I kinda like Horror sequels..........so crucify me!
Justin Kerswell
It's true (shameful as it may be), I can't help liking a lot of
horror sequels. Before you all start sharpening your shears let me say a
few things in my defense....
(a) The films that are sequelized were never great art. They
were made for money, pure and simple....cynical as it that seems it's
true I'm afraid.....Sequels are only made because the demand *is* there.
Chas Balun once said "...the only thing that would kill Jason would be
lousy box office."
'Friday the 13th' and 'Halloween' (as good as they are) were
not made by the type of people who frequent this group. They were made
by people out to make as much money as possible and advertise their
talents through what the industry still regards as a bargain basement
genre......So, I don't see any reason to be so precious about these
films- if they hadn't been sequelized to death it is arguable that they
would be so well known today.
(b) What's wrong with having the same story told time and time
again (with a few twists). Horror certainly isn't the only genre to have
rampaging sequelitis......how many frigging James Bond movies have there
been (all carbon copies of each other)?......every animated Disney movie
has the same feel and variations on the cutesy dancing teapot/fluffy
woodland creature/gargoyle etc....Where's all the bitchin' about George
Lucas thrusting not one, not two but *three* new 'Star Wars' films on
us?....Sci-Fi can get away with inflicting interchangable and
predictably monotonous 'Star-Trek' movies on us with barely a murmour of
discontent.....
(c) If everyone is so fecked off with carbon-copy horror sequels
then why all the bitchin' about the Meyers-less 'Halloween III'?.....( I
must admit I liked it, and would have stood a much better critical
chance if it hadn't been part of the series.)
(d) Don't get me wrong I'm not championing piss-poor horror
(even I found it a chore to sit through 'Sleepaway Camp 2 & 3 !), but I
do like my 'comfort horror' now and again.....Sometimes I want to be
challenged by what I watch whether it be Borowczyk's 'Docteur Jekyll et
les Femmes' or 'Combat Shock'. Other times I like revelling in cliche,
knowing what is going to happen and when. I like turning my brain off
and veging out with a gin 'n' tonic in front of some slasher sequel. As
long as my brain goes back on afterwards I don't see anything wrong with
that.....
(e) The scourge of the horror sequel is hardly a new
one.....they've been churning them out since the 30's.
(f) The chances of new, confrontational and original horror films
making it to the multi-plexes is slim. The days of excess in mainstream
cinema is long gone.....no way would a 'Last House..' or 'Dawn of the
Dead' gain a wide release, let alone a certificate these days. 'The
Exorcist' would *never* get made now as it was back in the early
70's......I'm getting off the point here, but yes I too mourn the
passing of those days. But, I find no shame in admitting I like 'comfort
horror' as well as enjoying the decadent films of yester-year.
(g) Hopefully with the advent of the post-modern horror (and more
specifically 'slasher') film- these sequels can be viewed with a more
ironic eye.
(h) Like I said before, I don't love all horror sequels
indiscriminatly. (I can't stand 'ROTLD2' either (bag of shite)).
But I may be warped, I may have some unrecognised psychiatric dis-order,
it's just I can't help having a soft spot for the slasher sequels, as
tired and goreless as they may be. And yes, I am looking forward to
'H20', 'IKWYDLS2' and (hot on the heels of it's triumphant US
release...) 'Scream 2' (out May 1st in the UK).
(i) I just think it's a shame they never got round to doing
sequels to 'The Burning' or 'The Dorm That Dripped Blood'.....;)
OK......bring on the instruments of torture!
--
Justin Kerswell
Blinkem X
In article <MoRu3CAa...@south-over.demon.co.uk>, Justin Kerswell
<jus...@south-over.demon.co.uk> writes:
>It's true (shameful as it may be), I can't help liking a lot of
>horror sequels. Before you all start sharpening your shears let me say a
>few things in my defense....
>
> (a) The films that are sequelized were never great art. They
>were made for money, pure and simple....cynical as it that seems it's
>true I'm afraid.....Sequels are only made because the demand *is* there.
>Chas Balun once said "...the only thing that would kill Jason would be
>lousy box office."
> 'Friday the 13th' and 'Halloween' (as good as they are) were
>not made by the type of people who frequent this group. They were made
>by people out to make as much money as possible and advertise their
>talents through what the industry still regards as a bargain basement
>genre......So, I don't see any reason to be so precious about these
>films- if they hadn't been sequelized to death it is arguable that they
>would be so well known today.
i do agree with that one...sequels are made to make money and not for the
movie's sake...of course it is really bad to enjoy a movie that is really well
done followed up by a pile of shit...
