30 Years Later: A 1987 Theatrical Retrospective

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3427239/30-years-later-1987-theatrical-retrospective/

It's funny, when I think of the year 1987, nothing really comes to mind. But after reading the editorial, '30 Years Later: A 1987 Theatrical Retrospective' by Meagan Navarro, I come to realize that there was more to this year then meets the eye. And since I'm a sucker for the sometimes dated horror films of the 80s and lists, I gave this piece a shot.
The list on first glance, is nothing special to me though. There were movies I've seen, movies I heard of, movies that I saw another movie in the same series as and some movies that I've never seen before. Nothing truly new to the average horror fan, but I'm always open to hear or read how other people feel about the movies that I may have differing feelings about.
The only research required here is a general knowledge of the movies themselves so it makes for a relatively easy read. It's clear that I didn't do my research before reading this, but fortunately Navarro did. I'm also going to be painfully honest here and say that the only reason I was drawn in or read the article in the first place is because of the pictures. 80s horror has a very unique style, you see. Something that separates it from the all the other decades. They're just more colorful; when blood is shown (which was all practical effects back then) they would always be bright scarlet, red. That or they would just cut away thanks to some censoring issues, but that was common back in the 80s. That can make for the lead. The bad news is that I really don't see an effective ending to this piece other then resorting to asking the reader about their favorite 1987 horror movie. For someone familiar as the writer with 1987, it would be an easy question. But for those who don't, sort of like myself, might not be able to answer it. This made me question who the audience was. Super hardcore horror junkies who record each movie that comes out every here or just your average Joe horror fan looking for a casual read. The reader shouldn't have to be an expert, that is the writer's job.
The flow is nice and easy, lines separating the different entries with a subhead and picture for each one. Clearly, the most flawless way to construct an editorial list. There's a pace set and every movie that is discussed is given equal increments of the reader's time. And of course, it's very hard to get lost or confused while reading it.
As for fallacies, well you're guess is as good as mine.
The reason why this particular editorial had my interest is, I repeat myself, because I like 80s horror. There was something that they were just doing right. I read this list to perhaps find movies that I haven't seen and may one day give them a watch. And I think that was this article's purpose all along. To put out popular and insecure movies from the year 1987 and get people talking about them. In fact, this whole editorial seems almost like an anniversary tribute to 1987.

We Saw Some of 'Annabelle 2', Which Focuses on Mood and Atmosphere

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3427980/sxsw-saw-annabelle-2/

Funny how last week I discussed horror movies that deserved a sequel, but this week I'll be discussing a horror movie that actually doesn't deserve one, but that didn't stop them from making it. 'Annabelle' was a spin off from 'The Conjuring' (which was the bomb by the way), a movie about a haunted doll (the titular character). I bet its because people are still afraid of doll is the reason why it sells so well, but that's not what I want to talk about.
I choose this piece because, why else? The people over at Bloody Disgusting! had the chance to see some of the scenes from the upcoming movie. In the piece they recap the certain scenes on which they were able to see.
It's obvious that for me, the kicker was the title. I remember seeing the first 'Annabelle' in theaters, so naturally I have an interest in seeing the second one. I'm not expecting anything big from it, just curiosity. I could go on a bit about how much I am looking forward to it or whether or not it will be a bad movie or terrible movie, but I want to discuss why this is an editorial.
'Focuses on mood and atmosphere' is clearly what Trace Thurman had in mind as a message for the reader. Like all editorials, there needs to be an opinionated message that the writer is trying to convey. In this piece, I can only see bits and pieces. Only mentioned at the end, "I can tell you, there does seem to be a bigger emphasis on mood and atmosphere in this film." And that's really all Thurman has to say about it. Maybe the excerpts from the scenes themselves were the main center of this editorial. Maybe it was that section that was meant to do all the talking.
It almost seems like the reader has no choice but to take the writer's word for it in this scenario. After all, they're not the ones who have seen the scenes so the only reference they have to it is the descriptions they are given. That kind of kills the purpose. To have an opinion on a movie, don't you have to see it for yourself and not have a friend or someone else describe it for you?
Very, very little to say about this editorial. The only research required on this matter is a bit of knowledge on the film series and that's about it. You don't have to see the scenes that the article describes, the writer has got you covered. The lead comes from the title and the title alone. The audience is clearly horror moviegoers and people who have at least scene the prior movies. The flow or basic layout is an intro, the body of the scenes themselves and then ending with a short conclusion. The fallacy here is that they're trying to put movie scenes to paper and let that be the only porthole to reader's opinions. Again, it almost seems like you have no choice but to take Thurman's word for it. But, you can judge the upcoming movie fairly since the trailer is pasted at the end.

Six Well Overdue Horror Sequels

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3425195/6-well-overdue-horror-sequels/

Bloody Disgusting is booming with activity since the recent happenings in the horror entertainment industry. We got new movies coming here, there and everywhere, but I decided to stick to an editorial about movies that haven't even (and probably) won't happen. I was firstly drawn in by the title, 'Six Well Overdue Horror Sequels!'
At the first line, Luiz H.C. had me with "Complaining about Hollywood's lack of creativity is a worn-out cliche at this point. The overabundance of sequels, prequels, remakes and reboots has been blamed for the downfall of western entertainment, but many critics fail to realize that the movie industry has always been this way." This had a profound effect on me. I then realized that in fact they did have sequels back in the Golden Age of movies in the 30s, 40s and 50s and also reboots from the 50s to the present. With a lead like this, the piece definitely starts out with a bang. The kind of bang that makes you place a hand over your brow to nurse the mind blow that you might be experiencing.
Now, on to the list itself. I find it interesting that Luiz selected six because when you see a 'top list' you'd normally expect something that is divisible by five, like 10, 15 or 20. It's an interesting choice in my opinion. I need to discredit myself here, seeing how I've only seen three of the six movies listed. That is my own fault since it seems that quite a lot of horror junkies have seen these movies, being that this editorial was on the feature page.
I'm also required to discuss the more boring parts of this piece; research and flow. Seeing how this is entirely based on movies, the only research I think is required is firstly watching said movies then at least having a general idea of the cast and crew and the year it came out. That's what I like about these kind of pieces, you don't have to be pouring over books and articles to find what you're looking for. The article is divided (literally, there's lines and sub heads splitting the content apart) beautifully. You'd have to be an idiot to not follow it correctly. I mean, come on, they got pictures for every section.
Most importantly Luiz gets the reader thinking, what would it be like if one of these movies got a sequel? I for one am in favor of a new Re-Animator, but good luck with that because it will never be better then the first. Another Trick R' Treat to watch on Halloween? Yeah, go for it. Another 'Dead' entry from George Romero? Fire away, but maybe try to bring back the spirits of the original three as opposed to the newer entries. The audience for this article particular is probably just the truly hardcore horror fans. There maybe some movies mentioned that perhaps the average movie goer hasn't seen (probably because some of them never even were released in theaters and went right to DVD).
Enjoyable read and the list of movies that deserve sequels is entirely open ended. The list is logical and makes sense. But I have to say that the main strength doesn't come from the list itself, but rather the intro and the kicker. Seriously, that's the best one I read.