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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by stelios

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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"

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]

Originally Posted by Minsky

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]

Originally Posted by Minsky

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]

Originally Posted by Iron Maiden

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]

Originally Posted by Gabriel Williams

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]

Originally Posted by IggytheBorg

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 review.

[IggytheBorg]

Originally Posted by Xagarath Ankor

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Greg David

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]

Originally Posted by Jack Dnim

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.