CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Is Horror still hot?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Horror still hot?

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 
I thought this was an interesting article from Variety. It mainly deals with current box office but it leads with questions about the longevity of the horror genre. This is the second article like this in the last month (that I can recall). I find it interesting that the industry seems to continually be surprised when horror makes a mark.

Too early for returns for FINAL DESTINATION 3 yet this weekend. But I expect (or hope) that it will do better than the dreck remake of WHEN A STRANGER CALLS. The last three wide release horror films of 2006 all opened at more then $19 million each (including HOSTEL and UNDERWORLD: EVOLUTION).

Thoughts?
post #2 of 6
Well it is feburary, one of the worst months for film. The fact that a couple horror films are out now and do well doesn't mean the genre is booming. They are #1 due to the fact that quality film at this time of year are rare.


In general I think the horror genre has constantly hit walls in terms of creativity. As soon as one film doesn't suck, it's imitated a couple dozen times. The genre is probably the weakest in film IMO. It doesn't have to be so, but mainstream hollywood doesn't know how to make very many original horror films.

Final Destination 3 is a example. Part 1 was original, entertaining, and while I rather it be less formulmatic, the idea was great. But the sequels don't seem nessisarly. It's like part 1 with new characters.

I don't know if I would call Underworld horror. I have only seen part one, but that falls under fantasy in my books. Unless part 2 made a dramatic shift in tone and story, it's fantasy. Vampires or not.
post #3 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattcruise
I don't know if I would call Underworld horror. I have only seen part one, but that falls under fantasy in my books. Unless part 2 made a dramatic shift in tone and story, it's fantasy. Vampires or not.

Agreed.

I would also discount "Stranger", as it was a PG-13 "thriller", and seemed to be marketed towards those who would say, "Hey, this doesn't look TOO scary."

Then again, everyone tries to make qualitative statements on horror films, like, "Oh, horror is popular now" or "I don't think people are in the mood for horror films right now". But really, every movie is a horror film, and people will always want to see certain degrees of that, because fright and terror are so primal that people will never abandon them. There will always be money to be made from horror films. The subgenre of horror this article is disscussing is too small-framed. There's nothing to "worry" about.
post #4 of 6
I think horror works best when its on a small budget, for several reasons. Firstly, big effects are not scary, ideas are. And stripped of budget, you have to use suggestion and ingenuity to create tension, which more often than not works much better than a big, impressive monster or spectre. The best big-budget horror films are The Shining, The Omen, Jaws and The Exorcist and this is, again, because the concepts they are dealing with are inherently creepy. I wouldn't say the Exorcist is necessarily scary, but it is unnerving and among the best put-together horror films made. The Shining excels because Kubrick knows how to throw things off-centre - we're still dealing with a believable situation and characters, but events are out of the ordinary. He slow-builds to perfection in that film.

Someone said that the best horror films make you afraid of something you didn't know you were afraid of and, though it is a PG and a big entertainment, the first half of Jaws is classic horror in this mould. Looking at smaller budget films, stuff like Night Of The Living Dead still has some chilling sequences. The first time you see the zombies outside chowing down on human flesh and bones, it is unnerving. When the woman in the basement is virtually sacrificed, I was silenced the first time I saw it. We had basically been poking fun at the shoddiness of the film and the shambling zombies up to that point. I was amazed at how cold that scene was and as for the ending.... for me that is the reason that film is a classic. Its a real downer and it elevates the film above its field.

What gets me is when someone like Romero, who most modern horror filmmakers owe a debt of gratitude, comes along with a new film, it underperforms worse than absolute shit like The Fog, which no doubt cost 3 or 4 times as much to make. I've yet to see Hostel and word has been mixed, but at least it seems to get with the nasty (that came out wrong) and not pat you on the head before shouting "BOO!" down your ear. Same goes for The Devil's Rejects - i'm looking forward to seeing some serious exploitation 70's style. But the other stuff, with the oh-so-pretty leads and lack of gore or terror just does not interest me.
post #5 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by sackley

I've yet to see Hostel and word has been mixed, but at least it seems to get with the nasty (that came out wrong)
And yet, it's quite an accurate summation of the film.
post #6 of 6
horror films will always be hot as long as some come out that work. If we keep seeing movies like Cursed, but then we get one Saw (regardless on your opinions of the films) people will always say horror is hot.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Is Horror still hot?