Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

The title doesn't do this discussion justice, so don't put too much stock in it.

I was reading a review of Peter's (OG-, to most of you) on his fine site, Horror's Not Dead, wherein he mentioned that "of any fantasy terror, aliens have it easiest when it comes to making my skin crawl." I replied that my friend had the same tendency, and that it was something I couldn't at all relate to, which sparked a short back-and-forth about why we do (or don't) find the idea of aliens especially frightening compared to something like, say, ghosts. Peter mentioned that it was certain alien features that particularly freaked him out, but it got me thinking about why I don't find them as scary in general as other typical horror film subjects.

After clarifying my own thoughts a bit, I concluded that I didn't find aliens particularly scary because they're usually portrayed as intelligent, and usually posess some degree of reason. Ghosts and other supernatural beings, however, are usually obsessive and single-minded. For whatever reason, I find this a great deal more frightening.

Great example of why the irrationality is so scary to me: I never saw The Grudge (American version), but I had someone describe a scene to me where a man (allegedly) asks to be let into an apartment building, so the woman buzzes him in, and the doorbell to her apartment rings a split-second later.

Now, to me, even hearing about that is terrifying. It's so creepy to think that this being/ghost/whatever is smart enough to try to fool the woman, but not smart enough to realize what is and is not believable (IE: someone being upstairs a mere second after being let in the door). It has all this power, but only a rudimentary understanding of things. It's like a kid playing with his dad's gun, except the kid hates you, is invincible, and never sleeps or eats. It just. Keeps. Coming.

This ties into another distinction between the two: with aliens, we still know the ground rules. You can probably cut their head off, blow them up, whatever. And you can probably appeal to their sense of self-interest and self-preservation somehow.

Films about ghosts are different, though. Part of the fright with a ghost in any film is that, for the characters, they don't know all the rules: they don't know how to kill a ghost, and they don't know how to make it go away. They have to play a game they've had no preparation for. In some instances, they can't kill it; they can only appease it somehow, which is scarier still.

I have more thoughts, but this post is getting too long as it is. So, the question is: which is generally scarier to you in cinema, and why: intelligent threats like aliens, or the unknown, like ghosts?

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Hmmm. To the extent that I think you can rationally explain fear (isn't fear commonly thought to have some element of irrationality behind it, quite appart from the rationality or irrationality of the object or force that it attaches to?) the overall situation is more important than the particular monster. I think I agree with what your saying, that the less you know (or the more aware of your not knowing) about the monster, the scarier it is. It's also important that you make a distinction between rationality and logic (which you may or may not already agree with, I can't tell from your post), because a lot of scary movies (think The Cube) are based around situations that have clear logical rules but obey a rationale that isn't (or can't be) understood by the victims/audience.

Have you read Alice/Through the Looking Glass? Those books are completely obsessed with logic but scared me quite a bit when I was a kid.

That said, as an adult the only movie that scares me is the Blaire Witch. Can't give you an ironclad axiom that would explain why though.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

For me, it's the little things that are creepiest. Like in Poltergeist, when the mom turns around and the chairs are stacked, for me that was the scariest part of the movie. Monsters, chainsaws, hockey masks, aliens and mutants aren't scary to me. I like "survival horror" movies for the thrill, imagining what I'd do in a situation like that, how to overcome the odds and get the drop on some psycho, etc. But yeah, the doorbell scene in The Grudge freaked me out, too. The very beginning of the sequel gave me some chills in the theater also.

I watched the Three Men and a Baby "ghost" scene on Youtube the other day. I remember hearing about it in high school. I thought it was an urban myth and never really checked into it. And you know what? Even when you know it's fake, it's still scary as hell to me. I got goosebumps when they walked past the window, even though I knew it was a cardboard standup!

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I disagree. Can you - and this is not accusatory, merely a challenge - name a movie, whose intention is to scare or thrill, where someone appealed, successfully, to an alien? I can't. However, I can name multiple stories in which a ghost was sympathetic to people other than their intended victim. For example, Stir of Echoes, Ghost, The Eye, The Sixth Sense.

My own personal phobias aside, aliens have the potential to be the scariest things on film because of this principle alone. An alien can look as scary as any demon, ghost or monster; but an alien has only one, entirely self-motivated goal: probe/mutilate or, if you're lucky, impregnate. A person can physically prevent an alien via bodily harm, but if you get in the way, you're just as likely to get something shoved inside you. Not to mention, they are reactionary, whereas ghosts wait eternally for some poor sap's soul to wander into their web.

Oddly enough, ghost stories these days are taking on more alien logic; The Grudge being a perfect example. The ghost in question still waits in its web, but anyone who crosses the threshold falls victim to it.

