Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«46 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!



Fun Shoe

Off the top of my head Friday Part 2, Part 4, and Part 6 are definitely better than Halloween 4. But sure, Halloween 4 would probably blend in better with Friday the 13th because those movies don't have the enormous shadow of Carpenter hanging over them at all times.

Edit: Friday Part 7 is also definitely better than Halloween 4.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


^ Oh haaaaaai ^

Friday the 13ths just really, really aren't as bad of movies as people try to paint them. They're genuinely better acted and better shot than people remember, but Parts 2, 4, and 6 are GOOD movies. Part 6 is up there with Dream Warriors and Child's Play 2.

And beyond that... there just isn't one that is boring or doesn't have good kills or is at least really engaging. Like even the definitive worse one, Jason Goes to Hell, has a fun start and tries to be some weird Evil Dead fan fiction.

This thread is driving me insane though. Half of the people in this thread are going off of tired stereotypes of what Friday is and the other half is claiming they're better than a franchise that has three of the most important movies ever made.

Shrecknet
Jan 2, 2005

Nosferatu Enthusiast
@shrecknet


Just a reminder, neither F13 nor Romeros Living dead are being voted on or discussed currently

TrixRabbi
Aug 20, 2010

Time for a little robot chauvinism!



I think the only way to settle this is by ranking the Friday the 13th movies.

MacheteZombie
Feb 4, 2007




I could be swayed either way on ED and NoES. I love both franchises so much

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!



Fun Shoe

I'm gonna rewatch a few NOES sequels to see if my vote may change. Specifically Dream Master and Dream Child, because I've only seen them maybe once or twice each over the years and it's possible my opinion could be different now.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I don't accept that Halloween sequels are EVER Friday the 13th ripoffs (except Resurrection, which 100% a Friday the 13th movie) not because the quality of them are so great (they're not) but because the Halloween sequels all have two things Jason never has. Loomis and a Strode. The Friday the 13th movies never even care about establishing their final girls or giving anyone real character or purpose beyond "they're unknowingly in the path of a rampaging monster but it should take an hour for him to get here." With the rough exception of Tommy (who is a bigger mess of continuity than Jamie) its all just Jason kill fests. But Halloween always at least tries to hold to that core of Loomis and the Strodes giving you foils and sympathetic victims and such. Its the exact reason why I find the Jason movies so completely unwatchable. There's absolutely nothing to them besides cheering at Jason slaughtering people and the occasional thing so bad you can laugh at it.

Like half the reason I think Jason X is one of the "better" Friday movies is because Lexa Doig plays an ACTUAL protagonist/final girl. That basically never happens in the franchise.

Timeless Appeal posted:

Friday the 13th is a mess of a franchise and it's insane that not only did it beat Universal but implicitly beat Child's Play. Like I can gently caress with people who voted for Child's Play over Universal... but I really cannot fathom people who went with Universal over Chucky and then went with Friday over Universal.

BUT... I'm going to be real with you, I might vote for Friday the 13th over Halloween. It's not just that Friday is consistent, each film is pretty memorable that strengthens it as a good franchise. Like you can poo poo on Jason X or Jason Takes Manhattan, but each film sticks with you and has a clear identity in way the Halloween sequels don't to me. 2, 4, and 5's greatest sin in my mind is that they feel very bland. They're competent potboilers. No one's arguing that Halloween should have lost to Tremors or that Halloween is not an important and incredible movie.
I can respect this argument. As much as I love the Halloween franchise even I kind of blend 4 and 5 together in my head. Like, if you just don't like them, that's cool. I don't agree that the Friday movies stick out. To me they're exactly as bland as you describe the Halloween movies as and those things you talk about making them stand out are just lazy gimmicks. Its like when you were a kid and they sold your favorite toy in 10 different suits. It was always the same toy, they just put him in a parka and gave him a new gun and made more money.

Timeless Appeal posted:

Let's also call this out, Halloween as a franchise is also constantly embarrassed by itself, rebooting itself multiple times. How are you taking a franchise seriously that has twice said itself that the majority of its films are poo poo? Why are you voting for something that literally tells you ignore most of it and then twenty years later tells you to ignore the last movie that told you to ignore most of the movies, but still ignore those other movies?
This seems entirely unfair to me. Horror franchises up and down do this especially as they go on through decades and and studios want to revive them for new generations. You can't honestly tell me the Friday the 13th continuity makes sense. I'd try and reason out how many times it was "rebooted" but the reality is nothing means anything from one movie to the next. Once again Friday is blessed by having such low standards that you don't notice. Halloween DOES try to hold continuity so its many stumbles and clumsy actions stand out. Friday just never gives a drat from the start and does whatever it wants so you can't only enjoy them if you don't care.

