# What's missing in today's horror films?



## Imverypunny (Jul 2, 2013)

I think there's not enough dumb blondes having annoyingly pitiful deaths . Now I have way to many stickers I haven't used to fit my Darwin award calendar. Ah the 90's,how I yearn the.


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

yet another intj said:


> My favorite horror movie is "The Host".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Will watch _The Host _today.


----------



## mf2014 (Jul 4, 2013)

good believable plots


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

mf2014 said:


> good believable plots


Was Frankenstein believable? Or do you mean movies with a good suspension of disbelief? Willing Suspension of Disbelief - Television Tropes & Idioms


----------



## mf2014 (Jul 4, 2013)

AyaSullivan said:


> Was Frankenstein believable? Or do you mean movies with a good suspension of disbelief? Willing Suspension of Disbelief - Television Tropes & Idioms


I know what a suspension of disbelief is :dry: and what I meant was not that the setting and characters were necessarily believable, rather that the actions and reactions of characters were believable. The townspeople being afraid of Frankenstein but still waiting to attack him as a group for instance, believable.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

mf2014 said:


> I know what a suspension of disbelief is :dry: and what I meant was not that the setting and characters were necessarily believable, rather that the actions and reactions of characters were believable. The townspeople being afraid of Frankenstein but still waiting to attack him as a group for instance, believable.


 Because you probably didn't know I linked a definition of what it is. Most people don't know what it is, I couldn't guess if you knew or not.
I understand now. Your post was a bit vague so I felt like I had to ask. I'll tell you something about Frankenstein: the book is better (not to say that is totally different from the movies). Most people don't know that either.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I don't know if I've commented here before, but anyone who reads Fangoria or knows about classic horror knows that older horror relied on acting (much like most older movies of various genres, I mean films relying on acting, who woulda thunk it? :dry and also on hands-on special effects made with props and art work tangibly instead of CGI.

Also there's just an overall subtlety missing that I simply can't deny. I watched 10 minutes of the original Evil Dead and realized why I should be annoyed with the new one. I actually was okay with the new one and liked it until I sat down and watched just ten to fifteen minutes of the original Sam Raimi film as an adult.

I think I avoided it as a younger person because it's always shined on by Evil Dead 2 in some cultish way. 

And also because I thought it was a boy movie or a zombie movie, I don't know don't ask me, but I didn't even watch horror films in 1981 so give me a break ...a lot of the classics I loved as a teenager from the 70s and 80s somehow skipped The Evil Dead, even my ESFJ ex who was a classic and foreign horror film collector failed to show me this in his parade of Suspiria and Pink Flamingos and Brain Damage and even Meet the Feebles.

Everyone has Evil Dead 2 (fuckin' cheesey, I'm starting to recall why I thought of it as a "boy movie") but no one has the original Evil Dead. 

Does my ex even have it? He must, filed away in his mother's bedroom somewhere.


----------



## PrimroseMind (Jan 28, 2013)

The horror part. 

Nah..I don't watch horror movies.


----------



## LemonyLimeClementine (Jan 20, 2013)

Substance in general, unique ideas, character development, non-cgi special effects, intelligent and creative writers, proper casting that is not based on looks and/or popularity rather than talent and being fit for the role. 

The film industry is a mess in general, their priorities are so confused.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

They need not to take themselves so serious.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I have noticed with horror I've enjoyed in recent years (including the re-make of Evil Dead and Rob Zombie's Halloween, two totally different takes on old classics) what is involved is either some kind of social exploration of themes (like what Rob Zombie did) or in Evil Dead there wasn't an over-emphasis on science. Too much science, lack of real mystery, or non-belief in the inexplicable will ruin any horror film, unless it's specifically sci-fi horror. 

I realized while watching the original Sam Raimi Evil Dead that not only are there special effects galore (real quality artisan craftsmanship, most traditional horror fans would be able to see) but that there's more going on with the characters ...they still aren't as well-developed as say the characters in a drama or in psychological/thriller horror (gore/slasher flicks tend to keep character development at a bare minimum so that the actual slashing isn't as psychologically scarring) ...but yeah something about a lot of "newer" horror seems to keep the characters very very empty, very lacking in unique characteristics, very unspeakably ridiculously bland people ...I hate that about a lot of the newer horror, the characters aren't just underdeveloped, they're almost like cardboard cut-out non-people...at least in older slasher flicks the low character development still applied to people who were somewhat unique human beings, like in the original Chainsaw, Franklin was the annoying brother in the wheel chair, stuff like that...stuff that makes it more believable even if the character development isn't as "deep" the characters are still unique individuals you might meet anywhere.

There's a lot more "atmosphere" in older horror too; I think that may have something to do with CGI washing of a more recent horror, since it's less natural and less contingent upon actual spooky settings, they simply don't have as much real atmosphere. Session 9 (2001) has nice atmosphere, and it was actually filmed on location at an old asylum that was in the process of being torn down. In older horror, the directors ALWAYS sought out abandoned buildings, old houses, dark forests because they could not rely on the CGI washing.

I'm really thinking I did reply to this thread a few months ago, or one similar, because I recall vaguely going on a CGI rant.

CGI has it's place, but it shouldn't make up the entire film.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Ms.Anthrope.Altruist said:


> Substance in general, unique ideas, character development, non-cgi special effects, intelligent and creative writers, proper casting that is not based on looks and/or popularity rather than talent and being fit for the role.
> 
> The film industry is a mess in general, their priorities are so confused.


I actually think the actress who played Mia in the new Evil Dead is a damn fine horror actress.


----------



## Imverypunny (Jul 2, 2013)

Unpredictablility.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

They need to focus on not revealing the source. If you leave it ambiguous it's far scarier than if you know what it is.
That and tension/suspense (take the old woman in black film as an example. Very creepy.)


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Needs more suspense, more psychological, I would say better camera angles and use of light but the independent scene generally does a better job with this because they aren't so confined by what they can do which allows more creativity and originality. Storylines deserve more attention and some modern horrors are just OTT or ridiculous. As old fashioned as it sounds, directors like Stephen King, Hitchcock knew how to make films, less technology available which meant more imagination, they knew how to work the suspense and yet less body organs etc on show.


----------



## DouglasMl (Nov 3, 2009)

The unseen or implied is often more horrific than
the splatter. Oddly enough, the scene in
_Chicken Run _where the poor bird who is no longer
producing eggs is beheaded is all the scarier because
all we know of it is the thud of a hand ax falling.


----------



## HypoTempes (Nov 25, 2013)

For me "The WTF factor" , all bad guys / monsters nowadays need a motive / agenda. 

I don't want that, I want people running for their lives, asking each other "WTF is going on" whilst hiding for some maniac/monster. 
which doesn't work of course, except for the main protagonist.

And even that one's a maybe, loved the skeleton key. 

Oh and shock moments LOVE shock moments. 

Favourite Horror of all time ? Alien. F*ck me, now that was a good movie. (monster , confined spaces , shock moments, and no one having any idea whatsoever on what is going on, until the final scenes)


----------



## theredpanda (Jan 18, 2014)

Depth. I don't care about any of the characters, first of all. Second, risks! Every horror movie has the same plot- BORING...directors need to take more risks- SHOCK US! Make us care, then shock us- and make us fear. I don't know if this counts, but I'm basically in love with The Walking Dead...


----------



## Opera (Mar 7, 2014)

I don't feel threatened by anything portrayed anymore. Even when dealing with the supernatural, there was a sort of realism in the way the films were shot and directed that left me fearing that it could happen to me by the end. Nowadays we get loads of blood/gore/guts/etc, but it's all flash. Show. Little substance. A great example is the original Carrie and the remake. The original was shot and portrayed in such a way that I rethought all of my social interactions. Sure, people don't have crazy psychic powers irl (right? RIGHT?!), but they do have guns. And knives. And if you prod at their insecurities and mental issues enough, you never know.

In short: I don't connect and therefore don't care.


----------



## Cher Zee (Feb 15, 2012)

> They need to focus on not revealing the source. If you leave it ambiguous it's far scarier than if you know what it is.


Yes, oh yes and please get rid of backstories that make you "feel bad" for the monster. And the exposition of EVERYTHING. 

I remember hearing a few years ago about them remaking one of my favorite horror movies of all time - Suspiria. The problem was, the remake writers said they had trouble because they couldn't figure out how the witches got into the ballet academy in the first place. Seriously? Luckily, this stalled the script but I also thought it was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard. 

If you're thinking like that, you have NO business re-making a classic. I don't need everything explained to me. The witches are there and the heroine had to deal with them. That's all that's needed.


----------

