How would you make scary movies "scary" again

[Evan the Shaggy]

I was thinking about this the other night, looking at most of the recent horror movies to come out and hearing how everyone doesn't really think they're up to snuff with the horror movies of old.

So I thought I'd make this thread where we can throw ideas out there about how to make horror movies scary again.

Here's a few of mine:

1.) Knock it off with the PG-13. Yeah, the Ring was a successful PG-13 horror movie, both financially and artistically. But honestly, for every Ring, there's about 20-30 stinkers. Horror movies should be, realistically, R rated movies. You can't be holding back punches if you're trying to give people the willies.

2.) No more "shock" scares. The focus needs to go back to making truly terrifying movies that haunt people for days rather than jolt them in their seats for half a second.

3.) No music. Now this idea is kind of radical, but I would like to see it in a horror movie. Have absolutely no music whatsoever in the movie. I think this could work damn well if handled right.

[jason hissong]

I was thinking about this the other night, looking at most of the recent horror movies to come out and hearing how everyone doesn't really think they're up to snuff with the horror movies of old.

So I thought I'd make this thread where we can throw ideas out there about how to make horror movies scary again.

Here's a few of mine:

1.) Knock it off with the PG-13. Yeah, the Ring was a successful PG-13 horror movie, both financially and artistically. But honestly, for every Ring, there's about 20-30 stinkers. Horror movies should be, realistically, R rated movies. You can't be holding back punches if you're trying to give people the willies.

2.) No more "shock" scares. The focus needs to go back to making truly terrifying movies that haunt people for days rather than jolt them in their seats for half a second.

3.) No music. Now this idea is kind of radical, but I would like to see it in a horror movie. Have absolutely no music whatsoever in the movie. I think this could work damn well if handled right.

i would argue that the best scary movies utilize music to enhance the effect.

[Bill!]

Scary movies are too subjective. No matter what method you use, someone is going to call it cheap or overdone.

[Taki Soma]

more clowns and evil kids!

[Ray G.]

The focus should be more on the suspense and scares, and less on the bloodshed. The goal of a horror movie should be to unnerve you, not to send you running for the toilet. Gore has its place, but slasher-exploitation films are not true horror. Fucking Hostel. :mad:

[Evan the Shaggy]

i would argue that the best scary movies utilize music to enhance the effect.

True but I was speaking from a strictly experimental standpoint. I'd love to see a movie that had no music playing during it. Really try to disconnect the viewer from thinking its a movie.

[Fourthman]

I'd like to see a quieter horror film. Something done in the style of say, "In The Bedroom" but with a higher body count.

[Gregory]

Stop with the remakes, for one. If we know what the highlights of the original are, we're prepared for the shocks. That kills horror.

[Pigpen]

I agree with 1 and 2, but not 3. I think music is essential. See Halloween for proof of that.

Also, cut out the gratuitous gore. It's become boring, and lost its shock appeal long ago. Ramp up the suspense, but let the viewer's imagination provide most of the payoff. For the most part, nothing you show can compete with what the human imagination can conjur up. Halloween is another good example of this. There's hardly any blood in that movie at all, and I still find it scary.

And lastly, stop with the lame, unnecessary sequels. They may make money (sometimes), but, by and large, they're not worth a shit.

[Evan the Shaggy]

I agree with 1 and 2, but not 3. I think music is essential. See Halloween for proof of that.

Also, cut out the gratuitous gore. It's become boring, and lost its shock appeal long ago. Ramp up the suspense, but let the viewer's imagination provide most of the payoff. For the most part, nothing you show can compete with what the human imagination can conjur up. Halloween is another good example of this. There's hardly any blood in that movie at all, and I still find it scary.

And lastly, stop with the lame, unnecessary sequels. They may make money (sometimes), but, by and large, they're not worth a shit.

Its funny, because Texas Chainsaw Massacre is considered one of the bloodiest movies of all time, yet there's barely any blood in it.

[JamesV]

The focus should be more on the suspense and scares, and less on the bloodshed. The goal of a horror movie should be to unnerve you, not to send you running for the toilet. Gore has its place, but slasher-exploitation films are not true horror. Fucking Hostel. :mad:

Hey, now. Don't be confusing Slasher-Exploitation with Torture-Porn exploitation!

And the problem with a lot of scary movies is there is so little effort made to empathize with people that the scares don't matter. A lot of the best of the genre put us right there with the people (at least the main character) and as long as we're not invested, scares and gore are meaningless.

