PDA

View Full Version : Favorite 4th Sequel


rhett
10-21-2012, 06:55 AM
With the release of Paranormal Activity 4 we have yet another franchise to reach the coveted 4th film plateau. Many series have hit their stride in the fourth while many a series have went off the rails at the same installment. There's quite the list here, and several more that couldn't fit...which one is your favorite 4th film in a franchise?

Didn't make the cut:

Alien: Resurrection
Anal Intruder 4
Critters 4
Faces of Death IV
Frankenstein Created Woman
Hannibal Rising
House IV
Howling IV: The Original Nightmare
Initiation: Silent Night, Deadly Night 4
Jaws: The Revenge
Leprechaun 4: In Space
Omen IV: The Awakening
Night of the Seagulls
Puppet Master 4
Resident Evil: Afterlife
Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis
Subspecies 4: Bloodstorm
Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation
The Ghost of Frankenstein
Underworld: Awakening
Wrong Turn 4

DVD-fanatic-9
10-21-2012, 07:01 AM
Many series?

rhett
10-21-2012, 07:03 AM
Many series?

?

fattyjoe37
10-21-2012, 07:04 AM
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. Only 4th film that I feel is actually the best in a series. 2nd place would go to Bride of Chucky.

Undeadcow
10-21-2012, 07:13 AM
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. Only 4th film that I feel is actually the best in a series...Agreed.

I'd give second place to Phantasm IV: Oblivion. I've heard good things about Prom Night IV: Delivery Us From Evil and Psycho IV: The Beginning so will need to check them out.

DVD-fanatic-9
10-21-2012, 07:15 AM
Friday the 13th Part IV has great gore, but so did Part 3. The Final Chapter has shit for characters, though. Except for Trish, name one person in that bunch of imbeciles you actually like and give a good reason for liking them.

There is only one franchise that truly improved with the 4th film, and that's Child's Play. Not to say Children of the Corn IV wasn't a huge improvement over Urban Harvest, but the franchise hit its' peak with Final Sacrifice.

Marshall Crist
10-21-2012, 07:23 AM
Fourth Frankenstein would be GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN, I think, not HOUSE OF. I'm the clown that voted for THE MUMMY'S CURSE. Some pretty great movies on that list, to my surprise.

rhett
10-21-2012, 07:30 AM
Fourth Frankenstein would be GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN, I think, not HOUSE OF. I'm the clown that voted for THE MUMMY'S CURSE. Some pretty great movies on that list, to my surprise.
Correct, but HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN is actually the 4th Dracula film, so I figured since it kind of covered both that would be a better option to pick since I couldn't fit them all in. :)

rhett
10-21-2012, 07:36 AM
Friday the 13th Part IV has great gore, but so did Part 3. The Final Chapter has shit for characters, though. Except for Trish, name one person in that bunch of imbeciles you actually like and give a good reason for liking them.

There is only one franchise that truly improved with the 4th film, and that's Child's Play. Not to say Children of the Corn IV wasn't a huge improvement over Urban Harvest, but the franchise hit its' peak with Final Sacrifice.

The Final Sacrifice sucks, the third and fourth are easily better, and honestly I'd probably rather watch the first, fifth and seventh films over that one too.

As for the characters in The Final Chapter...Tommy Jarvis, Jimbo, the virgin, GORDON...all pretty likeable. The twins and Teddy are at the very least memorable.

dave13
10-21-2012, 07:39 AM
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. Only 4th film that I feel is actually the best in a series.

Actually, I think Children of the Corn IV is easily the best movie in that series. For elevating the franchise waaaay higher than it ever had a right to be, it gets my vote.

Rhett, I've gotta question not including Frankenstein Created Woman in the official list. I like Dracula has Risen from the Grave quite a bit, but i think Frankenstein Created Woman is a better film.

dave13
10-21-2012, 07:44 AM
Not to say Children of the Corn IV wasn't a huge improvement over Urban Harvest, but the franchise hit its' peak with Final Sacrifice.

:rolleyes: yeeeesh. no accounting for taste, i guess.

rhett
10-21-2012, 07:51 AM
Rhett, I've gotta question not including Frankenstein Created Woman in the official list. I like Dracula has Risen from the Grave quite a bit, but i think Frankenstein Created Woman is a better film.

It was one or the other for the Hammer flicks, and I most often hear about DHRFTG before Frankenstein Created Woman (despite the fact that that title OWNS) so that's why I went that way. Hammer's Dracula sequels were always more popular than their Frankenstein entries.

dave13
10-21-2012, 07:53 AM
As for the characters in The Final Chapter...Tommy Jarvis, Jimbo, the virgin, GORDON...all pretty likeable. The twins and Teddy are at the very least memorable.

i agree, i think the characters in The Final Chapter were all pretty enjoyable. Even somebody like Teddy is dick, but a likable dick. The twins don't have much screen time, and therefore not much of a personality, and Sam and her boyfriend (can't remember his name) also suffer from a lack of development, but otherwise the characters are actually pretty good in that film. I liked Rob a lot too, and his death is one of the more impactful ones in the series.

dave13
10-21-2012, 07:57 AM
Hammer's Dracula sequels were always more popular than their Frankenstein entries.

i think you're right, but for my money the frankensteins are definitely the better series of films. they have much more variety and a more consistent level of quality.

Katatonia
10-21-2012, 07:59 AM
Definitely Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter for me. Fun, fun, fun!

buck135
10-21-2012, 08:02 AM
Great thread Rhett. I struggled with this one. Finally went with "Friday the 13th 4" over "Nightmare 4." DVD-fanatic-9 makes some good points about the characters in "The Final Chapter," but I'll take them over the fire-urinating dog, Tuesday Knight and invisible kung-fu battle. :)

buck135
10-21-2012, 08:05 AM
rhett, i've gotta question not including frankenstein created woman in the official list. I like dracula has risen from the grave quite a bit, but i think frankenstein created woman is a better film.

"Hans!!!" :)

Hatchetwarrior
10-21-2012, 08:26 AM
The Final Chapter, no contest.

Chunkblower
10-21-2012, 08:46 AM
Psycho IV: The Beginning.

Probably the best made for TV franchise film, one of the best prequels and about a billion times better than it needed or had any right to be. Fantastic performances from Perkins, Thomas and Hussey. An under recognized gem in every way possible.

Garris power!

Erick H.
10-21-2012, 08:49 AM
Since the FRANKENSTEIN series from Hammer was excluded I will go with their Dracula outing DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE.Lee is very imposing,Freddie Francis gives the film a lush,colorful look and the staking scene is a doozy ! Great fun for Hammerheads !

JGrendel
10-21-2012, 12:01 PM
i agree, i think the characters in The Final Chapter were all pretty enjoyable. Even somebody like Teddy is dick, but a likable dick. The twins don't have much screen time, and therefore not much of a personality, and Sam and her boyfriend (can't remember his name) also suffer from a lack of development, but otherwise the characters are actually pretty good in that film. I liked Rob a lot too, and his death is one of the more impactful ones in the series.

Yeah I went with The Final Chapter too.
He's Killing Me!!!! He's Killing Me!!!!

DVD-fanatic-9
10-21-2012, 04:23 PM
Psycho IV: The Beginning.

Probably the best made for TV franchise film, one of the best prequels and about a billion times better than it needed or had any right to be. Fantastic performances from Perkins, Thomas and Hussey. An under recognized gem in every way possible.
I used to feel that way but, the years have soured me on it. The music and acting are great. CCH Pounder always upmarkets a movie, Perkins is of course wonderful, and Olivia Hussey gets to join the Hag Horror ranks. (A remarkable switch from the youthful, swanlike heroin she played in Black Christmas- in fact, is she maybe the only actress who's ever played both extremes?). But... there has never been (to my knowledge) a great film which looked back on how a child who became a killer became screwed up. At least 50% of the flashbacks register as padding.

Garris does have style, though. I think a lot of people under-recognize that about him. But, I give the edge in his filmography to Sleepwalkers (which is a legitimately good movie), his redo of The Shining (though some of it is boring), and Critters 2 (though some of it is lame).


Tommy Jarvis, Jimbo, the virgin, GORDON...all pretty likeable. The twins and Teddy are at the very least memorable.
At least you see my point (by naming the dog). Making characters shout things throughout your film like "God, I'm horny," "I'm am going to kill him," and "screw you" - with harsh anxiety - over not getting laid does not Quality Character Development make. The film, to my knowledge, is not intended to be a Battle of the Sexes narrative. And, even if it were, it goes nowhere. As it stands, the characters are aggressively unlikable. To the point where, in typical Bad Slasher Movie fashion- you just want to see them die. Jim kills himself when he says "besides, you've got the hot one of the two." Of course, the film in its' infinite wisdom decides to have the "hot one" he's talking about overhear him instead of actually confront him on the asshole thing he said and have the other girl walk by.

