Go Skins Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28699215/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28699215/[/url] Why horror sequels wear out their welcome Oh boy. The third ‘Underworld’ movie is here... COMMENTARY By Dave White msnbc.com contributor updated 4:20 p.m. ET, Tues., Jan. 20, 2009 Horror sequels are rotten. They’ve zoomed way past horror remakes on my scary movie hate-list. In fact, thanks to stuff like the shocking and surprisingly awesome “Dawn of the Dead” remake and the new 3D version of “My Bloody Valentine” (a film with no agenda except to throw lots of blood and guts at your face, provided your glasses are on), I can’t even say I hate the concept of the remake on principle anymore. Those two, all by themselves, can help me forget that I paid money to see the reboots of “When a Stranger Calls,” “Black Christmas” and “Prom Night.” But popular franchises that don’t know when to lay down the chainsaw — sequels that are energetic as strippers on the breakfast shift — are bilking horror fans of money that could be spent buying vintage “Mark of the Devil” barf bags on eBay. Here’s where they go wrong: 1. More of the same I remember seeing “Jaws 2” when it hit theaters. I was still just a kid, but I walked out thinking, “Why did I just watch a less frightening version of that other shark movie?” It set up justifiably low expectations for future “Halloween” sequels, “Friday The 13th” visits from Jason (except for “Jason X,” which was awesome), “Nightmare on Elm Street” dreamfests and outings with Chucky, Hellraiser, those children who lived in the corn fields, maniac cops and slumber parties that turned to massacres. I already wrote a “Dear John” letter to the “Saw” movies for this site so I won’t rehash that animosity, but there’s nothing more hateful than studios, greedy for money and contemptuous of the people who buy the tickets, greenlighting sequels that often feature not one single new wrinkle in the fabric. If the original kept me up at night, the sequel, especially the one with “2” or “II” in its title, is 99.9 percent certain to put me to sleep. 2. Descending into cuteness and intentional camp Remember how terrifying and grotesque that child-molester-turned-dream-stalker Freddy Krueger was in that first “Nightmare?” And remember how, after that, he became a wisecracking anti-hero whose murderous rampage seemed almost justified as the mean-spirited ’80s ground on and on and his victims became even more pastel-outfitted, hair-moussed and brattily repellent? And where did we see him last? Making jokes as Jason carried his decapitated-yet-still-snarky head off-screen in “Freddy vs. Jason” (Don’t quote me on this but I swear I once heard him yell, “Who let the dogs out?” in one of those movies) and sentenced to a legacy of kitten-soft safety as the most ironic of little kids’ store-bought Halloween costumes. Not that humor can’t co-exist with horror. The “Scream” franchise kept it going for a while, aiming for smarter audiences. But by the time Carrie Fisher showed up to riff on herself, the balance had tipped and smirky outweighed scary. 3. Pretending that needless complications are the same thing as serious filmmaking I will see “Underworld: Rise of the Lycans.” I have to. It’s my job. But I’m pretty sure I won’t enjoy myself. Right, right, film critics are supposed to enter every new assignment with an open mind-blah-blah-objectivity. I’ve heard it. But did you see the first two “Underworld” movies? No? Then shut up. Because they suck. And the series’ defenders probably love the ornately Goth atmosphere and Kate Beckinsale’s seemingly all-PVC costumes and Bill Nighy’s straight-faced performances and maybe even enjoy fantasies of Scott Speedman being their own personal werewolf-lover. And I get all that. But is it too much to ask that this franchise pull its head out of its own self-important, convoluted-mythology-packed butt and make even one moment of narrative sense? Because until I know a really good reason why I’m listening to yet another minor-yet-apparently-key-to-the-plot character blather on and on about the ongoing vampire/werewolf blood feud, a character who will probably disappear from the plot altogether for the next 40 minutes of blackness-cloaked cinematography and mumble-whispered dialogue, I don’t think I should have to care. 4. Skimping on murder to save on the make-up effects budget or to get a PG-13 rating Horror fans are jaded people. We’ve been scared already by bigger goons than you dozens of times over. So if you’re not up to the task of freaking us out, even if the movie is otherwise terrible then you’re going to have to make the killings way more gnarly. (I confess to hating and laughing at “The Strangers” and then spending every night for a week double-checking dark closets and locks on the windows before going to sleep. So yeah, stupid movie, you won in the end.) We want gore. We want point-of-impact murders. Throats slit and blood splattered. We want mayhem that feels real enough to be frightening all on its own, unadorned by cheap jolts, shrieking scores and crashing-noise sound edits. You know what’s an awesome horror sequel on that count alone? “Hostel Part II.” Go ahead, laugh. I don’t care. I know what I like. I watched it again on cable the other night and found myself getting grossed-out all over again by its very disgusting (and, at least during Heather Matarazzo’s death scene, genuinely disturbing) murders. It was gorier than its predecessor and for that I’d send Eli Roth a Thanksgiving card. 5. Stop giving supporting characters and pet cats names like ‘Argento’ That’s all. Just knock that off. Even if you’re not making a sequel. Nothing takes me out of a movie faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Montana Bengal| Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Hmm, I guess I never really thought of Underworld as horror. Vampires and Werewolves, but does that make it horror? Blade wasn't horror was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yeah I wouldnt put Underworld in the horror genre either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Tory Go! Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 [quote name='Montana Bengal' post='741563' date='Jan 21 2009, 04:14 PM']Blade wasn't horror was it?[/quote] Is that the one where Wesley Snipes has to evade the tax agents? Spoiler: [spoiler]He gets caught.[/spoiler] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Montana Bengal| Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 [quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='741580' date='Jan 21 2009, 04:44 PM']Is that the one where Wesley Snipes has to evade the tax agents? Spoiler: [spoiler]He gets caught.[/spoiler][/quote] No but the third one SUCKED Okay, I actually never saw it, but I couldn't resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BENGALS666 Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 If Dave White was the true horror fan he thinks he is he would spend time writing about good honest horror for honest horror fans rather than wasting ink on movies only appreciated by people who don't have a clue that he's talking about Dario Argento not Asia Argento.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 the guy lost any credibility he may have had when he classified Underworld as horror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatScratchFever Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Isn't Argento a brand of cheese? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiliMVP Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Kate Beckinsale looks amazing in those PVC suits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 [quote name='akiliMVP' post='741696' date='Jan 22 2009, 12:37 PM']Kate Beckinsale looks amazing in those PVC suits [/quote] yeah she does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Skins Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='741704' date='Jan 22 2009, 01:18 PM']yeah she does[/quote] I saw Underworld 3 last night - it certainly is not horror - it's action and that's it in terms of genre. The audience seemed to like this one, I thought it was OK, but at least it held my interest. The 1st one bored me, it was way too long and didn't make much sense. I don't recall the 2nd one, other than seeing it for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted June 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 [quote]Gone are WR Mario Urrutia, TE Matt Sherry, QB Billy Farris and long-snapper James Smith. That leaves 81 players on the roster. The club can take 80 to training camp. Yoy know what that means … The Bengals anticipate a long and arguably agonizing holdout from first-round draft pick Andre Smith. Defensive end Justin Smith held out 50 days in 2001. Outside linebacker David Pollack missed all of training camp in 2005. If Andre Smith surfaces at Georgetown College, it’ll be an absolute shock. Anthony Collins and Dennis Roland will hunker down and share snaps at right offensive tackle in Smith’s absence.[/quote] [url="http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/chickludwig/entries/2009/06/20/rookie_tb_bernard_scott_signs.html"]http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/conte...cott_signs.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted June 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 [quote][size=5][b][url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/"][color="#d81718"]Bengals Expecting Andre Smith Holdout?[/color][/url][/b][/size] Posted by Mike Florio on June 21, 2009, 12:10 p.m. EDT With training camps starting next month and only two first-round picks under contract, it’s time to start thinking about guys who might hold out. As we mentioned after the Jets signed quarterback [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/#"]Mark Sanchez[/url], the fifth overall pick in the 2009 draft, the three players sandwiched between Sanchez and first overall pick Matthew Stafford of the Lions are candidates to miss part of camp, given the magnitude of the contracts establishing the floor and the ceiling for their deals. But the guy taken right after Sanchez is another candidate to hold out, given the upper limit established by the Sanchez contract — and the fact that the Bengals typically experience first-round holdouts. Chick Ludwig of the [i]Dayton Daily News[/i] suggests that the Bengals “[url="http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/chickludwig/entries/2009/06/20/rookie_tb_bernard_scott_signs.html"][color="#d81718"]anticipate a long and arguably agonizing holdout[/color][/url]” from Smith, pointing to the fact that the Bengals currently