:D "adiled on his grave were the words of misconception" STABFIEND :D

"Us fans" = you LOL
Again, awful film and the only reason it has survived as long as it has is because Stephen King's name was on it and it was made in the 80s when the video market was flooded with bad horror movies that unfortunately are considered "classic" now. I'd support a remake on it rather than a continuation of a series that never should've been. The original was plagued with bad acting, bad editing, horrible screenplay and laughable special effects. The only thing it had going for it was a cool theme song and Linda Hamilton (and even that's debatable on this one). There's a reason the title fell into public domain and is now sold at Walgreen's for $2.99. If you do have some interest in getting another made, good luck (seems strange that's all you've posted about). Yes, people here are into horror films, not "horrible" films.
CK

now you've gone and broken his heart :(

The opening scene in the cafe was impressive, if only for the rare sight of a bunch of kids poisoning and slicing up all the adults in the place - with no apparent motive at this stage. This was well shot, not actually showing any penetrating wounds by sythe or sickle but suggesting a bloodbath nontheless.

Indeed, some of the kids themselves took on a rather sinister appearance - particularly Isaac and Malachi.

The film conjures up some rather blasphemous imagery too, and there is a nicely apprehensive eerie atmosphere surrounding the whole thing.

Some of the deaths in the sequels were fun, but the films themselves were mostly forgettable.

I totally enjoy the children of the corn series.

Here is my breakdown.

1= SUCKED
2= Enjoyable
3 = STUPID
4 = Semi Enjoyable
5 = Getting Better (and totally random, plus i like how the kids are older)
6 = Nice little addition after 5
7 = Totally nothing related to COTC, but awesome for a raindy day on the sofa drinking a few beers.

There are quite a few fans on IMDB.
Children of the Corn wether you like it or not, is a cult classic.

So my guess is you like Zombie horror films don't ya?
You know, the ones that have been done 1000 times already.

Shaun of the Dead man, what a masterpeice of shit.

If you were into good horror films and the background story behind them then you would be intrested in Children of the Corn.

I would hardly call 'Children of the Corn' a cult film. It wasn't groundbreaking to watch like 'Eraserhead', nor disgusting enough as 'Pink Flamingos', and not evenly lovingly as inept as 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'. It was a poorly done movie with a big name author's name on it. Period. To try to classify it with cult status is an even bigger joke than the movie itself (which I did happen to buy for the music, although $2.99 was still overpriced as far as I'm concerned). The only "background story" to it is Stephen King's eagerness to have his name on anything horror during the 80s like Jordache on blue jeans because he could make some more money. At that time, his grocery shopping list would probably be a best seller if his name was on it and Hollywood recognized that just like they recognize the current wave of remakes now is profitable since there's no thought involved.
For all the 1000s of badly done zombie films (and there are tons to choose from), why pick an example that was so well done in your argument ? You seem to have it in for members here who do enjoy zombie films (not that you'd know any since 'COTC' is your only interest here apparently- which again begs the question why you're so interested in a new one). 'Shaun of the Dead' was extremely funny (esp all the inside jokes) and stayed true to being an actual horror film. More effort went into any scene in that film than all of 'COTC' combined. 'SOTD' actually earned it's fans because it didn't have King's name attached to get a free pass. If there were 1000's of "kids take over the town" movies made, 'COTC' would still be on the bottom of the list. Perhaps you should dedicate more effort into finding a gem called 'Village of the Damned' from the 60s if that's your interest. Hollywood already pulled the no-brainer by remaking it and attaching John Carpenter's name to it (he's like Stephen King lately- did some scary stuff once, but can retire off his name alone now).
Everybody here has a guilty pleasure film that's so over-the-top bad they enjoy, but don't try to pass of 'COTC' as some kind of great film that it isn't. It's badly done alright, but it's an absolute bore at best.
CK

It looks like he's got the same sad excuse for an arguement every forum he goes to with this 'COTC' fetish. Twice he's said,''I guess you like zombie movies then'' in an attempt to get someone to say yes so he can tell us about how there's thousands of 'em and 'COTC' is unique.

Sorry. I'm wiping tears of laughter from my face since I've never heard the expression "COTC' fetish" before :D
If you're going to be a zombie movie hater (and I'm sure a psychiatrist would have a field day with this guy about that), why use 'COTC' of all things as your strong point in an argument ?
http://w-d.nm.ru/serials/beavis/beavis-3.jpg
"huh huh. He said us fans have a 'COTC' fetish. hu huh. cool."
CK

Using Shaun of the Dead was the part I didn't understand. Of all the zombie movies he could've picked to back up his overused,unorigninal arguement he picks probably the most unique one there is.