Horror Movies: I don't get it.

[Ptolemy]

I'm curious: what's the draw of horror movies? I've no desire to see them, but if it was only the crazies of the world watching them to get their fill of blood and guts there wouldn't be enough people interested for the movies to make any money and they wouldn't make them anymore. Any thoughts?

[Amotis]

Horror movies has taken quiet a bit of turn in the last few years. Horror is only defined as something shocking and different to the point of being frightening. Right now, that's excess gore and violence. Before it could be a excess of sexuality, of immorality, insanity, etc. It's what society makes it. The horror movie buisness still needs to make money so they sell what people buy.

A bit off topic; my favorite horror movie is classified as drama. Silence of the Lambs.

[Ptolemy]

I've seen Silence of the Lambs on TV and it was pretty good. Suspenseful.

Alright, I agree with your broader, relativistic definition of horror, but my question stands: Why do so many people love to be morbidly shocked?

[Amotis]

Don't know, I don't really like today's horror movies. Maybe we have enough suspence and regular more subtle violence in real life (tv news, etc) that movies having that stuff as a theme would just be...normal. So we put it to an extreme with extreme circumstances.

[storybookknight]

I suspect it's for the same reason that people go to amusement parks - for whatever reason, we like to be scared. I suspect it may be hormonal, at its base level...

[Teal Kuinshi]

I think you can trace it all the way back to gladiators; people will pay money and enjoy seeing somebody else get hurt. And because it's a movie, and movies aren't real, then they won't have to feel bad about watching somebody get hurt.

[Amotis]

Nah, I don't really think that. Horror movies doesn't always equal hurt or physical harm. storybookknight gots it right.

[Athenodorus]

I feel the same way. I can appriciate suspense-as-horror (I enjoyed Silence of the Lambs, though maybe "enjoyed" isn't the right term, heh) but some of the most recent garbage to come out is just blegh.

In my humble opinion, our problem today is that there is too much violence on television, and insufficient sexual content.

[Obsidian Blade]

Has anyone seen Once Were Warriors? I thought that was a horror movie. It showed how scary things could get for a minority.

[Ptolemy]

I suspect it's for the same reason that people go to amusement parks - for whatever reason, we like to be scared. I suspect it may be hormonal, at its base level...

I've wondered about that too. People have told me that before: I like to be scared. In a sense I can understand the theme park mentality; I enjoy a good roller coaster like anyone does (though I find the long lines scare me more than any ride would), but I think that the scared that we get from a steep drop on a roller coaster is different from watching a gristly horror movie. The impetus for this thread is Saw III and its release on DVD. I just went to Wikipedia and read (too much) about the film and I was sickened just by the description: chains wrapped about people's bones? What draws people to that? That's not amusement park fun, whatever anyone says.

[Cocktail Umbrellas]

I don't know what it is. Perhaps a willingness, heck, even a longing to feel vulnerable. A want to feel as though the world is even more unsafe than it already is? Or perhaps its simply longing for the lash so as to feel the comfort of warmth and safety afterwards.

I really don't know. I enjoy getting the living bleep scared outta me. Be it practical jokes, horror flicks or horror games. It isn't as though I want to feel scared all the time, admittedly, even when I do seek it out, when it's most "good" it is unpleasant.

I'm not so much into the graphic violence, that really isn't all that scary, just gross. It feels more like the same sort of grossness that American Pie is than actual horror. That which I find most disturbing is probably unnatural movement (the quick zombies in 28 days later, ghosts in Silent Hill 4, pretty much any monster from silent hill 3, the stutter movement of the girl from The Ring, the ghosts in Ju-on, the list goes on), followed by sound (the right/wrong kind of rusty gate opening or shutting gives me shivers), followed by suspense.

I wish I could do a better job explaining it. If I come up with anything better I'll post again or edit or something :smallwink:

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Never comprehended it myself. I like suspense but I can't stand gore and such.

I can't even say I even like being scared. I just like a good story with spookyish bits. My favorite flavor I've found is referred to as 'haunting'. This can be 'hauntingly beauiful' or 'hauntingly sad', but its got unnerving undertones, though nothing that actually frightens.

The Village, its amongst my most favorite movies. It was spooky (except to those of you who've become hardened), and if it wasn't spooky all the drama and romance wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable. So basically the danger and eerie bits spiced it up.

Actually, that may be a reason I love almost all Shymalan's films. Nearly every one is eerie without even approaching grotesque or horrifying.


The impetus for this thread is Saw III and its release on DVD. I just went to Wikipedia and read (too much) about the film and I was sickened just by the description: chains wrapped about people's bones? What draws people to that? That's not amusement park fun, whatever anyone says.No, its not amusement part fun. I honestly worry about those that enjoy such films. Thing is, my sister who works at a cinema said that this woman was bringing her 8-year old daughter to see it for a SECOND time. Says she grew up with I and II and just loves them all.

Disagree as you will, but that is hardly less than child abuse to my thinking :smallannoyed:

[Don Julio Anejo]

I've never understood horror movies.. or liked them for that matter. I guess some people also like them as make out movies but then what's the point of seeing a movie..

[ravenkith]

The problem is, there are sub-genres of the genre of "Horror".

You can put whatever labels you like on 'em, but basically there are the suspense horror films, the slasher horror films, and the hybrids.

Slasher films lack imagination, and really only call for gallons of fake blood and oodles of makeup, and a few interesting ways to die. I'd say this covers 90% of the horror movies made by hollywood in recent years. Why? Because they are easy enough to make, usually don't require massive budgets, and don't have to be of good quality, as far as scripts & acting are concerned. The emphasis here is on shocking the audience, as opposed to frightening them: Hostel is a perfect recent example of this type of film.

Suspense films are usually thin on the ground, as they rely on a good scripts and good acting to be successful, neither of which are exactly common in this genre. One of the best supense films I've seen is Alien (The first one, not the one with the space marines). It really played on the fears of the audience, emphasizing the close quarters of the ship, the hardy nature of the alien nemesis, the strangeness of the alien vessel, fear of suffocation...so much in the movie to mess with your head...and the centerpiece of it all is the human reaction to the situation, instead of the big bad scary monster and the various ways he kills people.

