|
I saw Prometheus once and think I kind of hated it. Actually I think I just came out of it a little confused, bored, and thinking that this wasn't at all what I came to for an "Alien" movie. I don't know. I'll be revisiting it and watching Covenant this weekend before voting closes. I just watched Dominion officially finishing the Exorcist franchise. It... wasn't great. There's two things I really respect about the Exorcist sequels. (1) They all hang onto that "very Catholic" feel that the original had and (2) they all try and do something unique with it. Even the two films that are ostensibly the same film somehow managed to be completely different films with completely different agendas. I think they fail more than they succeed. I'm not convinced III is a good movie and its probably the best of the sequels. But Harlin's prequel is the only one I don't think really tries to do something interesting, and even that I think is just at worst a mediocre demonic possession movie. Plus, I god drat love the tv series. But I also love Alien. And I like its true sequels. And I think its the best part of the Vs films. I don't know about Prometheus/Covenant. That might be the difference maker when I get to them this weekend. Irony.or.Death posted:I should watch the first two Universal Frankensteins before I make up my mind on that one, but given the decision that Universal Monsters is actually The Wolfman Saga and doesn't include The Invisible Man it's really hard to get excited about checking the rest out. From a distance there's just nothing interesting about Larry and I'd rather have Hammer Dracula. That being said I'd suggest an amendment. Invisible Man and The Invisible Man Returns probably should be counted into this if Abbot and Costello is the capstone for it. There is a link there. I'm leaning Universal over Chucky but I'm not sure. I still feel like the Universal entry is kind of a huge cheat and I really respect the hell out of Chucky having a single creative mind who was able to adapt and change the franchise as he felt was needed. I don't like Seed and that's definitely my low point for things. But I get and respect that Mancini went "well, I've burned out the scares so I gotta lean into the laughs" just as I respect that he found a way to get those scares back with Curse and marry the two with Cult. I think Chucky is a really enjoyable and interesting journey. But I feel the same about the "Talbot Saga". So I dunno. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Apr 29, 2020 |
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
I just rewatched the cheaper than I remember Wishmaster 2 and am now dreading the Divoff-less sequels. The Wishmaster series was pretty mishandled but he put a good shift in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
They're soooooooo bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
I dunno, I could be misjudging people's responses here, but the number one thing I've seen in common with Prometheus complaints is people who felt it either didn't make sense or that the characters made foolish choices, when the irrational elements to me are what make it so brilliant. It's a film about mortals trying to find and confront God and being met with the horror that perhaps God doesn't want to meet them. Its a hostile movie, it's the sci fi equivalent of Werner Herzog's jungle speech from Burden of Dreams about cruel and uncaring nature. It's about the hubris of man and our own self-importance, and it does it with absolutely brilliant body horror. Covenant suffers slightly because it retreads a lot of the same ground, but it's still excellent. Neither are of the same quality as Alien and Aliens, but they take firm third and fourth rankings in the series. Also, Alien vs. The Exorcist is hard because I don't think you can really say which one is more influential -- both are such monumental pillars of the genre I don't know if you can really go wrong in this matchup. Vote for you favorite, and Alien gets my vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
Part of me thinks the problem with Prometheus and why there's such polarizing opinions of it is just that the Alien franchise is a "sci-fi" franchise that is only superficially a sci-fi franchise and then Prometheus is a super sci-fi movie and a lot of Alien fans like myself just aren't into that. But then a lot of people are so like that shift REALLY worked for them. But its been nearly a decade so I definitely need to give it a rewatch with fresh eyes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 03:21
|
|
|
Prometheus is way more sci-fi and more horror than most Alien movies though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
Well I'm not saying its not horror, just that it being so far more sci fi than the rest of the franchise is probably why there's such polarizing opinions on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
T.V series count right? Because I watched The Exorcist series last month and it's surprisingly good. Not a major factor but in a matchup this close it's worth considering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 03:37
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:I dunno, I could be misjudging people's responses here, but the number one thing I've seen in common with Prometheus complaints is people who felt it either didn't make sense or that the characters made foolish choices, when the irrational elements to me are what make it so brilliant. It's a film about mortals trying to find and confront God and being met with the horror that perhaps God doesn't want to meet them. Its a hostile movie, it's the sci fi equivalent of Werner Herzog's jungle speech from Burden of Dreams about cruel and uncaring nature. It's about the hubris of man and our own self-importance, and it does it with absolutely brilliant body horror. It was really boring.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 05:44
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Its really not "The Wolfman Saga", I think we just dubbed it the "Larry Talbot Saga" because he's the most common link. Random reason for why you should vote for Friday the 13th: "What were you going to be in you grew up?" is actually the funniest line in any slasher outside of "Eat poo poo and live."
