Are We Deluding Ourselves?

[IggytheBorg]

I imagine this thread may stir up some controversy. But on a discussion based message board, that's probably a good thing.

I'm poking the hornet's nest this time because I got to thinking about all the crappy horror movies and books there are out there. Many are so bad, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, that we mercilessly pan them when we review or talk about them. Many, many more get comments like "It's great cheesy fun", or "It's so bad it's good", or "There was good gore, at least", or the ever popular "At least there were nice tits to be seen". We've all posted comments like that around here numerous times. At least, I know I have.

I'll leave the why alone here; I think Surge summed it up best, in his ever insightful if ever cynical (but always correct, dammit!) manner on the "Rant With Me: Why Does the Girl ALWAYS Fall? And Other Horror Movie Cliches" thread. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) we see the same boring, tired old stuff repeated ad nauseam in horror films because the movie makers want the teenage date dollar; that's the target audience for most of these flicks. An audience that is periodically recycled and theoretically new to what have become cliched, hack bits for us, the genre fans. These are the tried and true methods that have garnered scares (even if they are just cheesy jump scares) for decades; why mess with a formula that works if there's money to be made sticking with the formula?

OK, I can accept that. Even if I lament its pervasiveness, I guess you could still make a good movie using cliches, if it were acted and written well, and there was good gore (if it's the sort of film that calls for it), and hey. . . a nice rack never hurt any movie, did it? What I want to explore here is us. Our perceptions and sense of judgment. I know the whole enchilada - good acting, effects, story, etc. - is a lot to ask of any film. I'm not whining about how every film can't be "The Exorcist" or "The Shining" or "The Thing". Even great films in other genres have flaws (good as the effects and story in "Star Wars" were, for example, Mark Hamill's acting was pretty bad). What I'm wondering is: have we become too accepting of the crap? Is our judgment off because we are so bombarded with sub-par genre fare that we're willing to tolerate, and even laud, movies or films that don't deserve it? I heard good things about several films in my time here that I barely liked, or didn't like at all, once I'd seen them. In some instances I have to wonder what all the buzz is about. Why would anyone like & recommend these films? Sometimes I can see the reason; something just stands out about a film, even if the rest isn't good. But other times. . . ?

Even if we are too accepting I'd argue it isn't our fault because we are just so loaded down with bad stuff we really have no choice but to pan for nuggets of goodness where we can find them, dealing with huge piles of tailings along the way. But by doing so, buying, renting or going to the movies to see sub-par films, one could argue we're perpetuating the cycle, because the producers of such films make money off us doing so, and have no incentive to better their films. I guess I can understand why we do this; we LOVE horror, and want to enjoy more of it. So we make allowances, finding enjoyment where we can, until the next "Exorcist" comes along and deservedly blows us away.

I realize a lot of this crappiness results from the low budgets most horror films labor under. If more money goes to effects, less goes toward getting name actors or directors, or vice versa. But they keep makin' 'em, and we keep buyin' or renting or seeing them. They wouldn't keep doing things this way if we didn't. Remember, a low budget film doesn't have as far to go to be profitable.

I choose to believe we're just making the best of a bad situation. It's been said numerous times that a horror film is possibly the cheapest and easiest kind of film to make, so it's hardly surprising we see the number of them we do, because there are legions of budding filmmakers that, for better or worse, want to take a stab at it (no pun intended), just to get a film credit. Profit may motivate the studios in their choosing to finance these projects, but (perhaps misguided) love of the genre is (I'd like to believe) what motivates the filmmakers themselves to answer the call and make the movies for the studios, or to scrape together the meager funds they can and go it alone. By definition, most of these guys are underfunded amateurs, and we should hardly be surprised at the end result, and even a boycott (if such a thing were possible or desirable; I don't think, much as I'd like the quality of horror films overall to improve, that I could live without a horror fix for as long as it would probably take to get the studios to change their ways) probably wouldn't stop the onslaught of bad horror flicks. And of course, throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it, either (Rob Zombie movies, anyone?).

Perhaps I've just become too jaded from an almost constant immersion in horror fiction in all its forms. Maybe I really DO expect too much. Maybe I AM whining. Feel free to tell me so in your replies.

[Keith F]

I personally became burned out on horror and action flicks years ago because of this reason. Low budgets are no excuse to not try and give me something new, something approaching using an imagination. I suppose I got so sick of wading through the crap that I gave up, and let fine people like the writers of Creature Corner and the message board denizens tell me what I should check out.

I spent the 80's and a good part of the 90's watching anything, horror and action, I just don't have the balls any more. More power to you guys and girls that can still sort through it all to find the quality.

Maybe I'm getting off topic, the point is that I think a lot of folks are too accepting of crap. I have a good friend that is the king of "well, that one scene was cool", or "at least the blonde showed her tits". A smattering of money shots just doesn't do it for me anymore. You get the same thing in the B action movie thread (sorry guys, it's true). I saw an early copy of Seagal's latest shitpile and wrote a negative review. Now, weeks later, I see that most of them are eating it up with a spoon. Why? Because of a few good fights and funny lines, totally ignoring the incrompehensible lazy plotting and... well, it's a Seagal DTV, I suppose I'm the one who needed to lower his expectations.

[Chris Olson]

I'd say that a vast majority of horror fans are indeed too accepting of crap. This was demonstrated pretty clearly to me in the little Misty Mundae doc that appeared on the Camp Motion Pictures Trailer Trash DVD. They had all these fans pretty much praising the output of this studio, yet if the trailers (or the entirety of Creature From the Hillbilly Lagoon) is any indication, their movies are complete shit.

The worst part is, these weren't kids. They were all men (and a couple women) in their 30s or 40s. Granted, a lot of these people really seemed to embody the "emotionally stunted fanboy" role, so I'm sure that had something to do with their lowered standards. It just seems like most horror fans started watching this stuff in high school strictly for the gore and the tits, and they never quite grew out of it. They've been conditioned by their own marginalized tastes to settle for crap so long as it meets the base criteria that was outlined by Iggy in his original post.

Frankly, I love horror movies, and always have, but as I've grown older I've started to demand a little more out of my entertainment. I've just sort of outgrown obvious crap like Seduction of the Vampire, Skin Crawl, or Cannibal Cookout. Of course, if a low-budget film at least strives to be inventive or charming in a demented way, as in the case of Dead Alive, Black Sheep, or Killer Klowns From Outer Space, I'm willing to overlook a lot of shortcomings. Of course, those particular examples are films that don't necessarily rely solely on the gore or the tits, and incorporate a lot of witty writing and entertaining characters, and have loads of style to spare, so it's kind of unfair to compare them to something like Rapturious.

I guess my point is that when I was 15, something like Sorority Babes in the Slime Ball Bowl-a-Rama was more than adequate to satisfy my entertainment (not mention carnal) desires. These days, though, I demand more out of a horror film. I really wish more horror fans felt the same way.

[stelios]

I was thinking kind of the same thing the other day. I'd just watched Hatchet and I felt at the time that it was pretty entertaining. Why though? It had a couple of cool kills, a couple of good jokes and decent gore. It also used every cliche I could think of in the most predictable way possible, among other things it did wrong. I could spot everything coming five minutes away but still I enjoyed it. If it was any other genre I'd have dismissed it right away. Do years of watching the worst schlock have dropped our standards so much or horror as a genre has inherently lower quality than the others? I tend to believe that the first is true but I still can't think of many horror movies that are genuinely great movies.

[IggytheBorg]

I'd say that a vast majority of horror fans are indeed too accepting of crap. This was demonstrated pretty clearly to me in the little Misty Mundae doc that appeared on the Camp Motion Pictures Trailer Trash DVD. They had all these fans pretty much praising the output of this studio, yet if the trailers (or the entirety of Creature From the Hillbilly Lagoon) is any indication, their movies are complete shit.

The worst part is, these weren't kids. They were all men (and a couple women) in their 30s or 40s. Granted, a lot of these people really seemed to embody the "emotionally stunted fanboy" role, so I'm sure that had something to do with their lowered standards. It just seems like most horror fans started watching this stuff in high school strictly for the gore and the tits, and they never quite grew out of it. They've been conditioned by their own marginalized tastes to settle for crap so long as it meets the base criteria that was outlined by Iggy in his original post.

Frankly, I love horror movies, and always have, but as I've grown older I've started to demand a little more out of my entertainment. I've just sort of outgrown obvious crap like Seduction of the Vampire, Skin Crawl, or Cannibal Cookout. Of course, if a low-budget film at least strives to be inventive or charming in a demented way, as in the case of Dead Alive, Black Sheep, or Killer Klowns From Outer Space, I'm willing to overlook a lot of shortcomings. Of course, those particular examples are films that don't necessarily rely solely on the gore or the tits, and incorporate a lot of witty writing and entertaining characters, and have loads of style to spare, so it's kind of unfair to compare them to something like Rapturious.

I guess my point is that when I was 15, something like Sorority Babes in the Slime Ball Bowl-a-Rama was more than adequate to satisfy my entertainment (not mention carnal) desires. These days, though, I demand more out of a horror film. I really wish more horror fans felt the same way.

Posts like this are why I do what I do. Thank you, Chris. I think the majority of the folks that post here are not emotionally stunted fanboys. They don't come off that way, by and large, at any rate. But I figure there aren't enough of us horror sophisticates out there to compensate for the legions of ESFb's out there that spend money not only on the films or the books, but on the t-shirts and the figurines and all the rest of it.

And I agree that a low budget doesn't necessarily translate into a worthless film, as I've enjoyed the ones you cite as being original and entertaining despite their budget problems (I especially liked 'Killer Klowns"; made me laugh out loud a couple times). Perhaps originality IS what's missing more so than anything else? Perhaps it's not as easy to make a film that follows the tried and true formulae but is still good because it's made with skill than I initially thought?

