MovieChat Forums > You're Next (2013) Discussion > At the very beginning....

At the very beginning....


Am I right that the first 'couple' (skank banging her professor) were killed so that the next attack on the family would look more random, and/or to serve as a practice run? Was writing 'You're Next' at the scene done for the same reasons?

Also, what was the significance of their being a student & professor, while we later learn the lead characters were also once a student & professor? Was this a coincidence?

I loved this film but I feel like I missed something there...

reply

I see it as two possibillities about the neighbors being killed off in the beginning.

1. No interference when the killers would strike at their main targets.
2. To make it look like the family they were after were not the main victims.

The student/professor thing i thing was a coincidence, or lack of another idea :)

*DieHardRRatedOrNoDieHard!*

reply

Good theories! I think you're right about both of those. But if the student/professor thing was just a red herring, like we were supposed to think there was a link there but there wasn't, that's just lazy writing. Like, hey, look over there...just kidding, made ya look! Really?!?!

reply

1. No interference when the killers would strike at their main targets.
If I remember correctly, when we are first introduced to the parents, the father mentions that it's a good thing the neighbors are home in case they need anything. So, yes, this.

Votes: 3,286
My website: (http://geeksteronmovies.blogspot.com/)

reply

also, starting with the scene of the parents driving in, it's a long road with hardly anything else around, and one of them remarks about the professor it will be nice to have some neighbors, and they have to bring the groceries in from the car and when she was out of milk she asked Erin to go to the neighbors for some. I think they were trying to make it clear that there really was no one else around, not even a store, for a good distance. so once the neighbors were knocked off
no safehouse for anyone to run to
no neighbors noticing anything strange
have another house as a base to prepare for attack, gather, etc

reply

I think you guys are dead on! It's making more sense to me now. Still bugged by the student/professor angle though, & having two 'couples' in the movie having that relationship, for no reason (that I caught, anyway). The house wasn't close to home for the main couple; they had to drive quite a bit to get there, right? So it's not like this all happened adjacent to a campus where both men taught, which might have helped explain it. Sort of. Maybe. It's funny reading all these postings from people who were confused about the ending, which made perfect sense to me - and yet I'm confused by the beginning, lol. I thought everything else about this movie was brilliant, but if there's even a small detail I can't quite work out, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

reply

Maybe it's to show disapproval and judging about that kind of relationship to support the murdering of the parents. The mom seems pretty judgey about that relationship to maybe the kids felt disapproved of because of it. Just one more reason to off the "horrible" parents.

reply

It's explained in the film (when Crispy comes back in the end and makes his monologue) that they intended it to look like a serial killer / psycho offed the family. So they went "all out" on that first couple next door to a) not have anyone who can help the family if they manage to get to their house and b) be consistent with the serial killer explanation they are hoping to pass off on the police. This movie had one too many idiotic actions by characters, but killing that first couple in an over the top way wasn't one of them, it was actually consistent with the plot.

reply

Yes, you're absolutely right, that was made clear in the motive explanation. But the multiple references to the teacher-student relationship were in question. I picked up on it too and wondered toward the beginning if it was the neighbor's wife/ex-wife seeking revenge, since they had mentioned the relationship multiple times.

The motive is made crystal clear, just the multiple mentions of the teacher-student relationship was a little unclear.

reply

Exactly, that's the part that keeps bugging me. The movie was really intelligent & well thought-out, so I figure there IS a reason for it...

reply

[deleted]

Neither. It served as a trap.

The killers knew that if in the event the hunted managed to make a run for it, they'd run straight to that house.

The evidence:

The music was on loud and blaring.
The lights were on.
It happened exactly as they planned it.

The writing on the wall is just textbook modus operandi.

reply

Well modus operandi means mode of operation, so the writing on the wall was part of their sole intent to set a trap? That couldn't have been their only goal, because the writing on the wall would have been counterproductive to that. So I think you're right about the trap, but that couldn't have been their only purpose for taking over that first house. What do you think of the student/professor dynamic that appears twice in the story? That's the part that keeps plaguing me...

reply

By modus operandi, I mean 'signature'. We know at least one of them - the one young Johnny Depp calls Tom - is getting massive amounts of excitement as he always seems post or pre- orgasm. It would make sense for him to have a signature and some sort of personal expression, such as the need to dominate and scare *beep*

As for the student/professor dynamic, I honestly just think it's character building. What's a massive family dinner without drama?

reply

Ok, I see what you mean. I thought you were saying the one and only purpose of taking over that house was to set a trap, but the writing on the wall had nothing to do with that. If anything, it would send the victim right back out. (Not that any victim in a horror movie would dare do something so logical!)

I loved it when the student/prof subject came up in the dinner scene. It was so painful to watch but hysterical at the same time. The only thing about it that keeps me perplexed is why they used that dynamic twice in the movie.

reply

Do you think it's false priming? So at the very beginning of the movie there is a professor and a student in a relationship. Student is innocent unsuspecting and gets killed, then professor gets killed showing his innocence as well.

