Quote:
Originally posted by Stingy Jack
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.
|
I think it is comes from lack of originality. Wes craven and, well, whoever the fuck the guy is who did friday the 13th, started it with last house on the left. I dont think they are actually moralising, just separating the victims from the hero. if someone is "flawed", they are toast. It developed, over time (and as a result of the original f13) into the pseudo moralising "rules" of slasher movies.
basically "This is what worked in the past, it will work again".
This was actually one of the beauties of the new Dawn of the Dead. No one was safe. Sure, the assholes in the movie get killed, but so do a shitload of innocents.
Did the old guy deserve to die? Nope. What about the older lady that killed mekhi pfiefer's wife? Nope, she did a good thing. How about the little girl at the beginning, or Ana's husband?
They broke the mold with this one. Or re-broke it. NOTLD had at least 1 undeserving death. most of the people were morons and deserved to die, but Ben didnt.