Aliens are both obsessed and intelligent. You just can't beat that. Not that they are always scary on film, but they have the inherent potential to be the scarier of the two.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

One of the scariest films I've ever seen was The Exorcism of Emily Rose. The supernatural scares me much more than creatures to whom the laws of physics apply...

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I agree and disagree with that statement...yes, most of the time aliens in movies are portrayed as intelligent beings w/ reason...however, most of the time aliens, in horror movies, they are portrayed as intelligent...dangerous violent killers with little reason

I also agree and disagree with this statement...yes, ghosts are usually obsessive and single-minded, but I think this is why they are are less frightening...so a ghost has an issue with a house, move or just get out...most of the time they do things for a reason, try doing some research to find out what they want, by visiting your town's hall of records, or library :) (like most of our heros or heroins do)...they rarely have a specific grudge with a specific person, which makes avoidance easier...

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I don't find the recent crops of US-remake of Asian ghost movies scary because there are NO rules. For some reason, it frustrates me that since there are no rules, they can do whatever they want at whatever moment. Loud noises, big puddles of water, slow motion, creepy children appearing and then disappearing. It creates an eerie mood but since it goes on for the full hour and a half, it becomes frustrating.

I heard "The Grudge 2" had no rules of people going into the house. They just started grudging anyone anywhere they felt like it.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I thought about this a lot and decided that I would relate it to "real" life. If I were confronted by a ghost or an alien (lets say both were violent and cruel and evil to make it even) I would be more horrified by a ghost. Why? Because, to me, aliens are a more realistic possibility. Ghosts are more "unexplainable" to me. With the universe as vast as it is I tend to lend more credence to an alien existing than a ghost. After saying that though I do believe that both probably do exist, just ask Yoda:

http://content.answers.com/main/cont...px-Spirits.jpg

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I think by reason Yoda meant logic and the forethought of planning, not necessarily a back story or motivation.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I can't sit on either one or the other-

Aliens like in Independence Day aren't particularly frightening when they posses the sheer technological power to destroy us, it becomes more machine as the enemy opposed the alien.

Ghosts are restrticted to the form of humans whereas aliens take any form- far more frightening, because the ghost is in the form human i find them more relatable than something 'alien'. However that can be more frightening example: Twin Peaks and Bob- some of it made me fill my pants, which leads to...

...the fact that ghosts are in our world as opposed to outer space gives them that closer to home fear, most ghost films provide the fear of the familiar and perversion of places we find secure whereas how many people have been on a space ship? Trying to think of aliens at home- example: Evil Aliens and Bad Taste, a lot of the voilence is for humour, not that frightening.

Alien from Alien, a genetic and pure killer is pretty terrifying but it's not got the same conscious motivation that drives a ghost to kill you. Signs is the second scary alien that springs to mind, though they almost fall to the conventions of ghosts, lurking, the odd bumps etc.

I think psychologically ghosts are an easier form to frighten more active viewers but aliens, visually and their physical form, enabling them to voilate the body, make them fearful in a more passive viewer.

When i started this post i was unsure, but i think now i'd go with ghosts.


Re OG: Alien Vs Predator, bad as it is, think there was a successful appeal to the Predator in it :)

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I think I need to go put a bullet in my mouth. You're right and its for the absolute worst reason. I hate you.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Happy to help.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

For me, I guess none of that stuff really scares me that much, but, then again, my definition of fear has been altered recently, as life can get pretty damn scary. Alas, I think The Descent was really scary to me because of the isolation and claustrophobia, coupled with knowing something was out there, but not knowing what it was. So, the unknown, along with being trapped in that cave.... that would scare the hell out of me, and I would just huddle and shake and cry and stuff.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I'd say their both pretty scary. Maybe the most ultimate scary frightening horrific terrifying thing could be someone that's able to give a reason to their obsession. I guess that's why I think horror movies with a mortal serial killer are the most... blood chilling. Someone who thinks their doing something right, like the monster in Frankenstein, he thinks he's just being a normal person but he's throwing little girls into cold lakes that probably have eels in them. Slimy eels. Like semi buoyant water born hot dogs that have circular teeth to help hold on while they suck your blood. But, something without any reason at all is pretty scary too. I guess it's one of those things that sit on the complete polar opposites of a topic and manage to mean the same thing. Is there a term for that? If not, I'm naming it. "The Shiz Complex" So, in summary, something that able to justify, in their head, their craziness, or something that doesn't even give a second thought to their actions.

I name the recent shooter at the Virginia Tech as the one that's able to convince their self that their crazy isn't all that crazy and I name Earley (B. Pitt), from Kalifornia, as the one that doesn't even think about what they do.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Agreed with "The Descent" -- that whole premise was creepy!

