Gore: Too much or too little?

[C-Desecration-]

I'm not sure if this is an age old debate, but it should be:
Is there too much gore in horror flicks, or too little? I usually compare certain "intelligent" flicks like The Ring, Signs, Donnie Darko and such (whether they are PG-13 or R) with more "brain-dead" romps like Friday flicks, Dead Alive*, and such. Strangely enough, it seems that there are very few classics that can retain both a gore-level, so to speak, and deep characters, plot, and whatnot without one or the other falling apart. Personally, it doesn't seem terribly difficult to combine gore and thoughts into a movie.

I, of course, usually don't care too much about the gore-factor, well, not nearly as much as I care about the intelligence factor. Of course, that depends on what you're looking for: Want a good movie? Choose one that relies on something other than gore. Cheap fun? Get a blood-soaked cheesefest.

Can any schmoe name a movie that had balanced a good helping of gore in with a solid storyline, great acting/characters, and pretty much the whole deal? I honestly can't . . . many people may say that gore is simply used when other substances are lacking, but I don't think so.
Take an adversary from a book/movie/whatever (throughout the example, pretend this particular movie has great characters, plot, and so forth), one that is the most threatening to you personally. If that certain persona was onscreen (we'll call him Murder X.), what would you find far more terrifying?
A: Murder X. terrorizes the "good guys" throughout the movie, killing them off one by one, with off-screen kills that are fairly bland.
B. Murder X. terrorizes the "good guys" throughout the movie, killing them off on by one, with visciously brutal methods.
Personally, I got to go with B. Look at a horror master like Stephen King. If his villains (take the clown from IT) killed in a way that might have been brutal, but more eluded to the brutality. This is why the tv version of IT suffered--bloodless kills. After all, showing just what IT could do (ripping off heads, tearing apart children like rag-dolls, etc.) would, for me personally, give him a far more terrifying persona than if his kills were more subtle. The best villains need to be viscious and relentless--completely un-sympathetic characters.
Throughout a long, intense, character-driven horror masterpiece where the viewer has an incredible bond with those characters on screen, wouldn't this terrifying adversary, who brutally mutilates those characters (with no sympathy) the viewer has come to connect with make it all that much more evil, hateful?

I hate it when (this isn't on purpose, people) in a horror flick, you ending up rooting for the bad dude instead of the guys you should. Look at Freddy. Everybody thought he was this terrifying persona earlier on, but when the guy started wise-cracking HE became the one people rooted for instead of the good guys, and thus this terrifying persona he had acquired was destroyed.

What does everyone think?

[MacReady]

Pesonally, I love gore and embrace every second it's on screen. As for your previous question, I find that movies like The Thing and The Fly to be both smart, supenseful, well acted yet quite gory (althought the gore is more based on metamorphosis than mutilation). BTW there's a * at the end of Dead Alive in your post. What did you want to say about it?

[ERIN_LoJ]

Gore and horror don't have to go hand in hand. A lot of people who dont like horror just see these movies as giant gore fests, which majorly pisses me off. Ignorant bastards.

As for me I don't care either way. Gore or no gore. I have a strong stomach, it doesnt gross me out. I can sit there and eat through any gore I have seen. It doesn't do anything for me either. I dont like senseless gore because it just seems tasteless to me without a point. But I know a lot of people who really love gore and I respect that. Movies like the Evil dead series are classics.

Call me sick, call me a freak, but one thing I enjoy is BLOOD :D I love bloody scenes, bloody bodys, dripping blood, bloody movies, horror or not - as long as it's not fake looking, ruins the whole thing.

And no I dont consider gore and blood to be the same thing :D

[PapaJupe2k]

I'm in it more for the plot line and story development. I could live with all off screen non bloody kills if it boils down to it. I mean dead is dead, it doesn't bother me to see lots of blood and guts, but I don't think it's essential for a good movie. I don't think it adds a tremendous amount to movie, but like I said I'm not going to get offended by seeing it.