Which again... is fine if you like that but its clear to be that Friday is held by a different sent of standards than the rest.

STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 21:02 on May 20, 2020

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


STAC Goat posted:

This seems entirely unfair to me. Horror franchises up and down do this especially as they go on through decades and and studios want to revive them for new generations. You can't honestly tell me the Friday the 13th continuity makes sense. I'd try and reason out how many times it was "rebooted" but the reality is nothing means anything from one movie to the next. Once again Friday is blessed by having such low standards that you don't notice. Halloween DOES try to hold continuity so its many stumbles and clumsy actions stand out. Friday just never gives a drat from the start and does whatever it wants so you can't only enjoy them if you don't care.

Which again... is fine if you like that but its clear to be that Friday is held by a different sent of standards than the rest.
Oh, don't get me wrong... Friday the 13th continuity is a hot mess. The timeline changes in Part I to sort of move up when Jason "drowned," although most people miss that detail, retconning parts of Part 1. 2-4 technically take place during the same few days, but also... that doesn't make sense? Tommy is living in the 90s with the time-jump. BUT...

In terms of reboot? Goes to Hell, Jason X, and Freddy vs aren't so much reboots as they are the first time the series actually says "gently caress it" and stops worrying about continuity. They're not really telling you to ignore stuff, but to just go with it.

The first eight movies are all pretty direct sequels to each other and do deal with Jason as he was last left. His mask even maintains damage through eight. He dies in part 4 and they really do stick with it. He's not in V, becomes a Frankenstein in VI and is arguably a zombie throughout the rest of the movies. Like he straight up changes what monster he is, going from killbilly to frankenzombie.

I'm struggling to think of any other franchise that is as apologetic about itself. Like even with New Nightmare, Craven has a chip on his shoulder about the sequels, but I think Craven arrives on the mascotizing of Freddy being a sort of natural process.

Halloween H20 and Halloween '18 were both sold on the premise of you really should ignore the other sequels, here is the true follow up. I like both of those movie enough, but I kind of struggle to think of another franchise that didn't just poo poo on itself, but did so twice.

And look, I DON'T EVEN THINK we should even be having this discussion. It should be TCM vs Universal.

EDIT: Also, calling bullshit on the X is the first time Friday has a good female protagonist. Ginny is dope as hell.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 22:03 on May 20, 2020

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Timeless Appeal posted:

Oh, don't get me wrong... Friday the 13th continuity is a hot mess. The timeline changes in Part I to sort of move up when Jason "drowned," although most people miss that detail, retconning parts of Part 1. 2-4 technically take place during the same few days, but also... that doesn't make sense? Tommy is living in the 90s with the time-jump. BUT...

In terms of reboot? Goes to Hell, Jason X, and Freddy vs aren't so much reboots as they are the first time the series actually says "gently caress it" and stops worrying about continuity. They're not really telling you to ignore stuff, but to just go with it.

The first eight movies are all pretty direct sequels to each other and do deal with Jason as he was last left. His mask even maintains damage through eight. He dies in part 4 and they really do stick with it. He's not in V, becomes a Frankenstein in VI and is arguably a zombie throughout the rest of the movies. Like he straight up changes what monster he is, going from killbilly to frankenzombie.

Well that's my point. Halloween tries to keep a hard continuity with consistent characters so when it changes courses its a hard "reboot" or "retcon" where suddenly Jamie never existed or Laurie never got killed. Because they did have all that story and carryover character it makes those things standout more and become something that HAVE to be addressed and defined as a reboot/retcon and its jarring to anyone who tried to invest.

Where they could just make a Friday the 13th movie in 2021 and call it a direct sequel to the line and do whatever they want and like, no one could really dispute that because the continuity of the character and franchise is such a nonsensical mess and there's no characters or story to carry over anyway so sure... everything's a sequel except the one where Jason gets high. You can do whatever you want because Jason exists for whatever reason you want him to and he already slaughtered all his baggage at the door anyway.

