Since it seems my posts on the other thread was innappropriate, I will start a new one.  This is purely for discussing Slasher Flicks.

Now to start off the discussion I will repost my other replies to the other thread so that the discussion can start anew.

Can anyone believe they are making a Halloween 9??  

One of my director friends might be getting the chair for this one.  I wonder what they could possibly have left to cover after the other 8.

Hmmm - pondering hollywood endless and often pointless sequels.

What do you think?

Crazy stuff,  on Saw 2 and 3 I haven't watched the first one...don't really have the desire either.  I'm not a big slasher fan, although I can say there has been one I moderately enjoyed.

It was Freddy vs. Jason.  Which rather surprised me as I'm not a big fan of the all invincible enemy that just won't die, but that one was done better than most.

Now Jason X is a different story.  Don't get me started on story flaws like him breaking through doors from the outside in but no space vacuum???  They have it in the first room, but don't even touch the rest of the rooms that he barges through.  I seriously doubt he stopped to patch the hull breach first.  Then the beating the camper hologram with one in the sleeping bag and killing the other one with her.     What happened to his big freakin machette he loves so much?


This raises a question, what makes some slasher flicks work, and others not.  Any opinions?

Sara

I'm not a slasher film fan, mostly because they consist of a crazed killer going after a bunch of two-dimensional sterotypical characters.  The only good slasher film I've seen in recent years was Saw.  The characters were properly developed and there was a good amount of suspense through out the story.  The twist at the end was great.

In regards to sequels, there's no reason for any of them (and this refers to non-slasher movies as well).  For me, any sequel must be more than just the main character returning.  Putting Jason in a different setting, or giving Michael Myers a higher body count doesn't impress me.

Put something new in the story.  Make me care about the victims.  That'll impress me.


Phil

Yeah Phil,
That's exactly why it bothers me.  To me there has to be an actual purpose for the sequel.  Like the Harry Potter series for example.  They are part of a big story.  They were concieved far before the first one was written, not an after thought.  I only like sequels if they are part of a big story.  

And yes, it seems most slasher movies are just looking for bigger and gorier movies just to ride on the first ones success.

In the other thread, I was also discussing about the only slasher flick I ever had the desire to write which is Last One Standing.  My goal in writing it was to present likable and hated characters alike and have an actual purpose, a very killable bad guy or bad guys in this case, no miraculously coming back to life or getting up after any normal person would be beyond dead (this goes for good guys and bad guys as well).

I hope I succeeded at all this, I suppose time will tell.

But anyway, really your statement really does apply to most sequels.  I can't stand sequels that have no other purpose then to ride on the first one's success but lack any real substance.  And sequels that fail miserable like the Matrix Series.  I have a couple of stories that have sequels or are series but they were concieved before even writing the first one and they are more a continuation of the story rather than a copy cat changed location type.  Also the fact that there is going to be a sequel is right in the first one as parts of the story are left fairly open.

Probably some of the sequels I hate the most are Disney type sequels.  Where they take a finished story, the go back somewhere in the middle and do another one.

Like Beauty and the Beast and Belle's First Christmas.  I hate that!

This may be the wrong forum for this chat and I don't think Saw is a slasher. (It doesn't have a killer, people kill themselves) Though I'm still not sure what the point of this board is, it's My Work in Progress and I'm Looking For blended into 1 if you ask me.

I found Saw to be more of a thriller than a slasher, actually. The general pace and feel of the whole film as well as the lack of body count points it to the psychological thriller category. In fact, the "saw" made so prominent in the promos wasn't really part of the film's central plot at all. Yes, it factored into the climax, but that's about it.

Saw 2 was a cross-genre bust that had an excellent thriller plot which carried along the film, but then had this poorly developed slasher plot that tied in well enough to the main plot, but like slashers tend to do, had too much hacking and not enough character development. If you like thrillers, I still recommend both films, but I wish the slasher part of the sequel was done better.

i found the characters in Saw2... the ones trapped in the house mainly - to be extremely stupid and irrational. all they had to do was compare notes for 5 minutes and they would have been out of that house in plenty of time....please give us some characters who have the mentality higher then a bunch of 5 year old kids sent on Time Out
i hated it. it drove me crazy watching it

Hey Wesley,
I had no idea where to put it, I just want to discuss this as I am getting ready to redit my one and only script in this genre, get some ideas on how to better it by examples of other movies.

George, you are probably exactly right that its more of a psychological thriller.  I may have to watch it now. hmmm.

The one slasher (loosely meaning gory horror) I have absolutely no desire to see is Hostile.  I don't think I could sit through a torture session like that real or hollywood.

Quoted Text The one slasher (loosely meaning gory horror) I have absolutely no desire to see is Hostile.  I don't think I could sit through a torture session like that real or hollywood.

I'm the exact opposite. The only horror I want to see is Hostel. I thought CAbin Fever was funny, so we'll see how this goes.

There are good and bad slashers and which ones those are are completely at the mercy of the opinions of those who have seen them. The ones I like are those that integrate a solid thriller component into their design. I thought Friday the 13th was rather good although its characters were rather stock. Scream brought a good revival to the genre. A Nightmare on Elm Street had an awesome premise to it and some good mystery. It even had some decent characters (although Heather Langencamp was not much of an actress). I thoroughly enjoyed Halloween and  although it was campy in its characters, like Friday, Carpenter pulled a good scare flick. Beyond these, I haven't seen many others that I would call slashers (or at least were good enough to remember).

Psycho isn't a slasher; it's a thriller. I recently watched the 1998 version, and since it was pretty much identical to the 1960, I had no complaints. The Ring isn't a slasher; it's also a thriller. I personally define a slasher as a thriller with a defined monster (who could be human) that goes around killing large numbers of people. The thriller part is mostly considered optional, but I think a good one will have this element.

There's my opinion on this.

As for Saw 2, I gauge a movie's worth based on the number of times I roll my eyes at the screen. During the bickering and griping and whining, my eyes stayed in the back of my head for most of those sequences. It was like watching Big Brother 23: House of Death or something. I like how it tied in to the big picture, but it could have been more realistic. I think it would have been sweet to see them work out the lock combo before leaving the room. Everything still could have happened as it played out, since some stuff worked and that safe would have only had one syringe probably. But it would have saved the audience the irritation of watching these idiots bicker during their scenes and given us some compelling and sympathetic characters.

