|
5 Simple Ways To Make Horror Movies Stop Sucking; From Cracked.com
|
|
Topic Started: Jun 19 2015, 11:28 AM (188 Views)
|
|
Smeagollum
|
Jun 22 2015, 01:21 PM
Post #11
|
|
- Posts:
- 7,952
- Group:
- Moderators
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2013
|
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 12:10 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 19 2015, 11:56 AM
One thing I'd definitely agree with is the point about non-horror directors. Case in point, Kubrick and The Shining.
And, as always, fuck "real horror" fans and their undying Scream hate. I used to skip the opening because of how messed up it was. And An American Werewolf in London is one of my scariest films. Whether there's bits of humor or whether your film is relentlessly bleak and humorless (ie his boner fodder, The Babadook and It Follows), the actual horror scenes will speak for themselves.
I forgot to mention, but with this, I think a lot of it comes down to them being great directors. Period. There really aren't any exclusively horror directors who can touch someone like Kubrick or Fincher (Se7en) As for Scream, most of the hate is for satiring horror more than anything else. "Real horror fans" hate it when something dates to poke fun at the apparently perfect genre or criticize it. That's a good point.
True enough for some, but there are plenty of satirical horror movies that don't get nearly the same venom. Many of these guys will praise them like Student Bodies in the same breath as bashing Scream. I think it's the hipster mentality of "it was ruined when it went mainstream". Scream took their obscure, edgy genre and made it popular.
|
  
   Always.
|
| |
|
Repo
|
Jun 22 2015, 01:33 PM
Post #12
|
|
Forget about the bloody gods and lsiten to what I'm telling you
- Posts:
- 35,282
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Dec 17, 2012
|
- Smeagollum
- Jun 22 2015, 01:21 PM
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 12:10 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 19 2015, 11:56 AM
One thing I'd definitely agree with is the point about non-horror directors. Case in point, Kubrick and The Shining.
And, as always, fuck "real horror" fans and their undying Scream hate. I used to skip the opening because of how messed up it was. And An American Werewolf in London is one of my scariest films. Whether there's bits of humor or whether your film is relentlessly bleak and humorless (ie his boner fodder, The Babadook and It Follows), the actual horror scenes will speak for themselves.
I forgot to mention, but with this, I think a lot of it comes down to them being great directors. Period. There really aren't any exclusively horror directors who can touch someone like Kubrick or Fincher (Se7en) As for Scream, most of the hate is for satiring horror more than anything else. "Real horror fans" hate it when something dates to poke fun at the apparently perfect genre or criticize it.
That's a good point. True enough for some, but there are plenty of satirical horror movies that don't get nearly the same venom. Many of these guys will praise them like Student Bodies in the same breath as bashing Scream. I think it's the hipster mentality of "it was ruined when it went mainstream". Scream took their obscure, edgy genre and made it popular. I'm sure if Fincher decided to stick to just horror for some reason, we'd get tons of brilliant ones from him. Some exclusive horror directors have spawned some pretty great movies, though (Argento comes to mind,. Romero did Night/Dawn of the Dead) I think it mostly comes down to just being a great director period, and being savvy to how modern horror works. Argento and Romero seem to have no idea of how to use modern technology or how to keep updated and navigate the modern horror landscape, thus the probable drop in their film quality.
I was thinking that, but this is the same article which praised Babadook and It Follows, which kind of manage to be "mainstream" horror without being truly mainstream, if that makes sense. (They're the ones that people who like film but don't like horror gush about, like Conjuring) Though neither came near the level of Scream, and that was one of the first ones to REALLY make it super-mainstream.
|
  