[Requiem-for-a-Dream]

Gore is something that should only be used when a storyline needs it or if the movie requires it.

I believe art is art and that horror flicks sometimes need gore or should have it because of the reaction it's trying to get from the audience.

Lets take a recent gore-fest, Ghost Ship. The gore in that movie was well justified, it tried to go over-the-top because that's what horror fans sometimes want. Creativity is needed with gore and I think many horror films try and accomplish just that, creativity. The opening sequence is now famous and it deserves to be.

The Ring, Darkness Falls and They are all films featuring the level of gore that is needed to tell the story. Although Darkness Falls should have shown more, I think the scariness of the murders was good enough. The Ring was very gory/disturbing for a PG-13 rating. But the gore was there only when it needed to be. Haven't seen they but I know about it's gore quotiant, not very high.

There's also the Italian gore fests that use gore as a means to shock. Sometimes it can be justified, other times it's just sick.

I don't think there's a lack of gore in movies (especially Straight-to-Video flicks), and I don't think there's too much (you can always find tame but scary flicks around, ex. Session 9).

Matt

[Donnie_Darko]

In the true horror genre, there can never be too much, only too little. If it's a thriller, then just small amounts are needed. If it's suspense, then as little as possible.

If Zombies are involved then THERE CAN NEVER BE ENOUGH!!! MWUHAHAHAHA.... er, uhm, sorry... lost my mind for a minute.

[Cronos]

A good storyline and gore dont have to go toghether, I love both, as said before if its a zombie flick such as DotD or Dead Alive then it is needed but for smarter storydriven flicks less or no gore is needed, as off screen kills can be more effective than kills performed onscreen, they dont suffer from bad gore effects or over the top violence but allow the viewer to picture and make up what is happening, which can, more offen than not add to suspense or fear level in the film.

[C-Desecration-]

Makes sense. Oh and MacReady, the * at the end of Dead Alive I meant to say that I personally have not seen the movie.

A lot of replies about the gore vs. storyline and such, and I got to agree that whatever the movie requires for gore, should be in it. And movies should not just slap blood and guts into the picture for the hell of it.

What does everyone think on the notion of antagonists that I mentioned? In movies that deal with a specific one (like IT or session 9 and so many others), I personally feel that the more visciously he/she/it kills the opposition makes he/she/it all that more terrifying (look at my initial post for elaboration).

Cronos mentioned that offscreen kills actually heighten the suspense and whatnot, and allow the viewer to imagine what is going to happen for themselves. That's all well and good depending on the movie type, but for something that is portraying a basic good/evil struggle (Stephen King flicks/books come to mind: The Stand, IT, Misery, etc.), the more evil and viscious the antagonist is, the more that, in turn, the viewer roots for the good guys. That's my personal opinion (also, any downright brutal kills show just what the antagonist can do, and therefore makes the viewer fear even more for the good guys).

[MacReady]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
Makes sense. Oh and MacReady, the * at the end of Dead Alive I meant to say that I personally have not seen the movie.

A lot of replies about the gore vs. storyline and such, and I got to agree that whatever the movie requires for gore, should be in it. And movies should not just slap blood and guts into the picture for the hell of it.

What does everyone think on the notion of antagonists that I mentioned? In movies that deal with a specific one (like IT or session 9 and so many others), I personally feel that the more visciously he/she/it kills the opposition makes he/she/it all that more terrifying (look at my initial post for elaboration).

Cronos mentioned that offscreen kills actually heighten the suspense and whatnot, and allow the viewer to imagine what is going to happen for themselves. That's all well and good depending on the movie type, but for something that is portraying a basic good/evil struggle (Stephen King flicks/books come to mind: The Stand, IT, Misery, etc.), the more evil and viscious the antagonist is, the more that, in turn, the viewer roots for the good guys. That's my personal opinion (also, any downright brutal kills show just what the antagonist can do, and therefore makes the viewer fear even more for the good guys).

