"Imitations............"

[Kevin Lockard]

I've gotta run so this is just a quick rant to put out there right quick. I'll probably post more on it later but here it is.

I was watching the 87-minute documentary on Halloween on the SE DVD and noticed when it came to mentioning knock-offs, Friday The 13th, ANOES, and Evil Dead came up. On a few horror message boards, I've noticed that Halloween does get WAY more credit than it deserves.

I'd like to dispute that. Jason Voorhees obviously wouldn't exist without Michael Myers but Freddy and the Evil Dead series? How in the hell did Halloween launch life into those projects? Freddy and Evil Dead have no connection except that they are all horror films. Freddy offs teenagers, Myers offs teenagers. Evil Dead has young adults being knocked off and possessed by demons. Whoopie. If Freddy is a knock-off of Halloween, then Halloween is a knock-off of Black Christmas, which BTW, invented the POV Killer shots, NOT Halloween even though it's given the credit for doing so often. The unseen killer stalks girls, we get Killer POV Shots, the story takes place on a Holiday.....Sound familar? WOW! Halloween has more in common with Black Christmas than Freddy or especially Evil Dead have in common with Halloween. Stop giving Halloween so much friggin credit. I guess Halloween is a knock-off/Imitation, right? Wrong.

It reminds me a bit of people on IMDB the other day saying that if it weren't for Being There, Forest Gump wouldn't be much. Whatever.

[jackson13]

I actually fail to see how even 'Friday the 13th' is a knock off of Halloween.

Seeing as how Jason and Michael aren't related in any way/shape/form.

[Kevin Lockard]

Well, the simple use of a unkillebale killer behind a mask and is out killing people. But come on, Freddy? Freddy's backstory and character is so much better than Myers.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Jason is definitely a knock-off of Michael. Neither ever display any form of emotion, even if they're in extreme pain. Plus, neither one of them can die.

But what they said about The Evil Dead being a knockoff is just plain stupidity. The Evil Dead, if anything, is the definitive campy horror-comedy that pushed the boundaries. It's such an important film because it helped push many horror movies away from the direction that Friday the 13th and Halloween were leading them in. Just look at the Evil Dead series as a whole, they're all solid films that, unlike most horror franchises, even got critical acclaim (for the most part). With Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street it was just shitty sequel after shitty sequel.

Unfortunately, it didn't last long, because 98% of all horror movies that are coming out now suck too much ass to even calculate.

[BigSugar]

Being that the doc. was referring to a specific time, I think there is an argument to be made that "Halloween" proved the commercial viability of horror films. You'll get no argument from me that, with very few exceptions, "Halloween" and the "Evil Dead" films have things in common. But I think the point being made was that the previous decade, while it had a number of incredibly successful horror films both artistically and financially, had nothing like the success John Carpenter & Co. had. "Halloween" opened the floodgates for all kinds of low-budget horror films to light up theater screens. The movie business is still, after all, a business.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by BigSugar
Being that the doc. was referring to a specific time, I think there is an argument to be made that "Halloween" proved the commercial viability of horror films. You'll get no argument from me that, with very few exceptions, "Halloween" and the "Evil Dead" films have things in common. But I think the point being made was that the previous decade, while it had a number of incredibly successful horror films both artistically and financially, had nothing like the success John Carpenter & Co. had. "Halloween" opened the floodgates for all kinds of low-budget horror films to light up theater screens. The movie business is still, after all, a business.


Halloween is a very important film, but the comment wasn't about that, it's about someone who thinks that The Evil Dead is a rip-off of Halloween, which isn't true at all. The Evil Dead and Halloween are on the opposite ends of the horror-movie spectrum. Although Halloween wasn't the first of its kind, it helped give the horror genre perhaps its biggest boost ever. Still, when guys like Sam Raimi were making movies like The Evil Dead, they weren't trying to top Carpenter, they were just creative guys with a vision. The only thing that Halloween and The Evil Dead have in common is that they're both stories about people who are trying to make it through the night....that's about it. The douchebag in the commentary is giving Halloween more credit than it deserves, which is saying a lot because it's a film that deserves much credit.

[BigSugar]

First off, let's everybody untwist your knickers. In point of fact, no one ever makes the comment that you guys are so bent on burning someone at the stake for. Not unlike other witch-burners, you've got your parties muddled up. The guy talking is Joseph Wolf, CEO of Compass Internationla pictures and what he says is as follows:

"It was the first of the horror movies. Everything came after that; "Friday the Thirteenth." "A NIghtmare on Elm Street," which I was involved with."

It then goes to tony Timpone talking about the industry of slasher films. So no one ever says anything about "Evil Dead." What happens is a publicity photo from "Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn" flashes on the screen during this portion of the discussion. And here is where I point out my original argument that "Halloween" paved the way for these films. Perhaps not so much the artistry, but certainly the business.

And exactly which films were influenced into pulling away from the Michael/Jason/Freddy mold?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by BigSugar
First off, let's everybody untwist your knickers. In point of fact, no one ever makes the comment that you guys are so bent on burning someone at the stake for. Not unlike other witch-burners, you've got your parties muddled up. The guy talking is Joseph Wolf, CEO of Compass Internationla pictures and what he says is as follows:

"It was the first of the horror movies. Everything came after that; "Friday the Thirteenth." "A NIghtmare on Elm Street," which I was involved with."

It then goes to tony Timpone talking about the industry of slasher films. So no one ever says anything about "Evil Dead." What happens is a publicity photo from "Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn" flashes on the screen during this portion of the discussion. And here is where I point out my original argument that "Halloween" paved the way for these films. Perhaps not so much the artistry, but certainly the business.

And exactly which films were influenced into pulling away from the Michael/Jason/Freddy mold?

I am not burning you at the stake. You really haven't been here a long time, have you? We schmoes break each others balls all the time but we still respect each other. Besides, I'm just going by the information God of Cinema gave at the beginning of the post, I didn't know exactly what this guy said. If anyone has their parties muddled, it's you, because I mention more than once that Halloween is an extremely influential film. What I'm saying is that AFTER Halloween, there were a lot of knockoffs (Friday the 13th being the most known) and there were not many original horror flicks. What I'm saying, and apparently you've had a hard time understading, is that The Evil Dead doesn't really owe as much to Halloween as the other horror flicks do. The Evil Dead is a completely different kind of horror movie.

[BigSugar]

I'm still not arguing the artistic influence of "Halloween" over "Evil Dead" as I agree with you. That said, what I am saying is that if you remove "Halloween" from the landscape, it is very likely that "Evil Dead" never gets made to say nothing of the ensuing franchises and imitators that did little to hide their kinship to "Halloween." The influence that I think "Halloween had over "Evil Dead" is purely fiscal and nothing more. Unfortunately, whentalking about Hollywood films, the business side is almost as important in terms of what films get made as the content of those films.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by BigSugar
I'm still not arguing the artistic influence of "Halloween" over "Evil Dead" as I agree with you. That said, what I am saying is that if you remove "Halloween" from the landscape, it is very likely that "Evil Dead" never gets made to say nothing of the ensuing franchises and imitators that did little to hide their kinship to "Halloween." The influence that I think "Halloween had over "Evil Dead" is purely fiscal and nothing more. Unfortunately, whentalking about Hollywood films, the business side is almost as important in terms of what films get made as the content of those films.

True, Halloween grossed something like $70 million but for that time it was great for a horror movie. Now we have shit horror films that gross three times that much. As much as I love Halloween, it might've had a negative impact too. But yeah The Evil Dead, as campy and independent as it was, would've made much less had it not been for movies like Halloween.

[BigSugar]

I have to say that I agree with Mr. Wolf in as much as "Halloween" was the tipping point for the studios recognizing the financial gold possible in making cheap films and selling them large. It's also possible to argue, I think, that the film also created a battleflag that audiences rallied around. These movies, and I mean all of them from the franchises through "Evil Dead" and "Re-Animator," were the benefactors of an audience that was essentially galvanized by "Halloween." Don't misunderstand me, I think the audiesnce was there, But I think that film was the touchstone picture that brought the audience out of the woodwork and has kept us all going through even the darkest moments (or lightest, however you look at it).

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Jason is definitely a knock-off of Michael.

Jason Voorhees: A Mongoloid child who was thought to have drowned. He sees his mother beheaded and kills anyone who comes to Crystal Lake in order to avenge her.

Michael Myers: A silent killer who kills his relatives.

Other than the two being silent slashers, there really is no comparison. Sure, F13 probably wouldn't be around if not for Halloween, but it sure as hell isn't a knock off.

In fact, if you wanna get technical, other than the title being a date and the film being about someone killing teenagers, the original F13 is as far away from a knock off of Halloween as can get. A mother's son drowns at Camp Crystal Lake, so she avenges his death and does her best to make sure that the camp is never opened again.

Halloween: Michael Myers kills his sister, escapes from a mental institution and stalks babysitters.

Other than the stalker forumla (which Halloween did not invent), the two series are nothing alike.

