Is franchise horror dead? Where does that leave us?

[BGTNJeff]

Think about it: right now, horror fans are left with two major franchises -- Final Destination and Paranormal Activity. Neither of these franchises have a recognizable villain, no monster on the par of a Jason, Mike or Freddy.

Oh wait, I'm sorry... there is the Scream series, with SCRE4M coming out in April. As if anyone gives a flying fuck. That franchise threw itself over into self-parody almost as soon as it came out. And really, who can trust Wes Craven anymore?

Hatchet spawned a sequel, simply through the sheer force of Adam Green's will, but his insistence at releasing it unrated (which no one has been able to do successfully since Raimi released Evil Dead II unrated) got it yanked from AMC Theaters after one weekend.

This means that next year, horror fans have three lame-ass sequels to look forward to... and that may be pretty much it.

So, horror fans... are we fucked? Are we about to be stuck with nothing but Lifetime movies about children who seem evil, but are really just misunderstood? Does anything that you can find coming out next year look like a potential tentpole? Hell, does anything on the horror front even fucking look good?

I think we've been ratted out here, boys. And I blame animation.

[Dr. Briggs]

Though they are established as "significant" within the genre, horror is hardly dependent on franchises; if anything, what we need is more one-off, independent stuff. They don't have to be lifetime movies just because they have limited potential for sequels. Inside (bad example to contrast against LifeTime?) was excellent in the department of scares though it had a closed ending and didn't have a villain likely to keep coming back and killing again.

Plus, there are still potential franchises out there, with bankable villains as well. Look at The Strangers and The Collector and tell me they don't scream for followups! The Collector has a sequel coming soon, and I really fucking hope that The Strangers has one as well.

[FreddysFingers]

I don't think franchise horror is dead but the notion of creating an original villain is totally dead. Saw had one and they are the last franchise. Perhaps franchise horror will continue but it will be very rare for them to come up with a good/recognizable villain. Jigsaw has almost become a household name whereas Victor Crowly from Hatchet is only known to horror fans.

[BGTNJeff]

I have "The Collector" from Netflix sitting on top of my television right now. I've heard good things about it, trust the writers and am hoping for the best.
Even if there is a sequel to "The Strangers," where are they going to go with it? Find another couple who just happen to be home and fuck with them until they die? To me, that's a one-off. It's done. It's not like they're going to put a new twist on it: "The Strangers Take Manhattan."

Please don't get me wrong. I am all for one-off, stand alone, independent horror. It's always been the lifeblood of the genre. My problem is that studios only seem to pay attention to the franchises, the hits. And those franchises allow the other good movies, the gems, to get released. No "Cloverfield" without "Blair Witch Project." No "Final Destination" without "Saw." Hell, practically no worthwhile horror in the nineties without "Saw."

[FreddysFingers]

I totally agree with you, Jeff. Indie and stand alone horror are the only films that are worthwhile in the horror genre and it's a shame that they don't get released that widely. Occasionally, a good non-cliche film will get released but that's on occasion. Actually, I think Final Destination came out before Saw.

[BGTNJeff]

Actually, I think Final Destination came out before Saw.

You may be right about that, Freddy... I did not check my facts before I wrote that. Nonetheless, I think they helped feed off each other, particularly with how they were released. The Final Destination films seemed to hit in late summer, so they would be moving into the second-run houses just as the Saw movies were being released first run.

[FreddysFingers]

Oh I agree with that and considering that both seemed to be aiming towards the audience that likes stylized traps/kills... it would make sense.

[Caftan King]

[COLOR="PaleGreen"]All horror fans know that monsters always return just like Jason, Freddy, Myers and even Chuckie. They live then people around them die.... And I think this is the reason why we don't have movies having a recognizable villain right now. Probably, some film producers and directors think that people are tired and sicked of watching a film about a murderer who won't die...Lol.

Another reason is the New Age Movement. Paranormal Activity and Final Destination are example of movies that promotes New Age. They are all about Psychism and psychism is a New Age concept. Nowadays, some people began noticing the existence of certain psychic abilities and events including the existence of sixth sense that could not easily be dismissed as mere coincidences, lucky breaks, or anomalous events. There were extraordinary people who were able to read minds of others under controlled experiments, or those who can see events before they happened, or those who can see the unseen. People nowadays are more curious to find out and discover the Unexplained so meaning to say psychic or paranormal horror films are now more popular than those films having mass murderers.

