What's wrong with the horror genre?

The Fabulous Sausage Man

05-13-06

Maybe I'm ignorant to some other movies here, but name some other films which have used the internet and word of mouth to alter the psyche of the viewer in such a profound way. Or name some other movies which consist ONLY of "documentary" style footage shot with such chaos and horror. Or any other movie with an all amateur cast that truly delivers performances which are arguably the most believable the genre had seen in years.

What about The Last Broadcast? I haven't actually seen it, but fans often make comparisons between the two.

Anyway, I am one of many who thinks that horror is dead. Or at least, the certain kind of horror that I like is dead - which is the psychological, atmospheric kind. Horror has actually been revived recently with films like House of 1000 Corpses, Switchblade Romance, Hostel and Wolf Creek - homages to the sleazy grindhouse type flicks of the 70s, such as Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes and Texas Chainsaw Massacre (and, predictably, two of those have all ready been remade). Personally, I'm not a fan of those sort of films. Many love the fact that they are so disturbing and raw, but in my opinion, they are quite unimaginative and it takes real talent to scare the audience when very little is happening.

Not that I hate gore, by the way. I do love comedy-horror, like Evil Dead 2 and Re-Animator, which was why I was looking forward to Slither (unfortunately, I found that too cliched and predictable. Come on, I've seen someone get sliced in half and slowly fall to pieces loads of times! What happened to the outrageously inventive stuff like flying eyeballs?)

I think that the last decent horrors I saw was 28 Days Later and Ginger Snaps.

mack

start with me

05-15-06

Please dont tell me you think Ginger Snaps rates? Why? Eye-candy cant be a reason.

__________________
something witty goes here......

Praeclarus

Registered User

05-19-06

It's not the horror genre that is dying, but rather originality in the film industry. for example "the ring". Based on the japanese "ringu", which also spawned "ju-on" and in turn was remade as "the grudge". Four movies that stem from the same concept. and as if that weren't enough, we get "the ring 2" and the upcoming "the grudge 2". all we need is for someone to come up with a new idea rather than regurgitating what has already been done.

After that all I want is a cast suited to the movie. cast unknowns if you have to but watching Tara Reid play the part of a scientist in "alone in the dark" was not unlike watching a dog humping at slipper. Good for a giggle at first until you realise how truly wrong it is.

TheRey

The One and only one.

05-20-06

I hate most of the new "Horror" movies. Most of them seem pointless with stupid titles. They all do the same thing,they try to scare you by showing nothing. I like movies that are original with a point in it.

Captain Driftwood

The Reel Freak

05-25-06

Originally Posted by Karl Childers:

The Devil's Rejects Started off surprisingly entertaining but got mired in its own ugliness.

My Reply:

I do not believe you can call The Devil's Rejects simply a horror film. It falls into just about every genre. It is scary. It's funny. It's a dramatic and heartbreaking character study of these three individuals and the twisted yet pure and loving bond that holds them together, and as this type of film, it succeeds and proved to be the best film of last year and my favorite film of all time.

Purandara88

BANNED

05-25-06

More accurately, The Devil's Rejects falls in that universal, multi-media genre known as "total crap" (which it shares, interestingly enough, with everything else Rob Zombie has ever had anything to do with in his long and rather putrid career).

PrometheusFG

Registered User

05-25-06

Originally Posted by OG-

Now you're just being a curmudgeon.

I'm not going to address every film individually (though I'll hit on some at the bottom) since it's pretty obvious you're not going to let any arguement persuade you, but as a whole I think your main problem is that you have a very, very narrow definition of the word horror. What makes you the law as to what is and isn't horror?

If a film's main intent is to evoke a horrorific response in the viewer, irregardless of the means, it can be considered horror. There isn't a requisite of gore, scares or thrills before something is called horror. On top of that, there's no law anywhere that says genres have to be mutually exclusive; it is possible for a movie to be a drama, comedy, science fiction and horror all at the same time.

You can try and hide behind these modern terms like "psychological suspense" (what kind of bull**** is that?), but they're all just marketing words created to substitute for horror simply because horror is a tainted word. Filmmakers, and more importantly studio marketing departments, know that horror is a dirty word when it comes to trying to sell a movie to a more serious crowd. You're not classifying things into genres, you're classifying them by buzzwords. Not to mention it's pretentious as hell.

