CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Has the Slasher Film Really Fallen?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Has the Slasher Film Really Fallen?

post #1 of 33
12/12/07 at 10:42am
Thread Starter 
I just saw "Falling to Pieces: Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film" this past weekend. And it got me to thinking: has the slasher film as a horror sub-genre really fallen?

There's no question that the "heyday" of the slasher film was the 80's, in the wake of the enormous success of "Hallowen" and "Friday the 13th". Seemingly endless imitators, of widely varying quality, were spawned by the success of those two films more than any others, and the theatres were flooded with them. It seems there are a lot fewer of them coming out in theatres these days. Why is that?

I doubt it has to do with the popularity of the slasher film. Every once in awhile, one does get released in theatres nowadays, such as "Wolf Creek" or "See No Evil". Someone in Hollywood must still think slashers have a chance of attracting viewers and making money. And "Falling to Pieces" does treat the "Saw" and "Hostel" movies as slasher films (I guess it was made too early on for the term 'torture porn' to have come into wide usage as its own sub-genre), and, assuming you can wedge them into the slasher sub-genre, there's no question they make money, if nothing else.

And tons of slashers are still being released DTV, which was a medium unknown when "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" were made. They wouldn't keep makin' 'em if we weren't buyin' 'em. Maybe if theatrical release were the only outlet for films, you'd still see a lot of them in theatres.

No question, the slasher film has seen better days; the formula that works has become a parody of itself, and as the documentary correctly points out, this is probably the easiest sub-genre to make hacky and formulaic. It's a real testament to this fact that a film that sort of mocked the slasher film, "Scream", revitalized the genre for a time. I'm sure the popularity of other sub-genres, most notably J-Horror, has also cut into the market share a bit, lessening their frequency in theatres. Perhaps because slashers have become so formulaic, the movie going public (those who aren't horror fans per se especially) wanted something different - at least for a while - and J-Horror seemed - at least for a while, until it, too became hacky and formulaic - fit the bill nicely.

But to say it's fallen? Bit of an overstatement, I think. What do you guys think?
Reply
post #2 of 33
12/12/07 at 12:38pm
For the current DVD crowd of slashers, all they have to offer is winks and nods to the audience. There's deliberately no tension, just poor attempts at laughs and often shoddy attempts at gruesome kills. Problem is, if you remove all the old school horror fans nostalgia, it's all the original crop of slashers had to offer sans the humor attempts. The genre has never been anything more than jump scares and gore post "Halloween", but there's really nothing wrong with that. For the non-horror fans, what they do is scary (sadly, even in PG-13 form), and for the pros, it's still an entertaining way to kill 90 minutes.

Also...Some of us like "just Brutal and Gory". Especially when coupled with "Gratituous Nudity of Large Breasted Bimbos".
Reply
post #3 of 33
12/12/07 at 1:08pm
I don't know if it's a case of them having fallen, so much as mutated. In the "heyday" of slasher flicks, the film makers weren't afraid to follow the same tried and true formula: unstoppable killer, stupid and nubile teens, gory and inventive deaths, Survivor Girltm wins. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum. Today, we have film makers who grew up on, and to some extent are the products of, slasher flicks. Thus, they attempt to put their own stamp on the genre, playing with its conceits and defying the audience's expectations (for better or worse). A prime example of this is the (getting standard) misdirection whereby the chaste, virginal teen girl turns out not to be Survivor Girltm.
Reply
post #4 of 33
12/12/07 at 2:16pm
I didn't grow up on the genre personally and own a select few on DVD. I became a horror fan through the Monster movie subgenre... but I tell ya, I was more entertained by the THANKSGIVING Grindhouse trailer than most Slasher (or TP) flicks I've seen in awhile. The problem with the slasher genre is= the rampantly amateurish film-making IMO. There's a few out there with an artistic eye, handle on storytelling, or a flair for great practical effects, but... it's mostly shit. If I'm going to waste my time, I'd rather watch a goofy rubber monster suit movie instead.

Slasher flicks are (mostly) purely in the Exploitation category, and thus remains niche and fringe. Also, without a genuinely original premise, any new flick is just going to be added to the derivative pile. It's a fallen genre because there aren't enough ideas to revitalize it. Unless done extremely well, paying homage is just a redo.

Just realized that "Torture Porn" abbreviates to T.P.

HAHAHA
Reply
post #5 of 33
12/12/07 at 2:51pm
Outside of Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, I can't think of a decent movie in the last ten years that falls in the category of the slasher subgenre.

I don't really feel bad about them falling in popularity. After all, a lot of them were very uncreative and repetitive which is much bigger sin then being gory and sexist.
Reply
post #6 of 33
12/12/07 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPL
Outside of Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, I can't think of a decent movie in the last ten years that falls in the category of the slasher subgenre.
I agree with this, but I happen to like High Tension and FVJ as well (c'mon, haters!).
Reply
post #7 of 33
12/12/07 at 3:28pm
Wrong Turn 2, although perhaps not technically a slasher movie, is worth the rental, as well.
Reply
post #8 of 33
12/12/07 at 3:32pm
I thought The Tripper was about as good of a throw back to 80's slasher films as you can get. I really enjoyed that movie. It just sucks because Scream kind of turned that shit into a joke and then all those awful, "hip" movies. I can name a ton of them. The I Know What You Did Last Whatever movies and shit like Cry Wolf, Black Xmas, I know I'm forgetting some of those PG13 ones like When a Stranger Calls or something? Although, I guess most of the ones I'm thinking of are remakes at that. It is just a matter of approaching the sub-genre with an appreciation for some movies that could be viewed as bad or good depending on your personal feelings. I own the Sleepaway Camp boxset so I dig movies like The Tripper. Some people don't even like Friday the 13th films, for example, and I really can't argue against them. I just happen to like them. I thought High Tension was bad ass. The ending was stupid, but it doesn't undo everything that film accomplished in the first hour and 15 minutes.
Reply
post #9 of 33
12/12/07 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris O.
I'll back you up on Freddy vs. Jason, man. You and me against the world!
You've got my sword, as well.*



*I pray that this is the geekiest comment I make all day.
Reply
post #10 of 33
12/12/07 at 3:55pm
Quote:
I thought High Tension was bad ass. The ending was stupid, but it doesn't undo everything that film accomplished in the first hour and 15 minutes
Yes, it does. Plus, it wasn't all that interesting before that horseshit ending anyway.
Reply
post #11 of 33
12/12/07 at 7:39pm
The real problem posed by Scream (i.e. "hip" horror) was by the time the films are released on home video, all the random pop culture references, one-liners and such are already outdated. Fuck...some of em are when its in theatres.

To this day it bugs me when some people proclaim Scream as the "anti-slasher" film. If it really was, the dork Randy would have been the hero at the end instead of the cliche "scream queen" heroine Sidney. But that's just my $.02.
Reply
post #12 of 33
12/13/07 at 2:18am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli
You've got my sword, as well.*



*I pray that this is the geekiest comment I make all day.
And My Axe! And I'm pretty sure that's NOT the geekiest thing I'VE said today.

Agree w/ the love for FvJ, The Tripper (watching the hippies get offed by Ronnie reagan, Jason Mewes, and what may be the highest body count I've ever seen in a slasher made it amusing), and Wrong Turn (haven't seen Wt2 yet). I'd add Penny Dreadful from the 06 After Dark Horrorfest. I've gone on record as saying that was a decent slasher flick. Wolf Creek gets love, but See No Evil doesn't.