[/COLOR]

[FreddysFingers]

Psychism is a modern idea but not that modern. In fact, back in the late 60s to mid 70s people began taking up an interest in the occult, possessions, spiritual contact and the idea that we can communicate with another world. That's why there were such a big boom in paranormal films like The Sentinel, The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby and Audrey Rose. I think that you are, in part, right that producers think that modern audiences won't like to see a killer that cant' die but then again... they aren't taking a chance with an original idea that might be the new Jason or Michael. There is still a big following on slashers rather than paranormal horror.

[Daylight Yet Unseen]

ah but there IS a killer in Final Destination, death itself!

[FreddysFingers]

This is true. Death was personified many times in the Final Destination movies. The first one I believe was just air or a presence that lets you know it's him. I can't remember if it was the second or third one that showed death as water.

[BGTNJeff]

Freddy-- Good point on the late '60s and '70s boom in Spiritism and supernatural drama. That's one of my favorite periods in horror history. However, we still had random slasher films coming out. Admittedly, they were mostly drive-in fare that didn't get the high profile or heavy distro of, say, THE SENTINEL or THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD. But for every BEYOND THE DOOR, there were two BLACK CHRISTMASes.
Also, FF and Daylight, there's a theory that Tony Todd is the personification of Death in the Final Destination films. Even in the movies he isn't physically in, he's there somehow. He was the voice on the loudspeaker as the doomed kids approached the rollercoaster in FD3.

CK--
I sense we are Brothers.
Yeah... the undying killer is a bit boring. I'm pretty over it myself. And I do think audiences are interested in the Supernatural, and what lies beyond the Veil, and that's people watch GHOST HUNTERS every week. Do I think producers care about that? Not specifically, no.
I think producers realize that it costs a lot less money to make a coffee cup appear to move across a table by itself than it does to a hire an actor to pretend to kill another actress who would pretend to make the coffee that would have gone in that cup.
But... I'm long-winded and like to talk theory.

[Caftan King]

Psychism is a modern idea but not that modern. In fact, back in the late 60s to mid 70s people began taking up an interest in the occult, possessions, spiritual contact and the idea that we can communicate with another world. That's why there were such a big boom in paranormal films like The Sentinel, The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby and Audrey Rose.

[COLOR="Red"]
I agree that in the late 60's and 70's some people are really interested about the occult and paranormal but if you can see most people including scientist and religious men ignored the voluminous proofs about these supernatural things as mere fabrications or a result of faulty experimental methods. People in late 60's and 70's simply cannot accept such phenomena existed. Otherwise, it would render the very foundation of science and religion under question or jeopardy. Only few people believe and support the idea of occultism and spiritism

Yes it is not that modern but still it is a New Age Concept. In Western Countries, parapsychological, metaphysical and psionical subjects have taken seriously just this millennium. [/COLOR]

I think that you are, in part, right that producers think that modern audiences won't like to see a killer that cant' die but then again... they aren't taking a chance with an original idea that might be the new Jason or Michael. There is still a big following on slashers rather than paranormal horror.

[COLOR="Red"]They arent taking a chance because perhaps,,, they are afraid to know the feedbacks and the result of their gross revenue...lol.

But slasher flick producers and directors...for goodness sake!

What do you have to lose? If you don’t take the risk to create another movie with recognizable villains, you could lose many other things that will erode your abilities to be who you really are! So I am encouraging those producers to Try to make again!
[/COLOR]

[Caftan King]

ah but there IS a killer in Final Destination, death itself!

But in every horror film death is always present since in every horror movie I seen somebody dies! lol

[mrblue]

I would love to see either Hatchet turn into a franchise or someone come up with a potential slasher franchise, can never have too many of those.

[FreddysFingers]

Freddy-- Good point on the late '60s and '70s boom in Spiritism and supernatural drama. That's one of my favorite periods in horror history. However, we still had random slasher films coming out. Admittedly, they were mostly drive-in fare that didn't get the high profile or heavy distro of, say, THE SENTINEL or THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD. But for every BEYOND THE DOOR, there were two BLACK CHRISTMASes.

Slashers began peaking in the late 70s (1978 and 1979) but were mostly indie movies or like you said, drive-in fare. Most studios wanted spiritual or supernatural movies but the indie genre found out about slashers and began making them in mass quantities. It was sort of an underground sub-genre that was gaining momentum fast. When the 80s started, slashers peaked and took over the studios.