So like, do I get the idea that the Halloween franchise is jarring to some continuity wise? Absolutely. But do I think that's really all that rare for long multi-decade horror franchises? Not at all. You just brought up TCM and doesn't that franchise do the exact same thing the Halloween one does? They reboot the entire thing in '03 and then in '13 they decide to ignore that and go back to the original continuity but tell you to ignore all the sequels. But in their case once again there's no real carry over in characters and story besides Leatherface so its not that big a deal. There's no Loomis, Laurie, or Jamie to deal with.

So yeah, I think its totally common for Halloween to be a franchise that has existed through 5 decades and became a continuity and reboot/retcon mess. Nightmare did it. TCM did it. Jason did in in its second film. Evil Dead is a mess and its only 3 films. We've all seen the Night of the Living Dead sequel chart. Part of what makes Chucky so unique is how HARD Don Mancini has worked to try and make the films match up and hold continuity and even that has a reboot. What makes Halloween unique from most of these franchises is that it tried harder than most to give its characters and stories weight and a place in the films over the monster. Which makes sense considering Carpenter didn't even want Micheal to make it to the second film.

If you wanna judge it for aiming higher and stumbling, fair enough. But the only reason a franchise like Jason doesn't have the same problems (and it too got rebooted and retconned and whatever you'd call its continuity) is because it never actually tried (outside of maybe that one time with Tommy which was a mess).

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I think you're misunderstanding my criticism. I'm not arguing for solid continuity or speaking against reboots.

When H20 came out, it came out with the selling point that only the first two Halloweens counted and this was some end of a trilogy. Then Halloween '18 came out and said nothing else counted. There's just a big difference between that and having insane continuity or doing what Jason X does and say, "Hey, don't worry about it." H20 and H'18 eradicate most of the franchise with the implication that those movies were bad.

I'm arguing that Halloween as a franchise has communicated twice to the audience that most of the movies are poo poo. Meanwhile, Friday the 13th like halfway into the series is like, "Yeah, he's a zombie now, let's roll with it."

But look man, one of us led a campaign against Universal that got us in this mess to begin with.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



No I understand your point. I'm saying that's not Halloween "being ashamed of itself." That's the studio wanting to make more money off of a successful franchise. But because Halloween has so much story and character baggage when Kevin Williamson shows up and says "I want to make a Scream Halloween sequel where Sidney Laurie is older and in hiding" they have to deal with the fact that Laurie is supposed to be dead and had a daughter who also died and had a kid and something about a cult, etc. But like in most cases horror franchises don't have that kind of baggage because they don't have that kind of continuity. Unless they're made by Don Mancini. But TCM does the same "forget the sequels" thing and Friday and Nightmare both got reboots. Every franchise has studios trying to cash in and wipe the slate clean to sell it to a new generation.

Timeless Appeal posted:

But look man, one of us led a campaign against Universal that got us in this mess to begin with.

This is fair and I am ashamed. I'll go back in my corner.

Burkion
May 10, 2012

Changeman! And Not A Moment Too Soon!


STAC Goat posted:

I don't accept that Halloween sequels are EVER Friday the 13th ripoffs (except Resurrection, which 100% a Friday the 13th movie) not because the quality of them are so great (they're not) but because the Halloween sequels all have two things Jason never has. Loomis and a Strode. The Friday the 13th movies never even care about establishing their final girls or giving anyone real character or purpose beyond "they're unknowingly in the path of a rampaging monster but it should take an hour for him to get here." With the rough exception of Tommy (who is a bigger mess of continuity than Jamie) its all just Jason kill fests. But Halloween always at least tries to hold to that core of Loomis and the Strodes giving you foils and sympathetic victims and such. Its the exact reason why I find the Jason movies so completely unwatchable. There's absolutely nothing to them besides cheering at Jason slaughtering people and the occasional thing so bad you can laugh at it.

So I'm not going to go into why this is objectively wrong, as it is incredibly so, and instead focus on one thing.

Tommy makes total sense, far more than Jamie, and is exactly the kind of continuity character you were asking for.

He was a little kid who did a hosed up thing and saw hosed up things and got hosed up and then he went to a hosed up place as a teenager/young adult, got shoved into hosed up things again and again and nearly snapped. Then he got some proper help and decided to put his past behind him and accidentally brought his nightmare back to life.

The main thing is that we don't see him go from B to C, but you can say the same drat thing about Jamie. And unlike Jamie, Tommy doesn't get raped by Jason off screen so they can have an incest baby because a voodoo cult of bullshitters and old people want that to be a thing.

