I've only seen the first Hellraiser once and it was so long ago I can hardly remember it. So I can't comment about it. However, I can comment on the "victim knocks the killer out then runs away" cliche. How many times have we seen it where the final girl knocks the killer out, thinks he's dead, a short while later he shows up, pins her down, and then she finds a conveniently placed weapon, and then kills him with it? My question is this: if she's not able to kill that killer just a few minutes ago, where did she get the ability to do just a few minutes later? That's what makes the whole thing so stupid. Final girl knocks the dude out then runs away because she doesn't have the strength to kill him, he shows up a short while later, and she suddenly has the strength to kill him? How does she get the strength to kill him in the space of a few minutes?
Well, that could be kinda explained via Halloween. This is what always strikes me with "Final girls" between Halloween and Elm Street.
In Halloween, Laurie "kills" Michael purely out of fear and self-defense. She basically just jabs and hopes for the best and Michael is seemingly killed by pure luck. In Elm Street, Nancy is more active. She actually goes looking for Freddy, she prepares herself (those home booby-traps). Of course she's afraid of Freddy (who wouldn't?) but she doesn't kill him or react out of fear. She looks for him, she's more active, while Laurie's actions are more reactionary and self-defensive (passive). She acts purely out of self-defense instincts.
So I think "final girls" not killing the killer at first are kinda "humane", while that moment when they finally kill him is kinda act of pure desperation in last hope of survival. I don't remember seeing any of the 80s final girls just going out there and saying "well I'm gonna kill this guy right now". In modern horror movies, that's kinda more of a common because you know "girl power", which actually does makes the whole "final girl" thing stupid because of the things you described.
Also, some elements in horror are smart when they are used sparingly. But when they are overused they become absolutely stupid and cliche. If the whole, "I can't get cell phone service" bit was used in 1 or 2 movies per year then it wouldn't be so groan-inducing.
well, I am a schooled screenwriter (in my own native language), and I can tell you one thing: cell phones and phones are in general pain in the as$ for horror screenwriters. Lot of horrors work best when they are kinda "gothic", meaning, it's set on isolated place. Obviously old gothic castles don't work anymore, and events are placed in "urban" settings, but you still need to have that element of isolation. So, cell phones are actually a problem, because you cannot effectively create that sense of isolation especially now when cell phones exist. If you look carefully, in 99% of the horror movies, writers come up with some excuse why phones\cell phones won't work simply because of that: you need isolation. There aren't lot of horror movies that use phones as part of the plot. The only I can remember right now are obviously Scream movies and Out of the Dark (the one about guy killing off models and hotline girls, late 80s). If you remember "Don't Answer the Phone", it actually doesn't have phone calls as part of the plot. It's about sleazy madman photographer killing off fashion models. Phone calls are actually used only 2-3 times in the movie.
But since it's used in hundreds of movies per year, it can't help but be stupid. There will be a group of a dozen or more people and none of them will get cell phone service? I've even seen movies where people are in NYC and they can't get cell phone service. How is that possible? It gets dumber: they won't keep trying. If you're stranded somewhere and afraid, then you'll definitely keep trying the cell phone (especially if you know there's a killer around). No amount of "being too scared to think" is going to make someone stop trying to use their cell phone. What's worse is that in horror movies people stop trying and then start talking about their feelings with one another. Who does that?
I already explained "phone" part. But yeah, I agree with last thing. You can call it "characterization" but lot of filmmakers use it in a wrong way. They throw action at you while you have no idea who the characters are and in the middle of action, movies kinda stop so characters can talk. That's one of the most common mistakes. Either make characterization first, then throw the action\tension\whatever, or milk it out. Define your characters via action. There's kinda "school" rule of screenwriting: actions not words, which means: no amount of "I love you" won't convince audiences that that character loves that character, but if you show it via action that he loves him\her, it's gonna convince characters.