[Gregory]

Its funny, because Texas Chainsaw Massacre is considered one of the bloodiest movies of all time, yet there's barely any blood in it.

You know what gets me about that film? The sound effects. When the guy takes a mallet shot to the head, man, that's disturbing.

[Jef UK]

2.) No more "shock" scares. The focus needs to go back to making truly terrifying movies that haunt people for days rather than jolt them in their seats for half a second.


I think that any good horror movie has some shock scares within the terrifying movie that haunt people for days.

That said, I never really think movies are scary because I know they are movies. I may get in to the movie while I'm watching it, but that's it.

[The Human Target]

I think horror movies should actually try and make the audience care about the main character(s) for once. To me, that would make everything that would happen to them scarier.

Also, no more grey stop motion children.

[Ben]

More cats jumping out of nowhere.

[LazyComix]

I know this would never happen... but a buget cap of like 50K... no more CGI and unknown actors only.... that stuff takes the scare right out of it for me.

The audience can imagine whats going on in a much scarier way than CG can... Jessica Beil looks like Jessica Beil or whatever WB actress prances around for an hour and a half. The original Chainsaw was so much better than any of the recent remakes its amazing. Get back to basics.

[DAVE]

I would get rid of all the cliches for starters. No nubile young starlets being killed. No scary sets. Make the horror take place in plain daylight. Don't make it stylized. Horror movies seldom scare me because they look like movies. There's no sense of danger. Make the characters who die truely unpredictable. Have the protagonist die in the first act, carry the aftermath out for the rest of movie.

[thatguylobo]

The focus should be more on the suspense and scares, and less on the bloodshed. The goal of a horror movie should be to unnerve you, not to send you running for the toilet. Gore has its place, but slasher-exploitation films are not true horror. Fucking Hostel. :mad:

God, Hostel was barely even that. It was just people being tortured for an hour and a half. Look, I have no problem with slasher flicks as horror movies. Look at the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original, which admittedly didn't have much onscreen violence, but what it did was handled excellently. Girl on the meathook? Un-fucking-pleasant.) or Nightmare on Elm Street 1. Both good horror flicks, both slasher flicks. Slasher flicks have their place. They can be scary, fun, or at least dumb enough to be funny (My friend and I went to the Black Christmas remake last month, and had a great time.) It's these stupid "Let's watch some vaguely attractive teenagers be mutilated" movies that bug me. I watched Hostel, and I will say this for it. They pulled off the early slow burn pretty well, but then it just got nasty and stupid, and I felt bad for the girl with the squirty eyeball. Horror movies need to go back to not relying only on gore and stupid one liners (That worked in Evil Dead 2. That's it.). That's not to say that there isn't a place for violence. These are horror flicks, for Christ's sake. I'm just saying try something different. The Ring did something like that with the disturbing imagery from the video. I didn't particularly care for the Ring, but that video stuff was unplesant. But the neat thing was that you weren't sure why it was unplesant. Another example, The Wicker Man (the original, not the stupid remake.) especially the ending was disturbing and weird, and I just think there isn't enough of that in horror movies anymore. Granted, it isn't terribly easy to pull off, but when you can, it's amazing how effective it can be. The Descent, which is the last new horror movie I can actually remember enjoying because it was scary was excellent. Not because of the evil mole people, (which admittedly were kind of neat.) but because of how claustrophobic the whole thing was. I watched that in the theater, and spent most of it squirming in my chair.


Also: More tentacled Lovecraftian horror, but that's more of a personal preference.

[Akira]

I actually have been talking to a filmmaker friend about making a horror film and we came up with a lot of these same suggestions. Although, I think music has its place as part of the overall soundscape. I would definately say no "licenced" or "familier" music. Hearing a popular song can give the viewer a sence of familierity and safety that can act as a psychological escape hatch. Hell, I would even try to stay away from standard time signatures in the score. anything in 4/4 will have the same effect. Put in some 5/4 or 10/8 to really fuck with their expectations.

[Mr. E!]

The focus should be more on the suspense and scares, and less on the bloodshed. The goal of a horror movie should be to unnerve you, not to send you running for the toilet. Gore has its place, but slasher-exploitation films are not true horror. Fucking Hostel. :mad:

I'm with Ray on this one. Also, David makes some great points about breaking down the stereotypes that have become so ingrained into the genre.