  
I don't want to be a queen. I want to be the queen
|
| |
|
Smeagollum
|
Jun 22 2015, 01:58 PM
Post #13
|
|
- Posts:
- 7,952
- Group:
- Moderators
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2013
|
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 01:33 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 22 2015, 01:21 PM
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 12:10 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 19 2015, 11:56 AM
One thing I'd definitely agree with is the point about non-horror directors. Case in point, Kubrick and The Shining.
And, as always, fuck "real horror" fans and their undying Scream hate. I used to skip the opening because of how messed up it was. And An American Werewolf in London is one of my scariest films. Whether there's bits of humor or whether your film is relentlessly bleak and humorless (ie his boner fodder, The Babadook and It Follows), the actual horror scenes will speak for themselves.
I forgot to mention, but with this, I think a lot of it comes down to them being great directors. Period. There really aren't any exclusively horror directors who can touch someone like Kubrick or Fincher (Se7en) As for Scream, most of the hate is for satiring horror more than anything else. "Real horror fans" hate it when something dates to poke fun at the apparently perfect genre or criticize it.
That's a good point. True enough for some, but there are plenty of satirical horror movies that don't get nearly the same venom. Many of these guys will praise them like Student Bodies in the same breath as bashing Scream. I think it's the hipster mentality of "it was ruined when it went mainstream". Scream took their obscure, edgy genre and made it popular.
I'm sure if Fincher decided to stick to just horror for some reason, we'd get tons of brilliant ones from him. Some exclusive horror directors have spawned some pretty great movies, though (Argento comes to mind,. Romero did Night/Dawn of the Dead) I think it mostly comes down to just being a great director period, and being savvy to how modern horror works. Argento and Romero seem to have no idea of how to use modern technology or how to keep updated and navigate the modern horror landscape, thus the probable drop in their film quality. I was thinking that, but this is the same article which praised Babadook and It Follows, which kind of manage to be "mainstream" horror without being truly mainstream, if that makes sense. (They're the ones that people who like film but don't like horror gush about, like Conjuring) Though neither came near the level of Scream, and that was one of the first ones to REALLY make it super-mainstream. That's the thing about horror directors. At some point, they ALL start sucking. Don't forget Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper, and John Carpenter. As for Fincher, Panic Room is basically a home invasion movie which I liked.
I wouldn't call Babadook or It Follows mainstream in any sense. No names, low box office, no one I know has even heard of them. Sure, some non-horror fans like them, but not enough to "ruin" it. Plus, Scream was designed to be mainstream. If something like The Conjuring makes $300 million, it's okay because it was a joyless broodfest.
|
  
   Always.
|
| |
|
Repo
|
Jun 22 2015, 02:01 PM
Post #14
|
|
Forget about the bloody gods and lsiten to what I'm telling you
- Posts:
- 35,282
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Dec 17, 2012
|
- Smeagollum
- Jun 22 2015, 01:58 PM
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 01:33 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 22 2015, 01:21 PM
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 12:10 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 19 2015, 11:56 AM
One thing I'd definitely agree with is the point about non-horror directors. Case in point, Kubrick and The Shining.
And, as always, fuck "real horror" fans and their undying Scream hate. I used to skip the opening because of how messed up it was. And An American Werewolf in London is one of my scariest films. Whether there's bits of humor or whether your film is relentlessly bleak and humorless (ie his boner fodder, The Babadook and It Follows), the actual horror scenes will speak for themselves.
I forgot to mention, but with this, I think a lot of it comes down to them being great directors. Period. There really aren't any exclusively horror directors who can touch someone like Kubrick or Fincher (Se7en) As for Scream, most of the hate is for satiring horror more than anything else. "Real horror fans" hate it when something dates to poke fun at the apparently perfect genre or criticize it.
That's a good point. True enough for some, but there are plenty of satirical horror movies that don't get nearly the same venom. Many of these guys will praise them like Student Bodies in the same breath as bashing Scream. I think it's the hipster mentality of "it was ruined when it went mainstream". Scream took their obscure, edgy genre and made it popular.
I'm sure if Fincher decided to stick to just horror for some reason, we'd get tons of brilliant ones from him. Some exclusive horror directors have spawned some pretty great movies, though (Argento comes to mind,. Romero did Night/Dawn of the Dead) I think it mostly comes down to just being a great director period, and being savvy to how modern horror works. Argento and Romero seem to have no idea of how to use modern technology or how to keep updated and navigate the modern horror landscape, thus the probable drop in their film quality. I was thinking that, but this is the same article which praised Babadook and It Follows, which kind of manage to be "mainstream" horror without being truly mainstream, if that makes sense. (They're the ones that people who like film but don't like horror gush about, like Conjuring) Though neither came near the level of Scream, and that was one of the first ones to REALLY make it super-mainstream.
That's the thing about horror directors. At some point, they ALL start sucking. Don't forget Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper, and John Carpenter. As for Fincher, Panic Room is basically a home invasion movie which I liked. I wouldn't call Babadook or It Follows mainstream in any sense. No names, low box office, no one I know has even heard of them. Sure, some non-horror fans like them, but not enough to "ruin" it. Plus, Scream was designed to be mainstream. If something like The Conjuring makes $300 million, it's okay because it was a joyless broodfest. I haven't seen too much of Carpenter's recent stuff, but The Ward WAS solidly directed. The problem was the shitty script. And while he should've stepped in and said "Change the ending," he didn't write it. And didn't Hooper pretty much go to incompetence post-TCSM Orig (I hear Spielberg did all the heavy-lifting on Poltergeist) Craven's always been the most hit-or-miss director alive since he came on the scene.
Huh. Very true. Hipster it is, though you do get the occasional people who hate any horror with humor as well
|
  
