Show it or Hide it

[The Villain]

Every horror fan has their specific sub genre that they call their own. For me it's monster movies especially the old 50's horror and sci-fi films. A big reason for that is that they always showed the monster. Most of the time they looked fake but that never mattered to me. I love monsters.

For me i would rather a movie show the monster instead of shrouding it in mystery and i can't think of a single movie where i preferred that method over showing the monster even if it was a guy in a rubber suit, bad cgi, or even a hang puppet.

But not everyone feels the same. A lot of people think some movie's should've kept the monster hidden.

How do you feel about this and what movies do you think should've shown the monster or kept it hidden?

[_____V_____]

Leaving things to the imagination was a trait for most of the modern-era films (I think it started with Jaws). I am old school, and would love the monster hidden/obscured from view until the climax, when it is revealed and audiences get terrified YET marvel at it at the same time.

Revealing it rightaway takes a bit out of the surprise/marvel element, and the film needs to be really good to keep viewers attracted, IMO. One of the recent films did that well - The Host.

[The Villain]

I agree. Sometimes showing it too much takes away from the movie. Recently I felt like Mama did this but other movies such as The Host like you mentioned do a good job with it. For me though i don't care if its just a shot at the end or intermittently throughout the movie, I just want to see it.

[Sculpt]

When it's done well, revealing bits and pieces of the puzzle, having strong well developed characters you like/dislike and care about, then it works not showing the monster. (recently Se7en did that well. Of course john doe wasn't a non-human monster, but same concept)

If the above isn't done well, which of course starts with the story/script, then you have a sucky boring film.

Alien doesn't display the monster a lot, but does all the way through. That worked. Aliens had Aliens all the way through more or less. that worked.

There's not many monster movies these days. What's are examples of a non-human-speaking, non-human monster movies in the last 10 years (not counting Godzilla)?

[neverending]

Can't vote in the poll because there is no "right" answer that would fit every film. It just depends.

A fine example of never showing the monster would be The Dunwich Horror. Though many view this as a cheesy low-budget affair, I quite like the way it portrays the cosmic forces involved by use of wind and fog and some psychedelic effects. I think it imparts what Lovecraft intended quite well.

There's much to be said for a sparing glimpse of the creature being much more effective than lingering for too long. Hammer's The Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas shows the monster for about 3 seconds, and it's a shocking moment in the film. More recently, The Descent used fleeting glimpses of the frightening creatures to great effect.

It's a rare film that can get away with not showing the monster at all and make it effective. The director has to really involve the viewer. Blair Witch Project and the first Paranormal Activity are two that come to mind, though audiences are split on whether those films worked or not. I think they did.

[roshiq]

I agree. Sometimes showing it too much takes away from the movie. Recently I felt like Mama did this but other movies such as The Host like you mentioned do a good job with it. For me though i don't care if its just a shot at the end or intermittently throughout the movie, I just want to see it.

I'm with you, man! Every great monster deserves a significant portion of screen time in their each & every film; otherwise go make a documentary instead, IMO!::mad:: In general, a monster movie should be more about the monsters and that's why we always love & re-watch such classics like KING KONG, GODZILLA, JAWS, JURASSIC PARK etc.
For monster film maker(s): If you're going to make a monster movie, then make sure that you have a sufficient budget & VFX/SFX guys to show & reveal it in full form & properly. But that doesn't mean I'm against "less monster - more humans" sort of monster flicks but the thing is it all highly depends on the final pay-offs and in that case make sure you have a great human or survival story with really well developed characters that we'll care about & great script (like JAWS, Alien or even THE MIST) on your table before going to make it happen. And this thing is really tricky, challenging & demands quite a caliber from a film maker.

Director Gareth Edwards was praised for his debut feature MONSTERS and which was a major reason why the studio picked him for the latest Hollywood's take on GODZILLA. MONSTERS is a good road movie with fine characters but it disappointed me as a monster flick. Cause the monsters in the Monsters were interesting & I was expecting to see & know more about them but instead a simple "mating" scene at the end, there's nothing much about those monsters in the movie. That's why I don't like to give it a grade higher than "B-". And though he said he tried to cope the JAWS formula for GODZILLA (2014) but he actually failed to adopt that in many area i.e. weak characters, wrong lead, making the big G as a kind of secondary or supporting character in the story etc. The final pay-offs were good & I still like the movie just because of seeing my favorite monster after quite a long time & for the first time in big screen.

[neverending]

I disagree on principle with just about everything you've said here, Roshiq.

Ultimately, a monster movie is not about the monster, it's about the peril the monster puts the human characters in. Showing the creature too much makes it too familiar, and it ceases to be frightening. This is why Cloverfield is so effective- we only bits and pieces of the creature. Mostly we see the effects of its destruction.

