Gonna be the Debbie downer here, thought this was a great part two of Scarecrow but did not find it terribly innovative as a house overall.
I’m shocked that this is the “rave review” house, as it really is more of the same that is done as a staple every year: the “twisted tradition”, “trick-r-treat”, etc. The design is great, but I feel like it’s not got a lot new to offer.
To be fair, you kinda' gave a good reason why it's the "rave review" house. If any house is considered a "great part two of Scarecrow", it would be more shocking if it *wasn't* getting rave reviews as Scarecrow is highly regarded as one of the GOAT's.
Also, a house doesn't need to bring in something new to land rave reviews. It usually just has to execute what it has and people will take notice. WG also has the advantage of incorporating themes and characters of traditional Halloween which guests eat up every year, it's a major crowd pleaser of a theme which is still going strong. Case in point, last weekend I was still overhearing guests who missed the Jack O Lantern's in Central Park. They still clamor for stuff like that.
An to bring things full circle, Scarecrow: The Reaping didn't really bring anything new to the table either. Scarecrows are a classic Halloween Horror staple. Mirror tricks to make a scene look bigger like the finale were done before, same with a ton of close up scares, dummy scares and water sprays and drips. Heck, to call myself out I made a stupid judgement over a POV that the whole thing felt "one-note". (Definitely learned my lesson there as I was dead wrong!) Ultimately, the house is hailed as a GOAT, while staying in familiar territory.
Don't get me wrong, I do encourage new things to be thrown in the mix, but it's totally possible to have a killer and well-received house without them.
Thanks for the confirmation!
