Following on from a debate on a thread about what I'd consider a mediocre film (but which many seem to rate) and following on from Bert's prompt about starting a thread about this I thought I'd dive in.

Alright. I laid my cards on the table in that thread. I prefer older horror films such as The Shining, The Exorcist and Dawn of the Dead as opposed to the latest wave of films known as 'horror porn'. That phrase is an abuse of two of my favourite words.

But one of my favourite horror films is the grandfather of all good horror films - Psycho.

Why? Well I'm glad you asked. Firstly if you watch Hey! you'll realise just how important sound is to a horror film.

And Hitchcock was always wise to use Bernard Hermann to score his films. The shrieking violins in the Shower Scene are the sound effect. From adverts, tv shows, films, music: it's everywhere. It has become horror music personified.

In the shower scene you don't see the knife cutting her, you just see her reaction and the result. Modern horror film makers could learn a lot from Hitch. He made you care about characters and he didn't have to shock you by showing you gore: Like Tarantino in Reservoir Dogs - both knew that your mind is a far scarier place than the screen for real horror to take place.

RV

You realize this thread is gonna go on forever, right? It's happened before. Just so you know. I don't mind. It's my favorite subject.

I think the two main things that make a good horror movie are the same things that make any good movie. Story and characters. Both need to be up to snuff. Otherwise, who cares? I've seen horror movies get away without one or the other but never both and even in those cases, the one element was always strong enough to carry the other's weakness/absence. Generally speaking though, story and character should go hand in hand. IMO, the characters are slightly more important. I'm usually more drawn to the story but the characters have a greater capacity to ruin everything.

I wouldn't say a good horror movie requires gore. I prefer it but to say it's required would discount all the bloodless horror movies I love. I do think a good horror movie should try to break or at least push some boundaries. I read an interview with Pascal Laugier (director of Martyrs) recently and he said that the problem with horror movies nowadays is that the world is much more politically correct nowadays. Everyone's afraid of going too far so they feel better settling for a joke. This interview was the inspiration for my next script, Complete. He also quoted H.P. Lovecraft as saying horror movies are supposed to be against the world. I also agree. Horror movies have always been sort of a counter culture for me which is why I hate to see them mass produced to please the general public, at least here in America. The rest of the world seems much more on their game. Clive Barker said we need to get our balls back. Truth!

Finally, I think horror movies need to have a certain ugliness to them. This is my number one issue with American horror movies today. Horror! Isn't! Pretty! Dario Argento's films are beautiful but have enough savagery to balance them out. Same goes for Park Chanwook. Nowadays, it's all kit gloves style with commercial and music video directors jumping on everything. They only know how to package a product, not something with any real character. Horror is supposed to be down, dirty and dark. Physically. Psychologically. Preferably both.

I've always been on the fence about the role the mind plays in horror movies. That is, the audience filling in the blanks. I think there definitely needs to be some of that in any horror movie. Alien is a prime example. Jaws is another. What kind of film would that have been if that hunk of junk robot was in plain sight from the start? Still, I like to be taken out of my element when I watch a horror movie. When something's held back or kept in the shadows too long, I feel like I'm missing out on part of the experience. Honestly, I think I share Sam Raimi's stance when it comes to the subject. Less is more and more is more. Too many possibilities in the horror realm just to take the one root.

And for the record, while I enjoyed Psycho, both as its own film and a landmark in the genre's history, I think people need to cool it with bringing up Hitchcock in horror discussion. He's an excellent director but his dabbling in horror has been minimal. Honestly, I think it was just Psycho and The Birds. The rest seems like mysteries and romantic thrillers. Everything you've said about him has merit. I'm not going against it. I'm just saying. I also hate the fact that he's sort of become the poster boy for people who don't like horror movies. I'm not saying that's the case with you but I've met plenty of people who feel exactly that. Besides. Does anyone think M. Night's ever seen a Lucio Fulci movie? I have my doubts. That's why he uses the phrase "psychological thriller" to describe all his movies. Silence of the Lambs, sure. The Sixth Sense is a horror movie. Too many directors who are ashamed to admit what they're really doing.

Quoted from rendevous Firstly if you watch Hey! you'll realise just how important sound is to a horror film.

I forgot how awesome that video is. Never gets old. Good point too.

Story
Characters
Mood
Music
Setting
Pace

That is what is most important to "ME" when watching or writing a horror movie... All of these things must fall into place and if they don't you'll be left wanting more.

Reiterate -- I would like to add that the best horror movies ever made were in the 60's clipping through the 70's and coming to a stop somewhere around mid to late 80's. There hasn't been 1 really good, amazing horror movie since. There have been watchable horror movies. But none that stand out ahead of the pack.  There is, as James said above, a certain level of charm to a dirty... rough looking horror movie. A horror movie shouldn't be clean. It should be visceral. It should have some off color to it. It should be viewed through a welding mask so to speak... Not rose colored glasses. That is one of my biggest gripes, aside from shitty actresses and rehashed plots, with new horror movies.  They're just too clean.  I love the unsettling feel of H.G. Lewis movies... I absolutely love watching his movies because they are time capsules to the period in which they were filmed. I have never had that feeling watching any other movie from the 60's.  H.g. Lewis has this vibe and mood to his movies that put you there. Right there while he's filming... Cheap, low budget as they may be... They are some of, if not the best, lot of horror movies ever made. He's one of my biggest influence in writing.

Yeah, this thread could go on forever, and that's not a bad thing at all.

I agree with James for the most part in just about everything he said, including the stuff about Psycho, which IMO is hugely over-rated, and does not stand up well at all in this day and age.

What makes a good or great horror movie?  For me, it's very simple, and it's bascially the same for any genre movie...whether or not it works over all.  Whether or not it's well done, well put together, well thought out, whether or not the payoff is worth the ride.

For me, it's not so much whether or not it brings something brand new to the table, but more how it brings it to the table, and what it brings.

There have been many "good" slasher flicks that are basically carbon copies of Friday the 13th or Halloween.  I'm not saying in any way that that's a good thing, but if they work, then damnit, they work.  Same deal with a vampire, werewolf, or creature feature.

Production value is important to me.  Look, feel, and atmosphere are important to me.  Attention to detail and reality checks are all very important to me.

Acting, FX, and music are all important, as well.

I'm not saying that a horror movie has to have great acting for it to work, but it can't be piss poor and expect to get away with it.  Same deal with FX...they don't have to be jaw dropping, but they also can't be piss poor, or the movie isn't going to work for me.

As for characters and story, I honestly don't really care all that much.  Again, they have to be decent at least, but that's not what I'm going to be focusing on, and when other aspects totally work, it's not going to be a deal breaker for me at all.

Some may think I have low standards because of these comments...or that I'm easy to please.  Totally untrue.  I am extremely picky when it comes to movies, especially horror movies, because they're my favorite genre.  There are very few horror movies that I really like and think are well done movies...very few.  Most, I absolutely hate...laugh at...pick apart...mock.

There you go...

The first, most defining aspect is that it's scary.

That is what defines horror. The same way comedy needs to be funny, horror needs to be scary.

It helps to understand why people watch horror:

There is a lot of research out there, some of it really good, where they connect people to brainwave machines and see what they get off on. Here's one little overview:


"Researchers have identified various motives for viewing horror films, including the need for excitement, the desire to feel intense emotions, and distraction from everyday concerns. Although dramatic films can fulfill some of these needs, movies depicting violence and horror have features that other forms of drama do not, including the violation of social norms and the portrayal of events seldom seen in real life. [Dec's note: It's also apparent that people like to be able to explore dnagerous situations and face fear in a safe enviroment. Horror offers you the chance to see the most traumatic experiences close up without causing you harm].

People rarely view horror films alone. Violent entertainment appeals primarily to males, and it appeals to them mostly in groups. For many young people and adults, horror films are a topic of conversation, a source of shared experience, and a means of self-presentation. Not everyone will like the blood and gore, but many may continue to watch because of other goals, such as demonstrating their ability to tolerate it, or the desire to master the threatening images.

One study identified three factors that were important in the appeal of horror films to males aged 15-45: the excitement generated by the film (called "sensation-seeking" by psychologists, the enjoyment of stimulation or physiological arousal), the wish to see the destruction found in horror films, and the satisfying resolution usually found at the end of the film."


One aspect of horror films that I've always found interesting is that they've shown that people like to see people whose views disagree with their own, hurt. That's the reason why you have all those rules in horror films (the guys that have sex get killed etc). A lot of the people who get off on horror tend to be quite young (hence virginal) and so they like to see the guys having sex get their comeuppance. Obviously that's just one example, there are others.

In terms of specifics, IE how to create a good one. The atmosphere and setting are critical. There's a reason they are set in dark, abandoned places more often than not. If they are set in everyday places (28 days later) you will tend to subvert the area completely to make it unsettling (EG Empty London).

The music and sound FX/design also tend to play a huge part, hence people tend to turn the sound off when they are scared.

Character is probably the least important in a horror. It depends on the specific sub genre (the bad guy can be exceptionally important), but generally I think character is less important in a horror than in any other genre. off the top of my head, I couldn't name a single character, notwithstanding the bad guys, of any of the horrors I've seen. I think horror works by placing you in the situation, so you only really need an everyman kind of figure as a vehicle to follow the story. They don;t need to be particularly outstanding in anyway.

Story is important, but it must surely be subservient to atmosphere in a horror. If the story is excellent, but it's not scary, it's not much of a horror. It would probably play better as some kind of thriller.

Quoted Text I prefer older horror films such as The Shining, The Exorcist and Dawn of the Dead as opposed to the latest wave of films known as 'horror porn'.

I don't think that's really fair. There are films in the vein of The Shining and The Exorcist that are just as crappy as films like Hostel or Turistas (example: The Haunting remake, The Haunting of Molly Hartley, Beyond The Door -- just to name a few).

What matters is the execution. Even the new "torture porn" fad HAS indeed spawned at least one excellent Horror film recently -- Martyrs, whereas the more subtle, classic type of Horror has also spawned at least one excellent film recently -- Let The Right One In.

Both "styles" of Horror you are discussing have more than their  fair share of crappy Horror movies, and it's unfair to lump them all together.  

Quoted Text In the shower scene you don't see the knife cutting her, you just see her reaction and the result. Modern horror film makers could learn a lot from Hitch.

Again, you are assuming modern Horror movies never use this technique. They do, and they do it excellently sometimes. Example: Again Martyrs -- a 2008 film fitting squarely into the "horror porn" catergory -- applied the technique masterfully near its climax.






















***************MASSIVE SPOILERS FOR MARTYRS HERE ON! *****************














You never see Anna being skinned. You just see the expression on her face and the aftermath of the procedure, which, to me, was terrifying and it almost rivaled the scene in Psycho. In fact, I would put it ABOVE Psycho if Psycho hadn't been so revolutionary when it was released




















***************END SPOILERS****************************************

Interesting article Rick.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films People rarely view horror films alone. Violent entertainment appeals primarily to males, and it appeals to them mostly in groups.

I think everyone who loves horror should try to see it at a theater alone. I mean an empty theater too. I've done that and it makes a huge difference.

When I was a kid I saw Black Christmas. That movie scared the hell out of me for years. I watched it again a couple of years ago and thought it was horrible. I think people tend to like/scare differently depending on where in life we are. A teenager will probably not find the same film scary as let's say a cranky old woman.

Totally agree, Pia!  I usually watch horror movies by myself, in theaters that are either completely empty or mostly empty.  I hate seeing movies in crowded theaters because i don't like any noise coming from irritating spectators.  I cringe when I have to see a movie at night, opening weekend, cause I know it's gonna be full of loudass, A-Holes who will surely piss me off.

Yes, I have been that guy who stands up in a theater, turns around, and literally yells out, "Shut the fuck up, Asshole!".  I don't like being that guy, but I'm not going to let someone ruin the movie experience for me.

But then again, when I was much younger, I was that guy who came into the theater with my friends, all drunk off our asses, and sometimes, someone in the group would actually end up puking like crazy in the theater, so that it would actually run down the floor from aisle to aisle.

A tale of 2 cities, I guess.

I almost always see horror movies alone, at least the first time. Later on, I watch it with other people, sometimes just to get them to check it out. I rarely watch them in theaters. The audience almost always ruins them. I remember seeing 1408 in theaters and having a group of teenagers cracking up at a scene with no music where John Cusack was crying and holding a dead girl in his arms. Then there was the time where a couple brought a baby to Freddy vs Jason. I did see Drag Me To Hell in a group though and it was a blast. Plus horror movies don't scare me all that often. I was terrified of Pet Semetary for a good ten years then was cured of it over the summer when me and a buddy passed out drunk watching it after a night at the bar. Other than that, I think the last horror movie that scared me was a Tale of Two Sisters which I've since gotten over.

Quoted from ReaperCreeper What matters is the execution. Even the new "torture porn" fad HAS indeed spawned at least one excellent Horror film recently -- Martyrs, whereas the more subtle, classic type of Horror has also spawned at least one excellent film recently -- Let The Right One In.

