Zach Cregger Breaks Down the Year's Most Twisted, Surprising Horror Movie

Gizmodo

a day ago

Writing and directing a breakout hit can be both a blessing and a curse for some filmmakers. On the one hand, you've just achieved your dreams of success and adoration in the world of cinema. Well done. On the other hand, now you have to do it again. And again. And again. Some filmmakers fail at this. Others, especially the great ones, rise to the challenge. George Lucas followed THX 1138 with American Graffiti and Star Wars. Steven Spielberg followed Duel with Sugarland Express and Jaws. Fast forward a few decades, and Quentin Tarantino followed Reservoir Dogs with Pulp Fiction, Wes Anderson followed Bottle Rocket with Rushmore, and Paul Thomas Anderson followed Hard Eight with Boogie Nights, just to name a few. It's not an exact science, but usually the real measure of a filmmaker is not that first movie; it's the one (or two) that follows.
Zach Cregger made his mark with the 2022 film Barbarian. The shocking horror ride made it clear he was a force to be reckoned with, and when his next film was ready to go, several major studios wanted it. That movie, called Weapons, shows what happens to a town when a group of children mysteriously vanish. It releases next week, and as we've already written about on this site, it's fantastic. A level up on par with those aforementioned filmmakers, to be sure.
Recently, io9 spoke with Cregger about the pressure to follow up Barbarian. We talked about putting together this much more complex, layered movie and his writing and directing process, as well as a tease of what to expect from his third movie, a new take on Resident Evil. Read all about it below.
Germain Lussier, io9. After Barbarian, I know you said you wanted to go bigger, but did you feel pressure to deliver something equally horrific and surprising again? And were you worried that by doing that the audience might kind of become to expect the same type of thing from you?
Zach Cregger: Um, no. I don't really think that way. I just kind of wanted to write a story that was on the story's terms. If I'm thinking result-oriented or what are people gonna think, then I'm doomed. That's not the right way to be creative. The right way to be creative is to just do it for fun and just do it because you love to do it. To write it because you love to write. So I was able to kind of seal out that sort of result-based thinking.
io9: I read in the press notes that you kind of just sat down after the death of your friend and just wrote this movie. But it's a pretty complicated movie. So once you had the rough idea, how'd you kind of settle on this structure, when to reveal what, and all the intricacies?
Cregger: Yeah. So look, I sat down, and I kind of puked out a first draft. There are like 70 pages of just emotion on there. And the structure was the structure. So I had the structure in place, but it didn't really work. It definitely didn't connect right, and certain things were absolutely broken. And so then I got my 70 pages; it's time to actually roll up my sleeves and use my brain and fix it. So the first pass is definitely like a really subconscious kind of transcendental state. And then the second pass is like, 'Okay, time to get brainy here and make it function.' And that was like a three-week [process]. I went to my manager's house in the woods on the East Coast, and I didn't do anything for three weeks. All I did all day was just work on it. And I got it in shape.
io9: You also mentioned in the press notes that when you sat down to write the script, you had the idea of the missing kids but didn't know the why of it yet.
Cregger: Right.
io9: That's obviously the whole point of the movie, and we're not going to spoil it, but I'm curious, what was the process of figuring it out? Did you get to the point in the script and you're like, 'Now I need to have this answer?' Did you make a list? Was the process of settling on what you were going to do?
Cregger: No, I hadn't gotten to that moment of truth yet. I hadn't hit that point of no return. So I was kind of just like hoping it was going to come to me, and it did. Like, about 50 pages in, I got the answer, and it was a really joyful moment. I was like, 'This will work. Like this is a satisfying reason.' And, and then I was able to kind of like bend the story toward that. So yeah, it worked.
io9: By the end of the movie, it's very clear why it's called Weapons, but I'm wondering, were there ever any other titles, and when did you come up with Weapons as the title?
Cregger: I don't remember when. I might've come up with Weapons when I started writing. It's very possible. I think it was like always there, but I'm not sure. I should go on my computer and see if there are earlier documents that have a different title. I doubt it, though. You know, it just felt right. It was just one of those things. I really try not to think about anything when I'm writing. I don't want to intellectualize anything. So it's just kind of like, 'Bleh, that's it.'
