MovieChat Forums > Sinister 2 (2015) Discussion > Why the genre switch in Sinister 1?

Why the genre switch in Sinister 1?

posted 8 years ago by madtrader117
26 replies | jump to latest

Seriously, this was one of the best thriller, murder, horror movies I had ever witnessed up until the genre switch midway through. I was literally on the edge of my seat.. The atmosphere was so engrossing. Someone coulda dropped a pin and made me hyper-ventilate. Then, suddenly, it switched to a weird supernatural-ghost movie in the blink of an eye.

Can anyone explain what made the directors decide to take that direction? Was it money, time, lack of ideas or what? What was the constraint that sent them down that road?

[–] jaymzhimself 8 years ago

It's a horror movie. Not a serial murder (thriller) movie.

[–] Jigsaw_Expert 8 years ago

I'm with you OP, the first half of Sinister was phenomenal. It was a really compelling murder mystery and suddenly all the mystery and tension went out the window when they revealed that it was a supernatural demon called Baghul who eats the souls of children. I suspect the director pitched this movie as a straight murder mystery but then the producers said you're only getting this movie made if you add in this supernatural demon angle because that'll pull in all the teenagers. Unless Scott Derrickson really is this clueless and thought the supernatural demon thing was genius.

It's a horror movie. Not a serial murder (thriller) movie.

You're out of your mind if you don't think the first half of Sinister didn't earn a position in the "horror" genre. It's like the retards that call Silence of the Lambs a psychological thriller.

[–] billycx4 8 years ago

I used to believe Derrickson was forced into the supernatural angle, but his experience with The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Deliver Us From Evil and his co-writing of Sinister 2 which was solely paranormal all read that he has an attraction to paranormal subject matter so he must have always intended it.

[–] therefdotcom 8 years ago

"I'm with you OP, the first half of Sinister was phenomenal. It was a really compelling murder mystery and suddenly all the mystery and tension went out the window when they revealed that it was a supernatural demon called Baghul who eats the souls of children."

yeah, that made me furious as well.

[–] O-Face 8 years ago

You have to be not very bright to figure out it was a supernatural movie from the start.

Best line in DC Comics:
http://i.imgur.com/XL5ZBKS.png

[–] jaymzhimself 8 years ago

I agree with you that SotL is not a thriller, but that is a masterpiece movie. One of a kind. I would never compare Sinister (not even the first 30mins) with SotL.

It would probably go downhill anyway, like that movie about the Zodiac killer. I enjoyed the paranormal part really. Don't think that a 'normal' killer would've kept me on the edge of my seat. Only if the killer would have gotten Ethan Hawkes very annoying wife.

[–] roflailer 8 years ago

SOL is certainly a thriller. It's a thriller with horror elements (like most thrillers with similar themes to SOL, in fact)

[–] O-Face 8 years ago

What you would have is a terrible serial killer movie featuring a killer who leaves boxes of evidence laying around at the crime scene.

Best line in DC Comics:
http://i.imgur.com/XL5ZBKS.png

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

i one hundred percent agree

[–] O-Face 8 years ago

Why? I it would make no sense if it was.

Best line in DC Comics:
http://i.imgur.com/XL5ZBKS.png

[–] georgegates 8 years ago

Dunno what you mean?
It was a consistent comedy until the credits.

[–] O-Face 8 years ago

Dude, it was obvious it was a supernatural movie from the start. You seriously believe the cops wouldn't have found those tapes? Why would a serial killer leaves evidence at a crime scene? It was obviously not a normal serial killer. There were also strange animals in the house.

Best line in DC Comics:
http://i.imgur.com/XL5ZBKS.png

[–] Jigsaw_Expert 8 years ago

You seriously believe the cops wouldn't have found those tapes? Why would a serial killer leaves evidence at a crime scene? It was obviously not a normal serial killer.

