Connect with us

Editorials

Cancelling ‘Santa Clarita Diet’ Is Still Netflix’s Biggest Mistake

For fans of the show, the cancellation of Santa Clarita Diet was a gut punch. A show about a listless housewife who suddenly finds herself navigating a second life as a zombie, I remember binging it in the weeks following its cancellation. I was curious what all the outrage was about, as a friend tore into a thirty-minute tirade about how unfair it was the day after the news broke. I expected not to be so upset, to be mildly amused as a blood-splattered sitcom burned away the hours of a few weekends. But when I reached that final cliffhanger episode of season 3, having grown incredibly fond of Sheila Hammond and her family, I realized how much of a colossal screw-up that Netflix had made.

Published

on

I know that a very large contingent of Horror Press readers are themselves artists. You’re writers and musicians; many of you even make really cool games and artwork, and we love that for you! So, walk with me for a second. Imagine you’re working on your next big project. Each of your last creations were commissioned and very well received. Many people are big fans of what you do. And as you’re about to get started on your next piece…

You come in to find someone, taking everything you use to work on your art away.

Your instruments, your recording equipment, your paints, your computer, whatever it might be. It’s all being taken away from you without any sort of notice. It was there one day and gone the next. That might sound like an exaggeration, but that’s what happened to Victor Fresco, showrunner and creator of the wildly popular Netflix horror-comedy Santa Clarita Diet. He was made aware in the middle of an editing session that personnel had come on behalf of Netflix to tear down the sets and take back equipment vital for shooting the series.

It was over in that instant. Season 4 of Santa Clarita Diet was not happening.

Why the Santa Clarita Diet Cancellation Hurt Horror Fans

For fans of the show, the cancellation of Santa Clarita Diet was a gut punch. A show about a listless housewife who suddenly finds herself navigating a second life as a zombie, I remember binging it in the weeks following its cancellation. I was curious what all the outrage was about, as a friend tore into a thirty-minute tirade about how unfair it was the day after the news broke. I expected not to be so upset, to be mildly amused as a blood-splattered sitcom burned away the hours of a few weekends. But when I reached that final cliffhanger episode of season 3, having grown incredibly fond of Sheila Hammond and her family, I realized how much of a colossal screw-up that Netflix had made.

Advertisement

HOW TO KILL A GREAT TELEVISION SHOW IN THREE PARTS

Is Santa Clarita Diet special in terms of cancellation? No. In reality, television has been a fickle world since the day cathode ray tubes started beaming Alfred Hitchcock Presents and The Twilight Zone into the heads of millions of Americans. Editor James-Michael and I have even batted around the concept of a series of articles entirely about mourning the many, many canceled horror television shows that never made it out of their premiere seasons.

But the problem is now more than ever, Netflix at large isn’t just stagnating, it’s regressing. Santa Clarita Diet wasn’t just Netflix’s biggest mistake at the time, it’s emblematic of Netflix’s current and most likely future mistakes; its recurring failure to rework how it operates as a company, and its incessant desire to see the line go up. Because the people in charge have decided progress looks more like a statistical analysis program and less like a human mind. And the kicker of all kickers is, it’s not even that good of a program!

The problems are threefold: how Netflix decides how to make consumers watch, how Netflix decides how to pay the people making its shows, and how Netflix prices its services. 

THE MACHINE DECIDES, NOT THE VIEWER

The first issue is easy to understand in a world where social media algorithms have become as advanced as they are; Netflix itself as a streaming platform is faltering in predicting and understanding its user’s preferences.

To many people, Netflix’s user interface is just flat-out bad at finding what you want, so much so that many people resort to using an obscure system of URL codes to find the categories they want. Unless you are the ideal customer who is switching between all the most watched shows on Netflix and strictly hopping from Bridgerton to Great British Bake-Off to Wednesday, the UI doesn’t tailor well to things that don’t fit the mold.

