Quote:
Originally posted by urgeok
so where is the incentive for making a mind blowing influential horror film ? why would the studios bother when their garbage still makes money by using no name directors - no name actors and a shit budget.... for straight to home video markets.
|
Contrary to what you may think, you're not the only one who thinks that way, and therein lies the "incentive for making a mind blowing influential horror film". There are filmmakers out there that realise that the genre is going/gone to shit, and want to fix it. The problem is simply that their films wouldnt sell, so Hollywood wont promote them. I think it's up to filmmakers like Rob Zombie, Eli Roth, Alexandre Aja and [to some extent] Brad Anderson, who already have a bit of track record and selling power, to revive the genre. If they continue to make good, horror films on a modest budget, I think we would see a rise in the overall quality of the genre VERY fast. It would open the eyes of Hollywood producers, they would realise that good horror films
can make money, and funding would start going to other filmmakers with a love for the genre. I mean, look at some of the crappy DTV horror releases of the last few years. Even though most of them are crap, you can still tell that the filmmakers have a love for the genre, and that the films
could have been great with the kind of funding a film like, say, The Grudge had. All Souls Day for example: Awful film, but it had a potentially great concept behind it. With a couple millon bucks to work with, I really think it could have been great.
Anyway, back to the original topic. Im a big fan of Carpenter, though I agree his films are often not as good as they could be. Films like The Thing, Halloween, The Fog and Assault on Precinct 13 are great example of filmaking genius. I loved In the Mouth of Madness, but it certainly had some weak moments compared to what we know Carpenter is capable of.