WHY do these films get love? As is so often the case, my answer is :"What Surge said".
Reply
post #13 of 33
12/13/07 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
I don't see this as a problem. Scream worked perfectly when it was released and it's basic story still holds up. So what if it's now dated.
Can someone remind me of how it's dated? I don't remember there being a lot of mid-90s references going on. I'm trying, but the only thing I can come up with is the references to various horror films. And I don't think that, in that context, they date the movie like some of the pop cultural references in, for example, Shrek.
Reply
post #14 of 33
12/13/07 at 12:12pm
As far as the last 10 years go, we've had... Perfect Blue, American Psycho, The Ugly, and last year's Them.
Debateable whether any of them fit the genre perfectly, but they're all at least reasonable films.
Reply
post #15 of 33
12/13/07 at 7:14pm
Anyone thinks "Scream" is far better then Wes Craven's "Last House on The Left"?
Reply
post #16 of 33
12/14/07 at 12:27am
Thread Starter 
Are you MAD!?
Reply
post #17 of 33
12/14/07 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty
Yes, it does. Plus, it wasn't all that interesting before that horseshit ending anyway.
Yes, it was but you make a good point. Although I would argue that the scene where the killer murders the family in the house and knocks the dad's head off with the furniture was a pretty intense scene with good gore fx.
Reply
post #18 of 33
12/14/07 at 6:24pm
Maybe you're confusing Scary Movie 4 with Scream. I don't see how Scream is dated at all and its actually a decent movie. I know everybody will talk shit to me now because I said Scream is an ok movie, but I think it is. As far as it being dated, I don't see how it is unless you count that Color Me Badd cameo-- or am I thinking of Beverly Hills 90210?
Reply
post #19 of 33
12/14/07 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin VanNatter
Yes, it was but you make a good point. Although I would argue that the scene where the killer murders the family in the house and knocks the dad's head off with the furniture was a pretty intense scene with good gore fx.
Not to mention the atmosphere and craft of the flick. I admired and appreciated the fact that the movie didn't look like it was filmed by drunk guys, who don't know any camera angle besides straight on and medium, with a halloween costume and some random sharp implement over the weekend. Sure, that kind of flick has its place, but not everyone's cut out to direct. Skill and presentation often make a big impression on me, especially in a subgenre I'm picky with (I love SEVEN and SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, if they even qualify).

It's hard not to have low standards and be a fan of the horror genre in general (I'll be the 1st to admit it), but because of the ease of making a slasher flick, and the glut of these kind of flicks over the decades, what hasn't been covered yet? Sometimes tight pacing, or funny dialogue, or convincing effects, or a pair of perfect tits are enough on their own... Until someone gets past this formula (and has the artistic chops to deliver), the subgenre will remain in a slump...

CHOOSE 1 of each (doesn't matter if it's been done before) and stir:
A. theme (holiday or location)
B. villain's costume or just a single accessory (mask, etc)
C. murder weapon
D. (optional) villain's origin/identity (is it a mystery?)


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...

Reply
post #20 of 33
12/15/07 at 5:46am
The problem is that the slasher genre is by its own definition extremely limited and formulaic. Old school slasher films don't work any more because the audience is aware of the conventions. The reason why Scream did so well both critically and comercially was because it afforded a completely new take on the genre, by taking the conventions and upending them and commenting on them (which incidentally Craven had already started doing in New Nightmare). I think the only way the slasher film can be made to work nowadays is if someone comes up with another novel, exterior, take, or if someone decides to bend genre conventions a fair amount.
Reply
post #21 of 33
12/15/07 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8
Not to mention the atmosphere and craft of the flick. I admired and appreciated the fact that the movie didn't look like it was filmed by drunk guys, who don't know any camera angle besides straight on and medium, with a halloween costume and some random sharp implement over the weekend.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I didn't think he made a very good point. It is a great film for several reasons which we both have stated. It is nice to know that somebody else recognizes why that movie was good. Of course, it got Alex Aja into the spotlight so other people noticed too. I own it and I watch it every now and then. The scene at the gas station is great horror. The movie is just really HIGH on TENSION! Boom!

