Halloween Horror Nights 34 (UOR) - Speculation & Rumors

[Tobias]

Got my RoF safe and sound, since I'm only going three nights it ends up being cheaper for me to buy the base RoF and getting individual express for the nights I want. Not to mention I just came back from a convention, and have several medical bills, a Disneyland trip in the fall amongst others...so I don't have the funds to just drop around $700 at the moment.

And yeah, it took a little bit for me to get the confirmation email. As long as you screeshotted or wrote down your confirmation number you should be good just in case.

 

[BBPH]

Not entirely sure if it was a location thing (UK) but getting our FFP passes was an absolute ball-ache but they have been secured!

 

[TheCodeMan95]

Whenever I get ANYTHING on the Uni app it usually takes a solid hour or so for it to load into the app for me

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Ended up buying a RoF just to have that option during my trip. Even if I go only two nights it pays for itself. Also bought my Epic ticket w/ Express.

 

[Jack Torrence]

So I noticed something a bit interesting. Maybe I just missed it.. but I don't see any HHN branding on the Terrifier shirt. Could this be the house left off the UTH tours?

Also - I hate Terrifier. Watched the first one and decided I wasn't going to waste my time with the sequels lol

That said - I'm not going to deny it that it could make an interesting and fun house. And it is cool to see a movie with like a 35k budget end up as an HHN headliner within like 7 years.

Not gonna try to convince you, but I was in the exact same boat as you. Then I watched 2, thought it was dumb, but more tolerable than 1 cause it was less edgy (and less low budget probably). Then I decided to give a crack at 3 one night cause why not, I had already seen 1 & 2, and thats when it all clicked for me. I somehow ended up really liking 3, even though its objectively not good. Probably cause its the funniest/most comedy oriented of the bunch. Would recommend giving 2 & 3 a shot because they're so so different than 1. Although my fiancée disagrees and reminded me today how much she hates them so YMMV lmao.

 

[TheCodeMan95]

Not gonna try to convince you, but I was in the exact same boat as you. Then I watched 2, thought it was dumb, but more tolerable than 1 cause it was less edgy (and less low budget probably). Then I decided to give a crack at 3 one night cause why not, I had already seen 1 & 2, and thats when it all clicked for me. I somehow ended up really liking 3, even though its objectively not good. Probably cause its the funniest/most comedy oriented of the bunch. Would recommend giving 2 & 3 a shot because they're so so different than 1. Although my fiancée disagrees and reminded me today how much she hates them so YMMV lmao.

I can't get past the fact that Terrifier 2 is like 2.5 hours lol

 

[RedRightDan]

I can't get past the fact that Terrifier 2 is like 2.5 hours lol

It’s actually really well paced though. Definitely feels shorter than a lot of movies that I’ve seen that are significantly shorter

 

[Brian G.]

Not gonna try to convince you, but I was in the exact same boat as you. Then I watched 2, thought it was dumb, but more tolerable than 1 cause it was less edgy (and less low budget probably). Then I decided to give a crack at 3 one night cause why not, I had already seen 1 & 2, and thats when it all clicked for me. I somehow ended up really liking 3, even though its objectively not good. Probably cause its the funniest/most comedy oriented of the bunch. Would recommend giving 2 & 3 a shot because they're so so different than 1. Although my fiancée disagrees and reminded me today how much she hates them so YMMV lmao.

I understand this a lot.

They’re not good movies, particularly part 1, but 3 feels like they actually attempted to make a movie instead of a kill fest on film.

 

[Kichkinet85]

Idk I actually liked 1 better than 2. 2 had to much to it.

 

[johnathanm]

Sorry to lengthen the tangent, but I think for me it just got to a point (having seen 1+2 so far) where I realized I just wasn’t watching for the plot, but rather cool set pieces and a fun, iconic horror villain. The fun experience of watching it for me is separate from the technical quality of the movie.

 

[saint.piss]

Terrifier 3 is one of my favorite horror movies. I love that film so much

 

[Jack Torrence]

I can't get past the fact that Terrifier 2 is like 2.5 hours lol

Yeah there was absolutely no need for it to be that long, they could cut off a half hour easily lol.

I understand this a lot.

They’re not good movies, particularly part 1, but 3 feels like they actually attempted to make a movie instead of a kill fest on film.

