Can someone explain the appeal of the new horror films?

[beastieben21]

After the success of Saw 2 and the impending release of Hostel...I'm really starting to question my sanity. I stand by the fact that the scariest "horror" film I've seen in the last 10 years is The Blair Witch Project because of it's less-is-more technique. However, there seems to be an influx of horror films that have people confused. I see and understand the appeal of the slasher film, but since when has this new breed of horror films replaced even that? These films that go so far to try to make you feel disgusted that it gets confused with being scary?

Admittedly, I really don't like most horror films, but I've seen a handful and cannot understand the appeal. When I read the Arrow talk about wanting to see T & A and buckets of gore in a film, not only does it strike me as hedonistic, but it makes no sense. This is what you see a film for??? Can someone please explain to me the appeal of being grossed out (not scared, mind you) by a film and why this is suddenly appealing? Why is the slasher film now just a murky, dark mess of immoral violence? Please, all you horror fans who pay to see this, explain.

[Ki'esha Foxx]

I have no clue. I'm also not a fan of horror movies, but I'm an even bigger non-fan of disgusting movies like Bully. I saw parts of that at a friend's house one night and still remember being grossed out by it. I don't know what America's (particularly the teenage generation) obsession with gore and T&A is, but hopefully my friends will one day be excited about a musical movie or historical or documentary, but that will also be the day when I join the cheerleading squad. "We suck! Our team sucks! We all suck ass! " That would be the cheer.

[War Movie Mania]

Things get old, and eventually people get tired of the same old stuff.

5 or 10 years down the road, Slasher flicks will be all but unheard of, until some director with a mission makes a good slasher flick out of nowhere. He will then be hailed as original and a slew of slasher flicks will ensue for a good 10 years. And then after those 10 years are up someone will be saying, whatever happened to those gross you out tna movies? and the whole thing starts over again.

It's the circle of (movie) life.

[Cronos]

i love horror more than any other genre but i dont see the appeal of a lot of recent horror films, all the remakes just turn me off completely and these films that seem to get a lot of attention for their gore or violence just dont interest me, ive got tired of gore/violence for gore/violences sake and dont see he interest in films like Hostel (which looks mundane and crappy to me

occasionally something comes along that can do the above but also include characters and a story that is really engaging such as the Descent which grabbed me from he get go....but i fail to think of more than a dozen or so horror (not including things like horror-comedy) films that have really wowed me in the last couple of years

[beastieben21]

I guess my all around point was: If you get off on seeing boobs and massive amounts of pointless violence...I don't know how you can consider yourself a film fan. I'm looking for someone to prove me wrong, because to me, if I watch a bunch of actor kids going around jerking each other off (not really, but so that it looks like they are) and I go "Awww..FUCK YEAH! I wanna see like 30 pre-teen cum shots in the new Eli Roth movie!" There is no difference between me and someone who sees these horror movies for tit shots and decapitations.

[sAtAn666]

Horror is my favourite genre, yet I cannot stand those slasher films. I like atmospheric horror, like the Shining. In other words, I like films that genuinely terrify me, instead of films with mindless T&A and slashing.

However, I do love slapstick gore, like the early Peter Jackson films. They're not scary, but I do enjoy them from a comedy point of view. Which is why I think Hotsel can be quite entertaining (hated Cabin Fever though).

[ParileseMonster]

For myself there really is no appeal to be found lately. I check out all the horror (except remakes) in hopes that I do finally find a gem through all the coal. It is my personal hope that keeps me watching and choosing Horror movies.
The hope that I do see something great, entertaining, and genius. Horror was big in my youth, it is my foundation in which I was built. I have not been impressed in a long time, but I have been entertained to a certain extent. I like horror in all forms from scary to amusing, guts and gore and yes T and A.
Now it is only a machine that spits it out in order to feed the kitty and it shows.
Alas, I still have hope.

[bigred760]

Saw II is the only horror movie I've seen this year - I'm not the biggest fan by far of horror flicks, but I did enjoy Saw II - I thought it was pretty original, freaked me out every now and again, and provided enough scares to qualify, for me anyway, as a good horror flick.

