Post by Deleted on May 25, 2019 5:44:48 GMT -5
My topic title is painting with a broad brush, but one has to start somewhere at times.
*SPOILERS FOR FRIDAY THE 13TH: A NEW BEGINNING (1985) AND THE FRANCHISE IN GENERAL*
The first Friday the 13th film featured Pamela Voorhees killing people at Camp Crystal Lake. It turns out her son had drowned because camp counsellors had not been supervising him. But Jason Voorhees was actually alive. He terrorised Camp Crystal Lake in the sequel. And the third film. And the fourth-film, the so-called 'final chapter'.
Jason appeared to return in Friday the 13th: A New Beginning, the fifth entry in the series. In the fourth film, a young boy, Tommy, had killed Jason. Tommy was sent to a halfway house years later due to the trauma. Not long after arriving there, a resident kills another one with an axe. Later on, Jason Voorhees is back. He butchers various people. So Jason is back, right? Sort of. At the end, the survivors push Jason onto a harrow where he is impaled.
But it's not the real Jason. It turns out to be a paramedic, Roy Burns. Earlier in the film, Burns had shown up with another paramedic to collect the body of the murdered halfway house resident. It transpired that the victim was Burns' son, who Burns had abandoned years earlier. So Burns had disguised himself as Jason and butchered the others in anger, knowing Jason (who was still dead at that point) would be blamed.
I like the film. I never understood the criticism. Magazine articles I read later revealed that this was supposed to be a new direction for the franchise. We'd seen Pamela/Jason butcher people in four films. The fifth film was Jason-less, but still sort of had him appear. I read that the sixth film would have gone in a different direction, perhaps featuring Tommy, still traumatised, becoming the new "Jason".
Yet other stuff I read revealed that people were not happy with the new direction. The box office was good, but the critical reception was not. So the sixth film resurrected the original Jason - and he appeared in a few more films.
So, do fans really want change? It seems, in my experience, that some who want change are the first to complain when there is change.
It's all about balance for me. A franchise is satisfactory for yours truly if it retains certain core concepts - and is true to the spirit of how it began. At the same time, you can't keep rehashing things. A bit of change is good. Otherwise you may as well, in my opinion, just keep rewatching the earlier films. A bold new direction can, some of the time, be a good thing, I think.
We'd seen four movies of Pamela/Jason killing people. Until the end of the fifth movie, we presumed it was the original Jason. I thought it was a satisfying twist when that "Jason" was killed, revealing Roy Burns' face. Had the franchise then gone in a different direction, with perhaps Tommy becoming "Jason", it would have been fresh. Instead, they didn't do that. Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives is a solid film, but it hardly broke new ground. Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood at least provided a new twist in having a girl with psychokinetic powers battling Jason, but the familiar settings were there - and it did feel like a rehash of what had come before.
This isn't a topic that is intended to be solely about one franchise, but about change in general. And we've probably had similar debates pertaining to comics.
I mean, too much change is probably bad. I don't particularly want to see Michael Myers or Chucky in space. I'm not sure I want to see The Fast and The Furious on the moon. Indiana Jones encased in ice and resurrected in 2020 to battle Wall Street crooks is not something I have a desire to watch.
However, I want some change. I want things freshened up now and again. I don't want rehashed stuff. That gets boring. I definitely believe a franchise can both advance/progress and remain true to what has come before. The settings have changed, but for me, The Fast and The Furious is still providing the fun via the core concepts of racing, adrenaline, stunts, etc. Sometimes a little twist may be the only thing that is needed, e.g. the Curse of Thorn element introduced in Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. Other times the changes can be bigger.
But I want change. I don't want the fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth films in a franchise to rehash the first. It's frustrating to think that, some of the time, the franchises that do try and go in a new direction (such as Friday the 13th) are the ones criticised by fans.
As stated in my opening sentence, I am painting with a broad brush. There will be exceptions. And, of course, not every fan of a franchise dislikes change, but I have come across people in my life who seem to want to have their cake and eat it; some I have known (a minority) will complain about the "same old" (with any entertainment) but then complain even louder when a franchise does do something different.
