Favorite 4th Sequel

Discussion in 'Site Polls' started by rhett, Oct 21, 2012.

?

What's your favorite 4th film in a franchise?

Poll closed Nov 21, 2012.
  1. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

    9 vote(s)
    8.8%
  2. Amityville: The Evil Escapes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Bride of Chucky

    7 vote(s)
    6.9%
  4. Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering

    1 vote(s)
    1.0%
  5. Frankenstein Created Woman

    3 vote(s)
    2.9%
  6. Ernest Scared Stupid

    2 vote(s)
    2.0%
  7. Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter

    54 vote(s)
    52.9%
  8. Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers

    12 vote(s)
    11.8%
  9. Hellraiser: Bloodline

    1 vote(s)
    1.0%
  10. House of Frankenstein

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. Land of the Dead

    4 vote(s)
    3.9%
  12. Paranormal Activity 4

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  13. Phantasm OblIVion

    1 vote(s)
    1.0%
  14. Prom Night IV: Deliver Us from Evil

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. Psycho IV: The Beginning

    1 vote(s)
    1.0%
  16. Saw IV

    2 vote(s)
    2.0%
  17. Scre4m

    2 vote(s)
    2.0%
  18. The Final Destination

    1 vote(s)
    1.0%
  19. The Mummy's Curse

    1 vote(s)
    1.0%
  20. Zombi 4: After Death

    1 vote(s)
    1.0%
  1. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    Well, it might not. Depending upon whether you were sucked in by - for example - Sara's storyline or not. This might be unfair of me, but there's nothing you're going to be able to say that is going to change this as truth in my mind: the butt-shot in the shower is sleazy and it throws away everything they might have been trying to do with her character. Only the actress was working against this for most of the movie. I think good actors can rise above bad material and, because of her, the character becomes likable and suggests there's something interesting beneath the half-visible writing. Then, the shower scene comes up and it's all over. Period. She is made another notch on the movie's Bedpost of Sleaze, conforming to the same standards of degredation as the other characters.


    I don't see anyone else offering up any theories for exactly why sex is being portrayed so negatively in the film. If I'm wrong, it's going to come down to an actual artistic choice the filmmakers had for making the characters obsessed with sex to the point where they all become such aggressively unlikable people (except Trish again, Rob because his motive is revenge, and... Gordon). Or... since I've been bombarded with enough replies saying "I like the characters," to the point where they all become irritable, depressed, angry, or tense. This cannot be denied. You could have a great point- that the filmmakers feel the audience is by and large sexually frustrated, so the characters must be as well. That the audience will relate to people who take sex very, very seriously. Not that it has anything to do with that time in history or culture, or that it comments on the flack the films were getting (other than to become much more excessive), or that it's even aware of anything beyond the stuff it borrowed from Part 2 and their own problems.


    Not really. I mean, on the most base level- the movie's not against sex. But only in so far as the filmmakers want to derive enjoyment from drowning the characters in suffocatingly oppressive sleaze. They find it amusing to have the hitchhiker killed while fellating a banana. But, think about it. This isn't just a death, present for the gore, upping the bodycount, giving the audience what they paid for. This is insulting. Put all the elements I have detailed together: She's a woman, so of course she'll be fellating something. She's fat, so of course she'll be eating. She's introduced by way of being rejected (in her mind) and outright insulted by Ted (but remember, the movie put those words into his mouth). And, while killing her, Jason grunts in a highly sexual manner (as he does with almost every single murder in the film). This isn't subjective. It's Right There, in Front of You. The film is going beyond showing no respect, this is deeply disgusting. But is it an example of being anti-sex? It's certainly anti-woman and anti-this character. The problem is: the filmmakers will make it sexual to amuse themselves, but she pays the price for it with her integrity.


    Well, I've told you the film has a bad attitude toward sex. And, I have admitted where you've had a good point. But, how do you honestly expect me to take the movie's outlook on sex when scene after scene is a series of characters yelling because they're not getting laid, threatening each other with violence because they're not getting laid, whining because they're not getting laid, verbally insulting women, implying casual homophobia (I'm not ready to back down on that one completely yet), being sexually mutilated, turned into jealous shrews, and having their would-be storylines reduced to T&A shots? And, frankly- that's maybe only half of it. From beginning to end, this film is insulting to the characters. Beginning with bestiality for a joke that no one in the world found funny and ending with sexually frustrated Tommy being swapped for sexually frustrated Jason. A Jason who was, strangely enough, not portrayed this way in the earlier or later Paramount films. I'm giving it too much credit? Not really- I'm calling them as I see them. And there's a lot of bad stuff to see here.


