reposting so we can continue the slasher discussion here >>157632678
The way Black Christmas presents it's killer is very unconventional though, not at all like majority of slasher films.>>157632710>>157632768>>157632828
I was arguing that Texas Chainsaw Massacre was the first slasher because it features so many elements of the genre but Black Christmas may have been the first "defined" slasher that standardized the tropes. But if we want to get technical, there's also Peeping Tom from 1960.>>157632694
I haven't really seen enough giallo to be able to distinguish the difference between the two but it's probably a good place to start. Categorically, I probably wouldn't call House a slasher film but when it gets to the routine of the kills -- picking the girls off one by one, it starts to feel a lot like it.>Wes Craven's creativity, whether it be explicitly and absolutely supernatural as in the Elm Street series or a unique twist on the genre like in Scream
While he absolutely did refresh the genre with those ideas I'm not sure how explicitly creative I would call it. For example I think the idea of Freddy, a killer that kills you in your dreams, is more creative than the idea of a supernatural slasher itself. And even then what makes Freddy (and I guess Ch*cky) work is that they were originally human, right? If it were just a monster or something, would that really feel like a slasher? I'm not sure if a radical change needs to take place but I do think slashers need to be properly modernized. I'm tired of "throwback" work. It's lazy and never as good as the actual films from that time period.>While I like Halloween, I don't think Michael Myers is a particularly interesting concept
I don't even think Jason is an interesting concept, I really don't get what people see in him. The reverse Psycho thing going on from the first film with Pamela as the villain is a lot more intriguing.