[joshaube]

This very train of thought seems present in the minds of the horror community an awful lot. Older horror movies versus newer releases - and often, people side towards the older releases. So called, "Classics". I thought for a while, that it was mainly nostalgia. They saw the films as a kid, were scared back then - aren't we all as children? - and remembered THAT feeling, loving the film for THAT reason. Growing up, they loose the ability to be scared like when they were children, so this effect no longer touches him. Thus, they hold the older release in their hearts. Even when rewatching it present day, nostalgia makes it seem just as good. But I've learned that's not nessacarily true. I went back and watched a bunch of classics, and liked them just the same. Along with that - I also hated a whole lot more.

When looking back, you remember the GOOD films. Present day, you catch everything you can - that's another theory of mine. You only remember the good ones from the "old" days - making it seem like there are a larger percentage of "good" films back then, then there are today. When in reality, the same amount of shit was poured out back then, as today. You can remember the crap you watched today just a bit clearer.

Yet another theory is the need to be liked. We have some horror icons on the forums, people who seem "popular" and intune with their movie critic-side. This goes along with "over-rated films". You want to be liked, you want to be the same. So even if you do not like a film, you might edge yourself towards the "in favour" to get in good terms with everyone else, or a certain person. I know I'd like to be seen as a horror guru, and that might make some people praise films they don't even like just because they are "classics."

That's another thing. People dub things "classics" not nessacarily because they are good, at all - and when others come along a while later, and watch that classic, they feel the need to think "wow!".

I know a few "classics" that I REALLY wasn't too fond of. Friday the 13th, and every sequel after that. Nightmare on Elm Street? They are good, yes, but not exactly the best films in the genre - and yet they are the ones we hear the most about. "Halloween" wasn't anything great in my books, but it ranks top 10 for a lot of people.

Meanwhile, a popular train of thought is "modern = bad". "Remakes = bad". The latter usually being very, very true.

I know some great modern films. And I'd say they are a lot better then most of the things released back in the 50's and 60's. That's just me. A movie is a movie, yes, and some people say "STYLE IS NOT IMPORTANT. SUBSTANCE IS." And while yes, that's true, style is equally important. This is a film, not a novel. While a story is important, audio and visual make up the experience. This is the reason I find it hard to appreciate older films. yes I can feel their great substance and potential, but the film itself seems poor, and I cannot help but not take it seriously. Most noteably trying to watch House on Haunted Hill, with a stringed-skeleton attacked an innocent women. Dangling, shaking, not even moving in a suitable direction. Just shaking as if there was no control. There wasn't, it was a string. I find because of that, it might have been good back then, but it isn't anymore.

Films CAN loose their touch, and often do. That's why remakes are prominent. Money, and less then often, the need for an update. A great story deserves a great stylistic approach. People will attack me for that, but remember - a movie is visual.

Though nothing having seen many films from the early periods, other then some in the 70's and a lot from the 80's - I can say that my top 10 are from the 80's-current. Nothing before that.

Scream, Blair Witch, The Descent, Cabin Fever... those were all simply great, in my opinion. Whether they were modern or not.

Something that I can agree with a lot of people on, is how ignorant studios have become. Hollywood horror is nothing now, usually. The lower budget, indepdant flicks are where it's at. Why? Because it's about money now. Scripts don't matter, neither do directors. Throw in a premise that generates some hype, a good promotional campaign, a few splatters of blood, and a cheap director - and you'll blow out at the box office, but the result will be shit. Shit films still make more money then most GOOD films. It's hyped so much, so awaited, everyone piles to see it on opening day - and bang, it's bad. You're not getting your money back - the studio still gets that money. So what if it's bad, people paid to see it. That's the idea, and something The Producer's got. The movie, that is.

All in all, in my opinion, horror classics aren't usually that great. Older films are laughably bad in some cases. Movies are visual, whether you'd like them to be or not. And Hollywood sucks ass.

I'd laugh if in 30 years, when this generation is older, we laugh at their movies and say ours were great. SAW will be our franchise to remember, with shitty sequels, no matter how many plot holes or badly acted scenes - it will become a classic and people WILL love it. Just like people love Friday the 13th. Both aren't that great, doesn't stop people from liking them.

So what if a movie "changed the genre forever" or "inspired another film", or even "created a franchise" or "defined the genre". SO WHAT. If the movie is shit, it's shit. Calling it a classic does not make it a good film. If it changes something, it does NOT make it a good film either.