Se7en - In less than a dozen words you were able to deftly defy what the movie truly is, and to that I give you props. Psychological? What is psychological about Se7en? It has to do with the human psyche, but there's little psychological to the filmmaking or narrative. It is a sociological examination of how society constructs social problems. I see zero resemblance between what Fincher did with Se7en and anything Tarantino has EVER done.

Scream - Just because the movie examines the mechanics of the slasher film while itself being a slasher movie doesn't make it any less serious. It gets remembered as a joke of a movie that was just riffing on the genre, which is bull****. Scream is possibly the biggest breath of fresh air the genre got during the '90s. It's a pity people forget how shocking and original it was when it came out, thanks wholly to the myriad of films which have impersonated it since.

From Dusk Til Dawn, Blade - You've got to be kidding me with the things you're calling 'not horror'. A movie based on a horror comic book isn't a horror movie? That's just stupid.

The Sixth Sense - Again with the psychological suspense buzzword bull****. 'Psychological' isn't a genre.

One Hour Photo - Just because it's tame as far as the genre's shock standards go doesn't make it any less horrorific. Plus, you've just broken out that suspense buzzword once again. Suspense isn't a genre.

House of 1000 Corpses - Not horror? What movie were you watching? Midnight cult flick's can't be horror?

Bubba Ho-Tep - This is the only thing on the list which is argueably not horror, because it really isn't horrorific at all. However, given it's roots in the monster mythos that made up decades worth of early horror films, it certainly deserves to walk in the genre. "The fact that Bruce Campbell was the leading actor is proof enough of that." What the ****? I'm sure you're just going to tout that same chorus, but the Evil Dead films are horror. In fact, they're some of the slickest and most energetic horror films ever made.

Dawn of the Dead 2004 - A remake that bares nothing but setting and title to its source material. However, even if it was a frame for frame remake, that doesn't make it any less great, any less entertaining, or any less of a horror movie.

Shaun of the Dead - May be comedic, but that doesn't mean it is any less shocking or horrorific. At the least it's a shining example of how horror has evolved since Scream first introduced the idea of smart horror movies that examine themselves on screen. Hell, the make up effects and Dawn inspired gut ripping sequence are more gore-tastic than anything in 28 Days Later. A movie isn't disqualified from the genre simply because it has laughs.

There's nothing wrong with the horror genre. It's the same it's been for decades. Lots and lots of mediocre stuff and even more crap interspersed with some gems. The only thing wrong is your definition of what is horror.

1. I can't tell whether your bashing these films or crediting them.

2. The term "Psychological Suspense" is not bulls**t at all, or modern. While you tell everyone not to hide behind the term and basically telling them they are blind, you are too blind to see that "Psychological Suspense" is not bulls**t at all, only now because it is lost in greed for money. Psychological Suspense used to be, atleast, a very real description for yester-year's old classic horror flicks that were so innovative for their time for involving psychological suspense. For a more recent film, look at Jacob's Ladder.

3. And yes, infact, the horror genre has changed, alot and for the worse. Decades and decades ago, the genre had lots of gems and little mediocre stuff interspersed with it. Now horror flicks are only made for money because crappy horror movies are what atrracts teenagers which attracts boatloads of cash.

Why waste lots of time and effort to make an innovative and brilliant horror film that won't gross as much money when you can just save your effort and time and make a crappy horror flick that will gross 3 more times the amount?

__________________
"All the confusion of my life... has been a reflection of myself! Myself as I am, not as I'd like to be." - Guido, 8 1/2

Captain Driftwood

The Reel Freak

05-25-06

Originally Posted by Purandara88

Well, you either love it, or you hate it. There is no in between with this film. Concerning Rob Zombie though, I think you are completely wrong. I believe he evolved so much between House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects and that he will continue to do so, bringing us more quality films from different genres. I know that there is no convincing you of that. You seem pretty content with your opinion of his work, but that's fine. To each his own...

OG-

In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!

05-25-06

Originally Posted by PrometheusFG

Do people even read the words I type?

1. I thought it was pretty clear that I was defending each and every one of those films as good genre flicks of the last few years. And were you to read the few posts prior, you would realize that each of those films was pulled from a list of good horror films from the last 10 years.

