Do you think the Horror Genre is in trouble? [Archive] - Horror.com Forums

Castlewood

02-06-2008, 03:24 PM

I was talking to my best friend about this, and we've come to this unsettling conclusion: Horror might be in trouble, and I'll tell you why.

Think about the recent horror movies in the past year or so. We've got One Missed Call, The Eye, The Orphanage, 30 Days of Night, and Hostel Part II.

To be honest, The Orphanage is the only one really getting positive criticisms. And it's not even an American movie, lol.

And over the past few years... It seems like America's brilliant idea of making good horror is by remaking Japanese films that were already perfectly fine. The Ring is the exception. But in America, we're getting shitty remakes like The Grudge, One Missed Call, The Eye, etc etc.

So, with that in mind.... what has been original lately? Hostel, Hostel II, Saw, Saw II, Saw III, Saw IV... and they all have something in common: They all rely on violence, blood, and gore.

I mean, shit, we've got a remake of PROM NIGHT coming out for christ's sakes. Who gives a shit?!?

They remade The Fog, a 1980 classic from John Carpenter, and the remake was completely fucking useless and stupid. They remade Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and we all know it wasn't as scary as the original.

Rob Zombie remade Halloween...

There's a remake of Child's Play coming out in 2009.

There's a remake of Friday the 13th coming out in 2009.

They just announced a remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street.

They're talking about a remake for The Thing.

WHAT THE FUCK. Think about it. By 2010, all of the icons of horror will have been introduced to new generations with painfully inferior remakes. What the fuck for? All of these films were perfectly fine the first time.

... at this rate, we'll have a remake of The Exorcist by 2012. Don't be surprised if that happens. The very thought of it makes me wanna pull my hair out.

Now, there have been some GOOD remakes. I very much enjoyed Dawn of the Dead, The Amityville Horror, and The Hills Have Eyes... I think we can all agree that those were very solid remakes, that perhaps surpassed their originals.

But there is no need to remake every goddamn horror movie. Every fucking one of them is getting remade, and I can't think of one reason other than $$$$$$$.

I realize this is a paranoid thread, and I'm bitching extensively with bold and capitalized words... and I apologize for that. But my point here is this: When is horror going to be GOOD again? When are we going to stop focusing on remakes, and start focusing on ORIGINAL ideas? When are we going to get rid of the tits and gore, and start focusing on THINKING and PSYCHOLOGY? When will we see a movie that will keep us up at night for a month, instead of keeping us from staring at the annoying 13-year old girls who are text-messaging two seats in front of us in the theater? When will we be genuinely frightened, instead of genuinely bored?

Sorry for the length of this thread, but I really needed to vent.

Roderick Usher

02-06-2008, 04:33 PM

go see my movies when they come out!

GIALLO
L.A. GOTHIC
DAMNED

they're new stuff.

did you see The Descent, Bug, Grindhouse, The Orphanage, or Hatchet in the theaters? Supporting these films is how you get more ones like it.

Horror won't go anywhere as long as those who love it work to make it... or at least go support it wherever they can.

Staplez

02-06-2008, 05:59 PM

The horror genres fine. If nothing more, all the remakes everybody hates do put money into it. I know what your thinking, making money on remakes will only futher prove them to be worthwhile. While that may be true on some levels, the fact is, the more money there is to spread around the more people who do have an idea of thier own will see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Rember also. Alot of these movies being remade are old enough that some younger viewers never even heard of the orginal. Its just a movie to them. Thier judging them on thier own merits(as we all should really).

I do agree with you on something though. All those movies were perfectly fine to begin with. If it aint broke done fix it. But nobodys ever contacted me and asked if I wanted to be involved in a remake. Im assuming the same with you.
Not up to me or you. What is up to us is weither or not we watch them.
I mean, if it bothers you that much just dont watch them.
But Ive said it before, and Im sure Ill say it again. Whats on film now woulnt change. The orginal Halloween will always be. No matter how many times its remade. I watched the 78 Halloween yesterday. I didnt expect the 07 version to play, and it wasnt a surpise when it didnt.

The Thing is a remake by the way.

Despare

02-07-2008, 02:22 AM

To be honest, The Orphanage is the only one really getting positive criticisms. And it's not even an American movie, lol.

Horror has never been about pleasing critics and a lot of great horror films will never get a lot of good critical review. Not only that but what does being an American movie have to do with anything? America isn't the top of the horror heap right now but I'm sure the pendulum will swing back and then away again. Maybe American horror is in somewhat of a creative slump but there are still good American horror films being released. As long as some good movies are still being made, in any country, then our genre is going to be fine. Now Westerns...