I can think of very few movies that have put more genuine fear and tension into me than Rear Window. No blood, but those last 5 minutes...ooofah.

The recent horror movie that put the fear into me was Audition. Was there gore? Yeah, there was, but it was appropriate to the situation and the character. And it was a slow build to that climax. That's what really made it work for me. It was a slow, 75 minute build up, and I knew something was going to happen, but I never thought they would take it as far as they did. And that's what made it terrifying.

[J.D. Lombardi]

I was thinking about this the other night, looking at most of the recent horror movies to come out and hearing how everyone doesn't really think they're up to snuff with the horror movies of old.

So I thought I'd make this thread where we can throw ideas out there about how to make horror movies scary again.

This is a tough one to me, because I've been saying for a long time that at least here in the States, Horror is a dead film genre. 90% of what has been coming out has either been a remake of older American scary films or adaptations of Japanese horror. As a filmie this is really infuriating! Even the flick I'm most looking forward to, the upcoming Grindhouse, is a "homage" to older scare fare. The last original, successful Horror film to my knowledge was the original Blair Witch and you see what happened when they tried to spin that one off. (it is even debatable to many whether or not it was scary to begin with)

Add to all this, that movies almost try to specifically appeal to one age range, like MTV youth horror like the Final Destination movies or Saw movies, etc...or they're just too damn politically correct to be taken to true horrific scenes/situations. Think about all those old creepy Satan films from the 70's...people just really seem to be afraid to even make this sort of film anymore.

The revisionist film Scream did something great in it's first (and best) installment. Blair Witch made us fear going into the woods. Someone else needs to come along and turn the genre upon it's head.

For my eternal creep, I watch the original Exorcist or The Shining and really...they're not too hard on visuals. So it isn't all eye candy.

[/my two cents]

[UltimateFactor]

We need somthing with the feel of "It" and "The Thing". I loved those two. But honestly what we really need is somthing that really makes us feel the evil. Somthing that gives you the shivers not just because of anticipation, shock or things like that. We need over the top stuff like baby eaters, guys doing truly unspeakable things for a REASON. Not because they are crazy, inbred, nuts or just fucked up for the hell of it. Somthing so dark and twisted that you feel disgusted for going to watch it when it's all over and makes you want to go back and see it again anyway. Think I'll get to writing.....

[Akira]

I'm with Ray on this one. Also, David makes some great points about breaking down the stereotypes that have become so ingrained into the genre.
Agreed. The cliches also make the view overly familier with the formula and can give them a sence of safety as well. Dump that noise.


I can think of very few movies that have put more genuine fear and tension into me than Rear Window. No blood, but those last 5 minutes...ooofah.
True, but that's more of a suspence flick, it's not fair to put it in the same category.

[Dusto]

Blair Witch had no music, I believe.

How was Slither? I've been thinking of renting that.

[Akira]

How was Slither? I've been thinking of renting that.
It's great, but it's no horror flick, anymore than Tremors, ED II or Army of Darkness were.

[Mr. E!]

We need somthing with the feel of "It" and "The Thing". I loved those two. But honestly what we really need is somthing that really makes us feel the evil. Somthing that gives you the shivers not just because of anticipation, shock or things like that. We need over the top stuff like baby eaters, guys doing truly unspeakable things for a REASON. Not because they are crazy, inbred, nuts or just fucked up for the hell of it. Somthing so dark and twisted that you feel disgusted for going to watch it when it's all over and makes you want to go back and see it again anyway. Think I'll get to writing.....

I think that's why Silence of the Lambs worked so well as a horror movie. It was smart, it had a good cast, and it didn't play down to the audience. Hannibal Lechter...you don't see him do any violence for the 1st 90 minutes, but there is the threat of menace around him. So much so that in the scene where his fingers brush against Clarice's there was an audible gasp from the audience. And when we finally do see him kill, it is not unexpected, but it is still shocking.
They lose that in the sequel. The idea that he eats people is more frightening than seeing him feed Ray Liotta his own brain. He becomes a caricature.

[Mr. E!]

True, but that's more of a suspence flick, it's not fair to put it in the same category.

You're not wrong on this...but it is this kind of build up that I really like to see in a horror movie.

[Travis M. Bierwagen]

I'm more of a fan of supernatural horror movies. The idea being that if this was happening to you there's nothing you could do to stop it. The original Poltergeist still freaks me out and it's only rated PG.

