How does a low budget...

How does a low budget, technically B grade movie have such spectacular visual effects that modern horror movies cannot even come close to? By visual effects, I mean puppetry and makeup. No CGI.

I've watched lots of horror movies from 60s-90s that are considered classics, but I've never bothered to watch a single sequel to them because they seem to be really bad cashgrabs. Which are worth watching out of the more famous franchises like hellraiser, nightmare on elm's street, halloween, friday the 13th etc.?

the depiction of hell in this movie was so cool

very Escher-esque...maybe one could go as far as to say it was lovekafkaesque

all the hellraiser films are trash. i would rec anything else over them

agreed

Hellraiser 2 is great. It's very silly and campy but it expands on the existing mythology greatly, it's not just a repeat of the first movie.

For Elm Street Part 3 and New Nightmare are worth watching. 3 is very silly and campy, but very entertaining and well made. New Nightmare takes the series back to it's serious roots and puts an interesting meta spin on the series.

The secret truth of F13 is it's all a cash grab, the original is a shit movie, all of them are shit movies but we love the 80s film grain, comfy camp setting, pointless dialogue scenes that don't even contribute to the characters but just exist to drag the running time out longer so it can be called a "movie". On a technical level the closest you get to good movies are Part 4 and 6. 4's strength lies in the realistic characters. 6 has top notch production value and is where the series embraced the silliness and goes full horror comedy.

I would recommend Freddy vs Jason if you want a fun time. You know what you're getting into. Freddy and Jason killing a bunch of kids and eventually fighting. The fight scenes do not disappoint, definitely worth your time if the prospect of these two icons fighting each other makes you curious.

For nightmare on elm street, I always loved 4 and 5. The special effects are the best. 2 is weird...it has this pseudo BDSM vibe and a weird sexual tension between freddy and the main character. Three is kinda dull, although Dokken did the theme song for the movie which is kickass.

With Hellraiser II at least it's the matte paintings doing a whole lot of work. Horror is usually tight and claustrophobic, even if it's set somewhere atypical. Hellraiser opens it all up and give you TOO MUCH space at times and it's much more disconcerting.

Is the hellraiser series worth watching?

It piqued my interest because of Berserk but it looked a bit cheesy

>pseudo BDSM vibe and a weird sexual tension between freddy and the main character.
Movie is gay as hell.
Only the first 2

The first two are great the rest of them suck. The best part of three is the Armored Saint cameo, and Bloodlines is passable. The rest are dogshit.

>hell is depicted as soviet Russia
What did they mean by this?

the hellraiser sequels are all literally cashgrabs. although hellraiser 2 is great. 3 is shit but watchable. the rest I would deny their existence.

Every sequel is a cashgrab, retard.

Everything is a cashgrab, goy.

nope

What you're talking about is not called "visual effects" then.

Special Effects= things done physically on set. These are also referred to as "practical" effects which are done "in camera." Examples are blood rigs, prosthetics, and puppets.

Visual Effects= things done in post production, after the film is shot. Currently, this nearly exclusively means CGI. Years ago, this would mean other techniques such as painting directly onto the frames of film.

Friday the 13th is all about "How will jason kill this group of teenagers".

The characters and setting don't really matter. It's just a vehicle for writers to come up with new ways for him to kill.

>Hellraiser 2 is great. It's very silly and campy but it expands on the existing mythology greatly
It ruined the cenobites though

Theyre visual, you see them with your eyes..gtfo autist, you knew what I meant.

What's your point? This does not at all change what I just said.

You're in the minority.

>You're in the minority
Nah, the series went downhill from there, that's a fact.

Like I said, you're in the minority. Hellraiser 2 is regarded as an excellent sequel. It expands on the mythology and explores it in an exciting new way.

I was just adding to what you said.

>It expands on the mythology and explores it in an exciting new way
Nah, you're just a pleb, bro.

The first one had those crappy electricity effects at the end, but according to Clive Barker he and another guy did them all over a single weekend while binge drinking and he's surprised they turned out that well

Great argument.

Sometimes Sup Forums doesn't lie.

Better than your ad populum, brah

Miura has outgrown all this edgy shit, RIP berserk

Even more impressive given the studio slashed the original budget

Things that are captured on camera will always look more real than stuff added later

Better than having zero evidence or arguments to support your statement.

>Real things look real
You don't say

Nah broseph, I told you before, the series went downhill from there for a fact, but you're a pleb and can't deal with it.

Great argument.

>seeing things with your eyes
Seriously ?

Hellraiser 2 is pretty cool just for the design of Hell looks really badass, after that it gets really bad. Nightmare on Elm Street 3 is good because the characters all turn into really cheesy 80's punks in their dreams and look pretty hilarious. The 2nd movie sucks though.

Most other 80's horror sequels are pretty generic and not really worth watching.