This week I'll express my opinions on what we got, what the surveys said and what 1999 should and will hold.
As a general rule the industry will make films that it thinks the audience / fans want to see (other wise no one will see the film and no one will make money). So it wasn't any big SURPRISE that this year Hollywood pumped out a bunch of SLASHER films to capitalise in the nice taste that still remains in the mouth of fans, since the sub-genres resurgence in 1996.. But more than that Hollywood brought a couple of the BIG GUNS of the sub-genre back to the silver screen. Halloween returned as H20 a film that fed newbie fans, made traditionalist flinch and cheesed off long time fans of the complete series. H20 did a funny thing., it discounted 3 films from the series as TRASH (I won't say anymore on this because I could go on forever about how a straight to video slash film would have been better so I guess that makes me a long time fan), needless to say "Season of the Witch" did not grant mention within the H20 either.. The other returner was Charles Lee Ray aka CHUCKY. He returned in "Bride of Chucky" a film that was not afraid to show his SLASHERNESS on the screen, the film kept its 80s styling, with another brilliant script by Don Mancini also rolled in the cash as did H20 to make way for more sequels to these respective franchises.
Psycho was remade.. Why.. I think Universal is starting to wonder WHY???
aren't people seeing it.. It's the same film shot for shot but in color
with someone that isn't ANTHONY PERKINS.. Ooops that must have been the
problem.. This may turn out to be a harsh lesson for REmaking films.. It
maybe compared to the original which traditionalist and BABYBOOMER newspaper
reviewers GREW UP with so they will flame anything that is written over
the top of their fav film.. BIG mistake.. As big as knocking down the house
at UNIVERSAL CITY.. Fans in the majority don't want to see it.. Those that
did were not all that impressed... 1999 will see SPIELBERG's company make
a similar mistake.. But unfortunately this time it is of the scariest film
ever made.. "THE HAUNTING".. based on Shirley Jackson's "The
Haunting of Hill House".. At the moment set to release in December..
The trailer is already online, uncanny resemblance to the one for PSYCHO..
It uses the book title it isn't a scene for scene remake, but the TITLE
GRAPHIC is more "the HAUNTING of hill house" spelling out each
word. The build up in the preview is uncanny to the one in the Psycho preview
"this is hill house...... etc".. "this is norman bates.."
Enough said on the make remake...
Vampires and Blade.. Well vampires never seem to die at the theatre always keep on coming.. Blade went extremely well.. And a lovely web page too.. Vampires not so great.. On the big budget HORROR film front.. we saw GODZILLA or at least some of us did.. Emmerich and co. unleashed Godzilla or was the "Beast from 20,000 fathoms".. A number of names could have suited this film "Gargantua" hmmm.. Perhaps if it wasn't "godzilla" the press would have been a bit more caring.. Pehaps if it were called "Nuclear Test Results" more people would have seen it... But would we have concluded that it was just Godzilla again..??? Well at least this didn't dampen Emmerich's spirit in '99 he will release "The Thirteenth Floor".. Who could ask for more..
OKAY SO WHAT DID THE SURVEY SAY???
Well the guys said. (all 8 of them)
What was the major source for information on HORROR?
Majority ticked "THE NET".. Still a couple checkboxed magazines...
I would guess that if a similar article or survey appeares in FANGO that
more would tick Magazines than "THE NET".. But it stands to reason
that male horror fans on the net surf for info on horror films.. As a consquence
STUDIOS should perhaps upgrade their webmarketing.. I am in particualr talking
to Miramax/Dimension who make by-far the most god awful boring webpages..
(not that my page is great or anything).. more on the NET's webmarketing.
DID HORROR MAKE YOU DO it..?
A resounding NO from the male fans.. A horror film can't make you do it
(commit murder rape etc).. It wouldn't compel you to do it.. SO why is Hollywood
still making films with characters that blame horror films.. NEXT year will
see the release of a film called "SLASHER" which blames killing
on horror films..SAY NO TO THIS FILM if it against your beliefs.. I'd like
to share one of my fav comments I recieved about this.. "Most horror
films have high morals. A good conquers evil much of the time. The fact
remains that it starts with the person. Many people have murdered because
of what they read in the bible." .
MALE CHARACTER RELATION..
Most guys took on the masochistic role of character relation while viewing
the horror films.. Masochistic in the light of an Article by MULVEY about
viewing of film.. The guy watches a film and in most of the results recieved
relates to the victims that have SMARTS and don't just die because they
go to check the fuse box during a storm at CRYSTAL LAKE.. In most cases
they follow the narrative and relation is drawn to the smarter feminine
character within the horror film.. As most modern horror has a female protagonist
beat the monstrous antagonist.. The guys that did not relate to the victims
often related to SMART villains like Pinhead or cool types of villain..
When examples were cited half of the characters would be female and half
male.. Be they father Merrin, Doctor Loomis, Heather Langenkamp or Seth
from Dusk till Dawn... I always thought men would be to macho to admit relating
to a female protagonist.. "Times they are a chang'n".
I can only really analyse these three questions with the data received.
Well the girls said (all 3 of them)..
What was the major source of HORROR?
The internet was chosen by all.. But if this survey were conducted in a
magazine I'm sure the results would have been different.
HORROR MADE ME DO IT..
Again NO was the resounding answer... Here is a brilliant thought-provoking
quote I recieved again ANON.. "Oh, for cryin' out loud. Horror films
are just another genre of movie. The worst slasher film, with no plot besides
'a lot of gore is shown. People die,' is just quivalent to a hardcore porno
movie. They both know their audience and pander to it. Not to stimulating
to watch, but still harmless. Now a really_good_horror film, on the other
hand, can shock you to the core with just its ideas, and not show a teaspoon
of blood. Still, that doesn't mean anything gory should be censored arbitrarily.
Directors and screenwriters deserve freedom to show whatever they think
the story requires without worry they'll be penalized for it. As to people
doing horrible things because of any medium, well, people have always been
crazy and stupid. Sure, a psycho might kill after seeing The Texas Chainsaw
Massacre. He might also kill his family after watching the Wizard of OZ,
or reading the Bible. People should be responsible for their own actions
and not try to transfer the blame to entertainment.
Who was it that said:"I'm worried about all this comedy on TV. It'll
lead to comedy in the streets."
FEMALE CHARACTER RELATION
The relation again is based on intelligent protagonists.. Sidney Prescot
was mentioned a couple of times as an epitome of the relation.. The female
viewer is often rewarded at the end because of the ability to relate to
a female protagonist.. Which reverses the MULVEY statement about the female
viewer being masochistic in the shadow of a male protagonist.. In horror
their are female heroes and role models to be found.. It is one time that
the industry got the right combination together.. ACTION blood.. and female
hero so you can talk your girlfriend into going along.. :)
(C) GORE boy 1999
, 1998-1999.