Unlike the typical slasher thing where it's just some guy in a mask with a knife/hatchet/chainsaw/etc. The first Scream movie gave me the creeps upon my initial viewing but that had a lot to do with the phone calls & the fact that this dude is watching you, knows a lot about you... but you don't know where the fuck he is!

[Ryan Elliott]

More Werewolves, Vampires, and Monsters(ala Frankenstein's Monster).


I'm sick and fucking tired of blue/gray twitchy ghosts.

[Ryan Elliott]

Oh, and supernatural Zombies. Not this disease/virus shit.

[A.Huerta]

i would argue that the best scary movies utilize music to enhance the effect.

You know it's coming when they do that. No music could def. work. Did for Blair Witch.

[Rivka]

Wow, excellent discussion. And one dear to my heart. I think everything I've read is a valid point.

I would add to what everyone has already said, CGI. Over-the-top special effects. It's getting worse and worse. Subtle, eerie, suggestive moments can be so much more terrifying! Instead, it seems each new horror film -- especially ghost films -- try to amp up the special effects so that it becomes a kind of amusement-park ride instead of a horror film.

For example, compare THE HAUNTING, the original with Julie Harris, to the remake. The first scared the poopy out of me, and still does. The second started out to be frightening, with the great Lili Taylor taking the Harris role, but it soon became just another amusement-park ride through a haunted house. Too much, too much. You have to stop and admire the effects of course. Which means the movie's bubble has busted.

Someone already mentioned THE WICKER MAN. The remake is just awful. The original is unique, one of the great horror films. This is a particular subgenre of horror -- bringing pagan and ancient gods, goddesses, rites, and rituals into modern times. I guess Lovecraft was one of the first to do it in literature. Remember in the original how the camera lingered on a scene of some kind of snail-like creature mating -- and the music was so creepy and unnerving.

Other great horror films that rely on almost no fancy special effects, but rather pacing, camera work, actors, writing, set design, and music, include DON'T LOOK NOW, and PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK.

Don't get me wrong, I like some special effects. I like seeing the ghostly images and the effects of supernatural activity. THE UNINVITED, a ghost story starring Gail Russell as a girl haunted by both her mother and adoptive mother, is a good horror film, (but being made in the 1940s, had to have humor and a happy ending). The ghost scenes are genuinely chilling, though.

Another example is AN AMERICAN HAUNTING. Man, that could have been such a good film. The real story is out there. This is a real legend, or story, it might even be history if you believe in that sort of thing; but they had to do the CGI and pound the special effects into our heads. It wasn't scary at all, in my opinion.

In the film with Michael Keaton, WHITE NOISE, I was mildly scared. I watched it in the wee hours of the morning a couple of years ago, and was entertained. Then, I made the mistake of watching one of the special features on electronic voice recordings; the real-world, real stuff. Recordings of ghostly voices. I was freaked out. The real, matter-of-fact special feature on the WHITE NOISE dvd was scarier than the movie.

Which is why I find the tv show "Ghosthunters" the scariest ghost stories of all. But what is it about real ghost-hunting that is so frightening? Because people are matter-of-fact, average people, and they encounter these little hints and shoves and nudges from the other side. Not over-the-top CGI pyrotechnics.

.

[Dr. Omega]

It's a tough sell nowadays. When things like the Sadam hanging video can be seen by anyone with a broadband connection and it considered socially acceptable to be seen on the news, it's hard to be scarier in the movies.

I agree--less music. The Resident Evil game has some truely scary moments where the sound kicks off and all you hear is blood dripping from down the hall..

Agree - Less blood. Blood does not = scary. Too much in a film and you become desensitized.

Agree-- no remakes. Not only do you know the ending, but you can find it easy on the internet as well. Can you imagine something like Soylent Green now? Everyone knows the end. There is no shock value at all.

Less Supernatural -- CGI, no matter how good, is just not scary.

Agree -- less PG-13. Watering down horror to early teens just isn't scary.

Scary needs to be something everyone would fear or can relate to. It needs to be a credible threat. One guy with a knife doesn't really cut it anymore (no pun intended). Things like Texas Chainsaw or House of 1000 Corpses are good for the trapped in the boonies with a group of psychos work pretty good, but then they get weird, like the McFarlane-esque characters in 1000 Corpses.

