The Slasher genre (discussion and origins)

[JohnShaft]

Originally Posted by TheLurkingFear

Then again, I was never particularly moved by the slasher stuff.

I've never been a slasher fan either.
I've seen like two/three (Myers) Halloweens. I actually don't even know if I've seen FRIDAY THE 13TH.... And pretty much none of the likes of BLACK CHRISTMAS.

But I did think the mood of TCM was ridiculously well realised. And for '74? Fuggedaboutit.

[KennyThaKilla]

Originally Posted by JohnShaft

I've seen like two/three (Myers) Halloweens. I actually don't even know if I've seen FRIDAY THE 13TH....

Well then, Mr. Administrator, after that little confession, I believe it's time for you to go stand in the corner and beg the horror gods for their forgiveness...

[Raven]

Which Halloween's have you seen John? I highly recommend 4 and 6. 4 has a fantastic plot and really builds up on the tension, 6 doesn't really have a plot but as far as dark, moody slashers goes it's one of Michaels best. Avoid H20 and Resurrection

[KennyThaKilla]

I'll have to flip the script on that one. You don't want to avoid H2O. It's Jamie Lee Curtis' return to the series and a pretty good movie to boot. Picks up 20 years after Halloween 2.



4 and 5 were good (especially for introducing Danielle Harris, a great little actress at the ripe old age of 11), but 6 was a mess because Donald Pleasence (Dr. Loomis) died before they could finish filming, so the ending had to be changed and was, shall we say, less than satisfying. (sucked)

[TheLurkingFear]

There's Halloween, and then there's a series of pale, imitative crap that make some of the Elm Street sequels look like great films.

In short, not a fan.

The Friday the 13th movies are a step further down the ladder than that: just awful, the only redeeming quality Tom Savini.

[JohnShaft]

Originally Posted by KennyThaKilla

Well then, Mr. Administrator, after that little confession, I believe it's time for you to go stand in the corner and beg the horror gods for their forgiveness...

Hah, I know. I mean I don't hat'em. I just think if you've seen the first of a franchise then you've seen the best of them. They just seem to have nothing new to say after that.

I do have to watch F13 though, just to make sure I have seen it.

Originally Posted by Raven

Which Halloween's have you seen John?

After the first, I believe H20, and one of the early ones with Pleasance still in it (2?).
Really who remembers the story? Michael's on the loose. People get killed.

From your two's description I'll mark down 4 to watch if I see it anywhere though.

I think part of the reason I haven't watched that many is I just don't watch a bucketload of films. I have films on DVD, unopened, that have been gathering dust for 2 years, unseen. Stuff I really want to see too.

Originally Posted by TheLurkingFear

There's Halloween, and then there's a series of pale, imitative crap that make some of the Elm Street sequels look like great films.

See that's my feeling and (limited) experience.

They start with an excellent film, and then just Xerox the shit out of it for as long as they can get away with.

I really have good films I need to get around to seeing, rather than see a 6th generation cheap copy.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by JohnShaft

After the first, I believe H20, and one of the early ones with Pleasance still in it (2?).
Really who remembers the story? Michael's on the loose. People get killed.

They start with an excellent film, and then just Xerox the shit out of it for as long as they can get away with.

Donald Pleasance returned for most of the films barring 3, H20 and Resurrection and he was one of the high points for all the sequels. In my opinion Halloween is one of the few franchises that remained watchable through out it's original run unlike it's copy cat series F13 and rival NOES which stopped focusing on making good films and became solely about the killings.

That's all my opinion of course and being an avid Michael fan I am biased. Halloween 3 is a great stand-alone film too the only issue with it is the fact it's called Halloween 3 when it has nothing to do with Michaels story line

[JohnShaft]

Originally Posted by Raven

Halloween 3 is a great stand-alone film too the only issue with it is the fact it's called Halloween 3 when it has nothing to do with Michaels story line.

Oh, for sure. Massively underrated movie. It's popped up in a couple of threads before for that very reason (Most UNDERRATED Horror Movie, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, soo misunderstood!).

I really wish they'd gone that way with the franchise (which was the idea). I don't get how you go from HALLOWEEN III right back to the same repetitive Myers stuff.

OK, I've just realised in a thread about "Most genuinely disturbing movie you've ever seen?" we've gone to talking about Slashers and Halloween.

I really don't have a massive problem with a subject naturally going off on a tangent these days, but I'm going to seperate these out in their own thread to keep the original thread on topic. And let this one (Slashers) have it's own thread.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by JohnShaft

Oh, for sure. Massively underrated movie. It's popped up in a couple of threads before for that very reason (Most UNDERRATED Horror Movie, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, soo misunderstood!).

I really wish they'd gone that way with the franchise (which was the idea). I don't get how you go from HALLOWEEN III right back to the same repetitive Myers stuff.

I agree. It would have the best idea for them to continue with the original plan. I think the problem was they weren't expecting Michael to become so massively popular so they made the mistake of bringing him back for H2. By the time H3 was announced people were expecting Michael and when they didn't get it H3 was trashed and got a very bad rep. Hence H4 and Michaels return.

This is the problem when film makers give in to fan demands. If you keep bringing these kinds of characters back just to please the fans they will eventually become a hindrance and really restrict film makers creatively.

This is what happened with Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street. In some ways I feel this is also the case with George Romero's zombie films

[JohnShaft]

I was thinking about this the other day: These movies were (I'm sure) never intended to be about the villain. And therefore never designed as franchises.

They were about (typical) protagonists being cut down by a mysterious, mostly unseen, dark presence. Which was standard movie fare. They were never created to make a franchise out of Myers. Jason (and certainly Freddy) though possibly were due to Myers being the already-established model.

So then genre really came about by accident?

So exactly when did this happen? HALLOWEEN II? (well H3 suggests that even this franchise wasn't trying to establish this path).

And why did it happen? Did people just love the bad guys for some reason. Did they decide they were sick of the typical "protagonist fights bad guy. wins in the end" predictability? Something else?

Why did the genre become so popular that it spawned the longest franchises in movie (not just horror) history...

[KennyThaKilla]

Originally Posted by JohnShaft

I just think if you've seen the first of a franchise then you've seen the best of them. They just seem to have nothing new to say after that.

You might rethink that after watching the first F13, Jason's not even in it. Well, technically he is, but not until the very end and he's not the Jason we all know and love now.

Then again, if you're not a fan in the first place, you might like it for the simple fact that Kevin Bacon gets stabbed through the throat.

Sorry, I've got waaaay too much history with (and adoration for) these films to continue on with this thread. I can tell when I'm in the minority.

[JohnShaft]

Originally Posted by KennyThaKilla

You might rethink that after watching the first F13, Jason's not even in it. Well, technically he is, but not until the very end and he's not the Jason we all know and love now.

Yeah, I was aware of that. I'm pretty sure I have seen it, just so far back that I barely remember.

Sorry, I've got waaaay too much history with (and adoration for) these films to continue on with this thread. I can tell when I'm in the minority.

Well that's fine. It doesn't even have to turn into a pro/against debate.

Give us your thoughts on why you think the genre came about. Do you agree with my supposition it came about rather by accident? If so, why do you think that was?

[Raven]

Originally Posted by JohnShaft

They were about (typical) protagonists being cut down by a mysterious, mostly unseen, dark presence. Which was standard movie fare. They were never created to make a franchise out of Myers. Jason (and certainly Freddy) though possibly were due to Myers being the already-established model.

So then genre really came about by accident?

I think you might be onto something there. As I said in my last post I don't honestly think John and Debra were expecting Michael to become the icon he did and with fan demand for a sequel they were probably pressured by the higher ups to bring back Michael for the sequel, which John flat out refused to direct.

[KennyThaKilla]

Originally Posted by JohnShaft

Give us your thoughts on why you think the genre came about. Do you agree with my supposition it came about rather by accident? If so, why do you think that was?

I think it was the natural progression of horror. Halloween and F13 started it off in '78 and '80 (respectively), people liked it, they made more. It played into people's fears... someone killing you in the woods while you're out camping, an intruder breaking into your house and trying to carve you up with a knife. Wrap those ideas around a good plot, teenage sex and drug use, and you have a recipe for success.

[TheLurkingFear]

Halloween 3 is great in a camp and ludicrous way. The novelisation of the movie by the great Dennis Etchison works way better than the film.

'Eight more days to halloween
Silver Shamrock!'

Enough said.