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 12:53
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:We probably could have called it the Frankenstein Saga as he's as he's actually in the most movies and as common a link. I think someone ITT is just really in love with Larry Talbot so it stuck. I think the Larry Talbot name is an appropriate label because he's basically the protagonist of House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, and Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein. He's the one who is actively pursuing a goal(to find a cure for his lycanthropy), and then by Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein he's basically a Van Helsing-like figure tracking the monsters around the world. So he's the character that has an arc and goes through a major journey throughout the films. He starts as a bumbling failure of a man in the original Wolfman film, and by the end of his story he's an action hero.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
Yeah, I think it made sense to me because he's got like a common thread for his character. Frankenstein and Dracula are in them but they change actors and character and are just kind of loosely the idea of "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" by the end. But Larry Talbot is actually a consistent character so he ends up feeling like he's at the core of it. But "The Frankenstein Saga" probably would have been better marketing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 14:33
|
|
|
Friday the 13th vs Wishmaster is super easy. Wishmaster 1/2 are entertaining but far from classics, the third one sucks and I haven't seen 4. F13 is one of the most consistent and fun horror franchises and wins easily. Chucky rules and it's also a pretty consistent franchise, but it's up against some of the greatest horror films of all time. I don't love all of them but there are more stone cold classics than there are movies in the whole Child's Play series. Universal Monsters wins. I like RotLD and RotLD 3 a whole lot, but Night/Dawn/Day are all better than both and Land/Survival at least have their moments (I don't like Diary at all though). The Savini remake is also good. Night of the Living Dead wins this for me. Alien/Exorcist is tough. Alien is probably my favorite film out of the two franchises, but the rest of the series leans much more towards sci-fi/action than it does horror. Even so, they all have horror elements and are very consistent. I even like Resurrection, it's more of a b-movie but it's fun. I saw Prometheus in theaters and enjoyed it but it didn't blow me away. I think it warrants a re-watch before I vote. On the other hand, The Exorcist and Exorcist III are both amazing. I have not seen the rest of the Exorcist films (or the show) so I can't comment, but the movies at least are not well regarded and are unlikely to affect my vote. Are any beyond 1/3 worth checking out at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:01
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:They're soooooooo bad I may have just been in a lucid state as I watched all of them last night, but Wishmaster 4 kinda owns. The weird Christian Faith element of previous sequels is co-opted as the bad attempt at a Buffy the Vampire Slayer copy gives way to pure 100% American afternoon soap opera. Buff dudes with sad dark tales trying to woo hot sophisticated chix by drinking red wine with them and asking them questions about their sex life. The plot is loving insane as the Lawyer Djinn has to figure out how to make the girlfriend of his client (who lost the use of his legs in a motorcycle accident) fall in love with him for who he really is; and he can't come up with an I R O N I C response. All the while his Djinn buds are force ghost hassling him as a hot dude ANGEL is walking about public parks with a gigantic loving sword trying to kill the lady for wishing a third time. I mean, I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it or die on a hill for it but it certainly was a fun curio. The Hausu Usher fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:02
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:On the other hand, The Exorcist and Exorcist III are both amazing. I have not seen the rest of the Exorcist films (or the show) so I can't comment, but the movies at least are not well regarded and are unlikely to affect my vote. Are any beyond 1/3 worth checking out at all? I like them all but I'm definitely in the minority. I do think that Exorcist II(The Heretic) and Dominion are worth watching if only to see that they aren't as bad as the reputation they seem to have. So like, I wouldn't expect either film to blow you away and make the vote a no-brainer, but at the same time I think Heretic and Dominion are good enough that they shouldn't drag down Exorcist or tip the scales to Alien. I think both series are fairly equal in that regard, two great films and then some decent sequels. That feels like it was rambling and didn't make much sense. I guess what I'm trying to say is you can throw Heretic, Dominion, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, and AvP in the same box and I don't think any one of them really stands above the others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:I may have just been in a lucid state as I watched all of them last night, but Wishmaster 4 kinda