Tommy Jarvis likable? Just because he makes masks? As usual, I'm calling bullshit. This film only allows Trish to be likable- she's the ONLY one who doesn't get considerably caught up in the soul-crushing sleaze. The only thing I can say in Tommy's defense as a matter of fact, is that he had his debasements placed in the film's slightly less nasty uphill climb. When the teens' party starts, the film becomes an entirely oppressive experience (where before it was extremely unpleasent, cowardly, and tasteless). As though the film were saying kids cannot handle their sexual awareness or that being in groups makes them anti-social. This is a seriously fucked up movie. But of course, I place the blame on the filmmakers. Neither of which - Joe Zito and Barney Cohen - did any / much better on The Prowler (any) or Killer Party (much). This movie also forces me to do something I'm loathed to: say Paramount had a good reason to be embarrassed by this franchise- in this case they did.


Great thread Rhett. DVD-fanatic-9 makes some good points about the characters in "The Final Chapter," but I'll take them over the fire-urinating dog, Tuesday Knight and invisible kung-fu battle. :)
Thank you.

And, because of nostalgia (I remain contractually bound to say) a part of me still loves the film. Or the part of me which for so long remained ignorant about the film's overwhelming sleaze. (Which CAN be smart, when done right: From Beyond, Bride of Chucky again, Basket Case and Brain Damage, and I'd like to say Class of Nuke 'Em High, since the tone of the film didn't seem like it was punishing anyone for enjoying their sexuality - another reason to dislike Night of the Demons, btw, people who wagged their finger at me for that one - it just... poked them a little.) But it deserves credit for only its' technical qualities. However, that's not enough to argue the film is best in the franchise. Not when, by comparison, part 2 is a lot smarter or Jason Takes Manhattan is a lot more even, or Jason Lives a lot scarier. True to the filmmakers' personal kinks, I am stating here and now that Jason's groaning during the ultra-sexual death scenes was not suggesting his character was more wild and animal-like than the previous films. It was subtextually suggesting that he was getting off on killing. This may sound fanboyish but... Jason doesn't think about sex, ever (the filmmakers do). So, turning him into a sexual-frustration killer is the final nail in this film's coffin. (By the way, Cohen admits it on the DVD special features.)

Nightmare on Elm Street 4, on the other hand, would be a near-masterpiece were it not for the poor acting. It hurts me more than I can say (as a hardcore lover of style-for-substance horror: Dust Devil, Hardware, The Hunger, Brain Damage, Jason Takes Manhattan, Cat People, The Company of Wolves, arguably Def by Temptation, and half of Cemetery Man- the half that was good :p). But the film really does have a lot of great stuff going on. Its' one of those No Dialogue Needed stories. All Freddy has to do is show up in that classroom after we see Alice start to doze off and catch herself-thinking she's awake, peeling that apple, then do that walk, claw in face, and lick to Shiela... and right there, you have a classic horror scene for the ages (there's nothing else like it, not that I've ever seen). Even the ridiculous, Beetlejuician death doesn't hurt what we saw leading up to it. We don't even need to know Freddy was ever a child molestor, this says everything. It's a classic American nightmare- Freddy can go anywhere. Be anywhere. You're not safe anywhere! I almost have to give this scene a leg-up from Craven's original because we aren't really given any music or lighting signal that he's coming. He was just sitting in that seat since Alice/Shiela fell asleep.

The film also plays brilliantly with teen movie character conventions. It only needs to fix that damn Family Disharmony subplot. Which it just might have had it cast better actors. In fact, bad acting doesn't even hurt the scene right after the jeep accident. Any other horror film would cut directly to Alice at home, preparing to fight Freddy. This film makes an entire scene out of how Alice's character has developed thus far, sans guilt (over hurting Dan, which we didn't need to see anyway), and enhances it with style. I'll bet most people don't even remember it. I mean, Harlin even thought to throw in shots of Alice looking back at her father after stealing his car. It was a good shot too. Lisa Wilcox isn't that bad when she's not talking. In fact, one of the scariest things in the movie is the "Come on, honey, I don't wanna be here forever" moment. She was scarier there than Freddy was all-film.


The Final Sacrifice sucks
They all suck, Rhett. But The Final Sacrifice sucks less than most of them. As a matter of fact... and if you've read any of my reviews here, you know I'm as harshly critical of family disharmony plots/subplots as anyone could be... and in general, the film does a slightly better job at the kid vs. the father relationship than most horror films. I rewatched their confrontation scenes at least 5-15 times back in April after getting the DVD sequel set. Which is only a measure of how closely I usually examine the films I watch. But, the film is better than it gets credit for. And WITHOUT a doubt, kicks the shit out of that awful Urban Harvest.


the third and fourth are easily better
The third film is an intolerable mess with Daniel Cerny ruining every single scene. Every single scene he's in is the reason the film is... frankly, just as bad as part 6. Usually, film quality is a matter of opinion but- if you thought that kid did a good job beyond his facial expressions, you slept through it. Hilariously enough, though, the film doesn't improve much when he's not onscreen. Part 6 has better acting. In fact, part 6 has only one thing that makes it worse: the ending. And the painful melodrama. The third film is excrutiatingly bad. Do you / people like you (the only way to even hope to have a leg to stand on in defending Urban Harvest is to say "turn your brain off"; I believe there's a large Turn Your Brain Off subculture in film appreciation) have any actual scale for how bad the things we see in this film can get? And I have a list: the basketball scenes, the classroom seating confrontation, the pizza dinner scene, the off-to-school kiss, the broken glass ornament, the idea that any kid in the entire world (no matter how screwed up) could be so stupid that they'd be swayed by the unbelievably braindead and uncharismatic preaching of Eli, another incredibly empty-headed portrayal of domestic abuse (I was, as you'd expect, more terrified for the corn stalks than what that guy might have ever done to the boys), the social worker's death scene...

In fact, name one thing the 3rd film did better. Except perhaps for cinematography / camerawork.

As for The Gathering, less than a 3rd of the film actually works. By taking itself seriously and trying to treat the characters with respect, it then forgot what Franchise Rules were about to do to all its' hard work. The absurd, over the top schlockiness of all of the "horror" elements (and Karen Black's performance) pissed away all the film's potential. And, in fact, the film is worse for trying because it almost insults you for giving it credit. With its' mind-numbingly stupid death scenes, awful special effects, and uneven performances which shift into 9th-Circle-of-Hell badness when Lead Corn Kid #4 is given the ability to speak. Which depressingly reminds us how good John Franklin's performance was by comparison. After the scene where Grace's best friend says something like "we've got a problem" (during the tooth-folder sequence) the film turns into almost complete, rotting, smelly garbage and never looks back. Which is a lot more pure suckage time compared to the final 9-minute sequence from Final Sacrifice (which admittedly is where that film turns into rotting, smelly garbage).

Kim Bruun
10-21-2012, 04:30 PM
Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter, marginally beating Halloween 4: The Return of Micale Myers. Both offer memorable slasher thrills, but The Final Chapter is simply the epitome of a Friday the 13th movie - boobs, cheese, jump scares, things going through windows, and an awesome final chase.

fceurich39
10-21-2012, 06:06 PM
easy pick here Friday the 13th The Final Chapter which is the best out of the entire crop and best F13TH FILM as well!

evildeadfan123
10-21-2012, 06:18 PM
Voted Phantasm IV: Oblivion, 2nd would be Child's Play 4.

rhett
10-21-2012, 06:24 PM
Surprised there has been (a little) love for OblIVion...I'm all for Phantasm and really even like III, but this one seemed pretty morose and just kind of a stringing together of whatever Coscarelli could get his hands on in order to make it feature length.

fceurich39
10-21-2012, 06:36 PM
Surprised there has been (a little) love for OblIVion...I'm all for Phantasm and really even like III, but this one seemed pretty morose and just kind of a stringing together of whatever Coscarelli could get his hands on in order to make it feature length.

completly agree i didnt care for OBlivion at all and i love the first 3 phantasm films no wonder the desperation for a Phantasm V

X-human
10-21-2012, 07:19 PM
Correct, but HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN is actually the 4th Dracula film, so I figured since it kind of covered both that would be a better option to pick since I couldn't fit them all in. :)

Wow, Frankenstein really got shafted in this poll with both the Universal and Hammer series being struck from the ballot. And replaced by two terrible films in Dracula series which can't hold a candle to their Frankenstein counterparts.

