Horror not ‘scary’ most of the time?

Tools    





Yeah personally I've found that a lot of horror from 2000 to today, are just all jump-scares and boo-frights... monsters and stuff, shown on screen immediately, or even in the trailers.

Look at the 70s, 80s, 1990s... all jump scare movies and slashers did well. And there was a lot of them too compared to only a handful of psychological stuff.

It's no different today. Jump-scares sell tickets...
Psychological stuff tends to get forgotten about, regardless of reviews... Babadook, Don't Breathe (underrated), The Lighthouse...
The psychological stuff didn't fair quite as well in terms of ticket sales and a lot of what's revered today, was panned at the time like The Shining, The Exorcist, The Thing.

The most successful movies though tend to be based on jump-scares...

The first Paranormal Activity was ok... the rest were all just jump scares.
All of the Conjuring Universe is slow camera pans, followed by......... jump scares.
All of the Insidious Universe is slow camera pans, followed by......... jump scares.
IT Chapter 2 went for more jumps scares. Instantly made it less interesting than the first part.
The Conjuring 1 & 2 had good worldbuilding and great sets to look at, but they were among the films I found tragically un-scary. I didn’t really like any of the others you mentioned above. Jump scares are definitely overdone and somewhat ruin the experience. I wonder though whether there is a fashion/hunger for ‘artsy’ horror nowadays, like the Suspiria remake, which definitely can’t gross much and doesn’t really attempt to instil a sense of unease, let alone fear.

Originally Posted by The Rodent;2116789 Instantly forgettable [I
A Quiet Place[/i] did too. It started ok, then went jump-scares at the end.
I say "instantly forgettable" because I was looking forward to this movie before it was released... and just now, I had to Google it to remember what it was called.
Judging by the trailers the sequel is looking to be all jump scares as well.
It'll make a killing at the box office no doubt... because jump-scares.
I didn’t like it much either. The idea of having to give birth in silence was pretty out there, and they could have done more with it (like in the parable where the woman has to stifle her crying newborn so that the enemy soldiers do not hear and find her and the other child). But other than that, it didn’t have much to offer. I’m still taking a gander at the sequel.

You have to remember as well that most of the cinematic audience, the ones who buy the tickets... made the Transformers movies a success so it's gonna be tough to get them to watch The Thing or The Shining, when they have another Jason Voorhees or Godzilla movie to occasionally squeal at.
That’s pretty sad. I could probably fall asleep during the latter two if I was tired enough, though Godzilla does hold a kind of sentimental value for me, because it used to be a family film for us. I do think it’s possible to make a horror film a spectacle if that’s what you want as a director. Crawl (2019) was entertaining enough, but Rogue (2007) did a much better job of it. But I definitely prefer quiet, cerebral horror films like The Thing.



I didn’t like it much either. The idea of having to give birth in silence was pretty out there, and they could have done more with it (like in the parable where the woman has to stifle her crying newborn so that the enemy soldiers do not hear and find her and the other child). But other than that, it didn’t have much to offer. I’m still taking a gander at the sequel.
Not a scientologist, are you?

Also, Aliens isn't a horror film.

You're pretty new here, but others will have been waiting for me to post that since you mentioned it.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Not a scientologist, are you?

Also, Aliens isn't a horror film.

You're pretty new here, but others will have been waiting for me to post that since you mentioned it.
I can see how people can argue that it isn’t, but it’s listed as such all over the place, so I think it’s open to interpretation.

And no, I’m a diehard atheist with no other creed. 😂



RottenTomatoes:

MOVIE INFO

Big-budget special effects, swiftly paced action, and a distinct feminist subtext from writer/director James Cameron turned what should have been a by-the-numbers sci-fi sequel into both a blockbuster and a seven-time Oscar nominee. Sigourney Weaver returns as Ellen Ripley, the last surviving crew member of a corporate spaceship destroyed after an attack by a vicious, virtually unbeatable alien life form. Adrift in space for half a century, Ripley grapples with depression until she's informed by her company's representative, Carter Burke (Paul Reiser) that the planet where her crew discovered the alien has since been settled by colonists. Contact with the colony has suddenly been lost, and a detachment of colonial marines is being sent to investigate. Invited along as an advisor, Ripley predicts disaster, and sure enough, the aliens have infested the colony, leaving a sole survivor, the young girl Newt (Carrie Henn). With the soldiers picked off one by one, a final all-female showdown brews between the alien queen and Ripley, who's become a surrogate mother to Newt. Several future stars made early career appearances in Aliens (1986), including Lance Henriksen, Bill Paxton, and Reiser. ~ Karl Williams, Rovi
SHOW MORE
Rating:R
Genre:*Action & Adventure, Horror, Science Fiction & Fantasy
Directed By:*James Cameron
Written By:*James Cameron
In Theaters:*Jul 18, 1986**Wide
On Disc/Streaming:*Jun 1, 1999
Runtime:*138 minutes
Studio:*20th Century Fox



I can see how people can argue that it isn’t, but it’s listed as such all over the place, so I think it’s open to interpretation.
All over the place Rotten Tomatoes seems to be the only popular place that lists Aliens as horror (wiki, IMDb and Letterboxd don't). Some people undoubtedly consider it horror, but I don't think it's a very common opinion.
__________________



All over the place Rotten Tomatoes seems to be the only popular place that lists Aliens as horror (wiki, IMDb and Letterboxd don't). Some people undoubtedly consider it horror, but I don't think it's a very common opinion.
Not just there, but I’m on the move and couldn’t find other sources. Dreadcentral calls it ‘horror’.

https://www.dreadcentral.com/news/33...eased-in-1986/

If you just Google it, the first thing that comes up is action/horror as genre. Anyway, no offence meant to any genre purists. I think it’s horror-action personally, but it’s really a matter of opinion.

https://www.cornettfiction.com/faceh...-scene-aliens/



It raises the question of what is horror. "Scary" would be a better term except when it isn't, and sci-fi can transition into horror, as can a murder mystery, provided that the murderer is sufficiently demonic. Are ghosts or hauntings horror, especially if they are not scary? How about monsters, as in the King Kong/Japanese variety? What about serial killers, definitely real entities?

For myself, I generally stick with a fluid definition, as in something that might be scary to someone, definitely intended to be scary, containing some main plot element (spirits, monsters, mutants, creatures, etc) that is the source of the "fright", that's definitely dangerous to humans and that doesn't exist in our world of consensual reality. Sci-Fi overlaps with horror, as do strange events, unsolved mysteries, cryptids, etc, but the borderline of the genre is fluid.



If you just Google it, the first thing that comes up is action/horror as genre. Anyway, no offence meant to any genre purists. I think it’s horror-action personally, but it’s really a matter of opinion.
I'm definitely not a genre purist but I just remember that Aliens was hotly debated in preparation for our Horror countdown (it wasn't eligible). The only thing that I tried to object was the implied consensus of it being horror.



Anyway, no offence meant to any genre purists.
In my experience genre purist posts tend to shut down conversations rather than deepen them.

The utility of genres as labels is that it gives a way to contextualize a film among "peers" (especially if a film is doing something new and/or intentionally subverting genre expectations) and help a prospective viewer know what they're getting into.

I would call Aliens a sci-fi/action/horror. I think that the action and sci-fi elements are more "forward" than the horror aspect, but I've never heard a compelling explanation as to why it can't be considered horror. The setting, the creature design, and the way that the space within the ship is used to evoke fear and suspense easily couch it in a horror zone for me. It's not a film that my mind immediately goes to when I think "horror", but if someone thinks of it as one of their favorite horror movies, what is productive about telling them that they are wrong?

(Can you tell I've argued about this with my horror friends a lot?)


EDIT: Please read the above as loving snark. I know and love a few genre purists. It's not their fault they're wrong and accidentally ruin conversations.

DOUBLE EDIT: I changed my language because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. I know that tone (and especially loving snark) does not always translate well in the written word.



Genre purists are the least interesting people and in my experience they tend to shut down conversations rather than deepen them.
I would call Aliens a sci-fi/action/horror.