While I appreciate using Martyrs as an example of a good horror movie, I'm going to have to disagree that it has anything to do with the "torture porn" fad. There's torture in it but it's minimal and I think it serves a completely different purpose than any of the movies that fall into that category, both to the plot and to the audience. Its the after effects of the torture that are the primary focus.

Still, a good point. Whatever subgenre you're talking about, there's going to be a fair share of garbage under it and a handful of golden ones. I don't particularly like ghost movies but damned if Session 9 isn't better than most slashers.

It seems like most are not fans of torture porn.  As far as I know, Hostel was the one that started this craze, and sub genre, although there are numerous examples of far older flicks that really started it. Hostel proved there was money to be made and the lot that followed weren't very good, to say the least.

But, as I've said again and again, Hostel is easily one of my all time favorite films. I thought it was amazingly well done and concieved.  It was truly horrific in its depiction of the ugly under belly of mankind.  I think its box office and critical reviews tell the story that something was working here.  Those that pan it and put it down at least have to see where it worked and why it worked.

I still haven't seen Martyrs, but have wanted to since I first heard about it.  If it's sub titled, that's an issue for me, as it takes away from the experience, having to constantly read, as apposed to just watch.  If Blackbuster carried it, I'd rent it in a heartbeat, but I've never seen it there and when I asked (about 6 months ago) they had no clue what I was talking about.

Quoted from Dreamscale It seems like most are not fans of torture porn.  As far as I know, Hostel was the one that started this craze, and sub genre, although there are numerous examples of far older flicks that really started it. Hostel proved there was money to be made and the lot that followed weren't very good, to say the least. But, as I've said again and again, Hostel is easily one of my all time favorite films. I thought it was amazingly well done and concieved.  It was truly horrific in its depiction of the ugly under belly of mankind.  I think its box office and critical reviews tell the story that something was working here.  Those that pan it and put it down at least have to see where it worked and why it worked. I still haven't seen Martyrs, but have wanted to since I first heard about it.  If it's sub titled, that's an issue for me, as it takes away from the experience, having to constantly read, as apposed to just watch.  If Blackbuster carried it, I'd rent it in a heartbeat, but I've never seen it there and when I asked (about 6 months ago) they had no clue what I was talking about.

Your loyalty to dear Eli is commendable, but you'll never convince a forum of writers that Hostel was anything other than a pile of manure.

It did well at the Box Office because the marketing was outstanding. They got Tarantino's name on there, got the hype going about how it was the most disgusting film of all time etc

You can see from the reception of Hostel 2 what people really thought of it, they weren't exactly desperate to see more.

It was an embarrassing film in lots of ways and was frankly a bit retarded. It's supposed to be set in Slovakia, but Roth writes that there aren't many males there "because of the war". The guy managed to confuse Slovakia with Slovenia (I presume at least, because the Slovaks split from the Czechs was bloodless).

It did have a good premise. It was brutal and powerful in its own way, but the story and the writing were of such a low standard that it destroyed it. I said before that story is probably subservient to atmosphere in horror, but there are limits to just how stupid and ridiculous you can go. In the end it became laughable.

Anyway, Hostel has been doen to death. It's got its own little paragraph in the history books and no-one is ever going to convince the otehr side of their views. Quality is completely subjective anyway. You can't please everybody, you've just got to please enough of the right kind of people, whatever film you are making.

Quoted Text I almost always see horror movies alone, at least the first time. Later on, I watch it with other people, sometimes just to get them to check it out. I rarely watch them in theaters. The audience almost always ruins them. I remember seeing 1408 in theaters and having a group of teenagers cracking up at a scene with no music where John Cusack was crying and holding a dead girl in his arms.

I agree, audiences can suck, but I've learned not to take any of it. If people are ruining it for you, talk to management. If they don't do anything, demand your money back. Simple as that. It always works for me. I never did any of this until I actually started paying for my own movie tickets.

I think Horror films are better when watched in the theatre. And you know what? They are actually more effective to me on a computer too. I don't know why. Maybe it's the speakers. TV is always my least favorite choice unless it has a decent sound system and image quality. I think I've played more DVDs on my computer than on my DVD player recently. I did watch Martyrs on the television though

Quoted Text There's torture in it but it's minimal

I don't think so. The entire movie -- the entire premise and the point of the film -- revolves around the acts of torture. Personally, I liked the film better when the angle was dealt with through flashbacks and suggestive imagery (the female prisoner almost gave me nightmares) than when it became another Hostel, but that's just me.

But even if you want to make the argument that the torture takes a backseat for most of the film, I believe the movie still fits squarely into the torture porn trend.

The film has exactly seventeen minutes of non-stop torture near its climax. NON-STOP. That's not "minimal." In fact, it's more than the Hostel torture scenes combined.

Quoted Text I think it serves a completely different purpose than any of the movies that fall into that category, both to the plot and to the audience. Its the after effects of the torture that are the primary focus.

I would have agreed if not for what I wrote above. Overall, I agree the after-effects are the main focus, but the film concentrated TOO MUCH on the torture during the last act. I'm not afraid or embarassed at all to call Martyrs "torture porn."

Quoted Text Still, a good point. Whatever subgenre you're talking about, there's going to be a fair share of garbage under it and a handful of golden ones. I don't particularly like ghost movies but damned if Session 9 isn't better than most slashers.

Precisely my point. I hate it when people condemn films just for the subgenre or catergory they belong in.

--Julio

Dec, I agree that I will not be able to sway anyone who already has their mind set about Hostel or Hostel 2, but I do want to throw this out.

First of all, Hostel 2 was in no way not a success story when it's all said and done.  It was made for around $10 Million, and grossed almost $36 Million WW.  It also did very well on DVD rental and sale.

A big problem it had were piracy leaks in the film, prior to actual release.  Roth and the rest of teh Producers said this really affected its Box Office.

The other big issue it had was that the sequel had to be so differnt from teh original because teh original had surprise and shock going for it.  The sequel, obviously didn't...and couldn't.  Unless you read about it up front, you had no clue where teh original was headed...espeically based on teh entire first half of the movie being so completely different and meandering.  You had no idea who the bad guys were, no idea what was going on or why.  The sequel didn't have those luxeries, but IMO, pulled everything off very impressively, and for what it was, I thought it was also a great movie experience.

Different strokes for sure, but these re 2 horror movies that i watch over and over when they're on a movie channel (I own both DVD's as well).

Call me crazy if you want to, but I don't see any bad writing here at all.