Oh and have you seen those Bloody Murder movies? Thats the kind of thing I'm talking about. I never pic those things up when I'm at the video store so I'm left to wonder what might have been.
Reply
post #22 of 33
12/15/07 at 1:39pm
While I agree with you Gabe, I always though Scream failed to change the conventions. I thought it pretty much stuck to traditional slasher film formula but it felt fresh because it treated classic films like The Bible in that we know they are stupid, silly, completely made up and in some cases utterly retarded but there are a lot of people that think that shit is the cat's meow.
Reply
post #23 of 33
12/16/07 at 6:03pm
I'd say Hatchet is the best modern slasher since... a long time. Renamed, this could easily be Friday the 13th part 11.
Reply
post #24 of 33
12/16/07 at 6:08pm
Is that really a good thing?
Reply
post #25 of 33
12/16/07 at 8:03pm
Anything is a good thing after Jason X.
Reply
post #26 of 33
12/30/07 at 6:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge
For the current DVD crowd of slashers, all they have to offer is winks and nods to the audience. There's deliberately no tension, just poor attempts at laughs and often shoddy attempts at gruesome kills. Problem is, if you remove all the old school horror fans nostalgia, it's all the original crop of slashers had to offer sans the humor attempts. The genre has never been anything more than jump scares and gore post "Halloween", but there's really nothing wrong with that. For the non-horror fans, what they do is scary (sadly, even in PG-13 form), and for the pros, it's still an entertaining way to kill 90 minutes.

Also...Some of us like "just Brutal and Gory". Especially when coupled with "Gratituous Nudity of Large Breasted Bimbos".
This is just about the gist of how I feel about the post-modern slasher film movement, if one would dare call it a movement. In fact, the emboldened part of the quote is exactly how I feel about "Hatchet".

I grew up on the genre, so I know it like the back of my own hand. Some of the early slashers are undeniably slicker than others, via major backing, or talent, or both, but I think Going To Pieces (the doc, not the book, which I've not read) commits the ultimate sin of partly exposing, but then harshly dismissing the lesser children of the genre.
More obscure stuff like Final Terror, Slaughter High, Unhinged, and Don't Open Til Christmas, etc, are all very much pap, but I admire them, and other early to mid-80's slasher films - some with more reservations than others - for their scampy, scavenger-like nature. It's like the filmmakers just rolled out of bed one day, barely knowing their right hand from their left, and just said: fuck it, let's make a movie! (Unhinged is especially fitting of this description) Perhaps I can isolate that particular attraction as the "Ed Wood Factor".

You can't really duplicate that, at least not honestly, and I don't think these DTV guys have the heart or the wherewithal to even come close, they just have the reference points. The thing is in the 80's those guys were selling sex and violence on the cheap, they were certainly pandering, but it was straight into the R complex of that 18-25 male demographic (or maybe more like 12-18). All we have left are a bunch of guys who are all about selling a memory of those times. You can't just sell a memory and nothing else, I don't give a shit how well that seemed to work out for Douglas Quaid.
Reply
post #27 of 33
12/30/07 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny
You can't really duplicate that, at least not honestly, and I don't think these DTV guys have the heart or the wherewithal to even come close, they just have the reference points.
Technology (advancement & availabilty) is awesome, but mostly to blame IMO.
Reply
post #28 of 33
12/30/07 at 7:57pm
Technology is not the only reason to revile the new crop, but it is on the short shitlist I keep.
Reply
post #29 of 33
1/1/08 at 2:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8
I agree with this, but I happen to like High Tension and FVJ as well (c'mon, haters!).
I loved Freddy Vs Jason too!! Great fun there, especially the over the top battle at the end, I just loved that. I don't know why so many people complained about that one. I'll defend that flick to the day I die.

The Nightmare and Friday films as a whole leading up that point were enjoyable to the fans, but not cinematic masterpieces but slasher films with basically the same plot over and over (excluding Nightmare 3, The New Nightmare and Jason Goes To Hell) as far as going outside their slasher checklist.