    The difference between that sequel and this one being that Lana wasn't teasing anyone, she intended to give everything to Billy, she genuinely liked him (and wasn't taking him to another man's room to stir up trouble). She was a flightly girl but wanted to have fun and didn't fuck anyone over to get it. Her only crime? Taking too long in the bathroom. Billy was perverted (making passes at Pam) but... he didn't have a bad attitude when she wouldn't give him the time of day. And, if you remember, she was extremely cold to him. How did he react? He didn't. These characters don't weigh the film down with their sleaziness- they don't get aggressive when they're denied something. And the same is true of Every Single Character in the Film. Even Jake, who is rightly upset when Robin laughs at him and he thinks she's belittling him. And... what happens after that? She feels bad about upsetting him. And none of this is make-it-up-as-you-go-along like nearly everything you're suggesting is in Part IV. This stuff is actually right up front and center in Part V.


    The last thing I'm suggesting is that any nudity is sleazy. There is a way to suggest intimacy between a couple making love without being crude. Her butt pressed up against the glass was juvenile. A way of saying the movie gave up thinking of another way to be respectful of her relationship with Doug; at that moment, they were just bodies (especially her). Nothing more.


    Sex is treated positively with these two? Just because she broke character for one 2-minute scene to make him feel good doesn't mean the entire movie's direction changed. And his reaction is proof of that. The movie treats sex as the only important thing (until the characters stare death in the face and realize survival is probably better) and when they're getting it- it's great. But after it's over, and this is driven home with the fact that Jimmy gets mad to the point of cursing over nothing more than a corkscrew, people are shown to have either become worse people (Doug) or to not have changed at all.


    Um... you think Tommy would run and tell his mother that he was ogling over naked women after the bedroom scene where he pretended to be asleep the second he knew she was about to come in his room while he was watching Sam undress? Even Trish was well-aware of the fact that Tommy would choose to keep this to himself. The movie viewed her as a buzzkill. And, if you thought it was responsible to try to keep a straight boy from looking at naked women no matter what age, the movie would call you a buzzkill too.


    The issue here is that the movie doesn't need to shackle these characters together to bond them at the end. Especially not if your argument is they're each other's "flesh and blood." It is not natural to force over 90% of her chances for sexual freedom away from her family to be shared by her brother. It's stupid, it leads the brother to say sleazy things to her because the mother or Trish are such freaks, the boy is not allowed any friends to be able to do the Stand by Me routine with. The movie started this crap and doesn't even have the balls to deal with it. She can't get away for 2 seconds. Then she meets a man and... Tommy wants him for himself. And Rob kisses her...only for the movie to then turn their entire relationship into: I'm Here for Jason, not you. Everything in this story is a dead end. A bad, sleazy dead end with no brains before it crashes. What is she to do? Well, she isn't real. It's the filmmakers who should have actually thought about this when they wrote and filmed it.


    I've already dealt with Sara. Her sweetness and all that might have been worth something were the shower scene more respectful of her character. As for Doug, you are not considering his tone while he's saying these lines. He chose to be extremely aggressive while saying this, suspected a guy was in the bathroom with him, and even though he knows every guy in the house with him, he believes one of them is trying to invade his space. He has no reason to suspect this. Again, he knows every guy in the house. None of the characters are established pranksters. None of them are gay. Yet, with their bad attitudes and the hostility they've shown over the night, the only way this wouldn't be [at the very least conjuring a very distasteful image: of prison sex- a form of rape, which I bring up because that's the way a lot of straight guys saw gay sex back then, as something scary] is if the movie had woven in a thread of the people in the house hating each other for arbitrary reasons and wanting to hurt or piss each other off. This has to be established, you can't argue that "Doug would suspect someone of planning a prank" if the movie never shows us that this is in anyone's nature. It isn't.


    But the entire movie is about sex and death. You're giving me these mini-speeches about family bonding extending further than just 2 short scenes before the teens arrive which aren't supported by the film. Because, when the teens arrive- the entire family is taken over by sex. Because that's what the movie's about, it can't get its' mind out of the gutter. Same with all these bonds between Sam and Sara or Jim and Ted that you're suggesting. The movie may set them up, I'm not arguing it isn't. But it does not follow through with them. If anything, the film shows us that everything that could be healthy is corrupted by sex. When, really, the writer and director are the ones with the bad attitudes and want to infect the characters with them. Really? You want the characters to follow through on their set-ups. So much that you're willing to overlook the nasty taint on them in the examples I've described. But, again, it's the movie that chose to go in this direction. I can't respond to something that isn't there.


