Is franchise horror dead? Where does that leave us?

[FreddysFingers]

What I mean by familiar is a familiar storyline. Cute girl is stalked by the killer, her boyfriend is killed, friends are killed, she survives but not after an epic battle with the killer. Cliches. Plot lines is what I mean when I say familiar.

Also, most die-hard horror movie fans don't fit in the category as casual moviegoers. When I said that, it wasn't knocking you Caftan. The people I was referring to are those who think the remake of Nightmare on Elm Street was the greatest horror movie of all time but never saw or heard of the original. THOSE people. The people who thought My Bloody Valentine 3D was an original idea and not a remake.

[FreddysFingers]

I don't think the casual moviegoer, especially when it comes down to horror, cares about production design, music, direction and story. If they did studios wouldn't be investing money in predictable, stale horror movies. Take for example the new horror movie coming out now: THE RITE. About a cynical priest who is sent to exorcise a young woman who is possessed by the devil, however, an older priest warns him that the Devil may try to persuade and manipulate him. That sounds exactly like THE EXORCIST. If people cared about those elements there would be more original movies out. Also, how many people are going into that movie to look at the score, direction and story? You will, and that's good. I know I will. Most people don't care. I think I was the only person to come out of NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET thinking the score was better than the movie. Again, not knocking you but rather praising you for actually paying attention to those elements. That means you are more critical when it comes to viewing a movie.

[Caftan King]

What I mean by familiar is a familiar storyline. Cute girl is stalked by the killer, her boyfriend is killed, friends are killed, she survives but not after an epic battle with the killer. Cliches. Plot lines is what I mean when I say familiar.

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Oh... you mean those films that have bad plot lines, where you know from the start that everybody gets killed one by one. Those stories that become too predictable.
[/COLOR]

Also, most die-hard horror movie fans don't fit in the category as casual moviegoers. When I said that, it wasn't knocking you Caftan.

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Well when I was in my high school, I dont classify myself as I die hard horror movie fan but still I really care about the stories and other several cinematic elements that were at play in every movies (even if it is not horror): visual effects, production design, music, sounds, direction, story and screenplay, acting.

And those people who only care about blood, tits and body count on these horror movies... I am sure they are also looking for these elements since those are part of visual and special effects. And effects are part of story, screenplay and direction. And also for them unlike other cinematic genres, horror movies use all these elements to the hilt and without compromise, as film constantly stimulate their senses. The effective use of these elements results in good horror movies that viewers would willingly summon in their nightmares if only to get another thrill.[/COLOR]

[Caftan King]

If people cared about those elements there would be more original movies out. Also, how many people are going into that movie to look at the score, direction and story? You will, and that's good. I know I will. Most people don't care. I think I was the only person to come out of NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET thinking the score was better than the movie. Again, not knocking you but rather praising you for actually paying attention to those elements. That means you are more critical when it comes to viewing a movie.

[COLOR="Teal"]Okay if people dont care about storylines and other elements why we hear some "oh, we've seen that before" or " wait, I heard that before", and a few jump scares that fail to get a reaction because they already watch it on other movies.

It only means that people watch and monitor every second of the film.

Maybe in your place, moviegoers dont really c are about that but here in my place... you will see that they really care.. thesev elements have kept frightened audiences sitting at the edge of their seats, horrified and yet entertained despite the health risks not just those blood and body count. While the shock factor has evolved, the desire to get a real scare has remained unyielding.
[/COLOR]

[FreddysFingers]

To answer your first question, it's because people people aren't complaining about rehashed and cliche storylines. The only people that are saying that are people like us that actually do care about storylines and plots. For most generic moviegoers, you can remake THE EXORCIST and call it POSSESSION and they will only go in to see it so they can see blood and violence. I've worked at a theater for 3 years and I see the types of people going into see horror movies. They don't care about plot and characters but only scares, bloody and tits. How else do you explain that the remake of FRIDAY THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN is their favorite horror movie of all time?

When asked, I get a response like, "'Cause Michael kicked so much ass! He just went on a rampage and started gutting people! He was a beast!" Okay, but what about the white horse analogy or the character of Michael? "Dude, fuck that! Michael totally can own Jason!" That's the responses I get and that totally tells me they cared about the hidden storylines.