I know this is a "slasher genre" thread, but I guess what I'm getting at here is that when filmakers try to move outside those slasher conventions and expectations... they are greeted with hate and annoyance for doing something different, yet when they churn out the same old stuff they are told it's old and tired. How can they win?
Reply
post #30 of 33
1/1/08 at 2:06pm
Thread Starter 
You can't please all the people all the time. I'm a traditionlist at heart about a lot of things, and greet a film's stepping out of those expected boundaries (at least, too far outside of them) w/ some suspicion. But by the same token, if you can turn a convention on its head and do it well, I really like that. Personally, I thought that's what New Nightmare did very well, and I personally liked it a lot. But I know that film gets a lot of hate from others. And there's people who LOVED Scream and thought it was the new life's blood for the slasher film. Personally, I was kind of "meh" about it. Good idea, but while I did like it, I didn't find it as refreshing and intriguing as many did. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a filmmaker can rarely, if ever, "win" by making everyone happy. If they make a film that does well and gets kudos from at least a substantial segment of the public (or at least the fan base) I guess that's a victory. The way they accomplish this is by doing their job well; whether they stay within the framework, but execute it well, or defy convention but do it in a well thought out manner.
Reply
post #31 of 33
1/1/08 at 2:17pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by McMeatbag
Technology is not the only reason to revile the new crop, but it is on the short shitlist I keep.
Re-reading this post just now got me to wondering: what ELSE is on your list? That seems like fertile ground for discussion.

As far as technology goes, I guess the availability of CGI can make it easier to make a film w/ cheesy-looking effects. But I don't imagine practical effects technology advancements have as much of an effect. I know they're there, and it's probably easier to make somone's head come off now than it may have been for Savini in the 70's (mainly because he paved the way by DOING it in the 70's), but I can't imagine it doesn't take almost the same degree of skill, care and craftsmanship to make a practical effect look good. Savini's work, for example, looks as good as it does because he puts a tremendous amount of thought, effort and care (dare I say love?) into his effects. Some schlep w/ a decapitation kit who doesn't do likewise will end up w/ a crappy looking product, technology notwithstanding. So I don't think I agree totally that this aspect of technological advancement contributes as much to the crappy movie crop.

Similarly, I figure that even though film and digital technology make it easier to film stuff in general, some degree of skill and know how is necessary to make that magic happen as well. Sure, I can film something w/ a digital camera. Well, OK, maybe [I]I[I] can't because I'm technologically challenged, but I guess theoretically I could learn the mechanics of operating a digital camera. But will I know anything about how to MAKE a FILM? I don't pretend to know anything about lighting or camera angles. Or how to direct people, or incorporate effects, CGI or practical, into a scene. So I guess I agree w/ Darkmite & McMeatbag that THIS aspect of technological advancement, certainly, has contributed to the abundance of crappy horror movies, because now any schlub w/ a camera thinks he can make a movie.
Reply
post #32 of 33
1/1/08 at 3:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bay_Ridah26
I know this is a "slasher genre" thread, but I guess what I'm getting at here is that when filmakers try to move outside those slasher conventions and expectations... they are greeted with hate and annoyance for doing something different, yet when they churn out the same old stuff they are told it's old and tired. How can they win?
Behind the Mask wins at this because it both celebrates and transcends the genre and is sufficiently clever at doing. Hatchet loses, because it's a tensionless, poorly paced and shot, bore of a film with nothing but a boastful tagline and stunt casting to act as a lure.

Not to mention an ending that smacks of a director's completely unearned hubris.
Reply
post #33 of 33
1/1/08 at 6:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IggytheBorg
Well, OK, maybe [I]I[I] can't because I'm technologically challenged, but I guess theoretically I could learn the mechanics of operating a digital camera. But will I know anything about how to MAKE a FILM? I don't pretend to know anything about lighting or camera angles. Or how to direct people, or incorporate effects, CGI or practical, into a scene.
You just described 75% of the people making direct to video horror, unfortunately.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Has the Slasher Film Really Fallen?