    I hold horror to a far higher standard than action films. Very few action directors are aware of art or how to make action more than pandering (not that I really care; I typically don't watch action films). I come to horror for variety of themes, intelligence, the creepiness, and the art. This isn't really about any other genre.


    That's because you're using your own theories instead of being subjective. You can be subjective and still not agree with me. But you can't honestly be subjective and come to the conclusion that this film develops its' characters. Because you only seem capable of looking at the film and characters through what you've made up in your own mind. Just observe how many times you've poked right through the film's framework to bring in things that are so far away from the real story: cat fights, characters playing pranks on a guy in the shower, Tommy telling his mother about naked women. I'm sure there are other examples but you're taking all of this from an ultra-filmsy story. I'm taking my arguments from things the filmmakers have actually admitted on the DVD (listen to Barney Cohen, in particular).


    That's not what I said. I said she's not given a choice over who gets to watch her even though she is certainly portrayed as being very in-control about who she sleeps with. And it was the filmmakers' decision to leave the curtain open, blinds up. Because they don't care if they're being respectful of the characters or not.


    Is that how you would react if a girl were looking at you while you undressed? (I of course am leaving out the guy thing because, frankly, that only happens in porn. In reality, it's more likely to be an older, lecherous man looking at a teenage boy undressing like that.) Either way, you're not taking into account the fact that the characters did not choose to leave the curtains open: the filmmakers did. It's the same as hidden cameras being set up in motel rooms and apartments by perving landlords.
     
  2. dave13

    dave13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,479
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Dude...what are you talking about? She doesn't have a "choice" because she's not real. The filmmaker decided to leave the curtain open? Yes, and he also decided to create her character in the first place! You're talking about this shit like it's real life captured by hidden cameras or something. It's not. It's a narrative. Getting angry at the director when the curtains are left open makes no sense. In the world of the film, the director does not exist. You're watching a story. There is no alternate reality for these characters, one in which the curtains were drawn, and where Sara is pressed against the back of the shower rather than the front, keeping her butt from showing through the glass. This is what happens in this story.

    You keep talking about movies showing their characters respect. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. The characters belong to the movie. If the person who wrote the movie says the character behaves a certain way, then that's the way that character behaves! These are not real people. They don't have choices or options. They are there in support of the overall narrative. There is no rule that says every character must be morally redeemed or fully developed or given what they deserve. The filmmakers can do whatever they want to them. Whether the characters are any of these things or not does not necessarily correspond to the quality of the movie. A movie is almost always more or less than the sum of its parts, so quantifying how many authentic relationships exist in a film, or how many characters are treated "respectfully" as if a movie can be given a score based on these moments and then deemed objectively "good" or "bad" is complete and utter rubbish.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012
  3. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    I tried arguing that before, at least 2 people countered with: but they have attributes of real people and we can see them as real people. I have to be able to consider what I'm arguing from the other person's perspective, make my argument through theirs. Personally, I'm judging the film by how this all relates to the audience. Like I said to Rhett: imagine you're at a party and these people are there, as you see them here. We have to watch the film and what we see the characters doing in it makes a difference for 90 minutes. Also... remember what film series this is. Previous to this film- we had an entirely sympathetic portrayal of a character who had issues with his body (his low self-esteem, since as we all know a lot of women don't have a problem with a man's physical size) and couldn't get laid (Shelly), and a progressive portrayal of a para/quadriplegic character whose ailment didn't stop him from having sex (Mark). The previous films didn't set up sex as being something that people suffered from or lead them to become mean-spirited, tense, or immature. And, as I've stated before, this could work... if there was a point to it. Beyond the filmmakers getting off on being mean-spirited about sex. Because, again, would you appreciate a filmmaker doing this to someone you related to? Of course, you're free to make up how the film works for yourself (and if you were only sharing your personal view of the movie, I couldn't argue with it: hint, hint). But I'm looking at something bigger than that. People get into movies, they care about what happens to the characters, and they do think about how the filmmakers portray them. Some could argue (and have) that the majority of the audience didn't see anything wrong with how this film did portray the characters. But, do they always catch everything? Look at the patterns I've laid out and tell me what you think they mean. That's fair; I'll listen and take your argument into careful consideration- you have my word. Don't forget anything, though. At the very least, you have to admit I have a case that the film itself is extremely immature. If in the end, that's all you'll be willing to agree with me on- I'll take it.


