CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Can a Horror Icon be Feared AND Revered?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can a Horror Icon be Feared AND Revered?

post #1 of 25
3/20/09 at 10:37pm
Thread Starter 
Mattioli's comment in the NOES Series thread about how Krueger got kind of silly over the course of the franchise, and became revered rather than feared by the audience, got me to thinking.

There's plenty of horror franchises out there: Elm Street, as has been mentioned. F13. Halloween. TCM. Saw (I guess). Even Jeepers Creepers kind of got into the act.

The questions I have are: Can an icon from a horror franchise be scary and beloved at the same time? Can one ever go back to scary after venturing into the silly? Where is the line drawn in how a character comes across? And while we're at it, do you have a favorite, and why, and what's your opinion as to how the franchise ultimately treated him?

I don't think it's possible to be feared and revered in a humorous sense at the same time. Once you start seeing the icon in question as intentionally silly or funny in a given film, switching back & forth in the context of a single film probably isn't possible. The Freddy Krueger from the latter sequels isn't the same Freddy from part I. The wisecracks were . . . meaner? . . . in some of the films (Part I and Dream Warriors, for example; "It's back. . . in the saddle. . . again.") than they ended up being in the later films. It's like the filmmakers were intentionally trying to make Freddy less scary to appeal to a larger audience, and make him more of a hero than a scary bad guy, and there's a world of difference between the "two" Freddys. But I think I agree with what DM8 said in response to Mattioli's post in the NOES thread, that with New Nightmare and (to a decidedly lesser extent) F v. J, they steered him back toward scary again. So I think it's possible to get back to where you started from over the life of a franchise, even if it can't be done in a single film.

Where the line is drawn is a closer question. Jason from F13 is rarely played for laughs. Closest I can recall (and I admit I haven't seen all the sequels) was in Part VIII, where he punches that dude's head clean off. The scene was meant to get a laugh, but not at Jason's expense, so to speak. He's still presented as a scary killing machine, even if the unbelievability of his exploits seems unintentionally silly sometimes, and dilutes his fear factor. Does this kind of stuff count? Is Jason now "revered" in a humorous sense rather than a scary one? I kind of don't think so, because the idea of this unstoppable killing machine still kind of gives me the creeps when I think about it. Can you imagine a world where such a thing existed? My love of the outdoors would probably be substantially curbed.

As for my personal favorite, I'd pick Michael Myers. To my knowledge, he's never been played for laughs (though I admit I haven't seen any sequels beyond 2 - on purpose, mind, since I don't want to spoil my image of him - nor have I seen Rob Zombie's re-imagining). I kind of like the mystery surrounding his origins that remians if you haven't seen the other sequels. And he doesn't talk, so silly ass wisecracks aren't possible. He's just an implacable, dark shape with an emotionless (yet somehow Shatnerian) mask. he never runs; he has all the time in the world to catch his victims. And just a touch of the supernatural, in that he can't be killed. No spectacular mind fucks in your dreams or anything. And while some of the sequels may have been dull (I tried watching IV at least twice & gave up on it both times), he was never ever made the butt of a joke or silly.

What do you think about the above?
Reply
post #2 of 25
3/20/09 at 11:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IggytheBorg View Post
Jason from F13 is rarely played for laughs. Closest I can recall (and I admit I haven't seen all the sequels) was in Part VIII, where he punches that dude's head clean off. The scene was meant to get a laugh, but not at Jason's expense, so to speak. He's still presented as a scary killing machine, even if the unbelievability of his exploits seems unintentionally silly sometimes, and dilutes his fear factor. Does this kind of stuff count? Is Jason now "revered" in a humorous sense rather than a scary one?
I'd say Jason has never been laughed AT - though in my (less than encyclopedic) experience, they did do a nice bit in Jason X where they put him in what amounted to a Star Trek holodeck with predictable yet hilarious results.

I think more the problem (aside from what I'd personally consider your misuse of "revered" - "beloved" might be better, but hey, it's your thread, and I digress) is that as a franchise progresses...hmmm....you become more "familiar" with a particular icon. And while I don't necessarily believe that familiarity breeds contempt, it most certainly breeds comfort.

