You're not really evil until you've killed more than once?

I don't understand why so many stories end up with a serial killer. To me, killing one person is bad enough. But there seems to be this need in storytelling (esp. movies) to make an evil person MORE evil by making them not just a killer, but a SERIAL killer.

Does this really increase the tension?

I can buy if someone who has killed once (maybe by 'accident' or in a rage/passion) and then, when fear of discovery slam into them like a speeding SUV, they'll kill again to keep the first muder buried. That makes sense to me. But statistically, serial killers, who kill many people fairly indiscriminately is very small. The number of movies and stories is very large.

Are we that desensitized that one murder is not riveting or horrid enough?

Or do publishers/ producers just THINK we are that desensitized?


Or am I just thinking too much. (As Hubby says, "It's just a movie." I think it translates to "Just shut up and watch the movie." =)

Views: 15

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have to totally agree with Theater of Blood and the first Phibes!
What a funny old romp that was for Price and Riggs! (Theater of Blood)
I'd have substituted the critics for some choice directors--but never mind!
it was brilliant!
Fabulously, enjoyable films both of them.
I see your point about the serial killers. I suppose it's entirely how it's written.
What a good point Dan.
it's not the amount, it's the nature of the crime--who was killed and why.
I agree with that.
Just watched a documentary about Loeb and Leopold.
they "only" murdered one child, yet they were two of the most evil murderers I ever heard of.

excellent points you made!

RSS

CrimeSpace Google Search

© 2017   Created by Daniel Hatadi.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service