I still don't understand the Hostel hate. Nobody seems to back themselves up about it at all. Not that I thought it was all perfect. No way! I wish Eli Roth would stop blabbing about the film's generally childish political undertones, whether or not they actually exist. He seems pretty knowledgeable about horror movies in general but is an ace at making himself sound like a frat boy douche bag and absolute tool who thinks he's more cultured than he really is. Also, Hostel 2 was awful and actually ruined everything that made the first one good. I'll back myself up here. In Hostel 2, these guys have dogs, surveillance cameras, lock down and even those glowing buzzer things they have at the Cheesecake factory. It's just completely wacky and borderline sci-fi. I can't imagine these criminals would wanna draw that much attention to themselves. The first one was a lot more meat and potatoes which is exactly what I imagine the operation would be like in real life.

I thought the first one was generally good. The characters weren't as stupid or obnoxious as they were in Cabin Fever and the idea was brilliant. Maybe the execution was a little shoddy but I can't imagine anyone calling the general concept stupid. I also don't think it followed any particular formula. I wouldn't say it wasn't predictable but the story unfolded rather than following a list of splatter movie requirements. The sex scenes were dumb and the dialogue could've been better but overall, okay. Why this, out of all the other horror movies, is so incredibly hated is beyond me, even if I was sort of let down by it.

I do however despise the term "torture porn." It's a bullshit phrase made up by someone who hates these movies and it's an incredibly cynical implication. I wish they'd just call it torture horror or something. That's what it is even though Saw 2-6 are genuine torture porn. I think Audition was actually the one that started the trend as that one kind of got bigger after Hostel took influence from it. Torture's not exactly a new element in horror (Blood Sucking Freaks did it before it was "cool") but it's never been a trend before now. I think a lot of the movies in the genre are pretty bad but not for reasons exclusive to the genre. Nevertheless, I lost interest in it pretty quick.

Quoted from ReaperCreeper I would have agreed if not for what I wrote above. Overall, I agree the after-effects are the main focus, but the film concentrated TOO MUCH on the torture during the last act. I'm not afraid or embarassed at all to call Martyrs "torture porn."

SPOILERS!!!

You're right. The only thing is that I didn't think the torture was meant to shock or scare people. More so to make the viewer bored and indifferent which is part of the point, I guess. That's how I felt anyway and how the girl feels by the end. Plus the torture was just relentless beatings. It wasn't meant to be a huge gore set piece. I guess that's what I meant by minimal as it did go on for 17 minutes. Minimal might not even be the right word. Other than that, they don't show any torture, not even at the factory. Not that I remember anyway.

Whatever. I'm glad we both agree the movie is awesome.

END SPOILERS.

Consequently you might be right that I'm embarrassed to call the movie torture porn even though I really don't think it was.

Quoted from James McClung Also, Hostel 2 was awful and actually ruined everything that made the first one good.

Interesting... I liked both Hostel films, but liked #2 the best. I guess we're all different.  

Yeah, Pia, I thought Hostel 2 was very well done.  It didn't have that shock value that the original did, but I remember very vividly leaving the theater very happy.

Hey, what happened to RV who started this thread?  Maybe he's still watching Psycho and The Shining over and over.  I hope not, though...

Oddly enough, I found Hostel 2 to be much more enjoyable than the first. The original was a Comedy to me. Not a Horror-Comedy -- a Comedy, period. A twisted, dark Comedy. It felt really juvenile.

I suppose it was enjoyable on a Michael Bay-like, brainless trash level, but nothing else for me. I don't feel the Horror scenes were well-executed at all -- they were neither visceral nor suggestive enough -- and I did not care for any of the leads. As a Horror movie, or even a Horror-Comedy hybrid, it was a complete and total failure to me.

I enjoyed the sequel because it had a much darker tone and genuienly made me feel for the characters at times. No other Horror film had done that to me in a while before Hostel 2 came out (besides maybe "May"). I felt for the geek and the blonde girl (and I normally hate her "type" in Horror films), and even the blonde's date who barely said a word -- didn't care much for the main one.  

Overall, I thought Hostel 2 was a much better effort than the first one. It's still not anywhere near one of my favorites, but I liked it.

--Julio  

Right on, Julio.  I hear ya.

What about Wolf Creek or Rogue?  Comments?

I felt like Wolf Creek overdid the expository aspect of its first act. It was too trivial and way overdone. And though the film did build some excellent suspense in the beginning, it never figured out how to unleash it.

It built-up to something awesome but only ended up delivering something cliched that we've seen many times before. The characters were dumber than common Horror-fodder, too, and that's saying something. I did not hate it. I just thought it was mediocre. Good performances though.

I haven't seen Rogue.

I do love The Descent though -- one of my modern favorites. It was also mildly slow-paced, but much better-executed than Wolf Creek. There is constant Horror and tension throughout, and not just coming from the monsters, which is great!

--Julio

Agreed...Descent is also 1 of my favorites of all time.  A truly horrific experience all the way through.

Right on, Julio.  Check out Rogue...it's great!

The Descent was great as far as panic/claustrophobia/terror/ and whatever goes. However, IMHO, it was brought down by the creatures in that cave. It lost a lot of its potential as soon as they were introduced. Except for Alien films, I'm not really into creature features.

Quoted from Dreamscale Hey, what happened to RV who started this thread?  Maybe he's still watching Psycho and The Shining over and over.  I hope not, though...

Probably just watching the Shining... Damn things longer than the Ten commandments, isn't it?    I still love every second of it, though.

As for the Hostel hate... It's warranted, man. I hate Eli Roth and his grandstanding and pandering. He's a parasite and Joe Eszterhas said it best "He's a shit bubble" and I agree... Eli Roth sat down one Saturday afternoon and watched a slew of exploitation flicks such as "They call me Macho Woman/Savage Instinct" "I spit on your grave" "Last house on the left (original) "I spit on your corpse I piss on your grave" "Don't touch my sister" "I spit on your corpse" and an even bigger time waster "Vulgar" ... He then said to himself, I can bring this level of horror... This level of unsettling tension into the mainstream since I'm a trusted elastic dick in the ass of Hollywood that I'll probably be labeled as having balls.  He doesn't. He is an elastic dick and he's one of the main reasons why you, Jeff, aren't writing in Hollywood this second... he's the kind of guy, like Joe has said, that holds back new talent. He's a parasite and dick leak.  

Fuck him... Fuck his movies. He's not worthy of praise.

The Descent and Rogue were both pretty rad. I liked the Descent a fair bit more but Rogue really surprised me. That one's a really good example of how subtlety should be used in a horror movie. Plus the croc looked monstrous and surprisingly realistic, especially with the death roles and all. It was the movie I hoped Lake Placid was gonna be but wasn't.

I love a good creature feature. Honestly, they seem like horror in the truest sense to me. I ordered a copy of Rawhead Rex a few weeks ago. The production value is lacking and I think they cut out a lot of the gore but that's a good example of good, cheesy monster fun, even if Clive Barker hates it.

