|
|
Post by shannondegroot on Nov 27, 2017 3:45:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dramatic Look Gopher on Nov 27, 2017 4:00:58 GMT
Guess the first film's box office returns were considered a disappointment, thus putting the kibosh on plans for a sequel.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 27, 2017 5:15:22 GMT
Simply it was not a huge success. I love Shocker but Im glad part 2 did not get made. It would be butchered somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Nov 27, 2017 5:17:39 GMT
Simply it was not a huge success. I love Shocker but Im glad part 2 did not get made. It would be butchered somehow. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 9:11:36 GMT
I have similar questions of why there was never a Dr. Giggles 2  |
|
|
|
Post by Reynard on Nov 27, 2017 18:33:03 GMT
I remember listening most of Craven's commentary on DVD and the man himself though that Shocker turned out overtly silly. It isn't a good film, and wasn't well received either. A bit too obviously trying to create another Freddy style franchise character too. Craven always was incredibly hit and miss, and Shocker is more of a miss.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2017 23:12:23 GMT
Yeah, I thought Shocker was poor given the good premise. Should and could have been awesome. I think I preferred Ghost in the Machine at the end of the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 30, 2017 5:39:38 GMT
It had some media press at the time-since the serial killer slasher film was at its peak of attention and John Tesh of Entertainment Tonight was in it, so they talked about it a bit.
The idea of entering tv shows was nifty, but ultimately ridiculous (him calling out to Beaver Cleaver).
FALLEN had a similar story. The prisoner to be executed-cant be killed-transferring bodies.
Also involved a cat (Shocker's lair had cat bodies hanging in it).
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 1, 2017 23:45:54 GMT
I remember listening most of Craven's commentary on DVD and the man himself though that Shocker turned out overtly silly. It isn't a good film, and wasn't well received either. A bit too obviously trying to create another Freddy style franchise character too. Craven always was incredibly hit and miss, and Shocker is more of a miss. Couldn't have put it any better myself. I was quite disappointed, and it while it had some interesting angles, it was still pretty meh! Craven was more in his element again with The People Under The Stairs-91' soon after, which was a hit and a better film. The best movies about executed criminals who come back were already made prior in the late 80's with Prison-87' and Shadow Of Death aka as Destroyer-88, my favorite, which doesn't have the supernatural angle. There was also The Horror Show aka House 3-89', which is pretty meh too! |
|
|
|
Post by Reynard on Dec 2, 2017 1:36:02 GMT
What started this "supernatural revenge of an executed criminal" sub-genre anyway? Neither Prison or Shocker made money. Probably wasn't Elm Street 1, since Freddy's past was just a minor plot detail - what really got ripped off from it was the concept of killing dreams.
The Horror Show was very uninspired and routine. Also the supernatural psycho was very unmenacing. Without Lance Henriksen's presence I would have been seriously bored.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 2, 2017 12:04:44 GMT
What started this "supernatural revenge of an executed criminal" sub-genre anyway? Neither Prison or Shocker made money. Probably wasn't Elm Street 1, since Freddy's past was just a minor plot detail - what really got ripped off from it was the concept of killing dreams. The Horror Show was very uninspired and routine. Also the supernatural psycho was very unmenacing. Without Lance Henriksen's presence I would have been seriously bored.  I guess they thought they might manage to make one that really hit the mark and Wes Craven was seen as the man for the job. If they have an idea or interesting concept, they usually flog it till it bleeds to death.
I haven't seen The Horror Show in yonks, and I own a copy on vhs under the title House 3, but I'm not sure if I want to waste 90mins of my life. If a movie has horror show in the title, I expect it to deliver the goods. If I was to view it again, it would be as a marathon of all 4 of these titles and I would play in this order to suit my preference of enjoyment levels: Horror Show, Shocker, Prison, Shadow Of Death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reynard on Dec 2, 2017 13:09:33 GMT
I haven't seen The Horror Show in yonks, and I own a copy on vhs under the title House 3, but I'm not sure if I want to waste 90mins of my life. If a movie has horror show in the title, I expect it to deliver the goods. If I was to view it again, it would be as a marathon of all 4 of these titles and I would play in this order to suit my preference of enjoyment levels: Horror Show, Shocker, Prison, Shadow Of Death.
I re-watched all four "House" movies about six months ago in a small marathon. House III / The Horror Show was the only one that had hardly anything to keep my interest. Technically House IV was probably worse, but it had enough bizarre ideas to keep me at least somewhat entertained. Shocker is not something that I'm planning on buying or re-watching, already got rid of it once, but if forced to make a choice I'd definitely re-watch it rather than The Horror Show. I've never even heard of Shadow of Death. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 2, 2017 13:53:28 GMT
I haven't seen The Horror Show in yonks, and I own a copy on vhs under the title House 3, but I'm not sure if I want to waste 90mins of my life. If a movie has horror show in the title, I expect it to deliver the goods. If I was to view it again, it would be as a marathon of all 4 of these titles and I would play in this order to suit my preference of enjoyment levels: Horror Show, Shocker, Prison, Shadow Of Death.
I re-watched all four "House" movies about six months ago in a small marathon. House III / The Horror Show was the only one that had hardly anything to keep my interest. Technically House IV was probably worse, but it had enough bizarre ideas to keep me at least somewhat entertained. Shocker is not something that I'm planning on buying or re-watching, already got rid of it once, but if forced to make a choice I'd definitely re-watch it rather than The Horror Show. I've never even heard of Shadow of Death. , is aka as Destroyer. link It stars Deborah Foreman and Anthony Perkins. I am a big Deborah Foreman fan and she was always good value to watch in the 80's. For me, it really delivered the goods, in spite of some cheesiness, but that is part of it's charm. It is also contains some brutal violence and the characters are easy to root for. A b grade director is filming his latest exploitation flick in an abandoned prison and his actors and technicians start to die off. This is not a spoiler, but within the prison walls, an executed serial rapist and murderer of men, women and children is still lurking about, after having survived the chair. The movies stunt woman is left all alone to fend of the killer, with a little help from her screenwriter boyfriend. If you get a chance to check it out, I would be interested in hearing your opinion. A real goody by my horror standards. |
|
|
|
Post by Reynard on Dec 2, 2017 14:25:43 GMT
I re-watched all four "House" movies about six months ago in a small marathon. House III / The Horror Show was the only one that had hardly anything to keep my interest. Technically House IV was probably worse, but it had enough bizarre ideas to keep me at least somewhat entertained. Shocker is not something that I'm planning on buying or re-watching, already got rid of it once, but if forced to make a choice I'd definitely re-watch it rather than The Horror Show. I've never even heard of Shadow of Death. , is aka as Destroyer. link It stars Deborah Foreman and Anthony Perkins. I am a big Deborah Foreman fan and she was always good value to watch in the 80's. For me, it really delivered the goods, in spite of some cheesiness, but that is part of it's charm. It is also contains some brutal violence and the characters are easy to root for. A b grade director is filming his latest exploitation flick in an abandoned prison and his actors and technicians start to die off. This is not a spoiler, but within the prison walls, an executed serial rapist and murderer of men, women and children is still lurking about, after having survived the chair. The movies stunt woman is left all alone to fend of the killer, with a little help from her screenwriter boyfriend. If you get a chance to check it out, I would be interested in hearing your opinion. A real goody by my horror standards. Thanks for the review, I'll try to find it. I'll need to re-watch Prison too, since I've only seen it from heavily cut VHS. It's interesting that there aren't that many horror movies set in modern prisons. Maybe they are expensive locations to shoot in. You'd think that prison horror would make a good sub-genre. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 2, 2017 14:32:49 GMT
Shadow Of Death-88', is aka as Destroyer. link It stars Deborah Foreman and Anthony Perkins. I am a big Deborah Foreman fan and she was always good value to watch in the 80's. For me, it really delivered the goods, in spite of some cheesiness, but that is part of it's charm. It is also contains some brutal violence and the characters are easy to root for. A b grade director is filming his latest exploitation flick in an abandoned prison and his actors and technicians start to die off. This is not a spoiler, but within the prison walls, an executed serial rapist and murderer of men, women and children is still lurking about, after having survived the chair. The movies stunt woman is left all alone to fend of the killer, with a little help from her screenwriter boyfriend. If you get a chance to check it out, I would be interested in hearing your opinion. A real goody by my horror standards. Thanks for the review, I'll try to find it. I'll need to re-watch Prison too, since I've only seen it from heavily cut VHS. It's interesting that there aren't that many horror movies set in modern prisons. Maybe they are expensive locations to shoot in. You'd think that prison horror would make a good sub-genre. Perhaps it's like you mentioned earlier, that they made 4 in the late 80's and none of them were that popular, with the exception of gaining a cult reputation. If they are not going to be a cash cow, why bother. Heck, look at The Shawshank Redemption-94' and the popularity that one gained over the years. Being Oscar nominated did help it a bit, but it was still far from a hit at the original time of release. I think most people might find prison movies a bit bleak or depressing. It is the last bastion of suffering, for those convicted of crimes against society. |
|