owns. The weird Christian Faith element of previous sequels is co-opted as the bad attempt at a Buffy the Vampire Slayer copy gives way to pure 100% American afternoon soap opera. Buff dudes with sad dark tales trying to woo hot sophisticated chix by drinking red wine with them and asking them questions about their sex life. The plot is loving insane as the Lawyer Djinn has to figure out how to make the girlfriend of his client (who lost the use of his legs in a motorcycle accident) wishes she could fall in love with the Djinn for who he really is; and he can't come up with an I R O N I C response. All the while a hot dude ANGEL is walking about public parks with a gigantic loving sword trying to kill the lady for wishing a third time. Basebf555 posted:I like them all but I'm definitely in the minority. I do think that Exorcist II(The Heretic) and Dominion are worth watching if only to see that they aren't as bad as the reputation they seem to have. So like, I wouldn't expect either film to blow you away and make the vote a no-brainer, but at the same time I think Heretic and Dominion are good enough that they shouldn't drag down Exorcist or tip the scales to Alien. I think both series are fairly equal in that regard, two great films and then some decent sequels. I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot so I apologize for that but I think the two things I can say for the Exorcist sequels is that they (a) all do try a little different and (b) all keep that "Catholic" tone across them. To me that's what makes a franchise really compelling. When they all feel like unique films that have a purpose, but also like they all fit into the bigger picture and belong together. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I like them all but I'm definitely in the minority. I do think that Exorcist II(The Heretic) and Dominion are worth watching if only to see that they aren't as bad as the reputation they seem to have. So like, I wouldn't expect either film to blow you away and make the vote a no-brainer, but at the same time I think Heretic and Dominion are good enough that they shouldn't drag down Exorcist or tip the scales to Alien. I think both series are fairly equal in that regard, two great films and then some decent sequels. Hmm ok, in the interest of fairness I'll see if I can watch at least Exorcist II before the voting ends. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:Hmm ok, in the interest of fairness I'll see if I can watch at least Exorcist II before the voting ends. Thanks! Yea definitely if you're just gonna watch one make it Exorcist II. Reminder that Exorcist II is directed by John Boorman(Excalibur, Deliverance, Point Blank).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea definitely if you're just gonna watch one make it Exorcist II. Exorcist II is a fine movie on par with some of the post-Exorcist "The Exorcism of______"-esque movies. It just looks bad in comparison to the original because it's a little bit cheesy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
I think the biggest problem with II is that its just super dated in a way that the original isn't. It goes heavy on pseudo science and aesthetics that just feel really cheesy and silly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea definitely if you're just gonna watch one make it Exorcist II. Reminder that 1492: Conquest of Paradise is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Reminder that 1492: Conquest of Paradise is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise). For a lot of directors 1492 would've been considered a major achievement. It's still well shot and has great production design, which is a hallmark of Ridley Scott. Exorcist II is a similar case, nobody is ever going to argue it's Boorman's best but it's still Boorman doing Boorman things and that's always entertaining to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
The Alien films are fine, but none of them come close to the power of The Exorcist or The Exorcist III. The Exorcist isn't just a great horror film, it's a great film. Who could forget the iconic image of Max von Sydow in silhouette against the beaming window light, Linda Blair's rasping whisp like breath clawing at the air, the terror in Ellen Burstyn's voice as she pleads with Jason Miller's Father Karris, or Karris' own terror at the dreamlike image of his lost, spectral mother. The film is a nightmare, pulled from the depths of the human imagination. Growing up I could see Alien on the television, it was accessible and ordinary. To watch The Exorcist you needed a friend with a bootlegged grainy copy, because it was deemed so terrifying, so galling, so dangerous and beyond the pale, that it could not be allowed to exist within the public domain. The film itself is such a rewarding, uncanny experience that rewards multiple examinations and repeat viewings. Beyond being just scary, it's a work of incisive art that reflects back at you what you bring to it. It works at the level of a straightforward theological tale of good versus evil, but it also works as a nonreligious tale of a parent's spiralling terror as their daughter is inhabited by something beyond conventional understanding. Just that visceral, medical body horror, and psychological horror of having a child whose faculties are being slowly replaced by something which is beyond