Horror

[Dr. Insomniac]

But Abbott & Costello isn't a comedy. It's an exploration of 20th century culture through two people.

[talonmalon333]

No explorations of 20th century culture through two people.

[Dr. Insomniac]

But that's most of the movies made from 1900-2000. Even including period pieces because they are influenced by the time they were made in.

[talonmalon333]

But that's most of the movies made from 1900-2000. Even including period pieces because they are influenced by the time they were made in.

Then no movie is qualified for this topic anymore.

[talonmalon333]

I was thinking about Alien. I've heard some people call this a slasher movie. Now, it's certainly a horror film, I don't think anyone would argue that. But I'm not sure if I'd personally call it a slasher film. However, if I were to, I have to say that it'd certainly take the crown as the best slasher movie of all time. In fact, I compare it to the real best slasher flick, Halloween. And when doing so, I feel that Halloween's flaws begin to stick out. It's great but it's certainly cliched by now. And I love Laurie Strode as a leading lady, but you just don't beat Ellen Ripley. I actually can't think of any female leads in film that are as good as Ripley, except for Sarah Connor from The Terminator movies.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I was thinking about Alien. I've heard some people call this a slasher movie. Now, it's certainly a horror film, I don't think anyone would argue that. But I'm not sure if I'd personally call it a slasher film.

Also, I'd argue that both The Terminator and the original Alien are similar to slasher films.

You didn't seem to have a hard time thinking of it in the vein of a slasher film just a couple of weeks ago. Anyone ever tell you that you contradict yourself way too often, Talon?

Anyways I agree that Alien is a better film than Halloween, overall, but Halloween is still the more revolutionary film in the slasher sub-genre of horror, IMO. It started many of the conventions that you now see done to death in modern horror films. The things that you call cliche about it (and to be fair, Alien also succumbs to a TON of horror cliches, in its own right), weren't as cliche back then. Mind you, it did borrow a lot from earlier horror films itself, including previous slashers, but the way it went about presenting those tropes was very unique and innovative for its time. It's just hard to see that today when countless horror films have ripped off its formula to death.

If I had one major problem with it, I'd say that it has got horribly shallow characters outside of Laurie and Dr. Loomis, but once again, to be fair, so does Alien, outside of just Ripley and Ash.

Also, as far as Carpenter goes, I'd say that he managed to match (and arguably even surpass) Alien when he did his own Sci-Fi Horror film, The Thing, which actually has a more well-rounded cast, IMO, in that nobody is incredibly deep, but everyone is just layered enough and has enough memorable personality to be interesting, which is something that the very plot of the movie hinges on. The film is also less reliant on cliches, though it still has a fair share of its own. And of course, I'm saying this as a MASSIVE fan of Alien.

[talonmalon333]

You didn't seem to have a hard time thinking of it in the vein of a slasher film just a couple of weeks ago. Anyone ever tell you that you contradict yourself way too often, Talon?

I wasn't necessarily saying that I considered it a slasher, though. I was mostly saying that it's similar. One could argue it's a slasher. Besides, I didn't list it in my slasher movie list during that discussion. I don't contradict myself anymore than anyone else.

Anyways I agree that Alien is a better film than Halloween, overall, but Halloween is still the more revolutionary film in the slasher sub-genre of horror, IMO. It started many of the conventions that you now see done to death in modern horror films. The things that you call cliche about it (and to be fair, Alien also succumbs to a TON of horror cliches, in its own right), weren't as cliche back then. Mind you, it did borrow a lot from earlier horror films itself, including previous slashers, but the way it went about presenting those tropes was very unique and innovative for its time. It's just hard to see that today when countless horror films have ripped off its formula to death.

If I had one major problem with it, I'd say that it has got horribly shallow characters outside of Laurie and Dr. Loomis, but once again, to be fair, so does Alien, outside of just Ripley and Ash.

