Leprechaun Series

[Mista-Bones]

after replying to the childs play thread it made me think of my other favorite small killer his size the Lep,,Which Leprechaun film is your favorite,,, i love em all but part 3 is my favorite where hes in vegas ,, then part one cause its the Og,,then 2 then in the hood then back to the hood then part 4 in space,, he didnt belong in space plus they enlarge him which is something u dont do, hes posta be the wee littel leprechaun lol.

[bodyboy]

Leprechaun 3 is so easily the best it isn't even funny. I'm so surprised that this has 6 films in it. T.T

[Mista-Bones]

Dec 9, 2011 0:55:42 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

Leprechaun 3 is so easily the best it isn't even funny. I'm so surprised that this has 6 films in it. T.T

lol u didnt know? i love the lep i wish theyd make another lol

[bodyboy]

None of them are actually 'good' films aside from 3. The first has pacing issues, the second is cheap, the 4th is ridic, and by the time we get to 5 and 6, you're wondering how such an entity could exist? And then you remember that it was the 90s...

[Mista-Bones]

i love the lep in the hoods ... a friend with weed is a friend indeed,, but a friend with gold is the best im told lol......Ah Tha Bomb!

[No Personality]

Actually, I don't believe either of the Hood's were released / made in the 90's. I haven't seen either of those but I've seen the first 4.

The first Leprechaun is a rip-off of Critters. (Watch them back-to-back if you don't believe me.) But it's actually suspenseful at times. Definitely moreso than Critters. The 2nd movie gets my vote for best. It has the best gore / effects, the best story ideas, was the funniest, and made better use of its' big names (Sandy Baron - Vamp, Clint Howard - Ice Cream Man, Kimmy Robertson - Twin Peaks, Al White - Airplane!, and Michael McDonald - MADtv). But, yeah, my heart goes out to the 3rd movie. I'd say it's somewhat tied with the first movie for so-bad-it's-good 'ness.

Anyway- this is a franchise I can get behind. Well, half of it. In Space may have guys in it so hot, I'd seriously consider cutting off my own arm for the chance to nail 3 of them, but it is one of the most painfully bad horror movies I have ever seen.

[bodyboy]

Yeah, neither hoods were from the 90s. Sorry, it was phrased suggestively. I meant it as "you look at the hoods, and ask, how did this series get to Parts 5 and 6? And you see, it started in the 90s..."

[No Personality]

And even that doesn't make much sense. I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything (there's an expression from the vaults), but the 80's gave us 8 Friday the 13th films, 5 Nightmare on Elm Street's, and 6 Police Academy's.

Then, look at how many Saw's and Wrong Turn's have been shat out in less than a decade. Oh, and: Anaconda. There are actually 4 of those movies. And Feast. And The Hills Have Eyes remake. Sequelitis has been prevalent ever since the 80's. The 90's weren't an isolated incident.

[bodyboy]

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand me.

The first few Fridays, Elm Streets, Halloweens and such were actually well made DECENT movies. Leprechaun can't say that. It was shit from day 1. Fun at times, yes, but not on the level of the 80's top reign in horror. In the 80s, you wouldn't get a sequel to Don't Go in the Woods, Terror At Tenkiller, or Evil Laugh, because they weren't up to the heights of other competing films on higher calibers.

It's not about sequels. It's about sequels to unworthy films being made. I like the first three Leprechaun films, and they have a cool central villain, but when 90s horror franchises are thought up, and people say things like Leprechaun, Puppet Master (started in 1989, ok, w/e, it's mostly 90s) and The Dentist, they certainly don't measure up early in the franchise to what would have been given sequels in the 80s.

[No Personality]

Dec 11, 2011 19:17:11 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand me.

The first few Fridays, Elm Streets, Halloweens and such were actually well made DECENT movies.

Uhhhhh... that argument depends heavily on a person's preference and personal definition of what decent is. For example, was it decent of people to fuck with Halloween's story where Michael and Laurie were not in any way related just to get a sequel going? No. Universal coughed up some money and made John Carpenter ruin his own story just to make a little dough. And in return, Halloween II isn't half the movie Halloween was. Not where it counts. Not where ambition and true art and craft for the genre are concerned. Without these things, there'd be no Michael Myers anyway, so there'd be nothing to make a sequel from. And, looking at the film, there's no real story to set it apart from the first movie. It's just a shameful half-assed "continuation" on a film that was really about getting the viewer to fill in the blanks for what wasn't shown or explained. Also: Halloween II is a Friday the 13th knock-off just filmed wider, given a Carpenter-esque score (Alan Howarth is more to credit than Carpenter is for the music on this and Season of the Witch), and set in a hospital. Therefore, since it doesn't even have the substance Betsy Palmer provided with her dynamic performance, it's not only half the film Halloween was, it's also only half + a quarter of what Friday the 13th was. But, really, when you consider how much of a comedown in quality and brains it is from Halloween, it's just an insult made barely watchable by the fact that it's technically better than the survival thrillers that came out of the genre post-Blair Witch Project.