Timeless Appeal posted:


This thread is driving me insane though. Half of the people in this thread are going off of tired stereotypes of what Friday is and the other half is claiming they're better than a franchise that has three of the most important movies ever made.
I stand on record as having said none of these things. By every metric and right Universal should have won the tournament- but Jason is Jason, and Jason's gonna Jason.

SomeJazzyRat
Nov 2, 2012

Hmmm...


It's poetic that Jason is destroying everything I love, but also I don't necessarily mind watching him do it.

[spoilers]That is correct, one of the things I love is Uwe Boll's Bloodrayne.[/spoilers]

Shrecknet
Jan 2, 2005

Nosferatu Enthusiast
@shrecknet


Bloodraynes final 5 minutes are exactly like a complete dissociative episode and if David Lynch directed it (or Use Boll knew what he was doing whhen he did it) y'all would call it genius

BisonDollah
Feb 9, 2010

To me, it was Tuesday.

C U Next Tuesday


I really like the Friday the 13th and it hurts my feelings people hate it so much.

I watched Halloween 5 and 6 tonight, boy Michael Myers really should have just been the one film. Six is very nineties, it was fun to see Paul Rudd WHO LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME because he is IRL a vampire but the plot felt like it was doing what that laser net did to the guy in Resident Evil.



Why is Paul Rudd running around with a random loving baby? Why is SPY V SPY hanging out in a kids closet? What's this about stars aligning? A CULT, really? So Halloween is banned in the town and it's like Footloose WHAT? Fzshht. This movie is mince.

Halloween 5 I found very enjoyable because it had that guy with the car who was a prick and it had Dr. Loomis literally shouting and screaming at a mute 10 year old girl (who looked legit terrified btw). Oh, and a Michael tear.

Oh and I'm currently writing a defence of snottery weird joker kid A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET but I am erratic at the best of times so I am prepared for noone to read it and silently hold it against you all when it's beaten by the school jock EVIL DEAD.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



In 6's minor defense its partly the victim of a studio recut to try and "modernize" it away from the Carpenter/Halloween vibe and to that very dated 90s vibe.

But like there's still a bizarre rapey incest cult at the core of the Director's Cut.

I stand by the idea of Haddonfield banning Halloween though. To me the two best things in Halloween continuity are that time Michael came for Jamie and the entire town of drunks heard cop sirens on Halloween and said "FUCKER IS BACK! GET YOUR GUNS!" and that like 20 years later Haddonfield's gone all "No! No Halloween! We're done with this poo poo!"

They're not healthy responses, but they are very human ones.

STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 20:45 on May 21, 2020

Franchescanado
Feb 23, 2013


If it wasn't for disappointment,
I wouldn't have any appointment.





Grimey Drawer

There is definitely a missed opportunity in a Halloween sequel never fully diving in to the idea of Haddonfield banning Halloween and kids doing underground Halloween parties and stuff. Would have coincided with the decline of Halloween in the 00's. Plus, Michael's favorite holiday has to be Halloween, right? So if he's stalking the streets of a town that's banned it, it would be more like the original film of the psychopath invading quiet neighborhoods after hours. Plus, I love the idea that a town's solution to their macabre history is repression of a national holiday instead of any internal exploration of acceptance. Like a reverse Salem, MA.

Now it'd be a little silly, since Halloween is now more popular than ever in many ways, thanks to adults (80's and 90's kids) never giving up the ghost, plus costume companies and Halloween season pop-up stores creating a business model that works with the three months a year schedule.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



To me its the exact opposite to the thought I had of "Why do people keep camping near Crystal Lake?"

I agree, Halloween didn't go far enough with it because there are a lot of fun ways it could have gone. But I liked just the basic acknowledgment of the franchise that people recognized the pattern and were freaking the gently caress out.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Yeah, but that thought doesn't really carry when you watch the movies.

There is five years between Part 1 and Part 2. Parts 2, 3 and 4 are all happening back to back. There are at least like ten years between 4 and 6, the next time there is an actual Jason murder. Part 8 isn't even camping. Part 9 is an FBI sting and the next two Jason movies don't really involve the camp.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I don't know, I feel like if there was a massive murder spree in a place, and 5 years some guy slaughtered like 50 people in the same place, and then a few years later a copycat killer killed another dozen, and then a few years later supposedly the main guy killed another poo poo ton of people... Something's hosed up in Crystal Lake.