2. The words "Psychological Suspense" are most certainly marketing buzzword bull****. I've said time and time again that genres are not exhaustive and they are not mutually exclusive. Apparently that needs some explanation. Movies can have more than one defining attribute, and the presence of multiple attributes does not mean they can no longer fall under the horror genre.

The crux of a film's style and script may be psychologically damaging, or suspenseful, but how this doesn't make them horror films is beyond logic. The only reason I ever even fought these stupid words is because Karl was implying that any film that can be labelled by these words somehow is no longer a horror film - which is just plain stupid.

3. No. No. No. The horror genre has not changed one ****ing bit. Decades and decades ago it was still the same ****ing thing. Decades and Decades ago? I've already detailed how the trend happened rampantly in the 80s, and that was over two decades ago. Do you want me to go back even farther?

Let's go back three iterations to the '70s. Lemme know how many of these horror movies you've seen, you remember, or that you think are these golden era classics people keep eluding back to:

The House that Dripped Blood
The Wizard of Gore
The Wicker Man
Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde
I Drink Your Blood
Willard
Blacula
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Frogs
Jaws
The Last House on the Left
The Exorcist
Flesh for Frankenstein
Black Christmas
It's Alive!
Vampyres
Dawn of the Dead
Piranha
The Driller Killer
Jaws 2
When a Stranger Calls
Day of the Woman
The Car
Killdozer

I'm sure you can pick out the gems, like The Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw, Jaws, Black Christmas, Dawn of the Dead etc, but do you see how just from an almost entirely random sampling of films from the 70s, how many stand the test of time? How many are dreadfully campy or just plain bad? How many are exploitation shockers?

I'm the only person in this thread who actually bothers to cite films, so unless you want to prove me wrong by providing empirical evidence that there was some golden age of horror, decades and decades ago, in which no two productions were alike and that every other horror movie coming out was a thoughtful, innovative, briliant, impactful or long lasting production, you need to get over your selective memory and admit the genre doesn't change.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

PrometheusFG

Registered User

05-25-06

"Selective Memory..." Wow, you really know who I am.

On average, 3 horror movies are released a month. On average, all three suck. That wasn't the case decades ago...

OG-

In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!

05-25-06

Originally Posted by PrometheusFG

"Selective Memory..." Wow, you really know who I am.

On average, 3 horror movies are released a month. On average, all three suck. That wasn't the case decades ago...

That wasn't the case for ANY genre decades ago, but it's the case for EVERY genre now. How can you single this out as some kind of fault of the horror genre and not any others?

PrometheusFG

Registered User

05-25-06

You are totally right. This is the very same case for every genre nowadays. But, all humor aside, weren't we talking about the horror genre?

OG-

In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!

05-25-06

Originally Posted by PrometheusFG

You are totally right. This is the very same case for every genre nowadays. But, all humor aside, weren't we talking about the horror genre?

We are talking about the horror genre, but I still think it's silly to try and use this as the sole point of an arguement, when it's not an arguement against the genre, but rather the entire film industry.

But irregardless, the quantity of movies being produced is higher, but the proportion of good to bad is always the same, and is always skewed heavily towards bad - just because there is more of it, doesn't mean the trend has changed at all.

PrometheusFG

Registered User

05-25-06

I understand what you just said; "just because there is more of it, doesn't mean the trend has changed at all."

But I still think, if now we are talking about the industry as a whole, that the trend has changed. Look at most 100 or 50 Greatest Movie Lists compiled by magazines, film schools or critics, and 80-90 percent of the films on the list are from the 20s to the 70s. Doesn't that say something? That in the past two decades, movies have sucked in general.

In the last two decades, a shockingly low number of films produced were amazing. All the brilliance, excellence, innovation, and art of film has been lost. The proportion of good to bad has changed dramatically. Yes, I can name a few films that are amazing from those two decaded. But only a few.

OG-

In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!

05-25-06

Originally Posted by PrometheusFG

But I still think, if now we are talking about the industry as a whole, that the trend has changed. Look at most 100 or 50 Greatest Movie Lists compiled by magazines, film schools or critics, and 80-90 percent of the films on the list are from the 20s to the 70s. Doesn't that say something? That in the past two decades, movies have sucked in general.

Lists are entirely arbitrary, and given the nature of film and film critics, it's practically an unforgiveable sin to not list the classics. The bet couldn't be settled for another thirty years, but if you were to look at a top 100 list then, I guarantee it will include a large chunk of films from the 70s to the 2010s, but would include very little from 2010-2030. It's just the way the process works.

Also, the majority of critics who contribute to the lists have a tendency to favor the films they grew up with. As the new crop of critics is merged in, they'll be more prone to favor films from their generation. There will always be timeless films that transcend all generations, but to say that films, as a whole, have taken such a sharp dive in quality is a little unfounded, I think. At least on the basis of top 100 lists.

Hell, just one small example of this would be how many critics despised Eyes Wide Shut when it came out, and that was less than a decade ago. Now it pulls great weight in lists. Time changes taste.

If you want a good example of this, take a look at the imdb top 100, which I think reflects more of the popular (though not necessairly better) trend of how tastes are going. By just a quick count 47 or so of the top 100 are from the last 25 years. That's a pretty solid share...

PrometheusFG

Registered User

05-25-06

Of course, critics are some of the most sinful, greedy, corrupted people on earth. BUT nevertheless, it is in plain view and blatant that film is nowhere near as good as it once was.

The trend of film has changed dramtically. I'm just gonna say it now; movies suck these days! Compare the amount of great films from yesterday to the amount of great films today! The industry today has a damn hard time producing something as good as The Godfather, Sunset Boulevard, Some Like It Hot, Best Years of Our Lives, Psycho, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, On the Waterfront, or North By Northwest.

C'mon! It's right there for you. I can't think of more than around 5 movies from the 80s or 90s that can be compared to the ones I listed. Now We have to find excuses for great films and our standards have lowered drastically.

Last edited by PrometheusFG; 05-25-06 at 07:32 PM.

Purandara88

BANNED

05-25-06

There are several factors at work here:

1. It is far, far easier to make and distribute (in some fashion) a film than ever before, so there are simply a lot more films being released (and seen). And a lot of them are bound to be crap.

2. The DVD market and the internet have fundamentally changed the financial equation. It is now quite possible to make money with a box office bomb. The end result is a lot of films get funded that never would have seen the light of day in the box office only era. And again, the odds are that a lot of those are going to be crap.

3. The in-the-theaters demographic has shifted. What used to represent a broad spectrum of society is now, particularly in the US, an audience that is much younger and much less educated than the population as a whole. Not suprisingly, the studios increasingly target their films to the young and the stupid...which is perhaps not the best way to ensure quality works of outstanding merit.

All of this is, of course, even more true of genre film, and especially horror (which always had an especially young, male, and blue collar audience).

OG-

In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!

05-25-06

Originally Posted by PrometheusFG

The industry today has a damn hard time producing something as good as The Godfather, Sunset Boulevard, Some Like It Hot, Best Years of Our Lives, Psycho, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, On the Waterfront, or North By Northwest.

C'mon! It's right there for you. I can't think of more than around 5 movies from the 80s or 90s that can be compared to the ones I listed. Now We have to find excuses for great films and our standards have lowered drastically.

The industry, ie. the Hollywood system, may not churn out greats with regularity, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. As for truly fantastic films from the 80s or 90s...

Do The Right Thing, Goodfellas, JFK, Eyes Wide Shut, Blade Runner, The Shawshank Redemtion, City of God, Mullholland Drive, Requiem for a Dream, Raging Bull, Cinema Paradiso, Fargo, Miller's Crossing

All amazing films, all from the 80s and 90s... :-\

Austruck

The Adventure Starts Here!

05-25-06

Darn, Pund, you just made my point for me: that, since the advent of VCRs and the cheap distribution of films into the home, filmmakers no longer have to rely on box office receipts alone to make their money. They often can lose money at the box office and break even or do well with videos and DVDs (rentals and sales) later. These also can be ongoing, unlike the box office life of that film.

That kind of change in viewing habits alone, I think, changes filmmaking from top to bottom. And, we'll never go back to how selective things used to be, now that we have the omnipresent "Straight To Video!" phenomenon.

Carry on.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

PrometheusFG