Advertisement

Shows like Santa Clarita Diet were the definition of bursting out of the mold with its odd sense of humor, bloody special effects, and the bizarre overarching lore of the series. It combined a sitcom with a plot involving ancient orders, brain spiders, and an ever-expanding cover-up that brings the Hammond family together closer than they ever expected. It was really cute while never sacrificing its oddities to make itself more consumable, and driven by some great performances from leads Drew Barrymore and Timothy Olyphant. 

Odd, off-kilter shows that the site doesn’t fit to mass appeal just don’t make it far on the front page of the site. They just aren’t offered as often as other programming, and it’s a funny Catch-22 in that way. If the show isn’t served up to viewers by the algorithm, it can’t find an audience. And if it can’t find an audience, the show isn’t served to viewers by the algorithm. Netflix is letting machines, not humans, decide what humans want to watch. While some algorithms are incredibly impressive, it’s clear that Netflix’s is rudimentary and harmful to the company’s existence.

Netflix’s Contractual Pitfalls Stifle Horror Creativity

Then there is of course what happens to these shows on the backend, the contractual agreements made, and how Netflix pays showrunners and doles out those big budgets.

Fresco explained in interviews following Santa Clarita Diet’s cancellation that the vast majority of contracts are terminated early because, Netflix’s contracts indicate that if a show gets renewed for a fourth season, the payment for the cast and crew generally gets significant increases. The budgets get bigger, and consequently, the stakes get higher for Netflix, who expect to make a massive return on investment.

This generally tracks when you look at all the Netflix horror originals that have bitten the dust. Podcast turned moody atmospheric sci-fi horror Archive 81, and the French gothic supernatural horror Marianne were killed in their first seasons despite showrunners having big plans for them. The Bill Skarsgård led Hemlock Grove was quashed by its third season, and it eventually was wiped entirely from Netflix. And if you really want to push the definition of horror (I do, always), Warrior Nun died on the vine two seasons in, and that was essentially a fantasy horror show about demon hunters. As did The Dark Crystal: Resistance, whose gateway horror and puppetry was simply too cool to live past a first season.

Advertisement

Of course, these were legitimately less known shows for most audiences; but Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, which was struck down in its second season, wasn’t. Neither was the very popular Slasher, which in what may be the strongest case for the season 4 death-wall, was popular enough to find a new home on Shudder for its 4th and 5th seasons. But not popular enough for Netflix’s tastes. Because Netflix wants massive hits, and massive hits only.

Stranger Things Sets an Unreachable Bar for Horror

The horror elephant in the room I haven’t mentioned so far is Stranger Things, a show the success of which might actually have been the death knell for most other horror shows to find a long-form home on Netflix. Miniseries like Mike Flanagan’s Midnight Mass and The Fall of the House of Usher which are limited releases will generally always have a place on Netflix because they are contained to one season, and generally low risk; same goes for the oft forgotten but really weird and really fun show Brand New Cherry Flavor.

But any hopes for more ambitious horror, serialized and ongoing horror stories, won’t make it. Because they’re up against the likes of Stranger Things, a five-season sensation known the world across. That kind of success is the benchmark, it’s the only way creatives can ensure any work they do with Netflix doesn’t go the way of Hemlock Grove and ends up completely erased from the library of shows.

It’s not sink or swim anymore, its fly out of the water or plummet to the bottom of the ocean.

Is NetFlix Even Worth It For Horror Fans Anymore?

That brings me to my final point about Netflix’s continual failure to deliver media many people would be interested in: when you look at the price versus the perceived value, it’s simply not worth having anymore for many people. In a cost-of-living crisis where entertainment is the first thing people are chomping at the bit to axe from their budgets, and in a world where you can find yourself an hour of cheap thrills for free by scouring the net, Netflix seems to be really excited to cut people off from itself by regularly raising prices and getting rid of content.

Advertisement

If you really look at the platforms that are catering to horror television in particular, you find places like Showtime and AMC; which of course includes its subsidiary and Horror Press mainstay, Shudder. Yellowjackets, Interview with a Vampire, the Dexter revival series like New Blood & Original Sin, Boulet Brothers Dragula, and a score of other shows that in yesteryear might have had a home on Netflix are now spread thin across many different platforms.