Godzilla is both an example and an exception to this rule. We've come to know Godzilla far too well for him to be scary. He's come to be the star of his films, and its his survival we care about.

[roshiq]

It's a rare film that can get away with not showing the monster at all and make it effective. The director has to really involve the viewer. Blair Witch Project and the first Paranormal Activity are two that come to mind, though audiences are split on whether those films worked or not. I think they did.

Though I clearly understand & agree with your point but those films didn't billed as 'monster' flicks and in my account, they aren't monster movies as I wasn't expecting to see any full figured 'monster' in them, nor too much eager for a corporeal appearance of a ghostly entity. Cause a ghost story or haunted house films can nicely be done by without showing a real spooky entity or ghostly figure rather than the developing an eerie, unease environment or creepy atmosphere backed up by some cool supernatural or poltergeist sort of events which are more needed at first in those movies. Like you said & we all agree, in The Haunting (1963) Sir Robert Wise remarkably portrayed & showed the Hill House that becomes a super-spooky character itself and still today that's a rare & unarguably one of the most amazing achievements in horror cinema. I think the appeal & expectations from a Monster film differs from a spooky ghost/haunted house or supernatural horror flick. Monster flicks are more of a creature feature to me. But yeah...I see your point, those films have also used the same formula for ghosts/supernatural entity (demons) like the way monsters were treated in some monster movies.

I disagree on principle with just about everything you've said here, Roshiq.

Ultimately, a monster movie is not about the monster, it's about the peril the monster puts the human characters in. Showing the creature too much makes it too familiar, and it ceases to be frightening. This is why Cloverfield is so effective- we only bits and pieces of the creature. Mostly we see the effects of its destruction.

Godzilla is both an example and an exception to this rule. We've come to know Godzilla far too well for him to be scary. He's come to be the star of his films, and its his survival we care about.

Then I'd say we've different 'expectations' or point of view from a monster flick. Agree with you about Cloverfield but that's one of a kind monster flick made so far and it did a fantastic clever job regarding revealing the monster time to time, glimpse by glimpse in its unique fashion as a POV feature.

[roshiq]

Ultimately, a monster movie is not about the monster, it's about the peril the monster puts the human characters in. Showing the creature too much makes it too familiar, and it ceases to be frightening. This is why Cloverfield is so effective- we only bits and pieces of the creature. Mostly we see the effects of its destruction.


Let me make myself more clear here...by showing off more monster(s) or monstrous activity , I didn't mean there would be less human story with characters. Every monster movie must or better have revolve around a human establishment & characters & for that we can make ourselves connect with the situations going on. Of course, without their perils & survival story, it won't be appealing to the viewers at all. I just said it's better to have a sufficient amount of screen time for the monsters...to slowly understand their character attributes or nature or even the whole outlook. By showing off a good deal of 'monsters'...I didn't mean they have to show us how it poops or how does it met & give birth or interested in its life cycle unless that's require as an integral part of the story. In Cloverfield, we so much loved it because we felt its gripping presence at least all the time and for its unpredictable nature of when & where its going to hit next & how...though the monster(s) weren't in front of the screen all the time but at least it made us feel it may appear at any moment and that's one of the major successes from its film maker.

[The Bloofer Lady]

I feel more involved if I see the monster straight away. Its like " Ok, I know what I'm dealing with here". Its a comfort level thing. Purely my own opinion.

[Sculpt]

Comfort in horror? ::wink::

[The Bloofer Lady]

Comfort in horror? ::wink::


You are getting on my last nerve, young man!! *arms crossed, tapping foot*
::cool::

[thesowismine]

Me, I don't care as long as it's done well. One of my faves, "1408" didn't even specify what kind of monster it was: ghost, demon, or etc. It was just "an evil f&cking room". I agree with roshiq that the horror comes from what the characters are experiencing, moreso than the monster. Sometimes not knowing what it is that is coming after them is what makes it more scary.

[neverending]

Me, I don't care as long as it's done well. One of my faves, "1408" didn't even specify what kind of monster it was: ghost, demon, or etc. It was just "an evil f&cking room". I agree with roshiq that the horror comes from what the characters are experiencing, moreso than the monster. Sometimes not knowing what it is that is coming after them is what makes it more scary.


Actually, that was MY point, that Roshiq was kind of agreeing with, but not really.

And Roshiq, I understood what you were saying. I still disagree. "Familiarity leads to contempt," as they say. Overexposure of the monster more often than not results in less horror/suspense/fear, whatever you want to call it. Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas, The Descent, Night of the Demon, that one movie I love that I can never remember the name of with the invisible brain/spinal chord monsters, IT, Alien; the list could go on and on of movies that were more effective because they showed the actual creatures sparingly.