> (b) What's wrong with having the same story told time and time
>again (with a few twists). Horror certainly isn't the only genre to have
>rampaging sequelitis......how many frigging James Bond movies have there
>been (all carbon copies of each other)?......every animated Disney movie
>has the same feel and variations on the cutesy dancing teapot/fluffy
>woodland creature/gargoyle etc....Where's all the bitchin' about George
>Lucas thrusting not one, not two but *three* new 'Star Wars' films on
>us?....Sci-Fi can get away with inflicting interchangable and
>predictably monotonous 'Star-Trek' movies on us with barely a murmour of
>discontent.....
only comment here is the george lucas one...he is supposed to do three others
because that has always been the plan...the star wars movies have always been
going to be six movies...he's just finishing up what he started years ago...so
i think that argument is null and void
> (c) If everyone is so fecked off with carbon-copy horror sequels
>then why all the bitchin' about the Meyers-less 'Halloween III'?.....( I
>must admit I liked it, and would have stood a much better critical
>chance if it hadn't been part of the series.)
no comment...movie sucked, acting sucked...hey...was that a comment?
> (d) Don't get me wrong I'm not championing piss-poor horror
>(even I found it a chore to sit through 'Sleepaway Camp 2 & 3 !), but I
>do like my 'comfort horror' now and again.....Sometimes I want to be
>challenged by what I watch whether it be Borowczyk's 'Docteur Jekyll et
>les Femmes' or 'Combat Shock'. Other times I like revelling in cliche,
>knowing what is going to happen and when. I like turning my brain off
>and veging out with a gin 'n' tonic in front of some slasher sequel. As
>long as my brain goes back on afterwards I don't see anything wrong with
>that.....
>
> (e) The scourge of the horror sequel is hardly a new
>one.....they've been churning them out since the 30's.
but does that make it right?
> (f) The chances of new, confrontational and original horror films
>making it to the multi-plexes is slim. The days of excess in mainstream
>cinema is long gone.....no way would a 'Last House..' or 'Dawn of the
>Dead' gain a wide release, let alone a certificate these days. 'The
>Exorcist' would *never* get made now as it was back in the early
>70's......I'm getting off the point here, but yes I too mourn the
>passing of those days. But, I find no shame in admitting I like 'comfort
>horror' as well as enjoying the decadent films of yester-year.
granted...to an extent...
> (g) Hopefully with the advent of the post-modern horror (and more
>specifically 'slasher') film- these sequels can be viewed with a more
>ironic eye.
>
> (h) Like I said before, I don't love all horror sequels
>indiscriminatly. (I can't stand 'ROTLD2' either (bag of shite)).
>But I may be warped, I may have some unrecognised psychiatric dis-order,
>it's just I can't help having a soft spot for the slasher sequels, as
>tired and goreless as they may be. And yes, I am looking forward to
>'H20', 'IKWYDLS2' and (hot on the heels of it's triumphant US
>release...) 'Scream 2' (out May 1st in the UK).
i'm sorry...i will say a prayer for you that you dont die of boredom during
these movies...
BlinkemX
"Captain who?--Captain Howdy...you know, I make the questions and he does the
answers"~~Linda Blair (The Exorcist)
~~http://members.aol.com/blinklives/blinkem/index.htm~~
Gentleman-X
While I can't confirm that Lucas always intended to make six "Star
Wars" movies, I don't know, but it's a safe assumption to say that at
least a factor of the reason why he's making three more is because of
money. Case in point: The re-issue of "Star Wars". Was this really
necessary? NOT. Supposedly Lucas claims he added the special effects
because he wanted to retain his original vision? Bullshit. It was done
for the money, pure and simple. In that sense, the original posters
reason for sequels applies to this. Hell, "Star Wars" wasn't even a
sequel for Chrissakes. Granted, an excellent film when it originally
came out, with no reason for being tampered with last year except for
monetary rewards.
Your Real Name
I would have to agree on a few cases. My favorite Friday the 13ths are 3 and
4. We would not have Jason if there were no sequals to F-13th. I would also
like to agree with that all the good horrors were made back in the day. The
70's and 80's fucking rocked the house when it came to splatter movies.