You're idea about unlikable evil antagonists is quite right IMO. In Near Dark and Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer we see the story through the antagonists eyes and see that their evil yet their victims are just normal, kind, polite people being attacked by psychos who pick targets at random therefore it's easier to root for the good guys. If you think about it, it's often the lesser seen side you root for. Personally I rarely root for the bad guy. As for offscreen kills, they can be grosser than onscreen kills if handled right. Near Dark, The Hitcher, The Fog and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre use you own imagination against you and make the kill ickier than it propably is. Not too mention they use disturbing sounds. As for more evil antagonists, I agree since in Zombie the zombies were quite cruel and gruesome therefore I didn't enjoy seeing them kill people so graphically.

[the night watchman]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-


Can any schmoe name a movie that had balanced a good helping of gore in with a solid storyline, great acting/characters, and pretty much the whole deal?

Off the top of my head: Dawn of the Dead, Re-Animator, The Thing, Dagon, Brain Damage (d. Henelotter), and just about any David Cronenberg movie, especially Shivers, Rabid, Videodrome, and The Fly. (Admittedly, Shiversand Rabid aren't strong in the acting department, but I think the movies boast enough positive aspects, especially thematically, to make up for that.)

Personally, I don't mind gore, but I normally don't like movies that exist solely to display gore, either-- Friday the 13th series and most Lucio Fulci movies -- because I find them dull.

[Big Brother]

I say gore is ALWAYS welcome!
if there's a lack of gore in movies that need gore (feardotcom), I really don't like it.

[pyscho dude]

All horror movies need gore. Gore is cool. Which is why I hate these kiddie pg-13 horror films. All horror films should have gore but it depends on the film for the level of gore. Now a zombie films should be filled to the top with gore like Dead Alive or Dawn of the dead. A slasher movie should have a little but not too much because then it gets to the point of braindead carnage. A ghost movie can have however much it wants.

[C-Desecration-]

These "kiddie" PG-13 horror flicks are usually a hell of a lot more intelligent than Jason or Micheal. And, with the new era of them (Sings, The Ring, etc.) they also usually have much better characters/acting/script/direction than many R movies.

However, movies required for gore should have gore, and of course, visa-versa.

And for all the talk about Dawn of the Dead, I found the movie to have an awful pace, good leads, boring characters, and pretty much a comedy instead of horror (except for the last, gory-ass half). I did forget about The Thing though, that did have good characters, plot, and still had some pretty gnarly scenes (that poor dog).

[pyscho dude]

Hey movies are for ENTERTAINMENT!!! Now what kind of fucking entertainment can there be in a pg-13 horror movie? No nudity, no gore, no good dialogue, plus a bunch of annoying kiddie characters and lets not forget the happy everyone lives endings. And just because a movie has gore doesn't mean it's not intelligent. Maybe the directors are trying to display the real truth about death. I mean do you think that cops dealing with homocide get nice killers who don't leave a bloody mess? NO! They have to deal with very bloody and sick messes that are really disturbing.

[psycho path]

I usually like it when a movie has one or two really brutal murders,and the rest of the kills are subtle. I think it gives a bigger shock most of the time when you are expecting the next kill to be offscreen,then WHAM! Holy fuck!
Like in my film Mansion,its not gonna be a mindless cheesy gorefest,but more of a creepy,slow moving,non-CGI movie with scary little ghost girls and boys,specters,ETC. Theres atleast two brutal deaths,including an axe butchering at the top of a set of stairs,and a knife to the skull.

[the night watchman]

Not all movies are meant to be purely entertainment. Obviously, a successful movie should be entertaining, or at least engaging (can "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" really be considered entertaining?), but most movies that only go for that surface level usually end up only boring me, or, at least, don't leave me with the desire to go watch them again.