:gay:

I mean, neither of those Frankenstein movies are prize pigs themselves, but both Dracula series took a huge nose dive after the second entries. While both of the Frankenstein series had a much more gradual decline.

Anthropophagus
10-21-2012, 07:39 PM
Friday The 13th-The Final Chapter is my favorite in the series and pretty much the one I always come back to. I love the characters, very colorful, compared to the generic horror film characters that populated the earlier films. Great gore, well paced, Corey Feldman, Lawrence Monoson and Crispin Glover had amazing chemistry too. I would argue with the exception of Amy Steele, the most memorable characters are all in The Final Chapter.
Runner-ups are Halloween 4 and Dracula Has Risen From The Grave.
The rot definitely starts to sink in by the fourth chapter for most franchises.

dayglo
10-21-2012, 08:31 PM
Friday the 13th The Final Chapter. For me it's easily the best slasher, and one that's easily and often revisited.

rhett
10-21-2012, 10:45 PM
Wow, Frankenstein really got shafted in this poll with both the Universal and Hammer series being struck from the ballot. And replaced by two terrible films in Dracula series which can't hold a candle to their Frankenstein counterparts.

:gay:

I mean, neither of those Frankenstein movies are prize pigs themselves, but both Dracula series took a huge nose dive after the second entries. While both of the Frankenstein series had a much more gradual decline.

Fine fine fiiiiiiine, out goes Dracula Has Risen from the Grave and in is Frankenstein Created Woman. If it doesn't get your vote there'll be hell to pay!

Body Boy
10-22-2012, 03:29 AM
Friday the 13th Part IV has great gore, but so did Part 3. The Final Chapter has shit for characters, though. Except for Trish, name one person in that bunch of imbeciles you actually like and give a good reason for liking them.

I liked Trish, Tommy, Mrs. Jarvis, Sara, Doug, Samantha, Jimbo and Tina. I didn't care for Teddy but I wouldn't say the film has shit characters.

Sara was especially sweet and just looking for love.

MorallySound
10-22-2012, 04:13 AM
Ernest Scared Stupid.

The Final Chapter gets runner-up.

msw7
10-22-2012, 04:18 AM
Bride of Chucky for me - my favorite movie of that series, and my favorite movie on the list.

/Anal Intruder 4 doesn't hold a candle to Backdoor Bandits 11.

rhett
10-22-2012, 05:10 AM
Ernest Scared Stupid.

The Final Chapter gets runner-up.

Fist bump. Respect.

DVD-fanatic-9
10-22-2012, 05:17 AM
I liked Trish, Tommy, Mrs. Jarvis, Sara, Doug, Samantha, Jimbo and Tina. I didn't care for Teddy but I wouldn't say the film has shit characters.
Not really any reasons there. :eek2:

othervoice1
10-22-2012, 05:21 AM
Definitely Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter for me. Fun, fun, fun!

Yep gets my vote as well

rhett
10-22-2012, 06:11 AM
Not really any reasons there. :eek2:

You are the internet's biggest contrarian, I can understand why there are no reasons because it's a losing battle trying to negotiate with you. At the end of the day we're talking about opinions, and ultimately they mean jack shit. Is it really worth debating whether you think a character is likable when another person thinks opposite. Does it really matter? I mean, characters don't even HAVE to be likable, there have been many a good film, like say The Rules of Attraction or The Blair Witch Project, where all the characters are douche bags and yet the movie works even more because of it.

Whether the characters are likable or not, the characters in THE FINAL CHAPTER are at least memorable. Trish, Tommy, Jimbo, Teddy, the Twins, Rob, Sara, Gordon (I'd consider it more a compliment to the film that the dog is actually remembered by name, and hell, the dude jumps through a window to save his life, that's spirit if I ever saw it), they're all characters that stand out and that you can remember. I've seen Part 2 more times than any of the films and consider it the best in the series, and even still I can't remember any of their names. Ginny, is it? And then there's Annie. I dunno. The point is, defining any movie, especially a FRIDAY THE 13TH movie, by the likability of its characters is just silly to begin with - since films are so much more than that. Why are you putting these arbitrary pillars of judgment on movies like that?

I started enjoying movies a lot more when I stopped trying to judge them for this and that - nothing's perfect and with everything you'll take out things that resonate with you. Enjoy it, learn a little about yourself or the movies, and be happy knowing there's a lifetime supply of movies out there to watch.

thrashard76
10-22-2012, 07:02 AM
Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter

Body Boy
10-22-2012, 07:08 AM
Not really any reasons there. :eek2:

I don't need reasons to like people. That's stupid.

"Hey, do you have any friends in Psych class?"

"Yeah, a few. I like Phil, Barb and Jessica."

"Why?"

"Well, I just do. They're just likable to me."

"That's not really a reason. I question your validity in liking them."

How's this? Tommy and Trish's brother and sister authentic relationship makes their bond shine through the strongest of the bunch in the movie. Mrs. Jarvis now divorced and having to take care of two independent kids in the woods alone leaves room for her love of them to grow. She's notably out for their best interest and loves hugs. Hugs!

Doug is the nice guy who knows to look out for his friend Paul when Sara is about to get in the middle of a battle between Tina and Samantha. As shy as she is, he overcomes this and allows her time to warm up. Sara herself is an achievement being the friend of Sam, a sort-of idol for her to look up to. She's not as pretty so her confidence is shot, but she's good-hearted. "I think I'm in love." Naive yet innocent.

Jimbo has a similar relationship with Ted that Sara does with Sam, except that instead of the best friend being helpful and aiding their path, Ted is a phony would-be con man had he not been sliced in the back of the head by Jason. Jimbo cannot understand women the way Sara cannot understand men. We know from Sam's flow with Sara what her reaction would have been to Sara's accomplishment. A probable "See? What'd I tell ya? That's all there is to it." encouraging and solidifying their bond. What does Teddy do? "Alright! *snort snort*" But he never actually believed in Jimbo. As he sees that Jimmy has surpassed him and gained the upper hand, his face is written with defeat and he has nowhere to turn to but the old silent women on the screen in front of him. He's the dead fuck. Which is why, in contrast with Sara and Sam, he will pull Jim down to his level to make himself feel better.

When Sara is just lying down on the dock, she's staying inside her shell. She's not going into the water, or "the ocean with all the fishies" to mingle. She's fine being dry in her clothes, and afraid to put herself out there, or her body for this instance. Sam being the friend she is, pulls her into the water, not to be a bitch, but to liven her up. This is how she can get Doug. If she goes for it and isn't afraid to get soaked in the process. "You bitch!" Sara retaliates, but Sam's mindset is not to piss off, but to help.

Tina is the sluttier of the twins. From Paul to Jimbo. Well, she DID win the beer contest after all. But she doesn't treat men like a bitch would. She's fully invested, compliments Jim and isn't a stickler like Terri. She's not as fleshed out like the others, but she's just looking for some fun. Summer time is meant to be bold.

The characters alone are themselves. When mixed with others, that's where the dimensions come through.

Erick H.
10-22-2012, 08:33 AM
Fine fine fiiiiiiine, out goes Dracula Has Risen from the Grave and in is Frankenstein Created Woman. If it doesn't get your vote there'll be hell to pay!

Hey Rhett,I voted for DRACULA and now it's been pulled.I WOULD have voted for FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN but it wasn't an option when I cast my vote.As I've already voted,the poll won't let me vote again,even though my first choice was deleted.Can you throw a vote to FRANKENSTEIN for me since I was ''disenfranchised'' ? :)

rhett
10-22-2012, 10:01 AM
Hey Rhett,I voted for DRACULA and now it's been pulled.I WOULD have voted for FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN but it wasn't an option when I cast my vote.As I've already voted,the poll won't let me vote again,even though my first choice was deleted.Can you throw a vote to FRANKENSTEIN for me since I was ''disenfranchised'' ? :)

When I swapped Dracula for Frankenstein it was in the same space where your one vote was for Dracula, so your vote has been preserved. :)

Gore Lunatic
10-22-2012, 11:38 AM
Voted for Land Of The Dead. Mainly because I've watched it more times than any film on that list.

shape22
10-22-2012, 07:31 PM
Halloween 4 for me. Easily my favorite sequel in the series. It's the only one other than the original that doesn't waste a lot of time on generic cardboard cutout victims in waiting. I'd put F13th 4 in second place. I think most of the Friday series is pretty dire. But I like that one quite a bit.

