Are We Deluding Ourselves?

I imagine this thread may stir up some controversy. But on a discussion based message board, that's probably a good thing.

I'm poking the hornet's nest this time because I got to thinking about all the crappy horror movies and books there are out there. Many are so bad, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, that we mercilessly pan them when we review or talk about them. Many, many more get comments like "It's great cheesy fun", or "It's so bad it's good", or "There was good gore, at least", or the ever popular "At least there were nice tits to be seen". We've all posted comments like that around here numerous times. At least, I know I have.

I'll leave the why alone here; I think Surge summed it up best, in his ever insightful if ever cynical (but always correct, dammit!) manner on the "Rant With Me: Why Does the Girl ALWAYS Fall? And Other Horror Movie Cliches" thread. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) we see the same boring, tired old stuff repeated ad nauseam in horror films because the movie makers want the teenage date dollar; that's the target audience for most of these flicks. An audience that is periodically recycled and theoretically new to what have become cliched, hack bits for us, the genre fans. These are the tried and true methods that have garnered scares (even if they are just cheesy jump scares) for decades; why mess with a formula that works if there's money to be made sticking with the formula?

OK, I can accept that. Even if I lament its pervasiveness, I guess you could still make a good movie using cliches, if it were acted and written well, and there was good gore (if it's the sort of film that calls for it), and hey. . . a nice rack never hurt any movie, did it? What I want to explore here is us. Our perceptions and sense of judgment. I know the whole enchilada - good acting, effects, story, etc. - is a lot to ask of any film. I'm not whining about how every film can't be "The Exorcist" or "The Shining" or "The Thing". Even great films in other genres have flaws (good as the effects and story in "Star Wars" were, for example, Mark Hamill's acting was pretty bad). What I'm wondering is: have we become too accepting of the crap? Is our judgment off because we are so bombarded with sub-par genre fare that we're willing to tolerate, and even laud, movies or films that don't deserve it? I heard good things about several films in my time here that I barely liked, or didn't like at all, once I'd seen them. In some instances I have to wonder what all the buzz is about. Why would anyone like & recommend these films? Sometimes I can see the reason; something just stands out about a film, even if the rest isn't good. But other times. . . ?

Even if we are too accepting I'd argue it isn't our fault because we are just so loaded down with bad stuff we really have no choice but to pan for nuggets of goodness where we can find them, dealing with huge piles of tailings along the way. But by doing so, buying, renting or going to the movies to see sub-par films, one could argue we're perpetuating the cycle, because the producers of such films make money off us doing so, and have no incentive to better their films. I guess I can understand why we do this; we LOVE horror, and want to enjoy more of it. So we make allowances, finding enjoyment where we can, until the next "Exorcist" comes along and deservedly blows us away.

I realize a lot of this crappiness results from the low budgets most horror films labor under. If more money goes to effects, less goes toward getting name actors or directors, or vice versa. But they keep makin' 'em, and we keep buyin' or renting or seeing them. They wouldn't keep doing things this way if we didn't. Remember, a low budget film doesn't have as far to go to be profitable.

I choose to believe we're just making the best of a bad situation. It's been said numerous times that a horror film is possibly the cheapest and easiest kind of film to make, so it's hardly surprising we see the number of them we do, because there are legions of budding filmmakers that, for better or worse, want to take a stab at it (no pun intended), just to get a film credit. Profit may motivate the studios in their choosing to finance these projects, but (perhaps misguided) love of the genre is (I'd like to believe) what motivates the filmmakers themselves to answer the call and make the movies for the studios, or to scrape together the meager funds they can and go it alone. By definition, most of these guys are underfunded amateurs, and we should hardly be surprised at the end result, and even a boycott (if such a thing were possible or desirable; I don't think, much as I'd like the quality of horror films overall to improve, that I could live without a horror fix for as long as it would probably take to get the studios to change their ways) probably wouldn't stop the onslaught of bad horror flicks. And of course, throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it, either (Rob Zombie movies, anyone?).

Perhaps I've just become too jaded from an almost constant immersion in horror fiction in all its forms. Maybe I really DO expect too much. Maybe I AM whining. Feel free to tell me so in your replies.

Posts like this are why I do what I do. Thank you, Chris. I think the majority of the folks that post here are not emotionally stunted fanboys. They don't come off that way, by and large, at any rate. But I figure there aren't enough of us horror sophisticates out there to compensate for the legions of ESFb's out there that spend money not only on the films or the books, but on the t-shirts and the figurines and all the rest of it.

And I agree that a low budget doesn't necessarily translate into a worthless film, as I've enjoyed the ones you cite as being original and entertaining despite their budget problems (I especially liked 'Killer Klowns"; made me laugh out loud a couple times). Perhaps originality IS what's missing more so than anything else? Perhaps it's not as easy to make a film that follows the tried and true formulae but is still good because it's made with skill than I initially thought?

Nor can I think of a proliferation of low budget crap movies from any other genre stil being made today (one could argue there were schlock sci-fi B&W films by the ton being made in the 50's, but that seems to have stopped awhile ago).

Hey! I happen to like the 2 gallon bucket of Pepsi (I am a caffeine addict, but I hate coffe).

