MovieChat Forums > Friday the 13th (2009) Discussion > Reasons that todays slasher films simply...

Reasons that todays slasher films simply don't work..and some solutions


1...The PG-13 rating. Watered down slasher films don't work. They have to be shocking

2...CGI Gore. Similar to number 1, using CGI in a slasher film also doesn't work. Effects need to be practical. Get Tom savini out of retirement if need be

3...Having lead characters who are annoying. In older horror films, you often sympathized with the hero and wanted them to live. Nowadays the characters are so pathetic that you actually can't wait for the killer to off them. The best example was Rob zombies Halloween 2. Laurie was so horrible and mean that by the end I was screaming "Michael, kill her please". Try at least to have characters that we give a damn about.

4. Go back to hiring older actors. Sure people might think that having actors in their mid-20's play teenagers was somewhat ludicrous. By the fact is, many of the actors hired back in the day had actually been to acting school and had TV, theatre and movie credits to their name. So not only did they bring skill and experience, but they understood their roles better. Nowadays they hire real teenagers who are barely out of school with no acting experience (which definitely shows) who are clueless about their roles and just play them as obnoxious kids. Ever notice how most of them are never seen again afterwards.

5. Keep the body count down. OK I might get backlash for this...but in all honesty, I don't feel that killing 15-20 people makes a horror film better. Only 5 people died in the original Halloween (one offscreen)...so a higher body count is barely needed

6. Limit the killers screentime. I get that people want to see more of Michael, Freddy and Jason onscreen as they have become icons. But for these films to work, I just feel it is better to have the killer hide in the shadows so the audience isn't sure whether he's there or not. My opinion anyway






Personnel??....thats for a**holes

reply

Thank you!!

reply

[deleted]

I agree on all your points except for the part about hiring older actors to play teens. While it works sometimes, if the actor actually can pass for a teen, usually it is distracting and breaks the illusion. Everyone should be believable in their roles. I'm sure there are very talented younger actors out there, who are trained in their craft. And it helps if the people we see on screen are unfamiliar faces. But I'm in total agreement about limiting the killer's screen time. Look at the first 2 "Nightmare On elm Street" films; Fred Kruger does not appear a lot, and has very few lines of dialogue..and he was really scary in those early films. after part 2 he became a joke..

Fabio Testi is GOD

reply

To be fair, high body counts have always been a staple of slasher sequels. The Friday the 13th films all have large body counts. You mention Halloween and sure the first film had a low body count, but number 2 had 10 deaths and parts 4, 5, and 6 all had over 15. Hell, Scream 2 describes the rules of a horror slasher as having a much larger body count, so it's definitely not a new thing

reply

This. I watched behind the scenes for part 6 last night and the director said the higher ups wanted 3 more kills after a screening where they only had 13. I don't think body count has to be down but i think the kills gotta be creative and not overly gory like the evil dead remake.

reply

Except most of the kills, if not all, in Halloween 1978, could still pass for a PG-13 rating, it was only the nudity and sex really in the film that made it R.

reply

but they didn't have pg13 back then. also, i dont' think one kill in a movie back then could a movie get a pg rating with.

reply

most of the actors in this film were indeed over 25...with some being over 30, so im not sure what your point is there.

only julliana guill and panabaker were under 25 during filming.


but i never got the impression these people were supposed to be high schoolers...i believe they are just a group of 20-somethings partying in a cottage in the summer. there's nothing to suggest they are kids. in fact they buy alcohol and the black guy talks about starting a record label, something unlikely for a teenager to be doing.

reply

1.well that's kind of the point that they have to be rated, just in a general way. it's not so they can be shocking like you said, it's so they can be good. we need to be able to see the violence otherwise it's just a horror film in general or a terror film or suspense thriller.

2.what slasher movie used CGI?

have you ever seen happy death day? it's the only slasher movie that has ever been made that was rated PG13 and still worked. some of the kills you don't see, the occur off screen and the ones that you see are effective even though they don't show any blood. after watching the trailer i thought there is no way this movie can work at PG13, with all the crazy looking kills but after watching it i know it worked because they ingeniously made the kills impactful and brief, without that much blood. maybe the brevity is what made the kills work without much blood. it gets by by the shock factor of the kills and the creative ideas of the kills so then you aren't disappointed by the lack of blood. although sometimes i did want to see more explicit violence, overall though i was ok with the lack of blood and explicit violence. so they did the unthinkable and impossible accomplishing a good PG13 slasher movie.

3. in happy death day the main character wasn't annoying but you couldn't root for her or like her in the beginning because she was so mean to her classmates but in the end of the movie you rooted for her and liked her because she changed and became a nice and good character. so i can see what you are saying about not being able to like an annoying main character and this problem which is like having a bad and mean main character.

4. this has always been the problem with horror movies or any movie nowadays in Hollywood. they always hire the one tree hill or the hills actor who is barely in their 20s or a teenager to be in a slasher movie. and to make the movie worse the movie is usually a watered down pg13 slasher movie like the prom night remake. so then the

reply

CGI in slasher films is one of my biggest pet peeves. Look at Georgie getting his arm ripped off in last year's "It". It was a dark scene, in the rain, with a kid wearing a baggy rain coat and they used a cgi effect when latex and corn syrup would've been a thousand times more effective. Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D (a movie that had a ton of problems) featured some of the worst CGI I've seen to show Leatherface slicing off the someone's hands. The remake of I Spit on Your Grave had some pretty awful CGI as well.

I loved Happy Death Day and great point referencing that! I think it succeeded because it was equal parts slasher/dark romantic comedy.

reply

so then they have not only a non explicitly violent slasher movie but also an inexperienced and annoying acting actor who should just be on the disney channel because they are not a good enough actor to be in a movie.

you're right it's ridiculous having a mid 20s or early 30s actor play a teenager(ala ian ziering on beverly hills 90210)but at least it's better than having a just out of high school and no actor experienced actor playing a part in a slasher movie.

5. you're wrong about this one. it is after all a slasher movie so most of them should have a high body count. so at least 10 unless it's crafted in a different way like Halloween, though it's really hard to do this because of what needs to be in a slasher movie, the formula.

6. i like your idea here, it worked wonderfully in Hellraiser. it makes the film more eerie and scary and unpredictable and also more memorable whenever the killer shows up.

reply