Hey Tomson,
Nope, didn't leave just been busy with projects for other people.  (my projects just others want to see them type)

Awesome, I will look for it in my e-mail.

Big-whoop:  let me know what you think of it okay.  The commercials alone make my stomach turn.

I probably should have just called this Horrors and all others as more general subject matter is important to the discussion.

George: I haven't watched many horrors andn even less Slashers.  I only started recently enjoying them.  Partly only being 23 I've only had a short time that I have been allowed to watch such movies

I watched one of the Friday the 13th movies, it wasn't the first and it irritated me to no end how they would "kill" Jason over and over again and the bastard wouldn't die.  I have seen the first or second halloween where it was Jaime Lee Curtis' highschool dance and they were in the school.  I don't know about you but if there was a serial killer in the school and the doors were locked which I can't understand why they would be given there was a dance, but I would be for breaking windows.  Just me.  

I haven't watched Scream.  I watched both of the I know what you did last summer.  Kind of confused on who was really hit and if that person really died or not if it wasnt' the main killer guy and how the heck someone could survive getting their hand cut off in the middle of the ocean.

Carpenter as in the vampire hunter guy?  I watched a couple of those, kind of iffy on whether I like them or not.  I enjoy vampire fiction, just can't find a lot of movies I actually like.  I guess my problem with vampire fiction is I have my own idea of what vampires are and aren't and how they should act and think and work so when most fail to even come close to my vision, I am disappointed.

I haven't seen the Ring, it looks like it could be scary.  I saw the remake of psycho, wasn't real sold on it, but then again I'm not a huge hitchcock (sp) fan.  I haven't seen any of the Nightmares on Elm Streets, those are the ones with Freddy right?

The Hannibal series although not slashers were probably the most chilling horror type movies I have ever seen.

Oh and can't forget Urban Legend.  I thought that one was well done.

The first Halloween film was written and directed by John Carpenter. It had a very young Jamie Lee Curtis at 17 and in her first movie role with no school dances (you may be thinking of Prom Night, which also starred Jamie Lee Curtis and is not related to the Halloween franchise). The action happened mostly around two houses. This film had Dr. Sam Loomis chasing after Michael Myers since Michael had escaped from an asylum where he was interred.

Scream is far better than I Know What You Did Last Summer, although it did have the same writer, Kevin Williamson.

The first Friday the 13th doesn't even have Jason Voorhees as the killer. He doesn't come into the picture until Part 2, and he doesn't get his trademark hockey mask until Part 3. Someone else does the deeds in the first film and for an actual reason besides the classic "just because."

My favorite piece of the Nightmare On Elm Street franchise is the dream attacking Fred Krueger. It allows anything to happen, and gets us where we're the most vulnerable. I think the storyline was abused later, but it occasioanlly gives us some interesting mind warping sets in the dream phases of the series.

A debate could begin over whether the Ring or its daddy Ringu is better. I personally prefer the Ring since it integrated the curse into the story more than the other versions. It is very creepy stuff.

Psycho's curse is that everyone's heard so much about it that you set up some expectations, and all those expectations are dashed in that it isn't a real slasher film, nor even what we consider to be horror. It's another Hitchcock thriller that is very good in its own right for its own day.

I actually did enjoy Urban Legend. I thought it had some very clever elements to it.

I can relate to being busy for other people. I've over volunteered myself to get stuff done. Now, I'm just hoping to fulfill my obligations to get back to my own stuff.

Okay, same director got it.

Oh haha Prom night.  I never saw the title, saw her and miss connected the dots.

I haven't seen the first two at least of Ft13th.  Reasons are good to have.  I don't think I've ever had a character do anything without a reason.

I really liked Freddy on Jason vs Freddy, I'll have to watch the earlier ones.  When he popped up as a shadow and slashed at him but wasn't strong enough, I thought that was cool.

Urban legend was clever.  Did they make a second one?  I thought I heard about one but haven't seen them.

What about Cell.  That movie was weird, clever, and chilling to me.  That part where they slice up the horse, that was the weird gross out part for me.  Then during the final re-entry into his brain where they were in the room but in his mind, that one got me too.

I haven't seen The Cell, but I want to. It's on my Netflix list, so I'll see it someday.

With Friday the 13th, I've seen 1, 3, and 9. I've gotten some decent synopsises of the others, but do intend to see them at some point (also on my Netflix list).

Freddy vs. Jason is yet another film I have "Netflixed" but I've heard it is a very weak entry into both series. If you want a good Nightmare watchfest, I suggest 1,3 and 7. They work well together. I occasionally find watchign 3, 4, and 5 in sequence is pretty good, too. 2 and 6 are very weak in terms of their storylines, and even 4 and 5 diminish in quality to the realm of "huh?" when they try to explain it. Not that the explanation isn't occasionally on the clever side, it's just very far-fetched.

As for Urban Legend sequels, there is a sequel to the 1998 film Urband Legend called Urban Legend: Final Cut. Since then, there was a straight to video film called Urban Legends: Bloody Mary, which is not part of the 1998 release franchise.

I love Netflix lol.

I think you will like the Cell.

I will have to see that.  The only friday the 13th I've seen had two sisters and it took place on halloween and had Jasen coming after them.  In the end the youngest sister killed her mom and went all psycho.

That's too bad that there are those that are weak in the storylines.  You think with the foundation of Freddy, it would be great.   Freddy vs. Jason is especially good for those who have never seen any of the previous of the two series.  IMO at least.

Are the sequels any good to Urban Legend?  

Have you seen Rose Red and...trying to think of the other one I watched not too long ago. can't think of it.  When I do, I'll be back!  (sorry watched T3 today hehe).

Quoted from IceRose I really liked Freddy on Jason vs Freddy, I'll have to watch the earlier ones.  When he popped up as a shadow and slashed at him but wasn't strong enough, I thought that was cool.

I saw JvF and I thought it was interesting because of the parallels between it and Dracula vs Frankenstein (or FvD, whatever it's called).  It did run on a little, though.


Phil

Scream was great, good characters and an awesome twist at the end... plus its just fun to watch thanks in large part to the shameless overacting by Matt Lillard and Jamie Kennedy. Sure it got run into the ground with how popular it was when it came out, and its two worthless sequals... but never the less it was one of the better slasher flicks in the last 10 years.

Phil,
I didn't know they made a Dracula vs Frankenstein.  Was it any good?

herodreamer,
I might have to watch Scream, I've seen the Scary Movies (I know they rag on everything and I didn't care for them much)

I think Scary Movie 3 had to be the funniest one though.  It made me want to watch The Ring.

On other scary movies.  I haven't watched The Mothman Prophesies, I dont even know what its about.  Has anyone seen it?

I watched The Others.  That one threw me for a loop.

The Haunting - I enjoyed that movie, the little cherubs freaked me out though, I hate cherubs.

Sixth Sense, that one got me too.

I have not seen The Village, I want to.  Was it any good?  I haven't seen Signs yet, how was it, I heard it was kind of stupid.

Quoted from IceRose Dracula vs Frankenstein...Scream...the Scary Movies...Scary Movie 3... The Mothman Prophesies...The Others...The Haunting...Sixth Sense...The Village...Signs

Um....not to be a nudge or anything, IceRose -- but none of these movies could be classified as a slasher -- unless you count Scream -- and even that one is pushing it a bit.

Bert, hush! She's asking about some halfway decent movies here...

The Signs is good if you accept it for what it REALLY is: a character sketch about a priest who has lost his faith due to the death of his wife. The alien invasion is a backdrop to tell the story on.

The Village is also very, very clever, but its suspense is only good the first time around. Don't let anyone tell you the big secret before you watch it or the whole film is spoiled.

I loved the Others. Another small, simple film with a rather big twist on it.

Quoted from bert Um....not to be a nudge or anything, IceRose -- but none of these movies could be classified as a slasher -- unless you count Scream -- and even that one is pushing it a bit.

Yes I realized this.  On a later post I said that I should have called this Horror and general as movies outside that topic were important to the discussion.  And I figured since I started the topic, the author wouldn't get mad at me for going a bit off course

George,
I've noticed that on other films as well.  If you accept it for what it is, they can be pretty good, all hype aside.  That's how I try to watch movies, it makes it more enjoyable.  The one main thing that will stop me from watching a movie for what it is, is logic holes.  Writers who either bend, break, or simply ignore basic logic for the sake of their story.  I hate that!

I really want to watch The Village.  I hope my story Town Curfew isn't too close to it.  I wrote it before I even heard of The Village.  I don't think it is, but I guess I will see when I watch it.

Has anyone watched the others?

Quoted from IceRose Phil, I didn't know they made a Dracula vs Frankenstein.  Was it any good?.

It was a good movie, considering when it was made.  It was still when both franchises were on their ways out.

I made the comparison as Jason was the equivilant of the brutish Frankenstein while Freddy was the classy and intelligent Dracula.  Brain vs brawn.


Phil

Quoted from IceRose Has anyone watched the others?

"The Others" was pretty good -- probably better in a theater than at home -- and it's not really not much of a spoiler to say that the folks who made that movie were keenly aware of "The Sixth Sense" and its very broad appeal.

"The Village", on the other hand, was one of the few films I've seen that actually managed to piss me off.

The Village is one of those movies people love or hate... theres not much of a gray area there... i think its safe to say Shyamalan's trademark twist appeal backfired drastically on him. a movie that is building up to something quite fantastic and then sort of just comes down with a thud (mutch like the way i felt with History of Violence, but thats not a of this genre)

I really liked The Others...i thought the twist was fantastic... the kids were great fun to watch... and i'm normally not a Nicole Kidman fan, but i liked her a lot in that movie.

How about Rob Zombie's "Devil's Rejects"

I haven't seen the devil's rejects, don't really have any desire to.  I enjoy Rob Zombie's music, but the story does not interest me, at least not the commercials.

Bert, do tell, why did it make you angry, or is it something i'm going to have to see first then ask, or perhaps by then I will know.

I haven't seen History of Violence either.

Has anyone seen The Mothman Prophesies.  I have seen the title mentioned in several places but have not seen it nor do I know anything about it.

Phil, would you recommend Dracula vs Frankenstein?

I would recommend no one answering the question of why they feel the way they do about The Village until you watch it for yourself. Seriously, the spoiler here is a big spoiler and can ruin the whole feel of everything. Personally, it didn't bother me; it just made the movie watchable only once to get the full effect.

I would like to have a full blown discussion about this movie and why it did or didn't work for some people, but to do so here, would ruin it for you.

Quoted from IceRose Bert, do tell, why did it make you angry, or is it something i'm going to have to see first then ask, or perhaps by then I will know.

Is it a spoiler to say that a movie is completely idiotic?  And not just the end either -- I can't even count the number of eye-rolling moments in this movie.  Here -- I'll give you one -- out of dozens --

There is red paint on the doors -- somebody speculates that "the wolves did it" -- another character says, with all seriousness, "Wolves can't reach that high."

What?? Since when can wolves even paint?  This movie is full of lunatic stuff like that.

And don't tell me this movie "looks great".  Sure, it's shot beautifully.  Who cares?  This movie is so stupid my brain fell out.

haha Bert that is hilarious and so true.  Logic fallacies always get me.

I will rent it George, and when I do we will have that discussion.  It sounds like an excellent movie to demonstrate what works and what doesn't.

Quoted from bert Is it a spoiler to say that a movie is completely idiotic?  And not just the end either -- I can't even count the number of eye-rolling moments in this movie.  Here -- I'll give you one -- out of dozens -- There is red paint on the doors -- somebody speculates that "the wolves did it" -- another character says, with all seriousness, "Wolves can't reach that high." What?? Since when can wolves even paint?  This movie is full of lunatic stuff like that. And don't tell me this movie "looks great".  Sure, it's shot beautifully.  Who cares?  This movie is so stupid my brain fell out.

I apparently left my critical eye in the closet when I watched this one...

Didn't I start a thread similar to this awhile ago questioning the amount of horror scripts on this site?
It drifted into debates about defining 'horror' and why most new horror films 'suck' (that was the general consensus I gathered from the thread) nowadays.

Ice Rose I'd be pleased to tell you about some of the films you asked about. If they're good, if they're a 'slasher' film or not, and what they're about. Rottentomatoes or imdb can tell you if they're good by gathering reviews by critics and normal moviegoers as well as giving a plot outline.

You wondered why so many are terrible? Sequels are made because the first made alot of money. Sometimes they put little thought or heart into the sequel because they feel the formula of the first worked and they can play on that. Maybe focus more on the 'killing' portion rather than having to spend half the movie explaining to audiences where the killer comes from and why he kills. Maybe through in a unique kill sequence. Wow. Add more blood. Wow. These sequels of freddys michaels and jasons spawned in the 80s do have camp value.

Just why are they so stupid? Why do they run into the dark room? Umm because the audience wants to see them dead? During a lot of the camp slashers, the filmmakers made a huge mistaken by taken away all empathy a viewer could hold for a lot of the secondary characters. Thus making them expendable victims and their deaths enjoyable. Leading to the predictable formula and low iq conversations they have between eachother.

Why are these dumb victims jocks and cheerleaders. Or partying teens for that matter? Not to offend any nerds out there. But I believe the writers were for the most parts picked on or at the very least 'ignored' by this crowd that was having fun all through highschool. When I was in middle skool i was ok with seeing a cheerleading and some dude getting stabbed while do ggy style (sok if i say that?)

Now that I do some of things  those people in the camp horror films do, underage, under the influence,  I definately see the hate some guy had for these people when he wrote Friday part (fill in the blank any number from 1 to 9). Dr. Tuff Nutz best hypothesis. I don't know crap about psychology so this could all end up being bs. Just my observation.

Some unique slashers exist out there. But unless your a die hard 90lb fanboy 1 or 2 of the franchise ones will be enough. That's my opinion.

Quoted from IceRose Phil, would you recommend Dracula vs Frankenstein?

If you like the old monster movies, then I recommend it.


Phil

Quoted from bert There is red paint on the doors -- somebody speculates that "the wolves did it" -- another character says, with all seriousness, "Wolves can't reach that high." What?? Since when can wolves even paint?  This movie is full of lunatic stuff like that..

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I don't see why I shouldn't chime in....

In this particular case, could it be that the characters are just stupid and not the director, producer, etc?  Sometimes, there are simply stupid characters in a story.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe I haven't seen this movie yet, but I don't see why I shouldn't chime in.... In this particular case, could it be that the characters are just stupid and not the director, producer, etc?  Sometimes, there are simply stupid characters in a story.

Honestly, the way I saw the point with the wolves and painting was that these creatures did not look like wolves at all, but these weird nightmarish creatures and "wolves" was the best description they had. I mean, there was a territorial dispute with them; can't happen with real wolves. They get upset only when their territory is encroached; also can't happen with wolves. They don't invade the Village unless provoked; also can't happen with wolves. I saw their wolf description as their best guess of how to refer to these creatures they have this uneasy truce with.

Whew, that's as non-spoiler as I can get there.

That's probably exactly how the author intended it.  The problem with huge reveals, is  it lowers the re-watchability of the movie.

Phil, it really depends on the old monster movie and how old lol.

Anyone seen Mothman Prophesies?

Tony, go right ahead, I'd love to hear about them.

On sequels I guess my questions is more, Why do they make horrible sequels.  With a little extra effort they could make them worth while, or make an excellent new movie.

Sara

There was a thread about sequels that I had started some time ago.

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-screenwrite/m-1121238170/

I am a fan of sequels, and there are some films I didn't start watching until it had a sequel (Pitch Black being a big example). James Cameron is an excellent example of a good sequel having scored with both Aliens and Terminator 2. The Godfather Part II is the only sequel to score big at the Oscars.

I think sequels bomb because the writers try to rewrite the first movie instead of writing a new one with the stuff we want to see -- more development.

I will check it out.  There are several excellent sequels.  

And you are probably right, they do try to rewrite the first one, or just try to make a story out of nothing, or use nothing for a story, one of the two.

Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick were good, I enjoyed them.  Was there one before Pitch Black???   Although in Chronicles it seems like everyone got their hair cuts from a weed wacker, gotta watch out for those things.

I never said there weren't good ones, I just wondered why they make bad ones, because there is ample proof that several sequels work and are sometimes even better than the first.

Quoted from IceRose Phil, it really depends on the old monster movie and how old lol.

Sometime in the 1940s.


Phil

Quoted from George Willson I think sequels bomb because the writers try to rewrite the first movie instead of writing a new one with the stuff we want to see -- more development.

Similarly, I always felt that sequels bomb because some movies are complete in and of itself.  The writer isn't thinking of a sequel and wraps up the story.  Franchises like Batman, Superman, Spiderman and X-men are written with sequels in mind.  Sequels will work.  Other franchises like Jaws, Halloween and Cheaper By The Dozen were wrapped up in thte first movie.  The writer/studio  should consider whether there is a sequel in the future.


Phil

Quoted from IceRose Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick were good, I enjoyed them.  Was there one before Pitch Black???   Although in Chronicles it seems like everyone got their hair cuts from a weed wacker, gotta watch out for those things.

Pitch Black was first. There was a short inbetween story called Dark Fury. The Chronicles of Riddick is the most recent one, though there have been rumors of another one. Either PS2 or Xbox has a video game prequel called Butcher Bay.

Riddick is not the first to pull the video game crossover, though. To get the full story of the Matrix, you have to watch The Matrix, watch the Animatrix (most specifically for this plotline, Last Flight of the Osiris), play the video game Enter th Matrix, and then watch Reloaded as you play parts of the video game since Enter the Matrix follows Ghost and the pilot chick Morpheus is sweet on (forgot her name) and parallels partsof Matrix Reloaded. There are also Matrix comic books which deepen that universe and to follow to coincide with the other stories, there is The Matrix online. Now THERE'S a franchise.

Quoted from dogglebe Similarly, I always felt that sequels bomb because some movies are complete in and of itself

I felt the same way about The Highlander. The story was done. He was the last one. I've never watched the sequels, so I don't know how they manage to pull a continuing storyline out of their butts, but I'm sure something was concocted that ruined that perfect ending. Alien3 is another sequel that pissed me off. Aliens had a perfect ending. Alien3 destroyed it.

Exactly Phil,
Those that complete themselves, should NOT have sequels.  They are pointless and show that they are merely making money on a name, and have no real story to tell.  

Highlander pissed me off.  He kills all the immortals, gains all that power then...there are suddenly hundreds more immortals???  Okay lost me there.