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Would anyone else jack an alien for their space rocks?

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Which one? The new or old?

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Like I said, the original version. The TV ads for the remake showing all of the computerized graphics put me off from seeing that. However, I did show the original The Haunting to my oldest grandson who is a horror film buff, and my daughter sez she later heard him telling his buddies it was a lot scarier than the remake.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

For shizzle. I've never seen the original because I like to eat fast food and listen to books on tape. Maybe I'll give it a shot.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 367901)

I concluded that I didn't find aliens particularly scary because they're usually portrayed as intelligent, and usually posess some degree of reason. Ghosts and other supernatural beings, however, are usually obsessive and single-minded. For whatever reason, I find this a great deal more frightening.

I think probably the best alien film I ever saw—possibly the best ever made—was The Thing from Another World (1951), otherwise popularly known as The Thing. It had a B-grade cast--Kenneth Tobey as a USAF pilot and ranking military officer at a remote weather station in the frozen north inhabited by military and scientists. Dewey Martin is a NCO crew chief, Douglas Spencer is reporter, Margaret Sheridan provides the love interest to leading man Tobey, and a young beginning actor James Arness as The Thing. What really sets this low-budget film apart is that it’s the only sci-fi film reportedly directed by Howard Hawks. Hawks takes only a production credit for the movie, but as one critic said, “His filmmaking style transcends Christian Nyby's nominal direction: rapid-fire, overlapping dialogue, an ensemble of comrades whose professionalism is tempered by wisecracks, and unsentimental female characters (embodied by feisty romantic interest Margaret Sheridan) recall Hawks's signature works.”

As is the case in all the best horror movies, you never get a good look at the monster, other than to see he’s a really big humanoid type. His human adversaries are far from perfect. After finding a flying saucer embedded in arctic ice (the scene of airmen and scientists forming a big circle around the edge of the vessel they can barely seen under a large sheet of refrozen ice is priceless!), they accidentally destroy the spacecraft while trying to melt the ice with thermal explosives. But they do manage to chop out and take back a block of ice containing one of the aliens who was thrown clear in the crash. In a later encounter, one of the humans falls backwards over a cot and breaks his arm! Meanwhile, the alien seems to survive anything, even an attack by sled dogs that tears off one arm (he then simply grows a replacement).

The film is great at building suspense, as in one scene with Martin uses a geiger counter to follow the Thing’s radioactive trail to a large storage box. As others prepare their weapons, Martin throws open the front panel of the box—and a dead husky falls out!

I was just a kid when I first saw that movie at a Saturday afternoon matinee in a theater chocked full of us rugrats with our boxes of popcorn. And when that dog tumbled out, every kid jumped about a foot out of his seat! Man, popcorn rained down in that theater like an arctic blizzard!!

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

For maximum effect, watch it at night. Alone. With all the lights out.

It's so moody and suspenseful that I can only watch it during the day or at least with the lights on and someone at least moving around the house in a normal fashion.

It may seem to start slow, but be patient because it reveals the events behind the house's evil reputation and establishes the characters of the people who are to meet there.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I'll have to say obsession over the unknown easily. That said, it depends on the person really, don't it? If you're who's unsettled by atomosphere and creepy fables as opposed to visceral and horrific images, then you're on the more who lean towards the whole 'unknown' concept; you know, the things we can't quite fathom or relate to.

If anything, this type of fear is a reflection on societies ideologies. Whenever ethnic minorities enter a particular country, then these minorities are usual subject to abuse and caution due to the fact that they aren't familiar within the norms of that particular society.

Since I was born and raised in London, I don't deal with that fear factor. However, I do find myself disturbed by the more 'slasher' types of horror symbols. I'm not talking about the Michael Myers or Jason Voorhes, but the Wolf Creek's Micks and Psycho's Norman Bates of the films.

Characters that may present themselves a certain way so that you open up a bit, but then turn out to be the complete opposite and most horrific type of person imaginable. That's what scares me. In fact, those characters scare me so much that I am cautious about accepting tea or any type of beaverage from a stranger's house.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