I've never gotten into "slasher" or "psycho killer'' flicks - so movies like House of Wax and Cry Wolf don't interest me because they seemed cliche and pretty people who think they're actresses (like Paris Hilton) getting chased around by a knife wielding beyotch isn't my idea of original horror - most of the time anyway.

[Mr-Blonde]

It all depends on your personal tastes, but I really enjoy a good survival horror story that allow you to get emotionally involved with the protagonists (or in some cases the antagonists) . There are plenty of good horror films out there. The best ones, as has been previously mentioned, manage to create a creepy atmosphere and provide characters you can legitimately empathize with. Those are my favorite kind of horror films because you actually care about what happens. Most of the good horror films nowadays aren't what I'd call slasher films but more psychological thrillers.

Some good recent horror films:

Se7en
Joyride
From Hell
Saw
King of the Ants
The Devil's Rejects
High Tension

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
It all depends on your personal tastes, but I really enjoy a good survival horror story that allow you to get emotionally involved with the protagonists (or in some cases the antagonists) . There are plenty of good horror films out there. The best ones, as has been previously mentioned, manage to create a creepy atmosphere and provide characters you can legitimately empathize with. Those are my favorite kind of horror films because you actually care about what happens. Most of the good horror films nowadays aren't what I'd call slasher films but more psychological thrillers.

Some good recent horror films:

Se7en
Joyride
From Hell
Saw
King of the Ants
The Devil's Rejects
High Tension

I myself don't consider Se7en or From Hell horror films. They're more like, as you mentioned, psychological, or suspense, thrillers. In that movie, you don't see the killer from the point of view of the victim(s) - just the pursuers. In Saw (which is the only other one listed there that I've seen), you see what's going on from the POV of the victims - and that's what makes it a horror flick.

[TheDeadWalk]

First of all, I'm well into my twenties and I don't watch horror movies to get scared. I watch them because they intrigue me. Count Chocula once said it best when he said Horror is like an art form. It really is. It is the most diverse genre in the industry, yet its potential is constantly untapped.

I don't really care for tits and ass. I mean if its there, yea it may be fun to watch, or be hell if I have to tell my step-daughter to close her eyes.

As for gore, I think with a lot of today's films gore is more or less showing how much balls filmmakers have. We're in an era of PG-13 flashiness where attack scenes look like a powerpoint presentation in fast-forward. For those that are willing to present and show us what is really happening when the zombie tears into the flesh, or the maniac guts his victim.(Haute Tension) Less certainly can be more sometimes, but when you can show a ripped open body with someone feeding from it... I feel it deserves its props for feeling so real. (Masters of Horror episode "Jenifer")

Films with senseless hack-and-slash techniques such as Freddy Vs. Jason don't score that well with me. The rave scene is nothing more than giving Patrick Swayze a hockey mask and a machete for his fight scenes in Road House.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by beastieben21
I guess my all around point was: If you get off on seeing boobs and massive amounts of pointless violence...I don't know how you can consider yourself a film fan.


Movies are intended to get a reaction from their audience. There is no difference between a movie getting Paris Hilton to create sexual arousal or a movie getting Meryl Streep to create sympathy. In both instances the attempt it to manipulate the audience for entertainment purposes.

Except in your world, you've come to the conclusion that one is better than the other, and one way of soliciting a reaction is better than another. Which, in my book doesn't make someone a film fan, but a film critic.

You already know the answer to the question you posed - it was answered in the first couple lines of your initial response. Look at shows like Fear Factor and just realize that this is the way society has gone. The Japanese have been making these movies for decades and without much batting of eyes, so why is it now that it's been Americanized, it's suddenly deplorable?

As for your problem with people wanting to see T&A, I don't understand what this has to do with horror: Porkys, Russ Myers, even Marilyn Monroe --- all got a reactions out of people, because that is what the people want. Just because you aren't particularly found of a specific way of exploitive emotional response, and maybe only like the movies where you laugh endearingly or cry with the central character -- you are still being manipulated by the filmmakers the same as any other schmoe, even the horror schmoes.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Movies are intended to get a reaction from their audience. There is no difference between a movie getting Paris Hilton to create sexual arousal or a movie getting Meryl Streep to create sympathy. In both instances the attempt it to manipulate the audience for entertainment purposes.