Also, one common mistake I see is wrongly timed exposition. So many filmmakers think they're "edgy" when they don't tell you anything for first hour or so, then at one point, movie stops and some character (we usually refer to him as "Talking Tom") shows up like "Oh, let me tell you now what's going on". This is a common mistake. Good example of giving exposition, while not stopping the action is actually Terminator. For first 20 or so minutes you actually don't know what's going on. Then you are given exposition via Kyle while action is going on in the background. Yes, you get exposition while there's a chase scene.
There are also other cliches that are just plain stupid and no mount of "being too scared to think" makes the behavior believable:
--people having sex in a car in a forested area, the girl hears something, she demands the guy go into the dark, creepy forest to check it out or no sex. How many guys are going to go out and check it out? Instead guys would say, "If you heard something terrifying in the forest, why the hell do you want me to leave the safety of my car to check it out? Why don't we just drive off to some place else?"
Oh I loooove that one. I especially love when girl says "Well it must be a bear, go check it out". The fu*k is guy gonna to do a bear even if it's "just a bear"? Does she think he's a Beastmaster?
--people splitting up. "Hey, we know there are things out there trying to kill us. Why don't we split up? Safety in numbers is stupid."
Yeah, even Scooby gang will take pity on those fools. But then agian, as I mentioned: isolation. Imagine how suspenseful would be if group of ten people went together and encounter the killer. Even if it's some let's say monster, you'll have five leads going around, encountering the monster, get torn apart and you get no movie. It wouldn't be very interesting. I don't mind cliches, as long as they are well integrated. "The Conjuring" is full of cliches, but they are integrated well, so they are not bothersome. But that movie has originality as much as your next 150 Halloween clone. :)
--the scientist who insists on capturing the creature alive to study it no matter how many people the creature slaughters.
It's funny because so many "newbies" bash 50s version of THE THING because it's "old", yet that movie has wonderful screenplay even now. I really liked the scientist and captain dynamic in that movie. Not sure if you've seen it, but it literally has the opposite of what you said. Yes, scientist at first wants to study the creature and see if it's intelligent. Captain says "ok, but if it turns out to be hostile, I am taking it out". Creature of course turns out to be the hostile and what I find very interesting is that scientist is kinda like "Oh well, I tried, it's hostile, take it out" and he actually helps out taking the creature down. It's such a wonderful display of how you can use "cliche" but not use it at the same time.
--newspaper clippings to tell the backstory. How many movies have we seen where the victim finds decades old newspapers (that are extremely well-preserved) to tell the backstory of their killer?
Well, if it wasn't the newspaper, it would be "Talking Tom" or someone telling a campfire story or "recalling a legend". This can actually be quite effective and interesting mini-plot if used right. Problem is, not many writers know how to write those, so they turn out to be kinda lame. And of course, you gotta have good actor to "tell those", otherwise it just turns silly.
--"you kids shouldn't go up there. There have been strange and terrible things happening around that area for years." How many people are dumb enough to carelessly go into an area the locals are afraid of and insist they stay away from?
Like I said, I don't really mind that one. Yes, it's old cliche. But if characters in horror movie listen for once and just GTFO, there's wouldn't be a story. You know, if you stay in your home, most likely nothing's gonna happen to you. If you walk out of your home, you might not encounter a serial killer or monster from outer space, but there's a good chance that you might get hit by a bus. See where I am going with this?
--there is always an expert to explain the creature. The expert can just explain what the creature is and what it's doing just by looking at it. They can also easily deduce a way to kill it and the tools are conveniently on hand to do so. Reality check: science doesn't work that way. They need instruments, tools, time, research, charts, graphs, and so much more to figure things out.
This is actually more of a modern horror problem, and it mostly has to do with spoon-feed generations needing to be drawn everything. Most of the older horror movies give you very little. They just give you how much you need to know. They don't explain too much. So, fault is really with audiences, because if they don't get everything explained, they'll just complain how "this movie suuu*kz bekaz [this and that] iz not explainzzzz!!!"
