MovieChat Forums > Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) Discussion > Julia meant to be the recurring Characte...

Julia meant to be the recurring Character

posted 10 years ago by glynis23-282-577521
13 replies | jump to latest

As you know Hellbound was originally going to end with Julia coming out the mattress because the theory that Clive Barker & Co had is Julia would be the figurehead of the films, but due to Pinhead's popularity they decided to make him the recurring character, Claire Higgins made it clear she didn't want to appear in any further sequels.

Looking back it's hard to imagine why they thought Julia would become a horror icon and didn't think horror fans would become attached to Pinhead & the other cenobites, it seems obvious by just looking at them but not to the filmmakers it didn't.

[–] scarlettsdad 10 years ago

I suppose that since Julia was more of a villain instead of being timeless like a Cenobite, it would have been easier to reuse people in gruesome makeup than continue with a known actress. Although when the series tried to use someone other than Bradley as Pinhead it was a disaster. I think Clare Higgins was more of a stage actress and I would certainly understand her not being interested in continuing as a horror queen. I personally liked Julia since she became even more evil in the second film ( love the line, "Take yor best shot, Snow White "), but Pinhead was definitely the face of the franchise.

[–] HellboundHero 10 years ago

Recasting Pinhead was a disaster because Revelations was an ill-conceived production from the beginning. They probably cast the first local bald guy they came across when Doug Bradley declined the part.

[–] scarlettsdad 10 years ago

Agreed. I remember I actually bought that crapfest without having rented it first and couldn't even give it away. I think it was at that point when I had to admit that my collection past the third Hellraiser was worthless.

Signatures annoy me.

[–] HellboundHero 10 years ago

I personally see Hell on Earth as a big drop-off for the series. It's alright as a mindless gorefest but it's missing so much of the style and atmosphere of the first two. Anthony Hickox's hokey take on the cenobites with video cameras and CDs sticking out of their heads is a symptom of that.

However, I wouldn't say the series is totally worthless after HoE and actually prefer Bloodline and Inferno to it.

[–] glynis23-282-577521 10 years ago

Julia isn't the type who would have a franchise built around.

[–] HellboundHero 10 years ago

I agree. If they wanted to continue the style of the first two movies, they didn't need any recurring villains or characters, just the box and the cenobites to support new characters and a new story.

[–] glynis23-282-577521 10 years ago

Think it goes to show you can't knowingly create a horror icon or a recurring villain.

Having recurring villains or characters usually makes writing new stories easier, they're mostly there due to expectations but it can create problems, the more you use a hero or villain as a recurring character the more likely it is the audience will become overly-familiar with him or her and just doesn't care what happens, it happened with Ripley in the Alien movies and Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator movies.

[–] kylopod 8 years ago

I personally liked Julia since she became even more evil in the second film

That actually might be one reason why she didn't stand out as much as Pinhead; her characterization in the two movies is inconsistent so that we're not even sure what type of villain she is. The first movie was one of these traditional horror stories about a character being seduced into evil by someone much worse. In the second movie, she had transformed into the standard "card-carrying villain" (to use the term on TV Tropes), the kind who smacks her lips at her glorious villainry, and she seemed curiously lacking in the guilt and doubts she appeared to possess in the first film. There was some rationale for this within the film: the Cenobite realm seems to strip away whatever humanity people may have had and bring out the evil in otherwise good people. But this was explained more clearly in the case of Pinhead, who was cast as a character with a dual identity, like a werewolf or vampire. I suppose they could have developed Julia's character more if they had wanted to, but the two movies didn't really pique our curiosity about her the way they did with Pinhead.

[–] HellboundHero 10 years ago

Honestly I think Pinhead was already popular by the time they started production on Hellbound, but they didn't want Hellraiser to be a typical slasher series with a flashy villain and wanted to continue the style of having a main human villain with the cenobites as secondary antagonists.

[–] glynis23-282-577521 10 years ago

They did commission Hellbound weeks before the first film opened and written one draft with Julia coming back.

Yes they didn't want a flashy villain in a slasher series, which sets Hellraiser apart from other horror series is that there is multiple monsters not just one.

It's meant because of the popularity of Pinhead that subsequent Hellraiser movies have been overly dominated by him.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sticksstoneswwiv 9 years ago

I find it hard to see Julia as the lead for the series.

Pinhead popularity wasn't the plan by the director, it just how things work out.
Usually they call that the breakout character.
It comes down to Bradley's strong voice and presence. Other actors might have been overwhelmed by the makeup and costume, Bradley makes the character his own.

When you look at it Pinhead doesn't do too much in the movies, but you always remember his scenes. Thanks to Bradley.

Talking about the other guy who played him, he came across like a parody version, something you'd see on SNL etc.

[–] SoraIsWatching 8 years ago

I'd have liked to see Julia in another movies, especially if there was more character development.