[IggytheBorg]

I was thinking kind of the same thing the other day. I'd just watched Hatchet and I felt at the time that it was pretty entertaining. Why though? It had a couple of cool kills, a couple of good jokes and decent gore. It also used every cliche I could think of in the most predictable way possible, among other things it did wrong. I could spot everything coming five minutes away but still I enjoyed it. If it was any other genre I'd have dismissed it right away. Do years of watching the worst schlock have dropped our standards so much or horror as a genre has inherently lower quality than the others? I tend to believe that the first is true but I still can't think of many horror movies that are genuinely great movies.

Nor can I think of a proliferation of low budget crap movies from any other genre stil being made today (one could argue there were schlock sci-fi B&W films by the ton being made in the 50's, but that seems to have stopped awhile ago).

[Chris Olson]

Do years of watching the worst schlock have dropped our standards so much or horror as a genre has inherently lower quality than the others? I tend to believe that the first is true but I still can't think of many horror movies that are genuinely great movies.

Suspiria, The Exorcist, The Shining, The Thing, Halloween, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead (take your pick)...hell, I'd even throw the original Carnival of Souls on the list.

That's just off the top of my head.

ETA: Thanks, Iggy. I just get so sick of people praising shit films simply because they had some decent gore or chicks willing to rub entrails on their tits. Crap is crap. People need to stop pretending it's something else just because it meets their horribly low standards.

[stelios]

I never said there weren't any great horror movies. They're just too few of them. And judging objectively and not as a horror fan there isn't a horror movie I could call a masterpiece without adding a caveat.

[Chris Olson]

I never said there weren't any great horror movies. They're just too few of them. And judging objectively and not as a horror fan there isn't a horror movie I could call a masterpiece without adding a caveat.

Sorry, guess I misread your post. Still, though, I'd be willing stack up a lot of those movies I listed against a lot "legitimate" flicks that are considered great.

[Ryan S~]

Great topic, Iggy!

I'd like to address the idea that perhaps low budget equals low quality. It's an excuse on the part of the filmmakers, plain and simple. If you have a creative writer and creative crew (including director) then there is no reason for a lack of budget to interfere with the story or ratcheting up tension.

Part of the problem is that way too often people assume that gore is the ultimate way of judging a horror flick. They then spend way too much time (and money) creating blood and gore and simply forget that we need a story and we need characters that we at least like or sympathize with. Frankly, you give me one interesting character, put them in a life threatening situation and slowly take away their chance of survival and you've got me hooked. Gore is nice and I do want some but I also need a reason to get to the gore. Otherwise it's horror porn where I fast forward to the gore and skip the plot.

Way too often on cheap horror sets I hear someone question a shot, point out a continuity error or plot hole and the director/producer/writer wave it off saying no one will notice. Low budget is no excuse for poor filmmaking.

I also think part of the problem is that people think horror is easy to make so it attracts extremely untalented people who just want to make a film so they can say they made a film. Or, as you point out, it attracts people who just want to get their name out there because Raimi, Carpenter, Sayles etc. started that way. They think it's a quick and easy in to the industry. So, they make a cheap knock off of a zombie flick or a slasher flick. They completely forget that those guys are also helluva gifted men with insane work ethics.

I think part of the problem does come from what is currently getting made. How many bad scripts have shown up ripping off Hostel's torture scenes forgetting that there was more to that movie then torture? (I hate, hate, hate Hostel but I give it credit for trying to be more then torture porn) How many internet film geeks have written and submitted godawful crap because they see guys like Drew McWeeny continually get their equally as shitty work made by once famous directors?

I don't think we do ourselves any favours by renting sub par crap or, for that matter, praising stuff as brilliant when it's only a step up from the crap we have been watching. Yes, The Hills Have Eyes remake is better then a lot of the horror stuff that came out the same year but that sure doesn't make it as great a film as everyone said. It had characters that were a step closer to flesh then most but, good god, they were still pretty much ciphers.

[stelios]

I just think that as horror fans we should try calling the filmmakers on their crap and demanding the more talented of them to up their game. Make sure their actors act like humans instead of Morlocks, that they're not lighting their sets with a couple of zippo lighters and that their script isn't written in 15 minutes. I'm exaggerating of course but we need to judge horror movies by the same standards we do every other genre. Graphic eviscerations can only get you so far.

[James May]

Well, I like the topic and definitely agree, but what sort of films are we talking about here? There is probably just as much good now as there ever has been, its just that the crap has come to outweigh the good by an alarming amount. We have the wealth of good horror cinema to look at and judge against what is coming out right now and that is always going to make it look lackluster especially after too many viewing of garbage like Hatchet. Was The Descent, Hostel, High Tension (and I know there are caveats with that film), or Behind the Mask garbage?

My beacon of hope came from the Canadian publication Rue Morgue, they have such excellent articles and avoid a lot of the crap Fangoria tends to tout. Anyone else here read this?

[Chris Olson]

I just think that as horror fans we should try calling the filmmakers on their crap and demanding the more talented of them to up their game. Make sure their actors act like humans instead of Morlocks, that they're not lighting their sets with a couple of zippo lighters and that their script isn't written in 15 minutes. I'm exaggerating of course but we need to judge horror movies by the same standards we do every other genre. Graphic eviscerations can only get you so far.

I completely, 100% agree with you on this. You pretty much summed up my feelings on this matter.

[Mattioli]

In addition, there seems to be a predisposition within the horror fan community to support a genre flick that hits its marks. That's not to say we don't appreciate originality in our gore, but we also tend to applaud the films that are by-the-numbers. I think this is very evident in the current love affair with 80s-eque slasher flicks. Hatchet brought absolutely nothing new to the genre, but it established itself as a throwback by featuring (1) a hulking, unstoppable, disfigured killdozer, (2) a goofy origin legend/backstory, (3) a high body count, (4) some excellent boobage, and (5) some excellent kills. As a result, it's received a fair amount of buzz and praise (although I thought it was wretched). That's lazy work by the film makers, but we (well, maybe not the Chewers) cheer because its cinematic comfort food. It's *GASP* nostalgia. Behind the Mask is another example, although quite clever in its subversion of horror hallmarks.

In a certain sense, we, as horror fans, applaud and cheer BECAUSE we know what to expect. And that's bizarre because we have nothing but disdain for cliche-ridden movies of different genres. So, to return to the original question posed by Iggy, Yes, we delude ourselves.* We delude ourselves by expecting (and hoping for) the cliches. In doing so, we lower the bar for horror film makers and degrade the genre.**







*I hope this is a responsive post and not rambling nonsense.
**That's not to say that we don't enjoy novelty and innovation in our horror, as well.

[James May]

I think its safe to say, here in this thread, that we want innovation, good storytelling, and quality filmmaking. Are all these things necessary? Well in the words of Meatloaf, two out of three ain't bad. Unfortunately it seems, to me, that most horror fans are willing to settle and settle hard. Don't get me wrong, I love gore as much as the next guy, a good film, though, it does not make.

It's probably too much (and unfair to boot) to expect every guy to be the next Raimi, Carpenter, Jackson, or Cronenberg. We have Eli Roth, Alexandre Aja, and Neil Marshall currently doing solid work. These filmmakers are still pretty fresh and the best work of their careers may very well be in the future. Comparison will only cause them to look weak, but again we don't have enough to judge them by.

Am I going anywhere with this? No, just want to see a little perspective in here before we damn the whole genre. Again, though, we have to remember that there really was no single year that brought us all these horror classics. Patience is a virtue to the horror fan, and best to think twice before picking up a DTV horror. If you're burnt out, its understandable, just be smarter in what you expose yourself to and listen to better critics.

[Gabriel Williams]

It's not just horror films, though. There's shit in EVERY genre and people lap it up. Why? Here are some reasons:

- the entertainment industry is a lowest common denominator industry
- the prime motivation is to make money
- it's expensive to make films

I'm not saying that there aren't talented writers, directors, actors, etc out there. I'm saying that the people who control the money will generally only bankroll stuff that they think will make a profit. Thus the suffocating tide of remakes in the horror genre, and the total lack of new ideas in more mainstream fare. Innovation implies risk.

Two other reasons:

- people are essentially undemanding
- film distribution

People are essentially passive. It takes work to sift through the information out there and to make an informed decision about whether to go and see something in the cinema. People will just go the local multiplex and see what's been programmed for them. They don't have the curiosity to look elsewhere. Most people don't even know that there are vast subgenres out there catering to almost every possible taste, they just go by what's on at the mall. That's why a whole lot of people were pissed off by NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN - it didn't conform to their expectation of what a film should be, because all they're used to is the same tired old shit that fills the multiplexes every week. It made them think, for christ's sake, and they sure don't want to be doing that while they suck on a 2 gallon bucket of Pepsi.

[IggytheBorg]

Hey! I happen to like the 2 gallon bucket of Pepsi (I am a caffeine addict, but I hate coffe).

[Death Surge]

It's not really deluding ourselves if we admit to the fact that we're quite often just looking for the lowest common denominator. I probably have one of the most schizophrenic Netflix queues, as I tend to rent a great many "arthouse" films interspersed amongst the steady stream of horror. There really is something odd about being happy that Renoir's "The Rules of the Game" arrived in the mail the same day as "The Rage" and "Buried Alive". I'm a gore-hound, so really not looking for a DTV horror film to deliver anything but Job Bob Brigg's 3 B's: Blood, Breasts and Beasts. The occasional time it delivers something more than expected is a bonus, and the once in a blue moon time it transcends the genre ("Evil Dead" being the gold standard example) tends to make all of the past failures not so painful. You have to make peace with the fact that so-called High-Budget horror is and has never been targeted at horror genre fans, but always at the general public, and what the general public finds horrorific is what most of us find laughable.