What it comes down to is that I prefer suspense over some Gotcha! that jumps at you out of the dark. One of the scariest scenes I ever witnessed was in--of all things!-- Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), starring the burlesque duo along with Glenn Strange (later Miss Kitty’s bartender on the Gunsmoke TV series) as The Monster, Bela Lugosi as Dracula, and Lon Chaney Jr. reprising his Wolfman role as Larry Talbot. The scene occurs early in the film when Talbot rents an apartment from Abbott & Costello and, knowing the full moon is on the rise, makes them promise to lock him in and not open the door until morning. The comics leave, locking the door behind them, and Talbot instantly begins his transformation as the moon lights the night sky. But by that time, Abbott notices they forgot to give Talbot any clean towels and sends a reluctant Costello to make the delivery. Werewolf Talbot hears Costello’s key in the lock and ducks behind cover so as to surprise his prey upon entry. What follows is a cat-and-mouse stalking as Costello searches room by room for Talbot who is always a step behind him as the Wolfman. Now, even as a kid, I knew the Wolfman wasn’t going to kill off Costello, especially so early in the movie. But the prolonged suspense of near encounters and close misses was truly frightening. Costello escapes, of course, never knowing he was ever so close to supernatural horror, but that scene stuck in my memory and still gave me a thrill when I saw it later as an adult.

What I don’t like to see in films are pools and splatters of blood, internal organs, and severed body parts. I’ve seen that in real life, so the movie version is just disgusting.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I don't think anybody liked or were scared by the new The Haunting.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I recall being frightened one time by a movie, Hitchcock's "Psycho" when the chair is turned revealing the skeleton. I was startled and jumped. Didn't think it was a great movie; liked "the Uninvited" and "the Haunting" with Julie Harris much better but they weren;t scary.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

You didn't think Psycho was a great movie? Or, the ones you listed after that? Psycho is indeed a GREAT movie. Normally, I wouldn't state things that seem like an opinion as fact, but, in the case of Psycho, it is indeed, a fact. Technically and historically, it is a great movie.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

That's right, I didn't think 'Psycho' was great and I did like 'the uninvited' and 'the Haunting' better,

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I remembered another movie that scared me. 'the Others'.The best 'ghost' movies, for my money were #1 The 'Uninvited' and #2 'the Haunting'. Neither scared me, as did 'Psycho' and 'the Others'. Incidently, I've noticed 'the Haunting' mentioned several times, both here and elsewhere and am curious to know which one is meant.I saw the one with Julie Harris, Clare Bloom, Richard Johnson and Russ Tamblyn and put it on my all time best picture list, I saw one with Vincent Price ( also based on Shirley Jackson's story, 'the Haunting of Hill House' ) and thought it a very poor film. I'm guessing there was, at least one more (later) version.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I think that one's imagination has a lot to do with the thought process here. If you are normally skeptical about these things Aliens, Ghosts, unexplained, etc... then it may be a bit hard to have a movie about these things jar you, but if you have had an "experience", or are just more open to these things then the "scariness" factor must increase on a different level.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

The problem with The Grudge and The Ring is that there is no satisfying the ghost, evil spirit, whatever you want to call them.

I suspect this is based in the difference between the American and Japanese culture.

I prefer there to be some resolution that can come into play.

What REALLY creeps me out is when there are evil children as in The Ring and no possible resolution.

What was the start of this problem? How can it be worked out and brought to an end.

So far the answer is there is no discernible start and it can't ever be worked out or brought to an end.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

So, this was a very interesting discussion that I totally let slide. I'll kinda-sorta try to revive it now. Not that it's the kind of argument where one expects to persuade anyone. It's just about explaining our reasons, really. And since my girlfriend's out of town, these sorts of things can now fill my day.

Nothing other than the one Pyro mentioned so long ago. But then again, I'm thinking more of the abstract here: if so-and-so took place in real life, which would scare me more? And anyway, there are obviously many shows in which aliens are benign to begin with, though this doesn't meet with your "whose intention is to scare or thrill" qualifier.

So, anyway, I guess it depends on what we're talking about, specifically: actual depictions, or the idea? I'd intended to discuss the latter, if only because imagining what it might be like is a big part of what makes these ideas scary.

The potential single-mindedness of aliens is actually something that I find (relatively) comforting compared to ghosts. A ghost may want nothing more than to torment you. The aliens you describe, horrific though they may be, have a specific purpose which is likely to harm you in an incidental manner. It is then a matter of either not intruding on that purpose, or defending yourself. With a ghost, it can all be arbitrary, and it's entirely possible you have no means of defense.

A really good analogy is swimming. I'm a little spooked by the ocean, sometimes for reasons I can't quite put into words. But one reason I can put into words is that we're simply out of our element there. We move slower and more awkwardly, can't see what's going on beneath us, etc. We're on other creatures' turf, and everything is harder and slower as a result.

That's how I feel about ghosts: we're playing by their rules. Everything I've learned in my life about avoiding harm is completely thrown out the window.

Well, they may or may not be obsessed. But even if they are, they're still constrained by physical limitations. A ghost may have, theoretically, no meaningful limit on its power. What can an alien do to you that a psychopath can't?

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Ghosts and monsters and whatnot typically don't do a lot for me, but I think the idea of a systematic extermination of the human race by otherworldly forces that are intellectually and technologically superior to ours is the most terrifying thing I can imagine. Alien invasion type movies, even the silly ones, always trigger some sort of indescribable fear in my brain. Maybe reason is scarier to me because I feel that's one of the only advantages a human being would have over a supernatural entity or something. I don't know. The best, albeit very goofy, example I can think of is in Independence Day, when the President begs that alien "What do you want us to do?" and the alien just responds "Die". I mean, what are you supposed to say to that?

Another good, geeky example of this is the overarching plot in The X-Files. I'm not going to describe The X-Files mythos here, but that's the kind of thing that just scares the bejeezus out of me. I guess it feels more "realistic".

I don't think we, as a species, would ever be able to deal with a balls to the walls alien attack. If the aliens were at all intent on destroying us, enslaving us, eating us, etc - I think they just would, you know? Alien invasion movies always seem to have such cop-out endings like "Oh, that's right, aliens can't touch water". Whereas in "real life", those kinds of lucky breaks probably wouldn't exist. At least your typical ghost/monster flick usually plays by some set of rules where there are clear cut ways of disposing of said ghost/monster.

By any criteria, really, I'd say a "reasonable monster" is scarier than something fueled by desire or need.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Aliens are the 'unknown entity' and the unknown scares the hell out of people. I don't know whether I would consider them obsessed because we don't know too much about them because it's really all speculation, isn't it? In saying that, reason can also be scary, as in say, Hannibal Lecter. Monsters and zombies aren't considered really 'scary' because they don't exist. I find that the scariest things are what you don't know and what can play with your mind.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I find ghosts scarier than aliens. Ghosts are just people that have gone over to the other side, but that means they probably keep the irrationality and twisted logic that they might have had in life. Plus, they know you and can mess you up psychologically. Aliens, like you say, are hopefully more intelligent and can be reasoned with.
http://planetsmilies.net/alien-smiley-126.gif

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

You guys still get scared watching movies? Aliens? Ghosts? How I'd love to see either one in real life.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I know many people who will tell you straight up that there are no ghosts or aliens, so how can they scare anybody? I realize these people tend to be self-important because they are ones who say there is no God and we are alone in a cold universe but that somehow doesn't scare them because at least they, and we, are alive and able to share all these thoughts and feelings about creatures which our own minds have created. The fact that it's all over within a twinkling of an eye doesn't rattle them in the slightest because their acceptance of true reality only makes them stronger and somehow makes them want to live life to the fullest.

I will admit that I'm not referring to anyone here, but if I seem to be, come forth and tell me in what ways I may be correct and in what ways I am full of BS. Anyway, now that I seem off-topic, how about I mention that I (hesitantly) agree with rufnek that humanity is scarier than both aliens and ghosts. Many serial killers have claimed to be moved to do their exploits by either "aliens" or "ghosts" in one form or another, but the only killers we're able to recognize is this world are the human ones. My vote for the scariest movie ever made (and I recommend it to you, rufnek) is The Innocents. It was made two years prior to the original The Haunting. It'a also in B&W and has awesome use of sound, but it doesn't "pump up the volume" to scare you as The Haunting does. The Innocents is about ghosts, and the fact that the ghosts could very well be real (I actually believe they are) or that they are just the figment of a repressed, religious spinster doesn't make them any less "real". It's the human mind which gives credence and life to both aliens and ghosts. The concept of an alien or a ghost who somehow doesn't interact with humans seems anathema to the movies and perhaps humankind itself.

There is also the concept of aliens who come here to visit us and the ones we encounter out in space. They seem to fall into two separate categories, although it's not all cut-and-dried. When they come here, we tend to be on our home turf and are able to use our unique environment to defeat them. However, out in space, in their natural surroundings, we tend to have much more trouble dealing with them, and I believe that makes sense, in general.

I'm going to cut this short, but as far as scary goes, one of the most disturbing things I've ever read is the Book of Revelation, the final chapter of the New Testament of the Bible. It paints a picture of the destruction of our present world. However, it's apparently open to interpretation who is actually responsible for this destruction which ultimately creates another paradise on Earth. Are the destructors Humankind, "ghosts", "aliens", the "creators of this world" or a combination of all of them? That's one of the things which really scares people: not knowing who they're really dealing with and not understanding what it is they want. See, movies really aren't all that different than real life. I know quite a few people who seem to me as relatable as a ghost or an alien, but if you somehow are able to understand their story, it usually removes the fear. The problem arises when you get to understand someone and then you actually realize how they could destroy so much life that they need to be locked away to protect us from him/her and vice versa.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I just felt this genuine 'Blair Witch alien' belonged here

(Plus it'll feed one of OG's other obsessions, if he drops by ;))

PS I don't want to know what it's thinking...