Your argument is much more based on a kind of nostalgia for a time period rather than a realistic point. You like the formula better than what the films are really doing. Because, even then I have to chip away at Friday the 13th and say - though I love those films to death - until the 5th film, they weren't even trying to be smart. Leprechaun is exactly to the 90's what Friday the 13th was to the 80's. So, let's not get silly and, say, blame the decade when we're talking about a series of films that actually tried to be somewhat better than Friday the 13th and Children of the Corn- and at least were funnier than Puppet Master, the Phantasm sequels, etc. Shit from day 1? It was a rip-off of Critters that actually managed to be far more entertaining than that film. Same can't be said for Friday the 13th ripping off Halloween. Unless personal preference dictates sleaze and well-placed cheapness is actually superior to real art.

You have to look at this in proper context. Leprechaun wasn't intending to join the ranks of other franchises or compete with them. They knew their idea was funny. For a better comparison, stand them up next to other one-liner parades. Hell- consider that the one-liner spouting trend with killers in horror films wasn't actually making Arnold Schwarzenegger films do the same thing. It was the other way around. Horror is a genre that acts as a mirror of our culture and what's going on at the time. It shows us trends in other movies and shows as well as society, politics, etc. 1984 gives us this huge musclebound guy shooting off "I'll be baahck" and it sends a wave through the action genre that gives us the likes of Stallone, Seagal, Van Damme, Lamas, Rothrock, all these other action and martial arts who secure careers in dispatching drug dealers and (etc) with one-liners aplenty. Then, a dwarf in a green suit and Irish accent starts doing the same thing but to people in America who could conceivably have seen those movies mere weeks before their demise. It's genius. Consider a few of the victims. A cop whose idea of handling what he thinks is a child in a costume driving a toy car (one would assume somehow) illegally is to taunt and threaten him. It's the backward version of the moral Stallone and company are trying to impart but behavior nonetheless potentially fueled by bad macho cinematic influences.

Who's to say the other films didn't try similar simple-satire with some of their victims? Like the redhead from the 2nd movie who wants more than Bridget is willing to give him before the end of the night and she literally has to punch him to get him to leave her alone. Well, okay he wasn't that forward but he was insulting her for not reciprocating his interest. The movie then takes time out of the formula to have the villain kill him in a manner cleverly turning his own lust against him. Instead of being a direct rip-off of what one would assume was the conservative slant on Friday the 13th, it's actually more akin to a fantasy set-up with a maniacal supervillain who'd say something like "I'll use your own weakness to destroy you, puny Earthling." Yet the movie doesn't deviate from it's surprisingly creepy style. The 2nd film is ripe with similar "let them earn their deaths" caricatures. The slimy suit-wearing businessman. The stuffy-nosed artsy snob. The greedy, opportunistic drunk. And the 3rd film follows suit. The lecherous fat pig. The bitchy 40-something hag. The sarcastic showoff. And a guy who's a dead ringer for Arnold Schwarzenegger's stunt man (you'd remember him from Re-Animator, he played the naked bodybuilder's corpse).

That's technically a lot more substance than Friday the 13th or Halloween II-6 had. But, people get away with saying the movies sucked because of the same sort of stigma that unfairly plagues similiarly underrated films like Bride of Chucky, Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives, Critters 2 - people hold on too tightly to an image of a certain character and think one sequel's too funny and that that ruins anyone else's ability to take them seriously. The idea you seem to be defending - only good movies should have sequels - is horrendous. Just look at the damage Halloween II did. The vast majority of people who watch Carpenter's film now think Laurie is actually Michael Myers' sister. That only applies to the sequels. But crazy fans decide they like the idea or can't separate it from Carpenter's original and so the film's story has been duly compromised. Not to mention it started a trend of fans supporting freakishly incomprehensible storylines in films such as Friday the 13th Part II as having actual continuity with the first film.

[bodyboy]

Dec 12, 2011 3:29:51 GMT -6 No Personality said:

Dec 11, 2011 19:17:11 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand me.

The first few Fridays, Elm Streets, Halloweens and such were actually well made DECENT movies.

Uhhhhh... that argument depends heavily on a person's preference and personal definition of what decent is. For example, was it decent of people to fuck with Halloween's story where Michael and Laurie were not in any way related just to get a sequel going? No. Universal coughed up some money and made John Carpenter ruin his own story just to make a little dough. And in return, Halloween II isn't half the movie Halloween was. Not where it counts. Not where ambition and true art and craft for the genre are concerned. Without these things, there'd be no Michael Myers anyway, so there'd be nothing to make a sequel from. And, looking at the film, there's no real story to set it apart from the first movie. It's just a shameful half-assed "continuation" on a film that was really about getting the viewer to fill in the blanks for what wasn't shown or explained. Also: Halloween II is a Friday the 13th knock-off just filmed wider, given a Carpenter-esque score (Alan Howarth is more to credit than Carpenter is for the music on this and Season of the Witch), and set in a hospital. Therefore, since it doesn't even have the substance Betsy Palmer provided with her dynamic performance, it's not only half the film Halloween was, it's also only half + a quarter of what Friday the 13th was. But, really, when you consider how much of a comedown in quality and brains it is from Halloween, it's just an insult made barely watchable by the fact that it's technically better than the survival thrillers that came out of the genre post-Blair Witch Project.

Your argument is much more based on a kind of nostalgia for a time period rather than a realistic point. You like the formula better than what the films are really doing. Because, even then I have to chip away at Friday the 13th and say - though I love those films to death - until the 5th film, they weren't even trying to be smart. Leprechaun is exactly to the 90's what Friday the 13th was to the 80's. So, let's not get silly and, say, blame the decade when we're talking about a series of films that actually tried to be somewhat better than Friday the 13th and Children of the Corn- and at least were funnier than Puppet Master, the Phantasm sequels, etc. Shit from day 1? It was a rip-off of Critters that actually managed to be far more entertaining than that film. Same can't be said for Friday the 13th ripping off Halloween. Unless personal preference dictates sleaze and well-placed cheapness is actually superior to real art.

You have to look at this in proper context. Leprechaun wasn't intending to join the ranks of other franchises or compete with them. They knew their idea was funny. For a better comparison, stand them up next to other one-liner parades. Hell- consider that the one-liner spouting trend with killers in horror films wasn't actually making Arnold Schwarzenegger films do the same thing. It was the other way around. Horror is a genre that acts as a mirror of our culture and what's going on at the time. It shows us trends in other movies and shows as well as society, politics, etc. 1984 gives us this huge musclebound guy shooting off "I'll be baahck" and it sends a wave through the action genre that gives us the likes of Stallone, Seagal, Van Damme, Lamas, Rothrock, all these other action and martial arts who secure careers in dispatching drug dealers and (etc) with one-liners aplenty. Then, a dwarf in a green suit and Irish accent starts doing the same thing but to people in America who could conceivably have seen those movies mere weeks before their demise. It's genius. Consider a few of the victims. A cop whose idea of handling what he thinks is a child in a costume driving a toy car (one would assume somehow) illegally is to taunt and threaten him. It's the backward version of the moral Stallone and company are trying to impart but behavior nonetheless potentially fueled by bad macho cinematic influences.

Who's to say the other films didn't try similar simple-satire with some of their victims? Like the redhead from the 2nd movie who wants more than Bridget is willing to give him before the end of the night and she literally has to punch him to get him to leave her alone. Well, okay he wasn't that forward but he was insulting her for not reciprocating his interest. The movie then takes time out of the formula to have the villain kill him in a manner cleverly turning his own lust against him. Instead of being a direct rip-off of what one would assume was the conservative slant on Friday the 13th, it's actually more akin to a fantasy set-up with a maniacal supervillain who'd say something like "I'll use your own weakness to destroy you, puny Earthling." Yet the movie doesn't deviate from it's surprisingly creepy style. The 2nd film is ripe with similar "let them earn their deaths" caricatures. The slimy suit-wearing businessman. The stuffy-nosed artsy snob. The greedy, opportunistic drunk. And the 3rd film follows suit. The lecherous fat pig. The bitchy 40-something hag. The sarcastic showoff. And a guy who's a dead ringer for Arnold Schwarzenegger's stunt man (you'd remember him from Re-Animator, he played the naked bodybuilder's corpse).

That's technically a lot more substance than Friday the 13th or Halloween II-6 had. But, people get away with saying the movies sucked because of the same sort of stigma that unfairly plagues similiarly underrated films like Bride of Chucky, Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives, Critters 2 - people hold on too tightly to an image of a certain character and think one sequel's too funny and that that ruins anyone else's ability to take them seriously. The idea you seem to be defending - only good movies should have sequels - is horrendous. Just look at the damage Halloween II did. The vast majority of people who watch Carpenter's film now think Laurie is actually Michael Myers' sister. That only applies to the sequels. But crazy fans decide they like the idea or can't separate it from Carpenter's original and so the film's story has been duly compromised. Not to mention it started a trend of fans supporting freakishly incomprehensible storylines in films such as Friday the 13th Part II as having actual continuity with the first film.

I'm not discussing story contents amongst the films! I'm saying that if released around the same time, the original Leprechaun would seriously be a standout for the wrong reasons when compared to the original Friday, Halloween, Elm Street, etc...

I'm not even gonna touch how Halloween II isn't half the film the original Halloween is, because I don't consider Halloween to be the high "real art" people with nostalgia want to think it is...

Reading through your response, I'm still not sure you got what I was saying. I'm not saying the series' as a whole are better than the other or anything (though my personal tastes think so). I'm saying that when you look at the ORIGINAL FILM in each series, Friday-Halloween-Elm Street, and compare it with the first Leprechaun, one could be led to wonder how on earth Lep could carry along 5 more sequels. And in relation to the 90s, it's being used because horror was in a dryspell. Let's not pretend it wasn't. And that it's typical of the 90s to release inferior products than the 80s because there was such little pool to pick from that there'd be nary a thing to choose from. How does something like The Dentist get a sequel? Who knows? Nowadays a sequel to anything can be made, but in the 90s and back there needed to be more of a pitch for a sequel unless u had friends and a camcorder. And I don't care about what the films tried to do differently. I'm talking about quality in their respective goals. If you tell me that the first Leprechaun is a better film than the first Friday the 13th, you can have that opinion, but I severely disagree with you.