ROTLD2 was a worthless piece of shit and 3 was just as bad. Halloween 3 was
sad though. I think that movie is shit and should be replaced with Sleepaway
Camp in every movie store if they don't have it. Well that is all I have to
say.
Justin Kerswell wrote in message ...
>
> It's true (shameful as it may be), I can't help liking a lot of
>horror sequels. Before you all start sharpening your shears let me say a
>few things in my defense....
>
> (a) The films that are sequelized were never great art. They
>were made for money, pure and simple....cynical as it that seems it's
>true I'm afraid.....Sequels are only made because the demand *is* there.
>Chas Balun once said "...the only thing that would kill Jason would be
>lousy box office."
> 'Friday the 13th' and 'Halloween' (as good as they are) were
>not made by the type of people who frequent this group. They were made
>by people out to make as much money as possible and advertise their
>talents through what the industry still regards as a bargain basement
>genre......So, I don't see any reason to be so precious about these
>films- if they hadn't been sequelized to death it is arguable that they
>would be so well known today.
>
>again (with a few twists). Horror certainly isn't the only genre to have
>rampaging sequelitis......how many frigging James Bond movies have there
>been (all carbon copies of each other)?......every animated Disney movie
>has the same feel and variations on the cutesy dancing teapot/fluffy
>woodland creature/gargoyle etc....Where's all the bitchin' about George
>Lucas thrusting not one, not two but *three* new 'Star Wars' films on
>us?....Sci-Fi can get away with inflicting interchangable and
>predictably monotonous 'Star-Trek' movies on us with barely a murmour of
>discontent.....
>
>then why all the bitchin' about the Meyers-less 'Halloween III'?.....( I
>must admit I liked it, and would have stood a much better critical
>chance if it hadn't been part of the series.)
>
>(even I found it a chore to sit through 'Sleepaway Camp 2 & 3 !), but I
>do like my 'comfort horror' now and again.....Sometimes I want to be
>challenged by what I watch whether it be Borowczyk's 'Docteur Jekyll et
>les Femmes' or 'Combat Shock'. Other times I like revelling in cliche,
>knowing what is going to happen and when. I like turning my brain off
>and veging out with a gin 'n' tonic in front of some slasher sequel. As
>long as my brain goes back on afterwards I don't see anything wrong with
>that.....
>
> (e) The scourge of the horror sequel is hardly a new
>one.....they've been churning them out since the 30's.
>
>making it to the multi-plexes is slim. The days of excess in mainstream
>cinema is long gone.....no way would a 'Last House..' or 'Dawn of the
>Dead' gain a wide release, let alone a certificate these days. 'The
>Exorcist' would *never* get made now as it was back in the early
>70's......I'm getting off the point here, but yes I too mourn the
>passing of those days. But, I find no shame in admitting I like 'comfort
>horror' as well as enjoying the decadent films of yester-year.
>
>specifically 'slasher') film- these sequels can be viewed with a more
>ironic eye.
>
> (h) Like I said before, I don't love all horror sequels
>indiscriminatly. (I can't stand 'ROTLD2' either (bag of shite)).
>But I may be warped, I may have some unrecognised psychiatric dis-order,
>it's just I can't help having a soft spot for the slasher sequels, as
>tired and goreless as they may be. And yes, I am looking forward to
>'H20', 'IKWYDLS2' and (hot on the heels of it's triumphant US
>release...) 'Scream 2' (out May 1st in the UK).
>
Justin Kerswell
>
>only comment here is the george lucas one...he is supposed to do three others
>because that has always been the plan...the star wars movies have always been
>going to be six movies...he's just finishing up what he started years ago...so
>i think that argument is null and void
Not entirely.....No way would the second 'Star Wars' film been made
unless the first one was a huge success.....The new films will just be
filled with unbearable child actors and fecking Ewoks......Why, oh why
couldn't he have picked up the option to do 'The Burning II: Cropsies
Revenge', maybe they could have lured back Holly Hunter like they have
with Jamie Lee in the 'Halloween' sequel.....
>
>> (c) If everyone is so fecked off with carbon-copy horror sequels
>>then why all the bitchin' about the Meyers-less 'Halloween III'?.....( I
>>must admit I liked it, and would have stood a much better critical
>>chance if it hadn't been part of the series.)