The Future of Horror on Netflix Looks Bleak

Netflix used to be a Swiss army knife that could cater to the tastes of a lot of different people. And I’m not going to lie and say Netflix is doomed, but I will say it doesn’t feel the same at all, and I definitely don’t have high hopes for good out-there media to survive on it. Now especially, in its eternal and all-consuming quest to have the next Squid Game or Stranger Things grow organically on its platform, it’s made a synthetic nightmare landscape engineered to give audiences something to like rather than figuring out what they actually do like.

Santa Clarita Diet wasn’t the only show to suffer from this change, but it’ll always be the show that convinced me of it; it’ll forever be the one in my heart that made me wake up and walk away from it.   

Luis Pomales-Diaz is a freelance writer and lover of fantasy, sci-fi, and of course, horror. When he isn't working on a new article or short story, he can usually be found watching schlocky movies and forgotten television shows.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Editorials

Is ‘Scream 2’ Still the Worst of the Series?

Published

on

There are only so many times I can get away with burying the lede with an editorial headline before someone throws a rock at me. It may or may not be justified when they do. This article is not an attempt at ragebaiting Scream fans, I promise. Neither was my Scream 3 article, which I’m still completely right about.

I do firmly believe that Scream 2 is, at the very least, the last Scream film I’d want to watch. But what was initially just me complaining about a film that I disregard as the weakest entry in its series has since developed into trying to address what it does right. You’ve heard of the expression “jack of all trades, master of none”, and to me Scream 2 really was the jack of all trades of the franchise for the longest time.

It technically has everything a Scream movie needs. Its opening is great, but it’s not the best of them by a long shot. Its killers are unexpected, but not particularly interesting, feeling flat and one-dimensional compared to the others. It has kills, but only a few of them are particularly shocking or well executed. It pokes fun at the genre but doesn’t say anything particularly bold in terms of commentary. Having everything a Scream movie needs is the bare minimum to me.

But the question is, what does Scream 2 do best exactly? Finding that answer involves highlighting what each of the other sequels are great at, and trying to pick out what Scream 2 has that the others don’t.

Scream 3 Is the Big Finale That Utilizes Its Setting Perfectly

Scream as a series handily dodges the trap most horror franchises fall into: rehashing and retreading the same territory over and over. That’s because every one of its films are in essence trying to do something a little different and a little bolder.

Advertisement

Scream 3 is especially bold because it was conceived, written, and executed as the final installment in the Scream series. And it does that incredibly well. Taking the action away from a locale similar to Woodsboro, Scream 3 tosses our characters into the frying pan of a Hollywood film production. Despite its notorious number of rewrites and script changes (one of which resulted in our first solo Ghostface), it still manages to be a perfect culmination of Sidney Prescott’s story.

I won’t repeat myself too much (go read my previous article on the subject), but 3 is often maligned for as good a film as it turned out to be. And for all of its clunkier reveals, and its ghost mom antics, it understands how to utilize its setting and send its characters off into the sunset right.

Scream 4’s Meta Commentary Wakes Scream from a Deep Sleep

As Wes Craven’s final film, Scream 4 has a very special place in the franchise. It was and still is largely adored for bringing back the franchise from a deep 11-year sleep. With one of the craziest openings in any horror film, let alone a Scream film, it sets the tone for a bombastic return and pays off in spades with the journey it takes us on.

Its primary Ghostface Jill Roberts is a fan favorite, and for some people, she is the best to ever wear the mask. Its script is the source of many memorable moments, not the least of which is Kirby’s iconic rapid-fire response to the horror remakes question. And most importantly, it makes a bold and surprisingly effective return for our main trio of Sidney, Dewey, and Gale, whose return didn’t feel trite or hammy when they ended up coming back to Woodsboro for more.