have 81 total players on the roster, including the men already under contract and eight unsigned draft picks. But the fact that the Bengals are carrying an extra guy who’ll have to be dumped once all of the remaining picks sign their deals pales in comparison to the team’s history of getting first-round picks into camp on time. Here’s a look at their experiences in this regard, thanks in part to [url="http://www.cincyjungle.com/story/2007/7/28/144152/456"][color="#d81718"]CincyJungle.com[/color][/url]. Last year, linebacker [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/#"]Keith Rivers[/url] missed ten days. In 2007, cornerback [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/#"]Leon Hall[/url] missed a practice before getting his deal done. In 2006, cornerback [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/#"]Johnathan Joseph[/url] signed on the first day of training camp. In 2005, linebacker [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/#"]David Pollack[/url] missed nearly three weeks. In 2004, running back [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/#"]Chris Perry[/url] missed more than 10 days. In 2002, tackle [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/#"]Levi Jones[/url] signed on the first day of camp. In 2001, defensive end [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/#"]Justin Smith[/url] missed all of training camp and the preseason. The sole exception was quarterback [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/#"]Carson Palmer[/url], who signed before the draft as the first overall pick. So combining the team’s extended history with [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/#"]Andre Smith’s[/url] recent history of bizarre, erratic, and unpredictable behavior, there’s a very good chance that Smith will not sign a contract in time for training camp. Heck, given Smith’s actions this year, there’s a moderately good chance that he’ll sit out the season, that he’ll play for the UFL, and that he’ll re-enter the draft in 2010.[/quote] [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/bengals-expected-andre-smith-holdout/"]http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/21/...-smith-holdout/[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiliMVP Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 So..... because the Bengals have 1 extra on the player on the roster a month away from training camp, it's logical to assume they are anticipating a long and agonizing hold out from Andre Smith. I don't see the connection. I think he will be a hold out though, but this 81st player has nothing to do with it. Chick and Florio are bags of douches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 [quote name='akiliMVP' post='741223' date='Jun 22 2009, 08:54 AM']So..... because the Bengals have 1 extra on the player on the roster a month away from training camp, it's logical to assume they are anticipating a long and agonizing hold out from Andre Smith. I don't see the connection. I think he will be a hold out though, but this 81st player has nothing to do with it. Chick and Florio are bags of douches.[/quote] I think they have the extra guy because they anticipate the long hold out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 id say whether he is signed next week or in october the extra guy is there, cuase he isnt extra until smith gets signed... you cut a guy when you sign a guy... seems simple.... PS: bujnoch was at my work saturday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBengal Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 That PFT article is funny. They somehow paint Levi Jones and Jonathan Joseph as holdouts even while saying that they didnt miss a single practice. Its also funny that Justin Smith held out that long and then had the best year of his entire career his rookie year. He was never again as good as he was his rookie year. Maybe he should have skipped training camp every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|SF2| Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 [quote name='BlackBengal' post='741230' date='Jun 22 2009, 10:28 AM']That PFT article is funny. They somehow paint Levi Jones and Jonathan Joseph as holdouts even while saying that they didnt miss a single practice. Its also funny that Justin Smith held out that long and then had the best year of his entire career his rookie year. He was never again as good as he was his rookie year. Maybe he should have skipped training camp every year.[/quote] So how many teams always get their picks to camp on time? When you are picking high in the draft you have a much better chance of having a holdout regardless of the team. The difference between the 4 and 6th pick is pretty good money so it only makes sense to try and not get screwed if you have the fifth pick. Its a whole hell of a lot easier to sign a high 20s low 30 pick every year like New England since the money difference will most likely be small. Its a big difference when you and the player are a millions away compared to a 150k or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tigre Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 [i]"Heck, given Smith’s actions this year, there’s a moderately good chance that he’ll sit out the season, that he’ll play for the UFL, and that he’ll re-enter the draft in 