>
>no comment...movie sucked, acting sucked...hey...was that a comment?
....so why exactly did it suck?
Good premise....apocalyptic child'o'cide (sorry I can't recall
the proper term) is both sick and Devilishly warped.....also I loved the
ending.
>>
>> (e) The scourge of the horror sequel is hardly a new
>>one.....they've been churning them out since the 30's.
>
>but does that make it right?
Not always, but it is understandable....
>>
>> (h) Like I said before, I don't love all horror sequels
>>indiscriminatly. (I can't stand 'ROTLD2' either (bag of shite)).
>>But I may be warped, I may have some unrecognised psychiatric dis-order,
>>it's just I can't help having a soft spot for the slasher sequels, as
>>tired and goreless as they may be. And yes, I am looking forward to
>>'H20', 'IKWYDLS2' and (hot on the heels of it's triumphant US
>>release...) 'Scream 2' (out May 1st in the UK).
>
>i'm sorry...i will say a prayer for you that you dont die of boredom during
>these movies...
How sweet....me being a good Catholic boy and all.
.....it's just living here in the UK horror films rarely open
on the big screen and go straight to video (..or worse don't even make
it there)..... And 'Scream 2' *will* be on the big screen and so will
probably 'IKWYDLS2', hopefully 'H20' too (although the last 2 sequels
went straight to video hell).
I like seeing big cheesy, campy old shite on the big
screen.....and, there is nothing bigger, cheesier and camper than seeing
a load of 'beautiful people' being sliced and diced by some old psycho
or other......
--
Justin Kerswell
Justin Kerswell
>I have to disagree with you there. "Halloween" at least just had to be
>more than a money making idea (Fri the 13...MAYBE heh) But Halloween was
>a real work of art. Lot's of scenes ect. that show a true love of the
>movie. Anything that classicly scary, well, some thought and heart HAD
>to have gone into it. (Ok...your turn...shears sharp??? :)
'Halloween' is easily a favourite of mine. Skillfully made, scary and
stylish (...well maybe not, remembering with shudders Jamie Lees' 70's
fashion faux pas'! :)).......However, judging by Carpenter's cynical
insistence that extra gore scenes be spliced into the sequel for added
commercial appeal, I find it (difficult as it is for me, being a fan and
all), more than probable that he saw the movie originally as a stepping
stone to more acceptable projects....like (ahem..) 'Starman' and 'Big
Trouble in Little China'.
'Halloween' made his career but also put a mill-stone around his neck
as far as he was concerned. Carpenter is *not* a horror director and
resented being tagged one. I find it a little condescending and
contradictorary that he wanted to wash his hands of the series but was
quite happy to make us suffer a shitty 'Escape' sequel. Along with Tobe
Hooper and Brian De Palma he lazily uses his reputation of past glories,
and like those two peaked creatively a long time ago.
'Halloween' is a dazzling film. The work of someone at the peak of his
powers. But I'm sorry I don't believe he chose to make it purely for his
love of horror movies (...I'd love for someone to put a stake through
this cynical old heart and prove me wrong!)....it was a commercial,
exploitation movie that was destined to make shit loads of money (this
doesn't detract from the movie one little bit).......But if someone gave
me the money and the opportunity to make films, you can bet I wouldn't
mind being known as a horror director and not constantly harping on
about not being seen as a serious auteur.
Shears sharp and raring to go..... ;)
--
Justin Kerswell
ScreamFn99
I've been reading this thread from the beginning...I guess just to see how bad
the reaction would be before chiming in...personally...I feel you all have
valid points...we wouldn't have Jason if it weren't for sequels. And the Freddy
sequels are highly enjoyable. As for sequels ONLY being made for
money....you're wrong....I don't think these directors/writers sit back and say
okay...let's see how many of these stupid things we can make and watch the
money roll in. For the most part, I think sequels are made because there is a
public demand for them...like for example, Freddy and Jason...I personally miss
both characters and have seen their movies numerous times just cause I can't
get enough of them! But it's because of the fans of these movies that prompted
them to make Freddy vs Jason ... not money, or at least, not only money. And
other sequels are made for the same reason, I'd suspect, if there's a demand
for something, then they should make the sequels, personally, I'd love to see
more Freddy movies! Why not? It's not like every movie that comes out it is
original anyway! Most are *take-offs* of other films anyway...why not just make
it a sequel of something that you know is good. I'm sure some of you will
disagree with me and that's fine...it's just my opinion.