There is a difference though between the seasoned horror professional and the slavering horror fanboys who attend cons looking to get Debbie Rochon to sign their VHS copy of "Tromeo and Juliet". While both are smart enough to avoid anything resembling a traditional 80's slasher rip-off aimed at the teeny bopper set and of course, anything with a PG-13 rating, It's the seasoned pro who knows that you aren't actually supposed to enjoy DTV splatter fests that are horribly executed. Also, while we are willing to tolerate a certain level of sub-par acting, none of us are willing to support the theory that Brinke Stevens should have been Oscar nominated for "Teenage Exorcist"

[IggytheBorg]

I was thinking kind of the same thing the other day. I'd just watched Hatchet and I felt at the time that it was pretty entertaining. Why though? It had a couple of cool kills, a couple of good jokes and decent gore. It also used every cliche I could think of in the most predictable way possible, among other things it did wrong. I could spot everything coming five minutes away but still I enjoyed it. If it was any other genre I'd have dismissed it right away. Do years of watching the worst schlock have dropped our standards so much or horror as a genre has inherently lower quality than the others? I tend to believe that the first is true but I still can't think of many horror movies that are genuinely great movies.

Re-reading this post reminded me; wasn't "Hatchet" touted as a straight up, by-the-numbers, old school slasher film, making no bones about that fact? Weren't the cliches kind of SUPPOSED to be there? And if they were, is that forgiveable and maybe makes the film a little less horrendous, because it's sort of an homage/intentional throwback? I used to play old school 1st edition D&D as a teen. About 2 years ago, a friend of mine sends me a link to Goodmangames.com, which features a product line called "Dungeon Crawl Clasics", that are supposed to be throwbacks to the olden days of D&D modules: "Remember the good old days, when modules didn't waste your time with long winded speeches, NPC's were meant to be killed, and you just know the treasure hoarding dragon is in there somewhere?" He proposed that a foursome of us get together and start playing some of these, as it would take the onus of DM'ing from scratch off of whoever ended up doing it (most likely me), and we'd just have some fun w/ old style modules. kind of RPG comfort food. We took him up on it & had a hell of a lot of fun for more than a year and a half (we're on hiatus due to job duties changing for the above friend, but hope to re-start soon). I haven't seen "Hatchet", but plan to (it's on the queue). Couldn't the argument be made that it's intended to be sort of horror film comfort food, the same way the Dungeon Crawl Classics are? And is that a bad thing?

[IggytheBorg]

It's not really deluding ourselves if we admit to the fact that we're quite often just looking for the lowest common denominator. I probably have one of the most schizophrenic Netflix queues, as I tend to rent a great many "arthouse" films interspersed amongst the steady stream of horror. There really is something odd about being happy that Renoir's "The Rules of the Game" arrived in the mail the same day as "The Rage" and "Buried Alive". I'm a gore-hound, so really not looking for a DTV horror film to deliver anything but Job Bob Brigg's 3 B's: Blood, Breasts and Beasts. The occasional time it delivers something more than expected is a bonus, and the once in a blue moon time it transcends the genre ("Evil Dead" being the gold standard example) tends to make all of the past failures not so painful. You have to make peace with the fact that so-called High-Budget horror is and has never been targeted at horror genre fans, but always at the general public, and what the general public finds horrorific is what most of us find laughable.


There is a difference though between the seasoned horror professional and the slavering horror fanboys who attend cons looking to get Debbie Rochon to sign their VHS copy of "Tromeo and Juliet". While both are smart enough to avoid anything resembling a traditional 80's slasher rip-off aimed at the teeny bopper set and of course, anything with a PG-13 rating, It's the seasoned pro who knows that you aren't actually supposed to enjoy DTV splatter fests that are horribly executed. Also, while we are willing to tolerate a certain level of sub-par acting, none of us are willing to support the theory that Brinke Stevens should have been Oscar nominated for "Teenage Exorcist"

Re-reading THIS post reminds me why I enjoy reading what Surge posts so much. I think THIS is what I've been trying to articulate as the attitude I think most of us hereabouts are espousing.

[Trevor]

Horror fans are overprotective of their genre. Sometimes being a horror fan is like having a retarded child- you get over excited when they get even the little things right.

[Andrew Joe]

I love my fair share of horror but I can't swallow the low standard stuff, you can make a great film on a meager budget with creativity and ingenuity. Instead I sat at my friends house and we both stared slack jawed at Dead & Breakfast and how excessively shameful the whole damn thing was, smug, tedious and relentlessly terrible.

I made a B-line for it on imdb and while obviously not the best source of a level headed opinion, the people on there saying all things considered it was okay are just devoid of a critical eye or...eyes at all.

[Greg David]

Horror fans are overprotective of their genre. Sometimes being a horror fan is like having a retarded child- you get over excited when they get even the little things right.

Quote of the year.

This is a great subject, and one I debate a lot with a friend of mine. I should see if I can get him in here to pimp his point of view. He is one of those horror fans. He loves the genre so much that he's willing to make concessions for it. Now, he's not stupid or ignorant, and he does know a good movie when he sees one. In the case of horror films, though, he very consciously lets all that slide out of love of the genre.

As a couple of you have already said, though, horror isn't alone in this. All those chicks who drag their boyfriends to every romantic comedy that comes down the pike do the same thing. I'm sure those girls generally aren't experienced film enthusiasts, but I doubt that the majority of horror fans are either. I myself am known to overlook plot and acting shortcomings in a kung fu film if the fighting quality is there.

I completely agree about the budget-as-excuse, though. A good idea and well-written dialogue don't raise the budget. And I would feel better about forgiving shortcomings if they were in the arena of special effects and production value, rather than writing and acting.

[Waaaaaaaalt]

Yeah I do think all the horror fans are an odd bunch. I mean all the horror websites were promoting Hatchet and Wrong Turn 2, did anyone fcking see these movies? They were fucking awful but when you say that everyone just "hey they aren't supposed to be they were just bloody fun". Christ Hatchet was no better than any other straight to video piece of shit but if you listen to the websites you would think it was Casablanca.

Im a horror fan and I don't take things too seriously but I do have standards. For instance I really liked Behind The Mask because it was new and different. I didn't like the Tripper, I did like The Descent.

[James May]

Disregarding some late film issues, I thought The Descent and High Tension were terrific horror films. I can understand that most horror fans will accept too little, but I think the output of horror films has been just as decent as it ever was. Maybe we all just ask for too much and can't recognize the genre for what it is, mostly garbage (although aesthetically pleasing to our morbid tastes).

Most genre work, whether it be sci-fi, horror, fantasy,etc.., is dominated by substandard filmmaking. Why then are we suddenly having a crisis over horror films? Didn't you guys know what you were getting attached to?

[LatinoInferno]

This will annoy some folks, but since I'm LatinoInferno, I guess its nothing new.

My problem with American Horror these days is how, for the most part, most filmmakers from the producers to the directors just don't give a total shit beyond delivering the quota of gore and jump scares.

To put it another way, its like Porn. In the 70s, the Porn-Chic epoch tried to give the fucking and blowjobs a plot, or try to be a movie in themselves as if there was no sex scenes.

But afterwards, Porno is all about the quota of tits, the ass-ramming, and then the "Big Pop" finale.

Take a horror movie from last year, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT.

Its got a goddamn great idea for a movie, an Alaskan town beseiged by an army of Vampires for a month's worth of darkness.

Too bad the movie is so concerned with the kills, everything else: Building suspense, making characters be real and count, be atmospheric, have a goddamn story....all goes out the window.

I mean, imagine Carpenter's THE THING if Carp said Fuck it to the direction and simply concentrated on the monster shots.

That's 30 DAYS OF NIGHT, and it literally sucks.

[Greg David]

I sometimes think that horror filmmakers suffer from the same myopic viewpoint that comics artists do. Basically, there are certain comics artists out there (by which I mean Rob Liefeld) who obviously only learned to draw from other people's comics art. He's clearly never studied any other forms, and certainly never studied human anatomy. I'm not sure he's even seen a woman before.

By the same token, I wonder if a lot of the directors making these horror films have seen anything other than horror films. There's such a sense of inbreeding to so many of these projects, as if they think that aping the conventions of good horror movies will result in a good horror movie. The idea that it won't be scary because we've seen it a hundred times doesn't seem to occur to them. They're sticking to the form, rather than trying to be interesting or different.

[Xagarath Ankor]

As far as I'm concerned, there's no need for me to put up with poor-quality stuff, given that there's an awful lot of genuinely great horror out there.
The problem is that very, very little of it is at all recent.
You see, I don't really have the same taste in gore for its own sake as the majority of genre fans. I can enjoy a gory film if well-made, or the blood is used for atmosphere rather than just shock; and I can even take to things like Braindead. The fact remains, however, that I'd merrily discard most such films in favour of no-effects all-atmosphere ghost stories like Carnival of Souls, The Haunting, The Innocents or The Stone Tape, or genuinely brilliant arthouse pieces like Eyes Without a Face, Kwaidan, Onibaba and Suspiria, or high-quality psychological thrillers such as Peeping Tom, Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby.
The problem is that there's a lot less of this kind of thing once you go past the early 70s.

Which is not to say that everything before then was high quality, of course, I'm still midly bewildered as to why the Hammer Dracula films have the reputation they do- as far as gothic horror from the same period goes they don't even have the visual imagination of Bava's early work.

Anyway, there is still quite a lot of modern horror I watch and enjoy, and we do get occasional greats such as The Host, Pan's Labyrinth or Call of Cthulhu, and pretty high-quality pieces such as Dead Birds, Them or Calvaire. However, these do often seem to be rather lost in the glut of Saw sequals.

I think the problem, really, is the equation a lot of filmmakers have in their heads of horror=gore and exploitation, which although not an entirely invalid point of view, requires the ability of Argento or Romero or Barker to pull off effectively. I think the art of not showing things, and letting imagination fill in the gaps, has a great deal more power to it; and it often seems to be sadly forgotten.

[IggytheBorg]

Horror fans are overprotective of their genre. Sometimes being a horror fan is like having a retarded child- you get over excited when they get even the little things right.

I. Want. Rep. Back.

This is both funny and insightful. It's also probably ytrue. I thought a long wilr before posting this thread because I was pretty sure it would stir up a lot of controversy (and not necessarily in the good way) for just the reason Minsky cites. I'm actually very surprised that most of the posts seem to be in agreement that the majority of horror fans are deluding themselves. But I think the fact that we all seem to consider ourselves above doing so proves my earlier point, that around here, at least, we're not all a bunch of ESFb's.