Good example of this is "Oculus". Movie told you just what you need to know. Mirror is cursed, it's evil, it kills people. Even quick backstory was more then it needed. Yet, I've seen bunch of people complaining how "it wasn't explained enough", how "they didn't say why or how mirror kills people". Well, why the fu*k you need to know WHY or HOW? Who the hell cares? They just said mirror is cursed and it kills people, that should be more then enough for you. Horror movies work best when there's not too much explanation and you know only exactly how much you need to know.
Imagine how creepy Freddy would be in first Elm Street if Wes immediately gave you his entire backstory, how he's able to do what he does etc. Freddy was creepy because you didn't know too much about him. He was absolute. Wes gave you just the right amount of backstory so you know you're dealing with "evil", but you were never given too much.
It's these and dozens of other cliches that make horror movies more stupid than they need to be. Sometimes a cliche can actually be smart and realistic. But when that cliche is overused it becomes stupid and eye-rolling.
Yes, like I said, I don't mind cliches if they are used correctly, but lot of filmmakers just use them wrongly.
So it's not entirely people becoming armchair experts. It's more like they've seen these cliches so much that they are tired of them and begin to question the lazy writing from horror filmmakers.
Actually lot of them did become "armchair experts". If they spot just once cliche, they immediately say "Ummm bad, everything is bad, acting bad, direction bad, blah blah blah" which doesn't necessarily means everything is bad.
Sometimes movie can have the most cliched script and be really well made and quite effective. Sometimes reverse. The problem is that lot of people just watch movie for the story and depending on how much they like the story, they decide based on that if everything else is good or bad.
and one other thing is that lot of people think movie is "scary" if it has lot of jump scares, while totally ignoring the mood or tension. Movie can be quite tense, with lot of mood, but if it didn't have lot of jump scares, they completely forget that movie was quite tense once it's over. They just remember how many jump scares it had.
I actually prefer tension over jump scares. I don't mind jump scares if they are not overdone and if they are well made, aka "earned". "Audition" only has one jump scare, but it's used in such amazing way. After that jump scare, you know rest of the movie is just gonna end badly for main character. It's "phone call" jump scare. If you've seen the movie, you probably know what I am talking about.
reply
share
davannacarter
9 years ago
Yes, when I was talking about the final girl not killing the killer right off only to kill him a short while later, I was mainly referring to horror films made within the last 15 years. Not 80s horror. I understand Laurie in Halloween. Many of her actions make sense. In many of these modern horror movies, their actions don't make sense.
"Yeah, even Scooby gang will take pity on those fools. But then agian, as I mentioned: isolation. Imagine how suspenseful would be if group of ten people went together and encounter the killer. Even if it's some let's say monster, you'll have five leads going around, encountering the monster, get torn apart and you get no movie. It wouldn't be very interesting. I don't mind cliches, as long as they are well integrated. "The Conjuring" is full of cliches, but they are integrated well, so they are not bothersome. But that movie has originality as much as your next 150 Halloween clone. :)"
My thing is the screenwriters could find a better way to have the characters split up. For instance, they encounter the monster and out of panic they end up running in different directions. That makes sense. It doesn't make sense when they know the monster is out there and they still split up.
"Like I said, I don't really mind that one. Yes, it's old cliche. But if characters in horror movie listen for once and just GTFO, there's wouldn't be a story. You know, if you stay in your home, most likely nothing's gonna happen to you. If you walk out of your home, you might not encounter a serial killer or monster from outer space, but there's a good chance that you might get hit by a bus. See where I am going with this?"
Why put that cliche of, "You kids shouldn't go there because there's bad things up there," in the movie? It just makes the characters look stupid and makes the movie look like it lacks originality. A screenwriter should find some other way to scare the audience into thinking the kids are in for something sinister.
My point is too many cliches can ruin a movie. Regarding this movie, Last Shift, it was one cliche after the other: deranged, Christian hillbillies as villains; characters don't believe the main character is experiencing hauntings; the character will see something, then blink, and the thing is gone; and the ending was cliched. Plus, why was the homeless guy's behavior and background never explained?
reply
share