Except in your world, you've come to the conclusion that one is better than the other, and one way of soliciting a reaction is better than another. Which, in my book doesn't make someone a film fan, but a film critic.

So if I watch a film that involves men jerking off little kids, or a film where Nazi's gang-bang Vietnamese virgins, essentially it's the same (or even better!) as watching a Meryl Streep film because it's illiciting even more of a reaction from me, right? I'm taking up the stance of film as an artform. Yeah, I do think the way you illicit a reaction is better in some instances than others. It's the line of morality. By your standard, if I love to see kids jizz on men's faces (an act that, would illicit a reaction from anyone but is still morally wrong) there is no difference between showing that at a cinema and showing a teenage girl get disembowled by some satanic psychopath, correct? Both would be considered morally reprehensible and both illicit a reaction. The term "film" or "movie" is a bit more loaded. And that's my point. It's not just something that illicits a reaction, you could show dog's being tortured for 2 hours and it would get a reaction, but nobody would consider it a film.

You already know the answer to the question you posed - it was answered in the first couple lines of your initial response. Look at shows like Fear Factor and just realize that this is the way society has gone. The Japanese have been making these movies for decades and without much batting of eyes, so why is it now that it's been Americanized, it's suddenly deplorable?

I only find it deplorable now because there are reviewers and film fans(Arrow included) who judge films based on how much gore or nudity they have, even with individual catergories denoting it. When someone says "man, the gore was so good it actually made me wince!" I don't percieve this as a good thing. So I was looking for the opinions of others. I was stating my opinion, and there is still yet to be someone who has made it clear why seeing someone cut in half in visceral detail can be a.) entertaining and b.) a good thing.

As for your problem with people wanting to see T&A, I don't understand what this has to do with horror: Porkys, Russ Myers, even Marilyn Monroe --- all got a reactions out of people, because that is what the people want. Just because you aren't particularly found of a specific way of exploitive emotional response, and maybe only like the movies where you laugh endearingly or cry with the central character -- you are still being manipulated by the filmmakers the same as any other schmoe, even the horror schmoes.

It has nothing to do with my particular train of thought, or else I wouldn't ask for a convincing argument on WHY it's popular. I stated my opinion and my reasons for having it. You can argue the politically correctness of it if you want. All I did was explain my viewpoint and asked for someone to give me theres, why suddenly do I need to be an impartial bystander if I ask for others to support their opinions but I can't express mine? I DO NOT consider someone who sees a movie just to watch people be killed in a grisly fashion or to see breasts a film fan. Just as I don't think that someone who watches porn is a film fan. Heh, and if you love Russ Meyer films, well...I'm sorry. It's not just about the response someone gets, no matter how much you think that to be the case.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by beastieben21
So if I watch a film that involves men jerking off little kids, or a film where Nazi's gang-bang Vietnamese virgins, essentially it's the same (or even better!) as watching a Meryl Streep film because it's illiciting even more of a reaction from me, right? I'm taking up the stance of film as an artform. Yeah, I do think the way you illicit a reaction is better in some instances than others. It's the line of morality. By your standard, if I love to see kids jizz on men's faces (an act that, would illicit a reaction from anyone but is still morally wrong) there is no difference between showing that at a cinema and showing a teenage girl get disembowled by some satanic psychopath, correct? Both would be considered morally reprehensible and both illicit a reaction. The term "film" or "movie" is a bit more loaded. And that's my point. It's not just something that illicits a reaction, you could show dog's being tortured for 2 hours and it would get a reaction, but nobody would consider it a film.

And nobody is talking about what you've just described, which is a snuff film. According to your line of thinking, nothing immoral should ever be presented on screen. I have a big problem with that for two reasons:

1-) Morality is subjective and who is to decide what is moral anyway? The government? The church? Pat Robertson? Radical Islam Clerics?

2-) Art imitates life. Unfortunately the fucked up things that you see in film usually have some basis in reality.


I only find it deplorable now because there are reviewers and film fans(Arrow included) who judge films based on how much gore or nudity they have, even with individual catergories denoting it. When someone says "man, the gore was so good it actually made me wince!" I don't percieve this as a good thing. So I was looking for the opinions of others. I was stating my opinion, and there is still yet to be someone who has made it clear why seeing someone cut in half in visceral detail can be a.) entertaining and b.) a good thing.