Its not like a "tactical realism" criticism. Of course i don't think its "logical" for a local town or county to make preparations in case a zombie serial killer returns. Its just a silly feeling you get with these franchises when you keep going back to the same well over and over. So I liked that the Halloween franchise at least lampshaded that by having the town all lose their minds and go survivalist when Michael returns. Genuinely my favorite part of the Friday franchise is when the FBI set up the sting because I just laughed and yelled "FINALLY!"

BisonDollah
Feb 9, 2010

To me, it was Tuesday.

C U Next Tuesday


Halloween H20 is quite watchable and fun, it's been a whole while since I watched it and this is the first time I was seriously tickled that Janet Leigh was in it, that she drives the car from Psycho and theres a little nod to the Psycho score as she wanders off. That was delightful.



If Halloween was up against anything but Lecter (great TV series, one fine movie, one great movie, load of old bollocks with the rest) then it might have been voted against. Not this time.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



H20 is fine and it excels when its Laurie vs Michael. That scene of when they finally come face to face again through the glass door is loving awesome.

The problem with H20 (besides the reboot stuff if that bothers you) is that its the same basic movie Kevin Williamson was making left and right and if you squint a little bit you can clearly see a Scream sequel with some names and castings changed.

But like that's probably not really a problem 20 years later when the Williamson era of horror is long gone and you're just judging it against the other Halloween sequels. And if you don't have like a pathological hatred of Kevin Williamson like some silly people who shall remain nameless.

Jedit
Dec 10, 2011

Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

Proudly supporting the Lowtax Spine Fund 2018-19


Timeless Appeal posted:

I kind of struggle to think of another franchise that didn't just poo poo on itself, but did so twice.

The Terminator has done it three times. T3 shits on the end of T2, Sarah Connor Chronicles isn't in the same continuity as T3, and Dark Fate ignores everything past T2.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Jedit posted:

The Terminator has done it three times. T3 shits on the end of T2, Sarah Connor Chronicles isn't in the same continuity as T3, and Dark Fate ignores everything past T2.
I'd argue that Dark Fate is the first time they implicitly admit previous films were bad though.

I agree that Terminator 3 does gently caress up the glorious ending of Terminator 2, but it does so it can superficially try to recreate the magic of 2 while ignoring the fact the story already had a satisfactory conclusion... more similar to Halloween 4.

TrixRabbi
Aug 20, 2010

Time for a little robot chauvinism!



I recently rewatched Terminator and T2 and I have a theory that the reason there's never been another truly good one (I know some folks like T3 just fine) is that Cameron really did just say everything that could be said with that series. Like T2 ends so perfectly, it gives you everything you could want and ends with the most satisfactory image possible. There's really nowhere else to go from there, and yeah, it gets tiresome when the sequels have to just be "oh no, Skynet sent a Terminator back in time -- again!" And what Salvation missed is that the human/robot war was always a hit of a McGuffin, a plot point that is more interesting when it's only seen in flashes and hinted at than actually witnessed full length. Like, I don't know what else that universe could possibly do that would build on anything in the first two films.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Terminator 2 is amazing because the first film is this causality loop where everything is destined to happened and you can't change the future because the future already happened.

And then 2 is like, "But what if you just did chose to do something different to change the loop?" It's this beautiful story about freewill overcoming the universe itself and any retread or Judgement Day happening regardless is super depressing.

Class3KillStorm
Feb 17, 2011





Timeless Appeal posted:

Terminator 2 is amazing because the first film is this causality loop where everything is destined to happened and you can't change the future because the future already happened.

And then 2 is like, "But what if you just did chose to do something different to change the loop?" It's this beautiful story about freewill overcoming the universe itself and any retread or Judgement Day happening regardless is super depressing.

Every Terminator movie should exist to invalidate the previous one, from a thematic point of view. T1 is all about destiny born via a closed causal loop, T2 says that isn't true and you decide your fate in the moment, T3 says you can only delay the inevitable. The nature of the premise means that the series should be in a constant dialogue with itself, both on basic mechanics and the philosophy inherent to that. The problem with the later sequels is that they have no real underlying philosophical bent - beyond "would this look cool?" and "would looking cool make me money?" - that they end up being super forgettable.

