Connect with us

Editorials

Good Or Bad? When a Movie Franchise Changes Direction

Published

on

When Horror Movie Franchises Change Direction

Horror franchises typically produce diminishing returns as they go on, both creatively and financially. Once a film studio realizes they have a hit on their hands, they quickly start to churn out sequels at a rapid pace in an attempt to make as much money as possible while the franchise is still popular. When a studio has realized that they have milked a franchise for all it is worth, they sometimes try to try a fresh approach and make an installment that is completely different than what came before it. Other times, studios will try to get ahead of themselves and not make a sequel that is just more of the same. Several of the biggest franchises in horror movie history have attempted this approach, so we thought we would take a look at some of them and see what worked and what didn’t about those films. As many of you may know, sometimes people just want more of the same. If a film strays from the formula too much (as is the case with films like Halloween III: Season of the Witch and Friday the 13th: A New Beginning), the backlash from audiences and box office returns* may be so severe that the studio decides to go right back to what they were doing before.

*All box office returns listed below have been adjusted for inflation. So the $22.9 million Friday the 13th: A New Beginning made in 1985 will be written in 2015 dollars: $50.6 million. An inflation calculator was used to convert the numbers.

Remove the Villain

What do you do when you supposedly permanently kill off the centerpiece of your franchise but still want to make a sequel? Leave them out! The two biggest examples (and possibly only, if I’m not mistaken) of this are the aforementioned Halloween III: Season of the Witch and Friday the 13thA New Beginning. Both films were critically maligned at the times of their release and brought in significantly less box office than their predecessors.

Let’s look at the reasoning behind these films. in 1984, Paramount Pictures was looking to end their beloved slasher franchise which, at the time, had only been around for four years. After touting Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter as, you guessed it, the final chapter in the Friday the 13th series, they thought they would be done with the franchise. Unfortunately (or fortunately from a monetary standpoint), The Final Chapter would go on to gross $75.3 million domestically, making it the third-highest grossing film in the franchise (the highest would be the original film, with $114 million). Paramount couldn’t pass up an opportunity to make another sequel, but they had just killed off their star villain. Their idea was to create a new trilogy without Jason, but still center it around Friday the 13th. Unfortunately, ill will was created between Paramount and audiences when they didn’t make that fact very clear. The trailer legitimately promises Jason’s return, something audiences wouldn’t get until 1986.

Needless to say, audiences were not happy. Despite the fact that the film boasts the highest body count in the franchise (a whopping 21 deaths), the highest amount of bare breasts (director Danny Steinmann got his start in the porn industry) and the most frequent use of drugs, it couldn’t make up for the fact that Jason wasn’t in the film. Maybe fan response would have been better if the advertisements hadn’t been so misleading, but it’s possible fans were never going to accept a Friday the 13th movie without Jason Voorhees.

What is mind-boggling about the direction A New Beginning takes is that a spin-off was heavily insinuated at the end of The Final Chapter, with little Tommy Jarvis (Corey Feldman) giving a mischievous look to the camera in the film’s final shot. Rather than go the logical route and follow Tommy’s descent into madness in A New Beginning, the film makes an abrupt departure and has the killer by a random ambulance driver Roy, who snapped after seeing the corpse of his mentally handicapped son.

The film isn’t highly regarded among horror fans and critics alike, and it’s not difficult to understand why. Overall, the film doesn’t really work. I still find it enjoyable, but this is clearly a case when trying something new didn’t work out for a film franchise. A New Beginning will forever be the red-headed stepchild of the Friday the 13th franchise. While it does have somewhat of a cult following among Friday fans, it’s too often looked over in

The same can be said of Halloween III: Season of the Witch. After Halloween II took in less than half of the original Halloween‘s budget ($66.7 million to the original’s massive $171.5 million), director John Carpenter and producer Debra Hill thought it would be a good idea to turn the franchise into an anthology series. This may have seemed like a good idea (and judging by the quality of the sequels after Season of the Witch, I think it was), but once again, audiences just walked out pissed off. What is odd about their reaction though is that Universal made it blatantly obvious in their advertisements that Michael Myers would not, in fact, be in the film.

Halloween III received largely negative reviews upon its release, though recently it has developed somewhat of a cult following. At the time though, it was pretty much hated by everyone and ended up only bringing in $35.5 million domestically.