(Can you tell I've argued about this with my horror friends a lot?)
That's what I mean about fluidity between genres. One of the most deep seated, instinctive and understandable of human fears is for fierce animals with big teeth and hostile intent. Whether it takes place on earth with a tiger or on a distant planet with an "Alien", it's the same basic fear. As scary as tigers are, sci-fi writers spend lots of time and money on movies that exploit the same basic fear but amp up the fierceness of the creature. Whether it's sci-fi or horror seems like a moot point except for people who maintain the database entry for movie genre.

When I was a kid, I recall being taken to a drive-in theater to see a rerun of The Forbidden Planet. It featured a giant creature with huge teeth that was invisible. The roar was enough to give a kid nightmares alone but when Leslie Nielsen and company used their ray guns to outline and illuminate the creature (great old time animation by the way), again, it was a huge animal with big teeth. That creature inhabited my nightmares for about a month, displacing King Kong, another big animal with big teeth.

The cool thing, however, was that the creature was the result of a planetary energy source that materialized human thought, especially the thoughts of a resident who wanted to be alone, so it was not JUST a big animal, but a big animal materialized from the evil part of a human brain....Monsters from the Id. It was definitely a sci-fi-horror crossover.



Genre purists are the least interesting people and in my experience they tend to shut down conversations rather than deepen them...
It's better to state the above like this:

Genre purists arguments are the least interesting arguments and in my experience they tend to shut down conversations rather than deepen them.



It's better to state the above like this:

Genre purists arguments are the least interesting arguments and in my experience they tend to shut down conversations rather than deepen them.
I added an edit to clarify that I was joking, but in case it's not clear, yes, I dislike the arguments they make and not the people themselves.

I'll also add that most genre purists I've come across . . . that's their one thing. It's like *doesn't contribute*, *doesn't contribute*, *doesn't contribute*, *pops up to state with no support that Psycho is not a horror movie*.



I added an edit to clarify that I was joking, but in case it's not clear, yes, I dislike the arguments they make and not the people themselves.

I'll also add that most genre purists I've come across . . . that's their one thing. It's like *doesn't contribute*, *doesn't contribute*, *doesn't contribute*, *pops up to state with no support that Psycho is not a horror movie*.
I appear to have a hyper-inclusive approach to this topic. How on Earth is Psycho not a horror movie?!



I appear to have a hyper-inclusive approach to this topic. How on Earth is Psycho not a horror movie?!
Ironically, it was a conversation that came about because of the "Is Aliens horror?" ~*~controversy~*~.

Someone asked how other people define horror and people were giving their personal definitions. Another poster felt very strongly that a movie was only horror if it included something "impossible" (like a werewolf, zombie, ghost, etc) OR the abilities of the killer were exaggerated or supernatural (like a killer who can lift a person with one hand). Anyway, this led to them asserting that Psycho could only be a thriller and not a horror film because everything in the movie could really happen. (It also meant that a lot of other "classic" horror films didn't fit that category).

I should note that I don't personally care if someone mentally shelves Psycho with the thrillers and not the horrors. My only issue was how angry this person seemed that other people didn't agree with this definition.

I guess that's my problem with genre policing. I've had a handful of interesting discussions about why someone does or doesn't think a film qualifies as a certain genre, but usually it's just a dead end. And I ultimately don't usually feel that a genre categorization is relevant to what's at the heart of a film. Plus, as many have alluded to in this thread, films are rarely just one thing. Like, The Lure is a horror/comedy/musical/romance/drama/fantasy. It is all of those things.

In a way, this almost goes back to your original question about horror being scary. When I think of something like Shaun of the Dead, I'm not sure there's a single scary moment in it. It's a comedy, right? But we put that horror label on there because zombies.



Ironically, it was a conversation that came about because of the "Is Aliens horror?" ~*~controversy~*~.

Someone asked how other people define horror and people were giving their personal definitions. Another poster felt very strongly that a movie was only horror if it included something "impossible" (like a werewolf, zombie, ghost, etc) OR the abilities of the killer were exaggerated or supernatural (like a killer who can lift a person with one hand). Anyway, this led to them asserting that Psycho could only be a thriller and not a horror film because everything in the movie could really happen. (It also meant that a lot of other "classic" horror films didn't fit that category).
It could be a reasonable argument, but it excludes psychological horror. That’s why I disagree - it’s not just Psycho, but also Jaws and The Eyes of My Mother. But it’s a fairly common view.


