What was so good about Friday The 13th?

H

harmonica44

The story wasn't really that interesting, but the main problem was, it didn't have enough of a story.

SPOILERS

They have a killing about every 10 minutes, then when it comes to the last woman, she knocks the killer down, then runs away. The repeat that at least 3 times as well. So it's just a recycling repetitive formula, rather than an actual well structured story. The movie had enough plot for a short film, but not a whole feature. About half way through I knew that it was going in the rycycling formula direction, that a lot of slasher or action thrillers do. So I fast forwarded through a lot of it on slow speed, till finally a twist or something significant happened, which was in the climax there.

You know a movie is probably bad, when you can fast forward through half of it and still understand what's going on. I did however like the very ending I must say. Good job on that.

But why is this considered to be such a classic, which spawned several sequels and a remake?
 
Last edited:
The big deal with Friday the 13th is that back then it was really intense for the time. It's pointless to study that particular formula because

A: the market for that formula is oversaturated

and

B: people are more jaded these days

If there is one takeaway from the most famous horror films it's the visceral deaths, and the tension builds right before said deaths. But thats all good horror films, not just Friday the 13th. Steven King has the same formula, basically introduce the main characters, then kill them off one by one.
 
But even for back then I think they still could have come up with a better plot structure for those deaths. Just look at the 1960 Psycho. It too, had it's number of slashings, but the plot went in different directions, with new twists and turns. And you had to actually think about what was going on a lot more. And most of all it didn't recycle itself.
 
You can't put "Psycho" in the same category; it's not a slasher film, it's a psychological thriller directed by one of the best directors that's ever been.
 
My answer, first and foremost = Tom Savini.


The formula for a slasher film will be something like this…
Teenagers + Psychopath + Blood + Tits = Slasher Film.

I love Slashers. I don’t care if they’re repetitive. It’s a bunch of kids being killed in the woods. All I’m really interested in is how those kids are going to die and which of the girls are going to get naked. Make the characters interesting and you’re on to a winner.


For the record, Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives is probably my favourite.
 
mad_hatter said:
My answer, first and foremost = Tom Savini.
Click to expand...

Agreed! The effects were state of the art for it's time, especially Kevin Bacon's. Also, the twist with who the killer was - most people didn't see that coming. Lastly, the shock/jump ending!!! That scared the crap out of people, much like CARRIE's jump shot!
 
Alcove Audio said:
You can't put "Psycho" in the same category; it's not a slasher film, it's a psychological thriller directed by one of the best directors that's ever been.
Click to expand...

I discovered PSYCHO through horror references (see below). As far as I'm concerned, it is one of the origins of the slasher film, which is why it is included in many horror texts. Though psychological (as many slashers are), Hitchcock said that it was the murder that he found interesting and made the movie because of the shower stabbing scene. His 1972 FRENZY was also about a serial killer.


JACK THE RIPPER fare aside, others might say that BLACK CHRISTMAS (1975) is the original slasher movie, but it was not seen by many. 1978's HALLOWEEN (which ironically was all suspense and minimal blood) officially kicked off the trend as it became the top grossing independent, until BLAIR WITCH broke the budget to gross record almost 20 years later.

FRIDAY THE 13TH came out in 1979 and also caught fire, as it was made cheaply and enormously successful. Unlike HALLOWEEN, the gore effects influenced most others that followed.

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974) was also a big influence, but was more notorious than mainstream.

Btw, I'm kind of a historian when it comes to horror and sci-fi. Some of my books on the subject:

these,
these,
these
and THESE.
 
harmonica44 said:
The story wasn't really that interesting, but the main problem was, it didn't have enough of a story.

SPOILERS

They have a killing about every 10 minutes, then when it comes to the last woman, she knocks the killer down, then runs away. The repeat that at least 3 times as well. So it's just a recycling repetitive formula, rather than an actual well structured story. The movie had enough plot for a short film, but not a whole feature. About half way through I knew that it was going in the rycycling formula direction, that a lot of slasher or action thrillers do. So I fast forwarded through a lot of it on slow speed, till finally a twist or something significant happened, which was in the climax there.

You know a movie is probably bad, when you can fast forward through half of it and still understand what's going on. I did however like the very ending I must say. Good job on that.

But why is this considered to be such a classic, which spawned several sequels and a remake?
Click to expand...

I dont know much....BUT, if you thought that one of the most popular horror movies was bad, Maby you should think about writing another genra?.............just a thought
 
It's perfectly fine to just not like horror movies, though kudos for giving them a shot. I'm not all that keen on F13 myself (or slashers in general, though I enjoy some of them), but I do think you're missing an important aspect to this, and many other horror films.

Don't expect Kurosawa or Bergman. Horror films are a roller coaster. Slashers/splatter films doubly so. It's about visceral thrills, not Shakespearean plot twists. Furthermore, a repetative structure like that allows for theme and variation. You present three murders in a row, at the same pace, doing different things so they are visually interesting, but definitely presenting a theme. Then, murder number four you subvert that (often leading to the "final girl"). In order to play off audience expectations you need to create those expectations.

Dear god, I'm mentally comparing slasher films to classical music.

Anyway, this is not to say a horror movie CAN'T have a well thought out plot, and are sometimes the better for it. But that's not necessarily the point, and in doing that you need to REALLY understand horror, or else you're just making a thriller with some gore.

If you do want to learn about horror, I wouldn't have suggested starting there. Suspiria, the original Night of the Living Dead, Legend of Hell House, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Hellraiser I think would make for a good weekend study course. We can provide footnotes and study guides if needed :-)
 
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong I have seen horrors that are good such as Carrie, Paranormal Activity, Seven, Silence of the Lambs and the original Halloween, but I just didn't see anything special in Friday the 13th.
Sure the death effects were new for the time, but if you add all those up it's only like a couple of minutes of the movie.

Scoopicman said:
Agreed! The effects were state of the art for it's time, especially Kevin Bacon's. Also, the twist with who the killer was - most people didn't see that coming. Lastly, the shock/jump ending!!! That scared the crap out of people, much like CARRIE's jump shot!
Click to expand...

Well you don't see the twist coming but it was okay. It was kind of like the twist to Psycho but in reverse. I would have liked it a little more maybe if they movie delt with that and played with it more creatively, rather than just having it as the climax only. Before that it was just repetitive deaths but the plot didn't take any twists or new directions. I do agree that the ending was shocking, I still give it that.
 
Last edited:
I agree with most of the above comments, regarding what makes it a good film. I think one thing has been forgotten, though -- the movie does actually have a great deal of suspense, and that is what's most important in this genre, in my opinion.
 
The correct answer is Tom Savini, of course.

But there's also the fact that it was one of the more successful and popular films that started using gore prominently. We could into a conversation about how slasher films in general became successful because of how popular body image was becoming at the time, but I don't think anyone cares.
 
Slasher films in general are like Mcdonald's. They are cheap and filling but have little nutritional value. From a filmmaking standpoint most slashers are terrible films but they are a lot of fun to watch and take dates to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top