Halloween III separates itself from the first two films in the Halloween franchise much better than Friday the 13th: A New Beginning separates itself from the first three films in the Friday the 13th franchise. It’s capable of standing on its own and it’s also a better film. It’s no Halloween, to be sure, but it’s still a solid film that has aged well, which is more than can be said for Friday the 13th: A New Beginning.

Still, box office returns at the time of each film’s  release suggest that removing the villain from a franchise is not the best thing to do if you want the film to make money. Since the victims typically rotate in those films, the villain is the only constant in a franchise. If you remove that, then your audience has no relationship to anything in the film. Had those films come out today, audiences probably still would have been disappointed, which is why future horror franchises haven’t attempted this again. Scream switches out its villains, but at the end of the day it’s still Ghostface. Saw, which contains seven films in its franchise killed off its villain at the end of its third installment, but kept him around in flashbacks for the remaining four films.

Overall, it’s probably not a great idea to go this route when deciding to move the franchise in a new direction.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

A journalist for Bloody Disgusting since 2015, Trace writes film reviews and editorials, as well as co-hosts Bloody Disgusting's Horror Queers podcast, which looks at horror films through a queer lens. He has since become dedicated to amplifying queer voices in the horror community, while also injecting his own personal flair into film discourse. Trace lives in Austin, TX with his husband and their two dogs. Find him on Twitter @TracedThurman

Editorials

‘Amityville Karen’ Is a Weak Update on ‘Serial Mom’ [Amityville IP]

Published

on

Amityville Karen horror

Twice a month Joe Lipsett will dissect a new Amityville Horror film to explore how the “franchise” has evolved in increasingly ludicrous directions. This is “The Amityville IP.”

A bizarre recurring issue with the Amityville “franchise” is that the films tend to be needlessly complicated. Back in the day, the first sequels moved away from the original film’s religious-themed haunted house storyline in favor of streamlined, easily digestible concepts such as “haunted lamp” or “haunted mirror.”

As the budgets plummeted and indie filmmakers capitalized on the brand’s notoriety, it seems the wrong lessons were learned. Runtimes have ballooned past the 90-minute mark and the narratives are often saggy and unfocused.

Both issues are clearly on display in Amityville Karen (2022), a film that starts off rough, but promising, and ends with a confused whimper.

The promise is embodied by the tinge of self-awareness in Julie Anne Prescott (The Amityville Harvest)’s screenplay, namely the nods to John Waters’ classic 1994 satire, Serial Mom. In that film, Beverly Sutphin (an iconic Kathleen Turner) is a bored, white suburban woman who punished individuals who didn’t adhere to her rigid definition of social norms. What is “Karen” but a contemporary equivalent?

In director/actor Shawn C. Phillips’ film, Karen (Lauren Francesca) is perpetually outraged. In her introductory scenes, she makes derogatory comments about immigrants, calls a female neighbor a whore, and nearly runs over a family blocking her driveway. She’s a broad, albeit familiar persona; in many ways, she’s less of a character than a caricature (the living embodiment of the name/meme).

These early scenes also establish a fairly straightforward plot. Karen is a code enforcement officer with plans to shut down a local winery she has deemed disgusting. They’re preparing for a big wine tasting event, which Karen plans to ruin, but when she steals a bottle of cursed Amityville wine, it activates her murderous rage and goes on a killing spree.

Simple enough, right?

Unfortunately, Amityville Karen spins out of control almost immediately. At nearly every opportunity, Prescott’s screenplay eschews narrative cohesion and simplicity in favour of overly complicated developments and extraneous characters.

Take, for example, the wine tasting event. The film spends an entire day at the winery: first during the day as a band plays, then at a beer tasting (???) that night. Neither of these events are the much touted wine-tasting, however; that is actually a private party happening later at server Troy (James Duval)’s house.

Weirdly though, following Troy’s death, the party’s location is inexplicably moved to Karen’s house for the climax of the film, but the whole event plays like an afterthought and features a litany of characters we have never met before.

This is a recurring issue throughout Amityville Karen, which frequently introduces random characters for a scene or two. Karen is typically absent from these scenes, which makes them feel superfluous and unimportant. When the actress is on screen, the film has an anchor and a narrative drive. The scenes without her, on the other hand, feel bloated and directionless (blame editor Will Collazo Jr., who allows these moments to play out interminably).