Here's another question for you guys, related but different: why does this genre seem to fascinate us as a community more than any other, and why does it receive the most attention? Why are you interested in what makes a good horror, rather than a good rom-com or period drama?

Below is some number-crunching I pulled off the boards and quickly tinkered with in Excel. The data will obviously continue to change, but the main point is clear (I removed Westerns from the table not due to a value judgement, but because with only 39 scripts in the section it's a totally different situation there):

GENRE                     THREADS     POSTS     POSTS PER THREAD
Action/Adventure        320             2483                  7.76
Comedy                      373             2498                  6.70
Drama                         507             2353                  4.64
Horror                         372             4594                  12.35
Sci Fi and Fantasy      152              746                    4.91
Short                          1693            21695              12.81
Thriller                        201             1227                  6.10

In terms of features, Horror scripts get the most attention. By far. Now, that may be down to the same, horror-interested readers posting on more threads in that section, and the monster thread that is 'Fade to White' has an effect on the numbers (if you take out that one thread, the PPT value drops to 11.63), but all sections have their juggernauts, and on average EVERY thread in Horror gets five or six more replies than the other feature sections.

Clearly SS members like their horror - both writing and reading it. My question is: why? What is it about this genre that interests you all so much? Surely the tightness of its limitations make it a less interesting field of film (playing Devil's Advocate there, because I don't necessarily agree with that)? Is the higher level of interest because people who enjoy writing appreciate Horror more than other genres, or is it because Horror is more appealing to the kind of people who will join and post on an internet forum?

Oh, and one other possibly interesting thing - we all might assume that in terms of script reads, shorts are the runaway winner and are perhaps (some might suggest) in danger of overwhelming the site. But according to the numbers, Horror scripts and Short scripts tend to get pretty much the same level of attention. The numbers seem to suggest that it's definitely possible to get a feature read...as long as its Horror. If it's Drama or Sci Fi? Not so much.

(By the way, I know I'm a bit of a geek. )

tell us how you really feel Balt!

I disagree with Hostel. Eszterhas however is one of my favorite screenwriters. Too bad some of his scripts don't turn into great films.

Quoted from JonnyBoy Clearly SS members like their horror - both writing and reading it. My question is: why? What is it about this genre that interests you all so much? Surely the tightness of its limitations make it a less interesting field of film (playing Devil's Advocate there, because I don't necessarily agree with that)? Is the higher level of interest because people who enjoy writing appreciate Horror more than other genres, or is it because Horror is more appealing to the kind of people who will join and post on an internet forum?

Why? Because people are intrigued by the genre... They all, me, you, him, her, them... All of us feel we can write a better script than what we see.  And, some of us can.  The problem with the horror section here, though is the lack of quality. Read some of them, man. These aren't labor of loves... These are shit splatters, by and large, tossed up by random people who most of the time we never see again. In the event they aren't... They are people who think they have a horror flick in them and toss it up to see if they can get praise. Enough so they can squirt out another one in a week or two.  Now, there are some writers here who are worth their salt. There are. But a lot of the horror section hits and post are simply for the laugh factor and to gauge their competition. Nothing more... Nothing less.

Jonny...great work there, mate!  Seriously...very interesting.

Here's my quick take on it.  People generally love horror...even if they say they don't, they do...or can.  There's something for being able to be scared, shocked, freaked out form the safety of a movie theater chair, or teh comfort of your favorite lounger at home.

It's a release like no other...well, not completely...it's like riding a roller coaster, knowing that although you may feel like you're in danger, you're not. You're safe.  It's the adrenaline rush that can only be realized 2 ways...eitehr actually doing something extreme, or watching something exteme that draws you in and fucks with you.

Also, there are so few good horror films that come out...so few that even try to be good.  W keep hoping...keep believing...and then...ah fuck...another turd...another complete waste of our time and money.

Balt, I also hear what you're saying.  I think horror is percieved as being the easiest to write based on alot of factors.  It isn't for sure, but it's got that perception.  Maybe because so many God awful abortions actually not only get made, but are turned into big budget productions when in reality, they suck more than Meatballs 2 did...and that SUCKED!

We all have a darkness within us and horror movies offers that escape and ability to witness things we'd never want to be within 100 miles of in real life.

Horror rocks.  It really does.  We're in great need of some killer horror flicks.  

Horror to me is the furthest removed from, hopefully, most of our daily realities so naturally, it facilitates the most interesting stories. It also has a lot to do with iconography. Comedy and drama have no discernible iconography yet you can easily write a horror script that's also one or the other because of it's iconography. It's a lot more interesting for me as a writer to write a story about normal people experiencing abnormal problems or, better yet, abnormal people experiencing normal problems. Within horror, I can write about personal issues of myself or others without having to write something mundane. One can do the same with social/cultural/political issues as is the case with many horror movies. That's not for me though. I prefer writing to be a break from the political bullshit you hear about everyday.

The "tightness of the limitations" is also a blessing in disguise. If you're a mediocre writer, you can work easily within those limitations as they're so clearly spelled out. If you're more than that, you can break those boundaries and write an even more interesting story.

Plus, it's fun. What can I say?

That's me, anyway.

You guys should watch Revolutionary Road. Now there's a fucking scary movie. The same can said for Requiem For A Dream. Those films are way scarier than any supernatural or monster movie because the shit that happened in them can and does happen in everyday life.

Quoted from Takeshi You guys should watch Revolutionary Road. Now there's a fucking scary movie. The same can said for Requiem For A Dream. Those films are way scarier than any supernatural or monster movie because the shit that happened in them can and does happen in everyday life.

Is it based off the Richard Yates novel? I can't say I've even heard of a movie for it... Where was I?

I did some checkin' up ... Leo and Kate are in this, yea?

What makes a good horror movie? It really depends of your definition of horror. Is it scary or gory? Seldom do the two go hand in hand. I have yet to see a torture porn movie that scared me. Sure, they're sometimes revolting and disgusting, but scary? Not in a million years. Why do torture porn movies fail in that regard? It's really very simple.

The characters.

If you got belivable, well thought-out, likeable, engaging characters and you put them in a scary situation then you're more or less there. Wrap a good story around it (though that's not even that necessary) then you've got a winner.

That's why movies like Jaws, Poltergeist, The Shinning, Angel Heart, Duel and Alien (to a certain extent) will always be ten times scarrier than anything that purely relies on blood and gore, hell even Close Encounters of the Third Kind is scarier than Hostel - and that's not even a horror movie.

Torture porn blows because the characters are annoying, stupid/retarded and generally unlikable. The only high point moments in those movies are when those same characters die. While they're a horror to watch - it does not mean they're actually horror movies.