Erick H.
10-23-2012, 06:56 AM
When I swapped Dracula for Frankenstein it was in the same space where your one vote was for Dracula, so your vote has been preserved. :)

Cool,thanks !

satans-sadists
10-24-2012, 06:53 AM
Frankenstein Created Woman is my favorite from the list. Underrated movie.

shithead
10-24-2012, 07:15 AM
Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter

Easy.

DVD-fanatic-9
10-24-2012, 10:40 PM
The point is, defining any movie, especially a FRIDAY THE 13TH movie, by the likability of its characters is just silly to begin with - since films are so much more than that. Why are you putting these arbitrary pillars of judgment on movies like that?
That is a fair point. But, remember: I am talking about poisoning characters and making it impossible to like them. I know these movies are harmless, popcorn flicks. As a group. But that doesn't mean they all were made the same way, by the same people. The only kind of person who would argue that is someone who can't separate the films from their nostalgia. Even you have to admit there's something off about a movie where every single murder is sexual in nature. And, yet... the movie makes no point. It's not a commentary on what people think of the franchise. If anything, it's a case of the filmmakers saying "let's be The Worst Friday the 13th movie we can be. People think we're sexist, let's kill a fat woman while she's eating. Let's write the biggest slut character ever seen in a teen slasher. Let's mutilate guys' genitals. Let's have a pre-teen boy with (admittedly low-grade) sexual frustration. And Jason, too! So the final battle will come down to: who's getting less action- an 11-year old boy or a disfigured, zombie mongoloid mass murderer." But... this isn't a movie about how fucked up the people were who dismissed the validity of horror or whined about slasher films being sexist (which, sometimes, they were). It's, exactly, about what's wrong with the people making this film. And the characters can not (and do not) escape this unscathed.


You are the internet's biggest contrarian, I can understand why there are no reasons because it's a losing battle trying to negotiate with you. At the end of the day we're talking about opinions, and ultimately they mean jack shit. Is it really worth debating whether you think a character is likable when another person thinks opposite. Does it really matter? I mean, characters don't even HAVE to be likable, there have been many a good film, like say The Rules of Attraction or The Blair Witch Project, where all the characters are douche bags and yet the movie works even more because of it.
I see your thought-process here, but you're way off. You can't call me a contrarian because you think I'm saying every movie must present likable characters. I'm not saying that. American Psycho, Hostel, and Scream (to name a few) work - sometimes better - when you don't like the characters. I'm not challenging those films, because they were making a point about the world the characters lived in and/or the kinds of people they were. But, you realize as well as anyone else: this is Friday the 13th. None of these movies have been intellectual, subversive, or meta- so there is no reason for the characters to be aggressively unlikable.

Follow me, here:

In real life, you're at a party and some guy is sitting in a chair whining, "God, I'm horny!"- are you going to sit down and have a conversation with him because you like him? What he is saying is: "I want a hot chick to take me upstairs and bang my brains out." He has no more story apart from: when will I get laid (and, consequently, when will I die)? This isn't characterization- it is a means to An End of Characterization. This is when a character turns into a body. Food for the Body Count. Same for the guy on the staircase who's turned into some kind of pathetic wild animal, attempting to mark A Woman as his territory, and of course adding to his likability with: "I am going to kill him!" You're still at that party... is this guy good for the mix? What do you think? This is the movie's story: you're at a party, and all anyone is thinking about is Competing for Lay Privileges. (Except Sara and Doug, and their involvement in the insipid Paul and Sam drama destroys what made them likable, as does the shower scene which treats her like An Ass - literally - and he, in case you don't remember, has his character enhanced with: "Whoops, dropped my bar of soap. Lucky you're in here with me, ol' pal!")

I see you arguing "let's ignore" all the stuff that makes the movie terrible. Um... no. Why should I do that? Amount of gore and sleaze doesn't make a film great, it's how the film crafts them. And for a guy who has written some downright provocative reviews trying to crack the surface of slasher films, I would have expected you to see the patterns in a movie like this. This movie treats young people like shit, to the point where I could easily argue that it hates or is jealous of them. And this isn't subtextual, deeply buried stuff: it is right on the surface. I'm the contrarian? How so... ? I pointed to films where sleaze / excessive nudity / controversial sexual themes are used to arc characters (From Beyond), or to be subtextual (Brain Damage), or elegant (Cat People remake)... I even gave you an example of a film where they gave us a sexually frustrated killer and said: like him if you can (Basket Case). Am I contrarian for presenting a balanced argument? No. What you're saying is: I am annoying you for talking about things you don't want to hear about. I mean, honestly? I don't see anything I've written here crossing the border into hostile or extreme.


I don't need reasons to like people. That's stupid.
I'm not talking about real people. If I were, Friday the 13th Part IV wouldn't come up.


How's this? Tommy and Trish's brother and sister authentic relationship makes their bond shine through the strongest of the bunch in the movie.
And the movie uses Trish to cockblock Tommy's eyes, then Tommy's haircut cockblocks Trish from going to the party (where, knowing this movie, she would have been reduced to a sleazebag or another object). The movie's sleaze entirely voids the possibility for any relationship to develop between the two. They are both still pawns in pushing the film's bad attitude toward sex. At best, the attack Jason launches on their house changes the movie's gears (actually, I do think this- it's not a great chase scene but it is an impressive attack scene... shy of Jason being effectively fended off by Trish's barrage of light slaps and kicks). But now, you have to cut that section of the movie off from the rest.


Mrs. Jarvis now divorced and having to take care of two independent kids in the woods alone leaves room for her love of them to grow. She's notably out for their best interest and loves hugs. Hugs!
The movie doesn't forget to rape her either. She's introduced by Trish as "you're horny," she also cockblocks Tommy's eyes, forces Trish to take Tommy to get a haircut, and then does an "I'm Unhappy" look out the window at the bunch of partying teens as they arrive- knowing her kids are thinking about sex and quietly wishing she were their age again (so, of course, she wouldn't have to be preventing anyone from getting any). I know this example probably makes her look better in the fans' eyes, since otherwise she's being treated as old and worn-out. But... does the movie give her any? Why couldn't she have gone over next door to say "hey" to the kids? Why the fuck not give her Jim; where's the rule that says guys of 17-21 have never had a thing for teachers (women of that average age)? Oh, wait... because they needed to portray a woman (Tina) as a meddling, evil bitch who gets off (literally) on making guys jealous and busting up a relationship. Forget feeling the plight of the characters they wrote (it was their friggin' idea). They could have gone another route. Made Rob more the mother's age, then given Jim to Trish. I mean, the movie didn't give a damn about Rob's story anyway (it was padding at best). No matter how you look at this movie, it uses all its' characters to fuck over someone else. Except Sara and Doug, who are then used as pointless titilation and, in his case- maybe even homophobia (if he was doing his "dropped the soap" routine to annoy Paul for annoying him in the shower, then it's the same as saying "fag" to get under someone's skin).


Doug is the nice guy who knows to look out for his friend Paul when Sara is about to get in the middle of a battle between Tina and Samantha.
Am I wrong or did you just attempt to invoke a catfight where even I don't believe the movie was trying to? Yeah, as fucked up as this movie is and much as I hate Joe Zito and Barney Cohen for ruining it- even I don't think that's what was going on. She was pissed at Paul, otherwise her dialogue (All About Paul, and their relationship) in the bathroom wouldn't make much sense. Tina didn't even show up on her radar, and it would have been the same had any girl from outside their group of friends been dancing with him. Unless her character'd been written differently.


Sara herself is an achievement being the friend of Sam, a sort-of idol for her to look up to. She's not as pretty so her confidence is shot, but she's good-hearted. "I think I'm in love." Naive yet innocent.
Not pretty? I think all those "Hottest Girl" polls would disagree with you. She made a lot of people's lists. In fact, I think she got more votes than Judie Aronson.

Anyway, good-hearted or not- the scene where she becomes nothing more than a butt pressed up against the glass for a juvenile tee-hee by the filmmakers ruins anything the movie had previously built up.


Jimbo has a similar relationship with Ted that Sara does with Sam, except that instead of the best friend being helpful and aiding their path, Ted is a phony would-be con man had he not been sliced in the back of the head by Jason. Jimbo cannot understand women the way Sara cannot understand men. We know from Sam's flow with Sara what her reaction would have been to Sara's accomplishment. A probable "See? What'd I tell ya? That's all there is to it." encouraging and solidifying their bond. What does Teddy do? "Alright! *snort snort*" But he never actually believed in Jimbo. As he sees that Jimmy has surpassed him and gained the upper hand, his face is written with defeat and he has nowhere to turn to but the old silent women on the screen in front of him. He's the dead fuck. Which is why, in contrast with Sara and Sam, he will pull Jim down to his level to make himself feel better.
They're all dead fucks. Remember?


