Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
 
|
Post by Flynn on Aug 9, 2017 3:44:40 GMT
What do you think is right and wrong with modern horror?
I'm generalizing here, but for me, I don't think modern horror films have enough patience. They tend to rush too quickly for the scare rather than letting tension build. Along the same lines, long takes can build tension, and I would like more films to consider refraining from using edits. Cutting away is kind of comforting.
What's right? Well, I just don't take to modern horror well. There's something about the digital photography, I think, that destroys the atmosphere for me. It's not that it has bad atmosphere, it's just that it's not the right atmosphere for me.
With that said, I think modern horror films show brutality very well, a little too well for my sensibilities. Modern horror also has the technique of how to be scary down to an art. The techniques are so often used that they are becoming a cliche now.
What do you like and dislike about modern horror? And please respond by giving an answer for both right and wrong, not just one.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Aug 9, 2017 6:49:36 GMT
I can't answer about right, since the last modern horror movie I watched was When a Stranger Calls 11 years ago, and everything about it was WRONG. I would love to see a modern horror movie that gets 'it' right, but even the trailers can't deliver on that one that convinces me it's worth the price of admission to find out if they're right.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Aug 11, 2017 4:44:02 GMT
Good question, but not an easy one. I feel like horror changed substantially in the mid to late 90's (some may say "Scream" was a catalyst). Many great horror films are products of low budget ingenuity. "Jaws" is one that springs to mind. Speilberg, regardless of what you think of him, had to figure out how to put a shark on film and develop it as a character. Look at what he did, then look at the hundreds of sharks flying through the air in "Sharknado." Same might be said for just slapping a Shatner mask on Michael Myers, rather than giving him a horribly disfigured face (looking at you Nightmare on Elm Street 2010). These days, it is hard to imagine something that couldn't be transferred to the screen, so I think modern horror falls short in the ingenuity category. There are exceptions. "Paranormal Activity" and "The Blair Witch Project" were shoestring budget films that had more than a spark of ingenuity. A good combo of that plus modern technology is the Norwegian film "Troll Hunter." "Alien" and the recently released "Life" are reasonable examples. No spoilers here. "Alien" and "Life" have similar plots. I'll call "Alien" pre-modern horror in that it has no (at least that I know of) CGI, is primarily character-driven, and has limited abilities to show the monster...resulting in the filmmaker needing to figure something out. "Life" on the other hand, is modern sci-fi horror. For those not familiar, it is sort of a cross between "Alien" and "The Thing" taking place on the International Space Station, not too far from present day. The film itself, made within the last two years, had a good budget and with modern technology, could have put pretty much anything on the screen it wanted. "Life" took place in zero-gravity. A novel concept. It also had a pretty solid cast of only a handful of characters, much like "Alien." "Life" wasn't able to generate as much suspense, but was able to showcase visual and technical filmmaking stuff older horror couldn't. So in this comparison, "Life" stands out for the technical stuff (not overly gory, the effects were pretty convincing), but "Alien" stands out for the suspense and storytelling. On paper, they read very much like the same film. "Alien" couldn't have done what "Life" did, regarding zero G. "Life" could have done what "Alien" did were it to boil the suspense a little longer. Modern horror does not do soundtracks right. Every horror fan can hum a few bars of "Nightmare on Elm Street", probably hammer the theme from "Halloween" out on a piano, and can 'chh chh chh ahh ahh ahh' properly at their favorite summer camp. Post 80's horror is just a bunch of noise, used mainly for jump scares. Listen to something like "Friday the 13th part 3's" soundtrack...its like a twisted Carl Stalling/Warner Bros cartoon...genius. As Flynn mentioned, the crisp digital photography often used, is a misstep for today's horror. There are good ones out there, but there are sooo many bad ones. I could be nostalgic (36 now, lifelong horror fan), but I miss the grit. If it looks clean, you can find the zipper on the monster. Horror has always been a great entry way for filmmakers on a limited budget...but today, it seems like 90 percent of these films rely on cheap CGI. The other 10 percent though...there is a lot of potential there. I also think horror missteps by crossing the genre with metal/softcore porn. I'm all for TnA, but it gets ridiculous sometimes. Just some rambling thoughts. Good topic.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 19:07:13 GMT
Yes, you make some good points. Lack of tension build-up and a too polished cinematography, which affects the atmosphere, are big issues for me. They also use too much CGI and other weird camera effects. I also think the stories, especially the endings, have become too contrived. They all want a twist ending like The Sixth Sense or The Others or Saw. Because of that, we also get unoriginal movies that are all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Aug 12, 2017 1:39:51 GMT
If we're talking about the ones from the 2000's and 2010's, then...Here are 3 things I like and don't like about modern horror:
What I Like:
1. How they tend to take themselves more seriously, as horror movies are supposed to be taken that way, like in the olden days.
Ex. The Conjuring, Curse of Chucky, The Ring
2. How most horror films don't show much because they want to keep the "monsters" in the shadows, which keep you guessing making it more suspenseful and atmospheric.
Ex. It Follows, Paranormal Activity, The Babadook
3. Plenty of them end off on a cliffhanger, which ultimately gets you excited for the sequel (that's if it's actually good).
Ex. Insidious, Dead Silence, Saw
What I Dislike:
1. How many of them rely on jumpscares, mainly being fakeouts.
Ex. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010, Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension, Ouija
2. Not enough memorable villains or icons from this generation, unlike the ones from the 80's. Sure, we have Jigsaw and Annabelle, but can you really consider them to be ACTUAL VILLAINS/KILLERS?
3. Way too many paranormal/demonic/supernatural horror movies. Yeah they can turn out really solid like Insidious and The Conjuring, but I prefer my horror movies to be fun and entertaining, like the slashers.
Overall, I don't consider modern horror bad since it's its own kind, I just don't prefer it to oldschool horror. That's just me, though.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Aug 12, 2017 20:01:48 GMT
Jump scares were part of what I was referring to when I said that modern movies have perfected the techniques of how to be scary. I get that there is a difference between fear generated through situation and the shock from a sudden loud sound, but creating a jump scare by getting really quiet and then being loud does introduce tension, even if you see the scare coming.
The jump scare is also something that is part of many classics. Halloween has several, as does Friday the 13th (contemporary reviews knock the film for them). Even classic films like Cat People and Creature from the Black Lagoon have jump scares. So what's different today?
I suspect that people pick on jump scares as an easy target more than that they don't like them in principle. Perhaps it's because people aren't connecting with the film's themselves. We have a tendency to be forgiving of faults when we are getting something we like. Maybe people are disliking the film for some hard-to-identify reason and are just latching onto jump scares as the reason.
I'm not a huge fan of them either, but I'm also not willing to condemn them yet. I think it's all in how they are used and how frequently they occur. I tend to prefer them in less-serious horror films. A good startle can be fun if the film doesn't have a fully serious tone (like in '80s slashers), but when they are put into a film to be scary, that's when people hate them (I think).
Let me know if you disagree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 2:03:07 GMT
Everything right: see Oculus.
|
|