Craven’s work on 4 truly understands the power its predecessors had exerted on the horror genre, both irreverent in its metacommentary and celebratory of the Scream series as a whole. The film is less of a love letter to the genre and more of a kicking down of the door to remind people what Scream is about. 4’s story re-established that Scream isn’t going away, no matter how long it takes for another film, and no matter how many franchises try to take its place.

Advertisement

Scream 5 & 6 Is Radio Silence’s Brutal and Bloody Attitude Era

Put simply, Scream 5 and 6’s strong suit was not its characters. It was not its clever writing. The Radio Silence duology in the Scream series excelled in one thing: beating the hell out of its characters.

Wrestling fans (of which there is an unsurprising amount of crossover with horror fans) will know why I call it the Attitude Era. Just like WWE’s most infamous stretch of history, Radio Silence brought something especially aggressive to their entries. And it’s because these films were just brutal. Handing the reins to the series, Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillet gifted a special kineticism to the classic Scream chase sequences, insane finales, and especially its ruthless killers.

All five of the Ghostfaces present in 5 and 6 are the definition of nasty. They’re unrelenting, and in my humble opinion, the freakiest since the original duo of Stu Macher and Billy Loomis. Getting to hear all the air get sucked out of the room as Dewey is gutted like a fish in 5 was still an incredible moment to experience in theatres, and it’s something I don’t think would have happened if the films were any less mean and any less explosively violent.

So, What Does Scream 2 Do Best Exactly?

So now, after looking at all these entries and all of their greatest qualities, what does Scream 2 have that none of the others do? What must I concede to Scream 2?

Really great character development.

Advertisement

Film is a medium of spectacle most of the time, and this is reflected in how we critique and compliment them. It affects how we look back on them, sometimes treating them more harshly than they deserve because they don’t have that visual flash. But for every ounce of spectacle Scream 2 lacks, I have to admit, it does an incredible job of developing Sidney Prescott as a character.

On a rare rewatch, it’s clear Neve Campbell is carrying the entirety of Scream 2 on her back just because of how compelling she makes Sidney. Watching her slowly fight against a tide of paranoia, fear, and distrust of the people around her once more, watching her be plunged back into the nightmare, is undeniably effective.

It’s also where Dewey and Gale are really cemented as a couple, and where the seeds of them always returning to each other are planted. Going from a mutual simmering disrespect to an affectionate couple to inseparable but awkward and in love is just classic; two people who complete each other in how different they are, but are inevitably pulled back and forth by those differences, their bond is one of the major highlights throughout the series.

Maybe All the Scream Films Are Just Good?

These three characters are the heart of the series, long after they’ve been written out. I talk a big game about how Scream 3 is the perfect ending for the franchise, but I like to gloss over the fact that Scream 2 does a lot of the legwork when it comes to developing the characters of Dewey, Gale, and especially Sidney.

Without 2, 3 just isn’t that effective when it comes to giving Sidney her long deserved peace. Without 2, the way we see Sidney’s return in 4 & 5 doesn’t hit as hard. All of the Scream movies owe something to Scream 2 in the same way they owe something to the original Scream. I think I’ve come to a new point of view when it comes to the Scream franchise: maybe there is no bad entry. Maybe none of them have to be the worst. Each one interlinks with the others in their own unique way.

Advertisement

And even though I doubt I will ever really love Scream 2, it has an undeniable strength in its character writing that permeates throughout the whole franchise. And that at the very least keeps it from being the worst Scream film.

Continue Reading

Editorials

The Halloween Franchise Peaked With H20 Here’s Why

Published

on

I’m going to begin this conversation with a sort of insane thought. Halloween as a franchise maybe should have ended with its first film.

That’s not to say there’s no value in the Halloween films. Much to the contrary, I like the first three films a lot. I recommend Halloween 3: Season of the Witch to people an annoying amount; I even try to watch it a few times every October to keep the vibes up. And as you already know from clicking on this article, I enjoy Halloween H20: 20 Years Later quite a bit.

I’ve even softened up on the Rob Zombie remake duology over the years. I don’t like them, but it’s like getting flowers, I can still appreciate them. However, Halloween, as a series, has long suffered from its own success. And sometimes, it feels like it’s just going to keep suffering.

