I don't get this about the slasher genre.

H

harmonica44

One thing I have scene in at least three movies now (Halloween (78), Friday the 13th (80), A Nightmare on Elm Street (84)), is that the killer in each movie always slashes teenagers who are into having sex more than the protagonists. If they have sex in the movie, you can bet they will be killed. Where as the protagonists, never seem to have it, even if they in a relationship. Why is this? It's not the killer who is after just horny teenagers, since they go after the non horny protagonists as well. But why is it that the non horny ones live? Are the filmmakers trying to send a message that sex is wrong?
 
Short answer is: fear of the unknown is what drives horror films. For teenagers, sex is the great unknown (though that might not be as true today as it was in 1980). There's a lot more to it than that, but that's a good place to start.
 
It's a way of determining the "good" guy (or usually girl), the good guy survives. Not just sex, often alcohol, drugs, etc. All that stuff a good person shouldn't do ;)
 
To OP
There is nothing to "get" in the slasher films. They re just for pure enjoyment and scare. If it doesn't scare you or you re not enjoying it - then just stop watching it. You don't need to practice this mental masturbation on anazylin stuff.
Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream are not philosophical works, but simply entertainment. Yes, characters have sex, and they get killed in every slasher movie, but that simply because sex and violence sells, and and most people enjoy to be scared.
 
You are 30 years behind this discussion.

The slasher genre was discussed and dissected three decades ago.
Carpenter, Cunningham and Craven have answered that question well
over 100 times in the last 30 years. And their answer was “No.” -
there were not trying to send a message that sex is wrong. They
were trying to entertain and scare the audience of the day. It's the
critics who over analyze films that read into it.

And it seems some people are still over analyzing these movies -
but now filtered through the films they have seen in the last 10
years.

This guy will never "get" it. Ever.
 
There are two "schools" of newb filmmakers - the ones that believe everything must have profoundly deep meaning, and the ones that are entirely FX and fluff; and, unfortunately, never the twain shall meet. Harmonica (IronPony?) is one of the former, he just can't wrap his head around the pure entertainment concept.

JoshL said:
For teenagers, sex is the great unknown (though that might not be as true today as it was in 1980).
Click to expand...

It wasn't any big mystery in the '70's! :D

directorik said:
This guy will never "get" it. Ever.
Click to expand...

No, he won't. He's on another site asking the same questions, getting the same answers he gets here on IT, and either completely failing to understand or fighting them every step of the way.
 
Alcove Audio said:
There are two "schools" of newb filmmakers - the ones that believe everything must have profoundly deep meaning, and the ones that are entirely FX and fluff; and, unfortunately, never the twain shall meet. Harmonica (IronPony?) is one of the former, he just can't wrap his head around the pure entertainment concept.



It wasn't any big mystery in the '70's! :D



No, he won't. He's on another site asking the same questions, getting the same answers he gets here on IT, and either completely failing to understand or fighting them every step of the way.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to discover it's possible to become obsessed with talking about filmmaking as a completely different category than being obsessed with filmmaking. One is theoretical and the other literal.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
My theory is the actress who got the lead wouldn't agree to show her tits, but she was the best actress so they cast her anyway.
Click to expand...

:lol: You may very well be right about that.

CamVader said:
I'm starting to discover it's possible to become obsessed with talking about filmmaking as a completely different category than being obsessed with filmmaking. One is theoretical and the other literal.
Click to expand...

Totally. It's like the difference between a BA and a BS, or a Doctorate vs a PhD.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
My theory is the actress who got the lead wouldn't agree to show her tits, but she was the best actress so they cast her anyway.
Click to expand...

Jamie Lee Curtis was the daughter of Janet Lee and Tony Curtis. For those who don't remember, Janet Lee is the one who got slashed in the shower scene in "Psycho." Carpenter and Akkad felt that having Jamie Lee gave the film its "horror" credentials. Also, the three girls were cast for type, Jamie Lee being the "quiet" one.
 
Last edited:
CamVader said:
I'm starting to discover it's possible to become obsessed with talking about filmmaking as a completely different category than being obsessed with filmmaking. One is theoretical and the other literal.
Click to expand...

I feel the need to discuss this idea, in excruciatingly detailed essays ;-)

Joking aside, I'm on both sides of this fence with this. I love analyzing, well, everything, doubly so anything that I enjoy or if I want to do something similar. Figure out what's going on, what do things mean, why things are done the way they are, etc, etc. But I recognize that it IS a sign of too much time on one's hands and if you're talking INSTEAD of doing, well, then something's wrong. Or at least, an academic arena might be a better place. Or TVTropes.
 
JoshL said:
I feel the need to discuss this idea, in excruciatingly detailed essays ;-)

Joking aside, I'm on both sides of this fence with this. I love analyzing, well, everything, doubly so anything that I enjoy or if I want to do something similar. Figure out what's going on, what do things mean, why things are done the way they are, etc, etc. But I recognize that it IS a sign of too much time on one's hands and if you're talking INSTEAD of doing, well, then something's wrong. Or at least, an academic arena might be a better place. Or TVTropes.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're right. Me too. I didn't mean to imply I'm not guilty, at times, of doing both.

Check out this link for the Anal Retentive Chef who never gets around to cooking anything (sit through 30 second commercial, it's worth it).
 
Okay so I over-analyzed it. I thought that since it's happened at least three times, and in a few others I haven't seen but that were mentioned to me, that it was probably more than just a coincidence, and there was an actual reason. I have seen the Scream movies, but accepted them as spoofing the old movies, rather than trying to convey the same meaning.
 
Alcove Audio said:
Jamie Lee Curtis was the daughter of Janet Lee and Tony Curtis. For those who don't remember, Janet Lee is the one who got slashed in the shower scene in "Psycho." Carpenter and Akkad felt that having Jamie Lee gave the film its "horror" credentials. Also, the three girls were cast for type, Jamie Lee being the "quiet" one.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Jamie Lee didn't show her tits until Trading Places!

I meant more in general terms.
 
My 1980's 1990's answer is it's an easy way to put sex in your movie. I remember people I know actually renting VHS tapes for the nudity in the 80's and early 90's. Now you can find tons of nudity on the internet so that's not the case anymore.

harmonica44 said:
One thing I have scene in at least three movies now (Halloween (78), Friday the 13th (80), A Nightmare on Elm Street (84)), is that the killer in each movie always slashes teenagers who are into having sex more than the protagonists. If they have sex in the movie, you can bet they will be killed. Where as the protagonists, never seem to have it, even if they in a relationship. Why is this? It's not the killer who is after just horny teenagers, since they go after the non horny protagonists as well. But why is it that the non horny ones live? Are the filmmakers trying to send a message that sex is wrong?
Click to expand...
 
directorik said:
You are 30 years behind this discussion.

The slasher genre was discussed and dissected three decades ago.
Carpenter, Cunningham and Craven have answered that question well
over 100 times in the last 30 years. And their answer was “No.” -
there were not trying to send a message that sex is wrong. They
were trying to entertain and scare the audience of the day. It's the
critics who over analyze films that read into it.

And it seems some people are still over analyzing these movies -
but now filtered through the films they have seen in the last 10
years.

This guy will never "get" it. Ever.
Click to expand...

It'll be really funny when he gets to "15 years behind the discussion" and starts asking all these feminist deconstruction questions about horror movies, like "Why are they all about penetration??" :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top