Back on topic, I'm not sure that a constant revisionism for the Halloween series is necessarily a bad thing. I don't know how you could continue the story through the whole "Cult of Thorn" nonsense from Part 6, so stepping back and ignoring that whole branch only benefits them. Especially since H20 is meant to be about the revisiting of past traumas, and how they can dominate your present. (Halloween '18 starts from a similar premise, so also benefits by the dismissal of extraneous storylines to get to the thematic meat of the story. Really, here that just means eliding H20 and Resurrection, and I don't think anyone is too broken up about losing the latter.)

Lurdiak
Feb 25, 2006

I believe in a universe that doesn't care, and people that do.


Class3KillStorm posted:

Every Terminator movie should exist to invalidate the previous one, from a thematic point of view.

That immediately runs into problems if one of them is bad.

Shrecknet
Jan 2, 2005

Nosferatu Enthusiast
@shrecknet


https://twitter.com/Blackmudpuppy/s...282312658898945

We have failed our Cinderella story

BisonDollah
Feb 9, 2010

To me, it was Tuesday.

C U Next Tuesday


So I feel like A Nightmare on Elm Street is in real danger of being knocked out by Evil Dead which has compelled me to write words. Here is the VOTE NOW! poll if you feel like reconsidering.



Wes Craven's original dream killer idea is massive. A place where nightmare and reality are the same; shared by a youth placed in the idealistic American suburban bedroom. Something inherently visual - an idea that can tap into our daily lives and our subconscious fear of death to scare the poo poo out of us. This is the giant of Wes Craven's career that he will be remembered for.

ďWes Cravenís purpose in ANoES is to create a scene of complete psychological disorientation, to make the nightmare state coexist with reality. He accomplishes this by systematically eliminating the conventional signposts that help us to separate the physical from the metaphysical, the real from the fantastic, the moral from the heinousĒ. - Douglas L. Rathbeg (Bogeyman from the Id).

The psychology associated with dreams becomes the perfect fodder for fear. The use of dream logic allows audiences to accept the time-jumps, body morphing and bizarre architecture (mmm that mise-en-FREAKscene feels so logical) inherent to Freddy movies because who out there HASN'T had a dream where they are the Wizard Master? Dreams are trojan horses for our darkest fears and a horror series was created here that not only presented a dreamworld that took full advantage of that; but also gave us a child killer in sunglasses playing Nintendo, bitch.



A Nightmare on Elm Street is obviously a cultural phenomenon, Freddy Krueger is about as much of a house-hold name as Armitage Shanks and we all know the series as a campy affair about a wise-cracking over the top murderer. Zany ideas, gross SFX and one-liners coming from a character you were more likely to see as a brand than in a movie theatre; and all the while the public perception of real-life killers seemed to dominate the news cycles of the late 1980ís (and actual nightmares) of Western society. A perception that Freddy was for kids took hold, especially once Hannibal Lecter and the thriller horror genre got kudos from critics and award judges. Not many will deny the Krueger marketing phenom was mostly cheap and over-exposed the series but I donít think the whole picture is painted there. Freddy being king of slasher mountain allowed some of the most loving crazy ideas in big budget cinema to come to life and that made horror and movies a much richer place.



Where other breakthrough horror films of the slasher era were using the idyllic American suburbs as a setting for the multiple stabbings that would unfold - ANoES takes this setting and just straight blows up the generational war between Gen X and their boomer parents. Kids suffering helplessly because of decisions made by their parents, huh? TOPICAL 2020. In dreams the kids could learn to become what they always wanted... that is until Freddy figured out an ironic way to dice them up. The final girl became a home invasion expert and then a psychologist who was the bridge between generations and taught others how to fight back.



I donít think the ANoES series is equivalent to the big hair 1980ís rock bands that had to be swept away by the more rooted-in-reality hip grunge revolution led by Lecter and Ghostface. Perhaps the era of CGI helped nail Freddy down for a few years - only for a pretty sweet outing vs. Jason. The cynicism works for me only so far. It's a shame ANoES isn't celebrated more widely for the trash art it is, the stink of capitalism may be too much to bear for some, I get it. What is amazing is that compared to other, more beloved series, the ANoES series stitches the history of Freddy Krueger, dream powers and hell demons coherently together. Each entry in the series are shining examples of an indie studio propping up young creative talent and allowing them the freedom (and most importantly budget) to throw the sickest practical effects that they could think of at the wall. It was a wild ride.