HALLOWEEN’S FIRST BOLD CHOICE AFTER 16 YEARS OF WAITING

It’s easy to forget that John Carpenter’s original Halloween was effectively the Paranormal Activity of its time. Flipping a cool $70 million and change off of a $300,000 budget, it has had a genuinely immeasurable impact on the cinematic landscape and how horror films are made.

For some, that’s a bad thing. Notoriously, my beloved 3rd entry in the franchise was considered a hard misstep by audiences. Everyone knows the story; the resounding “Where’s Michael?” response to the third entry gunned down Carpenter’s desires to turn Halloween into an anthology series. So, after going into hiding for 5 years, Halloween 4 continued the story of Michael in 1988.

Advertisement

And then it just kept going.

As the years went on, it became progressively harder and harder to innovate, resulting in some very odd plotlines and tones. Which is why Halloween H20 is where the franchise peaked. Because it had a rare essence to it. It had guts.

It was willing to actually kill the series once and for all, even if it was impossible to do so.

EVIL DOESN’T DIE TONIGHT, THE CONTRACT SAYS SO

Before David Gordon Green’s reboot trilogy brought Laurie back as a Sarah Connor style badass, H20’s pre-production had reinvented Strode to usher in the 20th anniversary of the first film. She went from a resilient young woman into a traumatized survivor running from her past.

The original concept for Halloween H20 involved a substance abusing Laurie Strode trying to get clean so she could die with dignity against an escaped Michael. In a turn of events, she would find the will to live and kill him once and for all. It was a concept Jamie Lee Curtis was passionate about, understandably so. Laurie wasn’t the first final girl, but she was the codifier for that ideal, in a way Jess Bradford and Sally Hardesty before her weren’t. It would have made for a harrowing exploration of what was debatably the most important final girl ever.

Advertisement

That isn’t what happened.

There is an infamous video from a Q&A panel with Jamie Lee Curtis where she explains that the blame for Michael surviving H20 lies primarily with one man: the late great Moustapha Akkad. Akkad was famous for his business acumen, but that desire to see the Halloween franchise make bankroll had ultimately stolen away Laurie’s triumphant victory over Michael.

You see, Akkad had written a clause into the contracts surrounding the film. A clause that she could not, in no uncertain terms, kill Michael Myers. Michael would live, no matter what Laurie did. But thanks to the meddling mind of Scream creator Kevin Williamson, who had been brought on to work on the screenplay for H20, Laurie did get her vengeance in a way.

LAURIE STRODES RETURN DONE RIGHT

The actual H20 follows Laurie Strode in hiding years after Halloween 2, ignoring the events of the sequels. She’s the headmistress of a boarding school, living under a fake name far from Haddonfield with her son. But still, she can’t let go of that Halloween night. She sees Michael’s face, The Shape, everywhere. She can barely stomach talking about what happened. But when Michael kills Dr. Loomis, nurse Marion Chambers, and then finds her, Laurie is forced to face her greatest fear once and for all.

And she does. After a prolonged chase and fight on the grounds of the school, she refuses to let a wounded Michael be taken into custody. Stealing a cop’s gun and an ambulance, Laurie runs Michael off a cliff and pins him against a tree with the vehicle. She shares a brief moment with him, inscrutable eyes reflecting Michael’s. They could be expressing a number of possible emotions. Is it empathy? Hatred? Pity? Fear leaving her for the final time?

Advertisement

Regardless of what it is, she’s done feeling it. With a hefty swing, she decapitates him with a fire axe, ending Michael for the last time. It’s over.

Roll credits. Audience cheers. The world is healing.

AND THEN HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION HAPPENS

Yes, and then Halloween: Resurrection happens. Laurie is killed in the first few minutes, revealing that Michael pulled the old bamboozle switcheroonie in the previous film. She had actually just killed an ambulance driver that Michael had put the mask on. Williamson’s trick of making both Laurie and the audience believe they had killed Michael worked. But that same trick curled a finger on the monkey’s paw and led to what is definitively the worst film in the franchise.

