Sup bitches?

I'm hella excited to see a remake of the original.

wes craven's another guy i hope dies in a fire so his movies won't be beaten into the ground anymore.

[i]Whaaaat?[/i]

I loved Wes Craven's New Nightmare. I'd probably list it as my second favorite of his films (after the original nightmare.)

well, this is also coming from a guy who hates most horror movies because all the effort is put in trying to scare the shit out of people instead of a plot that's the opposite of terrible.

Don't be hatin', yo'.

[quote="skoolyardpunk"]well, this is also coming from a guy who hates most horror movies because all the effort is put in trying to scare the shit out of people instead of a plot that's the opposite of terrible.[/quote]

My exact sentiments. I don't understand horror films. No one is going to be genuinely scared by a movie. At most, it's simply shock value - which is grossly impotent in film format, when not utilized for the sake of humor. As such, all the resources of a particular horror film are being diverted into something that is completely without value, instead of more valuable aspects like a proper plot. Photography also tends to suffer, since aesthetics are supplanted with a superficially "creepy" or "suspenseful" climate.

When technology is sufficient that a person can actually be scared by a motion picture, perhaps the genre will gain some credibility. Otherwise, the only good horror films will continue to be the entertainingly campy ones, like the [i]Evil Dead[/i] series.

Some people actually are scared by movies.

A Nightmare on Elm Street was pretty innovative because it went into the "what-ifs" of dreaming. We've all heard or been told that if you die when you're dreaming, you'll die IRL and stuff like that, so if there was some kind of dream poltergeist intent on killing you and you couldn't do anything about it, you'd be pretty scared.


I don't care what anyone says, Stephen King's IT is a pretty fucking scary movie when you're younger. Scary movies are for chicks to cuddle in horror onto their boyfriends' arms. I don't really think there are too many dudes who watch scary movies for the thrill of being psychologically horrified. (Whereas women seem to get more involved with this.)

For the record, I wasn't specifically referring to Nightmare on Elm Street, or other films whose fame alone precludes them from my analysis.

Anyway, I think there are better film genres if you want chicks to cuddle with your penis. I mean, in your arms.

ITT Sheer doesn't understand the concept of suspension of disbelief. If a story is told well enough that you're able to become engrossed in it and believe it to an extent, albeit temporarily, it can be frightening. This is hardly a controversial claim. Frankly I'm baffled that anyone would suggest that "No one is going to be genuinely scared by a movie." People can be frightened by a horror movie in exactly the same way they can be emotionally affected by a drama or thrilled by an action film. Maybe you're not the type to be moved by the suggestion of films, but that's just a personal thing.

Maybe what's in question is the notion of what is "genuine." Well, if you want to make a distinction, then it probably applies to all ways that art affects us. If you cry at the end of Grave of the Fireflies ( ) it probably means you were emotionally affected by the film. But you probably aren't "genuinely" distraught over the tragedy on screen in the same way you would be if you had personally experienced the starvation and death of loved ones.

Similarly, if one is frightened during the movie Jaws, it doesn't mean that they will necessarily be so "genuinely" frightened by it that they will never swim in the ocean again for fear of overgrown shark attacks (although beach-goers became sparser for a time after the film's release...).

Of course you make some perfectly valid critiques of horror movies [i]in general[/i], but they are all points that hardly need to be made in light of the "90% of anything anywhere anytime is shit" principle. To be fair, maybe within horror the percentage is more like 95%, but it's ridiculous to say that there can't be effective horror films. [/late-nite block of text]

I am all for the suspension of disbelief. However, for me, that typically requires an enticing plot or interesting characters. I believe these are prerequisite to immerse yourself in a film, show, etc. My point is that these are often sacrificed in many horror films (especially modern ones). I can't just suspend my disbelief for the sake of itself, as that is typically what horror films call for.

I guess I mostly agree with what you said, especially the 90% of everything is shit rule, and that it is probably 95% for horror films. That may have been part of my point. Like you said, I was just making a generalization, and I admitted there were classic horror films, and others that are just plain good. However, I think the good horror films were good for other reasons than "they were good/effective at scaring people."

Maybe the main thrust of my argument was that through things like an engaging plot and effective aesthetic presentation horror films [i]can[/i] be genuinely frightening. And yeah, we agree that far too often these more important ingredients are absent, and the focus is on the shock and startle approach.

I felt the need to argue the point because I really do love a well-done horror movie. On the other side of that coin, though, I rarely go to a theater for a horror movie simply because a preview intrigued me. I'll always wait for the Rotten Tomatoes consensus because a bad horror film can be especially atrocious.

So, aside from a few differences, we basically agree. Our approaches are merely different:

Me: Fuck the horror genre. I don't want to have to wade through a flaming cesspool of shit to find the gems.
You: I wouldn't discount the entire genre; you can find several gems in that flaming cesspool of shit.

As far as being genuinely frightened by a good horror film, I suppose it's tricky. Not only to rock a rhyme that's right on time, but also to evaluate the emotions one feels while viewing a film. I suppose the suspense and emotional investment in a well-done horror film can be considered fear. Maybe that's what fear is. I just think there should be an anxiety aspect, when one considers [i]true[/i] fear, that just can't be replicated in a movie (or home) theater.

Hence my proposition that perhaps vicariously experienced emotions (does this even describe the moviegoers feelings?) differ from what we're terming "genuine" emotional experience. But we digress too far, amirite?

S'alright.

I'd also say the Rob Zombie remake of Halloween was fucking beast, so I'm also pretty excited for the new one--not for any "horror" aspect of the films, but to see how far into Michael's psyche we're going to get this time around.

I would rather watch Wes Craven rape his own creations than watch Rob Zombie release another slasher knock-off piece of shit remake. His movies cannot even be considered horror movies because they're not scary as much as they are just fucking disgusting. At least Wes Craven has some tact and grace when making a horror film. Also, what made him think he could remake Halloween?

But [i]another[/i] Nightmare On Elm Street? One was enough and Four made me shit bricks. Like when that chick turned into a cockaroach. I hate cockaroaches so that scared the shit out of me when I first saw it at 5 years old.