2010." [/i] Proof that narcotics...even in moderate misuse...can damage brain tissue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I'll be honest. I'm not terribly concerned if he does hold out. I think AC would be a solid RT. Probably not as good as Andre, but I don't think he would be a liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Whether people want to admit it or not, the Bengals have one of the worst histories of holdouts of any team in the NFL. Pretty much every year, it seems like negotiations don't begin in earnest until a couple days before the start of training camp. Sometimes they get the done right before camp. Sometimes guys miss half the camp. Sometimes they miss the whole thing. I am of the opinion that David Pollack's career may very well have ended up different if he didn't miss the entire training camp that would have really helped in his transition to LB. He just seemed to get behind the eight ball and never able to get ahead of the curve. Having Collins makes this maybe not the hugest deal in the world, but it is still frustrating to know that it will likely be a holdout and overshadow much of training camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 [quote name='happyrid' post='741307' date='Jun 22 2009, 02:55 PM']Whether people want to admit it or not, the Bengals have one of the worst histories of holdouts of any team in the NFL. Pretty much every year, it seems like negotiations don't begin in earnest until a couple days before the start of training camp. Sometimes they get the done right before camp. Sometimes guys miss half the camp. Sometimes they miss the whole thing. I am of the opinion that David Pollack's career may very well have ended up different if he didn't miss the entire training camp that would have really helped in his transition to LB. He just seemed to get behind the eight ball and never able to get ahead of the curve. Having Collins makes this maybe not the hugest deal in the world, but it is still frustrating to know that it will likely be a holdout and overshadow much of training camp.[/quote] Training camp must only be a few days off, since we have signed four players already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 [quote name='Oldcat' post='741311' date='Jun 22 2009, 06:50 PM']Training camp must only be a few days off, since we have signed four players already.[/quote] I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about our first rounders. After the first round, guys are slotted pretty tightly and it is extremely rare for anyone to holdout. We have already seen some teams be proactive and get their first rounders signed and many more will do so in the coming weeks. My strong hunch (supported by a whole lot of history) is that the Bengals won't be one of those teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 [quote name='happyrid' post='741312' date='Jun 22 2009, 07:27 PM']I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about our first rounders. After the first round, guys are slotted pretty tightly and it is extremely rare for anyone to holdout. [b]We have already seen some teams be proactive and get their first rounders signed[/b] and many more will do so in the coming weeks. My strong hunch (supported by a whole lot of history) is that the Bengals won't be one of those teams.[/quote] a whole 2 teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 [quote name='happyrid' post='741307' date='Jun 22 2009, 05:55 PM']Whether people want to admit it or not, the Bengals have one of the worst histories of holdouts of any team in the NFL. Pretty much every year, it seems like negotiations don't begin in earnest until a couple days before the start of training camp. Sometimes they get the done right before camp. Sometimes guys miss half the camp. Sometimes they miss the whole thing. [b]I am of the opinion that David Pollack's career may very well have ended up different if he didn't miss the entire training camp that would have really helped in his transition to LB. He just seemed to get behind the eight ball and never able to get ahead of the curve.[/b] Having Collins makes this maybe not the hugest deal in the world, but it is still frustrating to know that it will likely be a holdout and overshadow much of training camp.[/quote] Yeah, I can see how the Bengals could have worked on teaching him to tackle properly, if they had only had those three weeks! . and lets look at the holdouts: Last year, linebacker Keith Rivers missed ten days. In 2007, cornerback Leon Hall missed a practice before getting his deal done. In 2006, cornerback Johnathan Joseph signed on the first day of training camp. In 2005, linebacker David Pollack missed nearly three weeks. In 2004, running back Chris Perry missed more than 10 days. In 2002, tackle Levi Jones signed on the first day of camp. In 2001, defensive end Justin Smith missed all of training camp and the preseason. The sole exception was quarterback Carson Palmer, who signed before the draft as the first overall pick. 4 of the 8 signed either before or on the first day. 2 guys missed 10 days. 2 guys mised more than 10 days, with Smith missing all of preseason and following that with the best season of his career. I guess where I come from that means that holding out doesn't mean much, now does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.