The violence and gore in these films is meant to illicit an extreme reaction. Even feelings of repulsion and disgust can be at times quite enthralling. Again this is all a matter of personal taste. Obviously these kind of films are not your bag. I just don't see what the debate is about here. You hate horror films. Many many others love them. No big deal.

[The Postmaster General]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by beastieben21
So if I watch a film that involves men jerking off little kids, or a film where Nazi's gang-bang Vietnamese virgins, essentially it's the same (or even better!) as watching a Meryl Streep film because it's illiciting even more of a reaction from me, right? I'm taking up the stance of film as an artform. Yeah, I do think the way you illicit a reaction is better in some instances than others. It's the line of morality. By your standard, if I love to see kids jizz on men's faces (an act that, would illicit a reaction from anyone but is still morally wrong) there is no difference between showing that at a cinema and showing a teenage girl get disembowled by some satanic psychopath, correct? Both would be considered morally reprehensible and both illicit a reaction. The term "film" or "movie" is a bit more loaded. And that's my point. It's not just something that illicits a reaction, you could show dog's being tortured for 2 hours and it would get a reaction, but nobody would consider it a film.


Well, a movie showing men jerking off on little kids would be illegal, so that's not the same. There's no movies where Nazi's gangbang Vietnamese virgins that I know of, but A Clockwork Orange had a gang raping a woman on more than one occassion. But that's probably not what you are talking about.


I only find it deplorable now because there are reviewers and film fans(Arrow included) who judge films based on how much gore or nudity they have, even with individual catergories denoting it. When someone says "man, the gore was so good it actually made me wince!" I don't percieve this as a good thing. So I was looking for the opinions of others. I was stating my opinion, and there is still yet to be someone who has made it clear why seeing someone cut in half in visceral detail can be a.) entertaining and b.) a good thing.


Well, I'm giving you my opinion. To me, it seems that if people appreciate movie with gore and you don't this might be like if someone appreciated senseless action and you don't, or people appreciating special effects and you not, or people appreciating taboo topics and you not -- in many ways, horror movies are a conglomeration of all of these things. I don't stray into the horror forums too often, but to compare these things to Nazis raping virgins - it's nothing like that, because it's perfectly safe and legal fun.


It has nothing to do with my particular train of thought, or else I wouldn't ask for a convincing argument on WHY it's popular. I stated my opinion and my reasons for having it. You can argue the politically correctness of it if you want. All I did was explain my viewpoint and asked for someone to give me theres, why suddenly do I need to be an impartial bystander if I ask for others to support their opinions but I can't express mine? I DO NOT consider someone who sees a movie just to watch people be killed in a grisly fashion or to see breasts a film fan. Just as I don't think that someone who watches porn is a film fan. Heh, and if you love Russ Meyer films, well...I'm sorry. It's not just about the response someone gets, no matter how much you think that to be the case.


Well, I tried to explain why it's popular. I'm not sure how political correctness plays into this - it's not like I'm not trying to not offend horror fans because I myself am one, so I'm not sure how my comments are political correct; to me my comments are explainatory.

I never claimed to like Russ Meyer movies, but why didn't you 'heh' about Porkys - To me, that movie is horrible, but some people like that, and that doesn't have much to do with me. I've only seen like one Marilyn Monroe movie, and I appreciated Curtis and Lemmon more in that one. However, my point remains the same - horror movies are able to get a reaction out of people.

I'm not sure what else you are asking for, because that seems pretty thorough, and I don't see how comparing it to illegal activities in an attempt to say it is wrong is helping you figure out why people like horror movies.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove

I'm not sure what else you are asking for, because that seems pretty thorough, and I don't see how comparing it to illegal activities in an attempt to say it is wrong is helping you figure out why people like horror movies.

Nah, I didn't mean it in a 'documentary' or 'snuff film' way. I meant it portrayed on film, acted out, when discussing the other lewd activities. Murder is illegal and so is jizzing on a kids face. Thus, they seem apt for comparison.