Another quick edit here: Remakes are a good thing if they're well done. There are some great remakes out there, including The Thing.

horrorchic

02-07-2008, 03:21 AM

horrorchic

02-07-2008, 03:29 AM

[QUOTE=Despare;664874]Horror has never been about pleasing critics and a lot of great horror films will never get a lot of good critical review. [QUOTE]

In the 1970s it was not needed. I think that most of the horror films were looked down on by critics, till the later when they realized the popularity.

I think that I read that in a book about Tobe Hooper. He was saying that his movie was not very liked by the critics.... I don't remember that too clearly.

_____V_____

02-07-2008, 06:21 AM

As long as good, solid quality horror movies are still coming...I say the genre is pretty much safe. But the fans need to show their loyalty towards such flicks. I am with Rod there.

For example, Grindhouse. Last year it brought something fresh and novel to the screens. But it bit the dust at the box office. We have PG 13 horror such as 1408 and The Mist doing decent business, and many critically acclaimed ones to boot, which came and hit the screens...and disappeared.

My question is...where are the audiences?

You, as a viewer, cant stop your curiosity value for a remake. Ergo, remakes are being made left, right and centre. How could Rob Zombie's Halloween do so well at the box-office, when it was just a paler version of Carpenter's brilliant 70s epic? It only goes to show that viewers love remakes, and they will pay money to see it. Originality, by way of the box office, is out.

I dare anybody out there to come out and say Zombie made a better Halloween than JC! But, Zombie made more money. Try as you may, the trend of making remakes is in...because now producers have found a cash cow and will milk it till its boobs shrivel and hang down.

Keep paying for remakes, they will feed you remakes. Pay for a good, original and solid horror movie...and they will be challenged to bring those out. Its not about brilliance anymore...its viewer's choice and viewer's money, which counts.

Now, there have been some GOOD remakes. I very much enjoyed Dawn of the Dead, The Amityville Horror, and The Hills Have Eyes... I think we can all agree that those were very solid remakes, that perhaps surpassed their originals.

Hmm...did I read that right? Amityville Horror's remake was good?!

And about the rest, they might be good remakes, but they will NEVER EVER be better than the originals.

Because of that word itself. ORIGINAL. That word in itself distinguishes it from a Remake.

An Original is an ORIGINAL. A Remake is a RE-MAKE.

knife_fight

02-07-2008, 06:25 AM

did you see The Descent, Bug, Grindhouse, The Orphanage, or Hatchet in the theaters?

all great, to be sure, but isn't the point of Grindhouse and Hatchet to relive past glories of the genre? while I love them both, particularly Hatchet, they seem to be made just to point out that horror "ain't what it useta be."

I don't think the genre is in trouble at all. while there are good points and bad points to the topics of remakes, teenie-bopper PG-13 horrors, the re-emergence of the exploitation film as a genuine money-maker, etc., the main point (to me) is that money is being sunk deep into the genre, which means that, for better or for worse, more horror movies are being made. and, chances are, the more horror movies are being made, the more good ones are being made (and are going to be made), even if it's just by accident on the part of the studios. it's the whole "500 monkeys in a room with 500 typewriters" thing.

whether or not the good ones get the attention they deserve (once again, Hatchet being a case in point) is a different can of worms altogether.

knife_fight

02-07-2008, 06:28 AM

Keep paying for remakes, they will feed you remakes. Pay for a good, original and solid horror movie...and they will be challenged to bring those out. Its not about brilliance anymore...its viewer's choice and viewer's money, which counts.

Hmm...did I read that right? Amityville Horror's remake was good?!

And about the rest, they might be good remakes, but they will NEVER EVER be better than the originals.

Because of that word itself. ORIGINAL. That word in itself distinguishes it from a Remake.

An Original is an ORIGINAL. A Remake is a RE-MAKE.

I am 100% with you there. it's just supply and demand and whatnot. we can't expect businessmen to act like artists, or vice versa.

Roderick Usher

02-07-2008, 06:58 AM

I agree with what you are saying, but I wanted to know... Isn't Bug a remake of Bug (1975)?

No, not even close. Bug (2007) is adapted from a stage play. It is a great bit of paranoid psychological horror with an intensely entertaining performance from Micheal Shannon.

colubrid660

02-07-2008, 07:24 AM

So, with that in mind.... what has been original lately? Hostel, Hostel II, Saw, Saw II, Saw III, Saw IV... and they all have something in common: They all rely on violence, blood, and gore.