Now we as viewers have in our memory bank: Student innocent killed, professor innocent killed. And so when we are introduced to Erin and Crispen we activate our Student and professor schemas and without realizing it we (subconsciously) think "innocent, killed."

So we become totally blindsided (and therefore emensely entertained) by Erin being a badass and not being killed (cause this violates what we just were taught at the beginning of the movie about students)

And also for a short while while Crispen is gone we don't necessarily suspect him because as he is a professor we are operating under "professor, innocent, killed."

It isn't until we see her violating the student innocent killed schema aka her being a badass and surviving that we start to realize that Crispen could be violating his professor innocent killed schema too and we start realizing "wow he's been gone forever and they haven't shown his death....wait a minute that bastard is in on it!!!"

So I do think that the student/professor thing was very intentional and it was plain and simple false priming so that the parts that were supposed to surprise us, did a better job of surprising us :)

reply

Ok, that might be the best theory I've read on here! It didn't occur to me that it might be for something almost subconscious, which is obviously ironic, lol. Because it did kind of change my feelings about the second pairing, even if I wasn't thoughtfully aware of it.

Although I'm not sure it stuck in my mind the same way it stuck in yours. The first pairing were innocent, because they did nothing that warrented them being killed. Still, I didn't really see them as innocent. They were using each other, making neither of them very sympathetic to me. Maybe it's because I'm a female, who knows. But it was a fair exchange of using one another, so...whatever. I didn't really hold it against either of them other than rolling my eyes a little.

So later on, when finding about the second pairing, I think it probably made me like them a little less, after that revelation. I wasn't thinking, ok, innocent couple so they're probably doomed like the first. I was thinking, great, another skank & dirty older man with zero karma in their favor. Which could mean they're doomed, & therefore less suspicious to me.

But whether I disliked them or you liked them, either way, it threw us a little off track, which could have been the entire reason for it. If you're right, that was genius on the part of the writers!

I loved this movie, so that minor question mark has bugged me for months!

reply

I think that last theory is correct but I want to add to that. At first I found it strange the movie started with a sex scene. It sounds like she is having a great time until we see HE is the only one enjoying himself. Basically, he's using her for his own needs. Such as, him not even caring if she was getting pleasure. Based on her expression, she wasn't. He doesn't even want to stay in bed with her. Once he's done he immediately takes a shower. That whole scene foreshadows the end. They were showing and not telling what is going to happen. The professor was just using the final girl in all the same ways. He didn't seem to care about her at all. He found a student he mistakenly thought was innocent, and could have his way with. Someone he could mold. That may have been obvious but I wanted to add it just just in case. There is a side note. She grew up a survivalist in the Australian Outback. Being trained to kill and killing as a natural response are two different things. What was her life like before America? The more I think about it the more questions I have. Why did she move to America with her mother? Why did she decide to leave her father? Was that her choice? Was it based on an incident? She was 15 when she left. It almost seems like her mother was trying to rehabilitate her. That possible back story creeps me out just thinking about it. She was force into being the protagonist but accidentally became the antagonist. That's pretty scary itself because she killed a lot of people including a cop all in self defense. No one will believe her, all other witnesses were killed. Her fingerprints are on all the murder weapons. It will look like she was in on it and just decided to kill everyone. If something like this really happen no one would be able to ever tell what really happened. Good post! It got me thinking about the subtext.

After throwing a machete through a guys chest, "Stick around!"- Dutch (Predator)

reply

That's a really interesting take on the opening scene, as far as it being foreshadowing elements of the end. I think you're absolutely right. And I also wish we'd delved a little more into her backstory, because there was obviously a great story there, but it was basically used as a plot device. I can understand if expanding on it would have taken the plot a little too far from the main plot, but it could have been touched on a little more so it would have felt a little less convenient. But something tells me her life before these events would have made a great movie on its own!

reply

I agree, it really would take away from the movie if they stopped to explored her story. To make a movie like that would be to set up an unfairly doomed protagonist. I have no problem with that, many people do though. I like to think her father is the killer from Wolf Creek....after typing that I realize that is a real possibility. Her description of where she grew up matches that killers domain. A place with a wide spread community off the grid with a different set of morals. I wonder....

After throwing a machete through a guys chest, "Stick around!"- Dutch (Predator)

reply

THAT is a prequel that needs to happen! Like, immediately! I almost want to start writing it now!

reply

I like to write, too. Your unexpected enthusiasm has given me some ideas. I even have an idea for a sequel to this hypothetical story. It would be about a father being there for his daughter, after an estrangement.

After throwing a machete through a guys chest, "Stick around!"- Dutch (Predator)

reply

It's a great idea! I never would have connected those two movies but there's definitely something there. There are a lot of places to go with that idea.

reply

Very astute reading of the opening scene!

reply

Interesting thoughts.

reply

[deleted]

I thought it was a serial killer movie at first but it was so different to what i expected.

reply