Right, it wasn't cliched back then. I was mostly saying it is now. With Halloween, I'm thinking of little things like the final girl scrambling around in her house, hiding in closets, when she should be running for the front door (though I can get behind that she wasn't in the thinking state of mind in that time, given the situation she was in). Though for the most part, I was thinking of the side characters. I'd say ones in Alien were fairly likable. A lot of the teenagers in Halloween were "totally" silly and who's purpose was just to be killed off.

With all that said, keep in mind that I love Halloween. I do consider it by far the best true slasher film.

EDIT:

Also, I think I should mention that I also don't consider Psycho to be a slasher film. I know it inspired the genre, but I feel that it itself isn't one.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Well, it's a psychological thriller at heart, but you can't deny that it carries MANY of the tropes of the slasher genre, including the body count, and even some of cinema's earlier attempts at jump scares on two occasions.

[talonmalon333]

I just realized that Psycho is one of our 31 horror movies of the month. Once we reach its day, I'll talk more about this movie. But for now I'll just end with saying that I do agree with your post.

[talonmalon333]

I just learned this fact. It concerns the creation of Halloween 4.

Series creator John Carpenter wrote a treatment for this film, that was a more ghostly psychological approach to the Michael Myers mythos. It concerned the town of Haddonfield and what effect the events of the first two films have had on its citizens. This concept was later rejected by the producers in favor of the typical slasher fare, at which point in time John Carpernter bailed out of the film, making this the first film in the series to have no participation from him.

I think it's a shame that they didn't go with the anthology route. Halloween III was surprisingly enjoyable (if a little hammy), and they could have kept coming up with potential brand new and interesting storylines. Instead we got a series of rehashes that just degenerated. Maybe if they announced their anthology idea to the public, and made it clear that III wouldn't be a slasher, it would have been more critically and commercially successful and they wouldn't have felt the need to throw away their vision in favor of making the same, safe Michael Myers movie over and over.

[Spark Of Spirit]

That would have been a far better and more interesting film. I also agree that the anthology idea was one I would have liked seen pursued instead of rehashing the same formula over and over.

[talonmalon333]

That would have been a far better and more interesting film. I also agree that the anthology idea was one I would have liked seen pursued instead of rehashing the same formula over and over.

Agreed. I do like Danielle Harris in 4... but, they could have still had her in this version as Laurie's daughter if they wanted to. Though, I imagine Laurie was in this draft and Loomis wasn't, unlike the Halloween 4 we ended up with where she is dead for some reason and he's still alive by some D rate horror writing miracle.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

If they never made Halloween II and instead made Halloween III into Halloween II in terms of the title, I have a feeling that people would've been more accepting of the anthology idea since they wouldn't have necessarily associated the series with the Michael Meyers character since it wasn't a series yet, at that point. And don't get me wrong, I actually like Halloween II, which isn't a great horror movie by any means, but as far as horror sequels go, I always felt that it was one of the stronger ones compared to the other shit that we usually get. Having said that, in terms of what was better for the series, I think the anthology format would have really worked had people been willing to give it more of a chance.

[talonmalon333]

If they never made Halloween II and instead made Halloween III into Halloween II in terms of the title, I have a feeling that people would've been more accepting of the anthology idea since they wouldn't have necessarily associated the series with the Michael Meyers character since it wasn't a series yet, at that point. And don't get me wrong, I actually like Halloween II, which isn't a great horror movie by any means, but as far as horror sequels go, I always felt that it was one of the stronger ones compared to the other shit that we usually get. Having said that, in terms of what was better for the series, I think the anthology format would have really worked had people been willing to give it more of a chance.

Yeah, Halloween II is pretty good and is certainly better than 99% of slasher movies in existence. But it did possibly mess up the perception people would end up having about the franchise in later sequels. I actually heard rumors that Carpenter wanted to go with the anthology route immediately after the original, but they pushed him to make one more Michael Myers sequel.

[talonmalon333]

So tonight I saw The Babadook, and have to call it one of the better horror films released in years.