distressing, beyond transgressive, and just the sheer panic of needing to turn anywhere, and place your child's wellbeing in the hands of anyone just for the chance of improving their quickly disintegrating mental state. You watch The Exorcist and you fear for not just the characters, but the actors. After watching The Exorcist the first time I remember asking a friend if Linda Blair needed serious psychological help after putting themselves through that ordeal as an actor. As for The Exorcist III, I would put Brad Dourif's monologues alone against any Alien film. "Show don't tell" is such an often repeated phrase in film and television, yet here is a film that shows you nothing and tells you everything in excruciating levels of slow, deliberate detail, and is all the better because of that fact. All that is contrasted with George C. Scott's firey, ragged, emotionally unhinged performance, as he moves through the film cauterising everyone he touches. And the scares in Alien come from things lurking in the dark, waiting to leap out at you. The Exorcist III says "No!", this is your grandma with dementia in bright lighting, and she's going to crawl along the ceiling and chop your head off with a mortician's giant gardening shears, and they actually make it work! Honestly it would be an excellent film even without the Exorcist name. Basebf555 posted:Yea definitely if you're just gonna watch one make it Exorcist II. How are you going to mention Boorman and not mention Zardoz?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
Did we ever establish which precise Universal Monsters movies are in contention here? It sounds like there's some confusion as to which ones we're talking about, and the whole series is a wide enough net to cover both incredible highs (Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein) and some pretty dull lows (a lot of the sequels to The Mummy are pretty blah, I'm not as keen on any Wolf Man movie, etc.). That said, I have too much personal investment in the Child's Play franchise - as it started as the only horror movie to really scare me as a child to the one consistent horror franchise that I love as an adult - for me to vote against it here. Even for Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:Did we ever establish which precise Universal Monsters movies are in contention here? It sounds like there's some confusion as to which ones we're talking about, and the whole series is a wide enough net to cover both incredible highs (Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein) and some pretty dull lows (a lot of the sequels to The Mummy are pretty blah, I'm not as keen on any Wolf Man movie, etc.). Generally the “Universal Monster” movies are Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, Invisible Man, Wolfman, and Creature from the Black Lagoon, and all the sequels and crossovers involving those. That’s what I’m voting on at least. I’ve also seen the 1943 Phantom of the Opera lumped in. Comes out to about 30 films I believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
Like if you want to include the Invisible Man I don't see why you can't include the Invisible Man Vincent Price is the Invisible Man in the Invisible Man Returns which is a direct sequel to the original The Invisible Man and he reprises the role of the Invisible Man in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, where he appears at the end as the Invisible Man, fortelling their eventual meet up with a different The Invisible Man Basically voting against classic Universal horror is voting against Vincent Goddamn Price as the Invisible Man
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
I continue to believe that just picking all the great movies a movie studio made over nearly 3 decades and deciding they're a franchise separate from the other 50 or so lesser films they made is a giant cheat and in no way, shape, or form fitting for this tournament. Its nonsense. I love Creature From the Black Lagoon but it has absolutely nothing to do and no connection at all to Dracula besides a studio name. Which is how the whole "Larry Talbot Saga" idea was born. The movies that actually do kind of canonically connect with each other. Which I believe we determined was Dracula, Frankenstein, Bride, Dracula's Daughter, Wolfman, Son of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, House of Dracula, House of Frankenstein, and Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein. And in hindsight I think Invisible Man and Invisible Man Returns kind of loosely get looped in technically. I still think that's a cheat and its why I'm debating voting for Chuck. On the weight of the movies there's no question that Dracula, Frankenstein, Bride, Wolf Man, Abbot & Costello, and maybe Invisible Man blow every single franchise in this bracket away. But there's a reason a collection of great movies loosely connected blow away franchises that are actual sequel lines. And Chucky's one of the best of those. I think I'm voting for Chucky.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
I would enjoy seeing a more granular bracket sometime though, as opposed to just "anything Universal made in the 30s" vs. "anything Hammer made that's analogous to what Universal made". I get why we can't have like 6+ entries from each in this bracket, but it is a bit broad the way it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
