Especially long runners. I think one of the reasons horror doesn't get much credit from the general populace may be because so many franchises (several of which span a little under 10 films) saturate the market, which can serve to "cheapen" such films in many viewers' minds.
The viewers in question take the sheer number of tales stemming from a certain horror-figure and conclude that the series is less about making a good film and more about marketing one familiar face/plot device. Due to this, sometimes even the original film is devalued, and people begin to take the film as nothing more than a "launchpad" (look at all the haters the original F13 now has).
However if you ask fans of a series about said series they'll usually sing the praises of their favorite franchise and take the plot, no matter how strange it gets, as worthy of analysis. Such fans consider the tales of Freddy, Jason, Michael, John Kramer, Andre Toulon and etc. almost as "legends," which can be added to and enjoyed for years to come. In fact when watching "series fans," it's not even uncommon to find fans who say later sequels are genuinely better than the originals.
What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you see franchises as "legacies," do you take them at face value as cash-ins, or are you among those who prefer to dismiss the notion of franchises as cheap? I'll be the first to say that there are several franchises in which I take certain films as a comfortable canon and disregard others to an extent (I don't necessarily dislike them, but they have a hard time fitting in with other series events). Personally I'll admit I often find long-runners disturbing my sense of realism (how many times can the killer get away?), but as with most anything, long-running franchises have the potential to "stay gold" and really earn the status of a "legend" or even a "serial".
I think it could go either way...
on one hand *good* sequals (sp?) continues the storyline if not the evolution of a char (explaining how Jason was able to came back was cool for me!)
on the other hand there comes a point when even our favorites make a movie in which it just becomes...well, wrong (Jason in outer space? WTF?!)
hope that gives you a good enough reply
Yeah, that's one point I missed; what of stuff like Jason X that even series fans would rather disown? TV tropes calls it "fanon discontinuity," but some people say that disregarding anything canon (that is to say anything that the filmmakers, whoever they may be, make) is taboo.
Personally, I go with the idea that some things are too ridiculous to be considered part of an established story (Saw 3D, Freddy's Dead). I like to think of some franchises having diverging or outright different canons for this reason. I think that's one way to keep things artistically sound, and comic books do it all the time.
Mr. Briggs Inc. Wrote:...., and comic books do it all the time.
Like the "what if"... series?
to be fair it not only lests other artists and writers have a turn - it shuts up the occasional rant of "it would be better -" or "it could be improved by"
it challenges the reader as well as the writer to NOT dip into old cliches
Call me a cynic, but I just see these as studio cash grabs. It's not like you have a creator who has a distinct vision for an overarching story or even one who is actively involved in working on the following movies to create that. Recently, I got to review one of those dreadful After Dark Original movies and I got my first comment troll. He went on about how great the movie was (it wasn't), how "people loved it" (they didn't) and how the studio wanted a sequel. I went on to tell him that getting a sequel is not an indication of a movie's quality, just it's money-making potential.
Transformers 2, anyone?
TerrorScribe Wrote:Call me a cynic, but I just see these as studio cash grabs. It's not like you have a creator who has a distinct vision for an overarching story or even one who is actively involved in working on the following movies to create that. Recently, I got to review one of those dreadful After Dark Original movies and I got my first comment troll. He went on about how great the movie was (it wasn't), how "people loved it" (they didn't) and how the studio wanted a sequel. I went on to tell him that getting a sequel is not an indication of a movie's quality, just it's money-making potential.
Transformers 2, anyone?
It doesn't happen often, but what about when you
do have a creator with a vision? Normally creators only plan to have one film at first, but it's not a stretch to say they can have plans to follow up with more artistically-sound stories.
If something spans like 8 sequels it's less and less likely that the director has such "visions" for stories (unless we're talking Coffin Joe), but then when you have 8 sequels there's also the chance that eventually a real fan will take up the reins from people who don't really care, and make an installment that finds a grain of ingenuity within the previous "formula" sequels and makes something creative from it.
That in itself poses a question; how much of the artistry of these films be chalked up to intent? How much of it is perception, and do the "ends" (the films themselves) outweigh the means (the filmmakers' wishes)?
this site continues to amaze and inspire me
Happy Dr Seuss bday everyone :reading:
I sort of see franchises as both cash-cows and legacies, however, with the F13 franchise it's a legacy to show how stupid the series has come. That also goes for Halloween, Saw and Leprechaun. I think that, if the franchise chooses to mix things up a bit and play around with it's characters, it could show just how successful the original was. You can see that in the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, F13 1-3 and possibly even the Hellraiser series.
I have to agree with Freddy. Although, I have to admit that the stupidity of some of the sequels of some of our favorite franchises *coughHalloweencoughcoughF13cough* has not in fact stopped me from buying them all on DVD or from sitting down and watching them all in month-long marathons every October.
Mr. Briggs Inc. Wrote:Personally, I go with the idea that some things are too ridiculous to be considered part of an established story (Saw 3D, Freddy's Dead). I like to think of some franchises having diverging or outright different canons for this reason. I think that's one way to keep things artistically sound, and comic books do it all the time.
I'd have to agree with you on this. Saw 3D and Freddy's Dead are completely off of the established story and Freddy's Dead broke a few movie rules, however, they bare the name of the franchise so they are included. Even like Freddy vs. Jason; it's off the canon but many consider it to be a sequel to both NOES and F13.
I have only one thing to add to this discussion: Howling III: The Marsupials
I love horror franchises. The longer the better in my opinion unless were talking about the Children Of The Corn and Hellraiser franchises. Those are just cash grabs.
Although the Children of the Corn franchise was more of a direct-to-video franchise and not theatrical.
And makes for a really great "girl weekend" marathon. Don't forget to mention that, Freddy.
And 'guy weekend' would consist of all the Friday the 13th movies.
:drool:
Oh is
that what guys watch on "guy weekends?"
exdev:
FreddysFingers Wrote:And 'guy weekend' would consist of all the Friday the 13th movies. :drool:
:club:would that include nachos, wings and root beer floats?
sounds okay to me!
would sure beat some of the "television for women" POC marathons that are sometimes shown...
It would include all of those. And now, I'm off to make microwavable nachos and cheese.
Quote:would sure beat some of the "television for women" POC marathons that are sometimes shown...
No lie!! What's the deal? I feel like all of the programming out there "for women" right now is either for women who hate men *cough*Lifetime*cough*, or women who hate other women *cough*Oxygen*cough.* We need some programming for women who like men (and each other)! LOL
And now I want nachos.... :reddisgust: