NOW WATCHING

I can't take Chucky seriously at all. As a horror movie, Child's Play is abysmal. It's really more of a black comedy than anything else.
 
Chucky scared the living shit outta me when I was younger (than I am now lol). Currently I just think the series is an enjoyable romp (though the last two are opening some nice doors in the continuity).
 
Number 6 said:
I can't take Chucky seriously at all. As a horror movie, Child's Play is abysmal. It's really more of a black comedy than anything else.
Click to expand...
Not a fan of the more gimmicky sort of horror here, either. They've either got to be genuinely creepy, or else theatrical.
 
The Conjuring Universe so far remains the best horror franchise ever for me. Actually, the best franchise ever, period.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Uh, how is a one-off film a franchise? No.
Click to expand...

What one off film are you talking about? Child's Play isn't one. I'm no expert in this genre but nearly every film I can think of has many sequels/prequels/whatever. That's nothing new, so I'm a little lost why this makes you worry for the future of the genre.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
^ I understand your reasoning, but I'm not convinced it played out like that in 1954. The correspondence that Tolkien received at the time (late 50's) was predominantly from adult readers. Sure, there were young fans, but that was probably more in the ascendency in the late-60's & early-70's when Tolkien really took off in the US i.e. the paperback boom making it affordable (vs. three hardback books). Again, this still wasn't a child-readership; this was mostly college-aged students. I'm not really disputing that "young people" read & still read LotRs; I'm just saying nobody would really categorise them as children. That's The Hobbit. And, opinions aside, it certainly wasn't ever marketed for children at the time; which is what you originally said... :innocent:
Click to expand...

Agreed. I thought about it last night and indeed marketing was very different back in the 30s-50s than today. For example, I thought about what franchises have toys and which don't and then the type of toy. Star Wars had action figures (dolls) from day one and today it's worse. The Hobbit/LOTR has Lego toys, not too sure on action figures. GOT has a video game, but I'm not aware of any CHILDREN'S action figures, I'm sure there are some models aimed at collectors in the hundreds of dollars. Nor is there a lego license... yet. lol. Therefore, the modern toy machine aside, I have to agree that LOTR was not originally marketed to children.

Watched the Devil's Doorway. An Irish found footage movie. The gimick here is that it is supposed to take place in the 1960s so the camera has an old-timey quality. Not worth watching really unless you're a hardcore foundfootage/horror fan and watch EVERYTHING. If you've seen paranormal activity, Blair Witch et al. you've seen this one.
 
I haven’t seen any of the Child’s Play movies but I saw one scene on YouTube recently and the acting was awful :puke:, probably one of the later episodes.
 
Number 6 said:
The Conjuring Universe so far remains the best horror franchise ever for me. Actually, the best franchise ever, period.
Click to expand...
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
The idea of Horror franchises fills me with dread for the future of the genre tbh...
Click to expand...
Edington said:
What one off film are you talking about? Child's Play isn't one. I'm no expert in this genre but nearly every film I can think of has many sequels/prequels/whatever. That's nothing new, so I'm a little lost why this makes you worry for the future of the genre.
Click to expand...
It was a general remark in response to 6's franchise comment. Do Horror movies have to be part of a franchise to be successful? My view is no, but I'm beginning to think others view everything through the prism of EU's, Worlds, and franchises. Do you follow? Maybe I also don't understand the definition of film Horror either. To me, everything discussed in this thread seems to submit to a fairly narrow definition of Horror generally. As someone who reads "Horror" (in the broadest sense) I regard the term as being far more widely applicable. But as I say, it's film Horror we're discussing here so maybe I'm missing the point. Most Horror films I watch are total shite.