I'm going to have to disagree with you there for one big reason. Yes, you can discount the Invisible Man films, because no, no one is seriously going to argue their appearance due to a one off gag in Abbott and Costello- but the rest? Frankenstein leads into Bride leads into Son leads into Ghost leads into Meets Wolfman leads into House of, House of and Abbot. Dracula leads into Daughter, wanders near Son, arrives at House of, stumbles into House of, and finally comes back into Abbot. Wolfman leads into Meets, leads into House of, leads into House of, leads into Abbot. While the three tent poles don't converge until House of Frankenstein, arguably until Abbot and Costello if you strictly want actor continuity, what that still definitively leaves you with is Frankenstein, Bride, Son, Ghost, Wolfman, Meets the Wolfman, House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula and Meets Frankenstein And almost definitely includes Dracula and Daughter and probably Son of Dracula Even if you stripped it down to JUST the Frankenstein, they stomp Chuck into the ground. Dracula not as much, but it has the first arguable lesbian vampire in film history, and Bride is arguably the first queer horror film period. Then you factor in the Wolfman which is one of the most efficient, tightly created films in the history of monster making. In an hour and eleven minutes of film, you get the complete tale of a man at the top of life, happy and wealthy and with everything going for him, and his total and complete self destruction through no fault of his own that ends with his mercy killing by his father to try (and fail) to save his soul. You have THE codification of the movie werewolf and its lore presented as naturally and fully formed as anything ever has, that to this day has made its stamp on that monster and is still one of the first things you look to. You have brilliant acting from the usuals and the unusuals, a film where tragedy is king and no one walks away the hero. The Wolfman doesn't have the amazing cinematography of the earlier films, especially Bride, but it stands unique among the trio as being a completely original story that creates a unique, unforgettable movie monster and defines them in a way that others could only imitate or comment on. And then you carry that through into the sequels and you see the character of Larry go from a suicidal wreck in Meets the Wolfman, to someone who knows that even death will not save him in House of Frankenstein, to a man trying just to be cured in House of Dracula, and finally a man who makes peace that he IS a monster, but that won't stop him from trying to hunt the worse monsters that exist out there with every piece of his immortal body. This is why these core films are not 'loosely' tied together. They converge wonderfully and completely into one film franchise by the end and stand unique in horror for doing so. And I'm not even going to go into what makes Bride of Frankenstein one of the flat out best movies in the entire bracket. Chucky is great, I love the Chuck. Chucky is not the Universal Monster Lineage
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:
So I made this into a Letterboxd list and I'm going to try and work through my gaps this week. Let me know if anything is missing! https://letterboxd.com/debbiedoesdagon/list/the-larry-talbot-saga/
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
When we talk about franchises, I feel like impact has to matter. It's part of what elevates Nightmare on Elm Street despite the lovely sequels. The Exorcist is an outstanding movie. If we're discussing best horror movie... I don't know. But my mind immediately jumps to questions like "Is it better than Bride of Franeknstein?" "Is it more important than Texas Chainsaw Massacre?" It's a novel as film, has a great score, but most importantly, provided language that would define an entire genre. But here's the thing, Alien, as a franchise, did that twice. Alien sits in such contrast of the aesthetics of sci/fi. Its closest cousin is 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both films deal with the mechanization of people, but 2001 is a hopeful movie. It's about mankind reclaiming its destiny as seekers and not allowing itself to be dulled by luxury and become tools for machines. Alien offers no such hope. Alien ups the mechanization of people. The crew is represented by blue collar workers, often sleeping away their existence, as they serve a faceless company that in its anonymity is given a level of menace that I'm not sure the Romulans or the Empire ever achieve. They are being secretly monitored by a robot, any agency they feel they have is a lie. They're just a means to an even more perfect efficient mechanized worker. When one of the crew members is raped and gives birth to a monster, the film reveals that this isn't an accident. This is functionally part of the plan. Even the most intimate things like sex and birth are perverted and commodified by the company. This robbing of the natural world is all over the movie with the womb like designs of parts of the ship and Mother as the ship's AI. In short, space travel is not an uplifting force. it's terrifying and fundamentally unnatural. The crew is constantly depicted as childlike in how they awake from their slumbers or in scale to the mysterious alien corpses they find. People get caught up in