Best Horror Franchise

Tools    





True, but most franchises that I've seen do seem to do that. They are generally re-treads and the studio financial geeks calculate a box office figure based on some fraction of the first movie, come up with a budget that reflects that and then high-five themselves if the movie beats their expectations. They already know what, for example, Freddie Kruger looks like, so there's not much original design needed, actors already are familiar with their roles (even if they didn't act in the earlier movie) and audiences don't need much plot exposition, generally just a plot and character link to the previous movie, so they can get right into the bloodletting.

In my case, I generally avoid sequels because they rarely work for me, but I wonder if someone out there has compiled a list of horror flicks where the sequel was better than the first one.
You could argue the same thing about any sequels, but I think that there are a lot of good films out there that are part of a series. Franchises like Mission Impossible or, heck, even some of the Marvel movies take established characters and do interesting things with them. Being familiar with the characters/situations means that the audience requires minimal or no exposition, and it allows more time for storytelling.

I know some people who consider Dawn of the Dead to be the best of the trilogy. I myself consider Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 to be my favorite of that franchise. I certainly prefer 10 Cloverfield Lane to the original Cloverfield film. While it is blasphemy to my horror friends, Army of Darkness is easily my favorite film in the Evil Dead series. It's not a well-known pair of films, but I prefer the film The Collection to the original film The Collector.

I won't argue that most sequels aren't lazy. They definitely are. And "horror movie sequel" is often synonymous with "quick cash grab". But a good sequel builds on what came before it, and I think that there are plenty of examples of films that do. And even films that don't reach the heights of the original can still be worth watching. The film New Nightmare isn't as powerful as the original Nightmare on Elm Street but it does some really interesting things with its approach to "meta horror."

I'm often cautious about watching sequels to films I like, because I don't want to "mix" my experience of the original with an underwhelming epilogue. But there are plenty of worthy ones out there. Even series that get pretty bleak (like my beloved Hellraiser, which has generated some of the WORSE films I've ever watched) occasionally produces something like Deader that's worth watching for a handful of effective horror setpieces.



I liked Conjuring 2 almost as much as Conjuring, but none of the other Blumhouse stuff with Annabelle.
My order for that franchise would be:

Conjuring > Annabelle: Creation > Conjuring 2 > Annabelle Comes Home > Annabelle

The first two in there are good, the next two are OK, and Annabelle is so bad that I didn't even finish it.
__________________



My order for that franchise would be:

Conjuring > Annabelle: Creation > Conjuring 2 > Annabelle Comes Home > Annabelle

The first two in there are good, the next two are OK, and Annabelle is so bad that I didn't even finish it.
I’ll check out Annabelle: Creation, in that case. I haven’t actually seen it. I was on a holiday to Greece when it came out a few days before my birthday, and I saw it was rated a 100% on RT and thought ‘Wow’! Checked back in 2 days and it had dropped. Never got around to it when I returned home. I used to really rely on RT at one point and at the back of my mind I probably still do. And yes, Annabelle is awful.



For me it's Hostel, Final Destination, and honorable mention Saw because I haven't seen all of them. I'd put Romero's Dead series if Dawn's remake counts. For most of the other series there's just one movie I'm really fond of. Oh yea I love the first 2 Omens as well.



For me it's Hostel, Final Destination, and honorable mention Saw because I haven't seen all of them. I'd put Romero's Dead series if Dawn's remake counts. For most of the other series there's just one movie I'm really fond of. Oh yea I love the first 2 Omens as well.
I can’t believe I forgot Omens! The first two were excellent.



For me-the Universal monster series-Frankenstein-The Wolfman-Dracula-Invisible Man.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I think Evil Dead wins out simply because it has so few entries - three acclaimed entries and a passable remake - whereas most of the other big horror franchises usually consist of one revered classic followed by several (often incredibly) inferior installments that drag down the overall quality of the franchise.
I would agree that most horror franchises only have a couple of good entries and the rest are inferior. So I would say the best one for me is the Hannibal Lecter series. I only like 3 of the Hannibal Lecter movies, but no horror franchise has had 3 good ones, besides that one I would say.



No votes for the Amityville series then? Ha ha. I haven't seen past number 4 but there seems to be a new straight to dvd movie every 6 months. Pretty bad franchise.
I know quite a few horror fans who don't even think that highly of the first entries! I've seen them in bits and pieces on TV when I was younger, but have never had that much interest in them.



I know quite a few horror fans who don't even think that highly of the first entries! I've seen them in bits and pieces on TV when I was younger, but have never had that much interest in them.
Yes I agree even the first Amityville Horror isn't that great. I don't really understand why they made so many. The remake was OK as far as remakes go but as a whole it's a pretty bad series.
Seems as though the top choices are the series with no more than 3 entries. Probably because the story lines have yet to be dragged through the mud.



I would agree that most horror franchises only have a couple of good entries and the rest are inferior. So I would say the best one for me is the Hannibal Lecter series. I only like 3 of the Hannibal Lecter movies, but no horror franchise has had 3 good ones, besides that one I would say.
I'm surprised that there are so few entries in the Hannibal franchise, considering that even the smarter franchises back in the day (relatively smarter compared to B-level horror schlock anyway) like Scream was watered down over the years and milked for all its profit. Then again, you could argue that Hannibal had its own failed TV series that got cancelled, but even that series had better ratings and reception than whatever the f happened to Scream (or its mediocre MTV series).

I do agree that the entire horror genre is designed in a way that it's destined to be milked to death due to most production being cheap. Even if you're going for sci-fi horror, you could always utilize cheap effects props to make up for the budget. It's Hollywood's ultimate gold mine: minimum budget, maximum profit. So it's hard to really pin a "franchise" down that's sacred on its own and hasn't been desecrated by a mediocre sequel. Hell, even what is considered a horror masterpiece by many, "The Shining" had "Doctor Sleep", though that's more attributed to the books having a sequel. Those franchises that haven't been touched are usually standalone movies or movies with so few installments they hardly qualify as a "franchise" (see "It Follows"). Agreed on the "Evil Dead" franchise though; I've heard nothing but good things about "Ash vs Evil Dead". As Randy Meeks would say in the "horror sequels suck" conversation from "Scream 2": "It's the Oscar-winning exception."



nice i like it.