What kind of entertainment can be found in a PG-13 movie? Good acting, an engaging story, strong, interesting characters, sharp direction, visuals, and music. PG-13 certainly does not equal "kiddie" or "fluff." I have no problem with ADD-level entertainment provided by "boobs and blood," but I get more out of one that offers something more.

[Requiem-for-a-Dream]

I knew I'd see a couple of posts with, "boobs and blood are the only things that make movies entertaining".

I personally really enjoy all the PG-13 movies that have been coming out. They tend to be a lot more scary then the R-Rated one's. The Ring is one of the scariest films I've ever seen, who cares if it's PG-13? It has gore but it's not over done.

I also love the new gore flicks (Ghost Ship, The Hunted, Dreamcatcher, Legion of the Dead etc). I think there's a very nice balance out there for horror fans. If you're into gore, go check out Dreamcatcher or the Hunted. If you want some good scares go see...what's out there right now that's PG-13 horror wise?

Matt

[Odd Emu]

I think it's really kind of split down the middle for me.

Their's fun gore, and then their's Holy Shit!

for example

fun gore: The vein puppet in ANOES3
Holy Shit!: Dawn of the Dead - Intestines being ripped out
fun gore: Friday the 13th 3 - Speargun in the eye
Holy Shit!: Hannibal - Pigs eating someones face off.

Gore can never substitute for a plot though. Especially movies where they only have gore, exp: Faces of Death, Violent Shit, etc.

[MacReady]

I find that these pg-13 movies may have brain, but they lack in heart and soul. They lack soul because they're made by big studio and are marketed at little kids in order to get more money. They lack heart because they don't fell very unique and never dare push the evenlope. They should have stopped with Signs and The Ring but hollywood let it's brain slide, got too greedy and decided to make movies like They and Darkness Falls. If you look at The Arrow's reviews reviews you'll sense a pattern:
Signs=4/4
The Ring=3/4
They=2/4
Darkness Falls=2/4

With remakes of Dawn Of The Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Suspiria I really hate the idea of them being dumbed down for little kids. Can you people imagine a pg-13 remake of Dead Alive? I sure as hell can't.

[C-Desecration-]

With remakes of Dawn Of The Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Suspiria I really hate the idea of them being dumbed down for little kids. Can you people imagine a pg-13 remake of Dead Alive? I sure as hell can't.

Little kids? Honestly, the initial Texas Chainsaw Massacre, is released today, would be PG-13. The director wanted a PG rating for godsakes! And it'll be a dark day when little kids are allowed to watch the ring (by little kids, I'm saying 11 and under)

With flicks like Dead Alive, that are pretty much gore for the sake of gore(I haven't seen the movie personally, this is just what I've gathered), shouldn't be PG-13. After all, remove the gore from Dead Alive, and I'll just about bet that the movie would be utter, boring crap. Certain movies need gore to keep themselves entertaining.

The Ring, Signs--both great flicks. But comparing the likes of Darkness Falls with so-called "kiddie" PG-13 flicks is like saying Ghost Ship was R, sucked, so all R movies from now on are going to be awful.
It's an unfair comparison.

Filmakers are just beginning to realize that they don't need buckets of blood to make a great horror pick. However, I'm not anti-violence (in movies, that is) or anything; I firmly believe that certain movies(Se7en anyone?) do need some graphic material, especially when the flick is trying to create a truly terrifying villain/adversay (I'm not going to explain this again, so just hunt down some post of mine above for clarification).

[MacReady]

First of all please don't go bashing Dead Alive since you haven't even seen it yet. Besides, take away the gore and there's still an enchanting romance story, great pacing, good acting as well as hilarious slap stick thrown in for good mesure. Too be fair I woudn't like it as much if it did't have that much gore but that the movie itself, it wanted to be king of all splatter films. Second, you may have mentioned The Texas Chainsaw Massacre but you forgot Dawn Of The Dead and Suspiria. Third, I just coundn't take pg-13 horror movies seriously. Their supossed to shock and repulse and I hate when they have that popcorn-munchin' stupid teenage mainstream viewer stink all over it. Horror movies should have R-ratings because horror should be the most vile genre in their is movie industry. When people make movies for the sole purpose of making wads of cash I'm just not atracted to it. On the other hand movies that try to scare us, entertaining us and maybe even teach us something is my cup a tea. Finally, you compare movies like Signs to Ghost Ship. Now that's just unfair. It's like compairing They and Swimfan to The Evil Dead and The Exorcist. Pick something good to match the other.