To wit, in the first (insert horror franchise here), you don't know what the fuck is going on - you don't know who is or isn't safe, you don't know the motivation of the killer, you don't know what the twist might be. In the first NOES, for example, we aren't even sure what the fuck Freddy Krueger IS, much less how the hell he's doing this shit, until the latter half. Horror is, at essence, the fear of the unknown.

So once we know what (insert horror icon here) is, what his motivation is, and how he can be defeated (or at least evaded), a large chunk of the "unknown" factor is removed, significantly decreasing the "horror" factor.

So then a franchise becomes a cycle of diminishing returns - the initial rush of "what the fuck is going to happen here?" gives way to "when is Jason/Michael/Freddy gonna show?" - and when horror disappears, it's pretty easy to head down the path of turning the icon from avatar of the unknown into an simple anti-hero - one who in many senses upholds the basic conservative mom/baseball/apple pie mindset in the most distasteful way possible.*


* - Stephen King writes comprehensively on this in his excellent Danse Macabre
Reply
post #3 of 25
3/21/09 at 1:03am
When you see Jason walk into a gun barrel "eye" a La James Bond with a machete which he swings and you see blood cross the screen as the opening sequence to a Friday the 13th movie, it's safe to say the Horror Icon has become a joke

I think this is inevitable. Those audiences who first experienced Jason, Michael Myers, etc need to make fun of these figures. It reduces the fear they initially provoked.
Reply
post #4 of 25
3/21/09 at 1:11am
Awesome, another Iggy horror thread.

It's exactly this issue that leads to my distaste for horror franchises. As Chavez says, a single horror film is unpredictable. Once it turns into a series, even with the first sequel, the pattern is written to some extent. Knowing what to expect is death to horror, as far as I'm concerned.

And a franchise built around the monster (killer) is even worse. It becomes something more akin to a superhero than something to be feared. The teens paying to see Nightmare 5 weren't there to be disturbed or upset. They wanted a laugh. Those films became comfort food, the very antithesis of everything horror ought to be. The people behind Friday the 13th seemed aware of the problem, and responded by becoming increasingly (and intentionally) tongue in cheek. Part 6 is still my favorite film in the series. Is it scary? No. But it wasn't trying to be.

I'll always prefer standalone horror films to entries in franchises. When I watch horror, I'm looking for something transgressive and disturbing. I can't think of a single horror sequel that managed that.
Reply
post #5 of 25
3/21/09 at 1:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
The teens paying to see Nightmare 5 weren't there to be disturbed or upset. They wanted a laugh. Those films became comfort food, the very antithesis of everything horror ought to be.
I don't know that the teens were looking for "comfort food" but I think that when horror becomes franchised, it's like the difference between riding a rolller coaster vs riding an actual out-of-control car - one give the illusion of danger, and it IS fun, but deep down you know nothing bad is going to happen unless something goes tragically awry...vs the latter, where no matter how confident you may be in the driver, deep down you know death is a distinct, REAL possibility.

As far as that goes, I don't think most people truly appreciate how close death might be when a car they are in spins/skids. As always, another thread....
Reply
post #6 of 25
3/22/09 at 11:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post
I think more the problem (aside from what I'd personally consider your misuse of "revered" - "beloved" might be better, but hey, it's your thread, and I digress) . . . [/i]
I lifted the term from a post in the NOES thread by Mattioli. No particular reason I stuck with it.

First, great replies, all. Discussions like this are my favorite part of posting here.

To address the points raised: I agree that horror franchise sequels become an exercise in diminishing returns, as the unknown factor is diminished, if not done away with entirely, in each succeeding film. By means of this phenomenon, the icons do indeed become more like the (super)heroes in the movies than the terrifying villains they started out as. Greg pointing out how F13 realized this was happening & started to play into it rather than against it is a telling obversation.

I guess one question I left out of the initial post is: Is this always a bad thing? I'd say yes, in that the movies and their character are no lonjger scary. But I have to admit that the iconic status some of the horror movie killers have attained isn't a bad thing in ALL respects. I think it's kind of cool that people from a few different generations know who Jason & Freddy are, and that you can get their images on T shirts and such.

