Low Quality Film VS. High Quality Film

[JokerMONEY3000]

lol..I know some people may think this is stupid, but I think the reason that older movies are scarier is because of the quality of film. MOST scary movies have their scariest scenes during night, and on older, lower quality film you can't see what's in the shadows as good as you can now. It just doesn't seem to have the same effect anymore. I like the lower quality film for horror movies alot better.

[AUSTIN316426808]

I don't really think that has anything to do with it. Older horror films are just better than modern horror films. If Boogeyman would've been filmed the exact way Halloween was it would still be a utter piece of garbage on the other hand I think if Halloween was filmed the exact same way just with better picture it would still be just as good.

[The STE]

Yeah, but you usually can't see what you're supposed to be able to see either. If you REALLY want to get it dark, just fuck around with your TV's settings. And be careful, the DVD folk might take notice if people start complaining that the picture's too good. We already have to put up with Pan-and-Scam versions, don't wanna have to look out for "Shitty Transfer" versions, too.

[JokerMONEY3000]

Originally posted by The STE
Yeah, but you usually can't see what you're supposed to be able to see either. If you REALLY want to get it dark, just fuck around with your TV's settings. And be careful, the DVD folk might take notice if people start complaining that the picture's too good. We already have to put up with Pan-and-Scam versions, don't wanna have to look out for "Shitty Transfer" versions, too.

lol

[Angelakillsluts]

High Quality. I see your point, but it's the story quality, editing and direction that sucks. :p

[Elvis_Christ]

Originally posted by JokerMONEY3000
lol..I know some people may think this is stupid, but I think the reason that older movies are scarier is because of the quality of film. MOST scary movies have their scariest scenes during night, and on older, lower quality film you can't see what's in the shadows as good as you can now. It just doesn't seem to have the same effect anymore. I like the lower quality film for horror movies alot better.

Yeh I see what you mean. I really like a lot of films from the 70s because the tones look totally sleazy and dirty. I recently saw the Tobe Hooper film Eaten Alive and a couple of the scenes with Robert Englund were really fucked up particularly because of the tone and colour (especially the scene with him being particularly forcefull with a prostitiute). I really like the look of "low quality" film it just gives the film a more gritty look. But like people have already said a film needs to do more than look good.

[filmmaker2]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
Older horror films are just better than modern horror films.

I'm not sure I understand what this thread is about. But I do know one thing: I agree with the statement quoted above!

Older horror films are just better. The world of the modern horror film is a sick and boring life!

[zwoti]

Originally posted by The STE
Pan-and-Scam

so well put

[The STE]

ugh, the "Old horror > New horror" talk has begun. I don't think it's so much that the old horror was better, it's just been out longer, it's had more time to get proper exposure so we can see it. Out of all the great horror movies that are considered old, how many of them got the relative level of distribution back then that something like, say, Boogeyman gets today? It's not that the movies now suck, it's that most of the ones getting pushed suck

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by The STE
It's not that the movies now suck, it's that most of the ones getting pushed suck


good point, it's not just horror either.

The Machinist, Eternal Sunshine, Million Dollar Baby none of them got alot of exposure but they were all amazing while shit like Alexander and Troy get pushed.

[The STE]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
good point, it's not just horror either.

The Machinist, Eternal Sunshine, Million Dollar Baby none of them got alot of exposure but they were all amazing while shit like Alexander and Troy get pushed.

I'm with you on Machinist and Sunshine, but MDB? The movie that got all kinds of Oscars? Sure, Sunshine got screenplay, but most types don't remember the screenplay wins...

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by The STE
I'm with you on Machinist and Sunshine, but MDB? The movie that got all kinds of Oscars? Sure, Sunshine got screenplay, but most types don't remember the screenplay wins...



before it got nominated it had only made about $40 million over a month and a half.

[The STE]

true, but it won the freakin Oscar for Best Picture. And it wasn't even the best movie of the year. I'd say that rules it out as far as being overlooked goes.

[bloodrayne]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
I don't really think that has anything to do with it. Older horror films are just better than modern horror films. If Boogeyman would've been filmed the exact way Halloween was it would still be a utter piece of garbage on the other hand I think if Halloween was filmed the exact same way just with better picture it would still be just as good. BUT...The original Night Of The Living Dead, the original Psycho and the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre were ALL filmed on a shoestring budget...It caused the films to be 'gritty' almost like a home movie, or documentary...The low quality actually caused them to feel more 'real' which made them MUCH scarier and better movies...

[MisterSadistro]

Besides the fact that so many new horror films just try to swipe what's proven scary without any substance that made it effective (which is another discussion), the huge difference in the grainy quality is simple: films were shot on actual film back then. Everything now is shot in digital. There is a difference in the area size-wise covered on a tape and on actual film that makes it look so completely different. Your old family backyard movies shot on 8mm don't look the same as 'Star Wars' at the theater when you first saw it on 65mm. That version of 'Star Wars' would look vastly different than 'Revenge of Sith' since it was shot digitally. Light tones don't look as warm as they do on film either. Everything is crisp (and rather boring). An un-spammed film I've been working on shot the trailer on old 8mm just to have the grainy feel of yesteryear. 'Dead Life' is a recent zombie film that was shot entirely on 8mm and had the old 70's look to it. Anyhooo, hope that wasn't too boring to listen to :D
CK