. . .although I still want to see "Hatchet" and "Wrong Turn 2" based on comments I've read here.

[Gabriel Williams]

I'm having a little debate with myself about Henenlotter's BAD BIOLOGY. The trailer made the thing look terrible, frankly. But I know Henenlotter's got the pedigree to make a totally left-field, balls to the wall schlockfest with never before seen elements of body horror comedy. So I'm willing the give the terrible acting and piss-poor trailer a pass precisely because of the above. I may well end up saying "well, it had good gore..." , but I don't regard this as selling out because I regard Henenlotter as one of the true horror visionaries of the late 80s-early 90s, and at least he's trying something NEW.

Am I deluding myself?

As an aside, I wonder what Henenlotter could do with a decent budget and decent actors? Or does he need a miniscule budget and bad actors?

[Greg David]

Ankor's post got me thinking about another aspect of all this. It should come as no surprise to anyone around here that most people who watch movies (in any genre, not just horror) tend to avoid older films. It appears that most of the general audience would much rather watch a new film that promises to be awful than seek out an older film that's gained a positive reputation.

Horror fans are cursed with this to a high degree. When I look at the new releases on XBox Live Marketplace, I'm stunned by the number of crummy direct-to-video horror titles. And I know that the reason they're there is that they sell. The sad fact is, most of the people who consider themselves fans of the genre would rather watch whatever came out this week than find a copy of something by Cronenberg or Argento or Romero, or even Barker. To some degree, I have to wonder if it's because they think that's what horror is supposed to be; a shitty, low-budget gorefest with bad acting. They expect a horror movie to be fun, and if that fun is had at the expense of the film itself, so much the better I guess.

There was an interesting discussion around here when The Hills Have Eyes remake came out. Some people felt that the rape scene was "going too far", and that they don't want to see that sort of thing in a horror movie. Several of us argued that if the movie isn't trying to shock and disturb you, then what's the point of seeing a horror movie in the first place? Again, it's this "horror should be fun" attitude, that it shouldn't actually be disturbing or frightening, it should just pretend to try, and you should laugh at it for trying. If it succeeds at making you uncomfortable, then it's somehow done something wrong.

[James May]

That seems to be a bit of a split with the horror crowd. A lot of the people who will make a horror film a hit are exactly these people, but then there are people like us who are willing to plumb the depths of everything. Most horror fans I know fall into the latter category, of course the problem with us is we're not going to give the studios a good opening. We wait for word of mouth or good reviews (and sometimes strictly wait for dvd).

There was a time in the late 90's when I'd see any horror film that hit theatres, then Dark Castle killed that for me. Studio driven horror will always aim for the uneducated consumer, I wish there were a trick to changing that, but there isn't. There is no point in spending our time wringing our hands at the state of things, appreciate whats good and deal with the fact that we're not gonna be the target audience the majority of the time.

[Iron Maiden]

I learned to live with Hollywood only churning out a few great horror films per decade. With that being said, I try my best to stay away from all the crap out there. I just tend to spend my money to watch foreign films instead. Other countries are doing great jobs of bringing good/great horror films to the world. Hollywood has not really done that.

Pan's Labyrinth, Three...Extremes, The Descent, Dog Soldiers, The Host, Audition, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, High Tension, Ginger Snaps, The Devil's Backbone, Shaun of the Dead (yes, more of a comedy), and Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust are all good/great horror films that have come out in this decade. But, yeah, none of those came out of Hollywood.

Most of my favorite horror films from Hollywood this decade are either independent films or big budget ones that no one saw. Three independent ones that come to mind right away are Joshua (check the thread), Bubba Ho-Tep and May. I also slightly enjoyed Feast, a movie that would never have been made if not for a television show. The Woods was decent, but Bruce Campbell's presence helped. The big(ger) budget films that no one saw would be Grindhouse and Frailty. I haven't seen The Mist yet, so I can't include it in there.

That's definitely a part of the problem, though. When well-made horror films get big openings, no one goes to see them. I have to throw myself in there too since I didn't see The Mist. Believe me, I wanted to. When the Saw films continue to have huge box office openings, while The Mist struggles to make what those movies would make in one weekend, Hollywood is going to take notice.

[Greg David]

Pan's Labyrinth, Three...Extremes, The Descent, Dog Soldiers, The Host, Audition, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, High Tension, Ginger Snaps, The Devil's Backbone, Shaun of the Dead (yes, more of a comedy), and Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust are all good/great horror films that have come out in this decade. But, yeah, none of those came out of Hollywood.

I thought three of the films you listed were terrible, but I do take your point. Horror is just like any other type of film. If you don't dig, you're not going to find the treasure.

[Death Surge]

As an aside, I wonder what Henenlotter could do with a decent budget and decent actors? Or does he need a miniscule budget and bad actors?

That reminds me of a discussion I had elsewhere after catching a bit of "Silence of the Lambs" on cable. I determined Demme included a cameo by Roger Corman in the film because it IS a Roger Corman film, only with a budget and talented actors. Hopkins channeling Vincent Price's metro-sexual menace along with the use of gothic atmosphere were evident, but the quality of Foster and the supporting cast mis-directed the audience into not realizing how utterly absurd the scenarios were.

It led me to the determine that Corman with a better casting agent and studio backing could have won a best picture Oscar.

[stelios]

Re-reading this post reminded me; wasn't "Hatchet" touted as a straight up, by-the-numbers, old school slasher film, making no bones about that fact? Weren't the cliches kind of SUPPOSED to be there? And if they were, is that forgiveable and maybe makes the film a little less horrendous, because it's sort of an homage/intentional throwback?

To me, you can't preemptively avoid criticism with excuses like that. Anyway, what I really want is more horror movies like The Mist. Genuinely good movies that just happen to belong in the horror genre. We shouldn't have to make excuses or put qualifiers to the movies we like.

[IggytheBorg]

What I think that would call for is more & better adaptations of some of the excellent horror literature out there, instead of an endless parade of re-makes. Unfortunately, no horror writer today seems to have the name recognition (which equals box office draw) of Stephen King, so I don't see Hollywood exactly beating down Jack Ketchum's or Brian Keene's doors. Damn shame, too, because "The Rising" and "City of the Dead" would make excellent films. Oh, well. I guess they could always film "The Stand".

Edited to add: I realize "TGND" and "The Lost" have been released on video, and Ketchim's "Red" is filming now, but these were (all but, in "TGND"'s case) DTV efforts. Ketchum needs a good adaptation to get wide theatre distribution

[Xagarath Ankor]

Clive Barker has a little of the name recognition, I think.

[Trevor]

Fun thread, so I gave it a shout in this DVD (http://chud.com/articles/articles/14036/1/DVD-REVIEW--WEREWOLF--THE-DEVIL039S-HOUND/Page1.html)review.

[IggytheBorg]

Clive Barker has a little of the name recognition, I think.

Too little outside our little genre, unfortumately. King's fame crossed over into mainstream audience territory, which is the money Hollywood's really after. I don't see Barker doing that even at the peak of his fame, much less today when his influence on even this genre has waned considerably. Hellraiser was, IMO, clearly the exception and not the rule for his film career's success.

And Minsky, I'm flattered to be linked to the main page. Even if it was in a review of an awful film. The IDEA for "Werewolf" had some potential (seductress she wolf tempting family man, etc.) but was apparently executed so poorly it couldn't be saved. Too bad. We need more good werewolf movies.

[IggytheBorg]

Ankor's post got me thinking about another aspect of all this. It should come as no surprise to anyone around here that most people who watch movies (in any genre, not just horror) tend to avoid older films. It appears that most of the general audience would much rather watch a new film that promises to be awful than seek out an older film that's gained a positive reputation.

Horror fans are cursed with this to a high degree. When I look at the new releases on XBox Live Marketplace, I'm stunned by the number of crummy direct-to-video horror titles. And I know that the reason they're there is that they sell. The sad fact is, most of the people who consider themselves fans of the genre would rather watch whatever came out this week than find a copy of something by Cronenberg or Argento or Romero, or even Barker. To some degree, I have to wonder if it's because they think that's what horror is supposed to be; a shitty, low-budget gorefest with bad acting. They expect a horror movie to be fun, and if that fun is had at the expense of the film itself, so much the better I guess.

There was an interesting discussion around here when The Hills Have Eyes remake came out. Some people felt that the rape scene was "going too far", and that they don't want to see that sort of thing in a horror movie. Several of us argued that if the movie isn't trying to shock and disturb you, then what's the point of seeing a horror movie in the first place? Again, it's this "horror should be fun" attitude, that it shouldn't actually be disturbing or frightening, it should just pretend to try, and you should laugh at it for trying. If it succeeds at making you uncomfortable, then it's somehow done something wrong.

I've been thinking about this post for awhile. I'm in agreement with you (and was, if I recall, one of the ones who joined you in saying) that going "too far" isn't - or shouldn't be - possible for a horror film maker. It is a genre that was designed to disturb the viewer. That is - or again, it should be - the whole point.

Now, I'm not dead set against some horror movies being "fun". I greatly enjoyed "Feast" and "Shaun of the Dead", for example. BUt I asked the question in an earlier thread as to whetehr or not it's horror comedies like this, and the Troma films and such, that are to blame for the "horror movies should be fun nd not disturbing" attitude Greg speaks about. The general consensus in the replies to that thread was "no, they aren't". I think I have to agree, because "Shaun" made no bones about its being a horror-comedy. Adn when you rent a Troma film, you know (or should, if you've been a fan for any length of time) what you're in for. Going into it w/ that mindset for the occasional "fun" film is nothing more than a change of pace. Like orderng soup instead of salad with dinner one in awhile.

But I think you have to be a horror sophisticate to at least some degree to have developed the palate to distinguish between these and "real", disturbing horror fare, and appreciate them for what they are; a fun, different sort of experience. To expect that all horror films will be like that, though, that's a whole other animal. One that isn't seen much 'round these parts, fortunately. But unfortunately, that's a population in the general movie going public that probably dwarfs our own. Wonder if there's anything we can do to cull it? And what allowed this population to thrive? Like Greg suggests, the bad, DTV "horror" movie that tries to make it "fun" rather than scary.