I remember another thread like this once upon a time. Can't remember when though. It's been awhile.

In my humble opinion, the primary element is the suspense. The characters have to be placed in a situation that is truly very dangerous. Dangerous, as in, it will kill them if they fail to escape, and this could be literally anything, from knife-wielding maniac to a dangerous machine (i.e. Cube). Once they're in that situation, every single move they make has to make you wonder whether they will survive to the next scene, and the story pulls you in just enough to keep you wondering, but doesn't drag it so much that you get bored.

It actually was Hitchcock (so I hear) that noted that suspense is like a bomb dropping. The scariest part of a bomb dropping is watching the drop itself. Why? Because you don't know what will happen when (not if) it hits the ground. Will it explode or not? Big boom or little one? It is explosive or chemical? Will it kill me on impact or will I survive long enough to know I've been hit and feel the pain? Will I live a long full life or will I end up surviving because I won't die? The hit at the end is the answer to all the questions, but the drop is the suspense forcing you to wonder what will come next. And of course, when it comes down, you don't take your eyes off it. You can't.

While suspense is the big part, it's not the only element for horror. Horror takes a standard suspense thriller and gives it a twist. That twist is "horrific." Think of things that are considered horrifying (and this is totally based on culture and society). If you take that horrific element and build a suspense story around it, then you've got horror.

"Scary" is a relative term. Horror movies don't need to be "scary" to be horror. Really, what is scary but a personal reaction to the suspense element? Everyone experiences fear in different ways and for different things, and to try and MAKE something scary is an instant setup for failure. Someone with a fear of dogs may have found the dogs in Resident Evil terrifying, while others just appreciated the chase for a good action sequence with no fear at all. Suspense, however, is more measurable and possible to accomplish. Putting things you think are scary into a script is cool, but judicious use of suspense will make those elements even more terrifying for those who are afraid of them while allowing those who aren't afraid of those things specifically to appreciate the atmosphere.

Now, the hardest part of the writing horror is keeping it believable. Because if you slip up even once in a sequence, the audience's suspense is broken and it turns into a laughable mess that you might or might not recover from when the scene changes (not before). That's why real characters are important. As soon as a character services the plot, it's dead obvious and the story loses a lot. It's not the plot that blows. It's the characters blowing the plot...on their knees.

And I would imagine the reason watching a DVD on the computer is a bit scarier is because you're sitting closer to the screen. You might have a 32 inch TV in your living room, but you sit usually five to ten feet away from it making the screen relatively small. When you're at your computer, however, you're sitting between one and two feet from the screen, so even a nineteen inch monitor would be relatively larger because you're so much closer to it. Add to this that you're going to be closer to the speakers, or possibly using headphones making the sound better as well. It's not rocket science.

Oh, and as for Hostel. You can't say that everyone says they hate Hostel without backing it up. Check out the Hostel review thread and I backed it up with lots and lots of examples as to why I felt the movie was inferior. I did, however, praise its eventual premise. Short version: The premise sold that movie. It was ingenius. The writing was total crap.

Quoted from George Willson It actually was Hitchcock (so I hear) that noted that suspense is like a bomb dropping. The scariest part of a bomb dropping is watching the drop itself

That's close, George, and I also believe it was Hitchcock, but the idea was a bomb under the table.

We know it's there, but it is a secret to those in the room.  They could be doing the most mundane things imaginable.  Playing cards, for example.  Perhaps someone gets mad and pounds on the table -- we hold our breath -- watching to see if that will ignite the bomb.

It's the waiting -- not so much the ultimate explosion -- that provides the tension.

I agree with your assessment that the key to good horror is suspense.

This is true for the torture films, the mad killer, and the ghost in the attic.

For any brand of horror film, it is primarily about waiting for that scare.

A good horror film knows how to ratchet up the suspense -- and then the key that separates the good from the great -- it delivers a worthy payoff.

Many films get that first part right -- far fewer manage to deliver on that second part.

I'd say what makes a good horror film is reality. Shock value cannot come from cheap effects.

Quoted from bert That's close, George, and I also believe it was Hitchcock, but the idea was a bomb under the table. (cut to...) For any brand of horror film, it is primarily about waiting for that scare.

Hm, I always heard it was the drop. But I probably got it third hand as well.

So it's not the boo! that is scary. It's wondering when the boo that you know is there will strike.

I remember a scene in Jaws where two guys were on a boat dock and something happened to where part of the dock fell into the water and one guy frantically scrambled to stay on the deck. The scene was tense, but the weird part is that the shark wasn't in that scene. He's never seen or even really hinted at being there. Yet because we know he COULD be there, the scene is suspenseful and exciting. I remember thinking afterward that ultimately nothing happened to anyone in that scene, and yet it was scary.

Quoted from Baltis. Story Characters That is what is most important

The problem is that a lot of the older so called classics to horror fans have terrible acting.

I watch a lot of movies and the problem is that I have not been entertained by 95% of the horror movies on that list.

My biggest problem is the slasher part of the genre.

How do you take these monsters who keep on kicking serious when they can't kill little crying girls? They come back for sequel after sequel and always lose to teens who cried and ran away for most of the movie.

I hate when girls beg in movies anymore and that usually is where I turn it off if I make it that far.

"I won't tell anyone, just let me go"

Of course you will tell someone and of course he's not going to let you go, he's a fucking psycho.

I have enjoyed scenes in a lot of the films but scenes don't make it a classic movie.

Evil Dead is not that classic either.

Quoted from James McClung You realize this thread is gonna go on forever, right? It's happened before. Just so you know. I don't mind. It's my favorite subject. I forgot how awesome Hey! video is (see first post on this thread). Never gets old. Good point too. I think the two main things that make a good horror movie are the same things that make any good movie. Story and characters. Both need to be up to snuff. Otherwise, who cares Finally, I think horror movies need to have a certain ugliness to them... I've always been on the fence about the role the mind plays in horror movies. That is, the audience filling in the blanks. I think there definitely needs to be some of that in any horror movie. Alien is a prime example. Jaws is another And for the record, while I enjoyed Psycho, both as its own film and a landmark in the genre's history, I think people need to cool it with bringing up Hitchcock in horror discussion. He's an excellent director but his dabbling in horror has been minimal. Honestly, I think it was just Psycho and The Birds. He also quoted H.P. Lovecraft as saying horror movies are supposed to be against the world. I also agree. Horror movies have always been sort of a counter culture for me which is why I hate to see them mass produced to please the general public, at least here in America. The rest of the world seems much more on their game. Clive Barker said we need to get our balls back. Truth!

James,

All good points well made. I could quote a lot more from your post but they get the idea.