Onhell said:
Agreed. I thought about it last night and indeed marketing was very different back in the 30s-50s than today. For example, I thought about what franchises have toys and which don't and then the type of toy. Star Wars had action figures (dolls) from day one and today it's worse. The Hobbit/LOTR has Lego toys, not too sure on action figures. GOT has a video game, but I'm not aware of any CHILDREN'S action figures, I'm sure there are some models aimed at collectors in the hundreds of dollars. Nor is there a lego license... yet. lol. Therefore, the modern toy machine aside, I have to agree that LOTR was not originally marketed to children.
Click to expand...
Also bear in mind that Tolkien & his publisher (George Allen & Unwin) literally did nothing but market books. The only thing non-book that they marketed, in respect to Tolkien, was calenders in the late 70's i.e. nothing but books during Tolkien's lifetime. Most non-book marketing of Tolkien has been licensed through Tolkien Enterprises (now Middle-earth Enterprises) which Tolkien, & later the Tolkien Estate, sold control of in the late-60's/early-70's. Hence the films.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Do you follow?
Click to expand...

Yup, gotcha. I thought you were referring to something specific that I'd missed.

CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Do Horror movies have to be part of a franchise to be successful? My view is no, but I'm beginning to think others view everything through the prism of EU's, Worlds, and franchises.
Click to expand...

I also agree with this, I'd rather watch one great film over five mediocre ones. But again, a large majority of horror, or at least the most well known ones are all part of a franchise. I'm probably the wrong guy to discuss this but it always seems to have been that way. You could start with the Universal Horror films, then go to the Hammer Horror films with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, then the slasher films, then the "torture porn" or whatever it was called like Saw and Final Destination, The Conjuring is just the latest in a long line. Thinking about it, following the success of Halloween this year we'll probably get a cycle of slasher remakes.
 
Edington said:
I also agree with this, I'd rather watch one great film over five mediocre ones. But again, a large majority of horror, or at least the most well known ones are all part of a franchise. I'm probably the wrong guy to discuss this but it always seems to have been that way. You could start with the Universal Horror films, then go to the Hammer Horror films with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, then the slasher films, then the "torture porn" or whatever it was called like Saw and Final Destination, The Conjuring is just the latest in a long line. Thinking about it, following the success of Halloween this year we'll probably get a cycle of slasher remakes.
Click to expand...
See, this is my problem. Most of the franchises you just gave are rubbish. Maybe my definition is just too broad. I view quite a lot of films that have horror elements as Horror films. Decent one-off Horror movies might include: Sunshine (labelled "SF thriller"; but it's basically horror in space); & in a similar vein Event Horizon; classics but goodies like The Shining &/or The Wicker Man (1973). I'm not saying they're all flawless, far from it. But they all have elements beyond bodily horrors i.e. beyond sadism. Not saying a film can't be just about that; just don't find it that interesting, personally.

Admittedly my expectations are a little high.
 
Last edited:
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
See, this is my problem. Most of the franchises you just gave are rubbish. Maybe my definition is just too broad.
Click to expand...

You know I think I'm finally getting your original point about making horror franchises. :lol: Never seen The Conjuring but apparently it's far removed from what I listed? Now it makes more sense.

CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
The Shinning...
Click to expand...

"You mean Shining?"
"Shh! D'ya want ta get sued!?"

CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
...I'm not saying they're all flawless, far from it.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad at least I'm not the only one who didn't love The Shining. Liked it even less after I read the book. :rolleyes:
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Do Horror movies have to be part of a franchise to be successful?
Click to expand...

Definitely not. But unfortunately that's the way Hollywood works. If a stand alone movie is very successful they know a sequel will sell just on the name alone and they can make them with much smaller budgets. Usually that's why many sequels suck too, the small budget and the fact that they can't get the original director or actors back. What I'm trying to say is that I think most of the time, the first movie is always the best...think Psycho, Jaws, The Exorcist, The Omen etc, none of those movies really needed sequels.
 
Number 6 said:
How about this: it's generally considered to be one of the best (if not the best) horror film to come out since the '70/80s. Some people found it scarier than The Exorcist was when it was released.
Click to expand...
You're going to need a better reason than that to convince me to watch something. Why is it a good film?
SixesAlltheway said:
What I'm trying to say is that I think most of the time, the first movie is always the best...think Psycho, Jaws, The Exorcist, The Omen etc, none of those movies really needed sequels.
Click to expand...
Yip, totally agree.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top