Of course then there are the hybrid films, that try to combine the shock aspect of slasher films with aspects of the suspense genre.

Usually these types of films fail to get off the ground, but occasionally one comes along that does a decent job. Yes it's true: sometimes you come up with a 28 days, but most of the time it's just another Doom.


I love a good hybrid, and the suspenses get me every time...but slasher flicks are just mindless entertainment, which is usually something I'm not all that interested in.

[Silkenfist]

There is the Two-Factor theory of emtoion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_factor_theory_of_emotion), that can explain this phenomenon with the transfer of arousal.
According to the theory, you are not able to feel specific emotions. All you feel is a general feeling of arousal. The exact feeling is determined by your environment and your interpretation of the situation.

Easy example: It's video night with your friends, you are having a good time, making silly jokes and watching "Alabama Deathgore VI" or something similar. Now the killer suddenly pops up on the screen beheading three teenagers with one swing of his chainsaw. The sudden event presented both visually and acustically causes a feeling of arousal. From that point, several things can happen:
- If you enjoy yourself, you will feel joy and excitation.
- If you have been shivering the whole time only waiting to be scared to death, you will meet your expectations.
- If you hate slasher movies and were dragged to watch it, you might even feel anger and start ripping the remote out of your friend's hand, yelling at them for watching violent crap.


This was amateur psychology 1o1 brought to you by Dr. Silken. Tips will be accepted.

[Piedmon_Sama]

No, its not amusement part fun. I honestly worry about those that enjoy such films. Thing is, my sister who works at a cinema said that this woman was bringing her 8-year old daughter to see it for a SECOND time. Says she grew up with I and II and just loves them all.

Disagree as you will, but that is hardly less than child abuse to my thinking :smallannoyed:

Can't agree with you there, Vorpal. Maybe it's because when I was eight, my Dad was watching Robocop (an R rated movie) with me, as well as Alien and the original Aliens. I saw Predator and Pulp Fiction for the first time while at a friend's house--I think we were both 10. Heck, the very first anime I ever saw? It was Akira, again when I was eight. Admittedly it was an edited version on the sci-fi channel, but I still felt bodily ill for two days after watching it.

Did I spend many a night huddled under my blankets, waiting for an alien to congeal out of the darkness and tear me open? You bet. Looking back on it, would I let myself watch those ultraviolent shockfests again? Hell yeah. Because they're all great movies.

See, my dad was fine with me watching Alien or Tombstone. But when I asked him to see Mortal Kombat? Absolutely not. He was not going to spend his money in such a way, and that was that. Quality control was very strict in my house. And I think ultimately, that was a good thing.

None of the violence in the movies I watched as a kid was tangenital to the plot. I learned to appreciate techniques and buildup in storytelling I might not otherwise have, and maybe (I can only speculate) it contributed in some way to my hobby as an amateur writer today.

Today I can unflinchingly watch disembowlment, beheading or just about any form of graphic death; whether it's a war movie, a horror movie, or whatever. In a way, I think that helps me judge a story (movie or otherwise) better. You can't shock me anymore; you can violently kill your characters, but you can't make me care--unless you've given me time to identify with them and used your buildup well.

Does the fact that I can watch violence on TV mean I could watch it in real life with no problem? I doubt it. But even if that's the case, maybe that's not such a bad thing. We live in a world that's often brutal and merciless, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

The truth is, American society is really a bubble between us and a horrible larger reality. I often feel like I'm more aware of that than others. Particularly in High School, I was amazed at how incapable some kids were of dealing with the fact of a genocide or mass killing (those came up a lot in history class). If watching Russel Crowe shove a knife through Joaqin Pheonix's* throat in Gladiator at the age of 12 somehow contributed to my ability to accept man's inhumanity to man, then it was good for me.

Someday, when I have a son, I look forward to the first time we'll watch Robocop together.

"Robo, do you have any words for the kids?"

"Stay out of trouble."

*In retrospect, the thought of the man who was Johnny Cash playing evil Emperor Commodus is not only hilairious but makes me doubly respect Pheonix as an actor.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Slasher films lack imagination, and really only call for gallons of fake blood and oodles of makeup, and a few interesting ways to die. I'd say this covers 90% of the horror movies made by hollywood in recent years. Why? Because they are easy enough to make, usually don't require massive budgets, and don't have to be of good quality, as far as scripts & acting are concerned. The emphasis here is on shocking the audience, as opposed to frightening them: Hostel is a perfect recent example of this type of film.

Suspense films are usually thin on the ground, as they rely on a good scripts and good acting to be successful, neither of which are exactly common in this genre. One of the best supense films I've seen is Alien (The first one, not the one with the space marines). It really played on the fears of the audience, emphasizing the close quarters of the ship, the hardy nature of the alien nemesis, the strangeness of the alien vessel, fear of suffocation...so much in the movie to mess with your head...and the centerpiece of it all is the human reaction to the situation, instead of the big bad scary monster and the various ways he kills people.

I would say that Alien is a slasher film. A mysterious monster overpowers people and kills them one by one. Slasher films tend to use an awful lot of suspense. Slasher films often involve imagination. It's just that if you rince and repeat anything that long it turns rotten.

Thriller is the more official as a genre term than suspense but it's way too broad. However almost all films will use suspense.

[Ptolemy]

Can't agree with you there, Vorpal. Maybe it's because when I was eight, my Dad was watching Robocop (an R rated movie) with me, as well as Alien and the original Aliens. I saw Predator and Pulp Fiction for the first time while at a friend's house--I think we were both 10. Heck, the very first anime I ever saw? It was Akira, again when I was eight. Admittedly it was an edited version on the sci-fi channel, but I still felt bodily ill for two days after watching it....

If watching Russel Crowe shove a knife through Joaquin Phoenix's* throat in Gladiator at the age of 12 somehow contributed to my ability to accept man's inhumanity to man, then it was good for me....

I think I actually agree with you both, after a manner. I draw lines on my movies along measurements of quality like Piedmon, which is precisely WHY taking a young girl to Saw III is hardly less that child abuse. There simply is NO comparison between Saw and Gladiator; they are movie-worlds apart. The same goes for Saw against Akira, or even Predator and Alien. Watching a psychopath determine the value of others' lives through torturous tests is not the same as watching Maximus free Rome from the clutches of a power-hungry Emperor. I feel inspired by the latter and sickened by the former.

Also, even if Maximus' killing Commodus was "inhumanity" (which I wouldn't consider it), is man's inhumanity to others something we really want to accept? It's one thing to be able to watch violence unflinchingly and, for some, that's a skill worth developing (though I doubt that any on these boards will ever need such a talent--thank goodness), but that's a far cry from accepting barbarism.

On a side note, Piedmon is spot on about Joaquin Phoenix. If you compare his work in Gladiator and Walk the Line, you will see the picture of an incredible actor.

[cthulhu_waits]

I am a huge fan of horror movies. Of all the DVD's I own, about half are horror. Having said that, I'm not a big fan of the Saw movies. They're just...cruel. Some of the ways people die are pretty cool and interesting, but there's something about them that just turns me off. It's funny, because I love grisly horror movies. In Suspiria, when that chick falls on the bed of razor-wire I was cheering. But Saw just doesn't do it for me.

I don't think horror movies in recent years are too much different, in terms of scariness vs. violence, than older horror movies. It's very very hard to make a truly scary movie. It is much easier to make a gross-out movie. I watch a lot of horror movies and don't really even expect to be scared. I hope to be a bit creeped out and see some really cool deaths. Then, when a rare gem like The Exorcist comes along and is scary it's very surprising and rewarding.

Why do people like horror movies? Stephen King, who presumably knows a thing or two about this subject, wrote a wonderful essay years ago on this very topic. It was his introduction to Night Shift, and is called "The Shape Beneath the Sheet." I strongly suggest reading it, it is very good. I don't remember every single thing he says in it, it's been a long time since I read it but I do remember his basic point.

Basically, what he says it comes down to is that horror is a dress rehearsal for death. When we watch a movie, we identify with the main character (if it's a well done movie.) We, for a few hours, become that character. So when Marion Crane checks into the Bates Motel and meets the quirky inkeeper, we are doing this. We have dinner with him. We go back to our rooms and worry about what to do about our situation. And then we take a shower and are brutally stabbed to death. We feel a portion of the fear she felt, because Hitchock makes us feel it. But then, an hour or so later, the house lights come up and we walk into the sunlit world and are fine. We were able to see the worst that the world has to throw at us, but were never in any actual danger. Hitchcock led us to the depths of the abyss, and brought us back out. And we loved him for it!

[Greebo]

Either they appeal to you, or they don't.

If they don't, nothing anyone to whom they do appeal says will appeal to you.

If they do, nothing someone to whom they don't appeal says will reduce the appeal.

Attempting to understand why some people like one genre and others don't is like trying to have a team of people push a wet noodle uphill...its just a waste of time for everyone involved...

[Scipio]

Like Cthulhu, I am an avid fan of the horror genre. The essay he mentioned by King is top notch, and who knows the subject of horror better than King?

The Saw/Hostel movies are at the lower end of quality horror. They seek only to shock with gratuitous gore. I enjoyed Hostel quite a bit, but the Saw movies did not work for me as well. If you were to draw a parallel in the comedy genre, Saw would be like American Pie. John Carpenter's The Thing is more like A Fish Called Wanda. You just substitute gratuitous gore for gratuitous sex. It can be fun, but it is a broad form of the art.

As a society we have a lot of pent up aggression. There are a lot of bad things in the world, and most people would like to lash out at it. Most of us do not of course. We find release for this aggression through the violence in video games and movies. It is safe, and we are not lost in the process. Is it a good outlet for aggression? Probably not.

Like King said in his essay, we like to look at the dark side of life at least vicariously. It is satisfying. Then we go back to our lives happy that we are not lost in the abyss.

[WampaX]

Either they appeal to you, or they don't.

If they don't, nothing anyone to whom they do appeal says will appeal to you.

If they do, nothing someone to whom they don't appeal says will reduce the appeal.

Attempting to understand why some people like one genre and others don't is like trying to have a team of people push a wet noodle uphill...its just a waste of time for everyone involved...

I can't really go along with that.
People like what they like, true.
But people's tastes can change . . . or at the very least, they can be introduced to a subsection of the larger whole that appeals to their interests and thus find a modicum of common ground.

We've got over 100+ years of film to find that common ground and giving up with that amount of material to sift through just seems a little defeatist to me. True, it may be a daunting task to locate that spot of ground, but I think its worth it if you can begin to open a person to new experiences that they either begin to enjoy or just enjoy more now they understand why they do and have a concrete example to keep with them.

But the process is alot of trial and error . . . wish I could figure out a better system.

[cthulhu_waits]

I also don't agree, Greebo. Just because I can't stand the Beach Boys (and I really despise them) doesn't mean I can't see their appeal for others. Art is subjective, it's true, but that doesn't mean you can't see why others would like something that you do not.

[Greebo]

Ah but...

Either you agree with me, or you don't...

;)

Seriously - ok I agree, you CAN learn to understand what someone elses tastes are, but what I'm really saying is that you can't *change* someone elses tastes.

[ray53208]

i was thinking about this very thing earlier today. weird. more specifically the zombie survival horror genre. why do i and my friends (people i know very well) enjoy this specific genre so much?

i think it has something to do with zombies symbolizing the creeping realization of our own inevitable mortality. in the genre, survivors either succumb to the waves of living dead or they resist. in resisting they point out what is important about being alive.

its just like how sci fi is an examination of what it is to be human by examining the alien.

[WampaX]

Seriously - ok I agree, you CAN learn to understand what someone elses tastes are, but what I'm really saying is that you can't *change* someone elses tastes.

Again, I can't completely agree.
Example - I have a friend that hated, simply hated black and white movies. I changed his mind about them by suggesting a few for him to watch . . . and I brought him around. I changed his taste (well, more of a bias) in film. I found the common ground and from there, he found more on his own.

I got a little lucky (and used what I already knew about his tastes) in suggesting a few that he did enjoy and it snowballed from there . . . I could have just as easily suggested a few that didn't click and buried him forever from B&W film.

I see what you are saying though, in that it is difficult to change someones tastes. I would not suggest that someone that loves Disney movies is going to be gung-ho to see Blood Feast, 180s are very hard to pull off. But if you take you time to find those films that provide the common ground, their tastes can be modified and expanded.

[ghost_warlock]

I love horror movies, although I have a variety of sub-genres that I recognize within the horror umbrella (heh, Umbrella Corp...). At the same time, an individual horror movie can fit into more than one category. Some categories transcend horror into other genres as well. There's gore/splatter-movies, monster-movies, slasher flicks, and suspenseful thrillers. Probably a few other types, too, but I'm too tired to think of any right now.

For me, I tend to avoid the gore/splatter and slasher sub-genres while I am inexplicably drawn to the monsters and suspenseful sub-genres. Maybe it's because, while any idiot can go down to the butcher's shop and get some pig intestines to line the walls for his gore movie, it takes a truly talented artist to make a critter look beautiful and a least marginally believeable. ALIEN, anyone?

At the same time, anyone can get some girls to scream and rehash Mr. Killer for the billionth time, but it takes skill to get the pacing of a good suspenseful movie right. Silence of the Lambs was sheer artwork.

Heh, maybe I'm a horror snob... :smallwink:

[WampaX]

Oh, right, talking about Horror.
Keep meaning to tag this onto one of my posts.

I'm, personally, all over the map on horror. Put in Dracula (1932) or Halloween (1978), I'm happy. Put in Them! or Slither, I'm still happy. Put in The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires or Evil Dead II, I'm even happier. Put in Gojira or The Grudge and I'd probably lapse into an enjoyable horror induced coma. Put in The Haunting (1963) or House on Haunted Hill (1959) and you'd probably have a mess to clean up at this point in the proceedings.

I've kinda stayed away from the torture/grindhouse films simply because its not my cup of tea in the horror genre. I've seen a few, don't really want to see any more.

Why do I like what I like in Horror? Variety of reasons. The feelings and physical reactions to fear or suspense. The nostalgic enjoyment of a good scary story being told around a campfire. The vistas that open up if the closet really did contain a ravenous beast and where it came from and why. Imagination. Inspiration.

But that's just me . . . could be you, too. Only, you won't know unless you try it out.

Most scariest, bone chilling scene for me is in The Leopard Man (1943), which isn't really a horror film, but the scene in question is indelibly marked in my mind. Almost nothing is shown, but the suspense and the sounds and the cinematography and the acting all mesh together and send shivers down my spine even as I sit here and type about it. Great sensation and a credit to Val Lewton for being able to evoke such a repeatable response from a film over 60 years old.

[Ptolemy]

Seriously - ok I agree, you CAN learn to understand what someone elses tastes are, but what I'm really saying is that you can't *change* someone elses tastes.

And this was the whole point of this thread. I'm very new to this online forum thing (meaning forums in general, not just this one), and the idea that I can pose a question and get so many opinions on the answer (or, in this case, possible answers) is really cool. Heck, we even had the mighty WampaX chime in, which I was happily surprised to see.

What cthulhu_waits said about Stephen King's essay have probably helped the most; I'll have to read that now. I've only read one Stephen King book, The Eyes of the Dragon, which was incredible, which lead me to form a theory about Stephen King's book, which are bestsellers and the fact that most of them are horror books. My theory was that people simply loved his writing. The man is brilliant, and people love brilliant writing and storytelling and I believe that they are willing to delve into subjects they wouldn't normally in order to experience that. Obviously, there's more too this, as I find King's point of our vicariously confronting our own mortality very understandable and probable. Perhaps it's a combination of both, at least in the case of King's work.

That leads to the other comments about the (perhaps we'll call them) High Horror. Silence of the Lambs, etc; movies that are more than just pig intestines on walls. When a movie is great storytelling, people are willing to visit the darker parts of life (probably grateful that they don't live there) and attempt to deal with Death in a more personal way. After all, is anything more universal and final as Death?

PS to cthulhu_waits: I truly appreciate you catching the spirit of this thread and for your suggestions, but girls falling on razor wire? That is gross. (And I like The Beach Boys, I'll have you know.):smallamused:

[cthulhu_waits]

There are indeed many subgenres of horror. I generally like them all, from the high class (Silence of the Lambs, The Exorcist) to the slashers. The Friday the 13th series, despite some very weak movies here and there, is a whole lot of fun if you take it for what it is.

Back to something Scipio said, I actually do think that horror and violent movies are a good outlet for aggression. Better than another person, anyway. And less costly than punching a hole in the wall. It's funny--this is the very same thing Socrates and Plato argued about--whether tragic plays had a valuable function as catharsis or encouraged violence.

Horror also works to let out societal worries as well as personal ones. In the fifties, aliens were a stand-in for communists. Watch the original The Thing and tell me that's not about dirty commies! And am I reaching to point out that there has been a glut of torture movies like Saw and Hostel at the same time there is a national debate over torturing prisoners?

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

I rarely go and see horror movies anymore. The main reason I dislike them so much is that most of them aren't scarry/suspenseful, all they have become are giant gorefests such as the Saw Triology, which don't interest me one bit. If I want that, I'll just go watch the evening news. A horror movie is supposed to freak you out with suspenseful situations, not make you want to lose your lunch due to all the gore.

[Ptolemy]

There are indeed many subgenres of horror. I generally like them all, from the high class (Silence of the Lambs, The Exorcist) to the slashers. The Friday the 13th series, despite some very weak movies here and there, is a whole lot of fun if you take it for what it is.

Back to something Scipio said, I actually do think that horror and violent movies are a good outlet for aggression. Better than another person, anyway. And less costly than punching a hole in the wall. It's funny--this is the very same thing Socrates and Plato argued about--whether tragic plays had a valuable function as catharsis or encouraged violence.

Horror also works to let out societal worries as well as personal ones. In the fifties, aliens were a stand-in for communists. Watch the original The Thing and tell me that's not about dirty commies! And am I reaching to point out that there has been a glut of torture movies like Saw and Hostel at the same time there is a national debate over torturing prisoners?

Despite what I said (and our disparate tastes in entertainment :smallsmile:), you're my new hero. I would never have thought of that. You are definitely not reaching to suggest that a slue of popular torture movies would be tied to the national debate on torture. Movies that are really popular say a lot about the culture in which they were popular. Whether the movie makers intended it (and they probably didn't; they want to make money and more power to them because that means more movies for us) the movies that are really popular end up as commentaries on what we are thinking because a movie that really harmonizes with what we're feeling is the movie that we'll spend money on to see in the theaters multiple times (insert grumble over rising ticket prices) and buy on DVD.

[Xartyve]

Ooooh horror is my favourite genre. The draw here is something frightening, not everything can be pink bunnies. Horror also has a lot of sub-genres ranging from the supernatural (Exorcist, Ringu), Creature Feature (Anaconda, Jaws, Lake Placid), slasher (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Scream), torture (Saw, Hostel) to the undecided (The Shining, Silence of the Lambs). So there is plenty of choice. Does that answer you question? No... but I love horror.

[cthulhu_waits]

Ptolemy, I missed your previous post when I wrote mine, woops!

As far as King's essay, I assume it's still at the front of Nightshift. If not, you might find it in a collection of his non-fiction essays and works, under the title The Shape Beneath the Sheet. You are right--he is popular because he's a brilliant writer and an excellent storyteller.

Yes, a girl falling on razor wire is gross. And very, very cool! :)


I think that with a movie like Silence of the Lambs, people don't even realize they're gonna see a horror movie and get the experience without realizing it. And then of course, some people deny that it's a horror movie. Hint: anytime someone labels a movie a "psychological thriller" it's probably a horror movie that they dont' want to stick with a "low-class" label like horror.

I agree with you--movies are almost like a diary of what is going on in the culture at the time.

Another great King work on horror is his non-fiction book Danse Macabre. It is basically an overview of the entire horror genre. And the man knows what he's talking about.

Now, here's a question for another thread: why do people like romantic comedies? I mean, talk about horror!

[Athenodorus]

Yes, a girl falling on razor wire is gross. And very, very cool! :)

That is the final distillate of what I don't understand about horror, right there.

[cthulhu_waits]

That is the final distillate of what I don't understand about horror, right there.

I’m glad I could make it so succint for you, Athenodorus! :) I guess my defense would be to fall back on the catharsis argument. I will never throw anyone on a bed of razorwire. I will never engineer a trap so that they fall on it. If I saw someone in that predicament, I would be horrified and try to help them. But…there is that dark part in all of us that wants to see something like that. And since we’re sane enough not to do it for real, we get those feelings out by watching a movie where it happens. Also, it’s really really cool!

There is another reason why people like horror movies (and perhaps to a lesser degree, fiction in general.) It’s because, for the most part, the good guys win. They may go through hell (sometimes literally) to get there, but they usually triumph over the forces of darkness.

That is related to this other reason—they use supernatural elements as stand-ins for real-world problems and allow us victory over them, thereby giving us a symbolic victory over much tougher real-world problems.

Example: The late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s were a very tough time for parents. They saw their kids being seduced by the new “youth culture” and getting into drugs, sporting slogans like “Don’t trust anyone over thirty” and generally the “If it feels good, do it” attitude. Gone were the days of Ward and June Cleaver solving the Beaver’s problems with a 3-minute talk. Now it was Woodstock and LSD. And how do you deal with those problems?

Then came a book, followed by a movie, about a little child with a much worse problem than trying a little grass. This girl was possessed by a demon, or the Devil himself. She said and did some really horrible things, and there seemed to be no cure for her. Doctors ran a battery of tests and were perplexed. Psychologists had no answer. But the mother in desperation turned to two Jesuit priests who cast the demon out, saving the girls life and her soul. And while the movie doesn’t come out and say “Regan and Chris lived happily ever after” that is the implication.

Now, I said that Regan’s problem was worse than real-world problems. But was it? The priests came to the rescue and saved her. She was her mother’s good little girl again. The problem was solvable. But is there a solution to your teenager telling you that he hates your guts? To her running away and joining a cult? To drug use? Perhaps there are solutions, but they are comparatively much harder than calling your local parish priest and asking for an exorcism. People could watch The Exorcist and see a child behaving horribly, but see a concrete reason for that behavior and an equally concrete solution. So while it might be strange to call The Exorcist escapist fantasy, I think that might be exactly what it and a lot of other horror is.

[Kjata]

There is another reason why people like horror movies (and perhaps to a lesser degree, fiction in general.) It’s because, for the most part, the good guys win. They may go through hell (sometimes literally) to get there, but they usually triumph over the forces of darkness

Spoiler for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

Not in the Texas Chainsaw massacre... everyone dies that Leatherface has, they all died a horrible death on the end of a chainsaw... oh god i love that movie...

[Pyre]

"Back to something Scipio said, I actually do think that horror and violent movies are a good outlet for aggression. Better than another person, anyway. And less costly than punching a hole in the wall. It's funny--this is the very same thing Socrates and Plato argued about--whether tragic plays had a valuable function as catharsis or encouraged violence."


One of my basic theories in life is that too much of any one thing is bad. I think it can be good outlet for aggression, but too much of it may actually cause a rise of aggression. Just my opinion. (Who had which opinion between Socs and Plato, btw?)

[cthulhu_waits]

In response to Kjata:

There are definitely a lot of examples of horror movies where the good guys don't win. But for the most part, like I said, they usually do.

You might be right, Pyre. There are probably studies supporting your opinion and studies going the other way, too. What we watch repeatedly does have an effect on us, I won't argue that. If it didn't companies wouldn't spend billions on advertising. But there are plenty of people who watch alot of horror movies (like myself) and are no more aggresive than someone who gets scared watching Driving Miss Daisy. Just like there are plenty of people who watch a lot of comedies and do not suffer a rise of hilarity.

Edit: I forgot about your Socrates question. I believe that Plato was arguing against tragic plays and Socrates argued for them. Though now that I think about it, it may have been Plato and Aristotle, with Aristotle arguing for them.

[Fat Daddy]

Most of what I would have said has already been said more succinctly than I could have done. I like horror films, but not ones that are buckets of blood and gore. I agree with ravenkith on this one.

The problem is, there are sub-genres of the genre of "Horror".

You can put whatever labels you like on 'em, but basically there are the suspense horror films, the slasher horror films, and the hybrids.

Slasher films lack imagination, and really only call for gallons of fake blood and oodles of makeup, and a few interesting ways to die. I'd say this covers 90% of the horror movies made by hollywood in recent years. Why? Because they are easy enough to make, usually don't require massive budgets, and don't have to be of good quality, as far as scripts & acting are concerned. The emphasis here is on shocking the audience, as opposed to frightening them: Hostel is a perfect recent example of this type of film.

Suspense films are usually thin on the ground, as they rely on a good scripts and good acting to be successful, neither of which are exactly common in this genre. One of the best supense films I've seen is Alien (The first one, not the one with the space marines). It really played on the fears of the audience, emphasizing the close quarters of the ship, the hardy nature of the alien nemesis, the strangeness of the alien vessel, fear of suffocation...so much in the movie to mess with your head...and the centerpiece of it all is the human reaction to the situation, instead of the big bad scary monster and the various ways he kills people.

Of course then there are the hybrid films, that try to combine the shock aspect of slasher films with aspects of the suspense genre.

Usually these types of films fail to get off the ground, but occasionally one comes along that does a decent job. Yes it's true: sometimes you come up with a 28 days, but most of the time it's just another Doom.


I love a good hybrid, and the suspenses get me every time...but slasher flicks are just mindless entertainment, which is usually something I'm not all that interested in.

I would also like to comment on something VT posted:


Thing is, my sister who works at a cinema said that this woman was bringing her 8-year old daughter to see it for a SECOND time. Says she grew up with I and II and just loves them all.

Disagree as you will, but that is hardly less than child abuse to my thinking :smallannoyed:
I must disagree with you. I find it to be incredibly poor judgment and completely irresponsible. It does not however, compare with the true horror that is child abuse.

[Wolfgang]

I love horror movies. This might not make a lot of sense, but allow me to try to explain why. I enjoy exploring the human mind, and the "human condition." Stories that do this, in any medium, are always among my favorites. I like tales about the best parts of human nature, but if that's all I ever saw or read... I would get pretty bored. I need to know how the "other side" operates too. Call it curiosity, if you want.

That's why I don't understand how people can call Saw a gorefest horror movie. It gets into the human psyche in ways modern movies so rarely do.

[Wizzardman]

I love horror movies. This might not make a lot of sense, but allow me to try to explain why. I enjoy exploring the human mind, and the "human condition." Stories that do this, in any medium, are always among my favorites. I like tales about the best parts of human nature, but if that's all I ever saw or read... I would get pretty bored. I need to know how the "other side" operates too. Call it curiosity, if you want.

That's why I don't understand how people can call Saw a gorefest horror movie. It gets into the human psyche in ways modern movies so rarely do.

I have to agree with you on this. "The Human Condition" the reason why I watch many movies at all--analyzing human reactions to extreme stress, especially in the confines and possibilities provided by a movie, is frankly a lot of fun. The atmosphere of stress, danger, and fear, combined with the heroism and strength of the characters, form a really beautiful cinematic experience.

Well made horror movies are really good at this--Zombie Apocalypse movies in particular, but a lot of other flicks generate the same atmosphere. And a lot of them provide hope--despite all the death and despair that surrounds them, the good guys never give in to despair or inner darkness. And that's awesome.

A lot of other movies provide similar feelings. Certain war movies (Schindler's List, for example) illustrate the same atmosphere--the same heroism in the face of unstoppable (or, in the case of horror movies, supernatural) odds; the same refusal to give in and just let bad things happen. I like V for Vendetta for the same reason.

[Ms_Elaneous]

I'm not a much of a fan of the horror films. I think the closest I got to a horror film is "Deep Blue Sea." Heh... that didn't give me nightmares or anything...

[ravenkith]

Ok, there's good, there's bad and there's ugly in Horror, I think we can all agree.

But Jason vs. Freddy? Jason X?

These are films that are abortions in the eyes of men.

[Pyre]

Watch Battle Royale. I love that movie, heehee. Not really 'horror', but according to some people's definition of it here it could be I guess.

[Wizzardman]

Watch Battle Royale. I love that movie, heehee. Not really 'horror', but according to some people's definition of it here it could be I guess.

Seen it. It doesn't quite count as horror, but its still a crazy movie.

[duncan]

Horror movies are made so that teenagers can get their gf/bf to hold them and have an excuse to get close. They have no plot so if your *busy* you dont care, and are exciting enough that if you aren't *busy* then you have something to watch

[Machete]

I love horror flicks. I would never DM a horror game because the players might go insane. The enjoyment I got out of SAW was not just the almost non-existant plot. It was more of a fable, and if you take it to heart, really means something. Not that I didn't initially come to the theatre to watch graphic violence that even breifly describing would break rules of the forum.

[Ptolemy]

I love horror flicks. I would never DM a horror game because the players might go insane. The enjoyment I got out of SAW was not just the almost non-existent plot. It was more of a fable, and if you take it to heart, really means something. Not that I didn't initially come to the theatre to watch graphic violence that even briefly describing would break rules of the forum.

Alright, well then let's hear the answer to my original question from you, Machete: What's the appeal? You said you initially went to see the violence? That was the end goal for you? I'm willing to admit that a horror movie like Saw MIGHT actually attempt to have some sort of meaning akin to a fable, which is good (though I find is repugnant and inexplicable why such themes couldn't be explored without the extremely graphic violence depicted), but you went for the violence. Why is that?

[Kjata]

Because humans love volence. Watching Saving private ryan or Saw is no different. The former has quantities of death, while the latter goes for QUALITY.

And what is with everyone saying Saw has no plot? It has a fantastic plot, excellent characters you can feel for, whatever you could want.

[Wolfgang]

Alright, well then let's hear the answer to my original question from you, Machete: What's the appeal? You said you initially went to see the violence? That was the end goal for you? I'm willing to admit that a horror movie like Saw MIGHT actually attempt to have some sort of meaning akin to a fable, which is good (though I find is repugnant and inexplicable why such themes couldn't be explored without the extremely graphic violence depicted), but you went for the violence. Why is that?

Because violence is part of the story the director wanted to tell.

[Ptolemy]

Because humans love violence. Watching Saving private ryan or Saw is no different. The former has quantities of death, while the latter goes for QUALITY.

And what is with everyone saying Saw has no plot? It has a fantastic plot, excellent characters you can feel for, whatever you could want.

I'm not sure about the comparison to Saving Private Ryan, but I have seen it and I'll NEVER see Saw, so I can't really agree or disagree.

But this still doesn't answer the heart of my question. I take it as a matter of course that humans love violence. I said that several posts ago. I want to know what others think about why.

I suppose King's answer to the draw of horror is as good as it is going to get: that we wish to confront Death and then be able to feel better afterwards. This may be true, but Machete said he went to Saw for the express reason of seeing the violence. Not the plot (I'm willing, as part of the discussion, to suppose it has one), not the acting, but the violence itself. Simply saying "People like violence" is hardly more than repeating my question without rising intonation at the end.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I would also like to comment on something VT posted:

I must disagree with you. I find it to be incredibly poor judgment and completely irresponsible. It does not however, compare with the true horror that is child abuse.
Was meaning in the psychological sense.


Horror movies are made so that teenagers can get their gf/bf to hold them and have an excuse to get close. They have no plot so if your *busy* you dont care, and are exciting enough that if you aren't *busy* then you have something to watch
Y'know what... that is actually about the most inpsired and sensible post on this thread. I applaud thee :smallbiggrin:


And btw, I believe whole heartedly that tastes and opinions can be changed. However, it doesn't matter what the movie is about, gore will never ever becoming appealing no matter how many times its shown to me. Its not because of my being stubborn or weak stomached, believe me I've been on a farm most of my life and seen more things to turn your stomach than most of you have. Probably all the more reason I don't comprehend the appeal of it all.

After having to help a friend clean the remains of a thousand chickens and several cows a couple days old out of the ruins of a professional-sized chicken house (and putting the unsavable out of their misery) there ain't nothing left to see and certainly nothing entertaining.


I'm just a little black rain cloud...

[Shadow of the Sun]

Horror movies do not hold up to horror novels in my mind. They will never make a movie of Rats in the Walls or Shadows over Innsmouth- two novels that I have been told are the first to ever give a lot of people nightmares. Making a movie from a horror novel removes a lot of the soul from it- horror novels are meant to get the imagination working and a movie takes that away.

As for the appeal, my best explanation is a King quote, paraphrased because I do not exactly remember it: "We invent imaginary horrors to help us deal with the real ones"

[Piedmon_Sama]

And btw, I believe whole heartedly that tastes and opinions can be changed. However, it doesn't matter what the movie is about, gore will never ever becoming appealing no matter how many times its shown to me. Its not because of my being stubborn or weak stomached, believe me I've been on a farm most of my life and seen more things to turn your stomach than most of you have. Probably all the more reason I don't comprehend the appeal of it all.

After having to help a friend clean the remains of a thousand chickens and several cows a couple days old out of the ruins of a professional-sized chicken house (and putting the unsavable out of their misery) there ain't nothing left to see and certainly nothing entertaining.

Not to disrespect your perspective, but it's funny that you play D&D if violence is completely unappealing to you. A large part of the game revolves around violence. Medieval weapons are very brutal tools, and I expect most dungeon chambers end up looking similar to slaughterhouse floors once a combat is resolved. I describe things pretty thoroughly to my players. If you gut someone open with a longsword, their guts will fall out. That won't smell nice. There's probably going to be a final scream.

I think anything less than that is, frankly, intellectually dishonest. I remember being maybe 11 and sometimes, when channel surfing, I'd come across an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess. A lot of the time when Xena fought random guards/thugs, her sword wouldn't actually hurt them but make a cute "bonk" sound as the henchmen fell on their keysters. (This seemed to depend on the writer/series season or something). I remember thinking even then that this was a load of crap. Swords don't do that to people, if you want me to take your story seriously at all, why should I pretend they do?

A lot of people (and I have no idea if this applies to you or not, Vorpal) defend the violence of, say, a heroic saga as "better" or more "justifiable" than the violence of a slasher flick. Quality of the actual story aside, I find no difference. Killing someone is never good; it can at best be a justifiable evil. People kill each other brutally, nobly, pointlessly for a thousand different reasons in fiction and the real world (art does imitate life). The motive may be heroic or base, but ultimately all people die in the same language.

Why do we engage ourselves in violent stories in the first place? Probably there are as many different reasons as there are stories. Other posters have made excellent points in this thread before; but I think there is one that they've missed. Human beings are fascinated by violence and killing because we're curious. Who here hasn't watched a zombie apocalypse movie, or maybe a war movie, or even some science fiction adventure and wondered "what would I do?"

Traditionally men were the hunters and warriors in society, but in 21st Century America this isn't the case. We get our meat from the supermarket. Probably most of us will never seriously have to fight for our lives even once. We're aware of this disconnection, and I think for many of us.... we want to know what it would be like. "What would I do? Would I be strong enough, smart enough to win? Would I face death bravely?" I'd be surprised if anyone here has never actually pondered these questions before.

Another thing is, American society--and although I can't back this up, I think human society--is naturally competitive. We're all at once afraid of and tittilated by competition. We have a natural tendency to rank ourselves at various tasks, rewarding the winners and overlooking or chiding the losers. Millions thrill to sporting events with fervor that's practically religious. Human beings attach a drama to competition that thrills us; even though we dread it, we glory in it and we love to watch one competitor defeat another.

Violence is one way that competiveness manifests. It's the thrill of seeing two rivals mash heads and not knowing who will come out on top. Maybe at some level these stories are how we try to prepare ourselves for the day we have to prove ourselves in a win-or-die scenario. This goes back to the implicit question in every tale of action or suspense, "what if it was me?"

