Children of the Corn 8 Petition
 

As a true fan of the Children of the Corn series I decided to start a petition to send to Dimension films regarding the making of Children of the Corn part 8. Back in 2003 the project was said to be going ahead but after 2 years of silence nothing has happened with it. I emailed the director of Darkness Falls, Joe Harris, who was supposedly directing the 8th installment and he said that Dimension haven't gave him the word and the project is out of his hands now... boo!

Even if you don't like the series please sign it because Joe hopes to make a sequel that explains these movies a bit more and thats what us fans need! A decent attempt at a sequel... even though Darkness Falls did nothing for me!

please sign it here http://www.petitiononline.com/COTC8/petition.html

uhhhhhh,,,,, no

You're a fan of Children of the Corn? The entire series, not just the first movie?

Why?

Well, yes I am.

I am a bigger fan of Stephen King's short story, which I think the first movie should of followed to the detail. So a remake could also be a good thing - they could act out the entire short story, there is enough of it to make an hour and a half movie out of it.
I also liked the short film 'Disciples of the Crow' by John Woodward.
But the reason I like these movies so much is probably because of the influence from the Spanish horror film 'Quién puede matar a un niño?' aka Who Can Kill A Child? (which inspired King to write the short story).

I love B Grade Horror films and the idea behind these are awesome!

I must say though - some of the sequels were absolute rubbish!

What he said.

So I guess you guys like 28 Days Later and Zombie movies then?

If im wrong correct me.

Sorry, but the first one was a trainwreck as far as I'm concerned and I hate the idea of sequels even more (be it 'Children of the Corn' or any other film).
CK

Zombies,slashers,psychological,ghost ect. ect. It's Horror.com, if it's a good horror movie,we like it.

Well I gather you have not heard of Who Can Kill A Child?

It has it all - Atmosphere, Suspense, Psychological Horror, Gruesome Deaths!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075462/

You can purchase the movie from here
http://www.xploitedcinema.com/dvds/dvds.asp?title=5426

As all of you have said, Children of the Corn and the sequels were not that good, well I don't agree but can understand that this just isn't your type of movie. Us fans though need to see a decent attempt at one of these things with a quality script. I'd even back a remake if that ever happens. But in todays world why not? We already have A House of 1000 Remakes out there...

Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest is a fuckin' down piece of 90s horror cinema. Probably the finest entry into the series. Same deal with Leprecaun 3. Shit films gathered enough energy together that should've been the first film... enjoyable none the less. Great short story and the cover makes a fuckin' dope as fuck t-shirt but weak series in my eyes. But the third film is epic and all the missfires were worth it for those results.

But your either a epic fan or a deranged advertising robot. I'm picking the later....

I hate reading ads.... and if you were the epic fan you sound like youd've posted here before without spewing crass commercialism down the communities throat.

People like you have exploited the genre disgustingly..... you have no respect for the fans, writers, actors, directors. You treat them like a commodity and you have no passion for the genre.


But whatever what do I fuckin' know.

:D "adiled on his grave were the words of misconception" STABFIEND :D

"Us fans" = you LOL
Again, awful film and the only reason it has survived as long as it has is because Stephen King's name was on it and it was made in the 80s when the video market was flooded with bad horror movies that unfortunately are considered "classic" now. I'd support a remake on it rather than a continuation of a series that never should've been. The original was plagued with bad acting, bad editing, horrible screenplay and laughable special effects. The only thing it had going for it was a cool theme song and Linda Hamilton (and even that's debatable on this one). There's a reason the title fell into public domain and is now sold at Walgreen's for $2.99. If you do have some interest in getting another made, good luck (seems strange that's all you've posted about). Yes, people here are into horror films, not "horrible" films.
CK

now you've gone and broken his heart :(

The opening scene in the cafe was impressive, if only for the rare sight of a bunch of kids poisoning and slicing up all the adults in the place - with no apparent motive at this stage. This was well shot, not actually showing any penetrating wounds by sythe or sickle but suggesting a bloodbath nontheless.

Indeed, some of the kids themselves took on a rather sinister appearance - particularly Isaac and Malachi.

The film conjures up some rather blasphemous imagery too, and there is a nicely apprehensive eerie atmosphere surrounding the whole thing.

Some of the deaths in the sequels were fun, but the films themselves were mostly forgettable.

I totally enjoy the children of the corn series.

Here is my breakdown.

1= SUCKED
2= Enjoyable
3 = STUPID
4 = Semi Enjoyable
5 = Getting Better (and totally random, plus i like how the kids are older)
6 = Nice little addition after 5
7 = Totally nothing related to COTC, but awesome for a raindy day on the sofa drinking a few beers.

There are quite a few fans on IMDB.
Children of the Corn wether you like it or not, is a cult classic.

So my guess is you like Zombie horror films don't ya?
You know, the ones that have been done 1000 times already.

Shaun of the Dead man, what a masterpeice of shit.

If you were into good horror films and the background story behind them then you would be intrested in Children of the Corn.