Shock scares are good, I think, as long as they are not predicatable. Twighlight Zone endings are good. Also, sorely lacking from most films today is character depth. You don't care about the characters. The are just cannon fodder and you know it from the first 10 minutes. That is one thing Descent had going for it. They actually fleshed out some of the characters. You weren't sure who was going to die and who wasn't. You liked them and WANTED them to live. Films like Hostel and Blair Witch--the characters act really stupid and seem to have no sense of self preservation. You are almost wishing the get killed for sheer stupidity..


Dr. Ω

[A.Huerta]

I agree--less music. The Resident Evil game has some truely scary moments where the sound kicks off and all you hear is blood dripping from down the hall.

Thats the Resident Evil movie I wanted.. :cry:

[Rivka]

This is a tough one to me, because I've been saying for a long time that at least here in the States, Horror is a dead film genre. 90% of what has been coming out has either been a remake of older American scary films or adaptations of Japanese horror. As a filmie this is really infuriating! Even the flick I'm most looking forward to, the upcoming Grindhouse, is a "homage" to older scare fare. The last original, successful Horror film to my knowledge was the original Blair Witch and you see what happened when they tried to spin that one off. (it is even debatable to many whether or not it was scary to begin with)

Add to all this, that movies almost try to specifically appeal to one age range, like MTV youth horror like the Final Destination movies or Saw movies, etc...or they're just too damn politically correct to be taken to true horrific scenes/situations. Think about all those old creepy Satan films from the 70's...people just really seem to be afraid to even make this sort of film anymore.

The revisionist film Scream did something great in it's first (and best) installment. Blair Witch made us fear going into the woods. Someone else needs to come along and turn the genre upon it's head.

For my eternal creep, I watch the original Exorcist or The Shining and really...they're not too hard on visuals. So it isn't all eye candy.

[/my two cents]

Some good points. The proliferation of remakes is definitely diluting the genre, for two reasons. First, the remakes usually are unevenly written, very expensive, overly dependent on special effects, and designed from the start to exploit the genre and make money, rather than tell a good story that will haunt people for days. And second, the remakes subplant, obliterate, seem to belittle the originals they're based on, originals that are usually far, far better films but might be in black and white, or lack high-falutin' special effects.

The one excepton is THE RING, which is a worthy remake of RINGU, and terrifying. (On the other hand, DARK WATER, even with Jennifer Connolly in it, is laughable. I recommend to everyone interested, watch the Japanese original instead.)

Your point about "political correctness" or rather, FEAR of sparking a right-wing fundamentalist mail-in campaign is something I hadn't thought of before. Great horror literature and films manipulate our fears, including our fears of breaking taboos. If you can't make movies about religous themes (unless it makes the church look good and follows church teachings), then we've lost a significant subgenre of horror films. What did you think of Polanski's THE NINTH GATE? (I thought it was a well-made film, of high quality, but not truly frightening. Kind of predictable.) Compare that with ROSEMARY'S BABY, I think one of the best horror movies ever made, and I think your point is validated. Could a director at the top of his form, like Roman Polanski, have made a movie like ROSEMARY'S BABY today? I wonder.

BLAIR WITCH scared me. The SHINING scared me. (Despite King's grumbling, the Kubrick version unsettles me every time I watch it, no matter how many times I've seen it.) SIXTH SENSE scared me in a quiet way.

But I completely agree with you, someone has to come along and inject a new dimension into horror films. I think it might be someone like Aronofsky, whose film PI was almost a horror film, and definitely scary and disturbing. (I haven't seen THE FOUNTAIN, so I can't comment on it.) When great directors like Peter Weir, William Friedkin, Stanley Kubrick, and Nicolas Roeg turned their attention to the genre in the 1970s, they brought a new sensibility. On the other hand, BLAIR WITCH proves outsiders, first-time film-makers, can revolutionaize the genre. And with so much attention paid to independent films these days, and the advent of cable television, there is more of a chance that these films will be successful.

Oh, and I wanted to mention DONNY DARKO as another disturbing, scifi-weird film that is almost a kind of horror film, in the way its scifi themes deal with life and death and haunting (the psychological kind as well as the other kind).

[Princesa]

I'd make the movies scary again by hiring some of those Japanese directors and writers because they are doing some of the best horror stuff out there.

[evilgenius]

Get some good actors. Movies like Silence of the Lamb(s?) made the cut because they just had a creepy couple of main attractions.

[cmoney]

I don't know what would make them scarier, but for me personally, I could live without further remakes (most especially of the Asian horror films), PG-13 horror films, and torture porn. I saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning this weekend...what a piece of shit. Somehow, someway, I just want horror to be interesting again.

