Happy Death Day (2017)

[El_Fez]

Sorry, I don't like wussified horror movies with all the bite cut out. I had a friend who's opinion I trust in these matters said that the movie felt incomplete, like a made-for-tv movie.

(and I loath that Hollywood only chases the PG13 rating at the exclusion of everything else, but that's a whole new can of worms)

But hey, thanks for insulting me. I'm sure that will lead to a productive conversation between us.

[OneWayFilms]

Originally Posted by OneWayFilms

I agree. The rating has NO IMPACT on how good or bad a movie is. The only thing that makes a movie R rated is extreme profanity, nudity, sexuality, or extreme gore/violence. NONE of those things are guaranteed or proven to IMPROVE a bad movie.

VERY SELDOM is a movie R rated simply for being TOO scary, but it DOES happen, once in a GREAT while (The Conjuring, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Psycho).

What makes a movie GOOD? A well-written script, engaging characters, a thrilling plot/story, great cinematography, and well-directed. Sex, Boobs and Gore does NOT make a bad movie better, and anyone who believes it does is very infantile.

Originally Posted by El_Fez

Sorry, I don't like wussified horror movies with all the bite cut out. I had a friend who's opinion I trust in these matters said that the movie felt incomplete, like a made-for-tv movie.

(and I loath that Hollywood only chases the PG13 rating at the exclusion of everything else, but that's a whole new can of worms)

But hey, thanks for insulting me. I'm sure that will lead to a productive conversation between us.

My point was films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre has neither Sex, Boobs, NOR gore and yet it is listed as one of the scariest movies ever made.

The Conjuring is the same way, no sex, boobs or gore, and was among the scariest horrors films of it's year.

But there are PLENTY of horror films with plenty of Sex, Boobs AND Gore and yet, they are HORRIBLE films, POORLY MADE and POORLY received.

Surely people aren't thinking "Gosh, I wish that movie had more boobs and sex in it, then it was be a GREAT film."

Or ARE they???

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by OneWayFilms

Surely people aren't thinking "Gosh, I wish that movie had more boobs and sex in it, then it was be a GREAT film."

Or ARE they???

I ended up going to see this despite my usual avoidance of PG-13 horror (might as well save the money for the unrated blu 90% of the time), but did feel this way to some extent.

While the movie was fun as is, I can't help but think of how much more enjoyable it could've been with a good kill or 3, and a couple of boob/butt shots (hold the sex though, we got porn for that!). I mean why not go all the way with the homage to a certain more recent light-hearted horror series which was known for it's innovative kills? As is, we got

[Show spoiler]Final Destination without the gravy.

Could've easily added some skin on the

[Show spoiler]"naked day" sequence!

I'll probably still pick up the blu as it was still hella fun as is, but could've been a classic horror-com masterpiece with those couple things, IMO of course. Same goes for Shark Night. If that had gone the Piranha remake route, it would already be a cult classic! SN is dumb enough that it still might become a cult classic despite it's shortfalls in the skin/gore departments.

[omenboy]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

I ended up going to see this despite my usual avoidance of PG-13 horror (might as well save the money for the unrated blu 90% of the time), but did feel this way to some extent.

While the movie was fun as is, I can't help but think of how much more enjoyable it could've been with a good kill or 3, and a couple of boob/butt shots (hold the sex though, we got porn for that!). I mean why not go all the way with the homage to a certain more recent light-hearted horror series which was known for it's innovative kills? As is, we got

[Show spoiler]Final Destination without the gravy.

Could've easily added some skin on the

[Show spoiler]"naked day" sequence!

I'll probably still pick up the blu as it was still hella fun as is, but could've been a classic horror-com masterpiece with those couple things, IMO of course. Same goes for Shark Night. If that had gone the Piranha remake route, it would already be a cult classic! SN is dumb enough that it still might become a cult classic despite it's shortfalls in the skin/gore departments.

I am pretty sure that the reason it didn't have more bare skin and gore is because the filmmakers were thinking of the payday down the road when they licensed the rights for television broadcast. Without having to be censored the film has much more potential for sales in all broadcast markets, not just the handful of subscription-based movie channels that are able to show anything.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by omenboy

I am pretty sure that the reason it didn't have more bare skin and gore is because the filmmakers were thinking of the payday down the road when they licensed the rights for television broadcast. Without having to be censored the film has much more potential for sales in all broadcast markets, not just the handful of subscription-based movie channels that are able to show anything.

I'm sure there's plenty reasons for it, from what you said to the actress' refusing to do nudity.

But isn't your case really kind of like baked-in censorship?. I don't think Halloween has lost any money with edited TV versions. Joe-public don't know the difference between an "uncut" PG-13 film or a 'watered down for cable' R-rated one.