And a question raised by the above replies is: why does the audience feel the need to de-horrify the villains in these films? I presume most of us die hards, if we have the time for sequels at all (and surprising as this may be to some, I haven't seen all the sequels in ANY horror franchise. Not one.), we may willingly turn a blind eye to how the character has become silly to find something to like in the plot if it credibly advances the mythology, or the kills, or something. Horror icon as "hero" doesn't really seem to be targeted at us. So why does the general moviegoing public feel the need to make heroes out of them? Are they trying to take ownership of their fear? Does it, as has been suggested elsewhere, stem from shame over the initial fear they may have felt at the 1st film, driving them to make the object of their fear into something contemptible? Or do they need to be eble to do this to overcome the fear in the first place & get to sleep at night?
Reply
post #7 of 25
3/22/09 at 11:42pm
I wonder if there's a level of guilt involved on the part of the filmmakers. Do they feel bad about basically glorifying a murderer, and feel the need to lighten him up? Would fans stop showing up to see a series of movies about a straight-up serial killer? Or maybe there's an inherent need for a franchise to evolve into something "fun" to maintain an audience, regardless of genre. Look what happened to James Bond in the 70's and 80's.

"Pinhead" remains the most egregious example of this to me. Hellraiser didn't even give the character a prominent role. The fact that he was given a name and vaulted to the position of central figure for a franchise was pretty much the toll of doom.
Reply
post #8 of 25
3/23/09 at 12:34am
There is a bit of a difference in reaction to horror Icons depending on who the audience is. To a Horror geek they become more anti hero because we love them for the carnage they bring, where as the mall crowd will know the Gist of a Freddy or Jason but are perhaps not as intimately up with the play on their particular bag of tricks and will still find them scary. A lot of girls still shit their pants at the sight of the scream mask.

If you're talking about a Horror Icon who's been toned down, played for laughs, , been down right parodied, has been over exposed for good long time, and yet still is able to scare the hell out of a large chunk of folks, look no further than Satan.
Reply
post #9 of 25
3/23/09 at 1:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
I wonder if there's a level of guilt involved on the part of the filmmakers. Do they feel bad about basically glorifying a murderer, and feel the need to lighten him up? Would fans stop showing up to see a series of movies about a straight-up serial killer? Or maybe there's an inherent need for a franchise to evolve into something "fun" to maintain an audience, regardless of genre. Look what happened to James Bond in the 70's and 80's.

"Pinhead" remains the most egregious example of this to me. Hellraiser didn't even give the character a prominent role. The fact that he was given a name and vaulted to the position of central figure for a franchise was pretty much the toll of doom.
I don't think it's intentional so much as it is a reaction to the audience.

Freddy Kruger is the most obvious example- In his first appearance, he's really not much like he is later on in the series. By The Dream Warriors, he's cracking jokes (albeit not as frequently/badly as later in the series) and developing a personality as a sardonic wiseass. The Dream Warriors was, at that point, the highest grossing film in the series, so it makes since from a business perspective to give the crowd more of that.

The end result, though, is that the character ultimately becomes a cliche or parody of what they once were.

Pinhead works the same way- In the book he wasn't even the lead Cenobite, but in the movie he gets that designation, becomes the face of the franchise, and is ultimately bastardized all in the name of fan service. When you keep going to the well over and over again, you ultimately distill that character down into what plays the easiest with the most people. The problem is that doing that usually results in lowest common denominator-level presentation.
Reply
post #10 of 25
3/23/09 at 2:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew S. View Post
I don't think it's intentional so much as it is a reaction to the audience.

Freddy Kruger is the most obvious example- In his first appearance, he's really not much like he is later on in the series. By The Dream Warriors, he's cracking jokes (albeit not as frequently/badly as later in the series) and developing a personality as a sardonic wiseass. The Dream Warriors was, at that point, the highest grossing film in the series, so it makes since from a business perspective to give the crowd more of that.

The end result, though, is that the character ultimately becomes a cliche or parody of what they once were.

Pinhead works the same way- In the book he wasn't even the lead Cenobite, but in the movie he gets that designation, becomes the face of the franchise, and is ultimately bastardized all in the name of fan service. When you keep going to the well over and over again, you ultimately distill that character down into what plays the easiest with the most people. The problem is that doing that usually results in lowest common denominator-level presentation.
Yup, pretty much.