Re-reading this post reminded me; wasn't "Hatchet" touted as a straight up, by-the-numbers, old school slasher film, making no bones about that fact? Weren't the cliches kind of SUPPOSED to be there? And if they were, is that forgiveable and maybe makes the film a little less horrendous, because it's sort of an homage/intentional throwback? I used to play old school 1st edition D&D as a teen. About 2 years ago, a friend of mine sends me a link to Goodmangames.com, which features a product line called "Dungeon Crawl Clasics", that are supposed to be throwbacks to the olden days of D&D modules: "Remember the good old days, when modules didn't waste your time with long winded speeches, NPC's were meant to be killed, and you just know the treasure hoarding dragon is in there somewhere?" He proposed that a foursome of us get together and start playing some of these, as it would take the onus of DM'ing from scratch off of whoever ended up doing it (most likely me), and we'd just have some fun w/ old style modules. kind of RPG comfort food. We took him up on it & had a hell of a lot of fun for more than a year and a half (we're on hiatus due to job duties changing for the above friend, but hope to re-start soon). I haven't seen "Hatchet", but plan to (it's on the queue). Couldn't the argument be made that it's intended to be sort of horror film comfort food, the same way the Dungeon Crawl Classics are? And is that a bad thing?

Re-reading THIS post reminds me why I enjoy reading what Surge posts so much. I think THIS is what I've been trying to articulate as the attitude I think most of us hereabouts are espousing.

I. Want. Rep. Back.

This is both funny and insightful. It's also probably ytrue. I thought a long wilr before posting this thread because I was pretty sure it would stir up a lot of controversy (and not necessarily in the good way) for just the reason Minsky cites. I'm actually very surprised that most of the posts seem to be in agreement that the majority of horror fans are deluding themselves. But I think the fact that we all seem to consider ourselves above doing so proves my earlier point, that around here, at least, we're not all a bunch of ESFb's.

. . .although I still want to see "Hatchet" and "Wrong Turn 2" based on comments I've read here.

What I think that would call for is more & better adaptations of some of the excellent horror literature out there, instead of an endless parade of re-makes. Unfortunately, no horror writer today seems to have the name recognition (which equals box office draw) of Stephen King, so I don't see Hollywood exactly beating down Jack Ketchum's or Brian Keene's doors. Damn shame, too, because "The Rising" and "City of the Dead" would make excellent films. Oh, well. I guess they could always film "The Stand".

Edited to add: I realize "TGND" and "The Lost" have been released on video, and Ketchim's "Red" is filming now, but these were (all but, in "TGND"'s case) DTV efforts. Ketchum needs a good adaptation to get wide theatre distribution

Too little outside our little genre, unfortumately. King's fame crossed over into mainstream audience territory, which is the money Hollywood's really after. I don't see Barker doing that even at the peak of his fame, much less today when his influence on even this genre has waned considerably. Hellraiser was, IMO, clearly the exception and not the rule for his film career's success.

And Minsky, I'm flattered to be linked to the main page. Even if it was in a review of an awful film. The IDEA for "Werewolf" had some potential (seductress she wolf tempting family man, etc.) but was apparently executed so poorly it couldn't be saved. Too bad. We need more good werewolf movies.

I've been thinking about this post for awhile. I'm in agreement with you (and was, if I recall, one of the ones who joined you in saying) that going "too far" isn't - or shouldn't be - possible for a horror film maker. It is a genre that was designed to disturb the viewer. That is - or again, it should be - the whole point.

Now, I'm not dead set against some horror movies being "fun". I greatly enjoyed "Feast" and "Shaun of the Dead", for example. BUt I asked the question in an earlier thread as to whetehr or not it's horror comedies like this, and the Troma films and such, that are to blame for the "horror movies should be fun nd not disturbing" attitude Greg speaks about. The general consensus in the replies to that thread was "no, they aren't". I think I have to agree, because "Shaun" made no bones about its being a horror-comedy. Adn when you rent a Troma film, you know (or should, if you've been a fan for any length of time) what you're in for. Going into it w/ that mindset for the occasional "fun" film is nothing more than a change of pace. Like orderng soup instead of salad with dinner one in awhile.

But I think you have to be a horror sophisticate to at least some degree to have developed the palate to distinguish between these and "real", disturbing horror fare, and appreciate them for what they are; a fun, different sort of experience. To expect that all horror films will be like that, though, that's a whole other animal. One that isn't seen much 'round these parts, fortunately. But unfortunately, that's a population in the general movie going public that probably dwarfs our own. Wonder if there's anything we can do to cull it? And what allowed this population to thrive? Like Greg suggests, the bad, DTV "horror" movie that tries to make it "fun" rather than scary.

OK, so now we have a cause. What can be done about it? The only thing I can think of is, as has been suggested, listen to good critics (like Alex and Chris, f'r instance) and their opinions, and gravitate only toward products with promise, ignoring (and threfore not funding) the schlock.

So now I'm starting to wrack myself with guilt, because I've long been an advocate of the After Dark Films Horrorfest every year.been to both so far and saw all 8 films at each one. I repeatedly say I enjoy the experience more than the actual movies (for the most part), because the movies. . . well, thy mainly aen't that good (although they are getting a little better, and one can always hope they'll keep doing so). Christ, I think I'm part of the problem, now. Will I stop going to the 'fest? Probably not. Will I feel as good about that decision in the future? Maybe not. Will my continued advocacy & attendance, particularly if it sparks interest in others to join me, help improve the films at all in future years? Who knows?

Well said. I guess it's just not that easy to be creative; that's why not everyone is a writer or director or artist. of course, the studio standing over you prepared to yank funding if the director DOES do somrthing innovative instead of sticking to the tried and true money making formula doesn't help, either. As Zod points out, the fans (and I presume he means the movie going public at large, not just the horror fans, specifically) keep shelling out money to keep these shitty movies getting made. But I don't think the bean counters are entirely blameless, either. Maybe if a few more of them were willing to take risks once in awhile, and give the creative talent more free rein, more good films would be made, and the public in general would raise its standards just a hair. If nothing else, it would give the filmmakers something new to imitate for awhile (like they milked the J-horror cash cow, and are currently drawing the last drops of blood from the stone that is "torture porn", a term I hate, BTW). I'd settle for a switch up in what crap they're re-hashing more often, if that's all I could get.

Damn shame we have to justify it at all, isn't it?