When the fuck is Hollywood going to realize....

[maybrick]

that backstory is anathema to a good horror movie.

I mean seriously. The main strength of the best horror movies is "THE UNKNOWN". Why must they continuously feel the need to explore the origins of the Sawyer family from TCM, The EXORCIST, and for the latest announcements, Billy from Black Christmas and Jason from F13? What's the point of all this and how do they possibly think it will work on any sort of psychological level to scare people?

[MorallySound]

True dat!

i agree. These origin/explanation stuff is often made as an excuse for sequels (which are decided 99% by the money-people, not the artists), but sometimes as original works, too, in which case it's about why the movie was made in the first place.
To please the audience and milk money (don't the money people think that people want easy stuff that is full of explanations and leaves no stone unturned, this is what mainstream audiences seem to want) or because an artistic director/writer had a conceptual idea that he wants to make a film out of.

i understand some people liked it, but i would use Cube 2 as the ultimate example of a really bad sequel that used the supposed questions people would have about the riddle of Cube 1 as an excuse for a sequel (nothing more than a money-making machine).
Explanations are easy to come up with, but i think the idea of the original Cube was to set some questions and let audiences think about things. None of that in Cube 2. On top of that, Cube 2 didn't have one good idea in it (though some people think so, i think all the ideas were very "easy" and certainly didn't add to the content-value of the movie, everything necessary content-wise was already said in Cube 1), which just goes to show that the idea came from the money-people and then they will hire some lesser talents to write the script and direct it.

Oh well. The point is, it's not so much that they don't realize it's inferior way of making a horror movie, but it's the easiest way to make money. They don't give a damn about quality or artistic values, but only about the bottom-line. Only.

[Grim]

I really see absolutely no point in doing a Friday prequel. I mean the whole first film was kind of a backstory for Jason's reign of terror, and the later sequels (Jason Goes To Hell, and Freddy Vs. Jason) explored his past pretty much as far it could be. Just have Jason hacking up teenagers for an hour and a half and you'll rake in the boatloads. I don't see why they come up with these rediculous ideas when they have a tried and true formula that not only has kept fans satisfied for close to thirty years, but can be done for a relatively modest budget as well.

You guys don't understand Hollywood or most of America. It's good for them to make shitty movies and a huge profit. Sequels. DTV movies.

I'm sure they realize how shitty these movies are, but most Americans don't, and, if they do they'll still go see them anyway.

Originally Posted by maybrick

that backstory is anathema to a good horror movie.

Excellent word useage.

For the most part I agree completely with your point. I've always felt that sequels should carry on the story instead of backtreading. Once you know every in-and-out of your villain, there is nothing left for the audience to be fearful. It's this same reason that horror sequels can't make it to a third part without the series becoming a parody of itself - at least to some degree.

Personally though, I would rather sequels be avoided at all costs. I would rather be told a new story than have repeated one I've heard a thousand times over. That said, it doesn't mean I wouldn't see another Jason or Freddy film.

Originally Posted by Notoriousaurus

Excellent word useage.

Excellent band too (Anathema). Very underrated.
- sorry, it had to be said

.

[KillerCannabis]

Got a point there Mattster. The average consumer, who isn't anything like us, sees something on the shelves that carries the same name as a movie they remember liking and assume it's going to be just as good. People don't pay attention to what crappy director did it or who's in it or just how bad it might be. Thats what the studios love. An uneducated consumer. They just blindly rent and buy without any thought, just going on the name. Even though we get it, most of America doesn't.

[Spacevis]

yeah, enough with the prequels already. give us another remake!!!

[MorallySound]

Originally Posted by Mattster

You guys don't understand Hollywood or most of America. It's good for them to make shitty movies and a huge profit. Sequels. DTV movies.

I'm sure they realize how shitty these movies are, but most Americans don't, and, if they do they'll still go see them anyway.

Well of course. They are moneywhores. And because of that, people are brainwashed into only liking things that go fast, make explosions and have mindless action, and show boobs.

It's just that filmmaking in Hollywood has become for profit, not for the art of it anymore as it once was in the 70's and most of the 80's.

.

[Wez4555]

ive seen alot of no budget movies lately that have been way better. "the janitor" and "hey stop stabbing me" come to mind.

[allmessedup]

The 80s were just as bad. I think the only time where there really was an outburst of actual creative risk-taking in Hollywood was probably during the late 60s throughout the 70s, because Hollywood was trying to adjust to the youth culture at the time.

What's stupid is that they would probably make more money if they would quit rehashing everything and do something different. But no one wants to take a chance. No other industry would survive with that type of thinking.

Originally Posted by MorallySound

Well of course. They are moneywhores. And because of that, people are brainwashed into only liking things that go fast, make explosions and have mindless action, and show boobs.

It's just that filmmaking in Hollywood has become for profit, not for the art of it anymore as it once was in the 70's and most of the 80's.

it has always been for profit. its just that 'art films' were profitable in the 60s and 70s.