Favorite 4th Sequel

[satans-sadists]

Frankenstein Created Woman is my favorite from the list. Underrated movie.

[shithead]

Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter

Easy.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

Originally Posted by rhett

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.

Originally Posted by rhett

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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).

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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?

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

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]

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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]

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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]

F13 Final Chapter - it's really no contest.

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

[JGrendel]

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]

Originally Posted by DVD-Fanatic-9

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]

Shouldn't this be titled best 3rd sequel? Anyway i pick Friday 4.

[Body Boy]

Originally Posted by JGrendel

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]

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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?

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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).

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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.

Originally Posted by Body Boy

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]

Originally Posted by Workshed

Classic contrarian.

[Body Boy]

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

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.