[Akira]

I'd make the movies scary again by hiring some of those Japanese directors and writers because they are doing some of the best horror stuff out there.

I disagree. I think a lot of the j-horror out there is just as cliche and formulaic as American stuff. It's just that the West isn't as familiar with those trappings and cliches yet. Watch one J-horror flick and you've pretty much watched em all.

[J. R. Scherer]

I think good scripts, directors, and performers are the way to go, myself. You get the right people behind and in front of the cameras and that'll make all the difference in the world.

I have no problem with gore, per se, but I do have a problem with a movie's focus being torture and suffering. Sadistic stuff like Hostel does nothing for me.

[Father Viridian]

I agree with 1 and 2, but not 3. I think music is essential. See Halloween for proof of that.

Also, cut out the gratuitous gore. It's become boring, and lost its shock appeal long ago. Ramp up the suspense, but let the viewer's imagination provide most of the payoff. For the most part, nothing you show can compete with what the human imagination can conjur up. Halloween is another good example of this. There's hardly any blood in that movie at all, and I still find it scary.

And lastly, stop with the lame, unnecessary sequels. They may make money (sometimes), but, by and large, they're not worth a shit.
Bravo, sir! BRAVO!!

[Icaruss]

Global Warming documentaries.

[Jerome Gibbons]

Character development. Lots and lots of it. Have the characters seem like real people. Then it's all the more tragic/scary when they die, or are faced with a difficult situation.

No gore/torture-fests. That's fucking annoying. I hate when movies like that are promoted as "the scariest movie in recent years!" or crap like that. That's not horror. It's butchery meant to make people feel sick.

[c. page]

my own problem is that slasher flicks don't scare me. i grew up on them, and really, once you've seen one, you've seen them all. (although i did like house of 1000 corpses, particularly for the ending)

the key is characterization, as a lot of you have noted. and i'm in agreement that less can be more. watch the first alien movie for a good example of this. creepy or disturbing imagery can go pretty far, but it's far more interesting to imply something and let the audience fuck with its own mind.

(and i so completely wish they'd made the resident evil movies like the games. hell, the games were cinematic enough as it is, they could've done really interesting things there)

[SAVETHEB]

3.) No music. Now this idea is kind of radical, but I would like to see it in a horror movie. Have absolutely no music whatsoever in the movie. I think this could work damn well if handled right.

i think its impossible. give me an example of how you think this could work.

[Jerome Gibbons]

(and i so completely wish they'd made the resident evil movies like the games. hell, the games were cinematic enough as it is, they could've done really interesting things there)

Yeah. The first game (particularly the GameCube remake) has a very movie-like feel to it. Its plot is simple to follow, and there's a decent variety of monsters for a first foray into a potential movie franchise. They could have easily turned that game into a movie. Easily.

[Boris the Blade]

One with likable characters that get a good hour of developin'.

Imagine they started mowing down the cast of "Almost Famous" half way through the movie? I would have been ruined.

[A.Huerta]

i think its impossible. give me an example of how you think this could work.

http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?p=2736543&postcount=31

[The Hodag]

i think its impossible. give me an example of how you think this could work.

I'm a big fan of music in horror movies, but I liked what they did with Blair Witch, and if I'm not mistaken, there are large sections of two of my old-school faves - The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby - that go without music. Yeah, yeah, I know Exorcist has the famous tubular bells, but I believe there are many more scenes carried solely on the strength of the actors, script, and cinematography. And with Rosemary's Baby, I specifically remember that the first time I saw it, it felt like I was watching a really good play. Tons of dialogue and character, minimal music.

[SAVETHEB]

I'm a big fan of music in horror movies, but I liked what they did with Blair Witch, and if I'm not mistaken, there are large sections of two of my old-school faves - The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby - that go without music. Yeah, yeah, I know Exorcist has the famous tubular bells, but I believe there are many more scenes carried solely on the strength of the actors, script, and cinematography. And with Rosemary's Baby, I specifically remember that the first time I saw it, it felt like I was watching a really good play. Tons of dialogue and character, minimal music.

well, i started to think about it, and i suppose it can be done. i dont remember there being any music in the original TCM and thats pretty damn scary.

[The Hodag]

Oh, and while PG-13 has its limits, I'm not really buying the notion that it's one of the big problems with horror movies of late. In fact, a lot of relatively recent favorites for me were PG-13: The Ring, The Sixth Sense, Signs, The Mothman Prophecies, The Others, and even the hit-and-miss The Forgotten. The one thing these movies do have in common (beyond the rating) is that they had characters I cared about (or at least thought were more interesting the usual slasher fodder).