OK, so now we have a cause. What can be done about it? The only thing I can think of is, as has been suggested, listen to good critics (like Alex and Chris, f'r instance) and their opinions, and gravitate only toward products with promise, ignoring (and threfore not funding) the schlock.

So now I'm starting to wrack myself with guilt, because I've long been an advocate of the After Dark Films Horrorfest every year.been to both so far and saw all 8 films at each one. I repeatedly say I enjoy the experience more than the actual movies (for the most part), because the movies. . . well, thy mainly aen't that good (although they are getting a little better, and one can always hope they'll keep doing so). Christ, I think I'm part of the problem, now. Will I stop going to the 'fest? Probably not. Will I feel as good about that decision in the future? Maybe not. Will my continued advocacy & attendance, particularly if it sparks interest in others to join me, help improve the films at all in future years? Who knows?

[Greg David]

I guess that, in terms of this movement, I can say that I'm no longer part of the problem. I stopped watching horror films that didn't look promising years ago. I used to be a tireless advocate of digging through the dirt to find the diamonds. I finally realized that the number of diamonds I was finding was pretty depressing, and most of the diamonds weren't even very high quality. I now go with movies that come recommended from trusted sources, then do my part by passing the recommendation on to others. That's about all we can really do.

[Xagarath Ankor]

I've always tried to stick to the approach that life is too short to waste it on bad films.
That said, actually finding reliable horror critics outside here can be a little tricky. Kim Newman usually serves me well.

[Jack Dnim]

I sometimes think that horror filmmakers suffer from the same myopic viewpoint that comics artists do... ...By the same token, I wonder if a lot of the directors making these horror films have seen anything other than horror films. There's such a sense of inbreeding to so many of these projects, as if they think that aping the conventions of good horror movies will result in a good horror movie. The idea that it won't be scary because we've seen it a hundred times doesn't seem to occur to them. They're sticking to the form, rather than trying to be interesting or different.

I agree with this. It frustrates me so much. It makes me wonder if these filmmakers actually like the genre of if they are just film students making a horror film because it can be low budget affair, and maybe still garner some notice.

But, I can't understand is how someone can be a genuine fan of horror, and have no fucking interest, at all, (AT ALL) to put their personal spin on the horror cliches. As a fan they have to know what they are, they know the jump scares, the generic plot points, so, why, why in the fuck would they just mime them? Why? Why did they go to the trouble of securing money, of going through everything necessary to create a film, and be content to make a film of no distinction? How as a creatively inclined human being can they have no interest to refrain from cliches, or flip them on their back? Does everyone involve just high five each other for nailing the genre tropes? That girl tripped, awesome! Loved the black cat in the cabinet! I loved how the killer is just like every other masked killer in a hundred other films! High five!

Perhaps that is a little more passion then this grievance deserves, but it aggravates me that this is what people do with a chance at making a movie.

[General Zod]

A lot of the blame should be aimed at the fans. If "we" would stop going to see the shitty remakes and sequels, maybe the studio would give a visionary a chance. I often wonder too if there are any horror movie fans left making movies. By their output, it just seems like it's all for a paycheck and have no idea of what makes a horror film work.
Horror movies move in cycles so hopefully we'll get back to retro stuff and see a return the heydays of Hammer horror. Not all gems, but damn they certainly had tons of style and most of the time didn't insult your intelligence or make u sick with the torture porn bullshit.

[IggytheBorg]

I agree with this. It frustrates me so much. It makes me wonder if these filmmakers actually like the genre of if they are just film students making a horror film because it can be low budget affair, and maybe still garner some notice.

But, I can't understand is how someone can be a genuine fan of horror, and have no fucking interest, at all, (AT ALL) to put their personal spin on the horror cliches. As a fan they have to know what they are, they know the jump scares, the generic plot points, so, why, why in the fuck would they just mime them? Why? Why did they go to the trouble of securing money, of going through everything necessary to create a film, and be content to make a film of no distinction? How as a creatively inclined human being can they have no interest to refrain from cliches, or flip them on their back? Does everyone involve just high five each other for nailing the genre tropes? That girl tripped, awesome! Loved the black cat in the cabinet! I loved how the killer is just like every other masked killer in a hundred other films! High five!

Perhaps that is a little more passion then this grievance deserves, but it aggravates me that this is what people do with a chance at making a movie.

Well said. I guess it's just not that easy to be creative; that's why not everyone is a writer or director or artist. of course, the studio standing over you prepared to yank funding if the director DOES do somrthing innovative instead of sticking to the tried and true money making formula doesn't help, either. As Zod points out, the fans (and I presume he means the movie going public at large, not just the horror fans, specifically) keep shelling out money to keep these shitty movies getting made. But I don't think the bean counters are entirely blameless, either. Maybe if a few more of them were willing to take risks once in awhile, and give the creative talent more free rein, more good films would be made, and the public in general would raise its standards just a hair. If nothing else, it would give the filmmakers something new to imitate for awhile (like they milked the J-horror cash cow, and are currently drawing the last drops of blood from the stone that is "torture porn", a term I hate, BTW). I'd settle for a switch up in what crap they're re-hashing more often, if that's all I could get.

[Chris Olson]

This may not be relevant to the discussion, but this past weekend I had a double feature of Carnival of Souls and Suspiria, both of which have been mentioned previously in this thread, and I was reminded exactly how good both of those movies truly are. I've seen both of them multiple times, and it's a testament to the quality of both films that every single viewing only serves to reinforce the fact that not only are they exceptional horror films, but really damn good (if not outright great) films period. Both movies are exceptionally crafted thrillers that really manage to create a palpable sense of dread, and at the same time manage to be immensely entertaining and watchable. In both films, all the various elements of filmmaking just come together perfectly, and in the process something special is created.

Granted, they're not what I would call perfect films. I freely acknowledge that some of the performances are less than perfect (that old guy by the drinking fountain in Carnival of Souls, for instance), and there are times when the low-budgets tend to rear their ugly heads (the bat in Suspiria, anyone?), but overall these movies are pretty good examples of what I would consider exemplary horror films, movies that I would point to when someone wonders why I love the genre.

Unfortunately, these are also films that tend to alienate most modern horror fans. Not to get all anecdotal, but I've shown Suspiria to a number of different college-aged audiences, and got wildly different reactions. Some people love it because of the style, but the majority claimed that it was too cheesy and slow compared to the movies they are used to. They're more used to the Saw style of horror films, and I think it's because they've been conditioned to believe that the genre should be long on gore and short on suspense. They're not willing to allow the movies to actually scare them, they just want to watch some naked chick get her tits ripped off by the charismatic villain.

To me, this leads right back to the problem posed in Iggy's initial post; the majority of horror fans are more willing to put up with literally ANY genre entry so long as it has the requisite gore and nudity required for them to have a good time, rather than a quality movie that is truly unsettling or shocking. While I think that the former type of flick definitely has it's place (I can appreciate stuff like Cemetery Man and Re-Animator just as much as the next horror geek), in the long run it just tends to dilute the quality of the genre as a whole, and it just makes it harder to for people like us to justify why we love it in the first place.

[IggytheBorg]

Damn shame we have to justify it at all, isn't it?

[General Zod]

We don't. NEVER justify anything you like. If they don't get it- Fuck'em!

The problem with horror right now too is lack of a really good story or a unique spin on a familiar premise. Honestly, there are really only three solid horror movie plots; the crazed maniac, monster on the loose or haunted house. Nowadays, take your pick and they can't even get that right. Looking back on all of our beloved classics; a totally original idea is not needed, style, solid script and good cast is yet here we are bitching.
It's not that we ask for too much, we don't ask for hardly anything at all, which is why we get shit like "Saw 4" and "The Hills Have Eyes 5."

[Chris Myers]

Great flicks were always the exception. Each decade has new ones, but just don't bother with all that oversaturation. 20 years ago, you had a bunch of well reviewed flicks and tons of b movie shit. You mostly only heard about the really good ones. Nowadays, agencies try to advertise every piece of crap as the next best thing.

I remember seeing most flicks in the 80ies and 90ies as a result of friends recommending them to me. Nowadays, the media just recommends anything. Their products have music you seem to like, faces you like to see and hey, that should work as a product, no?

There are still cherries around, just skip the rest and enjoy the best. For example, Grindhouse. One of the best theatre experiences I ever had.

[Xagarath Ankor]

We don't. NEVER justify anything you like. If they don't get it- Fuck'em!

The problem with horror right now too is lack of a really good story or a unique spin on a familiar premise. Honestly, there are really only three solid horror movie plots; the crazed maniac, monster on the loose or haunted house. Nowadays, take your pick and they can't even get that right. Looking back on all of our beloved classics; a totally original idea is not needed, style, solid script and good cast is yet here we are bitching.
It's not that we ask for too much, we don't ask for hardly anything at all, which is why we get shit like "Saw 4" and "The Hills Have Eyes 5."

Surely the crazed maniac and monster on the loose are the same plot?
I'd add protagonist (maybe) going insane as a third option instead.

[S.D. Bob Plissken]

Great flicks were always the exception. Each decade has new ones, but just don't bother with all that oversaturation. 20 years ago, you had a bunch of well reviewed flicks and tons of b movie shit. You mostly only heard about the really good ones.

Exactly! Just as many shitty horror films (or in any genre, for that matter) were made in the 60s, 70s, and 80s as there are right now..............it's just that nobody remembers most of them! Just as many remakes and ripoffs were done back then as well, but most of the bad ones have fallen into obscurity. Usually after a decade since the end of an era has passed, only the cream (and a bit of the bittersweet underlining) rises to the top..........with the rest of the shit left to disappear into the garbage can. It's no different now than it was then. One film comes out and becomes a hit (whether it is good or not) and is copied countless times until the trend runs out. Then another hits and the cycle starts anew again.