I would also say that some of why we de-vilify villians over time is because everyone has a secret desire to be in their position of power, so rather than identifying with the victims we start to identify with the killer. The more you water down villains like Freddy and Jason the easier it is to root for them and cheer when they take out their victims.

We go to horror movies to be scared, but there's also an element of blood lust in there you can really see when you observe these franchises and how they change over time.
Reply
post #11 of 25
3/23/09 at 3:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post
I would also say that some of why we de-vilify villians over time is because everyone has a secret desire to be in their position of power, so rather than identifying with the victims we start to identify with the killer. The more you water down villains like Freddy and Jason the easier it is to root for them and cheer when they take out their victims.
This is a good point. I would also say that some of this starts when the movies portray victims who are somehow responsible for their fates. If the killer only takes out people who are immoral, or irresponsible, or otherwise unsavory, then we want them to die, thus immediately making the killer a kind of hero. Most people would love to have the power to waste anybody who's a dick at any time.
Reply
post #12 of 25
3/23/09 at 3:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
This is a good point. I would also say that some of this starts when the movies portray victims who are somehow responsible for their fates. If the killer only takes out people who are immoral, or irresponsible, or otherwise unsavory, then we want them to die, thus immediately making the killer a kind of hero. Most people would love to have the power to waste anybody who's a dick at any time.
Definetly. There's also the element of beliving yourself to be superior to the canon fodder, as evidenced by the near universal mocking of poor descisions made by characters in horror flicks. The element of "Well, you were too much of an idiot to do what you obviously should have done, so you clearly deserve a bloody, horrific death."

I think part of that can be traced back to the slasher formula, as it isn't something that appears in horror across the board. In fact, Hellraiser is interesting in that it later tried to shoehorn that formula into the series despite not being (or at least beginning as) a traditional slasher series. The end result was a series that descended into a terrible mess far earlier than it should have.
Reply
post #13 of 25
3/23/09 at 1:07pm
Lots of great points in here. Been thinking about it and didn't want to post till I had something to add. DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. Here's the dilemma for a franchise: repeat entries = familiarity. When it's familiar, it loses it's scariness. They way film-makers react to this issue can vary:
  • More is Better. They up the stakes. The bring in more monsters. They make the threat global. The bring in the military. See: 28 WEEKS LATER, ALIENS, HILLS HAVE EYES 2, THE DESCENT 2 (I'm guessing).
  • They do nothing at all. They copy the original beat for beat. It's formulaic. It's a rehash. Nearly a remake, but without the clean slate or the risks. Forgettable. You might get some gorier bits, but it will never be as good as part 1 (diminishing returns indeed). It doesn't offer anything knew.
  • They do an honest-to-God remake/reboot. Sometimes it's worse, sometimes it's better than the original. A crapshoot. Best done if there's a new approach to the material (THE THING, THE FLY, etc), or something that can be updated for a new generation (INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS). It's tricky because the film-makers want to cash in on a popular property, but usually don't want to fix the flaws of the original (if there are any). Properties with flawed execution of sound premises are the best bets for remake potential, but these are usually not as popular, and if they have a following, it's usually a cult following who adore the flaws in place. So financially, they're more risky.
  • They switch genres. ALIENS plays more like an action-scifi than action-horror much of its running time. It adds nuances to characters (explores Ripley's maternal side), acts as an allegory (Vietnam), and adds to the xenomorph's biology by introducing the queen (does this de-mystify? some may say YES. that leads me to...).
  • They offer backstory (an origin tale, if you will) for the killer. They're no longer urban legends or boogeymen. They get sympathy from the audience because "no wonder they turned out the way they did". These methods further de-mystify and de-ball the villain, and thusly, the horror. See Hannibal Lecter (RISING), Michael Meyers (Zombie's), Leatherface (BEGINNING) etc.
  • They change the identity of the killer. See: SCREAM, FRIDAY THE 13th, I KNOW WHAT YOU DID... Usually this only serves the purpose of a climactic twist though, when the characters can't understand how the killings have continued "But they were killed last movie??? It must be a... copycat or family member out for revenge!"
  • They become self-aware, parodies, more jokey, and in some cases, horror-comedies. This can work depending on the property (CHILD'S PLAY, GREMLINS, etc), but in some cases, there's a point of no return. Now I don't mind this approach in the NOES franchise, because there's enough for all tastes here and I think they are successful at injecting some of the scariness back with NEW NIGHTMARE, etc. I only actively dislike FREDDY'S DEAD, but it has nothing to do with Krueger's wise-cracks.