[No Personality]

Dec 12, 2011 4:53:02 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

I'm not even gonna touch how Halloween II isn't half the film the original Halloween is, because I don't consider Halloween to be the high "real art" people with nostalgia want to think it is...

There are few things I will stand on as facts. (Most of them are social and political.) Halloween being a true work of art is one of them. No matter what you say, you will not crack me there. No nostalgia goggling about it. It's a fact. At least, as long as you're talking to me- I will tell you it is. No idea what you think can compare in the slasher genre, but only the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Argento's Deep Red stand above it.

Dec 12, 2011 4:53:02 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

Reading through your response, I'm still not sure you got what I was saying. I'm not saying the series' as a whole are better than the other or anything (though my personal tastes think so). I'm saying that when you look at the ORIGINAL FILM in each series, Friday-Halloween-Elm Street, and compare it with the first Leprechaun, one could be led to wonder how on earth Lep could carry along 5 more sequels.

Actually, I'm convinced I did know what you meant. I was just trying to redirect the discussion to a more constructive place. Leprechaun gets enough garbage dumped on it when it's Wishmaster that deserves it. Who cares about one franchise's prestige versus another? What's important is what went into making them. What niche they served. What damage they did. I think I provided a lot of very interesting reasons to forgive the first 3 Leprechaun movies. Again: if Critters had been as good as Gremlins, then I wouldn't be defending Leprechaun like I am. Well, it's not just that. It's the fact that all of the post-Gremlins mini-monster movies pretty much sucked except for Leprechaun. You can imagine why I would care for these films now when I tell you I was an avid follower of this subgenre of horror after Gremlins. I saw them all (except Hobgoblins): Ghoulies (and first sequel), the aforementioned Critters (and sequel), Munchies. As a kid. Then I rewatched them as an adult and only those Leprechaun's are as fun as they used to be. (In Space was never any fun, so that explains that.) (Oh, yeah: I missed Rumpelstiltskin too. But it was 1996 after all.) (I also checked out Dolly Dearest recently and it wasn't great.)

You said Leprechaun was shit from day 1. I've provided what I believe to be compelling arguments to the contrary. If you'd like me to follow you, I will listen while you provide me some real arguments for why it was so bad. Not just why it doesn't live up to any previous franchise. Let's be realistic: that doesn't matter. Franchises get where they are because they make money. Money's to blame.

Dec 12, 2011 4:53:02 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

And in relation to the 90s, it's being used because horror was in a dryspell. Let's not pretend it wasn't. And that it's typical of the 90s to release inferior products than the 80s because there was such little pool to pick from that there'd be nary a thing to choose from. How does something like The Dentist get a sequel? Who knows? Nowadays a sequel to anything can be made, but in the 90s and back there needed to be more of a pitch for a sequel unless u had friends and a camcorder. And I don't care about what the films tried to do differently. I'm talking about quality in their respective goals. If you tell me that the first Leprechaun is a better film than the first Friday the 13th, you can have that opinion, but I severely disagree with you.

No, I don't think Leprechaun is better. What I think - and I know I'm right - is that people are using nostalgia as an excuse to claim Friday the 13th is on the same level as Halloween, Chainsaw, Argento's best, or even A Nightmare on Elm Street and Black Christmas. The ending of Friday the 13th was incredible and the experience of watching the stalking scenes is amazing... if you're somehow able to forget how poorly written the characters are and how bad the acting is. And remember how huge a fan I am of the Friday the 13th franchise. I've frickin' seen those movies at least 20 times a piece.

This same theory applies to Halloween II and the first 3 Friday the 13th sequels. At least, it does if we're being realistic. None of this applies to a person's personal preference. If it did, I probably would never watch Friday the 13th. But I'm a junkie for Jason. (The 80's one.)

[bodyboy]

Dec 12, 2011 17:30:08 GMT -6 No Personality said:

There are few things I will stand on as facts. (Most of them are social and political.) Halloween being a true work of art is one of them. No matter what you say, you will not crack me there. No nostalgia goggling about it. It's a fact. At least, as long as you're talking to me- I will tell you it is. No idea what you think can compare in the slasher genre, but only the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Argento's Deep Red stand above it.

Nope, not a fact. Just an opinion. But while we're at it, let's add Black Christmas to that list. Saying it's a fact isn't an argument.

Dec 12, 2011 17:30:08 GMT -6 No Personality said:

Actually, I'm convinced I did know what you meant. I was just trying to redirect the discussion to a more constructive place. Leprechaun gets enough garbage dumped on it when it's Wishmaster that deserves it. Who cares about one franchise's prestige versus another? What's important is what went into making them. What niche they served. What damage they did. I think I provided a lot of very interesting reasons to forgive the first 3 Leprechaun movies. Again: if Critters had been as good as Gremlins, then I wouldn't be defending Leprechaun like I am. Well, it's not just that. It's the fact that all of the post-Gremlins mini-monster movies pretty much sucked except for Leprechaun. You can imagine why I would care for these films now when I tell you I was an avid follower of this subgenre of horror after Gremlins. I saw them all (except Hobgoblins): Ghoulies (and first sequel), the aforementioned Critters (and sequel), Munchies. As a kid. Then I rewatched them as an adult and only those Leprechaun's are as fun as they used to be. (In Space was never any fun, so that explains that.) (Oh, yeah: I missed Rumpelstiltskin too. But it was 1996 after all.) (I also checked out Dolly Dearest recently and it wasn't great.)