A proto-internet streamer subplot. The kid from Smart House is there for some reason. Busta Rhymes hits Michael Myers with the Charlie Murphy front kick from that one Dave Chappelle sketch about Rick James.

Roll credits. The audience boos. Everyone who spent money on it feels like they’re being stamped to death by horses.

Advertisement

HALLOWEEN AS A FRANCHISE IS TERRIFIED OF ENDINGS

And this is why I say that Halloween H20 is probably the best we’re going to get out of the series, maybe ever. It is a series that, at its core, has had producers terrified of endings since even Halloween 2. Carpenter never intended there to be a sequel, or any follow ups for that matter. That was mostly the work of producer Irwin Yablans, who pushed hard to continue the story of Michael. And then, eventually, it was the work of every other producer who demanded they milk Halloween for all its worth.

H20 is a film that is antithetical to that idea. When watched as intended, ignoring Resurrection, it’s fantastic. As the end of Laurie and Michael’s story, one that shows evil is weak without fear to bolster it, it is pretty much the perfect finale. Hot off the heels of Scream’s success in 1996, H20 is often talked about as an attempt to cash in on the meta-horror craze of the 90s and early 2000s. The way people discuss it, you would think it was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek slasher that made fun of itself and Halloween’s legacy. But in reality, aside from its humor, it ends up being quite reflective and thoughtful of that legacy.

It’s not spiteful of the films that came before it because it ends by tricking the audience. It’s what that trick represents, boldly spitting in the eye of Halloween being held prisoner for money. Mocking Halloween being stuck in an eternal cycle of rinsing and repeating the same events. It doesn’t care about franchising or longevity; it cares about telling a good story and letting its hero rest. It’s respectful to Carpenter’s creation in a way that other attempts to continue the series simply weren’t.

H20 TELLS AN ENDING, HALLOWEEN ENDS TRIES TO SELL YOU ONE

It begs the question: why does H20 work here in how it ends the series, but Halloween Ends doesn’t?

All of Ends biggest issues stem from the fact that, unlike H20, it’s trying to sell you an ending instead of making one that feels right. The maudlin closer it gives doesn’t feel real. It doesn’t feel true to the Laurie it shows us, or any other iteration of the character for that matter. It doesn’t feel genuinely emotional in any regard.

Advertisement

And that’s because Ends as a whole doesn’t have the spirit that H20 does. Ends is, first and foremost, a highlight reel reminding you of how cool Halloween is instead of understanding why any of its previous entries were effective. From its marketing to its incredibly clunky climax, it feels like it’s an advertisement for never letting go of Halloween, even when it should have been done a while ago. And that’s just the wrong lesson to leave on.

JANET LEIGH’S CAMEO IN H20 SPEAKS VOLUMES

Halloween H20 has a pretty famous cameo from Janet Leigh in it, an OG scream queen and the real-life mother of Jamie Lee Curtis. In it, they have a heart-to-heart as fictional characters Laurie Strode and Norma Watson. It’s made more impactful when you realize it was Leigh’s penultimate film performance, and her final performance in a horror film.

The moment serves as a cute in-joke on their real-life relationship, but more than that, it foreshadows the film’s ending. Norma urges Laurie to move past her fear, to relish her future as a survivor instead of being caught up in the past and reliving the same night over and over again.

I find this scene even more poignant now, seeing how neatly it reflects on what has happened to Halloween as a franchise in the years since the original, and especially since H20. It’s a series that got stuck in trying to continue the same story and just got progressively worse at it. In some way, it feels like it’s urging us to make a choice. No matter how deep a legacy of fear may be, it must come to an end at some point. There is no need to cling to the same stories over and over. We can enjoy them for what they are without returning to them.

No matter what the future of the Halloween franchise is, only a viewer themselves can choose where the story ends. It doesn’t matter how many times the studio brings him back, you have to make the choice. Only you decide when it ends. And for my money, H20 is the best ending you can ask for.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement