Are we a dying breed?

[spooknov]

I went to Blockbuster with full intentions of renting a scare-the-pants-off-you-can't-sleep-for-a-week movie. Instead, I came home with two cheesy, low-budget movies.

I went to the book store to find a scare-the-pants-off-you-can't-put-it-down-it's-too-dang-good book. Instead, I re-read a classic horror book by DK. (whom I've noticed as of late is going more mainstream. >: )

So, are us true-blue horror fans a dying breed? Where have all the chillers and thrillers gone?

Signed,

Scare me PLEASE!

[MacAl Stone]

Oh I don't think we're a dying breed at all, Spook--but the best horror has always happened at the fringes of respectability. The scariest stuff is the stuff that pushes the envelope, and moves back the boundaries of what's acceptable.

I kind of worry when it starts to look like it's getting too mainstream :teeth

[LiamJackson]

Jenna, thank you, thank you, than you!

More to come on the issue of dwindling numbers of horror writers! For now, Keep the faith!

[veingloree]

M<ainstream horror is dwindling, but I think the fan-base is the same. I am not sure why these cycles happen in the horror market. Lunar cycles?

[HConn]

Not mainstream pedigree--it was the sudden appearance of several horror writers with popular appeal. Those writers made so much money that other, lesser writers jumped into the field and began filling it with crap.

Also, a group of writers decided that horror needed to be gory and gruesome. Your average summer reader trying out a new author only has to stumble on a couple of these nauseating books to stop trying new horror authors for good. They'll keep buying King and Koontz and Rice and whoever, but E. Merging Author? Nope.

A little frustrating.

[LiamJackson]

Extremely frustrating, H. I credit the Splatter Punks with the gore trend. Those guys took the blood and guts to a new level.

People loved to be scared. Let's hope that gratuitous gore goes the way of the leisure suit and that we soon enjoy a renaissance of mainstream horror.

[Cary]

Here !! Here !!! We could do It like a 'Save the Whales' thing !!!! I can see It now, "Horror House, give a little an save the splatter !!!!! Ill donate !!!!
Love an clawmarks, Carybella

[spooknov]

I came across this article that refers to the current condition of our beloved horror genre's current state.

Warning: there is some foul language.

www.locusmag.com/2002/Commentary/Guran09_Standard.html (http://www.locusmag.com/2002/Commentary/Guran09_Standard.html)

[HConn]

Paula Guran seems to have gotten angry around 1997 and she never got over it. I was a subscriber to her Dark Echo newsletter for a long time.

Frankly, horror isn't going to "come back" until someone does something new with it.

[spooknov]

I agree, HConn. I thought she made good point about the horror genre being over-run with splatterpunk lately.

I did, however, disagree with her hostile attitude toward the end of the article. I believe that we, as horror writers, need to push for changes. We need to strive to go a step beyond the current status of the genre. Lately, it seems that any old slush will do. I've read short stories on the web by self-designated "authors" and was appalled by the lack of basic writing skill. Let alone, a new plot-line or intriguing twists.

I've watched movies that are B-list, at best (some could be designated as Z-list) and thought "why should I waste my time/money on this crap?"

Now is the time for us to push new outlooks on ageless ideas. Now is the time for us to push the envelope and show the spook fans what horror is really about. Of course, this is merely my opinion, and I've been wrong on occasion.

[HConn]

I didn't think she was complaining about splatterpunk as much as complaining about an insular community of horror writers who stink, but really, who out there is any better?

Splatterpunk is my personal pet peeve, however.

I thought she was griping about the way an insular community of crappy writers have commandeered the word. Bad writers log-rolling each other can't be good for the genre.

Anyway, the next step is going to be difficult. (Can anyone think of another genre that needs to be periodically reinvented to rekindle public interest?). I'm convinced that no amount of analysis will lead to the next thing. Only a writer (or group of writers) stubbornly writing extremely personal scare stories that just happens to capture the zeitgeist du jour.

As long as we go our own way, we have a chance.

[arrowqueen]

To be honest, I think you get boom and bust in everything, not just economies. Horror's probably due a resurgence, since, when life gets really scary, you need something even scarier to fall back on.

You got Victorian Gothic when technology was coming to the fore in the mid 1800s. You got the 'mutant bug' stories/films in the fifties, when there was the start of the Cold War and the nuclear threat.

Besides, horror never dies. It just lurches aroiund Zombie-like for a bit.

;)
aq

[Flawed Creation]

there's a reason Horror needs reinventing.

people get used to things...

fantasy plots are more re-usable. the epic quest is always a viable option.

i'm sure that people were scared by splatterpunk originally. not so many are any more.

as people grow used to one horror, new scares need to supplement them.

a horror plot is less re-usable than any other plot, because it isn't scary the second time.

[SpeedRacist]

There is a huge difference between a guy in a mask, with a knife in his hand, leaping out of the closet, and you THINKING that a guy with a knife in his hand is going to leap out of the closet.


Horror movies today are too much of the former, and not nough of the latter.


I write horror scripts, and watch horror movies all of the time. When writers can get back to things like Rosemary's Baby, The Sentinal, and Burt Offerings, I think Horror will come back in a big way. Unfortunately, it's hard to reinvent the wheel, time and time again. I think 28 Days Later was a good start. Godsend, though a completely horrible film, had a premise very much in line with early-mid 70's horror and dread that was the reflection of the paranoid and cynical times of that period (post hippie).

I hope it really comes back, in a huge way.

[MacAl Stone]

Speed--I'm an advocate of the less-is-sometimes-more school, which is sort of what I think you are saying in terms of 70's horror.

Less actual graphic depiction, more psychological push. It's that thing that forces us to push past the edges of our own comfort zone, that extra nudge that forces us to stop teetering and just friggin' fall...that makes something really, really scary.

If I'm wrong about your point, please elaborate.

[HConn]

Horror movies have made horror into a genre of monsters.

Nothing wrong with monsters, unless you can't get anything else.

[maestrowork]

(Although not horror...) that's why I was so horrified by "Seven" with Brat Pitt. Nothing was really graphic or violent but it let the audience play these scenes over in their heads using their imagination -- and the dread of anticipation... it was a powerful movie for me.

[spooknov]

Speed-- I agree fully with Godsend. There were so many holes left in the plotline. The movie had great potential. It seemed like it was purposely misleading. (Or was that just me?) They also did my pet peeve for horrors. They added jump scenes into the movie that had no relevence to the plot. Ugh. I hate that! If you wanna scare me, don't rely soley on the "boogyman jumping out of the closet" build the suspense first and make sure the boogyman has a reason to jump.

I didn't care much for 28 Days Later. It dragged too much for me. Mostly, it was about a group of people driving around in a car. The only zombie movie I truly enjoyed (and scared me) was Resident Evil. The underlying story kept suspense built up throughout the movie. While they weren't dealing with the zombies, the main characters where trying to solve a mystery. Now, that was a plot, IMHO.

[SpeedRacist]

Mac, yes, I was referin to the inherent dread in the older films, as opposed to movies like Halloween, which is actually one of the best horror films ever. If you look at the horror films of H G Lewis, you see some of that precurser to the later slasher films (the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Cannibal Feroux, etc..), though they were also getting less scary and more bloody in Italy in the 60's (also, some of my favorites, so don't get me wrong!).

Spook, I can understand your POV on 28 Days Later, though I don't agree, sir. Resident Evil, being good??? NOW there is a bad movie, imo!!:lol !

Pure goofy sugar with no real substance. I feel that the original Dawn of the Dead had more dread and horror to it than Resident Evil, which I chalk up there with bad stuff like House of the Dead, and House of 1000 Corpses. But again, it's really just a matter of taste now, isn't it.

I mean, if you were to list your top 10 favorite horror films, of all time, the ones that you can watch over and over again, what would they be?

[SpeedRacist]

Oh, and I don't think I even answered the original question. I don't think we're a dying breed. As far as movies go, there is always a home for smart, contained (minimal locations) horror films that are NOT of the slasher variety.

It's up to the writer to give 'em a good, scary story. Now, what the suits do it, after they buy it is a whole 'nother matter, as my aunty used to say.

[EggMcGuffin]

we are an undead breed.

get it? hahahahhahahaha

[MacAl Stone]

Egg man and Speed--nice to see both you guys here! Too cool :grin

The Hitchcock stuff comes immediately to my mind--give me a story that's smart AND scary, and I'm all over that.

Anyone see Wait Until Dark?

[SpeedRacist]

that's one of my favorite movies, and an inspiration for a script I've workin on, bro.

That's more of a Thriller, to me. If you made them vampires, THEN you have a horror. Don't ask me why, but there you go. I think.

[MacAl Stone]

It's actually "sis" if you plan to hang out, Speed--and I hope you do.

:grin

The line between "thriller" and "horror" seems very fine, to me. Where do you cross from one genre into another? The introduction of the supernatural?

[SpeedRacist]

:smack , OK sis.


I think the line between Thriller and Horror is actually the introduction of something "otherworldly", or fine, as you suggested. Take your average programmer Thriller like "Twisted". You have a cop that thinks she's killing the guys that she's bedding down, right? Kinda cool, but executed poorly, still... it's a Thriller. Now, if you make it that she's POSSESSED by something, or she THINKS she's possessed by something, rather than her thinking it's some PSYCHOLOGICAL thing, THEN we got a horror movie, I think.

I could be wrong, but I think you're kind of right, Miss.

[EggMcGuffin]

i have a question--where do you draw the line between horror and supernatural?

cos theyre both scary. is there an element that separates the two? a critter?

[HConn]

The supernatural is an element of many horror stories. It's also an element of non-horror stories.

I'm not sure why you'd want to draw a line between them. It's like drawing a line between "cake" and "flour"

[EggMcGuffin]

why would i want to draw a line btwn them? cos when i go to see a movie like sixth sense it doesnt say "horror", it sez "supernatural". and when i see a movie like exorcist it doesnt say "supernatural" it sez "horror". and im tryin to understand the reasonin. im not the one drawin the lines, really, nor do i want to but i see em bein drawn and id like to know from vets of the genre whats up.

[MacAl Stone]

Hmm--the boundaries between genres are pretty much arbitrary, as far as I can tell, Egg. The case with Sixth Sense and The Exorcist illustrate an interesting point, though.

How do we think about genre in terms of our own writing? I actually don't. I just don't think about it at all, til I'm finished with something, and trying to decide where to send it.

[arainsb123]

"I think 28 Days Later was a good start."

That movie kept me up the night that I saw it. I kept thinking the Infected were everywhere.

A truly terrifying movie, to me at least.

[EggMcGuffin]

eggzactly. and while i dont think, hm, lemme write this genre, i think of the story first, what do you do when youre done and you want to submit it? what do you tell your agent, producer, buyer it is?

it does seem arbitrary doesnt it? yet at the same time if i called sixth sense horror, im sure id be corrected by someone wholl tell me, no, its supernatural.

nightmare on elm st. horror.

exorcist. horror.

ghost story. supernatural.

what lies beneath. supernatural.

could it be that supernatural can be more psychological whereas horror is more physical? more shock or gore? i dun even know.

ive toyed with the question before and figure this is a good place to debate it. interested to hear the responses.

[HConn]

Now I understand.

A "supernatural thriller" like SIXTH SENSE is just a horror movie with a different name. Because horror isn't as popular a genre anymore, marketing people created a new term to draw in a larger audience.

A supernatural thriller is a horror movie, but it's usually lacking in the blood and gore that have made horror flicks a genre for teenage boys.

So there's almost no difference between the two.

[EggMcGuffin]

oh so its a marketin ploy?

that actually does make sense. :rofl

man. marketing execs. damn.

[HConn]

In one sense, all genre labels are marketing categories. They tell readers or viewers what to expect from a story.