Compounding the issue is that the majority of the actors are non-professionals and these scenes play like poorly performed improv. The result is long, dull stretches that features bad actors talking over each other, repeating the same dialogue, and generally doing nothing to advance the narrative or develop the characters.

While Karen is one-note and histrionic throughout the film, at least there’s a game willingness to Francesca’s performance. It feels appropriately campy, though as the film progresses, it becomes less and less clear if Amityville Karen is actually in on the joke.

Like Amityville Cop before it, there are legit moments of self-awareness (the Serial Mom references), but it’s never certain how much of this is intentional. Take, for example, Karen’s glaringly obvious wig: it unconvincingly fails to conceal Francesca’s dark hair in the back, but is that on purpose or is it a technical error?

Ultimately there’s very little to recommend about Amityville Karen. Despite the game performance by its lead and the gentle homages to Serial Mom’s prank call and white shoes after Labor Day jokes, the never-ending improv scenes by non-professional actors, the bloated screenplay, and the jittery direction by Phillips doom the production.

Clocking in at an insufferable 100 minutes, Amityville Karen ranks among the worst of the “franchise,” coming in just above Phillips’ other entry, Amityville Hex.

Amityville Karen

The Amityville IP Awards go to…

  • Favorite Subplot: In the afternoon event, there’s a self-proclaimed “hot boy summer” band consisting of burly, bare-chested men who play instruments that don’t make sound (for real, there’s no audio of their music). There’s also a scheming manager who is skimming money off the top, but that’s not as funny.
  • Least Favorite Subplot: For reasons that don’t make any sense, the winery is also hosting a beer tasting which means there are multiple scenes of bartender Alex (Phillips) hoping to bring in women, mistakenly conflating a pint of beer with a “flight,” and goading never before seen characters to chug. One of them describes the beer as such: “It looks like a vampire menstruating in a cup” (it’s a gold-colored IPA for the record, so…no).
  • Amityville Connection: The rationale for Karen’s killing spree is attributed to Amityville wine, whose crop was planted on cursed land. This is explained by vino groupie Annie (Jennifer Nangle) to band groupie Bianca (Lilith Stabs). It’s a lot of nonsense, but it is kind of fun when Annie claims to “taste the damnation in every sip.”
  • Neverending Story: The film ends with an exhaustive FIVE MINUTE montage of Phillips’ friends posing as reporters in front of terrible green screen discussing the “killer Karen” story. My kingdom for Amityville’s regular reporter Peter Sommers (John R. Walker) to return!
  • Best Line 1: Winery owner Dallas (Derek K. Long), describing Karen: “She’s like a walking constipation with a hemorrhoid”
  • Best Line 2: Karen, when a half-naked, bleeding woman emerges from her closet: “Is this a dream? This dream is offensive! Stop being naked!”
  • Best Line 3: Troy, upset that Karen may cancel the wine tasting at his house: “I sanded that deck for days. You don’t just sand a deck for days and then let someone shit on it!”
  • Worst Death: Karen kills a Pool Boy (Dustin Clingan) after pushing his head under water for literally 1 second, then screeches “This is for putting leaves on my plants!”
  • Least Clear Death(s): The bodies of a phone salesman and a barista are seen in Karen’s closet and bathroom, though how she killed them are completely unclear
  • Best Death: Troy is stabbed in the back of the neck with a bottle opener, which Karen proceeds to crank
  • Wannabe Lynch: After drinking the wine, Karen is confronted in her home by Barnaby (Carl Solomon) who makes her sign a crude, hand drawn blood contract and informs her that her belly is “pregnant from the juices of his grapes.” Phillips films Barnaby like a cross between the unhoused man in Mulholland Drive and the Mystery Man in Lost Highway. It’s interesting, even if the character makes absolutely no sense.
  • Single Image Summary: At one point, a random man emerges from the shower in a towel and excitedly poops himself. This sequence perfectly encapsulates the experience of watching Amityville Karen.
  • Pray for Joe: Many of these folks will be back in Amityville Shark House and Amityville Webcam, so we’re not out of the woods yet…

Next time: let’s hope Christmas comes early with 2022’s Amityville Christmas Vacation. It was the winner of Fangoria’s Best Amityville award, after all!

Amityville Karen movie

Continue Reading