THANK YOU. I was gonna add precisely this to the discussion, but I'm happy to see I am not alone. Hostel, Saw, etc. are a subgenre called "Torture Porn" that has been gaining popularity recently. These films are popular enough that their impact on the horror film industry is inevitable. The horror film genre IS in trouble if all we get for the next ten years is more Saw-clones. Saw has a cool concept. But plain violence is only plain violence, not horror in the truest sense.

WHAT THE FUCK. Think about it. By 2010, all of the icons of horror will have been introduced to new generations with painfully inferior remakes. What the fuck for? All of these films were perfectly fine the first time.

I fucking hate this. Once in a while, like you said a good one is made, but for every "Dawn of the Dead" remake, there is ten more that should not have been made.

I also heard they are thinking of remaking Hellraiser too. The only possible way this could be good is if they don't overuse CGI and torture scenes, and if Clive Barker has a lot to do with it.

A remake of Child's Play could be good, but it probably won't be. New effects can make an old film better, but CGI is the latest craze now, and it sucks. A CGI chucky doll running around killing people would look fuckin stupid, as well as a Pinhead with CGI pins and torture wounds would look fuckin retarded.

Whatever happened to the old days, when better effects were made with puppets, makeup, prosthetics and good old fashioned elbow grease. If "The Fly", for example, were reremade today (and I have heard that idea might be in the works, god help us all), it would look like ass because everything would be CGI, and CGI looks like shit.

And please, "The Thing" is a horror classic. If Hollywood fucks this up I am going to be livid. Next to an "Alien" remake (which WILL NOT happen, as long as I am alive), this is the worst idea I have heard in a long time. But its all moot I guess. As much as I don't like seeing my beloved movies being turned into moronic remakes, you can simply choose not to see them and just watch the originals, they aren't going anywhere I suppose.

So to sum up, yes the horror film industry may be in trouble if torture porn keeps filling up theatres, crappy remakes of classics keep popping up and shitty CGI keeps being used. There are some classics being released today, someone mentioned "Bug", but there is a lot of shit being made too, a lot of which seems to be pretty influential.

Despare

02-07-2008, 07:47 AM

The CGI argument is valid but we're at a point where it needs to be done. Effects people have to play with technology and try to pull the best results from it so as technology progresses as do special effects. CGI is a good thing, or at least it will be. I can't believe I'm going to make this statement again and those who have read this time and time again please feel free to skip it. In 1975 there were only 38 films released to theaters. Compare that with 2005, a year in which 594 film were released! The good films are still out there, there's just more dreck to wade through to get to them. Simply become a more educated viewer.

And about the rest, they might be good remakes, but they will NEVER EVER be better than the originals.

Because of that word itself. ORIGINAL. That word in itself distinguishes it from a Remake.

An Original is an ORIGINAL. A Remake is a RE-MAKE.

I think a few remakes have the potential to change a story and tell it in a way that does indeed make the remake more entertaining. Think about fairy tales and folklore, stories passed down from generation to generation shaped and changed to fit the current audience and honed into a better story as years passed. It's all in how the story is told...

A lot of our "original movies" are based on an older tale. In that sense, a lot of movies are simply visual representations of somebody else's story.

Doc Faustus

02-07-2008, 09:42 AM

Definitely. Somes of the greatest horror films of all time were remakes. For example, Mad Love is a remake of Hands of Orlac. Creature from the Black Lagoon is deeply indebted to King Kong, which is deeply indebted to Heart of Darkness. Christopher Lee would never have put on a cape were it not for the genre's debt to the old stories. Problems occur when the stories either a.) don't move or b.) weren't all that archetypal to begin with. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake failed because it had nothing new to say about the characters or the situation. It also ignored the fact that TCM shows a nation on the verge of moral apocalypse. Had TCM been framed in a contemporary context but still showed that the themes were not old hat, it would have been a great reimagining. Rob Zombie's Halloween, pale though it might have been, at least made new statements about universal evil, and moved the story from a whitebread moral context to a greyer splatpunk context. Carpenter's movie was about how a squeaky clean world was still vulnerable to monsters. Zombie's was about how much monster can be in a person and how much person can be in a monster. There are no easy answers in splatpunk. If this were executed better, it would have served as an aggressively modern reexamination of old values. It gets a B- from me, and it made me think about how smart Zombie might be someday. In linguistic terms, they call this "enhancement", translation with the intent to improve. Other flaws or quirks in translation can include changing cultural context out of fear that you won't be understood, updating a piece or robbing it of complexity. Bad remakes are guilty of this often. So are good remakes. Without solid intent, this doesn't work. Enhancement and modernization are the only modes that can really work in forming a remake, but you need to have a good understanding of differences and similarities between the times. Kurosawa's Throne of Blood transplanted Macbeth to Japan and worked because Kurosawa had a thorough understanding of feudal Japanese culture. If somebody did the same thing because they wanted Lady Macbeth to be hot and Asian and for there to be lots of high octane swordplay, it wouldn't have worked. Too many of these people doing remakes just lack perspective and don't get what made the originals good and what makes our times different, and a true breeding ground for horror.

Despare

02-07-2008, 10:52 AM

Kurosawa's Throne of Blood transplanted Macbeth to Japan and worked because Kurosawa had a thorough understanding of feudal Japanese culture.

I almost forgot Kurosawa's contributions to the field of "remakes" or maybe more appropriately "re-imaginings". Ran was a beautiful take on King Lear.

fortunato

02-07-2008, 12:28 PM

Originality, by way of the box office, is out.

Horror has never been about pleasing critics and a lot of great horror films will never get a lot of good critical review...I'm sure the pendulum will swing back and then away again.

Horror won't go anywhere as long as those who love it work to make it... or at least go support it wherever they can.

i think these arguments pretty much answer this question.

horror (in its true form) has never been about mass ingestion. horror has always been the underdog of film genres. when you try to throw mass appeal into the mix, the outcome is generally not good. sometimes good horror comes to find you, and then there are times where you have to go looking for it. there have been plenty of great releases over the past few years if you really look:

the descent, grindhouse, behind the mask, session 9, the orphanage, bug, the devil's backbone, hatchet, etc.

i guess what it comes down to here is this: at this point in time, if you're looking at horror on the surface, you're going to see a bunch of uninspired, unoriginal crap-jobs, but by looking below you can find stuff that the "golden age" horror genre would have been proud of. and who's to say we won't see another golden age of horror in the future? with people like us supporting and creating within the genre (rod's got some really exciting stuff in the works), who knows what's waiting beneath that crappy horror exterior?

Disastermind

02-07-2008, 01:46 PM

colubrid660

02-07-2008, 07:20 PM

I don't think that the horror genre is in trouble at all. I think that the classic horror genre is in trouble being remade every ten seconds. But if you think about it, we are actually helping the old genre of horror. By remaking it people want to see the original, and by making remakes the youth like myself are seeing them so that they actually never die.

Very good point. My points made above at my anger at most remakes aside (which I wrote this morning with a slight hangover), this is a very good point that I considered, but thought was maybe too idealistic. I suppose, since you make a very good point, I was partly wrong.

The flipside though (as a journalist, I know there is always 2 sides, so bear with me) crappy remakes may make newer viewers think the original sucked just as much, if not worse than the remake. While this is rarely the case, a lot of kids these days, who are weened on "big special CGI effects and nonstop action", may already believe that if its older, it sucks.

But remake after remake of good films, if one wants to take it far into the future, may turn into the film industry version of "telephone". You said remaking classics essentially makes them immortal, but remakes are known to significantly alter the formula/message of the original. Like with a game of "telephone", more retellings distort the original message. Just some food for thought.

Doc Faustus

02-08-2008, 07:20 AM

Yes, unless you choose to retell the story to change or recontextualize the message or to show how things are different. It's not a great movie, but look at the Bride with Sting. Frankenstein becomes a story about love and liberation, or even at the Bride of Frankenstein as an adaptation of Shelley's novel, it turned the story into a sounding board for James Whale's views on sexuality,organized religion, gender politics and scientific ethics. At its heart there remains a similar message, but the message is augmented. I wouldn't call it a good adaptation of Shelley's novel, but I would call it a good film that takes credit where it's due and gives credit as well. This is pretty necessary to do. Of course the message gets diluted and changes, but this is how folklore has worked for ages. From one village to the next in Slavic countries, what a vampire was used to change, as did the ways to get rid of it. Some towns said you needed to find a pair of twins born on a Saturday and convince them to wear their underwear outside of their clothes. We do this with our monsters and with all of our narratives. It gets harder with movies because they're more concrete. You can't say "I saw Nosferatu yesterday. Max Shreck was ten feet tall and had three heads and he was eating cows two towns over. My sister's friend swears it's true!" However, we have a natural need to. So,Todd Browning makes Dracula and says that Dracula is something different. The same thing happens nowadays, but its also done out of greed and stupidity when nobody has a new slant. What Rod says about supporting horror that's original is definitely true, but I think some well conceived remakes might also be in order. Demon Seed would be pretty cool with CGI technology and a greater knowledge of artificial intelligence behind it. Old Monogram thrillers turned into fun period pieces or updated would be kind of cool. An update or homage to radioactive insect movies would be awesome. If anything, we need smart people helming and writing our remakes to deal with a natural cultural imperative.

knife_fight

02-08-2008, 08:17 AM

If there ever was a time for horror it's now.

lots of good points in this thread, so no need for me to congratulate you all on good posts, but I did find this interesting...

