Submitted by Florian_isdum t3_yigd96 in movies

I watched terrifier 2 last night and I thought at first it was going to go in the direction of art being the two kids dad. It made sense because in the beginning of the film the back of his head was missing, throughout the movie they describe their dead dad and everything adds up?

Brain tumor, missing piece of brain in the beginning

He saw things before he died, art sees a little girl that isn’t there (that I think only the two kids can see too)

He became abusive, self explanatory

He use to draw, his name is ART?

Everything pointed in the direction of art being their dad and they threw it out the window almost? I feel like it would’ve made for a more satisfying ending than what they gave us. What do you all think?

6

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Huevos___Rancheros t1_iuipym0 wrote

I think you put more thought into the plot than Damien Leone did

37

Dove_of_Doom t1_iuikm1f wrote

The filmmaker says he has plans to further explore Art and Sienna's backstories, so maybe in the next one. FYI: Art was missing a chunk of brain because at the end of the first movie he shot himself in the head to avoid capture by the police.

15

Florian_isdum OP t1_iuil5x3 wrote

Ohhh ok that’s makes sense I watched the first one years ago so thank you. I hope they give more backstory for more films

5

ryancementhead t1_iuiu2aw wrote

The plot is to scare and terrify the audience, the story is second hand.

8

Florian_isdum OP t1_iujwyp8 wrote

I’d agree with you on that if we were talking about the first one, but they have so much information and backstory in this movie that at the end it just seemed like they forgot about it and the ending sucked ass you gotta admit.

4