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

yep.I agree with you!:)

Re: The Exorcist
 

I thought Signs was pretty scary. :)

Re: The Exorcist
 

At the risk of sounding like a hair-splitter, I wasn't really scared of Signs, but I found it very tense. A fine line, maybe. But the difference was stark with my friend Adam; when I saw it with him, he was absolutely terrified and bit a hole in his shirt on the drive home.

Some people are just super-freaked about the idea of aliens, specifically. I find ghosts scarier. There's an old thread around to this effect that I might revive, where I suggest that the difference is between an object of fear you can still potentially reason with (aliens) and one you can't (ghosts). The disagreement was about whether or not it was scarier to deal with an obsessive mindlessness, or a mind that understood what you wanted and went after you anyway.

Re: The Exorcist
 

I'm probably more scared by aliens than ghosts, I guess...

But I'm even more scared of the idea of zombies, partly for what you mentioned about them being unreasonable.

Re: The Exorcist
 

It may have to do with me personally seeing zombies and evil aliens as more possible than ghosts. But I still think the Ring is very scary too.

Re: The Exorcist
 

Yeah, Zombies would align with ghosts in this dichotomy.

Funny you mention The Ring, because that's easily the scariest movie I've ever seen.

Re: The Exorcist
 

When I think about it, no, I don't find the Exorcist as scary as for instance Night of the Living Dead. Exorcist is to me more like what Yoda described Signs being for him: Tense, like a battle of wills.

The Ring definitely scared the crap out of me too, and I get a lot of flack for admitting that...

I've always been fascinated with exorcism movies, but I'm not clenching my pillow or biting my nails when I watch them. I think of The Exorcist as a really long, drawn-out History Channel special.

It's definitely one of the scariest I've ever seen, of ghost/supernatural horror movies. I don't know if I'd call it the scariest, though.

But your dichotomy you mention, it's about reasonable versus unreasonable, yet you could also split (maybe hair-split it) to create a further dichotomy between supernatural and "natural" monsters, if you get my meaning.

For instance, people infected with a virus and becoming zombies, that would be a contrast to supernatural evil spirits. Both are unreasonable. Aliens would be potentially reasonable "natural" horror archetypes, so what would be a potentially reasonable supernatural contrast, I wonder?

Re: The Exorcist
 

Perhaps, the Exorcist?

I will admit I got a little freaked out when I saw it as a kid during the scene where they showed the footage on the TV.

That sounds about right to me. There is nothing scarier to me than ghosts or demons. (Neither of which I actually believe in by the way) I guess what is so frightening to me about The Exorcist and demon possession in general is that these are things that can't be fought, at least not in the traditional sense. With aliens and zombies you at least have a chance to blow them up or cut off their heads. There is a way of stopping them. No matter how scary an enemy that stands in front of me is it's not going to be as scary as something I can't see, fight or run from.

There is also the element of demons and ghosts making the familiar and known the unfamiliar and unknown that I find particularly frightening too.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Irrational forces are always scarier than rational ones. There's your answer, Yoda. Now close the thread. :D

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

:up:

Dunno if I can explain myself better than I did already in this thread, but yeah, it's about the fact that there are no ground rules with ghosts, and not necessarily any appeasing them. An alien is just a physical being, and therefore just wants something. Something that is rational to want. And as powerful as it is, it will still be constrained by the same laws of the universe that you will. Ghosts are playing a completely different game on both levels. I suppose a sufficient level of technology might make the second distinction largely moot, but even so I think any fathomable alien is still killable.

I suspect the difference in opinion might also have to do with probability. That is to say, people might sometimes find aliens scarier simply because they find the idea of them more plausible, which is slightly different than saying you find them scarier even if you're positing that each exists.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

How do we know there are ground rules with aliens, though? I've never seen a real alien in person, and I've never heard of anyone in real life actually encountering an alien. The only ground rules we have for aliens are rules set up by movies. I don't think there's nearly been enough films about ghosts to set up ground rules for them.

Alien invasion films have been around since the 50's, and most sci-fi films that came out during that decade had something to do with aliens. How many films about ghosts can you list off the top of your head? I just think that maybe if there were more films about ghosts, then there would be more ground rules.