You said Leprechaun was shit from day 1. I've provided what I believe to be compelling arguments to the contrary. If you'd like me to follow you, I will listen while you provide me some real arguments for why it was so bad. Not just why it doesn't live up to any previous franchise. Let's be realistic: that doesn't matter. Franchises get where they are because they make money. Money's to blame.

Leprechaun has poor pacing, is often times boring, and lame one-liners. I like it, but it's not up to the level of the previous decade's beginnings quality-wise. And then I said it's because of the 90s being a dryspell which explains it, but how looking at the original Leprechaun, I find it hilarious that THAT film spawned 5 sequels.

Dec 12, 2011 17:30:08 GMT -6 No Personality said:

No, I don't think Leprechaun is better. What I think - and I know I'm right - is that people are using nostalgia as an excuse to claim Friday the 13th is on the same level as Halloween, Chainsaw, Argento's best, or even A Nightmare on Elm Street and Black Christmas. The ending of Friday the 13th was incredible and the experience of watching the stalking scenes is amazing... if you're somehow able to forget how poorly written the characters are and how bad the acting is. And remember how huge a fan I am of the Friday the 13th franchise. I've frickin' seen those movies at least 20 times a piece.

I'm sorry, but Halloween has shit acting too. The characters are just as unrealistic (even my fave ""totally" Linda is a sad excuse for characterization) so if you're going to peg Friday for that, stick it to Halloween too. What I think - and I also know - is that people got creeped out by Halloween's mask and score when younger, it's highly regarded as doing the slasher first (which it didn't) and now people think that the film is perfect without giving justification for reasons such as why the convenience store alarm is ringing despite the fact that Annie's father said there was a breakin the night before (!) and how the lost car is just all of a sudden seen on the side of the road by Loomis hours later (great detective he is...). Friday's acting is hammy, but so is Halloween, but since Friday was attempting to cash-in on Halloween it's easy for people to jump on it as a trash flick, especially since it has gore for critic bait, and leave Halloween alone even though it's a big ball of bland os hokeyness (that telephone kill is ridiculous no matter which way you cut it) and stupidity (Laurie runs to the house where the kids she's supposed to be protecting are instead of continuing down the street shouting for help...). Friday and Halloween are equal in cheese, but oh no, you can't touch Halloween because it's a classic, and perfect, and untouchable... also, Doctor Loomis isn't even that great. Sequels may not be that great, but he certainly became a stronger force acting-wise in them...

[No Personality]

Dec 13, 2011 3:12:14 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

Nope, not a fact. Just an opinion. But while we're at it, let's add Black Christmas to that list. Saying it's a fact isn't an argument.

I said that it is a fact to me. If you want to tell someone it isn't a fact, you're wasting your time trying to make me that person.

Dec 13, 2011 3:12:14 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

Leprechaun has poor pacing, is often times boring, and lame one-liners. I like it, but it's not up to the level of the previous decade's beginnings quality-wise.

Who said it has to be? Do you realize how unbelievably pointless and in-poor-taste it is to compare one movie to another in this ultra-random way you keep doing? You have no context. There's no bridge connecting where you came from to where you're going with this argument. You can't just say Leprechaun isn't better than the 80's this, that, and the other. There is no connection. There's no competition.

The fact that it begat sequels is a matter of studio business. The flm didn't pattern itself after 80's slashers. It went in-line with the studio mindset of let's rip-off a similar film. Which happened all the time in the 80's: Leviathan was made because of Alien. Frankenhooker was made because of Re-Animator. And don't even get me started on all the films that were made because of Friday the 13th. What you're doing is blaming the films creatively for what is purely a studio issue. The first film was made as a stand-alone rip-off of Critters. The sequel was a tongue-in-cheek homage to Bride-of movies, and was directed by Rodman Flender because he was a horror fan who wanted to move into feature films (later he did Idle Hands, previously he'd done HBO's Tales from the Crypt). The 3rd film was completely insane... that sounds like reason enough to me. Anyway, the series' strengths continue here because each film was like its' own kind of remake. None of them followed continuity and each had their own new ideas. You're looking at this all wrong.

Dec 13, 2011 3:12:14 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

I'm sorry, but Halloween has shit acting too. The characters are just as unrealistic (even my fave ""totally" Linda is a sad excuse for characterization) so if you're going to peg Friday for that, stick it to Halloween too.

Is that a joke? You honestly believe, quality-wise, Halloween and Friday the 13th can be compared... AT ALL? This is exactly why you fit in the class of people who are blinded by nostalgia and can't be realistic. Even though you think you've caught me in a trap of hypocrisy, you're way off.

