What is the best horror movie franchise?

[Andrew NDB]

In your eyes? I apologize if yours isn't on the poll (I could only put 15).

[Leo656]

My vote goes for "Nightmare". They're not all classics but the worst of that series is still way ahead of most horror movies, period. They're easily the most consistent and watchable even when they're not hitting home runs, and even the very worst films in the series have some good and/or memorable moments. Compared to the wild inconsistency of most of those other series, which generally range from "Quite Good" to "Absolute Dogsh*t".

A "bad" Freddy movie is always miles ahead of some of the worst in those other franchises. They've all got their ups and downs but there's nothing in the Nightmare series that approaches the cinematic vomit of stuff like "Friday the 13th: A New Beginning" or "Any Saw After The First One".

I'd argue that the "Hellraiser" franchise comes off the worst by default, simply because after Part III they weren't even true Hellraiser movies anymore, they just pulled random horror scripts out of a filing cabinet and stapled Pinhead into them to make a fast buck. First one is obviously a classic but everything starting with the fourth one was just... wrong. Just everything bad about the "business" of making horror movies. Just the most cynical, half-assed, money-grubbing tripe.

[newfan]

Ooh, not sure what to pick. Also find myself in one of those cases where favourite isn't necessarily 'the best' In this case having a run of well written sequels for example.
Also I haven't watched all of everything on that list. I'll think on it.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

A "bad" Freddy movie is always miles ahead of some of the worst in those other franchises. They've all got their ups and downs but there's nothing in the Nightmare series that approaches the cinematic vomit of stuff like "Friday the 13th: The New Blood" or "Any Saw After The First One"

I loved The New Blood. It aged not as well as I hoped when I saw them all again a few months back, but it's pretty good. Jason actually gets a worthy adversary.

I'm also of the mind that the Saw movies dipped in quality here or there, but generally got more intelligent as they went along.

I'd argue that the "Hellraiser" franchise comes off the worst by default, simply because after Part III they weren't even true Hellraiser movies anymore, they just pulled random horror scripts out of a filing cabinet and stapled Pinhead into them to make a fast buck. First one is obviously a classic but everything starting with the fourth one was just... wrong. Just everything bad about the "business" of making horror movies. Just the most cynical, half-assed, money-grubbing tripe.

I'd say even after II. But I and II are SO GOOD. Even III isn't terrible, but it feels pretty detached from I and II and seems kind of like the studio wanted to push Hellraiser into some kind of action/special effects extravaganza. IV was... disappointing. I remember as a kid watching it in the theater and feeling about the same as I did seeing Alien 3... as in, "Eh. I didn't hate what I just saw, but man... that pretty much blows." It has its moments... there was a good movie to be made in IV, but this wasn't it. They should've worked the script a bit more.

As for the direct to video ones beginning with 5? Obviously the scope and budget isn't there, but I actually liked "Inferno." I liked the "big twist," even though it kind of goes against the idea of what the Cenobites are supposed to do and be about. 6 was decent, though it sort of redid the same exact plot of 5 ("Hah! He was in Hell the whole time!"). It was nice to see Kirsty Cotton back!

"Deader" was awful and totally un-Hellraiser-like and Hellworld was OK but was definitely even less Hellraiser-like than "Deader." I've actually seen "Revelations," the first of two (the latest two Hellraiser movies) that don't actually have the same guy playing Pinhead. Story-wise it was actually super good... and perhaps the most Hellraiser-like since the first two. Have not seen "Judgment," but a friend keeps urging me to, insisting I'll like it.

My vote is for Romero's the Night of the Living Dead movie series. Pound for pound the initial quadrilogy (Night, Dawn, Day, Land) is classic and awesome and look at everything they inspired. Even the latest two aren't that bad, "Diary" and "Survival."

[Leo656]

Sh*t, I completely apologize for getting my titles mixed up. I meant to say "Friday the 13th: A New Beginning." "New Blood" was one of the really good ones.