Also, we as horror fans need to be a little more open-minded about new trends. I'm not saying we need to make excuses for films, but we still need to keep an open-mind. For instance, I've mostly been raised on pre-90s horror. Overall, that's what I prefer. Now I've enjoyed a lot of genre flicks that have hit since the 90s began, but my favorites usually date before then. Each decade is different unto itself. They have different styles, trends, and techniques. Older horror fans might scoff at the Saw franchise, but I'll bet you years from now it will still be touted as one of horror's best. Does it deserve it? I don't know. I personally enjoyed the first two, but found the third boring and the fourth downright awful. But you know what? I bet the generation that was our age now when the Friday The 13th movies hit in the 80s said the EXACT same thing about them. And now they're considered classics.

You see, that's the other thing we need to demand from ourselves. Not only should we not set our standards low and make excuses as horror fans, but we need to keep ourselves from becoming too jaded and allowing our tastes to become dated. I see it happen with film critics all the time (Ebert, I'm looking at you!). I'll be damned if I let it happen to myself though!

In the end we need to just flat-out realize that only a handful of worthwhile (be it classics or solid entries) films come out each year in any genre. All the hundreds of others are just a boring waste of time or absolutely awful. This pretty much applies to every year of film in general, from the 1920s up until today. Same goes for the music and literary industries. Hell, it applies to an of the "arts".

So here's the ever-evolving list of "horror fiend" duties:

1. Never apologize for what you love.
2. Never lower your standards.
3. Never makes excuses for projects you feel are lesser.
4. Never allow yourself to become so jaded that you can't enjoy modern works.

Are there any more that we should add?

[Greg David]

Also, we as horror fans need to be a little more open-minded about new trends. I'm not saying we need to make excuses for films, but we still need to keep an open-mind. For instance, I've mostly been raised on pre-90s horror. Overall, that's what I prefer. Now I've enjoyed a lot of genre flicks that have hit since the 90s began, but my favorites usually date before then. Each decade is different unto itself. They have different styles, trends, and techniques. Older horror fans might scoff at the Saw franchise, but I'll bet you years from now it will still be touted as one of horror's best. Does it deserve it? I don't know. I personally enjoyed the first two, but found the third boring and the fourth downright awful. But you know what? I bet the generation that was our age now when the Friday The 13th movies hit in the 80s said the EXACT same thing about them. And now they're considered classics.

This is where your view falls down, though. It doesn't matter what fans of the time think of them. Saw is shit now, and it will be shit twenty years from now. And the Friday the 13th movies? Shit, then and now. Both franchises display what's wrong with most of the horror audience: gore=good. Nobody in their right mind would try to make the case that either are well-written, well-directed, or contain good performances. The "acknowledged classic" status of such films can only therefore be chalked up to nostalgic fondness or a belief that horror is all about the blood. And I don't care to buy into either of those.

Saw and Friday the 13th both very solidly fall under the umbrella of exactly what this discussion was about; that horror fans make too many allowances for what's generally considered good filmmaking if there's enough grue on display, or simply employ the qualifier "for a horror movie". The fact that a large number of people call something a classic doesn't make them right, or even make it a good movie. If that's the case, we all better just sit back and acknowledge that The Goonies is a masterpiece. And I ain't doing that.

Keeping an open mind doesn't have to mean sacrificing your own ideas of what constitutes a good movie.

If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of rubbish into it.
- William Ornton

[S.D. Bob Plissken]

I wasn't referring to neither the F13 franchise nor the Saw ones as paragons of quality. They certainly aren't. Though some of the films in each franchise might be entertaining, at the end of the day they are the epitome of assembly-line filmmaking. Sequel after sequel churned out year after year until the grosses die down enough that the studio finally gives up (which, despite saying they'll stop at six, probably won't happen until Saw 8 or so).

What I am referring to is the fact that nothing has really changed in horror since the end of the '60s, or ever for that matter....

1. We take issue with countless sequels to things being made, yet this has been going on since the '70s. Friday The 13th, A Nightmare On Elm Street, Halloween, Rambo, Rocky, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, etc. The '80s thrived on sequels and it is a trend that has continued to this day.

2. We take issue with all the remakes and re-adaptations of things, but it's been going on since at least the '50s and has never really slowed down. Hammer Studios became famous for their remakes of the classic Universal monster movies and there have been countless other remakes since then as well (some classics themselves, with many others since forgotten). And what did Hammer do? They took the premises and made them "grittier" and more sexually charged than the previous efforts, adding to them a distinct style of the times. That's the exact same thing we criticize Platinum Dunes and their ilk of doing. Now many of us love the Hammer remakes to death (myself definitely included), but I doubt we love them any more than a lot of the younger generation of today loves the current spell of remakes. I'm certainly not saying that I feel the new rounds of redos is on par with the output of Hammer Studios (I definitely don't feel that way), but it makes for an interesting viewpoint. How can we criticize them for doing exactly the same thing that the current studio system of doing without being hypocrites? Hell, Hammer cranked out sequels like made throughout the '70s as well!

3. We take issue with new filmmakers who seem more interested in riffing on the previous work of others, but that's been going on for decades as well with many genre "masters" guilty of doing the exact same thing. Look at John Carpenter, Brian De Palma, Dario Argento, George Romero, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, etc. They all borrowed from previous sources and used what they took to create their own distinctive takes on things. They might have been better at it in our eyes than many of the directors who do the same today, but that's all only a matter of opinion really. Hell, many of them are most certainly guilty of the "nudge nudge, wink wink" cinephile references that many complain about today's films doing. Once again, while we might find their work superior to the current slate of things, such is not the case with most of today's younger generation. To them, the new generation of filmmakers are the geniuses of cinema. Wrong or right, who's the say, but again I don't feel I have the right to criticize their new heroes for doing the exact same things that my own cinematic heroes have done (and still are, to a certain degree).

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

That line always and will always ring true as far as I am concerned. Styles change, as do the faces making them, but in the end not much at all really changes within the horror genre overall (hell, in any genre). Fifteen to twenty years or so from now there will be a generation complaining about Saw being remade; how it is blasphemy and how it could never live up to the original. Mark my words, it'll happen!

[Greg David]

But really (as far as I could tell), we weren't talking about horror movies being accepted. We were talking about whether they're actually any good. All of your points are very true; this shit has always gone on, and the fact that most film fans have terrible taste should come as a surprise to no one who takes movies seriously. But for me, the fact that this is nothing new does little to cut the nasty aftertaste of it all. And really, I'm not sure how any of your points relate to the central idea that horror fans regularly heap praise on mediocre to terrible product simply because it delivers on the most basic level, and sometimes only in a single category.

[James May]

I think we can all agree a lot of the horror base has shitty taste, try reading a Fangoria as an adult(I love you Rue Morgue). If this is now coming as a surprise to you then I'd have to say you're all slow. My only advice to you all is try being more selective in what you consume, therefore should you run across crap it'll be easier to put it in the back of your mind. I went to see the first Saw film in theatres realized it was crap and didn't see the sequels, where's the difficulty in that? I'm certainly not going to write off the genre based on that.

[Greg David]

Uh...I don't think anybody said any of those things. No, this isn't new, and I'm not surprised. But I think it tends to get overlooked, and it's worth discussing. And really, I don't think it's just the bottom-dwellers who are guilty of it. A lot of very intelligent film geeks who happen to like horror make way too many allowances.

[Phil]

But, I can't understand is how someone can be a genuine fan of horror, and have no fucking interest, at all, (AT ALL) to put their personal spin on the horror cliches. As a fan they have to know what they are, they know the jump scares, the generic plot points, so, why, why in the fuck would they just mime them? Why?

"You get it, you just can't handle it." (bonus points if you can ID the quote)

Seriously, your post describes about a dozen indie horror sets I've been on. Right down to the high-fives. "We did what they did!"

[IggytheBorg]

But really (as far as I could tell), we weren't talking about horror movies being accepted. We were talking about whether they're actually any good. All of your points are very true; this shit has always gone on, and the fact that most film fans have terrible taste should come as a surprise to no one who takes movies seriously. But for me, the fact that this is nothing new does little to cut the nasty aftertaste of it all. And really, I'm not sure how any of your points relate to the central idea that horror fans regularly heap praise on mediocre to terrible product simply because it delivers on the most basic level, and sometimes only in a single category.

Just a couple comments: First, while "Saw" and F13 may not be "good" movies from a purely cinematic standpoint, I kind of liked them (fuck most of the sequels in the ear, though, although a few of the F13-quels are good for a laugh). Tastes do differ, and I can easily see why somone, even a horror fan, wouldn't like them. But is appreciating them for what they are, realizing that's what they are, deluding oneself as well? Maybe it is, but I like to think that it's more like having a varied palate. I'd analogize it to another hobby of mine, cigar smoking. I used to only smoke mild, sweet cigars. But then I tried some more potent stuff with different kinds of flavors, like Nat Sherman's Gotham series, which is more full bodied and spicy. I fell in love with them, and my appreciation for, and willingness to try new varieties of cigars expanded exponentially. I still feel like a mellow, sweet smoke a lot of the time, and reach for an Avo or something. But I do like to dip into leathery or spicy or earthy stuff now and again, just to mix it up. In the same vein, enjoying a decent (as opposed to horrid) slasher (for example) for what it is may just be the taste you're craving at the moment. I've smoked cigars Cigar Aficionado RAVED about, and LOATHED them. By the same token, I've seen horror films people have raved about, and hated them. So I think I (and most of the rest of us) have SOME kind of barometer; some of our likes & dislikes come down to personal taste. I submit enjoying some films that may be sub-par as films, but maybe par for the course as HORROR films isn't necessarily deluding one's self.

Second, and this kind of dovetails with the first point, it's kind of hard to be a horror fan and not heap at least little bits of praise on films that deliver even a little something. Why? Because it often feels like that's all there is to be had. There are certainly terrible films out there that don't deliver on ANY level, and deserve no adulation. But, while praising a film that probably doesn't deserve as much praise as it gets because it maybe delivers on at least one level probably IS deluding yourself, it's very hard to stop yourself from doing it. Should we stop? Probably, but lots of us should stop doing lots of things we keep doing (smoking, drinking, eating trans fat, excessive internet porn, gambling, whatever), because on some level we enjoy these things. And as with viewing and praising substandard horror films, it's hard to stop.