structure and like to describe Alien as a slasher or haunted house movie. Neither is fully right, but the haunted house description is closest. Alien depicted something fundamentally wrong with the act of going to space, that it possesses a fundamental existential dread. It is a mysterious void that are we are small and insignificant in the face of. It redefined how space could be depicted on film. It also has the greatest movie monster design on film. Then Aliens came around defined what monster movies would be for the rest of the 20th century and beyond. This thread has brought up a lot of stuff that threads the line between action and horror. It's not surprising when the Monster movie has been such a prevalent genre. Monster movies fundamentally have their roots in horror, but they often blend genres. Frankenstein and the Wolfman are closer to gothic tragedies than horror movies at times. Godzilla was discounted despite the OG being very much a horror movie--one that I'd argue is a thematic cousin to Alien. Jaws is more of a thriller. The giant monster movies like Them get thrown into sci/fi. Monsters always sort of throw off questions of what is horror It's often been argued that Alien is a horror movie whereas Aliens is not which is a load of poo poo. The whole trick of Aliens is that you have these soldiers who feel different, like they're not the same as the blue collar workers from Alien. And then they too are hosed over by the Company, finding themselves helpless in the face of something unstoppable. It's definitely horror But I'd argue that Aliens is most importantly a capital M monster movie and defined how monster movies work in modern cinema. Look at Jurassic Park which casts raptors as the big bad over the more traditional giant monsters of Spielberg's childhood to see the huge impact. Jaws was a great attempt at making a modern and actually good monster movie with the more realistic conceit of the killer shark. Aliens comes out in a backdrop of 80s horror movies that are defined by grotesqueness like the Blob or by humor like Gremlins. Aliens presents these monsters that don't have to rely on being gross, funny, or obscured. They are just really, really good monsters who can terrify a grown man with a machine gun as easily as a little girl. The Exorcist sequels are good and more consistent than Alien as a whole, but Alien has TWO of the most influential movies ever made with what might be a perfect monster design. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 19:50 on May 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
I don't know why it should be considered a cheat when you're acknowledging that the movies are in fact in a continuity with each other. Like, in House of Frankenstein when they find Frankenstein, he's right there in the ruins of the castle where we left him after Bride of Frankenstein. Then, in House of Dracula they find him still holding the bones of the doctor who resurrected him in House of Frankenstein. Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein even features Lugosi back in the Dracula role, which puts it in an even stronger continuity with the original Dracula film. So I don't really know where the cheat is. Those movies were legitimately the first on-screen cinematic universe where characters from different films are brought into the same continuity. Edit: Basically everything Burkion just said
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
Burkion posted:I'm going to have to disagree with you there for one big reason. Yes, you can discount the Invisible Man films, because no, no one is seriously going to argue their appearance due to a one off gag in Abbott and Costello- but the rest? I think my problem is its still kind of a loose universe that gives it a big edge over these self contained franchises. Its putting "The MCU" vs "Die Hard." The MCU is obviously a real connected thing but its also kind of apples and oranges. Or, ok, lets look at this way. If Dracula, Frankenstein, and Wolfman are all part of the same entry because they meet up then why don't we hold the same standard to others? Why aren't Jason and Freddy part of the same entry? Why aren't Alien and Predator the same entry? I don't think they should be, but I think it speaks to the kind of arbitrary designation at play here. Which isn't to say its wrong that they're in here or that anyone would vote for them. I absolutely agree that there's a connection and that they're a better collection of films than Chucky. But I also think Chucky is a much truer franchise that has more in common with 62 of the other entries (Conjuring-verse being the lone other exception I can pick out) than the Universals do. And that's what's got me leaning in that direction. Basebf555 posted:I don't know why it should be considered a cheat when you're acknowledging that the movies are in fact in a continuity with each other. Like, in House of Frankenstein when they find Frankenstein, he's right there in the ruins of the castle where we left him after Bride of Frankenstein. Then, in House of Dracula they find him still holding the bones of the doctor who resurrected him in House of Frankenstein. Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein even features Lugosi back in the Dracula role, which puts it in an even stronger continuity with the original Dracula film. Like I said, I think its the difference between "Franchise" and "Universe." There's 62 "franchises" in this tournament. There's 2 "universes." It doesn't feel like everyone's playing by the same rules to me. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