And nobody is talking about what you've just described, which is a snuff film. According to your line of thinking, nothing immoral should ever be presented on screen. I have a big problem with that for two reasons:

1-) Morality is subjective and who is to decide what is moral anyway? The government? The church? Pat Robertson? Radical Islam Clerics?

2-) Art imitates life. Unfortunately the fucked up things that you see in film usually have some basis in reality.


I brought that circumstance up for the sake of argument. I agree, morality is subjective. I just chose two things, murder and rape, which pretty much uniformally, people agree are immoral. Also, I'm not saying immoral things shouldn't be presented on film. Trust me, I'm one of the biggest proponents of freedoms in any artform. If John Q. went on a murder rampage and killed people in grisly fashion and they want to present that on film, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's using it as a tool for storytelling.

I guess I have another issue, which I thought I clearly outlined, that I'm really curious about:

1.) If someone told you that they went to a see a movie that portrayed acts of children having sex with men, all acted (by actors) out in graphic detail, and then they told you they only wanted to see the film for the child-on-adult action, is that any different than someone wanting to see a film to see people gored and killed because of the reaction they get from that? Both are illegal in real life. Both are considered immoral in real life. Is there a difference?

Also, I've gotten painted as some hater of horror films. I really don't. I'm not a fan of the slasher genre, nor am I a fan of excessive bloodletting, but I also really enjoyed Scream and count The Blair Witch Project, Repulsion, Jacob's Ladder, and Psycho among some of my favorite films of their respective decades. I was just hoping to understand what response people have these films (just as someone asking why a cetain film is "funny"?) and that seems to be answered, so now I'm posing a different question.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by beastieben21
1.) If someone told you that they went to a see a movie that portrayed acts of children having sex with men, all acted (by actors) out in graphic detail, and then they told you they only wanted to see the film for the child-on-adult action, is that any different than someone wanting to see a film to see people gored and killed because of the reaction they get from that? Both are illegal in real life. Both are considered immoral in real life. Is there a difference?

Well I guess the key difference would be that any kind of child-on-adult sexual act is completely illegal and exploitative. Are you saying that the actors are all of age and consenting? If so-- then it's still a hard call as it's well known that sex offenders feed their fantasies on pornography.

However a staged brutal murder or rape scene involving adult actors doing so out of free will is not eploitative at all. Nobody gets hurt and the law is not broken when a brutal horror film is made, so yes the two are vastly different.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Well I guess the key difference would be that any kind of child-on-adult sexual act is completely illegal and exploitative. Are you saying that the actors are all of age and consenting? If so-- then it's still a hard call as it's well known that sex offenders feed their fantasies on pornography.



But violence is ALWAYS blamed on the media, especially violent films as well, so they're really isn't that much of a difference between the violence or sexual content.

I don't know, honestly it's an issue I don't know the answer to because I would find it pretty repulsive if someone went to see that for that specific reason, yet there would legally be nothing wrong with what they were doing. It's a strange line to tread, because it's something people wouldn't agree with yet, compared with other forms of entertainment, the only difference is the social stance our culture has towards it.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by beastieben21
But violence is ALWAYS blamed on the media, especially violent films as well, so they're really isn't that much of a difference between the violence or sexual content.

I don't subscribe to that theory. Seeing as violent crime isthe lowest it's been in over 25 years it makes absolutley no sense

[Ki'esha Foxx]

Originally posted by beastieben21
But violence is ALWAYS blamed on the media, especially violent films as well, so they're really isn't that much of a difference between the violence or sexual content.

That is true: most anytime a murder or other act of violence is committed, especially by a teenager, the media and parent and religious organizations are quick to jump on the bandwagon to blame video games, rap music, and movies. Stevie Wonder has even been complaining about it. What a lot of people don't know or choose to ignore is the fact that most of us can distinguish between fantasy and reality, and that video games or whatever are not to blame.

Someone else brought up child pornography and how it is illegal. Not to sound stupid but if the government can define what constitutes child pornography, why can it not tell us what "regular" pornography is? All I really know about it is that porn makers/distributors hide behind the First Amendment by saying it's free speech. No it's not; it's commerce. They know and we know that if sex did not sell, they would down the studios/magazines in a heartbeat. Now, I'm not all anti-porn; I think that adults can buy it and view it as they wish. I don't care. I just want to how we can know what one type of it is, but we don't know what it is in general. Just asking.

[The Postmaster General]

I don't know what you're asking Ki'esha - the difference between child porn and normal porn is the age of the actors.

[Ki'esha Foxx]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I don't know what you're asking Ki'esha - the difference between child porn and normal porn is the age of the actors.

I was just asking because we talked about it in my Government class once and I had the same question. What is the sifference between child porn and regular porn? It just doesn't make sense to me how the government can define one aspect of it, but not know what it is entirely. For instance, a Supreme Court justice (I can't remember which one) said "I'll know it when I see it". Well, that didn't stop child porn laws from being established. If we can define what child porn is, then what constitutes adult porn that cannot be sold or viewed by a minor or is deemed "inappropriate" by some people but not by others? Like, someone may say that there's too much porn on primetime while someone else may say that there's nothing wrong with the amount of sexuality on TV. That's all I'm wondering about: when does an air of sensuality become pornography?

[TheDeadWalk]

If you imitate child bukkake, it's still child bukkake. It will still be quite beyond the XXX rating. (Unless watered down enough to be aired on a lifetime for women movie)

The difference is in what society accepts and doesn't accept. It doesn't accept imitation of lewd sexual acts of children whether fact or fiction. The topic itself is completely taboo. Murder and serial killers are not. The BTK Killer, The Columbus Sniper, Columbine, Arkansas, whatever -- These were all morning water cooler stories. Mom and Dads across the nation talked about these people over their toast and OJ at breakfast. It's not taboo, therefore it can be imitated.

To talk about child bukkake at the breakfast table would land you by yourself doing a myspace.com blog or something to pass the time.

[bigred760]

To me, horror fans just seem to get an adrenaline rush from being freaked out, scared, or just watching people getting hacked. I do believe people get a different sensation from watching porn - I doubt it's adrenaline.

Also - several horror movies (and franchises) involve supernatural events - Freddie killing in kids' dreams, Jason and Mike Myers constantly coming back from the dead and so on. So the whole "legality" of what's going on in these movies doesn't matter. Now I know that the supernatural isn't always the case in horror movies - such as Saw, its sequel, Scream and its sequels, but there usually seems to be some kind of law enforcement trying to catch the killer - so we kind of know it's illegal.

Now, if I'm watching a man having sex with a boy (or girl for that matter) that is under the age of 18 (in real life) - the guy better be in handcuffs by the end of the movie, or the movie better have some kind of point - other than to give the viewer an erection. Child porn is illegal (and if you ask me, freakin' disgusting)

Horror gives its fans an adrenaline rush, porn usually gives its "fans" something else.

[RustyRazor]

Originally posted by beastieben21
I guess my all around point was: If you get off on seeing boobs and massive amounts of pointless violence...I don't know how you can consider yourself a film fan. I'm looking for someone to prove me wrong, because to me, if I watch a bunch of actor kids going around jerking each other off (not really, but so that it looks like they are) and I go "Awww..FUCK YEAH! I wanna see like 30 pre-teen cum shots in the new Eli Roth movie!" There is no difference between me and someone who sees these horror movies for tit shots and decapitations.

The days of quality horror movies are gone because the majority audience tends to prefer what you're pointing out.

I hear ya, Ben.

Suspense, true "spine tingling" cinematography is replaced with the commonplace gore shots and loud music rush.

It's also desensitization (if that's a word). What scared someone in the late 20th Century might not do it nowadays. I can go to a website where people are being shot in the head, in living color.

Shock me, Hollywood! Know what I mean?

AND DON'T FORGET THE BOOBIES! (So many pre pubescent youths out there, execs know that a flash of hoo hoos or ho hos will bring in that section of the viewing audience again and again.

I just wait for the cinematic gem that occasionally pops up to do so.
Cross your fingers and hope for the best.
It'll happen again.

[SpongeBod]

I'm a horror fan, but I'm also a B-movie fan.

I love crazy flicks that go over the top. For some reason I am highly entertained by excessive cartoon violence and gratuitous nudity. But it has to be done the right way for me to enjoy it. I don't care for flicks like Ichi The Killer and stuff like that. Give me Death Race 2000 or Humanoids from the Deep and I'm a happy guy.

