are classic better than new horror films?

[gyoung_33]

Im asking the question are old horror films better than the modern special effects horrors of today. (this is for my university essay, the more feedback i get the better. tell your friends)

[neverending]

Some older films are better than some newer films.
Some newer films are better than some older films.

This is not the answer you want, but it's the bare truth.

[Doc Faustus]

On average and as a body of work? I think horror films used to be better.

[Bastet]

On average and as a body of work? I think horror films used to be better.
Maybe thats because directors had less technology to work with and as a result worked harder to create more with less.

[Doc Faustus]

I think also there were fewer expectations and fewer conventions.

[Bastet]

I think also there were fewer expectations and fewer conventions.
I agree, film making was still young and audiences were naive in their tastes. But do feel there was more emphasis on story telling than shocking them and as a result, the films we have are very rich stories rather than just to shock or repulse. Love James whale. I do have a soft spot for the old films and think that being in black and white ads to the atmosphere. The most frightening film I have eve seen, which I still can't watch on my own is 'The Spiral Staircase.
:eek:

[Doc Faustus]

I don't think I've seen Spiral Staircase. I hear great things of course. Vampyr chilled me to the bone the first few times I saw it, but now I'm just spellbound and in a meditative state when I watch it. I think terrible vintage horror also has much more charm than terrible contemporary horror. As halfassed as Monogram and Republic movies were, I still love them. My upcoming book Jimmy Plush, Teddy Bear Detective has a lot of Monogram mystery elements and references. There's something wonderful about people with pretty much nothing but their imaginations and a need to put food in their bellies making movies. Any artist can identify with that. I only wish today's microbudget productions were as atmospheric and cool. But expectations and conventions came into play and though the conventions might have come from brilliant gamechanging indie features they're trotted out ad nauseum by derivative ignorami thinking they're in an easy genre.

[neverending]

Along these lines I think some indie or low-budget filmmakers today look at bad horror films from the past and think "These guys got away with it, so I'm not even going to try and make a good film- I'll just make it campy."

But Ed Wood and his ilk were doing their best to make the best films they could. You can't create camp- it has to happen organically.

[Doc Faustus]

They also don't seem to understand that for camp to work, you have to at least on some level take it seriously.

[milktoaste]

The problem is in the question, 'better' is not a unit of measurement thus there is no definite answer. Even as an opinion I couldn't decide; besides a 'classic' can be born at any time-they're timeless.

[neverending]

I assume the poster is using classic as a measurement of time- just as this forum does.

[milktoaste]

I assume the poster is using classic as a measurement of time- just as this forum does.

Then the answer has to be 'no'. Neither can be 'better' than the other. One could be more colorful, creative, effective, or even profitable. If the poster wants to write a relative essay, then maybe it would be wise to avoid an opinion based topic. Or go they could go with their opinion; that's fine too, but they're the one who asked. I'm only trying to help, not to be a dick.

Classic is more than a measurement of time, as it refers to how well something endures it.

[Aperion]

This is a very interesting conversation.

'Better' is a completely relative term. If you mean better filmmaking, I'm not really sure what the answer is - early films like Vampyr and Nosferatu were made on new technology, which was kinda crappy equipment back then - but those films IMO are stunning and amazing. Films from the 40s and 50s might be campy, especially Ed Wood, but look at how clear those films look in terms of cinematography, then look at low-budget stuff from the 70s-90s, everything looks like crap (except the saturated colors of the Hammer Films, and Dario Argento I love those). Nowadays it seems any idiot willing to max out his credit cards can buy a digital camera and convince a few friends to make a crappy horror movie.

[neverending]

.

Classic is more than a measurement of time, as it refers to how well something endures it.


Ever heard of "Classic Rock?" It refers to a specific time period of rock music. The same concept is in play here- look at the index page of this forum and read the various subforum's descriptions.

[Bastet]

Ever heard of "Classic Rock?" It refers to a specific time period of rock music. The same concept is in play here- look at the index page of this forum and read the various subforum's descriptions.

There are some really interesting points on here, but at the end of the day, everybody knows what makes him or her tick. For every person out there, there is a different opinion. The only way that I can see this paper is by taking one, subjective viewpoint and critiquing that. I just don't see how it is possible to provide a paper on the subject of opinion or reaction to horror films without being very generalised in approach x:(

[neverending]

Yah, I agree. And since the original poster hasn't returned, I can assume we weren't very helpful...

[milktoaste]

Yah, I agree. And since the original poster hasn't returned, I can assume we weren't very helpful...

It was fun while it lasted.

[Deimos]

I prefer the classics, but as stated some newer ones are better than older ones and vice versa.

[TypH]

I prefer most classics, there are some good modern ones but I find the classic people put more time an effort into them an there more original then most the stuff that comes out today an the two best movies ever in my opinion are the original Night Of The Living Dead & The Last man On Earth

[Horror1979]

Im asking the question are old horror films better than the modern special effects horrors of today. (this is for my university essay, the more feedback i get the better. tell your friends)

yes it is and the special effects weren't all high tech.

[Nordicdusk]

Very few horror movies these days have the atmosphere the old movies have. For example Texas Chainsaw the actors where living in heat dirty cloths not knowing what was gonna happen next or even the people they worked with. There was an element of fear in the actors already which come across great to make great atmosphere. The same would go for Last House on the Left and Hills Have Eyes.

