scary and smart?

[alixzander]

hey, what do you guys think of this article? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040802-672623,00.html i think i perfer gorey and dumb over scary and smart.

[Egekrusher]

I prefer scary and smart.

[Vodstok]

I prefer big breasted and smart.


Oh wait.. Scaryand smart.


Wrong question:rolleyes:

[Stingy Jack]

I haven't read the article yet, but I can already tell you that scary and smart has a more lasting effect on me than gory and dumb. If you want producers to start making more good horror movies, you need to start demanding better quality. Gory and dumb is not quality. Any retard can make gory and dumb. But, I'll read the article anyway.

[Stingy Jack]

That was a good, well-informed article (although it gives Shyamalan more praise than he deserves ... but I haven't seen The Village yet, so I'll hold back on that). It almost makes me wonder if Richard Corliss (the author of the article) was the guy who made that thread about what makes a good horror film. Corliss repeats most of our sentiments also precisely. Pretty fuckin' cool.

[Arioch]

Scary and Smart all the way....i love the psychological shit...

[alixzander]

i don't know, i think i just miss the gore factor. there isn't alot of gore theese days. i mean, don't get me wrong, i love creepy subtle movies, but i also want my gore. i personally think that the texas chainsaw masscre remake did what i am trying to describe. they made a film that was creepy, gruesome and bueitful.

[Egekrusher]

Cabin Fever is a good example of gore done correctly. I'm a hardened horror veteran, but I still was grossed out by this movie.

[Stingy Jack]

Originally posted by alixzander
i don't know, i think i just miss the gore factor. there isn't alot of gore theese days. i mean, don't get me wrong, i love creepy subtle movies, but i also want my gore. i personally think that the texas chainsaw masscre remake did what i am trying to describe. they made a film that was creepy, gruesome and bueitful.

Hmmm ... it seems that we are two sides of the same coin. I did not like the remake at all. The original was perfect in executing its intent; the remake just turned it into another mindless slasher. I don't mind a little gore, but it bothers me when the selling point of a whole film is just the gore. Gore does nothing for me, horror-wise. It may gross me out, a little. But it certainly is not horrifying.

[Stingy Jack]

Originally posted by Egekrusher
Cabin Fever is a good example of gore done correctly. I'm a hardened horror veteran, but I still was grossed out by this movie.

True, the shaving of the legs sequence really set my nerves on end.

[Hate_Breeder]

Originally posted by Stingy Jack
True, the shaving of the legs sequence really set my nerves on end.

BLUHAGHIN!

[HappyCamper]

I think both types of horror are needed. I think it all really depends on what type of horror you are in the mood to see. I personally love to watch 'gorey and stupid' films, they make me laugh, and the gorey they are the more I like them. Although it would be nice to see a mixture of the two, a smart horror film with lots of gore, and I think Cabin Fever or even 28 Days Later have been the only two that I think could come close to that new catergory of horror films. Although 28 Days Later wasn't really gorey, just creepy.

[zwoti]

there's a place for both though smart & scary would be my choice.

[wufong]

why don't they just make a smart,gorey, scary movie?

[mothermold]

it all boils down to this.sober,then it's smart and scary.drunk,then it's dumb and gross.

[bloodrayne]

Originally posted by wufong
why don't they just make a smart,gorey, scary movie? That's what I say...I want it ALL...Just doesn't seem possible, though...

[Stingy Jack]

I think it's hard just to combine scary and gory together. To me, they contradict each other. A film is scary, to me, if I'm not shown everything and have it left it to the imagination. A little gore is okay, just a hint (but, in this day, you wouldn't call a movie gory with "just a hint" of gore in it). But, much more than that will ruin it for me.

[movieman64]

I'm not a fan of Shyamalan, and now especially his comment, "the challenge is taking a B-movie subject like ghosts or aliens or monsters in the woods and treating it with absolute respect and sincerity." Who is he to tell "us" what proper horror stories should be. If he means making mainstream films which appeal to mass markets then I'll agree, he's doing pretty good.
Dawn of the Dead, (orginal) is a favorite, (high on the list) of many of us on this forum. Where does it fit in, on the Scary movie scale with regards to this article? Maybe Shyamalan should do another remake, (DOTD) so the movie could finally be treated with "absolute respect and sincerity,"...give me a break.

I don't normally go off on a rant like this, but I believe all movies which fall under the genre Horror/SciFi/Thrillers must have one thing in common, be scary, by however means it accomplishes this, suspense, gore, whatever, it has nothing to do with smart or stupid...Thats just my opinion.

[Stingy Jack]

Originally posted by movieman64
I'm not a fan of Shyamalan, and now especially his comment, "the challenge is taking a B-movie subject like ghosts or aliens or monsters in the woods and treating it with absolute respect and sincerity." Who is he to tell "us" what proper horror stories should be. If he means making mainstream films which appeal to mass markets then I'll agree, he's doing pretty good.
Dawn of the Dead, (orginal) is a favorite, (high on the list) of many of us on this forum. Where does it fit in, on the Scary movie scale with regards to this article? Maybe Shyamalan should do another remake, (DOTD) so the movie could finally be treated with "absolute respect and sincerity,"...give me a break.

I don't normally go off on a rant like this, but I believe all movies which fall under the genre Horror/SciFi/Thrillers must have one thing in common, be scary, by however means it accomplishes this, suspense, gore, whatever, it has nothing to do with smart or stupid...Thats just my opinion.

I don't know if I agree with you on the Shyamalan quote. I think that if you are going to write anything that is genre-related, you need to have a philosophy on the genre. I think Shyamalan was simply saying that "classic horror" subjects have been so overdone that any new attempts at them come off as stupid or, at best, unintentionally funny. I can understand his point of view. It is hard to make a film with an overdone subject and have people take it sincerely. I don't think that he was saying that the old greats (like the original DOTD) are stupid. They were great, because they were original in their day and the people who made them treated them with "respect and sincerity."

[movieman64]

IMHO...all Mr. Shyamalan's proving is that with a big budget and even bigger F/X department you can produce a movie which will appeal to the masses, not neccesarily producing the OMG groundbreaking films of the past. Every generation feels they have the "right" twist on music, films, art, etc...as does Mr. Shyamalan. It will be interesting to see what/if Mr.Shyamalan is directing movies in 15-20 years, and how his first few films have stood the test of time, and he could even do the remakes.

[Arioch]

I think it's hard just to combine scary and gory together. To me, they contradict each other. A film is scary, to me, if I'm not shown everything and have it left it to the imagination. A little gore is okay, just a hint (but, in this day, you wouldn't call a movie gory with "just a hint" of gore in it). But, much more than that will ruin it for me.

My sentiments...