Just look at what's been done to the Universal Monsters in the past 80 years or so. They've been abused and explored in every way possible. I still love them. Any great icon worth his/her salt, can be made scary again IMO. Personally, I've always found Pennywise (admittedly, not a franchise character) to be both scary and funny (it's that clown paradox or perhaps just Curry).

Bottom line: I want to be entertained. If they insist on revisiting a property and take it to a direction I don't approve of, I can refuse to watch it I suppose. But if they go a different way and still manage to pull off something worth a look (JASON X), I'll be there. Course, I also have notoriously low standards (I'm a glutton for punishment with this genre). And I don't see too many properties (that have already been executed masterfully) as sacred. When people are dressing up as a horror character that next Halloween, it's a part of the pop culture lexicon and somewhat de-mystified already, no?

EDIT: One thing I wanted to mention is that the "WTF horror" subgenre (sorry to hijack) that NOES inhabits allows for more surprises and nightmarish stuff. When, it's a regular slasher with sharp pointy weapon, you tend to only ask "When's he gonna strike?" by the 2nd/3rd/4th franchise entries and not "how?" or "why?" or "whom?" It's familiar. So when a killer and his methods (and thusly the plot) is predictable, oftentimes the only mystery left is "What's the punchline?" Because a good joke can still take us by surprise.

EDIT: Any mentions of the kind of stuff we grew up on losing their scariness, due to being dated? The kids today may laugh at our classics, not necessarily because of where the franchise went, but because kids today are too cynical and desensitized? That could be a blasphemous question I know, but...
Reply
post #14 of 25
3/24/09 at 8:53am
Thread Starter 
Some years ago, Alex posted about seeing F13 and some other classics ina theatre revival festival. The theatre had a lot of young kids in it, who were laughing at the kills. We all vented about how much this iritates us die hard horror buffs, but Dm8 raises an interesting point: how much of this is a generational jaded thing, and how much due to the familiarity bred into them by viewinig the sequels (perhaps before seeing the original), wherein the jokiness and tongue in cheekiness pervade over actual scares?
Reply
post #15 of 25
3/24/09 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
Just look at what's been done to the Universal Monsters in the past 80 years or so. They've been abused and explored in every way possible.
See, I think you have your answer right there. I take it that almost every one of us though FREDDY, JASON, LEATHERFACE, the moment Iggy said the words "Horror Icon", because those are our horror icons and about as close as we've come to being scared by them. I can't even imagine being scared by Dracula, Frankenstein or The Wolfman even though there was a time when they were terrifying millions. They've since been regurgitated, recycled, given their own cartoons and cereals and become icons in a truly amplified sense of the word. It would probably take a genius to make them scary again. The same will eventually happen to Freddy et al, if it hasn't happened already.
Reply
post #16 of 25
3/24/09 at 9:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
Would fans stop showing up to see a series of movies about a straight-up serial killer?
Brian: You know, I can answer that right now, sir. That’d be no. No for me.
Reply
post #17 of 25
3/24/09 at 1:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
EDIT: Any mentions of the kind of stuff we grew up on losing their scariness, due to being dated? The kids today may laugh at our classics, not necessarily because of where the franchise went, but because kids today are too cynical and desensitized? That could be a blasphemous question I know, but...
No, I think there's some truth to that. A prime example would be Rob Zombie's Halloween. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the kiddies prefer Zombie's P.O.S. to Carpenter's classic. And when asked why, they'll tell you it's because Zombie gave Myers a backstory. That we get inside his head and see what makes him tick. Today's kiddies want to be spoon fed. In so many cases, they're cynical and have become desensitized. Because of that, I think that they've allowed their imaginations to atrophy. They don't make the terrifying leaps of imagination that we made as kids in the 80s or 90s. And they certainly don't make the leaps that our parents and grandparents made in the 30s, 40s and 50s. They don't understand that the genius of Carpenter's original was making Myers an unknown, a force of nature, a boogeyman, a Dark Shape and plunking him down in the middle of Suburbia. That doesn't seem to be enough for kids. It's not frightening and it's stupid to them. They need it all explained because their imaginations do not do the work for them.