Sam being the friend she is, pulls her into the water, not to be a bitch, but to liven her up.
No. It's to get a tit shot when she bobs to the surface of the water. Then, to get Sara wet in the hopes that the audience gets a nipple through wet clothes shot of Sara.


Tina is the sluttier of the twins. From Paul to Jimbo. Well, she DID win the beer contest after all. But she doesn't treat men like a bitch would. She's fully invested, compliments Jim and isn't a stickler like Terri.
I think you just poked a hole in my theory. I admit when I'm bested and... for once, someone here has presented a character that the film fucked up yet attempts to correct before killing her.

Of course, this redemption does not exist with any of the other characters. Not even with Tommy. Final shot suggesting that Tommy will become Jason, as in: he will kill because he hasn't gotten laid.

But... you have a very valid point with Tina.

bigdaddyhorse
10-24-2012, 10:50 PM
Friday the 13th wins because it has boobs.
The Final Destination would've won if it had some titties! It's really all that's missing, besides a plot, but it's great mindless fun and my favorite 4th just behind the only 4th that ever mattered. Friday 4 was also the first one I got to see in the theater, one of many reasons it rules.

buck135
10-24-2012, 10:56 PM
Friday the 13th wins because it has boobs.
The Final Destination would've won if it had some titties! It's really all that's missing, besides a plot, but it's great mindless fun and my favorite 4th just behind the only 4th that ever mattered. Friday 4 was also the first one I got to see in the theater, one of many reasons it rules.

LOL! You just don't get this kind of honesty any more. You're hilarious BDH.

Body Boy
10-25-2012, 12:06 AM
I'm not talking about real people. If I were, Friday the 13th Part IV wouldn't come up.

It's the same thing though. People can like film characters just as they like people in real life. Interaction is a difference, but there's no true reason needed to enjoy the onscreen presence of people for being what is depicted as themselves.


And the movie uses Trish to cockblock Tommy's eyes, then Tommy's haircut cockblocks Trish from going to the party (where, knowing this movie, she would have been reduced to a sleazebag or another object). The movie's sleaze entirely voids the possibility for any relationship to develop between the two. They are both still pawns in pushing the film's bad attitude toward sex. At best, the attack Jason launches on their house changes the movie's gears (actually, I do think this- it's not a great chase scene but it is an impressive attack scene... shy of Jason being effectively fended off by Trish's barrage of light slaps and kicks). But now, you have to cut that section of the movie off from the rest.


This is their relationship though. One leads the other to step in and get in the way. Trish is frustrated throughout much of the film at Tommy (haircut, broken car, not leaving when she tells him to) and it feels upsetting because it's tying her down, even when it's not his fault (the car). But in the end the teens next door do not remain. Tommy remains. Trish's flesh and blood. It all comes back to a return; their bond, a typical sibling rivalry with the older's animosity. Trish sees Tommy in trouble so she must run to his rescue (kind of like covering his eyes from the skinny dipping) and divert Jason on a chase. Tommy's transformation into young Jason dives in to save his sister, meddling once again. The two are inseparable whether they like it or not, because they feel obligated to, but also because they want to.

The movie doesn't forget to rape her either. She's introduced by Trish as "you're horny," she also cockblocks Tommy's eyes, forces Trish to take Tommy to get a haircut, and then does an "I'm Unhappy" look out the window at the bunch of partying teens as they arrive- knowing her kids are thinking about sex and quietly wishing she were their age again (so, of course, she wouldn't have to be preventing anyone from getting any). I know this example probably makes her look better in the fans' eyes, since otherwise she's being treated as old and worn-out. But... does the movie give her any? Why couldn't she have gone over next door to say "hey" to the kids? Why the fuck not give her Jim; where's the rule that says guys of 17-21 have never had a thing for teachers (women of that average age)? Oh, wait... because they needed to portray a woman (Tina) as a meddling, evil bitch who gets off (literally) on making guys jealous and busting up a relationship. Forget feeling the plight of the characters they wrote (it was their friggin' idea). They could have gone another route. Made Rob more the mother's age, then given Jim to Trish. I mean, the movie didn't give a damn about Rob's story anyway (it was padding at best). No matter how you look at this movie, it uses all its' characters to fuck over someone else. Except Sara and Doug, who are then used as pointless titilation and, in his case- maybe even homophobia (if he was doing his "dropped the soap" routine to annoy Paul for annoying him in the shower, then it's the same as saying "fag" to get under someone's skin).


The kids next door are easy to read. Kids are impressionable. Clearly Trish is a bit classier than those new guys. "Dead Fuck" continues to come out of Ted's mouth, as if that weren't an indication of their position. As a young gay man, I find that the homophobia comment is a far stretch. People talk like that. It's nothing deeper, it's a passing comment.


Am I wrong or did you just attempt to invoke a catfight where even I don't believe the movie was trying to? Yeah, as fucked up as this movie is and much as I hate Joe Zito and Barney Cohen for ruining it- even I don't think that's what was going on. She was pissed at Paul, otherwise her dialogue (All About Paul, and their relationship) in the bathroom wouldn't make much sense. Tina didn't even show up on her radar, and it would have been the same had any girl from outside their group of friends been dancing with him. Unless her character'd been written differently.


Not an staged catfight, but Sam and Tina will not be going out for coffee after this. It's realistic that there will be some emotion on Sam's side. Simply because she's angry with Paul, Tina will be in the line of fire. There was obvious potential for a fight to occur. No way would a fight look out of place had it occured in place of the raft scene.


Not pretty? I think all those "Hottest Girl" polls would disagree with you. She made a lot of people's lists. In fact, I think she got more votes than Judie Aronson.

I said that she's not as pretty. Though subjective, Samantha is without a doubt made to look like the sex object over Sara. Just look at the outfits they were placed in. Sara's is more conservative, and under wraps. In comparison with Aronson, she's meant to be the insecure one. It's hinted at lookswise so we understand this, despite personal preferences.


Anyway, good-hearted or not- the scene where she becomes nothing more than a butt pressed up against the glass for a juvenile tee-hee by the filmmakers ruins anything the movie had previously built up.


Subjective. It expresses that though this is her first (probably) sexual encounter, she's holding on and going for it. It's not awkward. For a first time she's into it. Otherwise they'd simply embrace with little to no thrusting. This is her chance.


No. It's to get a tit shot when she bobs to the surface of the water. Then, to get Sara wet in the hopes that the audience gets a nipple through wet clothes shot of Sara.


Of course it's about the tit shot, but we can still analyze this film. Much like how you've been doing. If we say "oh that's just text" there, we can apply it everywhere, such as the supposed anti-teen and sex angle that you're holding onto. But it's still Sam trying to bring out her friend.


I think you just poked a hole in my theory. I admit when I'm bested and... for once, someone here has presented a character that the film fucked up yet attempts to correct before killing her.

Of course, this redemption does not exist with any of the other characters. Not even with Tommy. Final shot suggesting that Tommy will become Jason, as in: he will kill because he hasn't gotten laid.

But... you have a very valid point with Tina.

Thanks, but I don't think that characters need to be redeemed directly before they're offed. They have their whole lives before them. Dying in lust or cowardice won't rewrite charitable actions previous.

Anthropophagus
10-25-2012, 12:45 AM
It's the same thing though. People can like film characters just as they like people in real life. Interaction is a difference, but there's no true reason needed to enjoy the onscreen presence of people for being what is depicted as themselves.



This is their relationship though. One leads the other to step in and get in the way. Trish is frustrated throughout much of the film at Tommy (haircut, broken car, not leaving when she tells him to) and it feels upsetting because it's tying her down, even when it's not his fault (the car). But in the end the teens next door do not remain. Tommy remains. Trish's flesh and blood. It all comes back to a return; their bond, a typical sibling rivalry with the older's animosity. Trish sees Tommy in trouble so she must run to his rescue (kind of like covering his eyes from the skinny dipping) and divert Jason on a chase. Tommy's transformation into young Jason dives in to save his sister, meddling once again. The two are inseparable whether they like it or not, because they feel obligated to, but also because they want to.



The kids next door are easy to read. Kids are impressionable. Clearly Trish is a bit classier than those new guys. "Dead Fuck" continues to come out of Ted's mouth, as if that weren't an indication of their position. As a young gay man, I find that the homophobia comment is a far stretch. People talk like that. It's nothing deeper, it's a passing comment.