*SPOILERS FOR FRIDAY THE 13TH: A NEW BEGINNING (1985) AND THE FRANCHISE IN GENERAL*
The first Friday the 13th film featured Pamela Voorhees killing people at Camp Crystal Lake. It turns out her son had drowned because camp counsellors had not been supervising him. But Jason Voorhees was actually alive. He terrorised Camp Crystal Lake in the sequel. And the third film. And the fourth-film, the so-called 'final chapter'.
Jason appeared to return in Friday the 13th: A New Beginning, the fifth entry in the series. In the fourth film, a young boy, Tommy, had killed Jason. Tommy was sent to a halfway house years later due to the trauma. Not long after arriving there, a resident kills another one with an axe. Later on, Jason Voorhees is back. He butchers various people. So Jason is back, right? Sort of. At the end, the survivors push Jason onto a harrow where he is impaled.
But it's not the real Jason. It turns out to be a paramedic, Roy Burns. Earlier in the film, Burns had shown up with another paramedic to collect the body of the murdered halfway house resident. It transpired that the victim was Burns' son, who Burns had abandoned years earlier. So Burns had disguised himself as Jason and butchered the others in anger, knowing Jason (who was still dead at that point) would be blamed.
I like the film. I never understood the criticism. Magazine articles I read later revealed that this was supposed to be a new direction for the franchise. We'd seen Pamela/Jason butcher people in four films. The fifth film was Jason-less, but still sort of had him appear. I read that the sixth film would have gone in a different direction, perhaps featuring Tommy, still traumatised, becoming the new "Jason".
Yet other stuff I read revealed that people were not happy with the new direction. The box office was good, but the critical reception was not. So the sixth film resurrected the original Jason - and he appeared in a few more films.
So, do fans really want change? It seems, in my experience, that some who want change are the first to complain when there is change.
It's all about balance for me. A franchise is satisfactory for yours truly if it retains certain core concepts - and is true to the spirit of how it began. At the same time, you can't keep rehashing things. A bit of change is good. Otherwise you may as well, in my opinion, just keep rewatching the earlier films. A bold new direction can, some of the time, be a good thing, I think.
We'd seen four movies of Pamela/Jason killing people. Until the end of the fifth movie, we presumed it was the original Jason. I thought it was a satisfying twist when that "Jason" was killed, revealing Roy Burns' face. Had the franchise then gone in a different direction, with perhaps Tommy becoming "Jason", it would have been fresh. Instead, they didn't do that. Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives is a solid film, but it hardly broke new ground. Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood at least provided a new twist in having a girl with psychokinetic powers battling Jason, but the familiar settings were there - and it did feel like a rehash of what had come before.
This isn't a topic that is intended to be solely about one franchise, but about change in general. And we've probably had similar debates pertaining to comics.
I mean, too much change is probably bad. I don't particularly want to see Michael Myers or Chucky in space. I'm not sure I want to see The Fast and The Furious on the moon. Indiana Jones encased in ice and resurrected in 2020 to battle Wall Street crooks is not something I have a desire to watch.
However, I want some change. I want things freshened up now and again. I don't want rehashed stuff. That gets boring. I definitely believe a franchise can both advance/progress and remain true to what has come before. The settings have changed, but for me, The Fast and The Furious is still providing the fun via the core concepts of racing, adrenaline, stunts, etc. Sometimes a little twist may be the only thing that is needed, e.g. the Curse of Thorn element introduced in Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. Other times the changes can be bigger.
But I want change. I don't want the fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth films in a franchise to rehash the first. It's frustrating to think that, some of the time, the franchises that do try and go in a new direction (such as Friday the 13th) are the ones criticised by fans.
As stated in my opening sentence, I am painting with a broad brush. There will be exceptions. And, of course, not every fan of a franchise dislikes change, but I have come across people in my life who seem to want to have their cake and eat it; some I have known (a minority) will complain about the "same old" (with any entertainment) but then complain even louder when a franchise does do something different.