Where I think discussions of horror go awry sometimes is in the notion that for a scary movie to be good, it has to really, really scare you. Like, make you piss yourself in fear and check behind the shower curtain in the can for the next year. But as much as I like to be scared, it's by no means the only thing I want from a horror movie. Rosemary's Baby and Pi trade more in paranoia than outright scares, but I love 'em. Something Wicked This Way Comes is as much a story about fathers, sons and regrets as it is a horror story - nothin' wrong with that at all. Doesn't mean we can't consider it horror. And Mothman Prophecies was more eerie than scary, but it wasn't a failing. It was just the kind of horror they wanted to explore.

I think the only rule previously mentioned I think it'd be good to set in stone is the "no CGI" one...and even that should maybe have some exceptions. The Ring used its CGI smartly and only in small doses. But when the big monster is CGI? Or when it's used constantly like in the remake of The Haunting? Vile. Absolute death when it comes to the suspension of disbelief.

[Evan the Shaggy]

Kind of going off topic but I kind of dug the Final Destination movies to be honest. They presented an original idea and created some of the scariest damn accident scenes ever filmed.

[Jerome Gibbons]

Kind of going off topic but I kind of dug the Final Destination movies to be honest. They presented an original ideas and presented some of the scariest damn accident scenes ever filmed.

I liked the first one. The idea that Death is killing people seemed kinda nifty. The second one felt like it had a thinner plot put together as an excuse to showcase violent death scenes, and I never saw the last one.

[Evan the Shaggy]

I liked the first one. The idea that Death is killing people seemed kinda nifty. The second one felt like it had a thinner plot put together as an excuse to showcase violent death scenes, and I never saw the last one.

I saw the first five minutes of 3 and man, the roller coaster scene is pretty tough to watch when shit hits the fan.

[Sackhead]

I think the shock scares are getting too obvious. Lately, I've been trying to count the number of seconds in horror movies between where she opens the door into the blackness and when the cat jumps out. It usually hovers around 7 seconds.

However, shock scares can be done differently. Remember the two way mirror in Resident Evil 2? You have to let the audience get complacent and then release the horror. It's more likely to leave an impression if the audience is slumped back in their chairs rather than sitting on the edge.

[alexia]

The issue is not how to make scary movies scary again. The issue is that we have been so over exposed to the horrors of reality through mass media that it is difficult to shock us. This is why special effects and gore simply does not do the trick any more, but these things are still fun.

Every once in a while, there will be that film, episode, comic, or book that will test our limit of our humanity such as Silence of the Lambs, Perfect Blue, Episode 2 of Season Four of the X-files, and Monster.

There isn't a perfect formula. When it comes to the scare factor, it comes down to the basic, instinct.

[The Hodag]

Kind of going off topic but I kind of dug the Final Destination movies to be honest. They presented an original idea and created some of the scariest damn accident scenes ever filmed.

Haven't watched the sequels, but I got a kick out of the first one. Kinda B-grade, but in a good, watchable way, and like you said: pretty original concept.

Even without having seen the sequels, though, I'll second the motion from a few pages back that horror movies generally shouldn't have sequels. So much about the genre is based on discovering the unknown - usually accomplished by the end of the initial movie - and no sequel can recreate that sense of discovery. That's why they have to resort to replays of familiar scares and cheesy one-upsmanship.

So now I've got two rules I can get behind:

1) Minimize or eliminate CGI
2) No sequels

[The Hodag]

I think the shock scares are getting too obvious. Lately, I've been trying to count the number of seconds in horror movies between where she opens the door into the blackness and when the cat jumps out. It usually hovers around 7 seconds.

S'true. But...

Something I've enjoyed about a few modern horror flicks is when they hit you with a scare truly out of nowhere. An example - really, the best example of its type I've seen - is in The Ring. The scene, of course, is when Naomi Watts is at the girl's funeral, and I think the way it goes is that she asks someone how the girl died. Then BAM! Out of nowhere the movie flashes back to the discovery of her body as a door is opened and her head lolls out with that horrific, distended jaw. I'm sure there was a sudden musical sting to accompany it, but otherwise, there was no musical build up, really no conceivable way the viewer could have braced for that sudden scary-as-fuck image.