"New Beginning" is terrible. I sincerely apologize for my egregious misstep and will Edit my previous post accordingly. I don't even care that Jason wasn't the killer, it's just a very bad movie A-to-Z. Like it's wall-to-wall terrible even once you accept/ignore the Fake Jason twist. I can do that. I can accept what they tried to do. I can't accept the awful acting, scripting, staging or... well, everything past the concept.

Sorry I got my "New _____" Jason movies mixed up. "New Blood" was by far one of, if not the best in the series. My complete and total apologies.
----------------

I confess that there's a ton of movies in these various series that I still have yet to see. So full disclosure, I can't give a fully informed opinion on a lot of them. I do read a lot, though, and am at the very least familiar with almost every film of every franchise listed. And going by a pure story level, a ton of those movies are broken at the very foundation by being just plain badly written. I can't speak to the execution in many cases, but in reading the ABCs of the plot, it's pretty obvious some of them are absolute garbage. They don't even read well, I can't imagine how bad they come off in execution.

The first "Saw" is one of the smartest horror movies I've seen, still. After that they went off the rails into full-blown torture porn. First one is very cerebral, with very few scenes of open gore; most of it's in your head. Even when he hacks his foot off, you hardly see anything. Only the "key in the guts" scene is very graphic, the rest is pure suggestion, "tricking" you into thinking you're seeing more blood and gore than you really are. From part 2 onward they were just like "Eh, just throw some guts at the camera." I've seen MOST of them in snippets here and there from being played at the gym a lot over the years, and honestly I think the story turned into a pile of nonsense very quickly. Every single character was Jigsaw's secret apprentice at one point, it seemed. It's ridiculous. The whole thing worked better when there was a ton of mystery involved; as they went on they over-explained everything to the point where it was just this massive spider's web of plot twists that were impossible to keep straight. Horror movie franchises shouldn't need a flow chart!

People can like what they want to, obviously. Just calling it like I see it, as usual.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Sh*t, I completely apologize for getting my titles mixed up. I meant to say "Friday the 13th: A New Beginning." "New Blood" was one of the really good ones.

About to say. Though I'm sure there's people out there who regard "New Blood" as some kind of Carrie ripoff.

"New Beginning" is terrible. I sincerely apologize for my egregious misstep and will Edit my previous post accordingly. I don't even care that Jason wasn't the killer, it's just a very bad movie A-to-Z. Like it's wall-to-wall terrible even once you accept/ignore the Fake Jason twist. I can do that. I can accept what they tried to do. I can't accept the awful acting, scripting, staging or... well, everything past the concept.

"New Beginning," I give it points for trying something new... but definitely my least favorite Jason. Though I don't know... I can't find a lot to like in "Jason Goes to Hell." I love the rest. They're like comfort food for me. You know, "Ah, here we go, meeting all the new cast that will die." Then one by one, and all.

The first "Saw" is one of the smartest horror movies I've seen, still. After that they went off the rails into full-blown torture porn. First one is very cerebral, with very few scenes of open gore; most of it's in your head. Even when he hacks his foot off, you hardly see anything. Only the "key in the guts" scene is very graphic, the rest is pure suggestion, "tricking" you into thinking you're seeing more blood and gore than you really are. From part 2 onward they were just like "Eh, just throw some guts at the camera." I've seen MOST of them in snippets here and there from being played at the gym a lot over the years, and honestly I think the story turned into a pile of nonsense very quickly. Every single character was Jigsaw's secret apprentice at one point, it seemed. It's ridiculous. The whole thing worked better when there was a ton of mystery involved; as they went on they over-explained everything to the point where it was just this massive spider's web of plot twists that were impossible to keep straight. Horror movie franchises shouldn't need a flow chart!

The Saws definitely get convoluted... but I kind of didn't mind. I was able to follow them in both watchings of them.

I'm really surprised there hasn't been a new Freddy or Jason movie in like a decade. I never thought they'd ever stop, and didn't want them to.