[Joshmo]

Halloween doss indeed get WAYYYY too much credit. I could never wram up to the movie - the TV edit nor the theatrical cut. I cant give that flick no more than 6/10 on a good day.

As for NOES, the original (I think all the sequels sucked) It wipes the floor with Halloween.

[Tuukka]

1. Killer POV shots were at least already used already in Peeping Tom (1960), so Black Christmas didn't invent them.

2. Some domestic B.O results for 70's horror movies: Halloween 47 million, Omen 60 million, Exorcist 232 million, Alien 80 million, Jaws 260 million. Texas Chainsaw Massacre 30 million. So horror movies were not exactly "out" in the 70's.

3. Low budget horror movies existed waaaay before Halloween, and were always commercially very viable. Roger Corman's studio in particular pushed them out at rapid rate since the early 50's. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, etc, all came out before Halloween, as a part of the gritty 70's low budget horror movement.

4. Evil Dead was a self-financed movie by Raimi & Co, so the money expectations of studios didn't have anything to do with the birth of the film.

5. Evil Dead has nothing in common with Halloween, except that both are horror movies. Same goes for Nightmare On Elm Street.

6. Texas Chainsaw Massacre was released in 1974 and it made 30 million on a budget of just $140,000. Halloween was released in 1978 and it made 47 million on a budget of $325,000. So TCM was in fact the first shoestring budget indie horror movie to make huge bucks on mainstream, not Halloween. If you're looking for a horror movie which gave birth to a new era, TCM was it. But personally I think that it always takes more movies than just one to bring on a new era.

7. Halloween is certainly one of the most important and influental horror movies ever made, but people tend to give it too much credit.

[TheDeadWalk]

On the subject of Michael and Jason:

To be a knock-off, you don't have to go into every single animated detail. You look at strong portions of the "jacket" premise, and the time in which the films are released. Look at the bare bones, and not the storyline.

- Trademark mask
- Coveralls
- Superhuman strength
- Head tilt
- Possible retardation/lack of mental development
- Ability to absorb massive punishment upfront (impaling, firearms)

Just because you can make up different disorders and reasons that the characters kill... it doesn't really remove from the basic premise.

"The Wendy's big classic is basically like the Whopper."

"Nuh uh! The Whopper is flame broiled and the big classic is on a Kaiser roll!"

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk


- Trademark mask
- Coveralls
- Superhuman strength
- Head tilt
- Possible retardation/lack of mental development
- Ability to absorb massive punishment upfront (impaling, firearms)

Just because you can make up different disorders and reasons that the characters kill... it doesn't really remove from the basic premise.



Jason didn't receive his trademark mask until the third entry.
Michael wears a jump suit, Jason typically wore a plaid shirt in the earlier entries, followed by a jump suit.
Jason had superhuman strength before Michael (Michael didn't really show abnormal killing abilities until the fourth entry).
Head tilt: I concede.
Michael has shown that he's pretty smart. Jason, although possibly mild retarded, also is pretty smart.
Final point: Conceded.

But, again, the original Friday the 13th was about a mother's revenge. Hardly a knock off of Halloween.

[BigSugar]

I think the general point about Michael/Freddy/Jason interchange has more to do with the content of the films in question rather than specifics of character (though this is an inference I'm making on my own). Maniac killers + teenagers = violent murders. Slasher films. A gross oversimplification, no pun intended, but admittedly a valid one as well.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Mr. Fred Krueger
But, again, the original Friday the 13th was about a mother's revenge. Hardly a knock off of Halloween.

Yeah, you can take the original and look at that, and by itself it is quite different than Halloween. It's just that after that film, the makers wanted to create their own trademark franchise killing machine, and a lot of the tools developed into Jason were very similar to that of Michael Myers. Michael's superhuman strength I feel was showcased in his first sequel by shoving a knife/scalpel into the back of a nurse, and lifting her body into the air with one hand.

Friday the 13th sequels I feel just took the same basic premises and took them a step further. They took superhuman strength and made it into snapping off limbs and bending a sheriff's spine into a U.

To me it doesn't matter what sequel he found his mask and coveralls, the fact that he eventually found a getup suit similar to Michael's and a franchise mask is what matters. Not if it was done in stage 3, or 4.

The guys are very similar, it's just taken into more extreme variations. They don't have to both be snapping off the same limbs and killing for the same reasons to see a comparison.

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
It reminds me a bit of people on IMDB the other day saying that if it weren't for Being There, Forest Gump wouldn't be much. Whatever.

I can see the similarities...Being There is far superior...actually Gump is pretty fucking horrible and Being There is excellent, so yeah.