In King Kong, for instance, we are terrified the first time we see Kong, but as the film goes on, and we see he's just a big lovesick teddy bear, we begin to pity him, and by the end of the film, we're not scared of him at all; in fact, we're rooting for him.

[The Bloofer Lady]

I definitely see the point you are making, Never, after all, why watch a whodunit if you already know "who dun it". Though sometimes it is fun to yell "Hey you, you're shaking hands with the killer! That's him!"

I mentioned in a previous post a"comfort level" I have. I hate roller coasters and haunted house attractions at fun parks. Sounds odd for a horror enthusiast, I'm sure, but there you have it. I suppose thats why I like a lot of 80's horror..a little cheesy but still fun. SPOILER ALERT. That said, I did love "Black Christmas" where nothing was ever revealed or resolved!

[roshiq]

And Roshiq, I understood what you were saying. I still disagree. "Familiarity leads to contempt," as they say. Overexposure of the monster more often than not results in less horror/suspense/fear, whatever you want to call it. Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas, The Descent, Night of the Demon, that one movie I love that I can never remember the name of with the invisible brain/spinal chord monsters, IT, Alien; the list could go on and on of movies that were more effective because they showed the actual creatures sparingly.


I also love those films that you mentioned, Lee (Hammer's Snowman, Descent, NOTD and I guess Castle's Tingler was that spinal chord monster!) and we know all those films got much more for the viewers than just revealing/showing off a monster at lose and that's the point I've also maid in my very first post...

But that doesn't mean I'm against "less monster - more humans" sort of monster flicks but the thing is it all highly depends on the final pay-offs and in that case make sure you have a great human or survival story with really well developed characters that we'll care about & great script (like JAWS, Alien or even THE MIST) on your table before going to make it happen. And this thing is really tricky, challenging & demands quite a caliber from a film maker.


And their "effectiveness" not only comes 'because they showed the actual creatures sparingly' but also (as I said) they had so much intriguing aspects in their storyline & characters (their fear for unknown, internal turmoil, struggle, mistrust, frustration, isolation, helplessness etc.) that made the viewers engaged & involved with the plot so heavily that sometime we actually care or worried less about when & how the monster is going to attack next or when they would finally going to reveal the monster. My point is, to come up with a that kind of story & great script is challenging & demands a great film maker to capture those moments so effectively; and in case if he/she failed on creating & delivering those things in the movie then we as the viewer losing on both sides...neither we'd get to see a monster properly nor we had something to get along with in the movie. And that's why I'm saying if you got an interesting concept for monster then at least gave it a fair amount of screen-time (& that doesn't mean or have to be 'overexposure'). Like in the 2008 movie The Burrowers (I wish I could remeber more, but at the moment I can't recall some other other examples) they kept the monsters mostly in the dark & not revealed properly at any point in the movie; moreover though the western premise was something new & interesting but couldn't able to come up with interesting & likable characters & events.



In King Kong, for instance, we are terrified the first time we see Kong, but as the film goes on, and we see he's just a big lovesick teddy bear, we begin to pity him, and by the end of the film, we're not scared of him at all; in fact, we're rooting for him.

Yeah..and I think that's one of the goals in KING KONG...at the end the viewers will eventually root for him; as that ferocious, huge gorilla from Skull Island actually got a lonesome romeo or human like heart beneath his gigantic & terrifying figure. The character & motivation of Kong required that amount of screen time; it they wanted to keep him totally terrifying all through the way then they might implemented the 'less exposure' approach or won't feel the need to show him that much.

[The Bloofer Lady]

I definitely see the point you are making, Never, after all, why watch a whodunit if you already know "who dun it". Though sometimes it is fun to yell "Hey you, you're shaking hands with the killer! That's him!"

I mentioned in a previous post a"comfort level" I have. I hate roller coasters and haunted house attractions at fun parks. Sounds odd for a horror enthusiast, I'm sure, but there you have it. I suppose thats why I like a lot of 80's horror..a little cheesy but still fun. SPOILER ALERT. That said, I did love "Black Christmas" where nothing was ever revealed or resolved!

BLACK CHRISTMAS. 1974 with Olivia Hussey and Margot Kidder

[_____V_____]

Overexposure of the monster more often than not results in less horror/suspense/fear, whatever you want to call it.

Actually, one of the main reasons why Steven Spielberg's Duel was so blood-curdling and chilling, was that we never get to see the face of that unseen, terrorising "demon" inside the tanker truck.