You're not supposed to know who Billy is. What makes him such an interesting character in the original was how mysterious and unrelatable he was. Explain him and he immediately becomes less interesting.
shareDoesn't really matter.
This film existing shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of the original.
You're not supposed to know who Billy is.
I prefer the way the original didn't let you know who Billy was. The ambiguity made it creepier. Whereas a lot of horror movies give you massive exposition, it's nice to have a movie you never even get a clear look at the killer. When slashers became popular in the 1980s, the done thing was to try to create a popular killer so you could churn out sequel after sequel. The original Black Christmas came out earlier, didn't feature this trope and so feels a lot more unique. There are clues to Billy's backstory, but it's left for the viewers to work out themselves.
Having said that, I don't feel that the 2006 version spoils anything. I never think a remake spoils the original, even if I hate it. And even without that, I think the 2006 is meant to be different. For me, 2006 Black Christmas was the version for people who didn't like the original. If you hate the ambiguity and the trying to guess who Billy is, check out the remake. If, like me, you love the 1974 original, 2006 probably isn't for you.
I thought the ambiguity regarding the killer in the original was an interesting angle and I have zero problem with it. I just prefer the 2006 version because the story's more compelling and the female cast is superior (the tacked-on ending at the hospital is lame though). Margot Kidder's character in the original was one of the most repellent characters in cinematic history.
Interestingly, "Friday the 13th" (1980) was a slasher mystery made without a sequel in mind. The unlikely killer -- an aged grieving mother -- was revealed at the end and killed by the heroine. Yet the film's success demanded an immediate sequel and so Mrs. Voorhees' (supposedly long dead) son became the killer. The need for a "mask" (a burlap bag) in the second one (1981) was to hide his deformed face. But then, of course, he acquires the iconic hockey mask in Part III (1982).
The knockoffs mostly followed suit with some type of distinctive mask à la "Halloween" (1978), which I always thought was eye-rolling and unrealistic (a mask would naturally hinder the killer's effectiveness in carrying out his macabre work). The low-budget "Final Exam" (1981) was an exception.
You are correct. As soon as they explain who he is and why he is the way he is, the film loses all of its mystery and this is what made the original great.
In BC 2006 they should have given us just a few traces of Billy’s backstory but keep it vague. Instead they spelled it out completely and it was just gross and not in a good or interesting way
Hear hear
share