And of all horror even Jason is no longer the number 3 icon. So if you ask from the 80s the number 4 would be more chucky, but overall the slasher genra it's leather face. There were also movies more marking (ex shining) but it doesn't have the iconic masked killer. The only ones who are appart from this generational effect are the zombies who became more predominant that anything else in horror even nowadays.Īnd with the zombies I would put leather face. In the 2010s it's Pennywise the clown who was a big mark. The slasher mode had already fell off and the trope of an iconic killer was almost gone. In the 2000s we had mostly jigsaw that marked the public. ![]() Chuck and Ghostface were close but marked more the 90s, especially with their sequels. Myers, Jason and Freddy all came out in a close time so anyone who lived the 80s know them. Dracula, Frankenstein and the mummy marked a generation by themselves. Let me know if anyone thinks someone else does. Honestly as much as it surprises me Chucky is the only one who I think meets the criteria. Note that NONE of these franchises ever went straight to video so I would say that’s the criteria for whatever could be considered as the number 4. Halloween is the weird one because this idea of the big three came in the early 90’s before any of them had rebooted at all, but it currently stand as the longest franchise both in timespan and entries at 13 movies, some absolute classics, some middling in quality and some of the worst mainstream horror to somehow get a theatrical release and 3 reboots along with Halloween 3 that defies categorization. Nightmare has 9 films mostly well received and a couple were considered all time must see classics and one reboot. The reason this are the big 3 in horror is because they had long running and lasting franchises with somewhat consistent quality: F13 was the longest and is still the most consistent 12 entries of better than average quality and one reboot. This Study Guide consists of approximately 40 pages of chapter summaries, quotes, character analysis, themes, and more - everything you need to sharpen your knowledge of Invisible Emmie. His wikipedia page is definitely worth a read. The entire history of Vlad is pure insanity. But he was - and still is - regarded as a national hero in Romania. ![]() His tactics were so extreme that storybooks were written about him and his brutality and published all over Europe during the 15th-18th centuries. He's famously known as Vlad the Impaler and he absolutely earned that nickname. On top of that you have the actual historical person - Vlad Țepeș - who Stoker based the character off of. There are so many complex things that Stoker wove into Dracula that aren't in your typical modern slasher story.įor example, after a lot of research I think it's likely that Dracula represents what Stoker considered an "outdated" and in a way, "savage" Eastern Orthodox Church, and casting him as the antagonist of the story reveals a lot about how progressive Protestants viewed Catholicism back then. I was into horror growing up but reading that book and really dissecting it for one of my term papers gave me a deep appreciation for all of the lore surrounding the character.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |