Freddy, Jason, Micheal, Pinhead, Chucky… all original horror characters (some with funny jokes) but today the Horror movie genre seems dead (no pun intended). The only thing still keeping the genre is alive is turning old books into films, or films attempting to copy the mastermind, Wes Craven.
There is a rise in the number of horror short films and many are quite good. Perhaps these will replace full-length feature movies in the genre.
– Jeffery Moser9 years ago
Short horror stories, especially the best of Creepy Pastas available out there, would only last about a half hour at most in a visual format. But these are the stories that have managed to scare me and affect me the most, except for maybe "Hellraiser" 1 and 2. These stories, written by everyday teens and young adults, are clever, innovative, original, and surprising. Something that modern horror cinema has failed time and time again to do. Modern horror films, for the most part, do not understand what is truly scary. They do not try to be terrifying. Rather they go for the quick and simple thrills and jump scares, and disturbing imagery. But the funny thing is, even the imagery isn't as freaky or disturbing as it could be. Because something as innocent as a doll facing just the right way in the middle of an empty old room with one eye missing can be scarier than a dead person's body cut open on a table or something. It's more about subtlety, misdirection, showing people one thing, but then revealing it to be more than what it appeared at first. "Sinister" managed to do some of this at first, but then went so far beyond itself that it became laughable by the end. It tried to be creative and original, and really mysterious, but then it broke that barrier between scary and stupid, and it just lost its grip. If horror wants to get better, then it needs to look into Creepy Pastas for inspiration, and not just to fit them into the tried-and-true molds that already exist, but to present them as they were intended, where they can actually elicit a palpable and lasting reaction. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I would give reasons why the genre "seems dead" to you. What did past horror characters have that may be lacking today? What makes Wes Craven "the mastermind"? – StephenMatthias9 years ago
Was Wes a "Mastermind?" I mean, he had like two big films that are respected to this day, and then a bunch of sequels that slowly got less and less innovative. The other things he did I couldn't even name for you. Whereas someone like John Carpenter created "Halloween," "The Thing," "The Fog," and "In the Mouth of Madness." Even his first feature, "Dark Star," went on to inspire Ridley Scott's "Alien," because both films had a similar plot-line, the same writer, and the same VFX supervisor. I get that Craven has always been a big deal, I just don't quite get why compared to other horror directors. I mean, heck, what about Tobe Hooper? – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
One area of focus could be the numerous sequels to certain horror movie franchises. – JDJankowski9 years ago
Examining popular entertainment like film, books, and the arts, can we see where our generational fixation on oversensitivity and prohibiting the lifespan of anything that offends us has weakened or diminshed the reputation/ influence of these mediums? Are we heading toward a destination of absolute safety that leaves no urgency or passion to be acceptable, being too volatile of subjects?
Passion in terms of what? Story concepts? Types of scenes or narrative events? The emotional or personal interests of the characters themselves? You're rather vague on that point. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
you subbed this under "film" so I will stick in that art form: what film examples do you have of "oversensitivity"? I am not sure what you mean by this term (and so I agree with Jonathan above). If you provide an example, it will help define what you mean by "oversensitive." – Caitlin Ray9 years ago
I can't really think of something in recent memory that was cancelled or shut down because it offended too many people. I will agree to some extent that content these days is more "PC friendly," but at the same time, certain things are just as vulgar and inappropriate for certain age groups as they've always been, it just depends on where these things are shown, and what the core demographics are. And also, plenty of shows and books have tried to broaden the scope of modern fiction by exploring topics and approaching stories from an angle which allows a wide variety of people (genders, sexes, colors, cultures, etc) to enjoy it for themselves, and get out of it what is meaningful to them as an individual. Many people will find these new trends offensive and say that they have a sinful agenda, but since when was allowing someone to think for themselves a sin? But, I still have no idea what this all has to do with an eventual ultimate result of total safety in media and a "lack of passion or urgency." I think there are plenty of things to be passionate about that are offensive to no one, but it is the things that are offensive to a lot of people that are worth talking about, because often they are things which shouldn't be offensive at all from a rational point of view, which is why people fight for them to be accepted. I think if people can learn to stop living in the past and embrace a new way of thinking, living, and creating, we might be better off in the future than we are now. We're much better off now than we ever were in previous decades or centuries. But it doesn't feel like it because we all think that our childhood years were so much different than things are right now, when in reality, they probably weren't much different. It all has a lot to do with perspective. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Are you talking about what media has shown this kind of example in the plot, or are you talking about how our reality effects media? If it's question 1.) I would say the writer should read The Giver.
If it's question 2.) I would say research banned books. – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
The Giver by Lois Lowry or The Chrysalids by John Wyndham are two books that are relevant to this topic. Munjeera – Munjeera9 years ago
General American movie-goers tend to object to sexual content in films as being inappropriate or pointless ("Why do we need to see it?") but conversely don't object to violence and gore. Is it not more vulgar to watch people get murdered or tortured even rather than to see a little bit of intimacy on screen? Dissect examples of popular films and their appeal to either violence or sex, and the audience's response.
This is certainly worth investigating. In grade 12, I recall taking an introductory film studies course, and the teacher told us that he was allowed to choose films with excessive violence, but not with sex. It's really strange, since violence is something that we (ideally) shouldn't partake in, and sex is something fun, natural, and will be a part of nearly everyone in that room's life at some point (by grade 12, it was a part of many of the students' lives already). Even more surprisingly, in that class we watched three films with rape scenes - Rashomon, Deliverance, and Boys Don't Cry, all of which somehow managed to somehow slip past the sex radar - which is, by definition, a mix of sex and violence. I think it has to do with a large element of Conservativism which is still very present in our seemingly Liberal society. Sex is "bad" because its "sinful" and "corrupting," but violence is "okay" because "sometimes its necessary" and "the ends justify the means." – ProtoCanon8 years ago
It not only happens in the motion picture but in the TV. After watching Game of Thrones or James Wan's movies, I ponder whether the excessive violence or the sexual content is compulsory to the movies or the tv nowadays.
One of the reasons why popular films love brutal or crazy sex scene is related to the transformation of the entertainment industry. It is more open-minded and allows those disturbing concepts in the movie and tv productions. Few decades ago, the idea barely appears in the featured films or TV but rather in B-movies. – moonyuet8 years ago
Also, just remembered this: http://hannibalfannibals.com/2015/07/18/hannibal-and-the-hypocrisy-of-censorship/ – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I guess it is hypocritical but as a parent I regularly watch movies with all kinds of violence like Civil War and even talk about the "airport battle.". But truth is I wouldn't be comfortable watching any intimate scenes with my kids, even though they are 23 and 13. This would be a good topic because it is something I have never thought twice about. – Munjeera8 years ago
Dermis is dirty, but subdermis is okay. – Tigey8 years ago
A lot of it has to do with religion, and how it depicts the sexual being. In countries that are far less religious, you don't see this uncomfortable reaction to sex on the screen. When groups are indoctrinated at a young age and told essentially that sex is sin, you can see how when they become adults, that negative reaction is still there. – MikeySheff8 years ago
Every decade has a movie that represents the time period, what movie theme represents the 2000's?
I was just curious by what you mean by a movie that describes the 2000's? Would you discuss the film techniques used in film or the content of a film as how it represents/describes landscape of the 2000's? – SeanGadus8 years ago
Perhaps instead of "What movie describes the 2000's" you might focus on what movie themes/tropes describe the 2000's most accurately. Summing it up into one movie sounds difficult, although it could be a fun idea to toy around with; for the purpose of ease on the author I might say going with themes/tropes would work better. – Steven Gonzales8 years ago
Kurt Russell made quite a few movies in his career, a bunch in the 1980's, but there are four in particular that made him a legend in the action star game; Escape from New York (1981), The Thing (1982), Big Trouble in Little China (1986), and Tango & Cash (1989). He could have received a star on the Walk of Fame for those four movies alone, yet he seems to be low on the list, if on the list at all, of the most revered actions stars of our time. When people speak about their favorite action stars you hear the usual Bruce, Steven, Jean, Wesley, Arnold, Sly, etc. But anyone who has seen or was around for the above mentioned movies knows Kurt should be up thee with the rest. Even Sly Stallone recognized it when he cast Russell in the Expendables. So why is Kurt left off the list of greatest action stars of our time? Or am I mistaken in how highly regarded he is as an action hero?
I think this is a really interesting topic! Kurt Russell is amazing. One thing you might want to talk about is the "cult following" that Kurt Russell has vs. main stream popularity of other actors. Might give some insight into the Kurt Russell as an underrated action star. – SeanGadus8 years ago
Agreed! The 4 movies alone that you mention make Kurt more than worthy (and long overdue) for a star. His natural delivery, brilliant comedic timing, and perennial good looks make him a bankable star at any time. I'll go out of my way to watch any movie he is in. – Talos638 years ago
Blending fact and fiction, biopics are not simply stories labeled with a note of "based on a true story/actual events", but narratives that attempt to depict someone's life to some a degree of accuracy. Do biopics educate us on great people, or do they disrupt the truth and distort history? What are some specific times that a biopic has done right and wrong?
We all know the ways of the Jedi: truth, compassion, meditation, wisdom, etc. We also know the path of the Sith: anger, hatred, rage, jealousy, and power. However, the question remains, who is right and who is wrong? Exploring this topic would entail research into the creeds of both the Jedi and Sith and question why their black and white viewpoints cause them to fail. It should also discuss Grey Jedi, as well as Jedi and Sith who have resigned from their beliefs such as Ahsoka Tano, Count Dooku, Jolee Bindo, Asage Ventress and so on. Explore the differences between the teachings of the Old Republic Jedi/Sith and the teachings of Luke Skywalker's generation of Jedi/Sith.
Isn't Darth Revan the most influential user of both sides of the force at one time? Not educated but I think that's what he did? – Slaidey8 years ago
It seems that in most popular movies the set or the setting isn't considered as complexly as the setting of say, a stage play or novel, would be. The article would seek to understand the purpose behind settings in modern films, and if they are (or ever were) an extension of the message the film was trying to get across. Consider the following: Does it really matter that the fight took place in a warehouse instead of an alley? Are there cases where the setting is still heavily influenced by symbolism and imagery? Is it all about the mood or is there something deeper?
Not many people notice or would write about something like this, so as far as originality goes, this is a good topic. I feel as though it does matter on the type of movie. Good horror movies need a proper setting, as well as action movies. With dramas and comedies, not as much. The more visually-based the story is, the more important that the setting fits the story. A good love story or comedy can be told from almost any setting and work, but an action/horror movie with a bad setting basically makes no sense. So I believe it does matter whether the fight is in a warehouse or alley, but it doesn't matter as much whether the star-struck lovers are in medieval England or post Civil war America. – MikeySheff8 years ago
I would think that settings would still matter anywhere, because there's all kinds of reasons why someone would want to stage a fight in a warehouse or an alley. It can range from being believable to matching the kind of tone that the movie is going for. So I think any one who would start thinking about this topic will start thinking about not only in-universe, but production-wise as well. – DanielMichael8 years ago