I could not agree with you more, though I think in America today you would find most people would disagree. Why? Because most Americans are of the mindset of, "There's so much real-life horror in the world today, why create more things to be afraid of?"

well, if that is the case, my fellow American, then you just argued against your own point.

the "real life" world is a scary place, and, in most folks's opinion, getting worse every day. environmental issues, war, ever-rising crime rates, the steep plummet of an economy based on consumption... you name it, the earth, and all those aboard it, are doomed (can you tell my glass is half-empty?).

but it's now, more than ever, that we need Michael Myers, or Freddy Krueger, or Frankenstein, to let us blow off some steam and walk out into the sunlight after a matinee and say, "Well, the dollar might not be worth shit, but at least I don't have a burn victim with a knife-glove coming after me in my sleep! whew!"

we need horror films, to remind us that maybe things aren't as bad as they seem, or if they are, at least they're not that bad.

there have been unending books and essays about how the horror film, more than any other genre, is a reaffirmation of life. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but just thing of that high you get after watching a good horror movie (in b4 "horror movies don't scare me" bullshit). that's because your mind went into "fight or flight" and you fought (unless you ran screaming from the theatre which, if you did, please tell what movie it was so I can take the rest of the day off from work and visit my local theatre). not only did you fight, but you won. you survived it, and that satisfies some primal instinct in us, which in turn reminds us, once again, that we are alive and could, presumably, overcome any obstacles set before us (except perhaps that dude in the sweater). :D

siorai

02-08-2008, 09:40 AM

I dare anybody out there to come out and say Zombie made a better Halloween than JC! But, Zombie made more money. Try as you may, the trend of making remakes is in...because now producers have found a cash cow and will milk it till its boobs shrivel and hang down.

I'll quite happily take that dare. I find the original Halloween to drag. The pacing is definitely not what it could be. Carpenter tries to build tension by moving the plot slowly (very minimal plot with gaping holes when you get right down to it anyways), but I feel like it backfired. The movie gets too slow and my interest wanes. It's a good movie, but I found Zombie's interpretation of it to be better. The somewhat more fluid pacing and the background on Michael make it a far more enjoyable movie to watch for me.

That being said, did it need to be made? No, not really. Halloween is a classic, and icon in the horror genre and stood fine on it's own.

But therein lies the problem. Hollywood is filled with pussies who will not take a risk. Instead of going out on a limb and doing something fresh, they will gladly fund a remake of either a Japanese or American classic horror film. They knew people would go see The Ring because people had heard of Ringu, but never saw it because of either the lack of availability or many peoples' fear of subtitles. They knew people will go see a remake of Halloween because it's Michael Myers. But will people go see some new property with no background whatsoever? Unless it's something like an Eli Roth gorey T&A teen sex flick or some over the top torture-porn like Hostel it becomes a big gamble.

At the same time though, can you blame them? People in general are idiots when it comes to films. A ridiculous, overblown piece of Hollywood crap like Transformers or the Spiderman franchise does amazingly well at the box office, but then something trying to pay homage to a genre and bring something back to the people like Grindhouse tanks. I realize Grindhouse couldn't exactly be called 100% original, but as far as mainstream movie theatres go, it basicallly is. People don't want originality. They want something safe and familliar. Hollywood is more than happy to spoon feed them their regurgitated childhood memories. For $15 a pop no less.

Smackytherabbit

02-08-2008, 10:23 PM

Do you think the Horror Genre is in trouble?

Yes, but i also think this should be changed to "American Horror"
Its been in trouble for a long time.
Then again, im not quite sure if they were ever not in trouble.

While some of the best horror was pre 1970, it was never a huge genre. Of course you can name specific movies that did great, but for the most part is was more of a selective genre that less people enjoyed (compared to others).

Between the mid 70s and early 90s was this massive influx at-the-time shock slasher. Few actually any good and even fewer were creative. But many enjoyed them because of the seemly exploitation of sex and gore in the same picture.

