The Pros & Cons of Franchising

 [Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed].

Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)

Have you ever gone for a meal and thought to yourself, 'you know what? I'll be cheeky and order dessert'. In essence, that's the function of sequels: you just can't get enough the first time round and you're hungry for more.

But, as we all know, sometimes more is too much. The Lord of the Rings works because every film (though connected by source material) work as singularities; if you look at the Hobbit series, 2/3 of the films are arguably lacklustre and co-dependent on the far more successful first instalment. A fan following can only take you so far, after all.

The horror genre is no stranger to sequels, often franchising and building a solid fanbase that follows suit. However, one might argue that franchising a film, no matter how popular it might initially be, can damage the reputation and enjoyment of the original story. 

The Pros

Saw (2004)

Let's look at the pros of franchising. For one, a sequel (or many) can be an exploration of the source material, a chance to expand the fictional universe. Long-time fans, even new ones, will seize any chance they get to see their beloved characters facing new challenges. 

The Saw franchise, for example, brings something new with every instalment: sure, it's all the same torture-porn, characters essentially being punished by a sadomasochist with a God complex, but we enjoy the Saw films because of the creative traps. The simplicity of the first film left room for any crazy device imaginable: from a cuff around the ankles to the Rack in Saw III (2006) and the even more so impressive 10 Pints of Sacrifice from Saw V (2008).

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Another pro of franchising is, of course, the money; a household name can become a cash-cow with the right kind of marketing. A Nightmare of Elm Street is one of the most recognisable franchises in horror history, not only for its creative kills but for its iconic antagonist, Freddy Krueger (played by Robert Englund). 

So, if you slap Krueger on anything, it's highly likely that the fanbase will come running to watch it. Take Freddy vs. Jason (2003) for example: according to Rotten Tomatoes, it holds a score of 41%, a considerably low number in comparison to the original film (which stands at 94%). However, devoted fans of the franchise still appreciate and love the film because it retains its campy portrayal of the character. Even at domestic box office, it made a profit.

The Cons

The Conjuring (2013)

Now let's look at the cons. One of the biggest issues that franchises face when churning out multiple films is that the lore can become inconsistent and sloppy, consequently creating loose ends and plot holes. The aforementioned Freddy vs. Jason, for example, creates tension by demonstrating Jason's weakness, which is supposedly water: long time fans of the Friday the 13th franchise will find this dubious, however, as Jason is no stranger to water and it's highly unlikely that he's suddenly developed a phobia of it.

The Conjuring series is also victim to this. Whilst the first few movies were actually credible, the following spin-offs (including Annabelle (2014) and The Nun (2018)) are arguably examples of weak storytelling, an overuse of tired tropes and ineffective jump scares. They don't hold the same gravitas as the original films, which actually take the time to create tension and build an interesting concept from the ground up.

The Babadook (2014)

Some creators, such as Jennifer Kent, are aware of the dangers of franchising. Kent (who directed The Babadook) ensured that herself and her producers already owned the rights to a possible sequel because she didn't want there to be another one: in her own terms, it was "not that kind of film", in that The Babadook was intended to be an artful horror that acted as a standalone tale. 

I believe that Kent (as well as visionaries such as Ari Aster or Jordan Peele) understands that it's not guaranteed that a film's integrity gets compromised by franchising, but that if a story is self-contained and well-rounded in its delivery the first time, then that process doesn't need to be duplicated. It would only be for money, after all.

Conclusion

Friday the 13th: Part 8 (1989)

Franchising is not always a death sentence for films. In some ways, the audience and the creators greatly benefit from delving further into the stories we've grown to know and love. However, there's an undeniable correlation between sequels and their performances (both financially and entertainment-wise) that suggests that less is more in most cases.

I love the horror genre but even I have to admit that when it comes to franchises like Hellraiser, Friday the 13th and Saw, I often don't watch past the first three films because they lack in quality, uniqueness and entertainment in comparison to their original debuts. So, I'd argue that franchising is fun but be aware that if your favourite movies start churning out sequels like there's no tomorrow, then maybe it's best to stay clear of them.

- K

 

The Struggles of Horror Movie Fatigue

Film fads have a sell-by-date and, like every other form of media, we grow tired of them if they're exceeded. Depending on your genre, this can often be referred to as "x fatigue": in simple terms, the state in which a genre is repeatedly beating a dead horse.

Jeremy Jahns, a YouTuber film critic who I wholeheartedly admire, recently reviewed The Curse of La Llorona (2019) and claimed that we may indeed be suffering from "horror fatigue" with this era of horror we are currently experiencing.

The Occult cycle

As with many film fads, they tend to circulate every decade or so in different forms. When I refer to the occult cycle, I mean specifically the time where horror movies sprung up in the late 60s to the early 80s, horror movies we love and respect in this day and age such as Rosemary's Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976) and The Amityville Horror (1979). 

Cycles come and go. After the occult cycle, we had the era of 'torture porn', pioneered by directors such as James Wan with Saw (2004) and Eli Roth with Hostel (2005): we charter through these gore-infested waters every few years or so because audiences grow tired of seeing the same thing over and over again, especially if the quality of such starts slipping.