[Greg David]

I do see where you're coming from here. As I mentioned earlier, I'm guilty of much the same thing when it comes to kung fu movies; give me blistering fight choreography, and I'll overlook paper-thin characters. The difference, I think, is that the kung fu movie with blistering fight choreography is delivering on its most important element, and that's why I get to make excuses for it in other departments.

In the case of the Friday the 13th movies and Saw (and obviously, this is just my opinion), they don't deliver on their most basic and important element, to wit, being scary. Friday the 13th, in fact, has a lot to answer for in my view, as it severely damaged the reputation of the horror film for decades after by altering its base mission statement. From that moment on, the expectation for horror movies was not that they'd be frightening, but gory. Atmosphere, a sense of unease, a feeling of dread, all went out the window in favor of creative and bloody kills, preferably delivered very suddenly with a jump scare and a musical sting. The goal was not to scare the audience, but merely to gross them out.

In Stephen King's Danse Macabre (which I recommend every horror fan read, even though I disagree with a fair bit of it), he lays out a hierarchy of the horror author's goals, with terror being the best goal, horror being the lesser, and the gross-out at the bottom. To my mind, Friday the 13th set a precedent that had horror movies going straight to the gross-out almost exclusively. The slasher film boom that followed not only failed to be scary, but most of the time, failed to even try to be. It was felt that finding new ways to make the audience go "Eww" was enough.

So I guess the question I'm asking in my long-winded fashion is "What do we mean by delivering the goods?" To me, these movies fail their central mission statement of scaring me, disturbing me, or even making me uncomfortable. "That's gross", to me, isn't an acceptable reaction while watching one of these movies. A comedy with great performances, beautiful cinematography and fascinating characters fails as a film if it isn't funny. By the same token, ideally, a horror movie should be considered a complete failure if it isn't scary. I think that a horror movie that isn't scaring me is nearly as painful to watch as a comedy that isn't making me laugh. It doesn't matter how many buckets of blood are employed.

[IggytheBorg]

You make a good point. I had never viewed F13 that way, but I suppose it is responsible for more of the trashy slasher flicks (it's generally acepted by most that "Halloween" started the sub-genre as we know it, but was a much better fiom, because it contained elements that lent to an air of unease and creepiness, and was actually pretty light on the gore, even if other mainstays of the sub-genre are present). I've gone on record as saying I'm an unabashed gore hound, and to me a film always gets a few points on the scale if it has goos gore, but am I guilty of perpetuating the "F13 problem" by making that all I look for ina film? To be sure, I like other films, and find them scary, even if there's no gore to speak of ("The Exorcist", the 1970's remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", etc.). But yeah, I probably would rent something that isn't particularly scary, and like it at least a little, if the gore's there. The gore scenes do tend to be the ones I remember the most. So I guess I'm guilty, as so many others are. Of course, it goes without saying that a movie w/ good gore and effects that's a solid film would be appreciated even more.

[Chris Olson]

Speaking just for me, there was a time when I equated horror with gore, but I think that's because I came of age in the 80s, the golden era of the slasher film. So long as it had plentiful gore (and tits, too...can't forget the tits), I was pretty much satisfied, even if all the other elements pointed toward it being a terrible film. Then, as I started to go back and watch the classics that had come out slightly before my time, I realized that movies like The Haunting, The Shining, The Exorcist, Carnival of Souls, Halloween, and even Night of the Living Dead (to a much lesser extent than the others) all relied more on atmosphere to create a sense of dread, and I actually found many of these movies to be much more frightening than the vast majority of slasher flicks I had been watching up to that point.

Of course, I didn't start watching those movies until I was in my late teens, and some of them I didn't full appreciate until I was into my 20s. So it seems to me that it's a bit of a maturity thing. When you're younger, you watch all the shitty slasher films because it's the dangerous thing to do, seeing as how it upsets the establishment (in this case, parents, although mine were pretty okay with my horror viewing habits). As we get older, we tend to move away from that element of rebellious danger, and focus more on the more important aspects of horror films; the atmosphere, the craft, and all that. Unless of course, we're emotionally stunted, like the vast majority of fans who populate the Fango conventions. They just seem to focus only on the tits and gore, and as long as it's there, they're satisfied.

So I know I'm not really saying anything new here, but I do tend to believe it's a maturity thing. We can appreciate the slasher flicks or the dumb, gory romps for what they are, and can still have fun with them. Like Iggy said, if they're a solidly made film to boot, all the better. It's just that, at the end of the day, we realize that horror can be so much more, and are not really willing to settle for something that relies on gore in place of scares, and we are disappointed that the genre doesn't always live up to the potential that does exist.

[Phil]

Maturity is a factor, but there's a lot of 30-somethings walking around still seriously debating the merits of one slasher over another.

When I was a kid, I had this book:

http://i14.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/c3/6d/795a_1.JPG

It covered the silents to around Videodrome. It was fairly light analysis, but critically the book was spot-on (praising Texas Chain Saw Massacre as well as Peeping Tom and M). Just when home video was starting to take off, it told me what films to track down and why, what films were crap, and it gave me my first real appreciation of film history. With its context of 80 years worth of movies, it trained me to not just gobble up anything with gore the way a steady diet of Fangoria might have.

[Banandar]

Great thread, and excellent post TS. Echoed my thoughts exactly.

It's not just horror films, though. There's shit in EVERY genre and people lap it up. Why? Here are some reasons:

- the entertainment industry is a lowest common denominator industry
- the prime motivation is to make money
- it's expensive to make films

I'm not saying that there aren't talented writers, directors, actors, etc out there. I'm saying that the people who control the money will generally only bankroll stuff that they think will make a profit. Thus the suffocating tide of remakes in the horror genre, and the total lack of new ideas in more mainstream fare. Innovation implies risk.

Two other reasons:

- people are essentially undemanding
- film distribution

People are essentially passive. It takes work to sift through the information out there and to make an informed decision about whether to go and see something in the cinema. People will just go the local multiplex and see what's been programmed for them. They don't have the curiosity to look elsewhere. Most people don't even know that there are vast subgenres out there catering to almost every possible taste, they just go by what's on at the mall. That's why a whole lot of people were pissed off by NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN - it didn't conform to their expectation of what a film should be, because all they're used to is the same tired old shit that fills the multiplexes every week. It made them think, for christ's sake, and they sure don't want to be doing that while they suck on a 2 gallon bucket of Pepsi.

I think this sort of highlights why the horror genre needs to be singled out as particularly lacking.

The philosophy of horror, to shock and frighten, happens to be more susceptible to appealing to the lowest common denominator, just on principle alone; usually coming across as porn for a mainstream audience. The horror genre seems unusually attracted to gimmicks, which is why it seems there are more sequels within the horror genre than in any other.

In addition, the expectations the audience has for a horror film contributes; we take it to be self evidence that in order to be shocked, and frightened, certain sacrifices have to be made, like the sacrifice of a moderately decent story, or a good plot. And for filmmakers, it's all too easy to take the short cut in affirming the philosophy of the horror film: the use of monsters, serial killers, ghosts, Richard Beltzer's face, etc.

This thread kind of highlights my disappointment in The Mist. I still enjoyed it, but a masterpiece it wasn't. It was still plagued by plot contrivances of the highest order (Andre Baugher choosing not to look at the tentacle, for example).

I realize there's a stigma to horror which contributes- for example when a horror movie straddles the line and gets tagged a horror film by another (socially acceptable) name (ie 'psychological thriller')- but I think most of the problem lies within the genre itself. Which is why I always found it ironic when people would complain about the lack of good Stephen King adaptations (besides his non horror stuff)- the stories ain't all that to begin with folks.

[IggytheBorg]

Great thread, and excellent post TS. Echoed my thoughts exactly.

The philosophy of horror, to shock and frighten, happens to be more susceptible to appealing to the lowest common denominator, just on principle alone; usually coming across as porn for a mainstream audience. The horror genre seems unusually attracted to gimmicks, which is why it seems there are more sequels within the horror genre than in any other.

In addition, the expectations the audience has for a horror film contributes; we take it to be self evidence that in order to be shocked, and frightened, certain sacrifices have to be made, like the sacrifice of a moderately decent story, or a good plot.

Which is why I always found it ironic when people would complain about the lack of good Stephen King adaptations (besides his non horror stuff)- the stories ain't all that to begin with folks.

Thanks for the compliment on the thread. As to your points:

When you started talking about the philosophy of horro (that being to scare & disturb the viewer) being a lowest common denominator kind of philosophy in principle, I thought you meant that what scares people is more or less universal to at least a degree. Almost all of us are afraid of the same things, although some of them may affect some people more than others (the generalized creepiness most people feel toward spiders, as aopposed to arachnaphobia, for instance). So what devices and plots the films use may be drawing from a failrly limited, universally accepted pool of material. But the last sentence threw me off, and I'm not sure this what you meant. I apologize for the misinterpretation (if applicable). But if this is the point you were making, I agree with it. BUt one could argue that the themes in all literature or cinema are fairly limited in number; it's how you dress up the bare bones, archetypal image that gives a film its style and quality. How you present and riff on the themes in horror is much the same. But for some reason (perhaps the stigma you mention, or the low budgets many horror films are made under, or maybe the lowered expectations of the audience they know they can count on), the makers of horror films don't seem to put forth the effort to craft a well made variation on the basic themes. But you raise a good question with the attraction to gimmicks and proliferation of sequels; why are these things so endemic to horror? I'm gonna go the cynical route and repeat that the bottom line being to make money for minimal risk, filmmakers or studios will go w/ a proven formulaic approach over innovation far too often.