[the night watchman]

I agree that a horror movie aimed at the mainstream market probably isn't going to be very good; but any movie aimed at the mainstream market probably isn't going to be very good. But look at recent horror flicks that have been "gored-up" for the supposed horror crowd like "Ghost Ship" and "feardotcom." These are R-rated crapfests. Gimme "The Sixth Sense" or "The Ring," heck even "Scream" any old day.

The point is, a movie should be what it needs to be. Of course an R movie cut down to a PG-13 is going to suffer; but so is a movie with a lot of splatter effects tacked on to "raise" it to an R. (Think "The House on Haunted Hill" and "Thirteen Ghosts.") The problem arises not from the lack of graphic violence and grue in a horror movie, it comes from studios tampering with a film to get it to fit into a demographic.

[pyscho dude]

PG-13= Parental guidance suggested for children under 13.

R=Restricted no one under 17 allowed unless they have a parent or guardian that's over 17.

Now which one of those ratings seems like they're for little kids? Hell man I know little 8 year old kids who watch R rated horror movies like resident evil and they said they liked it and watched pg-13 horror films and said they hated it. Hell man, not even little kids seem to like pg-13 horror films.

[the night watchman]

Originally posted by pyscho dude
PG-13= Parental guidance suggested for children under 13.

R=Restricted no one under 17 allowed unless they have a parent or guardian that's over 17.

Now which one of those ratings seems like they're for little kids?

Neither, unless you consider 13 year olds "little" kids. And, anyway, I know people who refer to anyone under 20 as a child. So, in from certain perspective, both are ratings for kids.

Anyway, I just don't see the logic in liking or disliking a movie based on its rating. Am I really going to like "Bats" or "Resident Evil" (which 8 yr olds should not be watching) any more just because they are rated R? Am I going to prefer them over PG-13 movies like "The Sixth Sense" ot "The Ring"? Of course not; that's just a bizarre form of cinematic conservatism.

[slasherfan]

In my opinion it's not the whole PG-13 thing that's botering me, I hate it when a movie gets cut down to gaina PG-13 just to try gain more money. The Ring was filmed that way, it was shoot for a PG-13 rating.
But take for example a director/writer go out to make a dark/scary/violent horror movie. They make really intence, very dark with some nice gore and they also manage to have some great characters to root for. Enter the studio who think that PG-13 horor is all the range so theydecide to cut the movie down for PG-13. Theycut out all the dark intence scenes, cut all the deaths. Then they are left with mostly take and not much action so they take out alot of character development to make up for it leaving the movie as a brainless flick. I think that is wrong!
AS for the whole gore issue, it depends on the movie, I feel slasher movies need gore and lots of it. Other movies it can
depend on the story, Ghost stories are one genre I feel wouldn't need any gore at all to work.

[psycho path]

What I dont like is when studios cut down a movie too much and dont make it gory or scary AT all. I think Darkness falls could have pushed its PG-13 rating,or just been kept at an R-Rating. And THE HAUNTING remake. Fuck,the studios made a 15 foot ghost come out of a painting and throw a temper tantrum infront of Eleanor,when Jan de bonts original ending was more of something to catch you offguard. I dont know what studios were thinking when they gave THE RING PG-13,That movie scared the fuck outta me,and had some violence and disturbing images(The nail through the finger)
But back to topic. These days there is not enough gore. Not like it matters too much,im all for another intelligent movie opposed to a mindless slashfest,although we have not had one for quite some years that was cheesy fun.