[reaper_bones]

The first halloween remake was good, the 2nd was awful, i agree, wtf was with the white horse? n i like the orginal friday better than the remake, i'm a sucker for orginals

[Caftan King]

[COLOR="YellowGreen"]You are right that some moviegoers love horror movies because they just love to be scared, and enjoy watching people die in a brutal way. But maybe that is just in your place.

Because here in my place, like what I said before, even those who are not an avid fan of horror movies they actually do care about these cinematic elements especially visual and special effects. You will hear to these people when they watch a specific film, that "some gore and violence on that movie worked, but some did not" . They might also say that "they only used typical local scare tactics, like jumpy music and sudden camera cuts".

So every moviegoer (casual or die-hard fan) is a keen observer. They need to understand the story, direction, and effects for them to be terrified. Once they understand the whole concept of the movie, some gory and violent scenes will ran for only 5 minutes but will stuck on their mind. So giving them gore and violence which are parts of cinematic elemets, and they will come back over and over again.[/COLOR]

For most generic moviegoers, you can remake THE EXORCIST and call it POSSESSION and they will only go in to see it so they can see blood and violence.

If that happens, regardless of how these films fare critically, horror movies have a long shelf life. People would still patronize these films decades after their first release.

[FreddysFingers]

Horror will always have a shelf life but because of new generations, studios are release watered down, cliche-ridden horror movies. I can name you three movies that are coming out that have all been previously done so many times that I lost count: THE RITE, THE ROOMMATE and MONSTERS. The casual moviegoer understands elements like story and direction but what they are understanding are very simplified direction and story. If you make a casual moviegoer today watch a film like the original HALLOWEEN or ROSEMARY'S BABY... I guarantee you they will be bored. Because their idea, from how studios pander to them, of a suspenseful mood is flashy lights, stylized camera angles and an extremely loud soundtrack. In that case, they won't care about the lighting, the motifs or the mise-en scene.

[Caftan King]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I think because there are the kind of movies people are not rushing to see on screen but nonetheless may make you glued once you catch it on TV while channel-surfing.

If you ask them why they got bored, they will particularly compare these old movies to the new films in terms of its visual and special effects. So it only means that they do care about lighting, the motifs or the mise-en scene.

Halloween and Rosemary's Baby are definitely old horror movies which means they don't have yet the qualities of advanced technology we use in film-making. And that results to crappy cinematography, crappy music, crappy lightnings, typical loud sounds followed by a "BOO!" event, ending that suggests a possible sequel and too predictable scenes.

If only each part were consistently having good special effects like horror movies nowadays, it may have fared better for the casual moviegoers. Still, for the undemanding viewer, those movies tour might well worth be considering.[/COLOR]

[FreddysFingers]

Halloween and Rosemary's Baby are definitely old horror movies which means they don't have yet the qualities of advanced technology we use in film-making. And that results to crappy cinematography, crappy music, crappy lightnings, typical loud sounds followed by a "BOO!" event, ending that suggests a possible sequel and too predictable scenes.

That's why most modern day horror fanatics don't like Rosemary's Baby, The Omen, Halloween or Psycho because it's not a hard-boiled horror movie. Today, modern audiences are pampered with loud noises, a constant soundtrack, blood, gore, boobs and worst of all... a knowing of where the monster or killer came from.

[BGTNJeff]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Halloween and Rosemary's Baby are definitely old horror movies which means they don't have yet the qualities of advanced technology we use in film-making. And that results to crappy cinematography, crappy music, crappy lightnings, typical loud sounds followed by a "BOO!" event, ending that suggests a possible sequel and too predictable scenes.

If only each part were consistently having good special effects like horror movies nowadays, it may have fared better for the casual moviegoers. Still, for the undemanding viewer, those movies tour might well worth be considering.[/COLOR]

So what you're saying is that without special effects, a movie can't be scary? Surely you don't really think that.

Rosemary's Baby -- Crappy cinematography? Right, you mean the cinematography by William Fraker. The William Fraker who was nominated for an Oscar six times. Photographed the car chase in Bullitt. Yeah, that guy. What a hack. And forgot the Oscar Ruth Gordon won for her performance in that movie. Nope, not scary at all. What a giant piece of crap.

