Tweet
I told a co-worker the other day that despite being the admitted horror nut I am, I have not seen all the films in any horror franchise.
Not a one. Well, now that I think of it, I have seen all the Final Destination movies; not so much because they were good films (any beyond the first one pretty much weren't), but because the deaths by Rube Goldberg were always fairly amusing, & sometimes well crafted gore scenes into the bargain.
But Halloween? Stopped at II of the original booting (I saw III, but it wasn't canon, remember). I couldn't even make it all the way thru the 1st film in the reboot, let alone a sequel. I have no idea how many F13's I've seen; lots more than I probably SHOULD have, but I know it ain't been all of 'em. I'm sure there's at least 3 Freddy movies I haven't seen, as well.
I just have no use for sequels, most of the time. They take a clever, successful idea, and suck the life out of it by either getting overly repetitive & stale or wandering too far afield from the mission statement set forth by the original. That's if they play it straight. In many instances, when the killer, who started out as the antagonist in the 1st film, morphs over the life of the franchise into the "hero", and in order to make a psychotic killer likeable they get downright silly. Freddy's a great example of this. The mystique was starting to show signs of wear by "Dream Warriors". I didn't see another of these films until "New Nightmare" (which I liked).
The F13 movies are kind of an anomaly, in that they seem to have been the 1st to successfully morph their films from terifying gore fests to horror/comedies. Scenes like Jason punching the head off the black dude in "Jason Takes Manhattan" were pretty fucking funny. And while I don't ordinarily like much comedy with my horror (I don't like sweet and sour pork either; make up your mind! Are you sweet? Are you sour? You can't do both & do it well most of the time, IMO), Some moments in F13's spawn are tolerable. Those guys get the concept pretty well.
I don't know that there's too much can be said about why this phenomenon exists that hasn't been said already in previous discussion threads @ DERP. Again, I think it was Greg David that stated the reasons sequels get silly over time is that the veil of mystery that surrounded the killer/monster in the 1st film has been pulled away. Any sequel, which by definition won't have that air of mystery, can't help but not be as good as the 1st film. He seemed to think this side effect is inevitable. The scare factor decreases, so to keep the franchise alive they make the killer into a likeable hero of sorts, whose name & likenes can be found on posters on the walls of little kids' rooms. I agree as far as the application of the law of diminishing returns goes, but don't think silliness is inevitable. So far as I know the "Saw" sequels are still playing it straight (I wouldn't know for sure, having stopped at 3, and kicking myself ever since for not seeing what a POS that film was going to be based on the shitpile Part II was. But of course, if you have a contrary or complimentary opinion, feel free to share it here.
Likewise, let us know what you think of the very concept of horror sequels, and how likely you are to follow one until they stop making them. Do you believe in re boots? ANd what was your favorite franchise, & why if you're the sort who likes them.
Not a one. Well, now that I think of it, I have seen all the Final Destination movies; not so much because they were good films (any beyond the first one pretty much weren't), but because the deaths by Rube Goldberg were always fairly amusing, & sometimes well crafted gore scenes into the bargain.
But Halloween? Stopped at II of the original booting (I saw III, but it wasn't canon, remember). I couldn't even make it all the way thru the 1st film in the reboot, let alone a sequel. I have no idea how many F13's I've seen; lots more than I probably SHOULD have, but I know it ain't been all of 'em. I'm sure there's at least 3 Freddy movies I haven't seen, as well.
I just have no use for sequels, most of the time. They take a clever, successful idea, and suck the life out of it by either getting overly repetitive & stale or wandering too far afield from the mission statement set forth by the original. That's if they play it straight. In many instances, when the killer, who started out as the antagonist in the 1st film, morphs over the life of the franchise into the "hero", and in order to make a psychotic killer likeable they get downright silly. Freddy's a great example of this. The mystique was starting to show signs of wear by "Dream Warriors". I didn't see another of these films until "New Nightmare" (which I liked).
The F13 movies are kind of an anomaly, in that they seem to have been the 1st to successfully morph their films from terifying gore fests to horror/comedies. Scenes like Jason punching the head off the black dude in "Jason Takes Manhattan" were pretty fucking funny. And while I don't ordinarily like much comedy with my horror (I don't like sweet and sour pork either; make up your mind! Are you sweet? Are you sour? You can't do both & do it well most of the time, IMO), Some moments in F13's spawn are tolerable. Those guys get the concept pretty well.
I don't know that there's too much can be said about why this phenomenon exists that hasn't been said already in previous discussion threads @ DERP. Again, I think it was Greg David that stated the reasons sequels get silly over time is that the veil of mystery that surrounded the killer/monster in the 1st film has been pulled away. Any sequel, which by definition won't have that air of mystery, can't help but not be as good as the 1st film. He seemed to think this side effect is inevitable. The scare factor decreases, so to keep the franchise alive they make the killer into a likeable hero of sorts, whose name & likenes can be found on posters on the walls of little kids' rooms. I agree as far as the application of the law of diminishing returns goes, but don't think silliness is inevitable. So far as I know the "Saw" sequels are still playing it straight (I wouldn't know for sure, having stopped at 3, and kicking myself ever since for not seeing what a POS that film was going to be based on the shitpile Part II was. But of course, if you have a contrary or complimentary opinion, feel free to share it here.
Likewise, let us know what you think of the very concept of horror sequels, and how likely you are to follow one until they stop making them. Do you believe in re boots? ANd what was your favorite franchise, & why if you're the sort who likes them.
Comment