These are just my thoughts on the matter. I don't claim to have a sociology or psychology degree, but to a large extent it describes my own feelings on what draws otherwise nonviolent people to violent stories.

[Nightmarenny]

Because humans love volence. Watching Saving private ryan or Saw is no different. The former has quantities of death, while the latter goes for QUALITY.

And what is with everyone saying Saw has no plot? It has a fantastic plot, excellent characters you can feel for, whatever you could want.
Thank you.

Man I never relised how many people missed the point of Saw.

On one hand there is gore, alot. But if that were all it was a cheap indie-movie wouldn't have made it. There is plenty of that. The love of horror come mostly in Teenagers I know several people who hate the Horror movie they once loved.
On a level I think its the same reason we love fantasy, an Sci-fi. We live in a fairly boring time. We naturaly seek extrodinary circumstances. Whatever those are the adreniline is something we crave.

Saw however is not just that. The first spends the magority of time giving you backstory. The joy is understanding why the characters are in their life. Along with that the plot twist near the end is what was so great about it. The only two gore point that are focused on are there not just for gore. The first setting up a characters physce for the sequel. The other potraling how far a men wished to go to save his family.

Even if you don't like "slasher flick" you shouldn't judge Saw on that. Its more full of meaning then most any other kind of movie.

[0wca]

Why do so many people love to be morbidly shocked?

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of horror, because most of it is killing-based (expl. Texas Chainsaw Massacre - laughed my ass off at that one).

The really good ones are the psychological ones like

Ju On (http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/mf/frame?theme=minfo&lid=wmv-100-p.1279730-129846,wmv-300-p.1279731-129846,wmv-56-p.1279729-129846,wmv-28-p.1279729-129846&id=1808570509&f=1808570509&mspid=1808585013&type=c&a=0,15[/URL])

or

A Tale of Two Sisters (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/trailer.html?pop=y&mtype=win&quality=high&url=httpQ3AQ2FQ2Fwww.totaleclips.comQ2FPlayerQ2FBo unce.aspxQ3FeclipidQ3De23827Q26ampQ3BbitrateidQ3D1 0Q26ampQ3BvendoridQ3D225&title=A%20Tale%20of%20Two%20Sisters (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808570509/trailer)).

[U]BE WARNED BEFORE WATCHING THESE TWO!!!

And to answer your question:

I watch horror to test my nerves, and my psychic strength. Also my awareness and fear...

... but that's just me. :smallsmile:

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

the one horror movie I'm actually looking forward to comes out two weeks from today. I am a huge Silence of the Lambs fan, and Hannibal Rising should be a decent film. I do think however that it looks to be much more violent than the others, but knowing that series (minus Hannibal), they are all very intellectual and more psychologically horror based than a gore fest. Granted you really can't have a film about a cannibal without some degree of blood and gore, but it looks to be quite a promising film.

[0wca]

Horror movies are made so that teenagers can get their gf/bf to hold them and have an excuse to get close. They have no plot so if your *busy* you dont care, and are exciting enough that if you aren't *busy* then you have something to watch

Also true. :smallbiggrin:

[cthulhu_waits]

Also true. :smallbiggrin:

Not to me. My friends and I that like horror movies don't see them as an excuse to get close to our girlfriends, and we didn't we when were teenagers. We like them because they're fun, and for the other reasons I've talked about in this thread.

I'm not saying that's not why some people go see them, but not for me or anyone I know.

[Mr. Moon]

I don't see the atraction of horrer movies. The only horrer movie I've ever seen was War of the Worlds, in theater. I walked out a quarter way through in tears.

[AdversusVeritas]

Imagine this: a young college student decides to investigate his family's dark past. Along the way, he is warned by several mysterious characters that the truth is too terrible and that the risks are far too grave. He has only been able to find fragments so far, but they all point to his family's ancestral home in an upstate Midwest ghost town. He begins packing a change of clothes, a flashlight, and a handgun (just in case). Then, as he is about to leave, he suddenly changes his mind, decides that it is too dangerous, and that whatever he would find out probably wouldn't be too pleasant anyway. The end.

I don't know about you, but I'd probably be chunking my popcorn at the movie screen at this point. I am speaking from my own interests and experiences at this point, but I'm going to go ahead an be presumptuous and speak for everyone. No matter how many times you yell at the screen--"Don't go in there!" "Don't open that!" "Just run!"--if the characters in the movie were to actually take our advice, we'd be disappointed. Sure, it can be scarey, but we want to know what happens next anyway.

That is what horror is about for me: a high-stakes genre were the truth, no matter how horrible, is always worth it, no matter what the costs. When you watch a romance flic, the main character always goes through hell in order to get the guy/girl, but that hell is what makes the movie interesting. It lets us know that the "prize" is worth it. In horror, the stakes are higher, the hell is hotter, but the "prize" is still worth it anyway. In a strange sort of way, it is a pretty optimistic genre.

[Muz]

Not to disrespect your perspective, but it's funny that you play D&D if violence is completely unappealing to you. A large part of the game revolves around violence. Medieval weapons are very brutal tools, and I expect most dungeon chambers end up looking similar to slaughterhouse floors once a combat is resolved. I describe things pretty thoroughly to my players. If you gut someone open with a longsword, their guts will fall out. That won't smell nice. There's probably going to be a final scream.

Just because there's violence in D&D doesn't mean when you kill an orc it's intestines spill out in a bloody gush at your feet where you're sitting on your couch playing, or that it's intimately described to you in visceral, gut-wrenching detail. I like D&D, and enjoy a good combat session, but that doesn't mean I enjoy witnessing someone screaming in agony as their foot is slowly pulled off, whether it's real or just a reasonable facsimilie. Human suffering itself is not a draw (for me or, I'm guessing, The Vorpal Tribble) in terms of why I play D&D.

[knownaspirate]

This may be off topic BUT, if you ever find yourself in a horror movie type of situation, you need to find yourself a parka.
This will detour the killer from making you a victim.
Have you ever seen a person in a parka have their insides decorate a room? I haven't.
Pirates Honor, this works:smallamused: