Why are unique and original movies frowned upon?

[foxgate2000]

This is just a pet peeve so please bear with me.

Why is it when "horror" (and note I wrote horror, not slasher) fans cry and cry and cry for something new and original that isn't just the same old stuff revisited, and then they get that and they whine about THAT. My strongest argument for this is when The Blair Witch Project opened a few years back. IMO it was the most original horror film we got in forever. I loved it and still do think of it in my top 10 horror films. But all the people screaming for this original movie then bitched about it. Was it because there wasn't any gore? As far as I'm concerned "horror" means horror and not gore. Probably why I don't count slashers in the Horror column, but rather as it's own genre. Any thoughts?

[countchocula]

Blair Witch wasn't necessarily original, but it did pave the way for the quality horror we're seeing now. I'm so glad that the slasher subgenre is temporarily dormant.

[BILL FIEND]

i agree with you but the reason i didnt like blair witch was beacause i just thought it was boring, not because it didnt have any gore..i could care less about gore as long as i enjoyed the movie....i do agree that it was original but i was told it was suppose to be "scary as hell" yet it wasnt.... i also think people should give the newer more original movies more of a chance.....in the end it all comes down to whether or not i had a good time watching a movie and in the end of blair witch...i was dissapointed

[Hell Phantom]

Hollowood Sucks! There's Straight to videos that should of gotten a theatrical release. Take Ginger Snaps for instance! Great flick but was put on the shelves right away. Why? I dunno...maybe it to gorey or Hollywood rather would release Halloween 8 instead....

[iRottenCotton]

Hollywood does not like taking chances. They want a movie that will appeal too a wider audence. Thats why alot of horror films are coming out with PG-13 ratings. I agree with what your saying. Anytime something new comes along people hate it at first but in the long run those are the films that get the most respect.

[FeydRautha]

I think iRottenCotton hit the nail on the head: Hollywood studios/producers won't put money into any project they don't think will make them a healthy profit. Every major studio has a department that researches market surveys and theatre attendance to study what people are going to see the most.

Perfect example: The Cube. A genuinely scary independent horror flick that had more chills than gore, and got nearly eff-all theatre distribution (in many countries it went straight-to-video). My guess is there aren't enough fans who want more "intellectual" horror to get the film industry's attention.

[foxgate2000]

I will definetly agree CUBE was wayyyyy under-rated. This movie was so creepy and gave a sense of claustrophobia, it was great. It's one of those movie I found ingenious but have a hard time watching simply because how uneasy it makes you feel. All around fun. Countchocula, don't take me the wrong way in this because I don't mean any offense at all. That said, can you name a movie before Blair Witch that was at all similar in execution?

Bill Fiend, i understand where some people could see it being boring. I probably would if it wasn't the aspiring film maker in me seeing the film for it's style and originality over what actually happened, or in this case, didn't happen. I don't know. All this is IMO, you know!

[Tommy Doyle]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Hell Phantom:
There's Straight to videos that should of gotten a theatrical release. Take Ginger Snaps for instance! Great flick but was put on the shelves right away. Why? I dunno...maybe it to gorey or Hollywood rather would release Halloween 8 instead....</font>

Really? In the State's it went straight to video? It was in the theatre's for what seemed like forever up here! Hmm, funny!

[Cyclonus]

Nowadays people are so conditioned by watered-down, committee-produced movies that they have difficulty accepting something that's goes against the grain. Like the other guy said, Phantasm was lucky it did so well at the box office because it was so odd and nonmainstream. (I didn't like that movie personally but you see my point)

[Trash Bag Man]

I am Jop.

[Cyclonus]

Ummm...your point?

[sodajerkpoet]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tommy Doyle:
Really? In the State's it went straight to video? It was in the theatre's for what seemed like forever up here! Hmm, funny!

</font>


Ginger Snaps was a Canadian film, which might have had something to do with its release situations in the States. It was featured in the previews of American movies and enjoys a long shelf life over here. I really enjoyed that movie, wish I could see it on the silver screen.

[countchocula]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by foxgate2000:
Countchocula, don't take me the wrong way in this because I don't mean any offense at all. That said, can you name a movie before Blair Witch that was at all similar in execution?</font>

Keep in mind, I haven’t seen either film, but Cannibal Holocaust and Man Bites Dog allegedly implemented the “mockumentary” style of filmmaking years before Blair Witch. I could mention The Last Broadcast, but that’s a close call. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t hate The Blair Witch Project. It’s just that the hype surrounding the film was too overwhelming. For me, it was difficult not to be fairly disappointed with the end result. Plus, months before the media circus began, I had read an article in Fango outlining pretty much everything about BW, which considerably minimized the potential effect that the film would have had on me.

[Dark Minister]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by foxgate2000:
This is just a pet peeve so please bear with me.

Why is it when "horror" (and note I wrote horror, not slasher) fans cry and cry and cry for something new and original that isn't just the same old stuff revisited, and then they get that and they whine about THAT. My strongest argument for this is when The Blair Witch Project opened a few years back. IMO it was the most original horror film we got in forever. I loved it and still do think of it in my top 10 horror films. But all the people screaming for this original movie then bitched about it. Was it because there wasn't any gore? As far as I'm concerned "horror" means horror and not gore. Probably why I don't count slashers in the Horror column, but rather as it's own genre. Any thoughts?</font>

Blair Witch was far from original, it was a cheap fucking knock off of Canninbal Holocaust that featured talentless actors and even more talentless filmakers trying to sucker people in to seeing this piece of shit by fooling a few people into thinking that there was an actual truth to this horrible story.

[FeydRautha]

Blair Witch may have been a knock-off, but it did have genuinely frightening moments. I'll fess up, I didn't go see this at the cinema coz I fell for all the hype and didn't have anyone to hold my hand at the theatre (I admit it, I'm a wuss). My brother went on at me to see it until I finally caught it on video, and agreed with him that, while amateurish-looking and many ideas I saw there had been done many times before, it was an admirable effort on the part of the creators and actors.

I have a friend in the industry who keeps telling me that the reason all the "Screams" and "Jasons" and "Halloweens" keep raking it in is because the theatre-going public are (in his words) "told what to want to watch". So when hot young stars like Neve Campbell, Jennifer Love Hewitt or Freddy Prinze Jr. are cast, the public supposedly assumes it's going to be a good flick.

It doesn't bode well for innovative stuff like BWP or "The Hole", but I still have to admire upcoming film-makers for putting their neck on the line and producing something most of us would also like to see.

[Kim K]

Funny when Freddy Prinze jr. is cast in a movie I always assume it's gonna suck.

[FeydRautha]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kim K:
Funny when Freddy Prinze jr. is cast in a movie I always assume it's gonna suck.</font>

Agreed (as for the last two stars I mentioned), but these people have a HUGE fan-base who'd happily watch them clip their toe-nails and pay for the privelege. That's the point I think my friend was trying to make.