[COLOR="Red"]They arent taking a chance because perhaps,,, they are afraid to know the feedbacks and the result of their gross revenue...lol.

But slasher flick producers and directors...for goodness sake!

What do you have to lose? If you don’t take the risk to create another movie with recognizable villains, you could lose many other things that will erode your abilities to be who you really are! So I am encouraging those producers to Try to make again!
[/COLOR]

See, that is exactly why there is so many cliche movies coming out like The Unborn or The Roommate and My Soul To Take because studios want to stick with the familiar. That's why Dougherty's Trick R Treat was shelved for so long because the studio was afraid of what audience might say about it, despite it's rave reviews. Studios will keep dishing out cliches because MODERN audiences want cliches. Horror has since become a haven for high schoolers, middle schoolers and casual people. They don't care about the scares, the story, the characters, the production... all they care about is blood, tits and a body count. Once moviegoers stop liking those things, things will change. Until then, kiss the old horror formulas goodbye.

But in every horror film death is always present since in every horror movie I seen somebody dies! lol

Of course, but in the Final Destination films death is the serial killer. It's not some loon, or a monster, or even a disease but rather death itself. Sure it may not be incarnate or shown as a grim reaper but he's there.

[FreddysFingers]

Also, FF and Daylight, there's a theory that Tony Todd is the personification of Death in the Final Destination films. Even in the movies he isn't physically in, he's there somehow. He was the voice on the loudspeaker as the doomed kids approached the rollercoaster in FD3.

I've never noticed that. I might need to watch them over again to see.

Oh Tony Todd... you have a voice that can make angels kneel down in your presence.

[BGTNJeff]

What happens if you see Tony Todd after saying his name five times while looking in the mirror?

[FreddysFingers]

I'd scream like a little girl.

[Caftan King]

CK--
I sense we are Brothers.
Yeah... the undying killer is a bit boring. I'm pretty over it myself. And I do think audiences are interested in the Supernatural, and what lies beyond the Veil, and that's people watch GHOST HUNTERS every week. Do I think producers care about that? Not specifically, no.

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]Yes... undying killer is a bit boring nowadays...

One reason is because film directors use manipulation, especially those slasher flicks that are always predictable. You would see a pattern, say gory killings every 10 minutes
[/COLOR]

See, that is exactly why there is so many cliche movies coming out like The Unborn or The Roommate and My Soul To Take because studios want to stick with the familiar.

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]What do you mean familiar? Ghosts and restless spirits,(and not those incarnated murderers and blood shed freaks...)? Is that what you mean?

Or films that have silent narration and dont use gorere and shock factor?

Well... quite frankly I do get a good scare when I watch films that present very quiet storytelling, offering sinister motives and plots. I get scared even more when the films involve little children, like “The Innocents" , which was among the first movies that effectively used the subgenre of psychological horror. It was a first-rate thriller that did not resort to gore or violence but masterful use of music, lighting and visuals for its shock factor. But it is just me...[/COLOR]

That's why Dougherty's Trick R Treat was shelved for so long because the studio was afraid of what audience might say about it, despite it's rave reviews.

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]
Oh really.. I dont know that...Hmmm Maybe they receive poor reaction from test audiences and other critics...[/COLOR]

Horror has since become a haven for high schoolers, middle schoolers and casual people. They don't care about the scares, the story, the characters, the production... all they care about is blood, tits and a body count. Once moviegoers stop liking those things, things will change. Until then, kiss the old horror formulas goodbye.

Hmmm...I’m not really an authority on horror films but I am not one of those people who dont care about the story, scares and characters even I was in my high school. I am one of those who have special memories while watching horror films. I have been reassured by the ending, but those ear-splitting shrieks, the tightly squeezed eyes during the anticipated gory scenes and the accelerated heartbeats remain the hallmarks of my much-welcomed momentary escape from my safe and humdrum reality.

Of course, but in the Final Destination films death is the serial killer. It's not some loon, or a monster, or even a disease but rather death itself. Sure it may not be incarnate or shown as a grim reaper but he's there.

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]
Could it be, could it be...?

Lol..

Is death really the killer? Is he cause people's final destination? or just a psychopomp, a ghost companion by a twist of fate.

Hmmm... well I think... both of them...[/COLOR]