In this blog I will give a few examples where films have done this and explain my point of view of each one . Enjoy :)
I was so angry after I watched this movie and it effected my relationship with the franchise moving forward for a few years . I didn't see what they were really doing ....
The flip side of this is that all these years later I get why they had to take Nancy out of the story and why killing her was the only way for her to truly be eliminated from the series .
They killed Nancy off because her story line had run it's course and it was time to move on to other characters because to be honest how many movies are we going to watch where Nancy outsmarts Freddy before it get's boring, I'm just saying they had to do something to give Ol' Freddy someone new to terrorize, right ??
Why it works in this case is because they needed fresh blood for Freddy to chase .
I almost walked out of the theater after he was killed and turned my back on horror I was so filled with rage and anger .
This death wasn't done because his time was up in the series but more so to do exactly what it did, that being SHOCK the audience ! Much of horror community to this day is still pissed that they killed Randy in Scream 2 .
I was happy that he was in Scream 3 on tape anyway . I wanted them to bring Heather Matarazzo as Martha Meeks (Randy's sister) in Scream 4 as the killer to get revenge on Sid for her brother's death (just my personal story line idea . I give the Weinstein Company permission to steal my idea for Scream 5, Just sayin' .
Why it works in this case is because the fans didn't expect it and when it happened we didn't want to believe it until they showed his bloody body in the van after his murder .
In this film they did the unthinkable and killed off Laurie Strode which is comparable to taking the lords name in vein . Why I say that is because if you think back to the fucked up Halloween logic through out the series Michael had to kill his entire family because of the curse of Thorn, so in killing Laurie in the opening of Resurrection the curse would be lifted and Michael would be free, so they kind of shot themselves in the foot there .
I understand that Jamie Lee Curtis wanted out of the movie as quickly as possible but still go back to not having her in it at all rather then kill her . I thought the idea of Resurrection was a good one for the most part but if it follows H20 then the story really should have been about Michael trying to kill his nephew John after he killed Laurie .
As big a Halloween fan I am I have to say this death while it made me mad more so it had me scratching my head and really didn't shock me at all because of how badly the series had been screwed up since Halloween III Season Of The Witch and how they never fully recovered from that point .
On a side note if you watch Halloween, Halloween II and H20 it's a perfect trilogy just like if you watch Halloween 4, 5 & 6 it's a perfect trilogy . Toss away Season of the Witch and Resurrection because they don't fit into the series at all unless you thing killing Laurie was the perfect ending to the story line ?? Sorry but I strongly disagree ....
Why it works in this case is because they needed to end the story of Michael VS Laurie some how and they couldn't have Laurie kill Michael for good so the alternative is to kill Laurie and that's the road they went down .
STAY HUMBLE, STAY HUNGRY MY FRIENDS :)