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