Well that's clearly part of the mystery. Had the supernatural demon been omitted from the story it would've had to of been multiple killers or a cult to make sense of the murders dating back so many years. Maybe the killer / cult left the box of tapes to bait Ethan Hawke, throughout the movie I was convinced Deputy So and So was in on it because he was so interested in seeing what progress Hawke's character had made.

[–] O-Face 8 years ago

Except that would require someone to anticipate somebody crazy enough to move into a house where mysterious murders recently took place there.

Best line in DC Comics:
http://i.imgur.com/XL5ZBKS.png

[–] Jigsaw_Expert 8 years ago

Except that would require someone to anticipate somebody crazy enough to move into a house where mysterious murders recently took place there.

Yes, because no one in the history of existence has ever moved into a murder house before. If a murder takes place in a house no one ever lives there ever again. Yes, you would be correct.

[–] O-Face 8 years ago

How often do they happen right after the crime? Especially if it's unsolved.

Best line in DC Comics:
http://i.imgur.com/XL5ZBKS.png

[–] Jigsaw_Expert 8 years ago

Except that would require someone to anticipate somebody crazy enough to move into a house where mysterious murders recently took place there.

I don't even understand what you're trying to argue here. You said the above thing. Yes, people move into murder houses. Now you're saying

How often do they happen right after the crime? Especially if it's unsolved.

Why is this even relevant? What does this have to do with the discussion?

[–] O-Face 8 years ago

Is it that hard for you to understand? No, people often don't move into murder houses, especially unsolved murders with a killer on the loose. If someone were to move in it would years after the fact.

Best line in DC Comics:
http://i.imgur.com/XL5ZBKS.png

[–] upside_down_frown 8 years ago

I don't live in the USA, but the housing market where I live is just ridiculous. You have to save up for many years just to be able to afford a deposit on a house. If a house came on the market where I wanted to be living, at a super bargain due to a recent unsolved murder, I would most certainly consider making an offer. I am sure that a lot of other people would consider it as well. It's a little creepy, sure, but at the end of the day I would put my financial stability ahead of 'gross, people died here so I can't live here'.

[–] O-Face 8 years ago

It's not just creepy but flat out dangerous.

Best line in DC Comics:
http://i.imgur.com/XL5ZBKS.png

[–] upside_down_frown 8 years ago

How, exactly? How often do people kill someone, and then go back and kill the next lot of people who move into the house where you did it? Give me some numbers that show that this actually happens often enough to be a thing and I'll concede your point. If not, I stand by my belief that it's in fact not a thing, and that I could get over a murder in a house I wanted to buy.

[–] nickohlsson 8 years ago

I am a fan of supernatural movies. I absolutely love when there are paranormal and/or supernatural aspects to it. If Sinister had turned out to be just another murder mystery I would have been so disappointed. I can't even fathom how disappointed I would have been just because it really has that tension going for it. It's all subjective, of course, but I think there are far too few movies that does mystery well combined with supernatural elements. I've really come to love what Scott Derrickson does. Exorcism of Emily Rose is my personal favorite of all in the exorcism-genre. Deliver us from Evil is a great supernatural crime/mystery in the same vein as David Fincher-movies (who's another favorite of mine). I love murder mysteries, don't get me wrong, but I also love supernatural movies. Horror-movies tend to be the only movies which has supernatural/paranormal aspects to them and they are usually too "in your face" with the handling of ghosts and other paranormal entities for my taste. This is what made Sinister a personal favorite of mine; it combined two of my favorite genres (crime/detective/murder mystery and ghost/haunting). I hope Scott will continue to deliver these kinds of movies since nobody else seems to want to do it (or maybe it's not really a lucrative buisness, I don't know. I just know I love it).

[–] T-Horror 8 years ago

You just said my exact thoughts much better than I ever could. Good work Nickohlsson, it is good to know others out there have the same tastes. Might help to keep these movies coming.

[–] rooster-rousseau 8 years ago

Lack of money time or ideas? None of the above maybe? It is what it was meant to be