As for the expectations of the viewing audience, your statements make it sound like the lapses in quality in some aspects of some films is a conscious decision on the filmmaker's part. Almost as if they intentionally set out to shortchange an aspect of the film and purposely make a badly written or acted film. I'd like to think that, while the decisions on the budget allocation in a film certainly impacts this process, I'd like to believe that they usually hope the acting, writing, etc. will be good, and just end up with crap because that's what they had to work with (especially true in the case of actors and effects, maybe not so much with scripts; you can select better ones to film, or rewrite a bad one at fairly minimal cost and effort, I'd think, so there's less of an excuse for that). I imagine they usually can't afford to re-shoot too many scenes, and kind of have to take what they get, acting wise, perhaps more than they'd like. Some are also probably not talented enough to direct or produce a good film in the first place,as well. Although they THINK that's what they're doing.

As for the quality of Stephen King stories: I take exception to that. I think lot of his work, particularly the 70's - late 80's stuff, is very good indeed. But much of what makes them good, is stuff that happens in a character's mind, which is well nigh impossible to get on film, so the adaptations almost always disappoint.

[IggytheBorg]

Maturity is a factor, but there's a lot of 30-somethings walking around still seriously debating the merits of one slasher over another.

When I was a kid, I had this book:

http://i14.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/c3/6d/795a_1.JPG

It covered the silents to around Videodrome. It was fairly light analysis, but critically the book was spot-on (praising Texas Chain Saw Massacre as well as Peeping Tom and M). Just when home video was starting to take off, it told me what films to track down and why, what films were crap, and it gave me my first real appreciation of film history. With its context of 80 years worth of movies, it trained me to not just gobble up anything with gore the way a steady diet of Fangoria might have.

I have that book, too! Every comment above is absolutely true. It guided some of my video rental habits for years, as well. It wasa fun read and a good reference. Happy to see it getting some love!

[devincf]

One of the frustrating things about Greg David's posts is that he doesn't have a solid knowledge of the history of the genre. Simply put, F13 didn't up the gore ante in any way - in fact, the original is less gory than many many many films that came before. What F13 did was upped the ante on the gimmick kill, which was very much a Tom Savini thing. F13 made it so that every kill had to be unique and interesting - you couldn't just stab somebody to death anymore, you had to pierce them from under the bed. To be fair, F13 didn't invent the gimmicky kill (and stole a number of them), but this is what it really added to the HALLOWEEN and giallo templates it was ripping off.

Second, the idea that horror movies have to be 'scary' is boring. I'm bored of this argument. As a grown man it's highly unlikely that things in a movie will really scare me, unless they're hitting on my own personal neuroses. If you are scared by vampires it's probable that you're retarded or 9. Unsettling, creepy, spooky - these are more realistic than 'scary.' I'd rather be weirded out after a movie than be somehow scared by it.

Third, there's nothing wrong with gore. I love gore. I'm living in Los Angeles meeting awesome filmmakers and writing about movies for a living because I fell in love with gore when I was a kid. Gore doesn't belong in every movie but there's nothing wrong with a good splatter film.

[Greg David]

I didn't claim that Friday the 13th invented gore, or was the most gory film of all time in its day. But it certainly popularized it. The runaway success of that film meant that, in order to be competitive, horror movies had to put heavy emphasis on that. You're right to point out the "gimmick kill", which was a staple of the genre for years afterward.

And I'll admit that a film actually scaring me is a pretty rare occurrence at this point. I'll certainly settle for being disturbed or uneasy, and the films that manage to do that aren't always horror films. But I can at least recognize when a moment was an effectively scary one, even if it doesn't work on me personally. Mostly, I just appreciate the effort. So few horror films in the eighties actually tried to be scary that, despite the flood of horror movies at the time, it was actually a pretty frustrating time to be a fan of the genre.

I have nothing against gore either, unless it's an end unto itself. Sorry, but I just can't get behind that. I love Cronenberg's The Fly, and that's plenty nasty. But it has other things to offer. It's a complete package. And while a complete package is an uncommon thing (in any genre, really), having at least one or two other things to offer is nice. I just find the slasher film, which practically took over horror in the eighties, to be a creatively bankrupt sub-genre, popular only for the freak value.

[IggytheBorg]

Greg explained himself and acquitted himself well,but for the record, even before he did so, I understood completely where he was coming from. I find it curious others did not . . .

[IggytheBorg]

[QUOTE=devincf;2193729Second, the idea that horror movies have to be 'scary' is boring. I'm bored of this argument. Unsettling, creepy, spooky - these are more realistic than 'scary.' .[/QUOTE]

Aren't you splitting hairs at this point? Aren't these all synonyms for the same thing really? i think Greg's point, and one I think is a valid one, is that few films, for a long while, at least, and perhaps still true today, settled for gore as the ONLY way to scare/creep out/unsettle its audience. I can enjoy that as well, if that's all a film ahs to offer, on at least some level, but there's gotta be more to a film for it to be considered a greatn horror film, or a good film in general.

[devincf]

No, I don't think I'm splitting hairs at all. When I am in the woods at night it isn't bears or wolves I'm creeped out by, it's slashers. People go on and on about how F13 isn't scary, but it's almost certainly imprinted itself on the brains of those who have watched it.

[Greg David]

No, I don't think I'm splitting hairs at all. When I am in the woods at night it isn't bears or wolves I'm creeped out by, it's slashers. People go on and on about how F13 isn't scary, but it's almost certainly imprinted itself on the brains of those who have watched it.

Seriously? You honestly are more afraid that there's a mask-wearing maniac in the woods gutting random passers-by with farming implements than native predators? I don't see it. You like to accuse me of using personal anecdotal evidence to support my case, but that sounds a lot like the same thing, doesn't it? Sorry, but I have no inherent fear of hideous mutant freaks murdering strangers in the woods for no readily apparent reason. And I doubt that these movies had any intention of either praying on that fear or inspiring one. They were competing to see who could work out the most combinations of unexpected weapon meeting prosthetic body part.

Isn't scary subjective anyway? If "People go on and on about how F13 isn't scary", then don't you have to accept that? Are you saying that they're lying? I'm not sure what your premise is here.

[S.D. Bob Plissken]

I'd like to boil the whole thing down to this: sometimes I want "steak" and other times I just want a "cheeseburger". I am well aware of the films within the horror genre (or any genre for that matter) that are actually good (at least in my opinion). The quality films that deliver on multiple levels and in multiple ways. The "steak" of the genre, if you will. It's always great and tastes delicious when you devour it, but things can get boring if that is all that you eat. So that is where the "cheeseburger" comes in. It might be a simpler, one-note food that isn't good for you at all........but I'll be damned if it doesn't taste good! While I prefer the steak, sometimes all I need is a little diversity in the form of a quick-fix "cheeseburger" of a horror movie. It might be unhealthy, but I love it just the same. Slasher movies (well, most of them anyway) are certainly one of the big "fast food" chains of the horror genre and I eat there often. I might be disappointed more often than not, but for some reason I just cannot help myself.

The point is, you praise what you love and we all love different things. Personally, I think Citizen Kane is very overrated. While I can see and definitely understand the sheer technical achievement of it, I find the film stale and boring. To me, it only delivers on a few levels and by that account it isn't worthy of the praise it receives in my eyes. Sorry, that's how I feel. On the flipside, I love Last Action Hero to death and I'll be damned if I ever apologize for it. It fully delivers on almost every level for me, making it a success and a good film in my eyes. I completely realize that my views on these two seem to be the complete opposite of most other people's, but does that make my opinions wrong? No, it doesn't.

The point is, in the end, it is really impossible to label what films are "good" and what ones are "bad" within the horror genre.............or any type of art in general. We all have different interests and tastes, so there is really no true right answer.

That said, I understand what some of you are getting at and I think it boils down to one other thing: we all love cinema (I'm assuming) and are constantly wanting to share our loving discoverings with one another. And we do that by praising the hell out of the films that we enjoy, be it as an entire package or only certain scenes. When that happens, people are bound to be disappointed if their own tastes don't match with those who are praising the project. It happens and there's really nothing that can be done about it. The best thing you can do is align yourself with fellow board members and journalists who share cinematic opinions that are close to your own.........and just go from there.

[Greg David]

Oh god, not the steak and burgers metaphor again. Can we please agree to retire this for all time? This is the most tired argument in the film geek arsenal.

To plow through this once again: this has nothing to do with whether a movie is "good for you" or not. It's about whether it's well-made. Presumably, you don't like shitty cheeseburgers, and would prefer to have one that's made by somebody who actually knows how to make a cheeseburger.

The reason your argument doesn't work is that nobody here is saying that we don't like "fun" or "light" horror films. I just don't like incompetent ones, and I feel that horror fans have a tendency to forgive incompetence if there's enough gore or rubber monsters on screen.

So unless you tend to go to bad burger places and make excuses for the poor quality of the burger simply because it has plenty of meat and cheese, your comparison doesn't work.

[IggytheBorg]

I think what he's trying to say is that he sometimes enjoys movies that many might consider "bad", but because he actually DOES enjoy them, he's not deluding himself. The central question remains, though; do the majority of the folks who praise shitty horror movies actually ENJOY them, or are they grasping at straws and deluding themselves? It's a harder question, personal tastes being what they are. I say yes.

[Greg David]

It's often hard to tell the difference with some of these people. It's become so common for a horror fan to describe a poorly-made movie as "awesome" or "classic" that it's difficult to tell whether they're enjoying it on an ironic level (something I personally don't enjoy), or legitimately believe that it's good filmmaking. I feel that if you're appreciating the film in a way that involves having fun at its expense, then the film has failed at its purpose, and is therefore not "awesome" or "classic" in any way. But that's just me, apparently, because the default position among fans seems to oppose that thinking.

[Graynadian]

Fear is the lowest common denominator, for better or worse. A movie that is designed to elicit fear or horror is attempting to stimulate a more primal emotion than a comedy or drama might. Nothing wrong with that, nor with thinking that horror films are typically more simplistic than most other genres.

[Greg David]

That might be the key to the whole thing right there. A lot of people, I suspect, watch horror movies to feel some kind of base reaction. One would hope that the reaction would be fear or terror or horror. But I would guess that for a lot of people, revulsion is acceptable, and they really don't see the difference.