MovieChat Forums > The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006) Discussion > I had only 3 problems with this movie

I had only 3 problems with this movie

posted 15 years ago by kredibilitai
15 replies | jump to latest

1) Why did they decide to make Leatherface adopted? He's so psycho that he seems to be related to the family via genetics, not adoption

2) Why did Leatherface have to have a skin disease. That gives him too rational a reason to cover his face. It's scarier if he covers his face with skin because he's psycho & he wants to have a woman's face.

3) Leatherface wasn't crazy enough. In the 1973 version leatherface swung his saw wildly, twirled & squealed like a pig. This leatherface was a little too restrained.

[–] PennyForYourTots 15 years ago

1) All that matters is that he was raised by the Hewitts. Whether he was actually born from them is irrelevant.

2.) It wasn't necessary and I agree. He should be pyscho for mysterious reasons.

3.) While a bit more restrained on the "psychotic side", I found this Leatherface to be the most intense and brutal.

"You're a woman, Harry"

[–] mfbrutha 15 years ago

I found this Leatherface to be the most intense and brutal.

The original Leatherface was WAY more brutal. He jabs a woman on a meat hook and watches her bleed to death. Plus he totally dismembers a kid in a wheelchair. How does it get more brutal than that? The Leatherface in the two remakes was played for laughs.

[–] LeonardPine 14 years ago

This is the problem with giving Leatherface a back story. You take away all his mystery and he becomes less interesting.

The original Leatherface was a lunatic. We don't know why. All we know is if he see's you he'll kill you. Much more scary.
The whole wearing skin stuff was because he was a mad transvestite. He needed to dress in womens skins for gratification. Notice he's wearing lipstick and rouge on the second 'face' he wears in the original.

"I felt my pecker flutter once, like a pigeon havin' a heart attack"

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

This is the problem with giving Leatherface a back story. You take away all his mystery and he becomes less interesting.

Happens with pretty much every horror icon.

Freddy an undead child murderer...that's all you needed to know. But then the sequles give him too much background and he becomes less scary.

Myers screwed up kid that killed his sister for no reason. Became a memeber of a cult and lost all scary factor.

Lead Cenobite. Just a servent of hell. Then they give him a backstory and a "name" and try to humanise and give "reason" to him.

I think Jason is pretty much the only one thay have not messed with too much. And undead zombie-a-like that kills for revenge...and that is pretty much how they have kept him.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fallen_anakin 14 years ago

I don't think we are talking about the Halloween remakes by Rob Zombie but I liked the backstory on Micheal Myers in that version. However if I was going to think of a remake for Halloween I would make Michael come from a great family but just evil to be evil. And instead of having long scraggly hair like in Zombie's version he would have short red hair and have freckles. On Halloween night he murders his mom, dad, and sister brutally. He then goes in the kitchen and makes himself a sandwich. He sits on the living room floor and starts watching cartoons while he eats. He doesn't even get up or act alarmed when a expected relative walks in the house. He just continues watching cartoons . When the relative sees what has happened and is about to freak out Michael just looks up and smiles and says "hello" But not in some evil way. Completely calm and childlike. This Michael Myers would be born bad and not a product of his environment like in the remakes.

The scary clown doll is hiding under my bed.

[–] hell-cat-1 12 years ago

To be honest I never found the original 1973 TCM even remotely scary. It' just way too dated and Leatherface wasn't scary. I find this Leatherface scary, the deformity, the psychotic family, the physical size of strength of Leatherface is far scarier to me. I think the back story was fitting and he was related directly to the Hewitt's. Wasn't the mother related to them? And also, I don't think he had a skin disease, more like deformed, probably due to inbreeding. To me, that's terrifying.

[–] wallacesawyer 11 years ago

I find this Leatherface scary, the deformity, the psychotic family, the physical size of strength of Leatherface is far scarier to me

Pretty much the same as what's been done before, only we don't know for sure if the two Sawyer Leatherfaces, Bubba or Jed, are deformed under the mask. TEXAS CHAINSAW 3-D introduced a new continuity, and for some reason they named him Jed instead of Bubba.

The Leatherface from 1 and 4 is some kind of split personallity case. He probably looks normal, or maybe he was born without a face like Gunnar Hansen once joked, so he wears masks and takes up the personallity of the mask's appearance. This explains why he's so feminine in some scenes. People hate on Leatherface in TCM 4, but that version is probably the most like the original than even Hansen wants to admit.

and he was related directly to the Hewitt's. Wasn't the mother related to them?

I don't recall Sloan ever being mentioned as a Hewitt. So I doubt it.

And also, I don't think he had a skin disease, more like deformed, probably due to inbreeding.

Possible, but again without confirmation it's unlikely.

http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

[–] wallacesawyer 11 years ago

I don't understand why people think giving a backstory about a killer is such a bad thing. Not knowing about them makes the series not worth continuing because the story plays out exactly the same in every movie: they show up, kill people, the end. Boring. An explanation needs to be thrown into the mix sooner or later.

For me personally it's not the fact that it's a prequel, but that there really is little backstory in it, and what is explained isn't very necessary. Like so many films in this series, it's too much of a rehash of the original film.

Like what's been dicussed so far. Leatherface wasn't born a Hewitt, but was adopted. Well so what?

http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

[–] tribalmaggot 10 years ago

Jason didnt drown as a kid - he survived and grew up in a shack. One of the girls in part 3 met him years before the film started - he was a crazy hermit who tried to rape her. Hes killed when Tommy hacks him to pieces in part 4, but resurrected in part 6.

[–] Disarmed-Doll-Parts 9 years ago

So this follows the creation of our favourite chainsaw wielding mass murdering cannibalistic retard Leatherface, from when his obese mother gave birth to him in an abattoir, to when he first created his trademark mask. It also follows the four unlucky teens who first got in his way, four unbelievably attractive youngsters who fall prey to the masked madmen for the very first time.

I think giving Leatherface a half arsed reason to kill like he was bullied for having scabby skin was a real let-down, it takes away a lot of the mystery and mythology behind him. And giving him a name (a name like 'Thomas Hewitt' no less) is just downright irresponsible and immoral. That's probably the only beef I have with this otherwise excellent horror thriller.

[–] EricMatthewsWasCheated 10 years ago

1) So they could have a dark, shocking opening. No real story comes from it plot-wise.

2) If you notice in this film in particular, he seems to be 'obsessed' with looking normal. It's what drives him to don someone else's face to begin with.

3) It can be explained plot-wise as these were his first kills. He wasn't as confident, etc.

[–] masuka-fan 9 years ago

Because in the 1973 film he was comical.

[–] millsey72 (10571) 3 years ago

Yup, 3 plot holes here