BisonDollah fucked around with this message at 16:16 on May 24, 2020

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


As much as Freddy is the greatest horror villain, I think that Nancy/Heather might be the greatest horror heroine. Sidney and Laurie are definitely up there, but I do enjoy 1, Dream Warriors, and New Nightmare as a little Nancy Trilogy.

Shrecknet
Jan 2, 2005

Nosferatu Enthusiast
@shrecknet


Timeless Appeal posted:

As much as Freddy is the greatest horror villain, I think that Nancy/Heather might be the greatest horror heroine. Sidney and Laurie are definitely up there, but I do enjoy 1, Dream Warriors, and New Nightmare as a little Nancy Trilogy.

So you're changing your vote from Evil Dead?

i can't see who voted for what

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Shrecknet posted:

So you're changing your vote from Evil Dead?

i can't see who voted for what
I already did. Evil Dead's consistency is just incredibly inflated. The original is messy, flawed, and doesn't really appeal to new viewers from my experience. 2 and Army of Darkness have real highs, but I think people think of those films in terms of a best of clip show. AoD in particular drags a bit. I stand by finding the surprise sex scene being a knock and in general I'm not particularly down with ladies in the series. The Hail to the King ending isn't as fun for me, but there is some baggage I bring with that.

I also get confused when people were defending the tree scene by saying it's disturbing because I've never found Evil Dead scary.

A Nightmare on Elm Street and Dream Warriors are better movies despite their flaws. And I think you get two iconic characters with Freddy and Nancy/Heather versus the one iconic hero in Ash who isn't even really Ash until the sequel. Also 2 and New Nightmare are good. But I just have a greater fondness for Nightmare despite wishing more interesting series like Scream had taken it down.

But man this poo poo is a huge bummer if it's just Freddy vs Jason.

TheBizzness
Oct 5, 2004

It's the smiles that keep us going. The bits of giggles and good cheer.



I personally think the first Evil Dead has timeless appeal.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Every time I watch it I expect it to be a real bad movie that I only have nostalgic love for considering everything that came from it, but then I'm always kind of surprised by how much I sincerely enjoy it.

TheBizzness
Oct 5, 2004

It's the smiles that keep us going. The bits of giggles and good cheer.



All 3 films are pretty great as is the series but the first Evil Dead is my favorite and I vehemently disagree that itís not scary (to people who can be scared by movies still) or that it isnít capable of sucking in new viewers.

Every time I watch it Iím blown way by how good it is with such a tiny budget.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I think Army of Darkness is probably my least favorite for the same reason that it was my favorite when I was a teenager. Its just very sophomoric. Which like, the whole series is but AoD is it at its most... unsophisticated.

Also Evil Dead '13 is a great movie and Ash vs Evil Dead is a PERFECT series.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


TheBizzness posted:

All 3 films are pretty great as is the series but the first Evil Dead is my favorite and I vehemently disagree that itís not scary (to people who can be scared by movies still) or that it isnít capable of sucking in new viewers.

Every time I watch it Iím blown way by how good it is with such a tiny budget.
I think every time I have shared Evil Dead with someone it has been a huge flop and that includes my wife who had a blast watching most of the Friday the 13ths with me. And it's always the same reaction that it is boring. That included one roommate who had such intense nightmares that in college, she would have to wake me up to hangout.

I mean don't get me wrong, i have nostalgia and love for it too even if it doesn't always work for me. But I never found it that scary and for the most part I just wish I was watching Evil Dead 2. It's not BAD and I'd argue it's a very important horror movie on multiple levels.

But for me, I think Evil Dead feels very time and place whereas I'm going to be watching Dream Warriors till I die.

ALSO, do, and this is legitimate question that I'm asking too late, but do songs count? Because Freddy has the best songs.

Fat Boys and Dokken.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 12:46 on May 25, 2020

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I'll allow songs if we also allow toys. Beat Ashy Slashy.



edit:
gently caress, I can't believe I'm arguing against Nightmare. I hate myself so much.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BisonDollah
Feb 9, 2010

To me, it was Tuesday.

C U Next Tuesday


Sam Raimi reminds me a fair bit of William Castle in so far as they both made very entertaining horrors (and films that are rightly beloved forever in the horror canon) they really got their kicks from comedy and goofing around. A little piece of me feels like they cheated a little - Wes Craven is sweet and sincere and his dream baby deserves all the votes.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«46 »