Your favourite subject? Personally I prefer talking dirty with the girl of my dreams, but this isn't the right place for that. Ahem.

Hey! is still funny. I had and iPhone for a while with it on it. Nobody I showed it to failed to laugh. And I showed it to a lot of people. I've since left the Smug Club by the way.

Story, character, ugliness, and the audience filling in blanks left deliberately for them to fill. If you listen you can hit nails being hit on the head there.

You're right about HItch. The others were thrillers. But he was breaking new ground with techniques and subject way back in the 60s.

He used to tell a story about tension in a film - rather important in a horror I'm sure you'll agree.

A group of people around a table are talking Baseball. The conversation is at best boring for the audience.
However, tell the audience there's a bomb under the table before the conversation starts. Now the Baseball conversation becomes incredibly interesting as the audience sit on the edge of their seas and think "Shut up! Get outta there for the love of God get out!"

I think the last point about 'balls' is the most interesting, to me at least. What? Bear with me, I'll endeavour to keep it clean, well, reasonably anyway.

Horror is about as dark as it gets. It's the worst side of human nature and the world. It's interesting teenage males, on the turn so to speak, are extremely interested in it. I was myself at the age. Obviously just a few years ago now.... Ho hum.

The difference between post 80s horror and its predecessors is as you said, balls. Balls to have some proper edge and tension, balls to try and make new ground. Just look at the remakes for how well those films have stood up. Trying to get some of the 70s and 80s cool to rub off by remaking films doesn't quite cut it.

For proof the public know it too look at the reception The Excorcist got upon release. Queues around the blocks for weeks. People came outta the movie and then went straight to rejoin the queue to see it again.

Tell me one horror film since that has had that effect. And if they made it they would do it again. They are there - they are just not being catered for.

Quoted from The Balt Reiterate -- I would like to add that the best horror movies ever made were in the 60's clipping through the 70's and coming to a stop somewhere around mid to late 80's. A horror movie shouldn't be clean. It should be visceral. It should have some off color to it. It should be viewed through a welding mask so to speak... Not rose colored glasses. That is one of my biggest gripes, aside from shitty actresses and rehashed plots, with new horror movies.  They're just too clean.

Amen to that fella.

Quoted from DS I agree with James for the most part in just about everything he said, including the stuff about Psycho, which IMO is hugely over-rated, and does not stand up well at all in this day and age.

See my earlier post on TnT about opinions. Still for each their own. You're outnumbered so far.

Quoted from DS What makes a good or great horror movie?  For me, it's very simple, and it's bascially the same for any genre movie...whether or not it works over all.  Whether or not it's well done, well put together, well thought out, whether or not the payoff is worth the ride. For me, it's not so much whether or not it brings something brand new to the table, but more how it brings it to the table, and what it brings. There have been many "good" slasher flicks that are basically carbon copies of Friday the 13th or Halloween.  I'm not saying in any way that that's a good thing, but if they work, then damnit, they work.  Same deal with a vampire, werewolf, or creature feature.

Again whether it works is not is hit and miss for horror as opinions vary. People who hate 'Star Wars' will still agree it's a good film for what it is. To use a horror as an example - American Werewolf In London. I've yet to meet anyone who didn't think that was a good film. Mind you, the night is still young...

A bit of innovation in the last twenty years from a few films would have been nice though eh?

But as you say, if it works for you then it works. Job done.

Quoted from DS As for characters and story, I honestly don't really care all that much.  Again, they have to be decent at least, but that's not what I'm going to be focusing on, and when other aspects totally work, it's not going to be a deal breaker for me at all.

And here's the point on which we go in opposite directions. Lynch films are.... weird right? Very weird. Especially compared to your average film in terms of.... everything. There's no-one like him.

But, I love his stories and I really care about the characters. Both are utterly compelling and engaging. And that it why I think he's so popular with movie fans.

T.B.C. More later....

RV

Quoted from Baltis. Is it based off the Richard Yates novel? I can't say I've even heard of a movie for it... Where was I? I did some checkin' up ... Leo and Kate are in this, yea?

Yeah. And Sam Mendes directed it. It's a film about being married to the wrong person and watching your dreams evaporate. Kate won a Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Drama. Michael Shannon was nominated for a best supporting actor Oscar and rightly so. He was terrific as John Givings, the adult son of the next door neighbours, who was a brilliant mathematician until he suffered a nervous breakdown. The scene where he comes over for dinner is gold.   It’s probably not a film I’d recommend to a younger audience but I reckon anyone over 30 would get a lot out of it. It's actually much darker than it appears to be in the trailers.

Edit: Oh yeah. It's based on the Yates novel of the same name. Here's a great article I came across about Yates. It's quite long but very interesting.

http://bostonreview.net/BR24.5/onan.html

Quoted from George Willson Hm, I always heard it was the drop. But I probably got it third hand as well. So it's not the boo! that is scary. It's wondering when the boo that you know is there will strike. I remember a scene in Jaws where two guys were on a boat dock and something happened to where part of the dock fell into the water and one guy frantically scrambled to stay on the deck. The scene was tense, but the weird part is that the shark wasn't in that scene. He's never seen or even really hinted at being there. Yet because we know he COULD be there, the scene is suspenseful and exciting. I remember thinking afterward that ultimately nothing happened to anyone in that scene, and yet it was scary.

Actually the shark is in that scene. it takes the bait (a pot roast) and pulls the dock into the water. You're right though, George, we never see the shark. But it turns the dock remnants around and heads back towards the guy trying to scramble to safety. Marvellous scene from my all time favorite movie. Seeing this at the cinema aged 13 was unbelievable. I became a shark freak after that.  I must've watched the movie at least 200 times since then. Wonderful acting - Robert Shaw should receive a retrospective posthumous Oscar.

Quoted from rendevous I think the last point about 'balls' is the most interesting, to me at least. What? Bear with me, I'll endeavour to keep it clean, well, reasonably anyway. Horror is about as dark as it gets. It's the worst side of human nature and the world. It's interesting teenage males, on the turn so to speak, are extremely interested in it. I was myself at the age. Obviously just a few years ago now.... Ho hum. The difference between post 80s horror and its predecessors is as you said, balls. Balls to have some proper edge and tension, balls to try and make new ground. Just look at the remakes for how well those films have stood up. Trying to get some of the 70s and 80s cool to rub off by remaking films doesn't quite cut it.

I think teenage males like horror movies because they go for the jugular when other movies, even action movies, are merely "presented." There's exceptions, of course, but those exceptions are usually the ones that transcend genre. Even at 23, after I've expanded my tastes and horizons, I love horror for the same reasons as well as more "philosophical" reasons that have come to me with age. I don't think I'll ever "grow out" of them and I don't intend to, at this point. Why move on when you can just expand?