Not an staged catfight, but Sam and Tina will not be going out for coffee after this. It's realistic that there will be some emotion on Sam's side. Simply because she's angry with Paul, Tina will be in the line of fire. There was obvious potential for a fight to occur. No way would a fight look out of place had it occured in place of the raft scene.



I said that she's not as pretty. Though subjective, Samantha is without a doubt made to look like the sex object over Sara. Just look at the outfits they were placed in. Sara's is more conservative, and under wraps. In comparison with Aronson, she's meant to be the insecure one. It's hinted at lookswise so we understand this, despite personal preferences.



Subjective. It expresses that though this is her first (probably) sexual encounter, she's holding on and going for it. It's not awkward. For a first time she's into it. Otherwise they'd simply embrace with little to no thrusting. This is her chance.



Of course it's about the tit shot, but we can still analyze this film. Much like how you've been doing. If we say "oh that's just text" there, we can apply it everywhere, such as the supposed anti-teen and sex angle that you're holding onto. But it's still Sam trying to bring out her friend.



Thanks, but I don't think that characters need to be redeemed directly before they're offed. They have their whole lives before them. Dying in lust or cowardice won't rewrite charitable actions previous.

Damn, great arguments.
Body Boy +1.

Mutilated Prey
10-25-2012, 12:58 AM
F13 Final Chapter - it's really no contest.

TED! HEY TED WHERE THE HELL'S THE CORKSCREW?!?!

JGrendel
10-25-2012, 01:13 AM
Why are we still arguing about this? I like Friday the 13th, I always will but it's not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. But whether you like it or not it's a fan favorite that seems to be winning the poll. So can we all agree to disagree?

Workshed
10-25-2012, 01:16 AM
I see your thought-process here, but you're way off. You can't call me a contrarian because you think I'm saying every movie must present likable characters. I'm not saying that.

Classic contrarian.

Ash28M
10-25-2012, 01:23 AM
Shouldn't this be titled best 3rd sequel? Anyway i pick Friday 4.

Body Boy
10-25-2012, 02:41 AM
Why are we still arguing about this? I like Friday the 13th, I always will but it's not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. But whether you like it or not it's a fan favorite that seems to be winning the poll. So can we all agree to disagree?

Discussion is a large part of film culture. There's no need to nip anything in the bud. Let this continue. It opens doors in the mind.

And I'm sure that somehow, some way, I could make a case for Friday the 13th being a masterpiece, at least in relation to other genres and hailed films. Probably won't as it might take a lot of effort, but considering the thousands of frames per film, there's enough information out there to make a case for many ideologies.

DVD-fanatic-9
10-25-2012, 03:44 AM
Discussion is a large part of film culture. There's no need to nip anything in the bud. Let this continue. It opens doors in the mind.
I wish I could say that were true. Mostly? A lot of fans are just dismissing me entirely. And not before they try to justify it with some form of "I don't want to hear this" hidden in a "you're not viewing this film the way it was intended to be." That is true, I'm not. But I have a reason. I believe it's important to not give praise to a film that attacks the audience or insults their intelligence. People here are saying they don't care how bad the movie is, so long as it has boobs and gore. Except in your case (and maybe in the case of the people who are replying in agreement with you, though that's debatable since again I'm admitting that people don't want to hear this). You want to believe the story comes to life in your mind. Which it does, actually. But you're the one who deserves credit for that. Instead? You give it to the movie.


It's the same thing though. People can like film characters just as they like people in real life.
Parts of them. Impressions of them. But you're not coming to terms with how the movie treats them. You're attempting to basically ignore what the movie is suggesting. It does in fact have a bad attitude about sex and it is directly distilled through the characters. This is not subjective, there is a mountain of evidence- things I haven't even pointed out. Look at how many times characters are used for the sake of "look, she's an ass." That a character (and none of the characters here are compelling written- you have been reaching far more into subjectivenss than I have) is entirely reduced to a butt shot.


Interaction is a difference, but there's no true reason needed to enjoy the onscreen presence of people for being what is depicted as themselves.
These people didn't feel real. They felt manipulated by the filmmakers' desire to make this... okay, I'll play it your way a little: A More Sexually... "Open" Film. You should be able to at least admit these characters' actions have been pushed in a certain direction to make the audience think more about sex. There's no denying what Ted is talking about in his sequence on the staircase, what Jim is talking about in the car, etc etc etc. And, you also have to admit they're only real desire is to get laid. That at least they likely wouldn't be in a bad mood if they could have sex once that night. Because... I think you can admit: these characters aren't happy when they speak their lines with clear anxiety or anger in their voice and on their face. Now, think back and tell me when any of the characters have found themselves in a good place sexually before they died. Look at Jim, he's even pissed off after he's gotten what he worked all movie long to get. Can you explain why he should be acting like such an ingrate?


This is their relationship though. One leads the other to step in and get in the way. Trish is frustrated throughout much of the film at Tommy (haircut, broken car, not leaving when she tells him to) and it feels upsetting because it's tying her down, even when it's not his fault (the car). But in the end the teens next door do not remain. Tommy remains.
So you're saying: Trish is saved because her big sister duty won't allow her to have sex? Didn't work so well for the mother...

And by the way, I can't believe I have to say this: you didn't get my usage of "cockblock." I mean, very blatantly: Deny Sexual Pleasure. I mean, the movie said: when Trish won't let Tommy see the skinny-dipping teens, he is very unhappy and accuses Trish of treating him like a child ("come on, Gordon; we're too young for this"). But what the movie cares about: Every Male Character Wants to See Sex at all times if they can't have it (reinforced later by Ted's weed-soaked quasi-satisfied state while the nudie movies play, and even that is depressing). And it very much paints Trish as the anchor here. She's not misunderstanding him, she's being a buzzkill. Because this is how much the movie cares about its' characters. They aren't thinking, feeling human beings beyond sexual whims: they are enablers or deniers. And surprisingly... even the enablers aren't treated much better than this.


It all comes back to a return; their bond, a typical sibling rivalry with the older's animosity. Trish sees Tommy in trouble so she must run to his rescue (kind of like covering his eyes from the skinny dipping) and divert Jason on a chase. Tommy's transformation into young Jason dives in to save his sister, meddling once again. The two are inseparable whether they like it or not, because they feel obligated to, but also because they want to.
Okay, a lot of people on the board have been posting the Purple Jumping-Bean Smiley as a way to literally insult another person, so I'll be avoiding that cliche for the moment...

But, you're describing a radically different film. I mean, for your analysis to work, it must tie-in to the final shot of Tommy. Who does not look at all relieved that the "massacre is over." At best, what you could argue is that it is what everyone else thinks: hook for Part 5. And nothing more. If it wasn't for the fact that Tommy hugs Trish (which you read way too much into), Tommy's presence in the end is only about replacing Jason as a psycho killer. And, remember, over the course of this film- Jason has been grunting far too vocally while killing the victims. All of whom had just done something sexual or been linked to a sex act mere seconds before he attacks them. It's the same as a person being attacked by a werewolf the second they cut themselves on something = the smell was in the air. Nobody has any positive sex in the movie, except for maybe Tina (which you pointed out earlier). Explain to me how the movie isn't being unfair with its' character stereotypes or even punishing them for... how IT chose to write them in the first place.


The kids next door are easy to read. Kids are impressionable. Clearly Trish is a bit classier than those new guys. "Dead Fuck" continues to come out of Ted's mouth, as if that weren't an indication of their position.


As a young gay man, I find that the homophobia comment is a far stretch. People talk like that. It's nothing deeper, it's a passing comment.
I know you're gay. I am too. That's the point. As is that Doug's scene in the shower is the moment where we realize that the movie's Everyone Must Get Sex or They're Unhappy theme is dead on arrival. Because the movie puts everyone on a mission to get it, Doug gets it and turns into a jerk. You have to admit that, in passing or not, it wasn't amusing. He used a homophobic attitude (I'm not necessarily arguing that he was a homophobe, but it's not far off to try and use another person's sexual insecurity for a laugh). I'm arguing that it's also abusive. It goes a long way in proving my theory that this movie has its' characters abuse the positivity and pleasures of sex to get what they want and make other people feel bad. Think about it this way: why did Doug bother to keep making noise? He wonders who turned out the lights, but no one is answering him. He could have just shut up and listened, or waited for someone to reply. Think about it: if Paul were in the room, why what would Doug be expecting? A prank? When has it been established that Paul is a prankster? You're taking it for granted because the other movies had this- characters whom at one point someone alone had to say something like: "is that you, [name]; joke's over, I'm not falling for it." Or that equivalent (1- Ned, 2- Ted, 3- Shelly).