Agreed completely, like at least there's a semblance of plot in 3 lol. 1 in my mind is just a low budget torture porn movie and I'll probably never revisit it. It's so bad lol.

 

[Blysthon]

Yeah there was absolutely no need for it to be that long, they could cut off a half hour easily lol.


Agreed completely, like at least there's a semblance of plot in 3 lol. 1 in my mind is just a low budget torture porn movie and I'll probably never revisit it. It's so bad lol.

I think the 1st one was just setting the stage, then as it goes on the story grows. I like that

 

[SeventyOne]

Now that it’s all official.

It was seriously rumored to be gone for a long time, and only the last couple of weeks did chatter about Express being included rear back up.

Understand if you're not comfortable answering, but do you see this last-minute rush back to status quo affecting the change to an "OI Meetup"-style stay-and-scream? Or is that still a go? I'm wondering if both changes came from the same brainstorming meeting, were vetoed by higher-ups.

 

[RedRightDan]

Yeah there was absolutely no need for it to be that long, they could cut off a half hour easily lol.


Agreed completely, like at least there's a semblance of plot in 3 lol. 1 in my mind is just a low budget torture porn movie and I'll probably never revisit it. It's so bad lol.

I disagree with the "torture porn" nomenclature, but otherwise that's exactly what they were going for.

Creating a nasty, in your face, grindhouse flick that we don't get much any more in this neutered age of media.

I think the 1st one was just setting the stage, then as it goes on the story grows. I like that

I'm not comparing Damian to fine literature...but look up a 5 act structure for writing. He probably knows exactly what he's doing.

 

[Brian G.]

Understand if you're not comfortable answering, but do you see this last-minute rush back to status quo affecting the change to an "OI Meetup"-style stay-and-scream? Or is that still a go? I'm wondering if both changes came from the same brainstorming meeting, were vetoed by higher-ups.

Last week, I wasn’t sure; but now I get the feeling it was a rumor that never was a thing, but ran rampant upon the inner circles of the echo chamber.

I disagree with the "torture porn" nomenclature, but otherwise that's exactly what they were going for.

Creating a nasty, in your face, grindhouse flick that we don't get much any more in this neutered age of media.


I'm not comparing Damian to fine literature...but look up a 5 act structure for writing. He probably knows exactly what he's doing.

 

[Allison]

I disagree with the "torture porn" nomenclature, but otherwise that's exactly what they were going for.

Out of the four films that the public has been unfortunately subjected to I don’t think I’ve ever not seen them classified as anything other than torture porn horror.

 

[RedRightDan]

Out of the four films that the public has been unfortunately subjected to I don’t think I’ve ever not seen them classified as anything other than torture porn horror.

It’s just not a very apt classification for them.

They’re a throwback to the ‘70s and early ‘80s.

“Torture Porn” wasn’t really a thing until post 9/11 regarding a very specific style of horror that I don’t think these quite fit into

 

[Jack Torrence]

It’s just not a very apt classification for them.

They’re a throwback to the ‘70s and early ‘80s.

“Torture Porn” wasn’t really a thing until post 9/11 regarding a very specific style of horror that I don’t think these quite fit into

I get what you're saying here, but the way it lingers on kills and is frankly more about how much bloody and gorey can we get is what gives it the torture porn rep. I mean they even reference torture in the official house description. I would actually make the argument the films are closer to Hostel and Saw than they are F13, Halloween or Nightmare.

 

[Allison]

It’s just not a very apt classification for them.

They’re a throwback to the ‘70s and early ‘80s.

“Torture Porn” wasn’t really a thing until post 9/11 regarding a very specific style of horror that I don’t think these quite fit into

If you think the Terrifier franchise doesn’t fit into this then I think you watched an entirely different franchise than everyone else in the world:

“Popualrised in the article Now Playing at Your Local Multiplex: Torture Porn from the New York Magazine, it wasn’t until 2006 that this stint of graphic horror films would be known under the venomous umbrella term of ‘torture porn’. Suggesting that horror had become too gratuitous, focusing on human pain rather than frivolous gore, the article focused on such films as James Wan’s original Saw, Eli Roth’s Hostel and more, proposing these films held little value at all.”