Okay, I have seen all of those and the game is or soon will be out.

Matrix pissed me off.  The second and third should have been Rise of the Smiths, as he was the total focus.  I have also seen/played most of the inbetween.  Can't even look at any of them since the third one came out.

They had a chance at brilliance, then blew it, pure and simple.  Smith was dead let him stay dead.

Anything I write that has a sequel or series in mind, is thought of before I finish the first and are woven in, not oh look, I think I'll write another one because I can't come up with anything new.

What is strange to me is that this is in the Collaborative Effort board...kind of a strange place to put it, eh?

That's pretty much how I work. I integrate something into the fabric of the story that makes it appear complete but upon retrospect, it becomes clear that there was a single loose end left untied.

Quoted from FilmMaker06 What is strange to me is that this is in the Collaborative Effort board...kind of a strange place to put it, eh?

I'm sorry, I didn't know where else to put it.  The discussion this spun off from was from here.

George, that's interesting, most of mine are blatantly visible.  Some I leave a twist at the end that leaves it a little open and that I have no intention of ever writing a sequel, I just want that "Hey wait a minute at the end."

Quoted from bert Is it a spoiler to say that a movie is completely idiotic?  And not just the end either -- I can't even count the number of eye-rolling moments in this movie.  Here -- I'll give you one -- out of dozens -- There is red paint on the doors -- somebody speculates that "the wolves did it" -- another character says, with all seriousness, "Wolves can't reach that high." .

SPOILER ALERT

i'll try to explain this so it makes sense...

you have to take that line in the context of the character

keep in mind bert.. that the elders were the ones putting red paint on the doors dressed as the creatures... they had used the "wild animal" for the small animals turning up dead (William hurts character said he didnt know who was killing the small animals suspected it some someone else)

the character who said "wolves cant jump that high" was an elder... in the context of the character... she was simply pointing out... their wild animal story was not going to work any longer

thats how i took that line anyway after re-watching it

Hero, we were trying to avoid spoilers of The Village in this thread. There is an entire other thread for a spoiler discussion.

Quoted from IceRose Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick were good, I enjoyed them.  Was there one before Pitch Black???   Although in Chronicles it seems like everyone got their hair cuts from a weed wacker, gotta watch out for those things.

While I liked Pitch Black, I didn't like Riddick at all.

In Pitch Black, Riddick was a thinker.  He made the characters thinks.  He made the viewers think.  In Riddick, he just played an bland action figure.


Phil

i agree completely... Pitch Black was really good... i didnt like Riddick

Yeah I didn't like Riddick as much either, but I still liked it.  In my opinion they wasted his mystery, his sense of unpredictability.

I didn't care for the necromongers either.  If their sole goal was to make it to the dark planets, why not just go?  They all couldn't wait to get there yet they wasted unnecessary time destroying everything that often wasn't even in their path.

I loved the panther like creatures though.

Do you think we'll ever see another standard slasher hit theatres, or be a big success? Scream was a fresh take on the genre, but its imitators were standard. They also tended to be low on graphic violence and the horror genre got very watered down. But now violent horror is hot again, starting with films like Wrong Turn, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (03) and Dawn of the Dead (04), and the likes of Saw, Saw II, High Tension, The Descent, The Hills Have Eyes and Hostel furthering this trend and upping the gore each time. Even less gritty/serious films such as House of Wax have been full of gore. The days of releases such as I Know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legend seem so long ago. I can't imagine them being as successful now as they were back then. I mean yeah, there was Cry_Wolf, but that wasn't a standard slasher, it was more about the twist ending, and it wasn't even that successful.

The 90s town/campus set slashers tended to be less violent and focus on a mystery, whereas the new ones are often set in the middle of nowhere or in some dank, gritty place that compliments the extreme violence that occurs in them. It's hard to explain, but there is something about a survival film set in the woods that makes some ultra-gory chainsaw inflicted death acceptable. If a death like that was in something like Scream or Urban Legend, it wouldn't have fit. Those films are somewhat "cleaner". I hope this is making sense lol. The bar has been raised and I don't know if audiences would accept a more low key slasher anymore. I'm currently re-writing two scripts. One is set in the woods and has a TCM vibe, whereas the other is more of a Scream/I Know/Prom Night type mystery/slasher. With the former I feel I can make the events more harrowing, but with the latter I find myself coming up with really violent deaths and then feeling like they just don't match the Scream-esque tone of the story. But will people accept cleaner violence when ultra-violence is currently the in thing? Since the kind of films that were big a few years ago are no longer hitting theatres, I wonder if people will find it to be too dated, no matter how hard I work on the story and the suspense? Any opinions?

Just to bring up a couple of things mentioned earlier:
I believe The Others was written before The Sixth Sense came out, but was produced afterwards. If this is true, then the similarities are just a coincidence. I love both personally. Although some of its impact was lost because of The Sixth Sense coming out before it, I think The Others was more impressive because it had more than just the one twist. How certain characters died was quite a revelation, and the role-reversal nature of the twist was really clever. Also, it scared me despite there being nothing visually scary on screen. The Sixth Sense used jumps and scary looking dead people to get a reaction. However, The Sixth Sense is such a touching story (I get rather emotional during the "Grandma says hi" conversation lol, and the ending twist ending is so sad...).
I agree that Scream is better than I Know in terms of how it reinvented the genre etc, but I somewhat prefer I Know for being more traditional. Ghostface isn’t scary in all his running around, falling over etc. The Fisherman was more reminiscent of a Boogeyman like Michael Myers. It also provides the longest, most suspenseful and best chase scene found in a slasher film, with none other than Sarah Michelle Gellar, scream queen of the 90s, as the victim. As a big fan of chase scenes (I think they're imperative! ), I absolutely love this scene. It's the film's highlight.

Ian

How about them false scares? I finally watched The Grudge today and disregarding the lack of character development and no one wanting to turn on any lights (please flip the freakin' switch, I beg you!), this film was enormously creepy. It's one of the scariest films I've seen in awhile, probably because it doesn't tease you with false scares of birds or woodland animals flying out of recesses. No, I think every single orchestra hit was a legitimate, plot-driven scare. If there were others, can't think of them. What did this do? It kept me on edge. I learned that if the director was building to something (turn on the damn light, please! At least try it?), it was going to be worth the build. I know The Grudge is not a slasher, but supernatural horror, but the principles it used would cross over very easily. Some very excellent, freakish images went into this one, and I thought the plot was done well. Now, if only they developed the characters, AND TURNED ON A LIGHT EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE, it would have been really good.