Sam and Tina will not be going out for coffee after this. It's realistic that there will be some emotion on Sam's side. Simply because she's angry with Paul, Tina will be in the line of fire. There was obvious potential for a fight to occur. No way would a fight look out of place had it occured in place of the raft scene.
That isn't taking what the movie tells us about these characters into account. You're making this up, telling me: this is what I would expect. Because, you're taking these characters seriously. Nice and all, I wish you were right. But you have to follow the movie where it leads, not where it Could Have lead.


Though subjective, Samantha is without a doubt made to look like the sex object over Sara. Just look at the outfits they were placed in. Sara's is more conservative, and under wraps. In comparison with Aronson, she's meant to be the insecure one. It's hinted at lookswise so we understand this, despite personal preferences.
And all of this might have made a difference if a tee-hee, "look- it's a chick's butt!" shot had not have been inserted just to get tongues wagging. Or, frankly, I didn't believe what I said about the scene where Sam pulls Sara into the water.


Subjective. It expresses that though this is her first (probably) sexual encounter, she's holding on and going for it. It's not awkward. For a first time she's into it. Otherwise they'd simply embrace with little to no thrusting. This is her chance.
First: it's not subjective, it's a running theme that the film treats its' characters like shit. It makes people think it really cares about her slowly becoming more sexual as a way to comment on her character when it's really interested in showing her butt. However, I'll admit again you have a point. About the way the actors tried to class the sex up. But, where you do think the credit for this belongs? Especially when I have a list a mile long of scenes from the movie suggesting it wants to use its' characters as nothing more than sight gags and venom spewers.


Of course it's about the tit shot, but we can still analyze this film. Much like how you've been doing. If we say "oh that's just text" there, we can apply it everywhere, such as the supposed anti-teen and sex angle that you're holding onto. But it's still Sam trying to bring out her friend.
No, that's what you take away from it. The film's story is too loose for this thread to actually connect to previous or later scenes anyway. The previous scene with the two girls talking was about how guys lie about Her reputation, not about Sara coming out of her shell. In fact, when she says "they're bunk beds, don't worry"- she's saying "he won't make a move if you don't want him to." And I'm not saying that scene isn't good by itself. It would be, if the film didn't gradually piss all over it by using these characters to negative ends. Where is Sam's choice or empowerment when she's being ogled through the window by Tommy? Where is Sara being respected for deciding when she's ready as her alleged friend throws her into the water? The later scene splits them up.


Thanks, but I don't think that characters need to be redeemed directly before they're offed. Dying in lust or cowardice won't rewrite charitable actions previous.
But what if the movie lustfully or cowardly kills them? Which is what I'm arguing. And I'm talking about how far you can genuinely believe the characters are being allowed to be good people. Let me put it to you this way: what would the film have to be doing for you to believe I'm right? How obvious would it have to be that the film abused characters for cheap laughs and extreme deaths? If I am wrong, what would it take for me to be right?

dave13
10-25-2012, 05:24 AM
Classic contrarian.

:lol:

Body Boy
10-25-2012, 05:45 AM
I wish I could say that were true. Mostly? A lot of fans are just dismissing me entirely. And not before they try to justify it with some form of "I don't want to hear this" hidden in a "you're not viewing this film the way it was intended to be." That is true, I'm not. But I have a reason. I believe it's important to not give praise to a film that attacks the audience or insults their intelligence. People here are saying they don't care how bad the movie is, so long as it has boobs and gore. Except in your case (and maybe in the case of the people who are replying in agreement with you, though that's debatable since again I'm admitting that people don't want to hear this). You want to believe the story comes to life in your mind. Which it does, actually. But you're the one who deserves credit for that. Instead? You give it to the movie.

I don't think that this film attacks anybody's intelligence at all. I feel as if it knows its audience and is in alignment with them. I agree that when people say that they don't care how bad a movie is, that it just needs boobs and gore, that their credibility drops in an extreme manner. Yes, I deserve credit for making it come to life, but the same goes for the anti-sex message.


Parts of them. Impressions of them. But you're not coming to terms with how the movie treats them. You're attempting to basically ignore what the movie is suggesting. It does in fact have a bad attitude about sex and it is directly distilled through the characters. This is not subjective, there is a mountain of evidence- things I haven't even pointed out. Look at how many times characters are used for the sake of "look, she's an ass." That a character (and none of the characters here are compelling written- you have been reaching far more into subjectivenss than I have) is entirely reduced to a butt shot.

I don't see any evidence that this film hates sex. None. There are scenes of sex followed by death, with some realistic and not so realistic portrayals of the former, but now, I think that it's you who is giving the film too much credit in this regards. I mean, you can look at it this way and be completely right in your chosen universe, but TFC doesn't present without denial a hatred toward women or sex. The fun for these films is that I can fill in the blanks. I need some sort of character to create them, but they don't have to be too fleshed out. I have been very subjective, but no more than you. I'll add something else. Though I could probably find some way around it, Lana flashing her breasts in the mirror of Part V: A New Beginning is reduced to a boob-shot. But as far as Sara goes, though I know its origins and choice for inclusion in the film (catering to basic shock / nude moment) I can look beyond the first glimpse thought of it being a dampening of character, and actually helpful. It's a stronger way of allowing the audience to see Sara's transformation. This is a big change for her. A shoulder cut off of her in the shower wouldn't convey her jump nearly as well.


These people didn't feel real. They felt manipulated by the filmmakers' desire to make this... okay, I'll play it your way a little: A More Sexually... "Open" Film. You should be able to at least admit these characters' actions have been pushed in a certain direction to make the audience think more about sex. There's no denying what Ted is talking about in his sequence on the staircase, what Jim is talking about in the car, etc etc etc. And, you also have to admit they're only real desire is to get laid. That at least they likely wouldn't be in a bad mood if they could have sex once that night. Because... I think you can admit: these characters aren't happy when they speak their lines with clear anxiety or anger in their voice and on their face. Now, think back and tell me when any of the characters have found themselves in a good place sexually before they died. Look at Jim, he's even pissed off after he's gotten what he worked all movie long to get. Can you explain why he should be acting like such an ingrate?

They think about sex because they're young adults. Sex is treated positively with Tina and Jimbo. Jimbo is only "pissed" (irritated would be a better word) when he can't find the corkscrew, because he wants to go back up with the wine to see his new found lover, Tina. Instead of brushing each other off, they're more like a newlywed couple than anything. In this regards, it's not a negative showcase of sex at all. Jim isn't an ingrate over this topic. He's simply showing up his "friend" Ted after he was such an ass to him on the staircase. "Maybe you should run that through your little computer." *sex* "I was great!" Jim has every right to treat him this way. He deserves it. And now he's planning on continuing the night with Tina. Sadly, it does not go as plan for him.



So you're saying: Trish is saved because her big sister duty won't allow her to have sex? Didn't work so well for the mother...

And by the way, I can't believe I have to say this: you didn't get my usage of "cockblock." I mean, very blatantly: Deny Sexual Pleasure. I mean, the movie said: when Trish won't let Tommy see the skinny-dipping teens, he is very unhappy and accuses Trish of treating him like a child ("come on, Gordon; we're too young for this"). But what the movie cares about: Every Male Character Wants to See Sex at all times if they can't have it (reinforced later by Ted's weed-soaked quasi-satisfied state while the nudie movies play, and even that is depressing). And it very much paints Trish as the anchor here. She's not misunderstanding him, she's being a buzzkill. Because this is how much the movie cares about its' characters. They aren't thinking, feeling human beings beyond sexual whims: they are enablers or deniers. And surprisingly... even the enablers aren't treated much better than this.

A buzzkill? No, a responsible sister considering he'd most likely tell his mother and she'd get in trouble. "No thanks, I think I'm overdressed." She says this because she has her brother to attend to. Ultimately, her smile reveals her desires. But what's she to do? "Yes Tommy, look but no touch. Let me just talk with the naked folk in the water and you can watch them for a few minutes." It's a natural reaction considering the scene. I don't see the issue here.


Okay, a lot of people on the board have been posting the Purple Jumping-Bean Smiley as a way to literally insult another person, so I'll be avoiding that cliche for the moment...