... now, get off my lawn, you hooligans! *shakes arthritic fist*
Reply
post #18 of 25
3/24/09 at 2:06pm
Leaving aside comparisons to the original, anybody who likes Zombie's Halloween for any reason needs to be sterilized before they damage the species.

Sorry, but I just caught it last night, and the wound is still fresh. It's one of the worst things I've ever seen. It's one of the worst things that's ever happened. Fuck you out of 10 indeed.
Reply
post #19 of 25
3/24/09 at 2:27pm
Have you been reading the H2 news?

This is an interesting topic about which to bullshit, but the answer is pretty cut and dried and exists in post #4.

The REAL fun will be trying to find an exception this statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
When I watch horror, I'm looking for something transgressive and disturbing. I can't think of a single horror sequel that managed that.
I feel Dawn of the Dead is a better film than the original, but it's definitely less transgressive and disturbing. Ditto for Bride of Frankenstein (though that one might be more subversive).
Reply
post #20 of 25
3/24/09 at 2:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
The REAL fun will be trying to find an exception this statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
I'll always prefer standalone horror films to entries in franchises. When I watch horror, I'm looking for something transgressive and disturbing. I can't think of a single horror sequel that managed that.
Depending on the individual and textual reading, FREDDY'S REVENGE?

I enjoyed GINGER SNAPS: UNLEASHED (and 3) for it's uniqueness when compared to Part 1. But "transgressive" is a tough measuring stick, if a bit subjective.

TEMPLE OF DOOM? Maybe one of the later Hammer Draculas?

I feel like it's an easier task with favorable remakes (HILLS HAVE EYES, THE THING, etc).
Reply
post #21 of 25
3/24/09 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
Depending on the individual and textual reading, FREDDY'S REVENGE?
I have to admit that Part 2 popped into my head, as well.

Scary, indeed.
Reply
post #22 of 25
3/24/09 at 2:56pm
Wrong Turn 2
Reply
post #23 of 25
3/24/09 at 3:03pm
Bride of Frankenstein is a good choice. I might have to concede that one.

And Darkmite, yes, remakes are a whole different ball of wax. The Fly, The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Blob...there are plenty of examples of superior horror remakes. I would add Friday the 13th as well, but some people round these parts might hold a hangin'. Of course, when those remakes become franchises all over again, we're right back where we started. See The Fly 2.
Reply
post #24 of 25
3/24/09 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quarant View Post
See, I think you have your answer right there. I take it that almost every one of us though FREDDY, JASON, LEATHERFACE, the moment Iggy said the words "Horror Icon", because those are our horror icons and about as close as we've come to being scared by them. I can't even imagine being scared by Dracula, Frankenstein or The Wolfman even though there was a time when they were terrifying millions. They've since been regurgitated, recycled, given their own cartoons and cereals and become icons in a truly amplified sense of the word. It would probably take a genius to make them scary again. The same will eventually happen to Freddy et al, if it hasn't happened already.
I guess we'll see how well Joe Johnston does with THE WOLFMAN.

I think in the right hands, any of the classic Monsters could be re-invented into something ghastly. And I'm not just talking about McFarlane figures either. I wanna see Bernie Wrightson's Frank translated to the big screen. Maybe Del Toro's up to the challenge.



EDIT: A horror icon can be feared and revered on the court! (thanks, Phil)

Reply
post #25 of 25
3/25/09 at 2:25am
Great thread, Iggy.

As all of the posts above have detailed, the bottom line is, a sequel will NEVER be as scary as the original. Once the decision to sequelize is made, the central icon becomes an imprint, a franchise, and any true element of transgression and fear is lost irrevocably. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. Remakes, or more specifically "updates" or "reboots" can be the exception, but this only really occurs when there is not an iconic character involved. (THE FLY, THE THING, Zombie movies, HILLS HAVE EYES mutants, etc.)

Bottom line, once the character becomes "iconic", you're done. Iconic predicates familiarity, and familiarity is the antithesis of terror.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Can a Horror Icon be Feared AND Revered?