[neatoman]

I'm going with Alien but that's only because the original is my favourite movie of all time.

... Do any of these examples, or any horror series aside from them, have more good movies than bad? It seems to me like the first installment is almost always the only good one and is followed by catshit after dogshit until you have an overused diaper of a series.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by neatoman

I'm going with Alien but that's only because the original is my favourite movie of all time.

The first two are REALLY good. Though two out of 6 movies isn't a great average.

... Do any of these examples, or any horror series aside from them, have more good movies than bad? It seems to me like the first installment is almost always the only good one and is followed by catshit after dogshit until you have an overused diaper of a series.

Hm... I say Chucky does! They're all hysterical to me except for the kind of odd duck, "Seed of Chucky." They went a little experimental with it. 6 out of 7 movies ain't bad!

Nightmare on Elm Street is pretty consistent, as Leo will attest to. Didn't care for 5, 6, or New Nightmare, though.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

About to say. Though I'm sure there's people out there who regard "New Blood" as some kind of Carrie ripoff.



"New Beginning," I give it points for trying something new... but definitely my least favorite Jason. Though I don't know... I can't find a lot to like in "Jason Goes to Hell." I love the rest. They're like comfort food for me. You know, "Ah, here we go, meeting all the new cast that will die." Then one by one, and all.



The Saws definitely get convoluted... but I kind of didn't mind. I was able to follow them in both watchings of them.

I'm really surprised there hasn't been a new Freddy or Jason movie in like a decade. I never thought they'd ever stop, and didn't want them to.

It was a "Carrie" ripoff, quite deliberately so in fact. They were tossing around random ideas for the next Jason picture after the very first "Freddy vs. Jason" pitch was rejected (neither studio wanted their guy to job; this was before both characters were owned by New Line, remember) and "Jason vs. Carrie" was one of them. They obviously couldn't do it "for reals" so they created a Carrie expy so they could do the same basic plot.

"Jason Goes To Hell" was definitely not a good movie. This was a case of New Line "trying something new" and instead they totally sh*t the bed. As a kid who knew very little of the previous Jason films' canon, watching it in a vacuum was entertaining. But it just doesn't fit in with the series at ALL. It's so contradictory it becomes laughable. Like they create the Creighton Duke character, who's one of the most entertaining parts of the film (not a high bar to clear), but they f*ck it up by presenting him as a Big Huge Deal when this is the Very First Time we've ever seen this guy. They pretend he's been around the entire time, but we the audience know better because we've actually seen the films. He handcuffs himself to Jason and is all like, "Remember me?!" And I like to imagine Jason replying, "No, actually... pretty sure we've never even met before Right This Very Moment. By the way, you're dead." It was so STUPID.

Obviously there are much, much bigger problems with "Jason Goes To Hell" than inconsistencies with Creighton Duke or the Voorhees Family Tree, although those are big problems. It's just... it doesn't work.

I kind of have a ton of problems with the entire Jason series. I got into them late, and as such have no real sentimental attachment to them. Most of them completely bleed together in my mind and I can't tell much apart from one to the next after Part III. I hate how generic and one-dimensional all the characters are; they literally exist for no reason other than to get butchered, and I know "that's the fun of these movies" but I sort of don't agree and I sort of question how that's good enough to suffice as entertainment for some folks. "I don't need to know names, I don't need compelling protagonists... I just like to watch a meat grinder in action." Like, what does that say about the viewer? I'unno. I have a problem with that in a LOT of horror movies, not just Jason ones. The fact that I can't cite a single Jason movie protagonist's name aside from Tommy Jarvis despite seeing every film in the series at least four times (and often more) tells me that they really didn't try to write stories, just set pieces. I know "it's just horror movies", but you should still try. Some of them try, and they turn out pretty good. I'unno.