As far as new horror goes. I've discovered that I enjoy seeing crazed maniacs on the run as long as it's accompanied by classic southern rock, many shots of a hot blond's ass and cameos out the yin-yang.

I also liked Saw and Saw 2, but then again I'm too dense to ever figure out twist endings.

I don't know if Hostel will appeal to me or not. Let's hope there's a Skynyrd tune thrown in somewhere.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by RustyRazor
The days of quality horror movies are gone because the majority audience tends to prefer what you're pointing out.

I hear ya, Ben.

Suspense, true "spine tingling" cinematography is replaced with the commonplace gore shots and loud music rush.


Thanks, that's what I was getting at. I guess it comes down to definitions of what a "horror" film is, because to me, bombarding me with images doesn't scare me. Anyone can do that. I can think of some pretty twisted things to show people and scare them. However, take a film where like the original Amityville Horror or Blair Witch. I couldn't make a film like that. That's a horror film because it taps into your brain and still to this day manages to scare people. Will people still get that adrenaline "rush" seeing people get chopped up for the 5th or 6th time?

I just fear that someday soon seeing all this acted out violence won't cut it and we'll be heading towards Pay-Per View Gladiator Fights.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Ki'esha Foxx
That's all I'm wondering about: when does an air of sensuality become pornography?

Oh, well you aren't asking the difference between child porn and "regular" porn, but you're asking when does something become porn.

I'm not sure, but always assumed it had something to do with showing sexual acts - like actual genitals being used and everything - Not simulated.

But yeah, good point - it's not exactly clear-cut.




beastieben21:

I see what you are posing now. Are these films actually horror films, or are they just exploitive?

Again though, I think that can be applied to lots of things - There's Something About Mary relies on laughs by creating comical situations involving the mentally disabled, and to me, that's on par with a horror movie just showing lots of blood.

Good point raised now that I get it.




TheDeadWalk -

To talk about child bukkake at the breakfast table would land you by yourself doing a myspace.com blog or something to pass the time.


Okay, I'm biting --- What the hell is bukkake? I always thought it had something to do with Japanamation, but now I'm not.

I'd feel much better getting an answer here, as I'm not up for doing a web search. :o

Plus, I need some new topics to write about on my blog.

[bigred760]

I posed a question in a thread a while back as to what is the difference between horror and suspense/thriller - if anything?

In my opinion, horror movies show the POV of the victims - like in Saw and Scream. Movies like Se7en and Memento - the POV is only from one or two people - the main characters.

That's where I usually draw the line. Some (horror) movies scare people (and arouse people) more than others. To me, it's all subjective.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by bigred760
I posed a question in a thread a while back as to what is the difference between horror and suspense/thriller - if anything?

In my opinion, horror movies show the POV of the victims - like in Saw and Scream. Movies like Se7en and Memento - the POV is only from one or two people - the main characters.

That's where I usually draw the line. Some (horror) movies scare people (and arouse people) more than others. To me, it's all subjective.


Then you have something, which IMO, is special, like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS --- A suspense/triller/mystery that becomes a horror show in the last act.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Okay, I'm biting --- What the hell is bukkake? I always thought it had something to do with Japanamation, but now I'm not.

I'd feel much better getting an answer here, as I'm not up for doing a web search. :o

Plus, I need some new topics to write about on my blog.

Bukkake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Bukkake can also mean a Japanese noodle preparation method (doused with dashi). For that meaning, refer noodles.

Bukkake is a group sex practice wherein a series of men take turns ejaculating on a person (male or female). There are strong overtones of erotic humiliation in this practice. Usually in bukkake videos, a woman will sit and allow a group of men (sometimes more than a dozen) to come up to her and openly masturbate until they ejaculate on her body (usually on her face and mouth). The woman leaves the semen on her face as another man comes to repeat the routine. Often the scene ends with the woman swallowing the semen gathered. Producers of these films often attempt to find men who ejaculate a large amount. Often in the background of these videos, men who are waiting for their turn can be seen masturbating to keep themselves erect. When the term bukkake is used in Japan, it usually refers to a method of preparing noodles and not the sexual act.

[The Postmaster General]

Oh. Well then.