I should note that I don't personally care if someone mentally shelves Psycho with the thrillers and not the horrors. My only issue was how angry this person seemed that other people didn't agree with this definition.

I guess that's my problem with genre policing. I've had a handful of interesting discussions about why someone does or doesn't think a film qualifies as a certain genre, but usually it's just a dead end. And I ultimately don't usually feel that a genre categorization is relevant to what's at the heart of a film. Plus, as many have alluded to in this thread, films are rarely just one thing. Like, The Lure is a horror/comedy/musical/romance/drama/fantasy. It is all of those things.

In a way, this almost goes back to your original question about horror being scary. When I think of something like Shaun of the Dead, I'm not sure there's a single scary moment in it. It's a comedy, right? But we put that horror label on there because zombies.
I had more traditional horror films in mind. But you’re right. I would never interpret Shaun of the Dead as horror, it’s a comedy with supernatural elements. Some darkly satirical horror films still work for me, like Slither .

Lure was weird. I didn’t like it at all, but that’s probably just my aversion to musicals. I recently watched Dancer in the Dark and started reading up on how people perceive musicals. There’s a view that people who don’t like them can’t engage with the singing on the storytelling level, and that’s definitely me.

I’m definitely in the camp that thinks horror should at least try to be scary. But the question is, is it all a kind of social contract/ ‘pretence’ on the part of the audience, or can that ever result in real ‘physical’ fear. I guess it’s personal, as everyone has said.



Lure was weird. I didn’t like it at all, but that’s probably just my aversion to musicals.
I loved The Lure, mostly because it was so outlandish. Traditional musicals (where people pause every now and then to sing their feelings) are very hit or miss with me. But there was something very appealing to me about a dark psychological thriller wrapped in a fantasy musical, wrapped in a folklore based horror movie. And I thought that the ending was perfect.



I loved The Lure, mostly because it was so outlandish. Traditional musicals (where people pause every now and then to sing their feelings) are very hit or miss with me. But there was something very appealing to me about a dark psychological thriller wrapped in a fantasy musical, wrapped in a folklore based horror movie. And I thought that the ending was perfect.
Hmm, maybe I need to give it another go.



Hmm, maybe I need to give it another go.
I mean, I loved it. But it's not the kind of movie where I'm offended or baffled when others don't. It's so out there that I think it's the definition of an acquired taste.



FTR I think of horrors as films which were 'sold' to me as horror films or films which I thought of as such when watching them. So, not only is Aliens not a horror film, neither is Jaws (my favourite film), Psycho, Silence Of The Lambs or Se7en (still can't believe I have to even bother to make that point with Se7en but I know for some it 'obviously' is.) I agree that Horror/Comedy is much more difficult to categorise, but for me, they're their own category and just because something funny happens in a film, doesn't mean that film qualifies as a comedy. So, for example, Shaun Of The Dead not a horror film. An American Werewolf In London is. SotD is a horror comedy, but while I accept that aAWiL is looked upon in that way, for me, it's a horror film. Plain and simple.

Also, @Takoma11 said someone had argued with them that

"Anyway, this led to them asserting that Psycho could only be a thriller and not a horror film"

Now this could just be a difference in how that's read, but was this person implying that thrillers are less than horror films? If so, could that be where some of this genre stuff comes from? I think Se7en is great and I can't stand Aliens. Now how people categorise them doesn't affect that. It only matters if we're talking about a particular genre and whether or not the film can be included in the discussion.

Question to those who've seen it: Is Kill List a horror film?

WARNING: "Kill List" spoilers below
I saw that film without knowing anything about it. I started not watching a horror film, but it ended very much with that in mind. Still don't know if I like the film or not or whether it's a horror film or not. I've been saying for 8 years I'm going to have to watch it again to see if I can make up my mind but I've yet to do so.

For todays audience, it probably is, but I'm not a man of today.