Show it or Hide it

[Sculpt]

Comfort in horror?

[The Bloofer Lady]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

Comfort in horror?

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by neverending

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...

Originally Posted by roshiq

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.

Originally Posted by neverending

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]

Originally Posted by 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_____]

Originally Posted by neverending

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.