his family's a wreck, he gets bullied at school, etc.). Frankenstein's monster gets sympathy from me. The Wolfman gets sympathy. The Creature from the Black Lagoon, yes (damn scientists fucking with his turf then fucking with him. Shit, I'll point out where they're hiding for the Creech if asked!). Michael Myers is supposed to be an evil kid from a nice family! Freddy Kruger's the bastard son of a thousand maniacs and a child killer! Jason, well... he's a weird case. But you see where I'm going here.

[Bobby Bear]

*brofist*

That's a great point about the "sympathy" aspect, Tim. Without seeming to be too harsh on the guy, I think that's exactly what Zombie wanted to achieve with that first movie, to pull us into a murkier morality zone where this guy's not just a cut and dry "big bad" who it's "right" to want vanquished. Thing is, Zombie doesn't have the skill to pull that kind of thing off. Not from what I've seen of his work, anyway. So it just ends up playing as a really curious mistake because it's done so badly.