Halloween -- Crappy music? That is possibly the most recognizable and iconic horror soundtracks EVER. Last time I checked, Halloween was still the highest grossing independent film ever and why? Because it scares the living SHIT out of people. And how much blood did you really see? Practically none. You had two strangulations, a knife kill totally done in silhouette and a small cut on Jamie Lee Curtis' arm. Call in ILM!

Think of all the special effects in Psycho. Think of all the opticals and process shots in Turn of the Screw. Oh, wait, what? There aren't any? NO SHIT.

I guess that's because fear is psychological. It's an emotion. A special effect has nothing to do with it. If anything, too many special effects pull you out of the movie, make you aware of your surroundings instead of what you're watching and ruin the whole gods-damned thing.

Perfect example? Jan deBont's remake of "The Haunting." They spent millions of dollars on one staircase. Ridiculous. I don't know anyone who didn't laugh like a little girl on cocaine during that whole fucking movie. But when they go back and watch Robert Wise's original movie from the mid-sixties? Effective. Scary. They're impressed.

Again, because you can't punch "fear" into an imaging computer and come out with a scary movie. It doesn't happen.

[mrblue]

when I saw The Haunting (remake) as a kid it scared the living shit out of me.

[BGTNJeff]

when I saw The Haunting (remake) as a kid it scared the living shit out of me.

Have you seen the original?

[mrblue]

I don't think so.

[Caftan King]

So what you're saying is that without special effects, a movie can't be scary? Surely you don't really think that.

Rosemary's Baby -- Crappy cinematography? Right, you mean the cinematography by William Fraker. The William Fraker who was nominated for an Oscar six times. Photographed the car chase in Bullitt. Yeah, that guy. What a hack. And forgot the Oscar Ruth Gordon won for her performance in that movie. Nope, not scary at all. What a giant piece of crap.

Halloween -- Crappy music? That is possibly the most recognizable and iconic horror soundtracks EVER. Last time I checked, Halloween was still the highest grossing independent film ever and why? Because it scares the living SHIT out of people. And how much blood did you really see? Practically none. You had two strangulations, a knife kill totally done in silhouette and a small cut on Jamie Lee Curtis' arm. Call in ILM!

Think of all the special effects in Psycho. Think of all the opticals and process shots in Turn of the Screw. Oh, wait, what? There aren't any? NO SHIT.

I guess that's because fear is psychological. It's an emotion. A special effect has nothing to do with it. If anything, too many special effects pull you out of the movie, make you aware of your surroundings instead of what you're watching and ruin the whole gods-damned thing.

Perfect example? Jan deBont's remake of "The Haunting." They spent millions of dollars on one staircase. Ridiculous. I don't know anyone who didn't laugh like a little girl on cocaine during that whole fucking movie. But when they go back and watch Robert Wise's original movie from the mid-sixties? Effective. Scary. They're impressed.

Again, because you can't punch "fear" into an imaging computer and come out with a scary movie. It doesn't happen.

[COLOR="Red"]Well probably the scary thing for me is not the scary thing for you, or vice versa...

Every person is thought to have different emotion switched on and off, different of criteria in judging leading to the presence of different taste in movie![/COLOR]

[mrblue]

Resident Evil, Underworld, Hatchet 3. Thats 3 different modern day franchises right there that dont seem to be stopping anytime soon.

[Dr. Briggs]

Resident Evil, Underworld, Hatchet 3. Thats 3 different modern day franchises right there that dont seem to be stopping anytime soon.

None of them are pure horror though. The only pure horror series that seem long-running today are Final Destination and Paranormal Activity. Strange that unlike the franchises of the past, the running antagonist in those seems to have no personality...

[mrblue]

Hoste and Wrong Turn are both continuing to make sequels, though its unknown if either one will continue on. I think the main reason we dont have franchises anymore is because this is a different era where masked serial killers coming back from the dead isnt as believeable amongst kids as was back in the 80s and they jus aren't huge box office hits either. For now, i do believe franchise horror is dead until something along the lines of SAW comes about and starts a whole new genre.