#1: I personally prefer Betsy Palmer's performance to Donald Pleasence's. Why? Because even though it's effective, it's far from perfect. In reality: she isn't scary. She's campy. Which makes her fun. Donald Pleasence was dead serious. And easily gave the superior performance. So, I don't believe the acting can be held up or torn down in general. It all averages out. And Halloween, thanks to Donald Pleasence and P.J. Soles - who not only gave a professional performance but also was previously directed, as you may remember, by Brian De Palma in Carrie - easily averages out to be a better acted film than Friday the 13th. So... it's still not a contest. Halloween's biggest flaw is still an area where it claims superiority to Friday the 13th.

#2: As for Friday's biggest flaw, which is a lack of ambition to make the movie about something - leading to decades worth of left-leaners assuming the films were about teenagers being punished for doing drugs and having sex out of wedlock, and right-leaners assuming the films were intending to glorify these behaviors - Halloween actually has a deeper meaning. By never explaining the murderous child's behavior, identifying the character as "The Shape," the fact that he can't be killed, and having him be so omnipresent and moving through darkness so frequently, the film has become the genre's foremost study of, by way of observing, the essence of evil itself. In addition, it mixes in themes of the holiday we most anciently associate with evil and bringing the idea of a mad slasher into suburbia. Or, more essentially: your town, your neighborhood. Black Christmas and Friday the 13th are linked by way of not spreading out the killings, they're still localized to a destination the victims have to reach themselves. In Halloween, the killer comes to you.

#3: There's no mistaking that in all technical areas, Halloween is vastly superior to Friday the 13th. The incredibly high quality of the cinematography. The lasting impact of the music score (when all most people remember about Friday the 13th is the "ch ch ch, ha ha ha" - and yes I know it's "ki ki ki, ma ma ma" but we both know what it actually sounds like). The lighting scheme. The tracking shots. The effect it had on audiences, even though it lacked gore entirely. The fact that nobody considers Friday the 13th to be art in comparison.

Dec 13, 2011 3:12:14 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

What I think - and I also know - is that people got creeped out by Halloween's mask and score when younger, it's highly regarded as doing the slasher first (which it didn't) and now people think that the film is perfect

I didn't grow up with Halloween. I saw it for the first time when I was 16 and I didn't like it at all. It wasn't until I bought the DVD in the fall of 2003 (when I was 20) that I began to see the film for what it really was. The influence of youth and nostalgia never played a part in it for me.

Dec 13, 2011 3:12:14 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

without giving justification for reasons such as why the convenience store alarm is ringing despite the fact that Annie's father said there was a breakin the night before (!) and how the lost car is just all of a sudden seen on the side of the road by Loomis hours later (great detective he is...).

He didn't say the break-in took place at night. Here, I carved this scene out of one of YouTube's uploads of the whole movie for proof:

Dec 13, 2011 3:12:14 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

since Friday was attempting to cash-in on Halloween it's easy for people to jump on it as a trash flick, especially since it has gore for critic bait, and leave Halloween alone even though it's a big ball of bland os hokeyness (that telephone kill is ridiculous no matter which way you cut it) and stupidity (Laurie runs to the house where the kids she's supposed to be protecting are instead of continuing down the street shouting for help...). Friday and Halloween are equal in cheese, but oh no, you can't touch Halloween because it's a classic, and perfect, and untouchable...

So many holes there...

#1: Friday the 13th is a trash flick. Where Halloween homages, Friday the 13th just flat-out copies. There isn't a single idea in Halloween that is a direct rip-off of Black Christmas or Deep Red (same can't be said for Halloween II, of course: www.youtube.com/watch?v=57oM7IpXs5o). That ending couldn't be a more obvious rip-off of Carrie if Adrienne King had been wearing a dress and the thing was filmed in reverse.

#2: Just because Halloween is cheesy (which is a result of its' era, not of its' ambitions), doesn't automatically mean it's fodder to be sat alongside Friday the 13th.

#3: Laurie knew she didn't have anymore time to run and scream for help. She had the keys to lock herself inside a house which would buy her time to call for help. She didn't know he would get inside the house through the window. It makes perfect logical sense. And... no babysitter makes a deal to risk their lives in a face-to-face battle against a mammoth serial killer for a few bucks an hour. I think you'll find most parents hire a babysitter to, A: keep the kids from leaving the house, B: keep the kids from wrecking the house, C: turn away strangers should they come knocking on the door, D: answer the phone and take messages for the parents. If the parents actually thought their children would be a threat to someone seriously dangerous targeting their house, they would, A: bring the kids with them if they left the house- thereby rendering the acquistion of a babysitter completely irrelevant, B: send the kids off to a relative or friend's house miles away from the danger area, C: not hire a skinny, awkward, quiet teenager to keep their kids from getting mercilessly slaughtered.

#4: If we just judge it for being entertaining, Friday the 13th is an effective film. But if we take it seriously, the thing falls apart like a graham cracker in a cup of milk. The films are most certainly not equal in stupidity. You may cite pointlessness of characters. But what about aggressive annoyance factor? People find Linda charming and Bob barely says a word. Let's take... Ned and Brenda as a comparison pair. Ned is so relentlessly obnoxious, you want to gag him. And Brenda is so uptight that people have literally launched theories that she must be a lesbian. Obviously, the latter example is less cut and dry but whether the audiences or the writing is to blame, she's just not a character anyone remembers unless you watch the movie 20 times. After you compare Laurie Strode to Alice because they both survive, you can't compare any of Friday's women characters to Annie and Linda.

