What works in horror is always in flux. The genre’s interests are generationally specific. It’s a now genre. What works with Five Nights at Freddy’s, as a broad concept, is that it’s an open invite to the audience. The series is steeped in lore, developed through fan theories that have spread across the internet like wildfire. It’s helpful that the context of use is completely different — access for the audience has been primarily established through watching YouTube. So, it’s a videogame series, that’s the initial product, but it’s been watched by its fandom more than it has been played. That’s part and parcel with the design, which is that the games are narrowly interactive, but interesting things happen within a confined space. The audience, then, has established their interest in the series by watching, so more naturally than with some videogame franchises, Five Nights at Freddy’s lends itself to movies. The context, also, is not so much about what happens in the games, but the discourse that surrounds them.
The first movie missed the mark. What the production understood was that there was an audience and a demand for this. It fulfilled that by creating a soft horror product that offered a minimal diversion. By creating a direct expository product, the first effort misunderstood the context of use. That these are mostly static videogames wherein the value is not player engagement nor just what we bring to the game but is more directly about shared experience. Five Nights at Freddy’s is tied to internet culture and the memetic phenomena for how stories are shared and experienced.
These are videogames built around jump scares, sure, but more importantly, the horror is more like traditional internet copypasta — it’s about what fans theorize about the world of Five Nights at Freddy’s. The light iteration across the series, which now consists of 11 main franchise entries, has allowed the game’s creator, Scott Cawthon, to develop around fan engagement specifically. That the designed lore (what’s produced and sold, not just what’s online), has expanded into spin-off games, dozens of books, graphic novels, etc., etc., highlights the new way these stories are told, and moreover, that these stories belong to everyone.
Expanding the tepid first film into something more substantial sounds like a hard task. There’s not a lot going on in that first movie. Not much of it resonated outside the screen. It attracted an audience. But it did not further the series key context, of inspiring communal storytelling. What it got right is understanding how curiously creepy animatronics are and why these characters have found an audience. It felt like a platform for selling more merchandising and to that end, it was a sucess.
The second movie triples down on the good ideas: expressing the animatronics through actual modeling and practical effects. This remains a good idea. Unlike computerized imaging, practical effects do not age out. They are, in fact, increasingly effective over time. The animatronics for the movie have been designed by Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, lending legitimacy to the designs. They look great and have more variety now. The designers are at play with their creations, and they are more effectively used this time to build into the horror. Whether or not the animatronics go would seem to be the line that makes or breaks a Five Nights at Freddy’s movie. If that’s enough, then the movie is enough, and a measured improvement in the most essential category.
More seasoned horror veterans, too, may enjoy their time in this hyper-viral world. There is so much shared storytelling about Five Nights at Freddy’s and if the first movie was a simple template and statement of intent, then the follow-up is a multi-directional expansion on the core tenets of what the kids seem to love so much about the series. It has more direct horror credentials. The jump scares are legitimate and do not feel cheaply earned. The camera does not cut away at the sight of conflict as with the first movie. Now, the horror has been extrapolated from its fuller potential.
The horror has moved towards its characters, which means the movie is also closer to its themes and motifs. It is no longer just a recognizable location drawn from a digital world. There is less sense of place, perhaps, as the movie moves back and forth, and has a few split narratives now. This means that fundamentally, it’s a less consistent movie, but one which earns more of its fear. The characters want things now, seem to have interior lives beyond just the premise, and while there’s nothing deep or heady to chew on, it’s divertingly entertaining stuff.
Five Nights at Freddy’s is here to stay. How an audience will feel about that will vary. Our theater seemed to be delighted. What began as horror for children now seems to have mild credentials as practical effects showcase that, while not inspiring much more in the way of likely lore and online virality, there’s enough movie here now, where one could reasonably expect that future expansions upon these ideas have plenty to build upon and work with now. It’s rare enough with a franchise drawn from games, which seems to exist on the premise of mild iteration, that the movie would have enough curiosity to extend its thoughts and to dig into the narrative possibilities, but the good news is that the franchise has arrived. And this time, anyone may even come away with an inkling about why this series has become so uber popular.