ARTISTICALLY speaking, what do you think about franchise horror?
03-01-2011, 02:55 AM
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".
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".
âThe Fright Night remake is a film which taps into the audienceâs deepest rooted fears, such as those of vampires throwing motorcycles at them. I dread the thought of a vampire throwing a refrigerator or a deskjet printer or... Iâd better stop before I give myself nightmaresâ
![[-]](http://talkhorror.com/boards/themes/dim/collapse.png)