And here's the effect such a scene has: suddenly NO scene in the movie feels safe. Most horror movies have "safe" moments when there's just exposition going on or the whole group of protagonists are gathered, but when a scare could occur at any time, even those scenes have me on edge. It's a good feeling. Pins and needles.

I also remember noticing the effect in the much-hated sequel to Blair Witch, which I actually enjoyed for the most part.

[Jerome Gibbons]

I've sort of come to the conclusion that if you make a good horror/thriller/suspense/the type of thing that keeps people on their toes movie, the best thing you can do for a sequel is introduce some action so that it feels at least a little fresh. :) See for instance Alien and Aliens, or...hell, I dunno, The Terminator and T2.

[J. R. Scherer]

Haven't watched the sequels, but I got a kick out of the first one. Kinda B-grade, but in a good, watchable way, and like you said: pretty original concept.

Even without having seen the sequels, though, I'll second the motion from a few pages back that horror movies generally shouldn't have sequels. So much about the genre is based on discovering the unknown - usually accomplished by the end of the initial movie - and no sequel can recreate that sense of discovery. That's why they have to resort to replays of familiar scares and cheesy one-upsmanship.

So now I've got two rules I can get behind:

1) Minimize or eliminate CGI
2) No sequels

I think that the Final Destination sequels are better than the original, by far. They're definitely comedies. Black and gory comedies. Each death is very definitely a punchline.

[Jerome Gibbons]

I think that the Final Destination sequels are better than the original, by far. They're definitely comedies. Black and gory comedies. Each death is very definitely a punchline.

That's a good way of looking at it.

[c. page]

I think the shock scares are getting too obvious. Lately, I've been trying to count the number of seconds in horror movies between where she opens the door into the blackness and when the cat jumps out. It usually hovers around 7 seconds.

However, shock scares can be done differently. Remember the two way mirror in Resident Evil 2? You have to let the audience get complacent and then release the horror. It's more likely to leave an impression if the audience is slumped back in their chairs rather than sitting on the edge.

that is an excellent example of how to do a shock scare. that scared the fuck out of me when playing that game.

[Sackhead]

S'true. But...

Something I've enjoyed about a few modern horror flicks is when they hit you with a scare truly out of nowhere. An example - really, the best example of its type I've seen - is in The Ring. The scene, of course, is when Naomi Watts is at the girl's funeral, and I think the way it goes is that she asks someone how the girl died. Then BAM! Out of nowhere the movie flashes back to the discovery of her body as a door is opened and her head lolls out with that horrific, distended jaw. I'm sure there was a sudden musical sting to accompany it, but otherwise, there was no musical build up, really no conceivable way the viewer could have braced for that sudden scary-as-fuck image.

And here's the effect such a scene has: suddenly NO scene in the movie feels safe. Most horror movies have "safe" moments when there's just exposition going on or the whole group of protagonists are gathered, but when a scare could occur at any time, even those scenes have me on edge. It's a good feeling. Pins and needles.

I also remember noticing the effect in the much-hated sequel to Blair Witch, which I actually enjoyed for the most part.

I can see your point, but I've only seen that movie once very long ago, so I don't recall the transition. But I like how you put it, "No scene feels safe". And perhaps that is what it takes. A lull in the beginning to give the viewer a false sense of security. Then WHAM! Hit them when they least expect it.

Going away from the shock scares though, the original "The Haunting" really gave me that eerie feeling. It was all about the ambient sounds without any real shocks. Contrary to the shitty sequel, the biggest special effect in the original was the rubber door.

[alexia]

I've sort of come to the conclusion that if you make a good horror/thriller/suspense/the type of thing that keeps people on their toes movie, the best thing you can do for a sequel is introduce some action so that it feels at least a little fresh. :) See for instance Alien and Aliens, or...hell, I dunno, The Terminator and T2.

I actually think Aliens is actually better than the original Alien. I think it is because the heroine doesn't simply survive, but kicks a~~.:twisted:

[The Hodag]

I think that the Final Destination sequels are better than the original, by far. They're definitely comedies. Black and gory comedies. Each death is very definitely a punchline.

Huh!

Well, rules do have their exceptions, so maybe I'll Netflix them boys. Even with the first one, there was a lot of black comedy as people inadvertantly kept setting themselves up to die, and that was one of the things I liked about it. I remember cracking up at the dude in the bathroom who lucks past, like, half a dozen near-death scenarios before he kicks the bucket.