    In the story, she's making love and it could be shown to us in a way that makes us feel everything Body Boy is claiming it's trying to. That shows her maturity, his warmth as a lover, the intimacy of their otherwise previously healthy relationship, etc. But, instead, we get a juvenile butt against the glass shot. I'm not going to back off this film for being lazy and crass in this scene just because you don't have a problem with it. If they believed they were being adult about it, they could have shot it better.


    I admire your passion for directors making whatever they want to make, and I'd support it, but this is a business decision too. This is a heavily commercial film sold to a mass audience. If the audience cheers for boobs, they should have the backbone to say that's all they're in it for. But some people argue that the film is something more. And I think it is: as I must have said at least 4 times in the last few days- it's oppressive. Especially compared to the much more nudity-laden film that came after it- it does not have a laidback view on sex. Whether characters enjoy their sexuality, try to have sex, or don't have sex at all- the movie dogs them for just being in a movie where sex is tied with death (to the point where I could easily argue the film is punishing people for nothing more than being aware they have genitalia- that's how fucked up the movie is). Sure, they created them. But the audience has to watch them, these characters do not just belong to the movie.


    That's what I've been arguing all along. That the movie is spineless for writing characters this way. You have been reading my posts, right? I have presented an extraordinarily hefty list of scenes and moments where sex in general is shown to have a negative influence on people. I'm not going to have anyone try to tear my argument apart, these things I've pointed out are not random isolated incidents. Go back to the hospital scene and pick a character. From this scene to maybe the moment Jason actually dies, each one (shy of Trish and Gordon) is made unlikable by the story, with something involving sex. I'm even ready to argue at this point that the ambulance drivers could be examples of this as well. That's how certain I am of what I'm saying. Tell me: who wants to watch a movie where something we know is (once you take the stigma off of) usually healthy is used to turn characters into nasty, selfish, anti-social assholes? Give me one reason why I shouldn't believe the movie is doing something wrong? How does the movie's attitude on sex translate into something intellectual, subversive, meta, or likewise redeemable? Because, if it's about boobs- I don't care. It's not my business to lecture people on that. And I haven't been. Part V has nudity and sleaze, but it doesn't turn the characters into assholes who threaten, manipulate, or demean others. Sex is sex. But dogging people over it is where I have a problem and I'm more than a little surprised that you can't understand where I'm coming from.


    Well, remember what I consider to be the point in which a film insults its' audience. Which I have clearly illustrated here, nearly scene by scene.
     
  4. dave13

    dave13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,479
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    i'll be honest, no, i haven't read everything you've written (although i've read the majority), and i'm not going to go back, because its a gigantic amount. hence why i just responded to one section earlier. so forgive me if you feel you've already covered something.

    but you seem to be using the term "unlikable" as an objective fact, when its in fact completely subjective. you make statements like "each one is made unlikable by the story", but they're only unlikable to you. clearly a lot of people liked these characters just fine. and as far as the unhealthy attitude towards sex goes, i think thats a connection you're making yourself. yes, sex permeates the film. it motivates almost everything that the characters do. and a lot of people die horribly. but, as you said, its a business decision. people wanted another friday the 13th movie. they wanted sex. and they wanted jason to kill a lot of people. and joe zito gave it to them. so if the characters' likability is based on subjective opinion, and the relationship between sex and death is a correlation, not a causation, do you really have any other problems with it? or, to put it another way, if I like the characters and read no offensive subtext into the relationship between sex and death in the film, can you tell me why I shouldn't like it?
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012
  5. dave13

    dave13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,479
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    this was your response to my question about what you mean by showing respect to the characters in the film, but i still don't know what you mean by that. the reason i bring it up, is because its a pattern i've noticed in your critiques of other films as well (such as humanoids from the deep or night of the demons). could you elaborate a little bit on that?
     
  6. Anthropophagus

    Anthropophagus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,046
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Canada
    Teenagers primarily motivated by sex? Surely you jest? and then getting killed for being promiscuous?
    Isn't this the major plot point of virtually every slasher film ever made?
    As far as misogny, as much as I like her, isn't the Debisue Voorhees character in Part V almost only there as a sex object to be killed off. I've rarely seen a film character with less exposition and character development, she literally does nothing more than thrust out her breasts, get laid and killed.
    IMO the characters in Part IV all have unique, though somewhat annoying personalities making the film more memorable than the average slasher film. I can recall those characters vividly, many by name, ask me to recall a single character in Prom Night (aside from JLC), The Prowler, or He Knows You're Alone, not so much.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012

Share This Page