Post by misterd on Apr 29, 2010 19:22:00 GMT -5
How do they not count as franchises, especially given the various spinoffs that Evil Dead has received, and the planned Scream trilogy?
I didn't actually mean franchise, per se, but rather a series of films greater in number than three. And as Scream didin't and still doesn't-as yet-have more than three films, I didn't include them.
And...the more options added, the more spread out the choices and the less interesting the results, as there is a less clear show of the general opinion.
Plus, it means you, me or someone else can create another poll concerning horror trilogies.
I did think the options and reasons through before posting.
Didn't say you didn't, but I did want the reasoning. Still not sure I agree that there is a good taxonomical reason for eliminating them, however the practical reason to limit the scope of the poll makes some sense, at least for the traffic that this forum currently has.
OK, let's run through this.
How to qualify "best"?
For me, the basic factors at play here would be a mix of 1) longevity, 2) quality, and 3) consitency.
Nightmare
Longevity - 9 films over 25+ years
Quality - One classic, 3 good follow ups, 2 POS
Consistency - Suprisingly good. First is a classic, but not in the same league as some others in this debate, and with only 2 very poor films (5 and 6) in its career, does a better job of treading water than most of the others.
Overall a strong contender. I don't think the original Nightmare quite hits the highs of a Top Ten film, but Freddy is probably THE horror icon of the last 50 years, and is better able to sustain the story beyond the first film.
Friday
Longevity - 12 films over 30 years
Quality - Uhm... A matter of taste? I enjoy these films, but I think anyone looking at them dispassionately would recognize they are almost uniformly poorly written, acted and directed, at least the "core 8" films. I think FvJ is the highlight, to be honest, and he has to share the booking.
Consistency - Pretty good, but given the overall quality of the films, that's not necessarily a good thing.
Well known as it may be, Friday is a bit of a niche franchise (albiet a big one) even among horror fans. If you like the kills and the boobs, no one does it better. But that, and the awesomeness of Zombie Jason (in most films) is about all it has to offer.
Halloween
Longevity - 11 films over 30+ years
Quality - One all-time classic, two decent sequels, a bastard child, one of the most debated and hated films of the last decade, and a whole bunch of shit.
Consistency - Ungodly poor. May have the biggest gap between zenith (Halloween) and nadir (pick your poison - lots to choose from).
Of the Big Three 70s-90s franchises, this is, I think, the weakest,and the one that should have stopped with the first film. The concept of Michael in the first film is brilliant, but unsustainable over the course of a series.
Omen
Longevity - 4 films, one TV movie over 35 years
Quality - The trilogy is pretty solid. Each subsequent chapter drops in quality (which is typical) but they work as a single narrative. The TV movie is poor, but not Freddy's Dead poor, and the remake is a decent film on its own (though completely pointless when compared to the original).
Consistency - Arguably the most consistent in series in the bunch.
Though I don't think it is ever horrible, the series only really works as a trilogy. Once you get past the Omen III, the series is pointless and redundant.
Hellraiser
Longevity - 8 films over 23 years
Quality - Hellraiser is a classic on par with Nightmare, and most consider Hellbound a worthy successor (confession - I've only seen part 2 once, and that was on a badly mangled VHS rental). Can't say I've ever heard much good about the other sequels.
Consistency - Seems to follow a typical horror franchise formula. One or two good films to start, quickly degrading in quality as it moves direct to video.
Have to admit to being woefully ill-informed once we get past the fantastic original. However, I can't say I've ever heard much love for the sequels outside a few die hards.
Exorcist
Longevity - 4.5 films over 35+ years
Quality - The original is arguably the best ever. Exorcist 3 is a decent follow up. The rest needs to be forgotten.
Consistency - Poor. Exorcist to Exorcist 2 is about as jarring a drop in quality as one can expect. Remove the original, and the consistency is better, but sadly that's because the two prequels are shit too.
Like Halloween, it probably should never have become a franchise. Granted, I enjoy Exorcist III, but the rest is rubbish.
Romero's Dead
Longevity - 6 films over 40+ years
Quality - Two of the best horror films ever made, with diminishing returns thereafter.
Consistency - I would say it showed a pretty consistent decline. Take that as you will.
I'd give Night 4 stars (of 4), Dawn 3.5, Day 3, Land 2.5, and Diary 1. Haven't seen Survival, but it doesn't sound good. But since most franchises only need 3 films to descend into total shit, the Dead flicks have a pretty good track record, its the only one of these franchises to have two films held in such high regard.
Phantasm
Longevity - 4 films over 30+ years
Quality - I'm the wrong person to ask.
Consistency - Really.
I saw the first. Didn't like it. Never saw the sequels. Maybe I'll revisist some day, but for now, this obviously won't get my vote.
Saw
Longevity - 6 films over 6 years
Quality - Meh. This is the modern Friday. There are elements I like, but the series was flawed right out of the gate.
Consistency - Typical decreasing returns. I still haven't seen 4-6, but from what I can hear, the series is follows the Friday pattern - some fluctuation, not quite total shit yet, but not able to break outside its particular fan base (which, like Friday, is a large niche in horror fansdom).
I am no Saw basher, and I will eventually get around to seeing 4-6 and even 7 and 8. But these are flawed films with a very narrow appeal. Like the Friday films, lots of people have seen them, but the fanbase tends to be teens (at the time of original release), and the biggest contribution is the creation of an interesting villain. But Friday, at least, has endured for thirty years. If I'm not picking Jason, I sure as hell can't pick Jigsaw.
Other
The only "other" franchise that meets the criteria of 4 films, and could conceivably compete with the ones above are Jaws, Texas Chainsaw and Psycho. However, while each has an exemplary first film, and I think one decent follow up (Jaws 2, TCM's remake, Psycho 2), I don't think any has much to offer as a franchise.
Conclusion
Its a choice between the Dead and Nightmare films. There are fewer Dead films, but IMO not even the original Nightmare can stand besides Night and Dawn (though it is above Day). More direct comparison:
Excellent - Night and Dawn vs Nightmare
Good - Day vs Dream Warriors, New Nightmare, Freddy vs Jason
Mediocre - Land vs Dream Masters, Freddy's Revenge
Shite - Diary vs Dream Child and Freddy's Dead
Not Seen - Survival vs Remake
Man this is close. Today I have to give the edge to the Dead films, but I have a feeling the "unseen" movies may tip the balance back to Freddy.
(edit)
EPIPHANY!
I take it back. It's Dead all the way. I had a realization. I was thinking too narrowly. The Dead films - they're not just the films Romero directed. We have 3 remakes (admittedly only one is any good). And there's O'Bannon's Return of the Living Dead, which clearly ties back to Night. But more importantly, its a franchise with thousands of bastard children. Almostall the zombie films of the last 40 years use Romero's zombies. His zombie's aren't common myth monsters like vampires or werewolves. They are a very specific creation, with specific rules,and it is this specific version of the zombie that has taken over the horror market. Its as if every giant monster flick used Graboids, or every alien horror movie used Giger's monster. So pervasive has George's zombie's become that he has essentially redefined what the word zombie means.
Its the Dead. Hands down.