As far as probability goes, I find them about equal. There's a plausible chance about each of them happening about equally, I think. Though in today's times, I find zombies much more plausible than each of them.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Well, we're all just speculating, but I'd think that an alien, by definition, is a physical being. It is grounded in the reality of physics. If it exists outside of physical reality, then it's something else. Ghosts, on the other hand, indicate another layer of reality that we are unaware of and have no firsthand experience with.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I didn't think we had firsthand experience with any of this. ;)

Seriously though, I don't think anything can be completely indestructible. There has to be some way to take down a ghost, and there has to be a way to take down an alien.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

There's usually some kind of weird way to appease the ghosts in movies, or some set of rules they have to abide by, but you never, like, punch a ghost, or shoot a ghost, or lop a ghost's head off. In some movies you can't do anything to them, and in others, at best, you have to learn, on the fly, the esoteric rules of the ghost's "world." Even when you can fight them, you have to learn a whole new set of rules and they're not always entirely logical or rational.

That kinda thing freaks me out. I've spent my whole life living in this world and learning how not to die in it. Being thrust out of my element (much like being chased in the ocean, which is an analogy I used way back when in this thread) makes the idea scarier, to me.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

To be honest, if any of this actually happened in real life, I know I probably wouldn't be able to defend myself. Well, I think I could fight off zombies, but there's no way I'd live through an alien invasion or a ghost trying to kill me.

Neither of them scare me when they're portrayed in movies, though. I don't know what it is, but it just doesn't scare me. Movies about serial killers scare me more, because they're a lot more common and could easily happen to anyone. Whereas the chances of a ghost haunting you or an alien invasion are very slim.

I agree. I'm much more terrified when I watch movies like The Strangers, ones that involve murderous psychopaths and such. In my opinion, other humans are the true fear. You never know what people are capable of.

Scariest movie I've ever seen? Takashi Miike's Audition - perfect example of what I'm referring to...

I've never seen Audition, but I agree with on The Strangers. I did watch it for the first time late at night by myself, but it's still pretty scary when I go back and watch it again. The atmosphere to the film is just so scary, that and the fact that the entire movie is a bunch of jump scares one after another. At least they learned that to make jump scares work, you just have to continually throw them out one after another.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

The Strangers definitely scared me. It also made me really, really mad. I wanted to kick the crap out of those stupid, hobby-less kids.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

As Yoda said, physical beings are subject to physical laws, so although aliens may have technology to augment their abilities, they are still more or less like us.

Supernatural beings are on a whole other playing field. They are not bound by physical laws, or at least not nearly to the extent as the living are. They operate according to some strange mental/symbolic rule set that we may not entirely understand, if at all.

There may be ways to stop them, but the methods usually involve a ritual or otherwise symbolic act of appeasement, such as the old one of burying the bones in the proper place...

But it's never a certainty, as the Ring showed, that the entity can be "handled" with a simple "do A, B, and C" formula.

So the supernatural always remains more or less unknown and unpredictable despite attempts to apply an absolute standard with which to handle it.



...or you could just call the Ghostbusters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCHFVTQKqdQ

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

The Strangers; is that the one with Liv Tyler?

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I am afraid of (no?) ghost.

Yep.

I'm not so sure ghosts are better than aliens... for all we know, aliens could have bodies that don't die and they may know how to do things with nature and the universe to break laws we think are fixed and controlled and they might turn out worse than any moronic human ghost. I don't care how much access to other realms ghosts may have, aliens could still be a lot scarier.

http://idiotflashback.files.wordpres...03/alien23.jpg

I would rather deal with a ghost than this.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

No way, sexy, aliens < ghosts

but zombies > ghosts

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Seriously, what is a ghost going to do to you? Sure it might steal your soul, but at least it would be painless. I'd rather have a painless death, then some excruciating death by an xenomorph.

I have to ask, why do you find zombies scarier than ghosts? Maybe it's just me, but zombies don't scare me simply because they're so easy to kill.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

A ghost did this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6DpEiwWPjI...0/s1600/02.jpg

Look painless?

Would it be easy to kill someone you love who turned?

Would it be easy to kill a crowd of ten thousand mindless cannibals?

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

This. This is what a ghost might do to you.

http://www.neodymsystems.com/ring/r_...noah_face1.jpg

Serious response: ghosts mess people up in painful, physical ways in lots of movies.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Heh, Deadite beat me to it. Great minds think alike. And so do we.

I guess not.

It depends on where you're at. You could be like the guy in the Dawn of the Dead remake sniping them all from his roof.

Still though, I would not want to mess with an xenomorph.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

seriously, though. ghost, alien, zombie - you can link to ****ed up shots of all of them (or their damaged victims) from movies. you can't really compare them in terms of what's scarier.

Ghosts are as scary as skeletons.

http://i51.tinypic.com/2mdjdhf.jpg

I guarantee you that death by alien would be quicker and less horrific than death by zombie. Zombies pile on and slowly eat your intestines while you lay there screaming.

And even if you were the sniper on the roof, you're not ever really secure. Part of the horror of zombies is the fact that they are unrelenting and, well, they're dead people.

But zombies, with the exception of the Dawn of the Dead remake, move incredibly slow and are very dumb. You'd have a huge advantage over them. In most ghost and alien movies, they're usually very smart.

Relax, ash. It's just for fun.

The loser will be sacrificed to whatever monster they posted in favor of, however.

My problem with ghosts is that they never really show how they do this to a person, do they? I still haven't bought into the idea of ghosts doing these wicked things to people's bodies. It just looks silly. They look like zombies giving blowjobs. Give me a break. Show me how it's done and then maybe I'll fear ghosts.

Yes, but aliens are still living beings, and ghosts are rare. So it's a matter of sheer numbers combined with the fact they're corpses. :p

I think you're sort of missing the point.

Oftentimes, what makes things scarier is the unexplainable parts.

I dunno, maybe you could call the Ghostbusters and ask for a diagram or something.

I don't know, corpses just aren't scary to me. They're already dead, why be afraid of a dead person?

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I'm scared of corpses even when they're not reanimated.

It's a primal sort of thing. Not something that can be easily put into words. You may as well ask why be afraid of any of these things we're talking about.

why do you think i'm not relaxed? :confused:

For me, I think it's partly my mental association I have with a memory when I was very young of my grandfather's funeral, and seeing his body up close.

So I think fears can have a very personal aspect that other people won't always understand.

FOR GOD'S SAKE ASH CALM THE EFF DOWN!!! :eek:

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

okay. from now on, if the last 5 posts in a thread are jokey, i just won't post my opinion ever again unless i add a picture or a smiley. i wouldn't want to be seen as taking **** too seriously.

You mad??

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Corpses horrify me because they are nightmarish reminders that the body - no matter how sexy it is - will always turn ghoulish and disgusting upon death. Dying is such a cancelled check on this thing called life and everything we assign as important to it.

Reanimated corpses, though... if they weren't always so crazy about eating flesh and brains, I wonder if they could ever be less scary and lead a normal life. I wonder if it would be possible for zombies to be sexy. I wanna see a zombie movie where the zombies come back to life and become fashion models. NOBODY BETTER STEAL THAT IDEA.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I think zombies are also frightening because they imply that sort of meaninglessness as well.

They are mechanical and amoral things, representing a kind of nihilism that seems to pervade the universe.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

It's horrible... and just think, your body is already fully equipped to die whenever it does. Right now, your body is completely programmed to turn into a corpse should it happen to die. You've got those set of instructions already inside you. It's freaky.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

...relax, guys.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

That's the worst thing about them, really. They don't even mean to be vile and violent. They just are.

It's different with an intelligent force, like a Devil or an evil alien. They at least have some kind of reason to them. But the zombie is just an empty thing, acting on instinct. It doesn't try to be evil, and to it evil doesn't even exist. It just acts according to its nature, and is as indifferent as the universe in which it exists, which is a nature that a feeling, thinking human finds horrible to contemplate.

I'm relaxed. Believe it or not, I choose to read and post.

If the discussion bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't participate. Just friendly advice.

It's pretty weird, to say the least.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

I'm pretty sure death is more like a lack of instructions.

i was never, ever bothered by this discussion. that's the thing, i actually said something earlier on topic but i was told to relax because it was in the midst of silly-time. so.... i'm confused. and kinda disoriented.

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

It's just like... I know you don't turn into a corpse until your body dies... but somewhere right now in the system of your own body, it's got to know what to do in case of death, it's got to know to go through rigor mortis and all that stuff to decay properly and dispose of itself. I wonder why bones have to hang around, though. That's an interesting thought. Any idea why bones don't really decay? I mean, in terms of nature and the body getting rid of itself... why do bones stick around?

Ooooh, I just heard thunder after writing that....

Relax, ash. There's no need to be confused and disoriented.:D

Re: Which is scarier: reason, or obsession?
 

Zombies bore the crap out of me. And they are good example how language changes words. Zombies as we now know them did not exist before the Romero movie. Flesh eating monsters from the dead were ghouls. Zombies were brought back from the dead by voodoo to work as mindless slaves. They didn't eat people.

Ghosts may exist, aliens may exist, zombies are pure baloney.

Spooky.

But it's like Yoda says, I think. It just undergoes a natural process. It's an object, a part of the physical world, and that means it is subject to entropy. Perhaps you could look at it as the entropy increasing rapidly when there's no longer "anyone home" to resist.