As for *Star Wars* and the re-release to the theaters....I agree George Lucas
was out for money! I bought the triology of the original Star Wars movies...but
I'm not buying into his *digitally remastered--new sequences* stuff...what was
wrong with them the way they were? I mean...he's the writer/director and can do
what he wants..and I'm sure there are people who wanted those new
versions...I'm just not one of them. Well that's my 2 cents worth on the
subject!
ScreamFn99
Check out the Ultimate Horror Movie Page
http://members.aol.com/ScreamFn99/horrormain.html
Dr Walpurgis
ScreamFn99 wrote:
> As for sequels ONLY being made for
> money....you're wrong....I don't think these directors/writers sit back and say
> okay...let's see how many of these stupid things we can make and watch the
> money roll in.
You don't? How else can you explain Paramount's continued involvement in the F13
series? Man, that studio has *no* shame...
> For the most part, I think sequels are made because there is a
> public demand for them...
Such altruism!
> I'd love to see
> more Freddy movies! Why not? It's not like every movie that comes out it is
> original anyway! Most are *take-offs* of other films anyway...
Er...NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD wasn't a "take-off". LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT wasn't.
THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE wasn't. SUSPIRIA wasn't. Need I go on..?
> As for *Star Wars* and the re-release to the theaters....I agree George Lucas
> was out for money!
Surely not! Don't you think that "for the most part" he "made" it because there was
"a public demand for it". Or something?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the award-winning Midnight Manor of Dr Walpurgis
and spend an evening with his Films from the Crypt
GOLDEN ZOMBIE AWARD WINNER!
"I have found your site to be
both educational and entertaining.
Your site helps to set very high standards
for other horror sites."
www.House of Horrors.com
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/9929
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Justin Kerswell
In article <199803272042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ScreamFn99
<screa...@aol.com> writes
>I've been reading this thread from the beginning...I guess just to see how bad
>the reaction would be before chiming in...personally...I feel you all have
>valid points...we wouldn't have Jason if it weren't for sequels. And the Freddy
>money....you're wrong....I don't think these directors/writers sit back and say
>okay...let's see how many of these stupid things we can make and watch the
>money roll in.
I think you'll find that they do!
> For the most part, I think sequels are made because there is a
>public demand for them...
Granted, they are made because there is a public demand for
them.....How is that public demand measured?....by box office of course!
......There 'aint no horror charity board out there thinking, "Those
loyal Freddy fans haven't had a new outing for ages, lets all club
together and fund one. Who cares if it makes no money?...We will get
that lovely warm feeling from doing a service to the loyal horror
community!"...No sir, weak box office will kill off a franchise quicker
than Saddam's Anthrax.
>like for example, Freddy and Jason...I personally miss
>both characters and have seen their movies numerous times just cause I can't
>get enough of them! But it's because of the fans of these movies that prompted
>them to make Freddy vs Jason ... not money, or at least, not only money.
Is it?......Isn't this just an echo of all the 'Wolfman vs.
Dracula' type movies of the 40's. It's all a last ditch attempt to wring
some more money out of a franchise..... Someone owns the 'Freddy' and
'Jason' franchise and I'm sure they want to get some more bucks from
their investments......Don't get me wrong, I'll see 'Freddy vs. Jason'-
I'm even faintly looking forward to it....just as long as they don't
descend into fart humour and bring in todays equivalent of Abbot and
Costello....it's just that the industry has *no* respect for 'our'
genre, even now they regard it merely as a quick buck, a necessary
evil....
> And
>other sequels are made for the same reason, I'd suspect, if there's a demand
>for something, then they should make the sequels, personally, I'd love to see
>more Freddy movies! Why not? It's not like every movie that comes out it is
>original anyway! Most are *take-offs* of other films anyway...why not just make
>it a sequel of something that you know is good. I'm sure some of you will
>disagree with me and that's fine...it's just my opinion.
Personally I could live without any more Freddy movies (the 1st and
'New Nightmare' bookended it perfectly)......but, I've always wondered
why (with exception of the 'Final Friday') they didn't try and push the
gore aspect in the 'Friday' movies and release an unrated version at the
same time as the rated one? (....although that is a bit of a moot point
here in England where the BBFC are phsychotically snip-happy)
>
>As for *Star Wars* and the re-release to the theaters....I agree George Lucas
>was out for money! I bought the triology of the original Star Wars movies...but
>I'm not buying into his *digitally remastered--new sequences* stuff...what was
>wrong with them the way they were? I mean...he's the writer/director and can do
>what he wants..and I'm sure there are people who wanted those new
>versions...I'm just not one of them. Well that's my 2 cents worth on the
>subject!