George, you read my mind!  I was just going to ask about the Grudge as I haven't seen it yet.

Ian, make a gritty, intelligent script and I promise people will watch it.  Just because the trend is gore, does not mean it is the only way.  The reason why there are so many with extra gore is because it is a trend, but there are always those few movies that move outside the trend and shock audiences, and those invariably become the most loved.

Do what suits your story not the current palet, as you can look back and see palets change.  And honestly I would take a genuinely scary movie over gore.

Good luck in your writing and be your own trend-setter.

Sara

The Grudge from a writing perspective...pretty bad. No charactization, characters do stupid things, sometimes actions seem to only occur because the script say so...

Scare perspective: top notch. You forget the shortcomings with all the supernatural freaky stuff happening...when there's light to see it. Fortunately the specter's eyes and skin occasionally gives off a sickly bluish hue that is visible... And the hand coming out of the chick's head in the shower...

i originally posted this in "The Fatal Flaw" in a discussion about horror flicks... but then i deleted it... realizing it was more suitable for this thread....

so here it is..

had a little epiphany ....

why do we go see horror films??? because we want to see bloodshed and get the s*** scared out of us....

we don't care about the plot. the plot is just a scenerio to get our characters to a place where they can be hacked to bits until the final showdown between the hero and the villain

the problem is all the blood and guts is pointless if we dont care about the characters spilling this blood. horror movies are meant to be tragic and horrible....hense HORROR

but if you make a horror film and ignore the characters and simply just kill them off...you take out all the horror and tragedy in the bloodshed... negating the horror experience all together.

my point? Horror movies need to be character driven... we need to care about them or we dont care what happens to them...

Alien is the perfect example of this working to perfection.... a typical scenerio... 7 characters trapped in a claustrophobic setting being killed off one by one...  sound familiar? a billion movies have used this... but ask yourself how many of those movies were good.... and what seperates the good from the bad???

heres a hint.....its not the plot

I have to disagree with you herodreamer.  If there is no plot to the movie, I generally hate them.

The stories that have an excellent blend of characters, plot, story, events, and graphics (meaning check any that apply to any genre) are my favorites and most loved.

MOST horrors are weak in both story and characters and thats why there are so many B-grade flicks.  Also the dialog is weak!

Base plots are rarely original or different.  I could say people in a catastrophic event.  I could list probably hundred of movies.

Volcano, Dante's Peak, The Day After Tomorrow, Earthquake, Avalanch, Vertigo, Armageddon, Core, Deep Impact, Space Cowboys, and the list goes on.  But these stories are all different due to the actual story and characters so I feel you are over generalizing because the underlying basics are almost always the same, its what you do with them that makes all the difference.

Bad movies are due to sloppy poor scripts, bad acting, poor directing, and too low budgets, and overall laziness or bad judgment.  Example, Doom, whoever thought putting a cheesy first person shooter scene that looked like it was cut and pasted right from the game ruined every smidgen of credibility that movie had going for it.  That is a huge example of bad judgment.

The worst situations though are when excellent movies do poorly, such as The Count of Monte Cristo.  That causes hollywood to pick safer, stupider movies.

As always these are my opinions and you don't have to agree.

George, its too bad they had stupid characters, with movies like that, when they are weak in an element even though the others do a lot, you can't help but feel it lost some potential.  The more elements you screw up or leave out, the lower grade the movie becomes.

Quoted from Herodreamer79 why do we go see horror films??? because we want to see bloodshed and get the s*** scared out of us....

Kevan posted an awesome article once on the psychological undercurrent of a good horror flick here: http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1126980432/s-118/highlight-/#num118

It starts on post 118 of a 12 page thread all about horror movies called Why is horror the most popular thing on this site? I can be found under questions and comments.

That should answer this for you, Hero.

Quoted from IceRose Example, Doom, whoever thought putting a cheesy first person shooter scene that looked like it was cut and pasted right from the game ruined every smidgen of credibility that movie had going for it.  That is a huge example of bad judgment.

Doom is a guilty pleasure for me. I love that first person shooter scene. I bought the Doom DVD probably just for that scene. I don't know why. Just me, I suppose. I know it's a stereotypical sci-fi flick with all the cliches in place, but I still love that scene. Probably because I love continuous shots. I still want Snake Eyes for the 20 minute one shot opening.

Quoted from IceRose I have to disagree with you herodreamer.  If there is no plot to the movie, I generally hate them. The stories that have an excellent blend of characters, plot, story, events, and graphics (meaning check any that apply to any genre) are my favorites and most loved. MOST horrors are weak in both story and characters and thats why there are so many B-grade flicks.  Also the dialog is weak! Base plots are rarely original or different.  I could say people in a catastrophic event.  I could list probably hundred of movies. Volcano, Dante's Peak, The Day After Tomorrow, Earthquake, Avalanch, Vertigo, Armageddon, Core, Deep Impact, Space Cowboys, and the list goes on.  But these stories are all different due to the actual story and characters so I feel you are over generalizing because the underlying basics are almost always the same, its what you do with them that makes all the difference. Bad movies are due to sloppy poor scripts, bad acting, poor directing, and too low budgets, and overall laziness or bad judgment.  Example, Doom, whoever thought putting a cheesy first person shooter scene that looked like it was cut and pasted right from the game ruined every smidgen of credibility that movie had going for it.  That is a huge example of bad judgment. The worst situations though are when excellent movies do poorly, such as The Count of Monte Cristo.  That causes hollywood to pick safer, stupider movies. As always these are my opinions and you don't have to agree. George, its too bad they had stupid characters, with movies like that, when they are weak in an element even though the others do a lot, you can't help but feel it lost some potential.  The more elements you screw up or leave out, the lower grade the movie becomes.

i think you are agreeing with me you just dont know it yet..

ps.
DOOM RULES! you should be stoned for that commet!  



TOMSON...

I liked Blair Witch... i think there needs to be a discussion thread about that movie.

Wasn't Blair Witch nothing more then a couple college students with an inability to operate a camera running around in the woods?