The fact that they stopped making Freddy and Jason movies after the remakes is baffling. They both made a LOT of money; the Freddy reboot that "everyone hated" made four times its budget back, and they had Haley signed on for two more films. They were absolutely going to do more in each series; I say this about a lot of movies, because it happens to this very day, but what happened was, they were just embarrassed at being razzed by the hacks at Entertainment Weekly, so they gave up. They made a ton of money, but left even more on the table because "They said mean things about us!"

What's dumber is that they're trying to develop a RE-reboot of Freddy, without Haley, who was by far the best part of the remake. Scrap the rest if you MUST, but what the f*ck, man. Don't throw out the baby with the goddamn bathwater. Even Englund vouched for the guy. Let him keep the glove, he did a fine job with what he was given.

Both remakes had their ups and downs, but were altogether a solid foundation for future films. It's ridiculous that instead, they just gave up. "Critics made fun of us!" DUDE. You make f*cking Freddy and Jason movies critics ALWAYS made fun of you WTF OMFG. Why the sudden craving for critical acclaim with your "slasher rips teenagers apart" movies? JESUS.
-----------------------

Yeah, Freddy's movies are the most consistent, and the "bad" in that series comes nowhere near the sh*ttiness of most others. "Freddy's Dead" was bad, easily the worst in the series, but at least parts of it are genuinely funny, and a few scenes are unsettling. No Freddy movie is 100% worthless. There's always one scene or one set piece or SOMEthing that redeems the entire rest of it to a point. And most of them are actually just plain good, and the less-good ones are at least entertaining and competently-made. They're not hack movies.

I agree that Chucky also has a better average than most. Although one or two of those are REALLY bad, in my opinion. But again, like Andrew said, that's a really good average. "Seed" is probably the only truly sh*tty one. Even the most hardcore defenders of the series really struggle to put that one over. The rest are a mixed bag, but like Freddy movies, the worst of them don't come close to the worst of the genre, not by a mile, not even by ten.

Horror movies are a tough nut to crack. None of them are usually intended to be more than one movie. Then it makes money and they subsequently do more. But they hadn't planned to do more, and so the creative spark is gone, and the rest is just an attempt to keep the money train going and it all becomes very transparent very quickly.

Y'know what series sucks? F*cking Leprechaun. They don't even pretend those movies fit with each other. Entertaining moments, and the first one ain't too bad, but as a series? Good LORD. Not even "so-bad-they're-good". Just plain dumb. Although I'm always happy to see Warwick Davis get work. But that's all they have going in their favor!

[Wildcat]

Ya all the Chucky movies are good except Seed. It just went too far into adult comedy. I'm not counting the remake, which was pretty good imo but it's more of a separate thing.

Chucky is my favorite horror series but I don't think I'd call it the best horror franchise. Killer dolls is very specific.

I agree the Living Dead franchise is probably the most influential. I have not seen all of them but zombies taking over a house or whatever does seem to cover the broad concept of horror movies.

Other than ghosts zombies/ghouls/skeletons are like the "face" of horror.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It was a "Carrie" ripoff, quite deliberately so in fact. They were tossing around random ideas for the next Jason picture after the very first "Freddy vs. Jason" pitch was rejected (neither studio wanted their guy to job; this was before both characters were owned by New Line, remember) and "Jason vs. Carrie" was one of them. They obviously couldn't do it "for reals" so they created a Carrie expy so they could do the same basic plot.

And there was serious talk about a sequel, Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash.

"Jason Goes To Hell" was definitely not a good movie. This was a case of New Line "trying something new" and instead they totally sh*t the bed. As a kid who knew very little of the previous Jason films' canon, watching it in a vacuum was entertaining. But it just doesn't fit in with the series at ALL. It's so contradictory it becomes laughable. Like they create the Creighton Duke character, who's one of the most entertaining parts of the film (not a high bar to clear), but they f*ck it up by presenting him as a Big Huge Deal when this is the Very First Time we've ever seen this guy. They pretend he's been around the entire time, but we the audience know better because we've actually seen the films. He handcuffs himself to Jason and is all like, "Remember me?!" And I like to imagine Jason replying, "No, actually... pretty sure we've never even met before Right This Very Moment. By the way, you're dead." It was so STUPID.

They made a big stink to... eh, something about "The producer of the first one returns to bring you the last!" But it was terrible.

Obviously there are much, much bigger problems with "Jason Goes To Hell" than inconsistencies with Creighton Duke or the Voorhees Family Tree, although those are big problems. It's just... it doesn't work.

The heartworm thing does a lot to explain a few things... even though they don't really explain it at all. Did he always have that? Where did he get it? The lake?

I kind of have a ton of problems with the entire Jason series. I got into them late, and as such have no real sentimental attachment to them. Most of them completely bleed together in my mind and I can't tell much apart from one to the next after Part III. I hate how generic and one-dimensional all the characters are; they literally exist for no reason other than to get butchered, and I know "that's the fun of these movies" but I sort of don't agree and I sort of question how that's good enough to suffice as entertainment for some folks. "I don't need to know names, I don't need compelling protagonists... I just like to watch a meat grinder in action." Like, what does that say about the viewer? I'unno. I have a problem with that in a LOT of horror movies, not just Jason ones. The fact that I can't cite a single Jason movie protagonist's name aside from Tommy Jarvis despite seeing every film in the series at least four times (and often more) tells me that they really didn't try to write stories, just set pieces. I know "it's just horror movies", but you should still try. Some of them try, and they turn out pretty good. I'unno.

I love the Jason movies. I would watch them all over and over as a kid, so they give me a lot of nostalgia. They aren't pretentious in the slightest and deliver exactly what they portend to.

The fact that they stopped making Freddy and Jason movies after the remakes is baffling. They both made a LOT of money; the Freddy reboot that "everyone hated" made four times its budget back, and they had Haley signed on for two more films. They were absolutely going to do more in each series; I say this about a lot of movies, because it happens to this very day, but what happened was, they were just embarrassed at being razzed by the hacks at Entertainment Weekly, so they gave up. They made a ton of money, but left even more on the table because "They said mean things about us!"

The Jason thing makes sense... there's a lawsuit. Though that doesn't explain the umpteen years before there was one but after the "remake" where there wasn't one.

But Freddy? Weird. And we still have Englund. What's the problem? Like, just make a brand new Nightmare on Elm Street movie with Englund... him killing a new batch of kids in Springwood or whatever, and don't even talk about the other movies.

What's dumber is that they're trying to develop a RE-reboot of Freddy, without Haley, who was by far the best part of the remake. Scrap the rest if you MUST, but what the f*ck, man. Don't throw out the baby with the goddamn bathwater. Even Englund vouched for the guy. Let him keep the glove, he did a fine job with what he was given.

Haley was fine. But that movie... yeah, no.

Both remakes had their ups and downs, but were altogether a solid foundation for future films. It's ridiculous that instead, they just gave up. "Critics made fun of us!" DUDE. You make f*cking Freddy and Jason movies critics ALWAYS made fun of you WTF OMFG. Why the sudden craving for critical acclaim with your "slasher rips teenagers apart" movies? JESUS.

I like that the Jason "remake" functions as stealth sequel, too. There is nothing saying after FvJ that Jason's heart worm couldn't have went and inhabited some other host. Cue, movie.

I agree that Chucky also has a better average than most. Although one or two of those are REALLY bad, in my opinion. But again, like Andrew said, that's a really good average. "Seed" is probably the only truly sh*tty one. Even the most hardcore defenders of the series really struggle to put that one over. The rest are a mixed bag, but like Freddy movies, the worst of them don't come close to the worst of the genre, not by a mile, not even by ten.

What is the other bad one? 3 might be a LITTLE weak, but a nice production and a new environment.

Y'know what series sucks? F*cking Leprechaun. They don't even pretend those movies fit with each other. Entertaining moments, and the first one ain't too bad, but as a series? Good LORD. Not even "so-bad-they're-good". Just plain dumb. Although I'm always happy to see Warwick Davis get work. But that's all they have going in their favor!

Yeah, Leprechaun wasn't worthy of the list. To a lesser extent, Ghoulies or Critters. Though there is some good there.

[Leo656]

- "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash" got pretty far along, too. It got to the point where all they needed was Campbell to go along with it, but he wasn't gonna let Ash do the job and thus it all fell apart in negotiation.

Simply put, they wanted Ash to do the job, and Bruce very smartly reasoned that Ash Doesn't Do Jobs, Brother. You can "kill" Freddy or Jason or both, and they can come back in the next movie and it's No Harm, No Foul. You kill off Ash, then he's Dead and you can't use the character anymore. The studio didn't understand this, and their insistence that Ash HAD to die fighting Freddy and Jason because "They're the ones selling the tickets" ruined the entire thing.

At the very least, the comics that came of it (based on the script treatment) were quite entertaining. Unencumbered by the budget and logistical limitations of a live-action film, the two mini-series were ten times more fanservice-y than even the "Freddy vs. Jason" movie was. AND - "Spoiler Alert" - Ash came out on top both times because That's What He Does. "El Jefe" don't job to some Goalie From The Grave and a crusty old fart in a Christmas sweater. Not now, not ever. He'd eat both of their lunch.

A movie sure would've been nice. But those stories exist in SOME form, at least, and there's absolutely no reason to disregard them when they work harder to fit the canon of all three film series than most of the actual films ever did. So I'm glad we got something out of the deal in the end.

- I've heard Jason's heart demon... thing, called "The Hellbaby" by some people. Supposedly there's some obscure novel that tries to explain it, but... put simply, just like Jason's sister and "Only A Voorhees Can Kill Him", it was a retcon from New Line when they acquired the license and nothing more. There was zero information from the original Friday the 13th movies to even suggest at such things. The fact that it never came up again and "Jason X" merely talks about him having superhuman regeneration abilities (with nary a peep of having some demonic parasite inside of him) more or less suggests that "The Hellbaby" is the "Midichlorians" of the Jason franchise. In other words, "We don't talk about it. Please forget we ever mentioned it."

"Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash" explicitly makes Jason a Deadite, retroactively explaining why the Necronomicon was in the Voorhees house in "Jason Goes To Hell" and entirely dancing around the "Hellbaby" business. "He became The Undead when he got struck by lightning in the cemetery after Tommy dug him up. Something-something-his-mom-screwed-around-with-the-Necronomicon-once-upon-a-time-so-now-he's-an-unkillable-zombie." That's why he can't be killed and why he always comes back. Sure, it's also a retcon. But it kiiiiinda makes sense within the context of the lore and is a bit easier to swallow that the Hellbaby angle. I can believe that Pamela Voorhees may have meddled with dark forces beyond her control way back in the day; she was a nut. The Hellbaby thing just comes out of nowhere, and aside from the one movie (which doesn't even try to explain the concept) is never mentioned again. Jason being a Deadite, though? Sure. I'll buy that for a dollar. As ass-pull retcons go, you don't have to reach quite so deep. He's already quite clearly a zombie, if someone argues he can't ALSO be a Deadite then they're just splitting hairs.

- "The Problem" with Robert Englund doing more Freddy movies is that he simply has no interest in doing them. He's been very outspoken that he'd love to do a cameo in the next one but that he's not interested in the grind at his age and would rather bow out gracefully. At times, he's candidly suggested that "Freddy vs. Jason" wasn't his best work with the character and that maybe it's time to pass the torch. He has no problem at all with the idea that the character and the franchise will move on without him. He had some problems with the remake but publicly and vocally endorsed Jackie Earl Hailey as his successor and thought he did a great job. He also said it wasn't at all fair that people compared the two of them, even though of course people are gonna do that.

But yeah, the "problem" is simply that he's an old man, the make-up sucks and it's a lot of work. He was prepared to bow out over 25 years ago and they kept bringing him back for "Just One More." He's a gracious individual to a fault but he's earned the right to retire if he wants to. I admire the fact that he's realistic enough to want the franchise to continue on even if he's not involved, so long as the material is good.

- I like the remake. Ignoring the fact that there's 8 prior iconic movies with the same title and pretending that it's its own thing - nigh-impossible, I know, but IF a person can manage to do that - but there's a lot to like about it. I would have changed a lot of stuff, but mostly small things. I don't think they really did anything wrong, I just think it happened to come out at a time when people were openly very hostile to remakes. Same with the Jason remake, also better than its reputation. Since then, people have softened on the entire concept of remakes. 10 years ago, different attitude. Now? People even defend the "Robocop" remake, a more toothless and pointless movie you'll never find. I feel like if either of those remakes came out now, they'd find a more generous audience.

Regardless, they both made money. Therefore, I don't understand why they stalled on making more. They NEVER used to care if the Freddy or Jason movies had good word-of-mouth, they only cared about profit. Well, the remakes were in the top-three of their respective franchises as far as dollars earned, so the fact that it's been over a decade with NO movement at all in either brand is... well, what the actual f*ck? The Jason lawsuit, sure. But even before that mess, they had no plans for a sequel to the remake. They were gonna do ANOTHER remake instead, a found-footage one. Then the lawsuit. But again, even before that, they were flailing.

It just doesn't make any sense. They never used to care about getting picked on. Now they do. It's weird.

- Eh, some people don't care for "Bride of Chucky", either. I'm kinda iffy on it, myself. It has its moments but I have to be in the mood for it. I was never a fan of the series going into full-tilt comedy and it was very obvious to me that they'd simply run out of ideas by that point. Like "Jason X". "We can't play it straight anymore, so let's make fun of ourselves". It's an admission of defeat. "Freddy's Dead", same problem. Once your franchise starts unashamedly taking the piss out of itself, you can spin it any way you like but the truth is you've simply run out of things to say and now you're the drunk guy at the party putting the lampshade on his head for attention. You've told all your Good Jokes and now you're just hoping to skate by on being "kooky". But that stops being endearing pretty damn quick.

- Jennifer Aniston had awesome calves in the first "Leprechaun" movie. I wanna destroy her insides.

NOT the way the Leprechaun was trying to! I mean in the Good Way!

[Shark_Blade]

No Sinister? Annabelle? The Conjuring? Insidious? Happy Deathday? Unfriended? The Grudge?

[AquaParade]

None of those are scary to me except the first Exorcist, so I'll go with that. I've always appreciated the look and sound of most of these franchises, but the feeling isn't there.

[Allio]

Im a sucker for the one missed call trilogy. Love the third, though not good story wise, had a great 2nd act with all the forwarding messages.

[oldmanwinters]

It's a hard poll, because many of these franchises have an excellent initial movie (and maybe one or two sequels worth remembering), but for the most part they are just terrible cash-in trains on the name.

I'm surprised we only had one Gremlins sequel since 1984. You would think the studio would have tried to milk that brand dry over 35+ years.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Shark_Blade

No Sinister? Annabelle? The Conjuring? Insidious? Happy Deathday? Unfriended? The Grudge?

Those are all terrible.

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

It's a hard poll, because many of these franchises have an excellent initial movie (and maybe one or two sequels worth remembering), but for the most part they are just terrible cash-in trains on the name.

I'm surprised we only had one Gremlins sequel since 1984. You would think the studio would have tried to milk that brand dry over 35+ years.

Do we really consider Gremlins "horror"? Mm.

[Allio]

I’d say it’s a sub-genre. Like Goosebumps

[Autbot_Benz]

Evil Dead/Ash Vs The Evil Dead.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Shark_Blade

No Sinister? Annabelle? The Conjuring? Insidious? Happy Deathday? Unfriended? The Grudge?

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Those are all terrible.

Right?