[swiss tony]

I agree with the people who say it's impossible to quantify. In theory, the quality should be consantly improving in the same way it does with all art forms but then, it gets harder to be innovative and come up with completely original ideas, so there are fewer landmarks.

The most recent ground breaking movie I can think of was Blair Witch but then it borrowed heavily from Cannibal Holocaust. Obviously, 3D is the next big thing, but it's just improved technology and not human creativity. There simply are very few novel horrors coming out. There are movies that spark renewed interest in the genre, like Scream and Saw, but they are rehashes of previous work.

I suppose Irreversible was 'new' but will we ever see a bonafide horror make the sort of splash that Psycho, Exorcist, Jaws, King Kong, The Birds, TCM made? Would the Saw movies count? That's as close as I can come to thinking of a 'great' from the modern era.

[The Ugly Duchess]

I personally think the older horror films are best, especially the Univeral and Hammer Studios. It hard to beat them for atmosphere.

Night of the Demon and The Exorcist are examples of older non Universal -Hammer films that are really tops as well.

However some of older cheaper made horror films just do not fare well.

But there are some modern horror films that are as good or better than the older ones.

The one problem I have with modern horror films ( besides just too much gore in many cases) is the overbearing use of computer animation.

Recent horror entries I liked were Silent Hill, The Marsh & Night Skies.

[TheWickerFan]

Some older films are better than some newer films.
Some newer films are better than some older films.

This is not the answer you want, but it's the bare truth.

That pretty much sums it up.

[H0RR0R]

yes i think they are but there are some that are better then the classics but these days the horror movies are bad remakes or very unoriginal cheesy slasher films

[BipolarExpress]

"Better" is subjective anyway.
What is better to you is the important thing.
What i've found is that the nostalgia factor can play a big part.
Maybe a movie you watched growing up - during that impressionable phase
before we were all so desenzitised - may hold a special place in your heart
for a particular movie that by all standards would "suck" to 99% of everybody else
but not to you because it evokes the memories you have of why it was special way back when.

[swiss tony]

What i've found is that the nostalgia factor can play a big part.
Maybe a movie you watched growing up - during that impressionable phase
before we were all so desenzitised...

Maybe that's another argument for the classics being better. Directors were forced to use creativity and their craftsmanship to make movies whereas now, they waste time and money on effects or cheapening themselves by using shock factor ie. this is the basis for the recent trend for 'torture porn' or 'gornography'. The only one of those movies that I would say was a 'great' or ground breaking was the original Saw, the rest is pretty poor.

[BipolarExpress]

Maybe that's another argument for the classics being better. Directors were forced to use creativity and their craftsmanship to make movies whereas now, they waste time and money on effects or cheapening themselves by using shock factor ie. this is the basis for the recent trend for 'torture porn' or 'gornography'.

Totally agree on that point.
Back then there had to be more of a focus on substance and craftmanship -
(although it often did not live up to such) - than on effects and shock value.
They really did (to their credit or discredit) have way less to work with.

That being said - "better" is still subjective so it's pretty much moot on trying
to say which are better. It only has to be better to you.
After all a diamond in some countries is treasured and highly regarded
while in other countries it's just a rock.

I pretty much sit on the fence when it comes to horror flicks.
I like and own some from both camps.

[swiss tony]

I went to this last night and there were several scenes that really sent a chill down my spine which you just don't get in most recent movies. Perhaps the effect of the grand organ accompaniment made a difference and that it was in a building renowned for it's beautiful late 19th century architecture, but the atmosphere was excellent.

It really is incredible that much of this movie stands up today, kind of like an athlete from the 1920's being competitive at todays Olympics.

http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/uhsearch/performancedetail.aspx?eventnameid=40760

[BookZombie]

Personally I tend to like newer horror movies, 1980-to present better than older movies. I think that horror along with fantasy and science fiction is well served by modern special effects technology. It is also often more easy to relate to modern movies, and especially to the female characters who in a very huge number of older movies more or less had the role of damsel in distress and little else.

Now I am not saying older horror movies are bad, many of them are very good, and it is amazing to think of how they made the effects with the technology they had at the time, hours upon hours of creativity and art lies behind every effect. I certainly appreciates older horror movies and I often watch them but I tend to prefer newer productions.

[Fearonsarms]

I think there are good and bad films in the past and today. I don't think you can say either classic or modern films are better like has already been discussed they both have their relative merits. But I do think that you can look at all these remakes and think why bother?Has anyone actually seen a remake that was better than the original? I think some fresh new ideas of horror are being explored today but they are harder to find in the sea of mediocrity at present. Oh and I hope the remake of "I Spit On Your Grave" is the last of this "torture porn" trend.

[Fearonsarms]

Maybe that's another argument for the classics being better. Directors were forced to use creativity and their craftsmanship to make movies whereas now, they waste time and money on effects or cheapening themselves by using shock factor ie. this is the basis for the recent trend for 'torture porn' or 'gornography'. The only one of those movies that I would say was a 'great' or ground breaking was the original Saw, the rest is pretty poor.

I've had saw 5 on dvd gathering dust for ages now and still haven't watched it since I was so disappointed in saw4. I've heard that saw 6 put a fresh spin on the genre but apparently you need to watch saw5 first to know what's going on. Have you seen all these films? Someone wanted me to go to the pics to see saw 3D but I refuse to watch any 3D film. I just don't like 3D at all.Sorry if anyone does.