Hey!...we agree on something (...kind of) ;)
>
>
>ScreamFn99
>
>Check out the Ultimate Horror Movie Page
>http://members.aol.com/ScreamFn99/horrormain.html
--
Justin Kerswell
Jordan Ruud
every animated Disney movie
> has the same feel and variations on the cutesy dancing teapot/fluffy
> woodland creature/gargoyle etc...
That's great! I've noticed that every Disney film has essentially the
same plot with:
A male and female (or vice versa) in the main roles
At least two bumbling comic reliefs
A villain
Where's all the bitchin' about George
> Mucus thrusting not one, not two but *three* new 'Star Wars' films on
> us?
Right here. I hate star wars, always have.
Blashyrke
>Subject: Re: I kinda like Horror sequels..........so crucify me!
>From: Jordan Ruud <JRUUDAT...@SPRINTMAIL.COM>
>Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 23:00 EST
>Message-id: <351DC7...@SPRINTMAIL.COM>
>
>every animated Disney movie
>> has the same feel and variations on the cutesy dancing teapot/fluffy
>> woodland creature/gargoyle etc...
>
>That's great! I've noticed that every Disney film has essentially the
>same plot with:
>A male and female (or vice versa) in the main roles
>At least two bumbling comic reliefs
>A villain
And always have that fluffy character (as seen above) for no other reason than
for the making of plush animals, toothbrushes, kleenex [tm] boxes, toilet
paper, video games, etc. etc. why else would a movie about pocahontas have a
curious raccoon (or sumthin) that was there specifically for the merchandise.
Is this the work of tiny little demons persuaded by the telepathic thoughts
from the megalomaniac crygenically frozen head of Walt himself? I SAY YES!
>
>Where's all the bitchin' about George
>> Mucus thrusting not one, not two but *three* new 'Star Wars' films on
>> us?
>
>
>Right here. I hate star wars, always have.
>
>
Aye, there's the rub ain't it? A bad Science Fiction film that got lucky,
granted that it was not a bad movie, but certainly not a great movie either.
You watch the movie over and over and over again and from the modern film
standards, the movie was shit. Now here's where sequels get awesome. Empire
Strikes Back is a perfect science fiction film, direction, script, acting, and
sfx were all there, but still not my cup of tea... Return? no comment. Talk
about mad-marketing, I remember being a kid and Kenner made action figures for
virtually everything that was in the movie. Then you update the sfx,
re-release it as a special edition... WTF was that? My respect for the genre
would have gone completly to shit if it wasn't for the Fifth Element last year.
My thoughts :)
Just a thought from The Saint Toad Horror. Cheers!
sain...@rocketmail.com
Blas...@aol.com
http://www.angelfire.com/wv/sainttoad
Shiflet
Blashyrke wrote:
>
> And always have that fluffy character (as seen above) for no other reason than
> for the making of plush animals, toothbrushes, kleenex [tm] boxes, toilet
> paper, video games, etc. etc. why else would a movie about pocahontas have a
> curious raccoon (or sumthin) that was there specifically for the merchandise.
> Is this the work of tiny little demons persuaded by the telepathic thoughts
> from the megalomaniac crygenically frozen head of Walt himself? I SAY YES!
Hmm, never thought of it that way but now that you mention it...
> Aye, there's the rub ain't it? A bad Science Fiction film that got lucky,
> granted that it was not a bad movie, but certainly not a great movie either.
> You watch the movie over and over and over again and from the modern film
> standards, the movie was shit. Now here's where sequels get awesome. Empire
> Strikes Back is a perfect science fiction film, direction, script, acting, and
> sfx were all there, but still not my cup of tea... Return? no comment. Talk
> about mad-marketing, I remember being a kid and Kenner made action figures for
> virtually everything that was in the movie. Then you update the sfx,
> re-release it as a special edition... WTF was that? My respect for the genre
> would have gone completly to shit if it wasn't for the Fifth Element last year.
> My thoughts :)
Well, as much as we disagree on Scream, I'll definately agree with ya
here...
> Just a thought from The Saint Toad Horror. Cheers!
> sain...@rocketmail.com
> Blas...@aol.com
> http://www.angelfire.com/wv/sainttoad
Danny Shiflet
"Hail to the king, baby"-Ash, AoD
AnthonyEID
> Er...NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD wasn't a "take-off". LAST HOUSE ON THE
> LEFT wasn't.
Um, Last house is sorta a take off on The Virgin Spring...
Anthony
ScreamFn99
In article <TysJhBAp...@south-over.demon.co.uk>, Justin Kerswell
<jus...@south-over.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Personally I could live without any more Freddy movies (the 1st and
>'New Nightmare' bookended it perfectly)......but, I've always wondered
>why (with exception of the 'Final Friday') they didn't try and push the
>gore aspect in the 'Friday' movies and release an unrated version at the
>same time as the rated one? (....although that is a bit of a moot point
>here in England where the BBFC are phsychotically snip-happy)
Well I guess you do have a point there....The New Nightmare did end the series
well and on a high note, so maybe making more would just ruin that....but I am
looking forward to this new Freddy Vs Jason movie! Can't wait in fact! And I
agree about the Friday movies...they do have a unrated version for Jason Goes
To Hell here. That's the only unrated Friday I've ever seen.
ScreamFn99
In article <351C123D...@geocities.com>, Dr Walpurgis
<dr_wal...@geocities.com> writes:
>ScreamFn99 wrote:
>
>> As for sequels ONLY being made for
>> money....you're wrong....I don't think these directors/writers sit back and
>say
>> okay...let's see how many of these stupid things we can make and watch the
>> money roll in.
>
>You don't? How else can you explain Paramount's continued involvement in the
>F13
>series? Man, that studio has *no* shame...
Nope...not necessarily...I liked almost all the Friday movies (8 sucked!)
>> For the most part, I think sequels are made because there is a
>> public demand for them...
>
>Such altruism!
>
>> I'd love to see
>> more Freddy movies! Why not? It's not like every movie that comes out it is
>> original anyway! Most are *take-offs* of other films anyway...
>
>Er...NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD wasn't a "take-off". LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT
>wasn't.
>THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE wasn't. SUSPIRIA wasn't. Need I go on..?
Okay those are older movies....name some newer ones....
>> As for *Star Wars* and the re-release to the theaters....I agree George
>Lucas
>> was out for money!
>
>Surely not! Don't you think that "for the most part" he "made" it because
>there was
>"a public demand for it". Or something?
Well maybe....but why not just re-release them to video then?
Dr Walpurgis
AnthonyEID wrote:
> Um, Last house is sorta a take off on The Virgin Spring...
Only in the same way STREET TRASH is "sorta a take off on" Kurosawa's
DODES'KADEN - i.e., not at all, really.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This posting was made in conjunction with *
The European Union
* 16:9 Action Plan *
* http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/9929 *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dr Walpurgis
ScreamFn99 wrote:
> >Er...NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD wasn't a "take-off". LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT
> >wasn't.
> >THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE wasn't. SUSPIRIA wasn't. Need I go on..?
>
> Okay those are older movies....name some newer ones....
You summarise everything that's wrong with the modern genre in one question. Well
done.
ScreamFn99
In article <351FEE19...@geocities.com>, Dr Walpurgis
<dr_wal...@geocities.com> writes:
>ScreamFn99 wrote:
>
>> >Er...NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD wasn't a "take-off". LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT
>> >wasn't.
>> >THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE wasn't. SUSPIRIA wasn't. Need I go on..?
>>
>> Okay those are older movies....name some newer ones....
>
>You summarise everything that's wrong with the modern genre in one question.
>Well
>done.
How? I'm saying that they are older ones...meaning that some newer ones are
*take-offs* of those!!
AnthonyEID
> Well maybe....but why not just re-release them to video then?
Because people want to see them on the big screen! Its the only way I would be
willing to sit through those pictures again is to be able to annoy and amuse
everyone in the theater by saying "How Long?" at Obi Wan in the right place:
"Thats a name I haven't heard for a long time."
ME: HOW LONG?
"A long time."
Anthony
PS Profit margin is the incentive for companies to pay attention to public
demands. In the 80's there was *HUGE* demand for nuclear disarmament.... not
profitable though. : (