io9: Similar to Barbarian, there are a lot of surprises in this movie. How involved are you with the marketing to say, 'We can show this, we can't show that?' Because as a young filmmaker, usually you wouldn't have a lot of say in that, but this seems like it's got your fingerprints on it a little bit.
Cregger: Yeah, [Warner Bros.] was definitely very collaborative, and they were interested in keeping the mystery intact. And so there was never any roll up your sleeves and duke it out things. There were a couple of moments where they showed me cuts. I was like, 'Can we lose that shot and that shot?' And they're like, 'No problem.' So they're wonderful. And I think they did an amazing job.
io9: Next up you're making Resident Evil. And after doing two movies that you conceived of yourself, was there any trepidation about doing not just a movie that's a major IP, but one that has so many other movies and games and stories that fans are used to?
Cregger: Yeah. I mean, you, you have to respect the IP, and you have to take it seriously. I'm a natural, huge fan of the games. I've played them all. I love them deeply. So I feel like I know how to tell a story in that world. It's an original story. I'm not telling a story that's been told in the games, but it's a story that lives in the world of the games and obeys the rules. And so, look, as long as you're telling a really good story, then I think you're going to be okay. I'm not breaking the rules. I don't think people are going to come crucify me for this.
io9: Since it's in the trailer, I feel safe asking about this, but the eyes. Those unblinking eyes. Those bloodshot eyes. How did you go about doing that practically? Or was it…
Cregger: It was VFX. We researched Graves' disease. And so we had a lot of reference material from that. And then, you know, it was an iterative process in post of like, how big is too big? And you want that thing where it looks wrong, but it's not immediately obvious. And so yeah, we dialed it in slowly. It's pretty wild.
io9: This is a horror movie for sure, but it's got detective stuff, family drama, and mystery too. How did this mishmash of genres come to be, or was that sort of a result of you just kind of like throwing this whole story out there?
Cregger: It was that. This is just kind of what came [out], you know? I knew I had all these different characters that were all going to kind of dive headlong into this mystery, but all from different places. So you got a cop; you're going to get a cop way in. You've got a drug addict, you're going to get this like seedy way in, and you've got the teacher, and she's going to get preyed upon. So I was able to kind of do like five different horror movies, or seven, as it were, in one. It was really fun.
io9: We're at a place now where this movie is coming out, and I think it's going to be a real big hit, but it's been a great summer for horror overall. Horror has really seen a resurgence in the last couple of years. Do you feel like you're carrying the torch at all, now having two movies as part of that? Do you feel like an ambassador in any way?
Cregger: I don't know. I don't think that way, of like, my place in the broader framework of horror. I'm more than happy that there seem to be people excited to see the movie, and that's enough for me.
io9: The movie allows us to see scenes from multiple points of view. How'd you go about that? Did you shoot them all at the same time?
Cregger: You got to shoot it all together because of the limitations of time and money, and it's such a big machine making a movie. So it's like when you're at the gas station, you're going to shoot all the gas station stuff. I'm not coming back to the gas station for that person's chapter. We're going to do it all together. And it's confusing, but if you're really organized and you've shot it out, like you storyboarded it and you have a plan, it's not so bad.
io9: And my last thing here is when the movie was first announced, Pedro Pascal was playing the Josh Brolin role. Ultimately he had to leave, and now it's Josh Brolin. How would the movie have been different with Pedro than with Josh, and why was Josh ultimately the right person for it?
Cregger: I have no idea because I didn't make the movie with Pedro. I can't really answer that. I can just only say that I adore Josh's performance in this movie, and I'm so glad he's in it. He's amazing.
Weapons is amazing too. Check it out on August 8, and come back next week for more from Cregger about a few spoilers in the film.
Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what's next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.