Clive Barker is actually talking more about the audience/fans than filmmakers in terms of "getting our balls back." He talks about both but to me, the most important issue is horror fans laying down and taking the producers' "condescending." That is, not doing anything to counteract the recent remake trend. To me, it's not enough just to condemn them. What's the point of complaining about remakes if you pay to go see them?

It's a terrific interview, even if you don't like Clive Barker, so I'm going to post it. I think it's insightful to both writers and audience members alike. Hopefully, you guys feel the same.

Quoted from George Willson I remember a scene in Jaws where two guys were on a boat dock and something happened to where part of the dock fell into the water and one guy frantically scrambled to stay on the deck. The scene was tense, but the weird part is that the shark wasn't in that scene. He's never seen or even really hinted at being there. Yet because we know he COULD be there, the scene is suspenseful and exciting. I remember thinking afterward that ultimately nothing happened to anyone in that scene, and yet it was scary.

This was actually my least favorite "shark scene" as a kid but since then, I find it a lot more intense. The shark is there like Stevie said though. Still, it doesn't defeat the technique.

The "bomb under the table" is another great one and despite never seeing a Hitchcock film I "loved," it's a technique I've tried to apply to some of my own writing.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley The problem is that a lot of the older so called classics to horror fans have terrible acting. I watch a lot of movies and the problem is that I have not been entertained by 95% of the horror movies on that list. My biggest problem is the slasher part of the genre. How do you take these monsters who keep on kicking serious when they can't kill little crying girls? They come back for sequel after sequel and always lose to teens who cried and ran away for most of the movie. I hate when girls beg in movies anymore and that usually is where I turn it off if I make it that far. "I won't tell anyone, just let me go" Of course you will tell someone and of course he's not going to let you go, he's a fucking psycho. I have enjoyed scenes in a lot of the films but scenes don't make it a classic movie. Evil Dead is not that classic either.

Evil Dead isn't classic... I agree. Evil Dead is terribly flawed... I do like the original, but 2 and Army just lost it on me. I couldn't get into either of them as much.  I like the concept that Drove Evil Dead, though. This entity in the woods. We don't know what... It's just there. How? We don't really know, but if we could understand the book maybe we could.  I think that's tops.  But, yeah... Evil Dead as a whole picture... It's  pretty paultry.

And I also agree that Scenes don't make a classic... It's the whole picture, brought together, that does. And very, very, very few  horror films have done this. I think we forgive the early horror movies we've seen due to nostalgia. A looking glass effect and over time they do not age well... but in our hearts we always want to place ourselves as we were when we 1st seen them.  I know I do.

The sad thing about getting older is that you lose your innocence and with it that fear you always knew wasn't really there... You kinda just made it up in your mind. That's a shame, but something people who write horror movies and write them well should look at and try to replicate within their work.  I know I try to.

Quoted from James McClung I think teenage males like horror movies because they go for the jugular when other movies, even action movies, are merely "presented." There's exceptions, of course, but those exceptions are usually the ones that transcend genre. Even at 23, after I've expanded my tastes and horizons, I love horror for the same reasons as well as more "philosophical" reasons that have come to me with age. I don't think I'll ever "grow out" of them and I don't intend to, at this point. Why move on when you can just expand? Clive Barker is actually talking more about the audience/fans than filmmakers in terms of "getting our balls back." He talks about both but to me, the most important issue is horror fans laying down and taking the producers' "condescending." That is, not doing anything to counteract the recent remake trend. To me, it's not enough just to condemn them. What's the point of complaining about remakes if you pay to go see them? It's a terrific interview, even if you don't like Clive Barker, so I'm going to post it. I think it's insightful to both writers and audience members alike. Hopefully, you guys feel the same.

That's a great interview. I love Clive Barker, I'm surprised more of his stuff hasn't been made. He's really a talented guy and despite being famous, I don't think he has the level of respect his work perhaps deserves. Perhaps because the films haven't always realised the potential of his creations.

In the interview he mentions that the likes of Hellraiser and Videodrome were seemingly leading somewhere new, but then film has pulled back from the creativity.

I'd like to get some peoples views on that.  What do you all think he has in mind when he discusses that subject?

Barker's work is very hard to adapt for the screen. He uses the writing medium to the fullest and it is very hard to capture the feel of his work on film.  Hellraiser (though it is good, don't get me wrong) barely accomplished it, and that was written by the man himself! Book of Blood almost accomplished it, but fell on its face in some angles.

The Midnight Meat Train was all right (minus the cheap and over-stylized special effects), but that was based on one of his more screen-friendly stories.

--Julio

I agree about Barker's work being difficult to adapt. In the first half of the interview, he talks about anime as a means to do it as some of his stories just couldn't be done practically on live action. Some are just too big and fantastic. I neglected to post the first interview because it's more about Barker's work than horror in general but the link should be there somewhere.

Also, both Lynch and Cronenberg would be extremely difficult to follow up on. Honestly, I think their sensibilities as storytellers are just so far removed from the norm to be emulated. The Dark Backward came close but still feels like a pretty grounded film as opposed to something like Videodrome which is way out there. City of Lost Children and Delicatessen also came close but both seem pretty far removed from the horror genre. In general, films like Cronenberg's require the perfect balance of focus and letting loose. Too much focus results in flat out copying. Too much letting loose results in flat out silly ideas.

I agree with Barker that there was a certain strive for creativity that was lost somewhere back then but I do wonder how many good films would've came out if it hadn't been. I'd imagine they're be more than a handful of soulless ripoffs.

Dunno bout you all but Clive seems like he's shit faced in this interview... Even still, on a drunken bender, he makes more sense than the bulk of Hollywood does.  Nothing will come of it, though... Everyone is too sensitive to even have balls in todays society.  You can't say anything without offending someone now.  The blacks get offended at the thought of a white man telling a joke... I guess all them years of slavery didn't toughin' them up any.  The White's are so pussy they've learned to not speak out about anything... Unless they're gay.  Then they feel they have the right to piss off other sensitive groups with their bulbous gestures.

This world has changed so much within the last 30 years it's not a question of getting your balls back... It's a question of GROWING them back.

Clive always looks shit-faced. He's not exactly the healthiest of people.

Quoted Text Nothing will come of it, though... Everyone is too sensitive to even have balls in todays society.

It has ALWAYS been that way whichever way you spin it. There are always only a handful of "ballsy" people amidst a sea of "cowards". Always. Bigotry, social injustices and ridiculous double-standards regarding race, gender, and the like have always existed and always will exist, and people in general will always be afraid to speak against them.

It has been this way forever, so don't act like it is something new.

--Julio