Freddy and Jason aren't because they're in exactly one crossover movie. Unless you count sight gags. You'd have a stronger argument for Predator and ALIEN but that at least plays SUPER fast and loose with continuity. The core Universal films are part of the same franchise because the entire latter portion of their movies are nothing but in continuity crossovers. Meets Wolfman, House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Four different movies in continuity with each other and their prior films. The only odd duck is Dracula since they had a different actor almost all the time but even there, Bella comes back for the last one. There is no Wolfman sequel without the Frankenstein movies. There is no Dracula sequel (with Dracula) without the Wolfman and Frankenstein. And the movies are all directly tied back to Frankenstein, with Meets the Wolfman being a direct continuation of Ghost. That's the difference. Of course Creature doesn't count, nor does Phantom. I'm skeptical of Invisible Man I just made that post as a gag to see how often I could say Invisible Man in one post about the Invisible Man. If every Nightmare movie after Freddy VS involved Jason, or every Jason movie after Freddy VS involved Freddy, or every ALIEN movie after Predator VS involved the Predator, then sure, they'd count. They don't. Mind I'm not sure including the Predator franchise with ALIEN would give it that much of a leg up
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Or, ok, lets look at this way. If Dracula, Frankenstein, and Wolfman are all part of the same entry because they meet up then why don't we hold the same standard to others? Why aren't Jason and Freddy part of the same entry? Why aren't Alien and Predator the same entry? I don't think they should be, but I think it speaks to the kind of arbitrary designation. I think there's a strong argument to be made about Alien/Predator, and personally I'd have rather seen Predator dropped entirely in favor of something like The Howling. Freddy and Jason are just to big to combine, that's all it really is. It would be doing each one a disservice not to give them each their own slot as a #1 seed. I also don't think there's quite enough there to justify combining them, when you've got a throwaway scene in Jason Goes to Hell and then a one-off movie where they actually do meet. It's not much of a continuity when you compare it to Universal, which as at a bare minimum 5 or 6 films that are in direct continuity. Edit: What the hell Burk stop transcribing my brain waves
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Edit: What the hell Burk stop transcribing my brain waves Never
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
Debbie Does Dagon posted:As for The Exorcist III, I would put Brad Dourif's monologues alone against any Alien film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
I'm definitely not arguing that we should have combined Jason and Freddy. I've just always been shaky on the whole Universal/Talbot thing and this is the first time its going up against a franchise that will be genuinely missed when it loses to them. I think I'm making this argument in vain. There's a logical argument to connect the Universal films and they're great movies that blow Chucky and everyone else away. I think they might win this whole thing. But I think if they do it will be BECAUSE the nature of their conglomeration is unique over the other 63 entries not only bringing in the best films of Universal but actually only being connected BECAUSE they were the best films of Universal. They didn't set out to make a shared universe. They crossed over their biggest successes to make more successes. So by its nature its got a huge edge leaning towards good films. Its like, what if all those fantasy of just taking all the 80s monsters like Freddy, Jason, Chucky, Michael, and Pinhead and having them fight Ash Williams actually happened? Except that actually happened in the 30s/40s. Even the Conjuring-verse is actually the opposite. They didn't have success with Annabelle and The Nun and say "hey, lets cross them over". They spun off films off of Conjuring and the Warrens. Its still different from the other 62 entires but its also kind of the exact opposite of how the Larry Talbot Saga happened. Shrecknet wanted impassioned arguments and I guess this is my impassioned argument for Chucky.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Its like, what if all those fantasy of just taking all the 80s monsters like Freddy, Jason, Chucky, Michael, and Pinhead and having them fight Ash Williams actually happened? Except that actually happened in the 30s/40s. Right but that's kinda the point. It did happen in the 30s and 40s and it was loving awesome. That's why they're still celebrated almost 100 years later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Shrecknet posted:It's funny you say that because Brad Dourif literally has one of the most chilling monologues in the Alien franchise. And it's in Alien Resurrection, right? I'd put a loop of the establishing shots from Exorcist III against Resurrection
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:27
|
|