That's why the guy at the comic book store told me to leave.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
beastieben21:

I see what you are posing now. Are these films actually horror films, or are they just exploitive?

Again though, I think that can be applied to lots of things - There's Something About Mary relies on laughs by creating comical situations involving the mentally disabled, and to me, that's on par with a horror movie just showing lots of blood.



I knew we'd come to terms eventually!

I agree, it can be applied to a lot of things. In both cases, I think it's exploitive, the difference is that I don't know people who go to see films because they want to see disabled people humiliated; I do know people who see films solely to see a lot of blood. The fact that it's often advertised on the DVD case tells me that mine isn't an isolate case. Something like this:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000B5Y0CS.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

That's why I said I don't understand how you can be a film fan. You're not seeing a movie for the film, you're seeing it for graphic depictions of violence that frighten you into submission.

[ParileseMonster]

When I watch a movie, I watch it for what it is and what was intended for it to be. There are just certain elements that might attract me more than other elements offered but that is not to say that I do not in the end watch the film as a whole.
This has been a real enlightening conversation.
Mr. Blonde always manages to interest me.

[TheDeadWalk]

Even if someone wants to see graphic depictions of violence in a film, doesn't make them any less of a film fan.

I respect people MORE for wanting to watch graphic depictions of violence than people who watch movies just because you get to see Jessica Alba in her bra and panties.

Believe it or not, it takes some fucking talent behind the camera to make those violent depictions look so real. And when they do that, they deserve credit. Folks who watch ions of horror films understand this and respect the people that work hard to make and show violence.

This is being a fan of film. That's fucking loving the mise-en-scene of the picture. Sure, it's not your cup of tea, but to each their own.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Even if someone wants to see graphic depictions of violence in a film, doesn't make them any less of a film fan.

I respect people MORE for wanting to watch graphic depictions of violence than people who watch movies just because you get to see Jessica Alba in her bra and panties.


I'll agree with you on the fact that other people see movies for strange and dumb reasons, but, in my opinion, film is an artform, and if you're seeing a movie simply for the visceral reaction you get from it, then your not a fan of what film encompasses. Again, just my opinion, and I've given my reasons for it. Now, if you want to see decapitiations because you understand the technical side of things and appreciate it from that standpoint, I can't fault you for that. But to me, someone seeing a movie just for that is the equivalent of someone reading Wuthering Heights to see if there's vivid descriptions of naked women. Are they a literature fan? I don't think so. Same applies here.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by beastieben21
film is an artform

This is really a mouthful. What is, and isn't art is something left up to the beholde, and I think as you mentioned you already understand this.

If you take perhaps some big make out scene from Gone with the Wind and talk about how beautiful it is because of the colorful sunset, imagery and emotion within the context that omits a tender reaction from the viewer.

It's really no different than seeing the beauty and spectacular setup for the lead character's best friend who walks out into the dark hallway and is surprised by the killer who pounces on her and shoves a spike through her face and leaves her imprinted onto the wall. Of course this evokes a shocked, perhaps frightening sequence into the viewer.

Both are art. Just because one is morbid and perhaps tasteless doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve the same appreciation. Some of us may just find this to be wonderful imagery, and like the reactions it gives us, the same as a mom may love the reaction that March of the Penguins gave her when the one baby penguin was born.

Reading graphic sex scenes doesn't make you any less of a literature fan, either. Just because it is of a lewd act doesn't mean that you aren't appreciating the wonderfully knit words of sexual passion. They are just as beautiful as wonderfully written lines of the lead character painting his house. The only difference is that we're talking about SEX and VIOLENCE, and we don't really want to accept that as art. I accept it.

I think you're looking at this with your moral goggles on, and thus maybe need to realize that they only work for your eyes. :cool:

[ParileseMonster]

Well said Dead Walk, I totally agree.

[bourahioro]

In my own opinion, the best Horror movies of the past decade are: House of 1000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacare(2004), aside from those, it's been more than a decade since a good horror flick was put out.

[Ki'esha Foxx]

Originally posted by bourahioro
In my own opinion, the best Horror movies of the past decade are: House of 1000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacare(2004), aside from those, it's been more than a decade since a good horror flick was put out.

You like Rob Zombie don't ya?