Dec 13, 2011 3:12:14 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

also, Doctor Loomis isn't even that great. Sequels may not be that great, but he certainly became a stronger force acting-wise in them...

That's what you think, however we'll have to settle for majority rules on this charge. And the majority clearly remember his dialogue from the first movie, signaling that his performance in the first film left a greater impression.

[bodyboy]

Dec 13, 2011 7:02:24 GMT -6 No Personality said:

Dec 13, 2011 3:12:14 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

Nope, not a fact. Just an opinion. But while we're at it, let's add Black Christmas to that list. Saying it's a fact isn't an argument.

I said that it is a fact to me. If you want to tell someone it isn't a fact, you're wasting your time trying to make me that person.



Who said it has to be? Do you realize how unbelievably pointless and in-poor-taste it is to compare one movie to another in this ultra-random way you keep doing? You have no context. There's no bridge connecting where you came from to where you're going with this argument. You can't just say Leprechaun isn't better than the 80's this, that, and the other. There is no connection. There's no competition.

The fact that it begat sequels is a matter of studio business. The flm didn't pattern itself after 80's slashers. It went in-line with the studio mindset of let's rip-off a similar film. Which happened all the time in the 80's: Leviathan was made because of Alien. Frankenhooker was made because of Re-Animator. And don't even get me started on all the films that were made because of Friday the 13th. What you're doing is blaming the films creatively for what is purely a studio issue. The first film was made as a stand-alone rip-off of Critters. The sequel was a tongue-in-cheek homage to Bride-of movies, and was directed by Rodman Flender because he was a horror fan who wanted to move into feature films (later he did Idle Hands, previously he'd done HBO's Tales from the Crypt). The 3rd film was completely insane... that sounds like reason enough to me. Anyway, the series' strengths continue here because each film was like its' own kind of remake. None of them followed continuity and each had their own new ideas. You're looking at this all wrong.



Is that a joke? You honestly believe, quality-wise, Halloween and Friday the 13th can be compared... AT ALL? This is exactly why you fit in the class of people who are blinded by nostalgia and can't be realistic. Even though you think you've caught me in a trap of hypocrisy, you're way off.

#1: I personally prefer Betsy Palmer's performance to Donald Pleasence's. Why? Because even though it's effective, it's far from perfect. In reality: she isn't scary. She's campy. Which makes her fun. Donald Pleasence was dead serious. And easily gave the superior performance. So, I don't believe the acting can be held up or torn down in general. It all averages out. And Halloween, thanks to Donald Pleasence and P.J. Soles - who not only gave a professional performance but also was previously directed, as you may remember, by Brian De Palma in Carrie - easily averages out to be a better acted film than Friday the 13th. So... it's still not a contest. Halloween's biggest flaw is still an area where it claims superiority to Friday the 13th.

#2: As for Friday's biggest flaw, which is a lack of ambition to make the movie about something - leading to decades worth of left-leaners assuming the films were about teenagers being punished for doing drugs and having sex out of wedlock, and right-leaners assuming the films were intending to glorify these behaviors - Halloween actually has a deeper meaning. By never explaining the murderous child's behavior, identifying the character as "The Shape," the fact that he can't be killed, and having him be so omnipresent and moving through darkness so frequently, the film has become the genre's foremost study of, by way of observing, the essence of evil itself. In addition, it mixes in themes of the holiday we most anciently associate with evil and bringing the idea of a mad slasher into suburbia. Or, more essentially: your town, your neighborhood. Black Christmas and Friday the 13th are linked by way of not spreading out the killings, they're still localized to a destination the victims have to reach themselves. In Halloween, the killer comes to you.

#3: There's no mistaking that in all technical areas, Halloween is vastly superior to Friday the 13th. The incredibly high quality of the cinematography. The lasting impact of the music score (when all most people remember about Friday the 13th is the "ch ch ch, ha ha ha" - and yes I know it's "ki ki ki, ma ma ma" but we both know what it actually sounds like). The lighting scheme. The tracking shots. The effect it had on audiences, even though it lacked gore entirely. The fact that nobody considers Friday the 13th to be art in comparison.



I didn't grow up with Halloween. I saw it for the first time when I was 16 and I didn't like it at all. It wasn't until I bought the DVD in the fall of 2003 (when I was 20) that I began to see the film for what it really was. The influence of youth and nostalgia never played a part in it for me.



He didn't say the break-in took place at night. Here, I carved this scene out of one of YouTube's uploads of the whole movie for proof:



So many holes there...

#1: Friday the 13th is a trash flick. Where Halloween homages, Friday the 13th just flat-out copies. There isn't a single idea in Halloween that is a direct rip-off of Black Christmas or Deep Red (same can't be said for Halloween II, of course: www.youtube.com/watch?v=57oM7IpXs5o). That ending couldn't be a more obvious rip-off of Carrie if Adrienne King had been wearing a dress and the thing was filmed in reverse.

#2: Just because Halloween is cheesy (which is a result of its' era, not of its' ambitions), doesn't automatically mean it's fodder to be sat alongside Friday the 13th.

#3: Laurie knew she didn't have anymore time to run and scream for help. She had the keys to lock herself inside a house which would buy her time to call for help. She didn't know he would get inside the house through the window. It makes perfect logical sense. And... no babysitter makes a deal to risk their lives in a face-to-face battle against a mammoth serial killer for a few bucks an hour. I think you'll find most parents hire a babysitter to, A: keep the kids from leaving the house, B: keep the kids from wrecking the house, C: turn away strangers should they come knocking on the door, D: answer the phone and take messages for the parents. If the parents actually thought their children would be a threat to someone seriously dangerous targeting their house, they would, A: bring the kids with them if they left the house- thereby rendering the acquistion of a babysitter completely irrelevant, B: send the kids off to a relative or friend's house miles away from the danger area, C: not hire a skinny, awkward, quiet teenager to keep their kids from getting mercilessly slaughtered.

#4: If we just judge it for being entertaining, Friday the 13th is an effective film. But if we take it seriously, the thing falls apart like a graham cracker in a cup of milk. The films are most certainly not equal in stupidity. You may cite pointlessness of characters. But what about aggressive annoyance factor? People find Linda charming and Bob barely says a word. Let's take... Ned and Brenda as a comparison pair. Ned is so relentlessly obnoxious, you want to gag him. And Brenda is so uptight that people have literally launched theories that she must be a lesbian. Obviously, the latter example is less cut and dry but whether the audiences or the writing is to blame, she's just not a character anyone remembers unless you watch the movie 20 times. After you compare Laurie Strode to Alice because they both survive, you can't compare any of Friday's women characters to Annie and Linda.

Dec 13, 2011 3:12:14 GMT -6 bodyboy said:

also, Doctor Loomis isn't even that great. Sequels may not be that great, but he certainly became a stronger force acting-wise in them...

That's what you think, however we'll have to settle for majority rules on this charge. And the majority clearly remember his dialogue from the first movie, signaling that his performance in the first film left a greater impression.

My mistake on the robbery part of Halloween. For some reason, I thought he said something about 'last night'. My poor confused mind.

As for the rest, wow. You will defend everything to the point of changing facts. The point of view beginning that is hailed so highly was done time and time before in films like Black Christmas and Blood and Lace, and countless gialli had detectives on the loose to try and stop killers before strike again. That crap about Halloween being a metaphor about pure evil coming in and invading

Now I'm convinced that you didn't get my Leprechaun thoughts at all. Of course you can compare Leprechaun to the 80s. I'm not saying I don't understand why it was continued. Yes, obviously it's for money. But I am comparing the ideas of Leprechaun being one of the most recognized entities horrors of the 90s and comparing it with Freddy and Friday 1/Jason from the 80s. How to me it seems hilarious and ridiculous that that film made it part Part 3. I realize that you're looking at my words incorrectly when you bring up how Frankenhooker came from Re-Animator and the Critters from Gremlins, because that spout has nothing to do with what I was explaining.

I love Friday the 13th, but I see clearly that Psycho, Black Christmas, Deep Red and Texas Chainsaw Massacre are BETTER films than it. Calling me one of the pointless people who are blinded by nostalgia is such a cop-out way to lower my thoughts on which films are better than the other. For instance, for you, I can say that you were influenced by critics and the height of the pedestal for Halloween that though you had an opinion of Halloween before, and it's allowed to change, you're someone who can't think for themselves and sticks to the classic-ness of Halloween and utter denial that a film with such a status could actually be IMperfect and not a masterpiece. Critics didn't like Halloween when it first came out. IT wasn't until someone said "I like this. Look at it this pretentious way. Yeah, it's actually about this and that" that people thought maybe he was right, took the critic's words, and played along. And now you're doing the same because it's the right opinion.

Of course, I could be wrong about you. Just like you could be wrong about me. Not being able to compare Friday and Halloween... puh-lease. If Halloween came out post-Friday, it wouldn't have made a stir. Friday and Halloween are on equal playing fields. Also, I'm pretty sure Black Christmas is considered home with the sorority house much like Halloween's babysitters' houses. Also, the fact that nobody else thinks of Friday as art in comparison to Halloween should almost eliminate your points right there. Taking other peoples' opinions doesn't make them right.

You're obviously allowed to think Halloween is a better film than Friday, but don't say that I can't boast Friday is a better film than Halloween. And please don't reply with "I didn't say that". I can read between the lines. I'm hoping you'll learn to as well.

Halloween was never meant to be a great film. And it isn't. It's even more dated than Friday the 13th, the characters don't talk about anything deep whatsoever (maybe Loomis briefly at the MOST) and there's even less to the plot than Friday the 13th. Also, any film with Annie walking around in her panties because she spilled butter on her SHIRT (!) definitely has a bit of trash involved. As for the characters, I think that Friday's are more likable and caring that Halloween. And I WANTED to see Annie DIE in Halloween more than anyone in Friday. Even Ned. There isn't anything objective that makes Halloween a superior-in-every-way film to Friday. More people enjoy the taste that Halloween gives off than the taste that Friday does, but it's not fact, and I can clearly see once again from these replies.