But, you're describing a radically different film. I mean, for your analysis to work, it must tie-in to the final shot of Tommy. Who does not look at all relieved that the "massacre is over." At best, what you could argue is that it is what everyone else thinks: hook for Part 5. And nothing more. If it wasn't for the fact that Tommy hugs Trish (which you read way too much into), Tommy's presence in the end is only about replacing Jason as a psycho killer. And, remember, over the course of this film- Jason has been grunting far too vocally while killing the victims. All of whom had just done something sexual or been linked to a sex act mere seconds before he attacks them. It's the same as a person being attacked by a werewolf the second they cut themselves on something = the smell was in the air. Nobody has any positive sex in the movie, except for maybe Tina (which you pointed out earlier). Explain to me how the movie isn't being unfair with its' character stereotypes or even punishing them for... how IT chose to write them in the first place.

The ending shot can be taken many ways. It's not clear. His stare can mean "almost losing you has fucked me up". I never mentioned Tommy hugging Trish. I mentioned Mrs. Jarvis hugging as an aside (a joke) but nothing substantial. Sara and Doug had positive sex as well. Where's the negativity there? They're both jolly, joking, humming and singing. The film has more to say about relationships than sex. The punishing of sexual deeds was not placed in slashers around this time on purpose. It was an afterthought by critics.


I know you're gay. I am too. That's the point. As is that Doug's scene in the shower is the moment where we realize that the movie's Everyone Must Get Sex or They're Unhappy theme is dead on arrival. Because the movie puts everyone on a mission to get it, Doug gets it and turns into a jerk. You have to admit that, in passing or not, it wasn't amusing. He used a homophobic attitude (I'm not necessarily arguing that he was a homophobe, but it's not far off to try and use another person's sexual insecurity for a laugh). I'm arguing that it's also abusive. It goes a long way in proving my theory that this movie has its' characters abuse the positivity and pleasures of sex to get what they want and make other people feel bad. Think about it this way: why did Doug bother to keep making noise? He wonders who turned out the lights, but no one is answering him. He could have just shut up and listened, or waited for someone to reply. Think about it: if Paul were in the room, why what would Doug be expecting? A prank? When has it been established that Paul is a prankster? You're taking it for granted because the other movies had this- characters whom at one point someone alone had to say something like: "is that you, [name]; joke's over, I'm not falling for it." Or that equivalent (1- Ned, 2- Ted, 3- Shelly).


Doug wasn't being a jerk. Not even sure how you came to that conclusion. Nothing. Nothing at all there to suggest it. He used the joke in an attitude of "yeah, like Paul would ever do that", rather than "fag". Anybody could be playing a joke. It's not out of line to suggest that Doug would be suspicious of someone in the house planning something.


That isn't taking what the movie tells us about these characters into account. You're making this up, telling me: this is what I would expect. Because, you're taking these characters seriously. Nice and all, I wish you were right. But you have to follow the movie where it leads, not where it Could Have lead.


The movie leads us in the direction of further character traits, and we can lift off from there and yes, make assumptions about their thoughts and actions. Are you saying that because of what the characters say or do, that they wouldn't do something suggested? Assumptions are fine in analyzing as long as its within the bounds of the characters. I think that it is. It's not a far cry.


And all of this might have made a difference if a tee-hee, "look- it's a chick's butt!" shot had not have been inserted just to get tongues wagging. Or, frankly, I didn't believe what I said about the scene where Sam pulls Sara into the water.


Action films have scenes that could be deemed pointless and titillating, like a truck smashing against some car on the road, but that doesn't mean that just because part of its favoring audience watches it for the howls and quick pleasure, that another part can look past the juvenile 'nudity = funny or hawt' reaction. It's not played for laughs.


First: it's not subjective, it's a running theme that the film treats its' characters like shit. It makes people think it really cares about her slowly becoming more sexual as a way to comment on her character when it's really interested in showing her butt.


Some characters are treated like shit, because they are shit (Ted, Axel). But saying that they all are, well, I don't believe this to be true at all.


No, that's what you take away from it. The film's story is too loose for this thread to actually connect to previous or later scenes anyway. The previous scene with the two girls talking was about how guys lie about Her reputation, not about Sara coming out of her shell. In fact, when she says "they're bunk beds, don't worry"- she's saying "he won't make a move if you don't want him to." And I'm not saying that scene isn't good by itself. It would be, if the film didn't gradually piss all over it by using these characters to negative ends. Where is Sam's choice or empowerment when she's being ogled through the window by Tommy? Where is Sara being respected for deciding when she's ready as her alleged friend throws her into the water? The later scene splits them up.


The bunk beds could have been taken as "nothing is going to happen if you aren't ready, and if it gets too heavy you can always opt out". Just because Tommy sees her Sam through the window doesn't mean that the film is playing up the 'women in their place' card. It's Tommy, like the skinny dipping scene, learning about sex. Being excited as most boys his age. As for Sara not being respected, the bathroom scene already showed Sam that Sara wants it. Nervous, but she wants it. But she's so shy. There's no harm or traumatic moment to be had for throwing her into the water. Rude considering the clothes, but I don't think that this is a case of self respect or loss of choice.


But what if the movie lustfully or cowardly kills them? Which is what I'm arguing. And I'm talking about how far you can genuinely believe the characters are being allowed to be good people. Let me put it to you this way: what would the film have to be doing for you to believe I'm right? How obvious would it have to be that the film abused characters for cheap laughs and extreme deaths? If I am wrong, what would it take for me to be right?

Many films have characters for cheap laughs. But each introduced after the hitchhiker has been developed enough through facial doubt, interest and disappointment so that they can easily be argued for having other dimensions. If everybody was a dick to their partner after sex, women were treated as catalysts for problems in the friend dynamic and people were mutilated after achieving their desire, then yes. But that's not how it plays out.

DVD-fanatic-9
10-25-2012, 12:18 PM
I don't think that this film attacks anybody's intelligence at all.
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 feel as if it knows its audience and is in alignment with them.
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.


I agree that when people say that they don't care how bad a movie is, that it just needs boobs and gore, that their credibility drops in an extreme manner. Yes, I deserve credit for making it come to life, but the same goes for the anti-sex message.
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.


There are scenes of sex followed by death, with some realistic and not so realistic portrayals of the former, but now, I think that it's you who is giving the film too much credit in this regards.
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.


I'll add something else. Though I could probably find some way around it, Lana flashing her breasts in the mirror of Part V: A New Beginning is reduced to a boob-shot.
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.


But as far as Sara goes, though I know its origins and choice for inclusion in the film (catering to basic shock / nude moment) I can look beyond the first glimpse thought of it being a dampening of character, and actually helpful. It's a stronger way of allowing the audience to see Sara's transformation. This is a big change for her. A shoulder cut off of her in the shower wouldn't convey her jump nearly as well.
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 Tina and Jimbo. Jimbo is only "pissed" (irritated would be a better word) when he can't find the corkscrew, because he wants to go back up with the wine to see his new found lover, Tina.
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.


A buzzkill? No, a responsible sister considering he'd most likely tell his mother and she'd get in trouble.
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.


But what's she to do? "Yes Tommy, look but no touch. Let me just talk with the naked folk in the water and you can watch them for a few minutes." It's a natural reaction considering the scene. I don't see the issue here.
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.


Sara and Doug had positive sex as well. Where's the negativity there? They're both jolly, joking, humming and singing. The film has more to say about relationships than sex. The punishing of sexual deeds was not placed in slashers around this time on purpose. It was an afterthought by critics. Doug wasn't being a jerk. Nothing at all there to suggest it. He used the joke in an attitude of "yeah, like Paul would ever do that", rather than "fag". Anybody could be playing a joke. It's not out of line to suggest that Doug would be suspicious of someone in the house planning something.
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.


The movie leads us in the direction of further character traits, and we can lift off from there and yes, make assumptions about their thoughts and actions. Assumptions are fine in analyzing as long as its within the bounds of the characters.
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.


Action films have scenes that could be deemed pointless and titillating, like a truck smashing against some car on the road, but that doesn't mean that just because part of its favoring audience watches it for the howls and quick pleasure
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.


Some characters are treated like shit, because they are shit (Ted, Axel). But saying that they all are, well, I don't believe this to be true at all.
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).


Just because Tommy sees her Sam through the window doesn't mean that the film is playing up the 'women in their place' card.
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.


It's Tommy, like the skinny dipping scene, learning about sex. Being excited as most boys his age.
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.

dave13
10-25-2012, 03:37 PM
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.

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.

DVD-fanatic-9
10-25-2012, 09:58 PM
Dude...what are you talking about? She doesn't have a "choice" because she's not real.
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.


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.
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.


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.
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.


There is no rule that says every character must be morally redeemed or fully developed or given what they deserve.
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.


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.
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.

dave13
10-25-2012, 10:37 PM
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?

dave13
10-25-2012, 10:52 PM
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.

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?

Anthropophagus
10-25-2012, 10:55 PM
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.