Then the mid 90s come along and we got this horrid flow of absolutely terrible teen slashes like "Scream" and "i know what you want to do last summer" or whatever the hell it was. And to make it even even more pathetic, like the 80s with slashers, we had worse copies of the horrid movies "Scream" and "i know what you want to do last summer".

And now it seems we have two types of horror.
1. Remakes of old good movies (that turn out shitty) and remakes of good Asian horror movies (that turn out shitty). Also, this trend has not just stuck to the horror genre.
and
2. New shock. Saw 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11...18,213.... Decent, High Tention, Hostel, ect.
While they do seem to be a bit higher quality than the 80s counter parts, that could also just be technological advances rather than better staff, directors, writers, actors, little things that dont seem to matter in cinema now.

I guess when i take a look back at horror, the only time it was really "not in trouble" was when it was just a factory producing crap genre or a semi-underground genre that the good movies did not get the respect they deserved.

Despare

02-09-2008, 06:26 AM

Yes, but i also think this should be changed to "American Horror"

Asian horror also has a problem with quantity over quality. Everybody wants to make a ton of money so they just release as much crap as possible hoping that one movie really hits.

Smackytherabbit

02-09-2008, 08:57 AM

Asian horror also has a problem with quantity over quality. Everybody wants to make a ton of money so they just release as much crap as possible hoping that one movie really hits.

Oh they do too. Trust me, ive seen plenty of bad horror movies that involved long black haired girls and creepy kids, just like the slasher genre these are being pumped out like crazy.
But at least with some foreign horror (not just asian) there is still some creativity rather than just cash cows.

cruise

02-11-2008, 08:23 AM

I think there may be a bit of trouble. Sure, there are folks making new stuff, but some of it we will never see. Sin-Jin Smyth by Snapkick had great things said about it both during and post production. However no one seems to want to take a chance on it and it seems it will never get released. WTF?
Too bad, So sad...:mad:

Jimmey_Cuisinart

02-14-2008, 10:00 AM

It seems to me that horror films are the number one made indy film. There are actually so many low budget horror films being made that the marketability has decreased because of the over saturation on the market.

I'm not a big fan of the remakes, but I watch them anyway and always find some enjoyment out of them.

Jimmey

gracie

02-16-2008, 08:29 PM

Despare

02-16-2008, 08:41 PM

A couple of my fav movies were remakes, namely Dawn of the Dead and The hills have eyes. Both better than the originals in my eyes.
I think when it comes to remakes the quality of the originals needs to looked at. I think that Craven's Hills have eyes was an interesting story but used cheesy effects and was a little comedic in places. So take the interesting story, step it up with far better effects and a better director in Aja and I see it as a no risk. On the other hand take a master piece like Carpenters Halloween and only bad things can happen.
So remake movies that missed the mark but had potential.

I can't believe there are actually people who prefer the new Dawn over the original. To choose a vapid, special effects romp like the remake over Romero's original leads me to believe that we have people out there with diabetes of the pupils... simply too much eye candy.

Staplez

02-16-2008, 11:33 PM

I can't believe there are actually people who prefer the new Dawn over the original.

I cant either. I didnt hate the remake, in and of itself I didnt think it was all that bad. Dosnt hold a candle to the orginal though.

gracie

02-17-2008, 12:31 AM

I can't believe there are actually people who prefer the new Dawn over the original. To choose a vapid, special effects romp like the remake over Romero's original leads me to believe that we have people out there with diabetes of the pupils... simply too much eye candy.

Fast zombies are better than slow zombies ;)

Despare

02-17-2008, 12:02 PM

Fast zombies are better than slow zombies ;)

Actually slow zombies build more tension and create a creepier atmosphere. It's great because they're so easily dispatched until they gather in numbers and groups fall apart or make a mistake. Fast zombies are ok but they really don't create the same environment of terror.

Staplez

02-17-2008, 07:37 PM

The thing I find creepy about zombies is the slow static like walking.

siorai

02-19-2008, 11:00 AM

Actually slow zombies build more tension and create a creepier atmosphere. It's great because they're so easily dispatched until they gather in numbers and groups fall apart or make a mistake. Fast zombies are ok but they really don't create the same environment of terror.

Slow zombies make for a more brooding kind of horror. Fast zombies make for a more instantaneous threat. With slow zombies you're basically an idiot if they get you. You're only really in trouble if you're surrounded or barricade yourself in a building of some sort. Otherwise in the real world, a slow zombie would not catch anyone. You could see a slow zombie across the street and not be in immediate danger. Just turn away and walk briskly. A fast zombie though? You better be able to run.

I find the thought of a fast, relentless predator far more scary than a slow one. Which would scare you more? Having a cheetah or a three-toed sloth decide they wanted to eat your yummy brainmeats? Give me the sloth any day of the week because I wouldn't even have to break a sweat to escape it. for that reason I prefer the movies with fast zombies. The slow ones just mean that at some point there's going to have to be a huge mistake made by the characters in order to push the plot forward.

T-Rack

02-24-2008, 10:31 AM

NO I think there are a lot of good horror movies out there I'm not much of a fan of the Asian horror movies.

Despare

02-25-2008, 08:22 AM

Slow zombies make for a more brooding kind of horror. Fast zombies make for a more instantaneous threat. With slow zombies you're basically an idiot if they get you. You're only really in trouble if you're surrounded or barricade yourself in a building of some sort. Otherwise in the real world, a slow zombie would not catch anyone. You could see a slow zombie across the street and not be in immediate danger. Just turn away and walk briskly. A fast zombie though? You better be able to run.

I find the thought of a fast, relentless predator far more scary than a slow one. Which would scare you more? Having a cheetah or a three-toed sloth decide they wanted to eat your yummy brainmeats? Give me the sloth any day of the week because I wouldn't even have to break a sweat to escape it. for that reason I prefer the movies with fast zombies. The slow ones just mean that at some point there's going to have to be a huge mistake made by the characters in order to push the plot forward.

The slow zombies build and build, the terror rising while the numbers increase. It's the security you feel being able to easily dispatch the zombies slowly fading away as the numbers continue to rise. What makes fast zombies so much different than people infected with the Rage? It's just an alteration of a classic monster to help those with ADD enjoy zombie flicks.

thevodguy

02-25-2008, 08:42 AM

The slow zombies build and build, the terror rising while the numbers increase. It's the security you feel being able to easily dispatch the zombies slowly fading away as the numbers continue to rise. What makes fast zombies so much different than people infected with the Rage? It's just an alteration of a classic monster to help those with ADD enjoy zombie flicks.

I totally agree. While fast zombies are good for making you jump in your seat, anyone can do that kind of horror. It's the feeling of true hopelessness the slow ones give you, that really defined the genre in the first place. Sure, you can out run them, and you can kill them one by one...but for how long? They don't need to sleep or stop to catch their breath, so eventually you're as good as zombie fodder. It's the sheer number of the bastards that's virtually unstoppable.

Despare

02-25-2008, 08:47 AM

I totally agree. While fast zombies are good for making you jump in your seat, anyone can do that kind of horror. It's the feeling of true hopelessness the slow ones give you, that really defined the genre in the first place. Sure, you can out run them, and you can kill them one by one...but for how long? They don't need to sleep or stop to catch their breath, so eventually you're as good as zombie fodder. It's the sheer number of the bastards that's virtually unstoppable.

And with the fast zombies the speed they have virtually eliminates the necessity for the numbers. Ah well, tis' all opinion.

thevodguy

02-25-2008, 08:54 AM

And with the fast zombies the speed they have virtually eliminates the necessity for the numbers. Ah well, tis' all opinion.

That's precisely it. Romero did it right the first time, IMO.

Btw, my mailing address is in Evans City, PA...ring any bells??? :D

Despare

02-25-2008, 03:11 PM

Btw, my mailing address is in Evans City, PA...ring any bells??? :D

Lucky you, I wish I lived in zombie city...

Anyway, I also believe that slow zombies create more doubt and inner turmoil within anybody having to dispatch of them. If something is speeding toward you trying to take you out then it's fairly easy to shoot right? Slow zombies though, they may just be an injured person. Not only that but you have time to see them which can be deadly in itself, especially if it's a former loved one. Anyway, interesting discussion even if we did hijack the thread and turn it into a zombie thread.

horrorchic

07-08-2008, 05:39 PM

Romero never thought of them as Zombies and neither did many movies before him. He thought that they were Ghouls. He explains that many times in the featurettes on his DVDs. Though we all agree that his Zombies are the original greats, I still can not get over teh Zombies on Crack from 28 days later. I love those and yes I have ADD.

urgeok2

07-09-2008, 05:57 AM

didnt this exact thread get started a year or so ago ..

I'll say now what iu said the last time .. only with even more conviction ..

No ... horror movies have never been stronger since the 70's.
There are far more theatrically released horrors coming out now than i can ever remember. A lot of good established directors are making these films not to mention actors. The studios are taking the genre seriously again.

here's why :

- The Japanese horror film influence. anything that proves profitable (popular) in any country is going to be exploited in north america.

- The Saw films - and other 'grindhouse influenced movies. good or not - they are also popular and as long as asses fill the seats in the theatres, these and similar films will continue to be theatrically released.

- QT and RR. like them or not - their love and entheusiasm for genre films (and their quality as filmmakers) have been a huge boon for horror fans. So much so that it sickens me when people shit on their efforts. We need more of these guys ..

many horror fans have pretty god damn short memories - or are to young to have had to live through decades of mediocrity. unimaginative cheap straight to video slasher films starring nothing but 3rd rate soap opera actors.

ther have been other influences - reasons for why horror has been flourishing ... i cant recall them all right now ... but these are some pretty major ones.

something to keep in mind : these things come and go in waves ... lets ride this one as long as possible - and be thankfull of it .. because i bet in 10 years time the same people shitting on this decade of horror now - will eventually be looking back on it as 'the golden age of modern horror cinema''

Mr. Grady

07-09-2008, 01:14 PM

Agree- The Horror genre is in good shape. It's a niche that has very dedicated fans who will take a chance on just about anything in the genre, and keep coming back for more because the thirst for the material is high (even if the level of discretion is also high - for the most part, we still watch the garbage, in hopes that the next one might be redeeming). In addition, the niche itself is very large. There are more horror fans out there than one would think, closet or otherwise. General marketing techniques and cultural phenomenon have us moving towards a segmented marketplace where the individual gets what they want on-demand. In addition, the technology is now allowing for more talent to seep into the entertainment industry with less cost barrier. All that is good for niche audiences and sub-categories. This genre is safe in a major way.

urgeok2

07-09-2008, 05:25 PM

There are more horror fans out there than one would think, closet or otherwise.

i'd have to disagree with that point - at least here in toronto ..

it's amazing how many people hate it up here - i meet 1 in 20 people who like it at all.

Toronto is a huge sci-fi town (and anime) something i attribute to the extraordinarily high percentage of asians ..

at the fan expo sci-fi and anime get the most business - very few people know who the horror guests are.

(H.G.Lewis has no one at his booth all day - would that happen in the USA ? i doubt it)

Ferox13

07-09-2008, 11:45 PM

H.G.Lewis has no one at his booth all day

:(

Wow thats bad.

La Chat Noire

07-10-2008, 06:17 AM

I don't think we ever have to worry about the horror genre going anywhere. People will always be drawn to horror because it speaks to the darkness in themselves and in their lives. And you know, because it's entertaining. But I agree that the whole genre could use a serious boost of creativity. Every now and then I'll find a movie with a really fresh idea, but most are repetitive and predictable. And actually I think every genre struggles with that, so I think it's suffice to say horror isn't going anywhere.

Vodstok

07-10-2008, 07:02 AM

no genre that is currently in existance will ever disappear. no genre that ever existed has ever disappeared, they have simply changed in delivery. The originals are still here; drama, comedy, horror, sci-fi... all have been around since the silent era. musicals still show up. arguing that any genre is "in trouble" is pointless, because they wont "die", unless we end up in a world-wide totalitarian government that forbids certain genres. even then, there would be underground stuff.

BTW, the thing is NOT a remake. if someone made another bladerunner, and based it off of the book by phillip k dick and not the movie, it would be a retelling of the story, not a remake. this is the case with the thing, it is not based on the old black and white movie but the novel THAT movie was based on.

I find it interesting that no one has said that peter jackson remade ralph bakshie's lord of th erings...

Despare

07-10-2008, 11:19 AM

BTW, the thing is NOT a remake. if someone made another bladerunner, and based it off of the book by phillip k dick and not the movie, it would be a retelling of the story, not a remake. this is the case with the thing, it is not based on the old black and white movie but the novel THAT movie was based on.

Why NOT make a remake and yet pay homage to the original film? The opening title screen was an exactly copy of the original. It's a remake...

onewhosighs

07-10-2008, 11:32 AM

Don't forget the remake of The Evil Dead in 2009... without Bruce Campbell..

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434020/

Hilti88NYC

07-27-2008, 05:38 PM

I dont think the horror genre is in trouble. i just think there are not many original idea's left.Which in turn is causing all these remakes.

You still have some orginal ideas popping up all over the place,so the ideas are there, Just seems like people may be to lazy to actually think and do work.

Just lack of originality. I dont see the genre in trouble at all,just IMO atleast. as long as all these knuckle heads keeping wasting there money on these pathetic crap remakes,then they will keep being made,therefore no reason for any one to write and original screen play.