I don't know hero, maybe we are just saying the same thing in different ways.  But I'm saying a movie without any story or a lousy story same goes for books, for the most just isn't worth my time.

I also judge books harsher than movies, sorry fellow writers.

I enjoyed Doom, I will be the first one to say it, but, and there's a big but for me, I played Doom 3.  And being a player of the game and a watcher of the movie, that first person shooter scene, although clever, made it look like it was hacked from the game.

They put THE BIGGEST action sequence of the movie and stuck it in first person shooter mode, and that just pissed me off.  I think it would have been a thousand times better in third person mode because then it wouldn't look like it was hacked right out of the game.  

It seems people are split on this one, either you love it or you hate it.

Blair Witch, yeah I got nothing good to say about it.

icerose... i think we are sorta saying the same thing in different ways...


i liked Blair Witch cause it was different and unique. it tried something different.. and for a while they pulled off the whole "it really happened" thing.

i still find the movie quite creepy and effective.

thats my story and im sticking to it.

Quoted from Chris_MacGuffin Wasn't Blair Witch nothing more then a couple college students with an inability to operate a camera running around in the woods?

THat's what it was supposed to be and they pulled it off very nicely.


Phil

Blair witch scared a lot of people when it first came out. Now that it's just a part of the 90s pop culture, and eveyone knows it's fake, less and less find it scary or shocking.

No doubt we will have fun showing it to younger generations.

Quoted from tomson I agree that Blair Witch was different, it just didn't work too well on me "scare wise". The Ring however was a totally different matter.

The Blair Witch Project was intended to be very realistic, which it was.  The three characters were very realistic and none of them bigger than life.  The jerky camera shots were that of a person walking through the woods with a camera.  The fact that we never saw what was out there allowed my to think the worse and face our own worse fears in that situation.

I know too many people who sang praise abouyt this movie, only to change their mind completely after other people criticized it.


Phil

I rented a video, called 'Boo,' a few weeks back.  It was about a bunch of teens who spend Halloween in an abandonned insane asylum.  The story was a bad as it sounds and the acting was worse than most porn movies.  I was impressed with the directing, however.  While it was an American movie, it had a lot of Japanese horror influences.

If you want to see all the story/writing mistakes you should avoid, rent this movie.  Kudos to the director.  He was the only reason I finished watching it.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe The Blair Witch Project was intended to be very realistic, which it was.  The three characters were very realistic and none of them bigger than life.  The jerky camera shots were that of a person walking through the woods with a camera.  The fact that we never saw what was out there allowed my to think the worse and face our own worse fears in that situation. I know too many people who sang praise abouyt this movie, only to change their mind completely after other people criticized it. Phil

thats because it wasnt "trendy" anymore.. and everyone just sort of followed the leader of the band wagon...

god forbid people make up their own minds what what they like and dont like instead of other people having to decide for them.

Quoted from tomson I know it was intended to be realistic, including the jerky camera movements. I agree with the part that we never saw "it" added to the scare factor. One reason I think Contact was great, they never showed us any silly aliens, but let us use our  imagination instead (not to scare, but make us wonder). I probably had just heard and read too much about BW before I saw it.

i found Contact to be a bit of a letdown at the end...

after all that.... she meets her father??    i dont know about that.


dogglebe how much can you expect from a movie titled "Boo"

Quoted from Herodreamer79 i found Contact to be a bit of a letdown at the end... after all that.... she meets her father??    i dont know about that.

That was not her father, they used the likeness of him because she wasn't ready for the real "aliens". They thought she would feel more comfortable if she saw her dad. Did you notice Pensacola? That wasn't real either..  

what i meant was all this build up and then we see her "father"... you cant help but want more.

It may not have been climactic, but it was realistic.  The aliens set everything up for Jodie Foster's character so she wouldn't be overwhelmed.


Phil

Blair Witch: The funniest part of this whole Blair Witch deal was when I heard dome DJ's talking about it on the radio. Someone was saying they liked it and the other DJ was saying "But it was fake!" My first thought was "It's a movie; what did you expect?" I think too many people put too much stock in "this really happened" kind of like the affair surrounding The Amityville Horror. Saying it's real makes it scarier, but as soon as the truth comes out, everyone gets disenchanted.

I liked Blair Witch. I thought the whole concept was really clever and I thought it was really, really scary because it FELT real. It's a level of realism that no other movie really has. As long as you can suspend your disbelief for the film, it works really well. If you go in thinking this is a slasher and it's fake, you'll be just that disappointed.

yeah, i loved the whole mythology they built around it as well...
and the actors... for no names... did an incredible job with what they had to work with... from what i hear was not a lot... they had some script but a lot of it was improvised as well.

Quoted from George Willson I liked Blair Witch. I thought the whole concept was really clever and I thought it was really, really scary because it FELT real. It's a level of realism that no other movie really has. As long as you can suspend your disbelief for the film, it works really well. If you go in thinking this is a slasher and it's fake, you'll be just that disappointed.

As a writer I really appreciated this film because of the simplicity of the story and how there were no special effects used (unless you count someone hitting the side of a tent).


Phil

Quoted from Herodreamer79 yeah, i loved the whole mythology they built around it as well...

Hear that kids? Backstory, backstory, backstory. Such is a big part of what made this film work. Stuff happened before the film did and they build on it. The very last scene in the film was a throwback to the information they gathered at the beginning.

Totally agree, Phil.

Wow what chatter boxes I have found   Makes me so happy.

I hated Blair Witch because of the shaky camera movement.  It made me so sick I couldn't even finish it.  I have no idea what actually took place in the movement because I was too busy trying to soothe my migraine and ease the level of nauseousness I was experiencing.

I haven't seen The Ring yet, want to.

Oh and another one.  Silent Hill, I just saw the commercial for that one.

I enjoyed the Ring, but preferred Blair Witch Project.  I think taking the shaking camera movement away would take away some of the realism.

I'm looking forward to Silent Hill.  Playing SH2 is probably the scariest thing I've ever done.


Phil

Quoted from tomson Since I seem to be the only "stick in the mud" about Blair Witch, am I also the only one that thought The Ring was creepier?

The Ring was a very creepy movie. And I'm one of the crowd who feel the American Ring was better than the Japanese Ringu. While Blair Witch might have realism on its side, The Ring is a better film in overall watchability than Blair Witch as well. Ring is superior to Ringu because it integrates an actual curse from the video that progress over the seven days, driving the cursed one mad. In Ringu, you watch the video and nothing happens over the next seven days until you die. Kind of anti-climactic in my opinion.

And you're entitled to be a sitck in the mud if you want to. Everyone has their own opinion on everything.

Does anyone like teen-trendy-horror?

Quoted from I_M Does anyone like teen-trendy-horror?

Teen-trendy-horror?


Phil

These are trendy films?  They've been around for over thirty years.  That's not what I would call trendy.


Phil

while we're talking about Blair Witch... what about its sister movie "Open Water"  i havent seen it  myself but i've heard polarizing reviews of it.

The Ring was very creepy in the theater... the part with the Horse ....yeeesh


i like trendy teen horror/slasher movies when they are done well....like Scream and Friday The 13th...

i dont know if id call Saw trendy teen horror...as there are no teens in it

Quoted from I_M Does anyone like teen-trendy-horror?

I'm afraid this you'll have to define for me. Give some examples. Some people have mentioned some films, but is that what you're referring to?

I hear the word trendy and I think of something current, but short-lived.  These movies have been around way to long to be considered trendy.


Phil

Oops, I mean like 'Scream' or 'I Know What You Did Last Summer.'

My bad, I don't mean trendy, but I meant the "wave" of teen slasher flicks in the 90's.

Quoted from I_M Oops, I mean like 'Scream' or 'I Know What You Did Last Summer.' My bad, I don't mean trendy, but I meant the "wave" of teen slasher flicks in the 90's.

Not as a whole, I don't like them. Scream was very good, and I've enjoyed some of the others as well.

I like some of those kinds of films, but not because I see them as being scary. I just really like slasher films, like those from the 80s, and the likes of Scream etc (with some being innovative and others being formulaic) are a continuation of those really. They might not be original, and often the characters are wafer thin, but their entertainment value (for those who enjoy them) mainly comes from creative deaths and set pieces, and suspenseful action sequences. Obviously if a slasher film has an original story, developed characters and good dialogue, as well as all the other stuff (like Scream), then it's even better. But if you don't see these qualities as imperative, you can get enjoyment out them. There were still plenty of terrible slasher entries in the 90s, but personally I think along with Scream there were some that had something to offer:

SCREAM 2 - Better than the first in my opinion. The story isn't as original but the end revelations are still unpredictable. It's a longer film (5 minutes shy of 2 hours!) but feels shorter than the first because it has a better structure. Unlike the first, there aren't big lulls in the middle where no action is taking place, and the deaths and action sequences that take place are creative and suspenseful (Randy's open space/daylight death scene, Gale's chase through the sound room and the cop car sequence are all stand out moments).
I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER - Developed characters, an interesting look at how such an event might destroy a friendship group, a nice build up of suspense and great action filled pay off in the last 30 minutes where Sarah Michelle Gellar steals the show. I don't care if the story is unoriginal lol.
URBAN LEGEND - Wafer thin characters, bad acting (particularly in the big campy reveal, crappy dialogue and ridiculous false scares (the swimming pool scene anyone?) prevent this from being taken seriously, but this has a really cool concept (that I'm surprised wasn't used sooner), a great pace, and the deaths/chases are creative and sometimes chilling because of the creepy stories they're lifted from. It's cheesy fun!
VALENTINE - Sometimes a little flat during moments that could've been much more suspenseful, but again it has some cool death scenes and a clever little twist just before the very end revelation to throw you completely off what should actually be extremely predictable. Again it lacks originality but sort of captures the feel of the 80s slashers.

But like I was saying, these films were once very popular but now look weak in comparison to the more hard core stuff that is coming out. My script is far more reminiscent of the 80s and 90s slasher films, so I don't know if it would actually find much of an audience these days.

Quoted from Herodreamer79 while we're talking about Blair Witch... what about its sister movie "Open Water"  i havent seen it  myself but i've heard polarizing reviews of it. The Ring was very creepy in the theater... the part with the Horse ....yeeesh i like trendy teen horror/slasher movies when they are done well....like Scream and Friday The 13th... i dont know if id call Saw trendy teen horror...as there are no teens in it

I thought the Blair Witch sequel was Book of Shadows.
I haven't seen Open Water, and I thought it was a shark movie.

I might have to play through Silent Hill 2.  I like creepy games, I don't know why.  Has anyone else played FEAR?  That game was scary, the ending was a bit disappointing until she grabbed on, I about jumped out of my seat on that one.

On the teen horrors, yes on some, no on others.

Okay, got so quiet all of a sudden.

Has anyone seen Ghost ship, The Fog, and/or Mothman Prophesies.

If you have what were the basics behind the story and were they any good?

Sara

The Fog (2005) is based on a John Carpenter film from 1980. The remake leaves much to be desired. I haven't seen the original.

I also haven't seen the other two you've mentioned.

Ah man, I was really looking forward to that.  Seemed like it had a huge scare potential.

Has anyone else watched the other two Ghost Voyage or Ghost Ship whatever its called and Mothman Prophesies?

Quoted from IceRose Okay, got so quiet all of a sudden. Has anyone seen Ghost ship, The Fog, and/or Mothman Prophesies. If you have what were the basics behind the story and were they any good? Sara

I've seen Ghost Ship and thought it was a good movie.  It was creepy with some good twists.  Julianna Margulies plays the strong woman really well.  It's a shame she hasn't been getting much work lately.  She is in that new movie 'Snakes on a Plane' which is discussed in another thread.


Phil

I've seen Ghost Ship but I don't really remember it all that well (except for the opening scene which despite being a Cube rip off is REALLY cool). I started watching The Mothman Prophecies on TV once but I only saw a bit of it. I personally love The Fog (the original), I think it's creepy and atmospheric and builds up the suspense really well. My advice would be to watch it and decide for yourself. I haven't seen the remake but I've heard it's terrible. I know a lot of people bash remakes but this one is in imdb's 100 worst films of all time! That can't be good lol.

Ah thanks guys for answering my questions

Okay next question.

What makes a horrors good or bad and give examples.

Thanks

Sara

P.S. And I got to see the Ring, I didn't get half the suspense cause my kids were little terrors but the end was freaky!  Except for the guy's face, I thought that was kind of stupid and detracted from it.