The Exorcist (1973)

There are (in my opinion) two/three types of fans:

1) The franchise fanboys. These fans are ride or die for their favourite film series, whether it be Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Fast and Furious, Final Destination etc etc. They will go and see these films regardless of whether they are good or not and they are the ones that make studios a lot of money. I suppose a contemporary example of such would be Marvel who, despite releasing some films that bombed (I use that term loosely) at the box office like Thor: The Dark World (2013), will always bring fans in.

2) The horror purists. This kind of fan is at the other end of the audience spectrum, increasingly difficult to please by today's standards of film making. They flock to arthouse, abstract and innovative horror, often casting their net further than the Western region of the world. 

3) The indifferent. I feel as though this is the category I fit into: I love horror that challenges the lazy formula we've fallen into in recent years but I also appreciate and enjoy franchises. I think both can co-exist, as long as people understand that franchises and innovative horror can be enjoyed separately. 

The current cycle

So, how is our current cycle relevant to this discussion? Well, what the horror genre is currently experiencing can arguably be described as a resurgence of the 70s/80s occult cycle, popularised back in the late noughties by Dead Silence (2007). Similarly to the superhero genre, horror revamped the way we look at the supernatural, paying more attention to jump scares, gothic elements and a rebranding of 'the big baddie'.

Think of the horror films from 2010 to 2013 and how iconic their villains are: Bughuul from Sinister (2012), the Lipstick-Face demon from the Insidious (2010-2018) franchise, the various items from The Conjuring (2013). All of these films were easily marketed because of their distinctive villain but they also preyed on the audience's insecurities, from demonic child possession to vengeful ghosts, aspects prevalent in the occult cycle.

The Conjuring (2013)

The Conjuring was definitely (in my opinion) the catalyst for the new occult movement: raking in $41m in its opening weekend, this film became a modern classic for many horror fans, making Wan's most popular film since Insidious. The occult cycle then took a breather for a couple of years until Wan returned in 2016 for a sequel, which many praised as being surprisingly better than the first.

Horror movie fatigue

Therein lies the issue. After the release of The Conjuring 2 (2016), everybody jumped on the bandwagon. Studios noted Wan's success and wanted to replicate that tenfold in order to increase profits, thus began the endless shit-stream of films that tried to hash the occult cycle formula out without paying any real attention to what made those films good in the first place: from what I can gather, it looks as though the studios thought if they created an iconic baddie and slapped it on the posters, then people would flock to the cinemas to see it.

And they did. The Nun (2018), regarded by critics as a complete flop and disservice to the Conjuring franchise, still managed to be the franchise's best opening weekend with $52m. But it became clear very quickly that either people loved The Nun because it's a franchise film or completely hated it due to the fact that it's...well, it's bad. 

Kevin Maher from The Times commented that "the scares are non-existent" and that "being pulled backwards along the floor in a darkened room hasn't been scary since Insidious in 2010". The Nun is a lot of cheap tactics and poorly performed dialogue wrapped up with a fantastically scary mascot on top, but people still saw it, because that's the only thing the mainstream industry want to offer at the moment.

The Nun (2018)

2016 ushered in the era of horror flops. After the success that Wan had brought in, the cash-grab for the occult cycle began, leading to films like Ouija: Origin of Evil (2016), Friend Request (2016), Annabelle: Creation (2017), Veronica (2017), Slender Man (2018) and recently with The Curse of La Llorona (2019). 

All of these films are somewhat commercially successful but that's purely due to the franchise fanboys. In essence, these films reflect lazy writing, cheap jumpscares, abhorrent use of sfx and a damning lack of forethought. They rely on fanbases to carry them because, at the end of the day, they're bad movies. Not just bad horror movies, but bad movies. 

Moving forward

What grinds my gears about horror movie fatigue is that people then refrain from seeking out horror as much, as if to suggest that there aren't any good horrors currently milling about in the cinesphere. I think of films like The Nun and then glance over lovingly at my copies of Get Out (2017) and Hereditary (2018) and wonder why people can't create movies with the same passion and care as Jordan Peele or Ari Aster. 

"Yeah but those kind of indie, socio-political horror films don't make money!" 

Absolute shite, my good sir. Get Out scored $33m and Hereditary had $13m to their names in the opening weekends: sure, that's not as much as films like The Conjuring but these films now have large followings because a) they know that those respective movies are examples of exemplary horror and b) they know they won't turn into cash-grab franchises. 

Insidious (2010)

Let's put it this way: Get Out performed well for an opening weekend but Peele's second film, Us (2019), more than doubled that on its opening weekend with $71m, making it the third-biggest R-rated horror opening of all time. And he didn't achieve that through tacky gimmicks: he did that by putting care and effort into his films, demonstrated by Get Out only a few years prior.

I'll end on a piece of unsolicited advice. Money makes the world go round, sure, but your franchise will die a sad death if that's your only motivation. It seems as if today's directors have forgotten what happened to 80s horror once they tried to pile up sequels: go and watch Hellraiser: Revelations (2011) and then get back to me.

- K