I would hardly call 'Children of the Corn' a cult film. It wasn't groundbreaking to watch like 'Eraserhead', nor disgusting enough as 'Pink Flamingos', and not evenly lovingly as inept as 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'. It was a poorly done movie with a big name author's name on it. Period. To try to classify it with cult status is an even bigger joke than the movie itself (which I did happen to buy for the music, although $2.99 was still overpriced as far as I'm concerned). The only "background story" to it is Stephen King's eagerness to have his name on anything horror during the 80s like Jordache on blue jeans because he could make some more money. At that time, his grocery shopping list would probably be a best seller if his name was on it and Hollywood recognized that just like they recognize the current wave of remakes now is profitable since there's no thought involved.
For all the 1000s of badly done zombie films (and there are tons to choose from), why pick an example that was so well done in your argument ? You seem to have it in for members here who do enjoy zombie films (not that you'd know any since 'COTC' is your only interest here apparently- which again begs the question why you're so interested in a new one). 'Shaun of the Dead' was extremely funny (esp all the inside jokes) and stayed true to being an actual horror film. More effort went into any scene in that film than all of 'COTC' combined. 'SOTD' actually earned it's fans because it didn't have King's name attached to get a free pass. If there were 1000's of "kids take over the town" movies made, 'COTC' would still be on the bottom of the list. Perhaps you should dedicate more effort into finding a gem called 'Village of the Damned' from the 60s if that's your interest. Hollywood already pulled the no-brainer by remaking it and attaching John Carpenter's name to it (he's like Stephen King lately- did some scary stuff once, but can retire off his name alone now).
Everybody here has a guilty pleasure film that's so over-the-top bad they enjoy, but don't try to pass of 'COTC' as some kind of great film that it isn't. It's badly done alright, but it's an absolute bore at best.
CK

It looks like he's got the same sad excuse for an arguement every forum he goes to with this 'COTC' fetish. Twice he's said,''I guess you like zombie movies then'' in an attempt to get someone to say yes so he can tell us about how there's thousands of 'em and 'COTC' is unique.

Sorry. I'm wiping tears of laughter from my face since I've never heard the expression "COTC' fetish" before :D
If you're going to be a zombie movie hater (and I'm sure a psychiatrist would have a field day with this guy about that), why use 'COTC' of all things as your strong point in an argument ?
http://w-d.nm.ru/serials/beavis/beavis-3.jpg
"huh huh. He said us fans have a 'COTC' fetish. hu huh. cool."
CK

Using Shaun of the Dead was the part I didn't understand. Of all the zombie movies he could've picked to back up his overused,unorigninal arguement he picks probably the most unique one there is.

Alright ill sum this shit up zombie hater




Alright first lets look at the royal shit fest Children of the Corn


Now The story:some loonie bible crazed kids slice &dice there parents and now theres 2 "outlanders" that come and basiclly destory them except for the 2 little kids and once the kids become of age they are sacrificed to some dumb ass monster that lives in the ground(thats a big fuckin woop) now malakie is dead or however the fuck u spell his name so to sumthis up Yes this movie sucks it was semi-original and it only affects that town.



Now zombie movies

Story:Zombies over run the earth kiling and eating EVERY FUCKING THING IN THERE PATH and theres a handful of people that try and survive granted some are baddass in there own way but when it all comes down to it THEY ALL DIE now since we have this shit summed up which one would u want to see a Royal suck fest piece of shit or Zombie movie???

I'd rather something with an intresting story thanks, not a 'zombie' film which has the same tired story in every single one out there, come on people you can't deny the truth.

"toxic chemicals spill, people turn into zombies, whoever they bite turns into one of them, remaining 'few' have to kill them etc"

Sean of the Dead was a good movie but not as good as it is made out to be. And if you think otherwise, cool your choice.

But back to COTC... for a movie that cost US$800,000 to make, that made US$12M at the cinemas is a pretty good effort in the 80's compared to bigger budgeted movies nowadays! Profit wise!

And for the record I have seen both versions of Village of the Damned and I must say that Children of the Corn is superior, imo.

Who Can Kill A Child? - find that and get back to me on which "kids take over the town" film you rate the highest after you finish watching, MisterSadistro! I'm sure you will like it.

AND SIGN MY PETITION :D

"Let me go ! I'll never sign ! I'll never sign !"
http://tyrant.ath.cx/~kerri/Pete's%2...orture%202.jpg
Zombies are supposed to be dead, hence they are zombies. All responsible culprits in 'COTC' were killed in first movie. How/why sequels ? (<- already regretting asking the question). It's not like Freddy or Jason that can magically reappear over and over after being (to quote Homer Simpson) "unkillable".
CK

Armageddon(or however you spell it) made about 800million dollars. The amount of money a film makes doesn't mean it's good.

Don't even bother dude, he thinks 'COTC' is a classic film, there's no getting through to someone like that.

Remember, when the film gets too boring to stomach, just keep repeating to yourself : "it's only a fetish. it's only a fetish." :D
CK

How much are you getting paid for this?

I use the term, 'cult' classic.

*grabs popcorn and pulls up a chair*

Anyway I can see I'm dealing with some real try hard wannabe heroes in this forum who are too bad ass for me, so I'm just going to go watch Children of the Corn and smoke a few cones!

Goodbye Girls, it was fun... toodaloooooo...

Thats so funny and he doesnt even realize he's actually talking to filmmakers here-lol

LMFAO.

Smoke some cones? I've never heard that phrase. Probably b/c I don't smoke anything ;) But still....am I out of the loop or does NOBODY say that except him/her/it? :p

You call us girls then say ''toodaloooooo''

OMG, too funny Austin.:p

You're right, you did say that so I'll make myself clear this time...


It's not a classic of any kind and the only good thing about the first film was the atmosphere which was overriden by how much the rest of it sucked.

I KNEW that guy was smoking something LOL
Guess what, Conesmoker (yeah, I said it) ? It doesn't matter how interesting the story is if the guys who make into a film are clueless. Moonlit, remind me to make a million bucks, remake this film, have it critically acclaimed and then set it on fire just to spite this guy. Then remind me I'm still not supposed to be talking to you for calling me a "rotten egg" right afterwards LOL
CK

Get over yourself you stupid munt.

And what filmmakers am I talking to and what films have they made?

Enlighten me.

munt????

munt, munted, whacked, crackhead.