[omenboy]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

I'm sure there's plenty reasons for it, from what you said to the actress' refusing to do nudity.

But isn't your case really kind of like baked-in censorship?. I don't think Halloween has lost any money with edited TV versions. Joe-public don't know the difference between an "uncut" PG-13 film or a 'watered down for cable' R-rated one.

I do agree that it is a form of baked-in censorship (much the same way that The Final Girls was) but maybe they figured it would cost less not having to alter the film for distribution - who knows. If the actress refused to do nudity they could have always cast someone else (even though she really is perfect in the role).

[TenD74]

Originally Posted by omenboy

I do agree that it is a form of baked-in censorship (much the same way that The Final Girls was) but maybe they figured it would cost less not having to alter the film for distribution - who knows. If the actress refused to do nudity they could have always cast someone else (even though she really is perfect in the role).

Remember the good old days when we had body doubles?

[TheBoss062]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

I haven't seen this yet but The Final Girls was a movie I thought could've greatly benefitted from being Rated R instead of PG-13. PG-13 can work well for supernatural horror films but for slashers I think R rated is always best.

It still worked out in spite of that, if you want a truly bad PG-13 slasher watch the Prom Night remake.

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

I ended up going to see this despite my usual avoidance of PG-13 horror (might as well save the money for the unrated blu 90% of the time), but did feel this way to some extent.

While the movie was fun as is, I can't help but think of how much more enjoyable it could've been with a good kill or 3, and a couple of boob/butt shots (hold the sex though, we got porn for that!). I mean why not go all the way with the homage to a certain more recent light-hearted horror series which was known for it's innovative kills? As is, we got

[Show spoiler]Final Destination without the gravy.

Could've easily added some skin on the

[Show spoiler]"naked day" sequence!

I'll probably still pick up the blu as it was still hella fun as is, but could've been a classic horror-com masterpiece with those couple things, IMO of course. Same goes for Shark Night. If that had gone the Piranha remake route, it would already be a cult classic! SN is dumb enough that it still might become a cult classic despite it's shortfalls in the skin/gore departments.

This type of argument is the epitome of

This is why the horror genre isn't taken seriously, why do you along with others make it sound like horror movies are not good without gratuity and that precious R rating?

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by omenboy

This type of argument is the epitome of

This is why the horror genre isn't taken seriously, why do you along with others make it sound like horror movies are not good without gratuity and that precious R rating?

I never said it wasn't good, in fact I said it was fun.
That said, my 13 year old self would've been disappointed is all. Much like my 30-something year-old self was when I finally watched Halloween 4 again, and realized the tape I rented from Hollywood Video wasn't a censored TV version like that Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 one was. How could that scene end there? HOW?

[MazeRunner]

I love that the theatrical poster is the artwork, but part of me wishes they did the "floating head/upper bodies" horror '90s movie poster with the cast.

3 more days until the digital release. I might have to buy it and just give my digital code to a friend when I purchase the blu.

[MazeRunner]

Bought it on Vudu last night. The featurette that comes with it on Vudu is the alternate ending, which is interesting.

[TheBoss062]

Originally Posted by El_Fez

Sorry, I don't like wussified horror movies with all the bite cut out. I had a friend who's opinion I trust in these matters said that the movie felt incomplete, like a made-for-tv movie.

(and I loath that Hollywood only chases the PG13 rating at the exclusion of everything else, but that's a whole new can of worms)

But hey, thanks for insulting me. I'm sure that will lead to a productive conversation between us.

Oh cry me a river already

You're just trying to start a fight at this point. This movie along with The Final Girls is proof that PG-13 slashers can actually work out.

Originally Posted by OneWayFilms

Maybe I could have expressed myself better. I would like to apologize if I came across rudely, it really wasn't my intention. Please don't take anything I said personally, you seem like a decent fellow, even if we don't see eye-to-eye on that subject, it's OK. I'm not judging you or anyone else.

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot, hopefully, you will see I'm not an aggressive jerk, and I DO respect other opinions.

Peace.

You're giving too much benefit of the doubt. Don't feel so guilty of being judgmental, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

[MazeRunner]

January 16th!!! Sucks there's no 4K (yet.)

[noirjunkie]

I just checked the box office totals, and this film has earned over $105 million worldwide against its $4.8 million budget. I'd say the chances of getting that sequel the director has discussed look pretty good.

[darkness2918]

Originally Posted by TheBoss062

Oh cry me a river already

You're just trying to start a fight at this point. This movie along with The Final Girls is proof that PG-13 slashers can actually work out.



You're giving too much benefit of the doubt. Don't feel so guilty of being judgmental, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

I haven't seen this yet but The Final Girls was a movie I thought could've greatly benefitted from being Rated R instead of PG-13. PG-13 can work well for supernatural horror films but for slashers I think R rated is always best.