  
I don't want to be a queen. I want to be the queen
|
| |
|
Smeagollum
|
Jun 22 2015, 02:18 PM
Post #15
|
|
- Posts:
- 7,952
- Group:
- Moderators
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2013
|
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 02:01 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 22 2015, 01:58 PM
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 01:33 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 22 2015, 01:21 PM
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 12:10 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 19 2015, 11:56 AM
One thing I'd definitely agree with is the point about non-horror directors. Case in point, Kubrick and The Shining.
And, as always, fuck "real horror" fans and their undying Scream hate. I used to skip the opening because of how messed up it was. And An American Werewolf in London is one of my scariest films. Whether there's bits of humor or whether your film is relentlessly bleak and humorless (ie his boner fodder, The Babadook and It Follows), the actual horror scenes will speak for themselves.
I forgot to mention, but with this, I think a lot of it comes down to them being great directors. Period. There really aren't any exclusively horror directors who can touch someone like Kubrick or Fincher (Se7en) As for Scream, most of the hate is for satiring horror more than anything else. "Real horror fans" hate it when something dates to poke fun at the apparently perfect genre or criticize it.
That's a good point. True enough for some, but there are plenty of satirical horror movies that don't get nearly the same venom. Many of these guys will praise them like Student Bodies in the same breath as bashing Scream. I think it's the hipster mentality of "it was ruined when it went mainstream". Scream took their obscure, edgy genre and made it popular.
I'm sure if Fincher decided to stick to just horror for some reason, we'd get tons of brilliant ones from him. Some exclusive horror directors have spawned some pretty great movies, though (Argento comes to mind,. Romero did Night/Dawn of the Dead) I think it mostly comes down to just being a great director period, and being savvy to how modern horror works. Argento and Romero seem to have no idea of how to use modern technology or how to keep updated and navigate the modern horror landscape, thus the probable drop in their film quality. I was thinking that, but this is the same article which praised Babadook and It Follows, which kind of manage to be "mainstream" horror without being truly mainstream, if that makes sense. (They're the ones that people who like film but don't like horror gush about, like Conjuring) Though neither came near the level of Scream, and that was one of the first ones to REALLY make it super-mainstream.
That's the thing about horror directors. At some point, they ALL start sucking. Don't forget Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper, and John Carpenter. As for Fincher, Panic Room is basically a home invasion movie which I liked. I wouldn't call Babadook or It Follows mainstream in any sense. No names, low box office, no one I know has even heard of them. Sure, some non-horror fans like them, but not enough to "ruin" it. Plus, Scream was designed to be mainstream. If something like The Conjuring makes $300 million, it's okay because it was a joyless broodfest.
I haven't seen too much of Carpenter's recent stuff, but The Ward WAS solidly directed. The problem was the shitty script. And while he should've stepped in and said "Change the ending," he didn't write it. And didn't Hooper pretty much go to incompetence post-TCSM Orig (I hear Spielberg did all the heavy-lifting on Poltergeist) Craven's always been the most hit-or-miss director alive since he came on the scene. Huh. Very true. Hipster it is, though you do get the occasional people who hate any horror with humor as well Hooper did Salem's Lost/The Funhouse/TCM 2, which weren't masterpieces but had their fans (compared to syfy channel crocodile movies). And even Craven's misses used to be well made. There's an atmosphere in Scream 3 compared to whatever tone Scream 4 was aiming for.
Oh sure, like that Army of Darkness backlash nonsense, or the people that like Nightmare 2 more than Dream Warriors.
|
  
