The Sin rule
 

Okay, here's something I've been wondering about for a while. How many of you think that the current half assed "moral messages" included in many horror films are really necessary? By that, I mean the general rule where characters who are shown commiting some kind of "sin" (having sex, drinking, ect) are later killed off for it further on in the film, while the character which does none of it (the virgin) survives to the end. This has been with us since the 80s. The most recent example that comes immediately to mind is the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre redux, which contains a wholly arbitrary scene where the characters all smoke pot. Jessica Beil's character is the one who not only doesn't, but tosses the joint out the window. Beil's character is the only one to survive. I don't know about you guys, but I think torture, mutilation and death are rather severe punsihments for pot smoking, (I sure John Ashcroft would disagree with me there, but I digress) a misdemeaner offense. And note that the original TCM didn't need any sort of moralizing to justify itself (unless you want to count stupidity as a sin).
So how about it? What does everyone think? Do we really need for the victems in horror films to punished for some crime, or do you think its about time we saw a girl have lots of sex and live through to the end? I'm curious to know.

i dont really care i just wish they could get us some more original horror films and stop with the reamkes (plus the whole moral thing has been going for along time)

All sluts deserve to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Dreamcatcher: Dont make fun of retards, because its possible they can turn into giant scorpion like aliens....

To me, it's geeks rule.

Pseudo morals... Oh, God... *deep sigh*

I know a brilliant psychiatrist, I could give you his number . . .

I've thought about this myself ... for some reason, there's an unspoken code in horror writing that says "you don't want to kill off the characters that the reader/viewer likes. Leave that for the jerks, bitches, and no-gooders." I personally question that. If a horror film/story is meant to scare, I think it would be more effective if the killer (or whatever it is) is non-descriminate. Is not more horrifying when the character you LIKE is mutilated before your eyes? I mean, if you only kill off the unlikable characters ... that's not scary, that's actually kind of pleasant for the reader/viewer.

Don't be giving my number out.

I think it all started subliminally, they werent meant to be noticed, but were noticed......but they keep ddoing it anyway.