   Always.
|
| |
|
Repo
|
Jun 22 2015, 02:21 PM
Post #16
|
|
Forget about the bloody gods and lsiten to what I'm telling you
- Posts:
- 35,282
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Dec 17, 2012
|
- Smeagollum
- Jun 22 2015, 02:18 PM
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 02:01 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 22 2015, 01:58 PM
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 01:33 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 22 2015, 01:21 PM
- Repo
- Jun 22 2015, 12:10 PM
- Smeagollum
- Jun 19 2015, 11:56 AM
One thing I'd definitely agree with is the point about non-horror directors. Case in point, Kubrick and The Shining.
And, as always, fuck "real horror" fans and their undying Scream hate. I used to skip the opening because of how messed up it was. And An American Werewolf in London is one of my scariest films. Whether there's bits of humor or whether your film is relentlessly bleak and humorless (ie his boner fodder, The Babadook and It Follows), the actual horror scenes will speak for themselves.
I forgot to mention, but with this, I think a lot of it comes down to them being great directors. Period. There really aren't any exclusively horror directors who can touch someone like Kubrick or Fincher (Se7en) As for Scream, most of the hate is for satiring horror more than anything else. "Real horror fans" hate it when something dates to poke fun at the apparently perfect genre or criticize it.
That's a good point. True enough for some, but there are plenty of satirical horror movies that don't get nearly the same venom. Many of these guys will praise them like Student Bodies in the same breath as bashing Scream. I think it's the hipster mentality of "it was ruined when it went mainstream". Scream took their obscure, edgy genre and made it popular.
I'm sure if Fincher decided to stick to just horror for some reason, we'd get tons of brilliant ones from him. Some exclusive horror directors have spawned some pretty great movies, though (Argento comes to mind,. Romero did Night/Dawn of the Dead) I think it mostly comes down to just being a great director period, and being savvy to how modern horror works. Argento and Romero seem to have no idea of how to use modern technology or how to keep updated and navigate the modern horror landscape, thus the probable drop in their film quality. I was thinking that, but this is the same article which praised Babadook and It Follows, which kind of manage to be "mainstream" horror without being truly mainstream, if that makes sense. (They're the ones that people who like film but don't like horror gush about, like Conjuring) Though neither came near the level of Scream, and that was one of the first ones to REALLY make it super-mainstream.
That's the thing about horror directors. At some point, they ALL start sucking. Don't forget Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper, and John Carpenter. As for Fincher, Panic Room is basically a home invasion movie which I liked. I wouldn't call Babadook or It Follows mainstream in any sense. No names, low box office, no one I know has even heard of them. Sure, some non-horror fans like them, but not enough to "ruin" it. Plus, Scream was designed to be mainstream. If something like The Conjuring makes $300 million, it's okay because it was a joyless broodfest.
I haven't seen too much of Carpenter's recent stuff, but The Ward WAS solidly directed. The problem was the shitty script. And while he should've stepped in and said "Change the ending," he didn't write it. And didn't Hooper pretty much go to incompetence post-TCSM Orig (I hear Spielberg did all the heavy-lifting on Poltergeist) Craven's always been the most hit-or-miss director alive since he came on the scene. Huh. Very true. Hipster it is, though you do get the occasional people who hate any horror with humor as well
Hooper did Salem's Lost/The Funhouse/TCM 2, which weren't masterpieces but had their fans (compared to syfy channel crocodile movies). And even Craven's misses used to be well made. There's an atmosphere in Scream 3 compared to whatever tone Scream 4 was aiming for. Oh sure, like that Army of Darkness backlash nonsense, or the people that like Nightmare 2 more than Dream Warriors. True about Hooper. And Scream 4 has its well-directed moments too (Stab 6, awkwardly enough, the original opening, Kirby's phonecall, closet scene) just like Scream 3 has... whatever the fuck it was doing (the house explosion)
Yup, those are the ones
|
  
  
I don't want to be a queen. I want to be the queen
|
| |
|
mikebourkefan
|
Jun 27 2015, 02:00 AM
Post #17
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,212
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #46
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2013
|
better on screen kills can help any horror film
|
Damon: im bad Andie i do things i kill people
Andie: why do you kill people
Damon: because i like it- Damon Salvatore talking to Andie Star from season 2 of the Vampire Diaries
|
| |
|
Repo
|
Jul 5 2015, 03:17 PM
Post #18
|
|
Forget about the bloody gods and lsiten to what I'm telling you
- Posts:
- 35,282
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Dec 17, 2012
|
- mikebourkefan
- Jun 27 2015, 02:00 AM
better on screen kills can help any horror film Help, sure. Save? Nope. With movies like Prom Night remake, the lame, bloodless kills are the icing on the cake for why the movie sucks SO much. With them it'd be less awful, but you'd still have the awful characters, bad acting, unoriginal plot, weak directing, and all around lack of effort
|
  
  
I don't want to be a queen. I want to be the queen
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|