# Real Horror



## Ovaraptor (Jan 6, 2013)

What ever happened to H.P. Lovecraft(I know he is dead.)
Is it just me or are people stepping away from using the basest fear we all have as a means to scare the reader. Or are we unhappy few that still use it just torturing ourselves?


----------



## dale (Jan 6, 2013)

horror is generally based on the social pressure points of the time. i'd rather read lovecraft or poe than
any of the contemporaries. but the reason it may seem "generic" today moreso than then, is because the 
basic fears of society today are more inane and socially self-inflicted.


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 6, 2013)

I am also worried that peoples fears have shifted from surviving in a universe full of misery and destruction eliciting elements. Sigh. . . times have truly changed. I mean. I still find the idea of going bat guano crazy to be a terrifying concept. . . that and being torn to pieces by non-earth born things. :>


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 6, 2013)

Lovecraft said, "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." 

The unknown is vast in many different ways. 

As for Lovecrafft? Well, he's become a staple of Horror, a cult icon, just as he deserves to be. People aren't turning away from him, or even the supernatural, it's just his name doesn't come up as often as say, King. 

Just like Dale said, Horror is cultivated in a different way from each generation, mainly due to social issues. We are currently living in a world with an unknown future, and because of where we are, Horror has a tendency to be more "in your face" rather than seeming madness of something that may or may not have been real. We know what is real today, and nothing is more real than violence. 

Lovecraft's writing style is null and void, outdated. This was something I had to learn when I first started writing, and something I had to learn to overcome to become a better writer. But, I believe it is still true that most, if not all, Horror fans of literature and Horror writers have read Lovecraft. He is the topic of this discussion, so I say that shows some bit of prevalence, right?

In my opinion, Horror is stronger and more important now than it ever has been.


----------



## Leyline (Jan 6, 2013)

I find Lovecraft about as horrifying as Anne Of Green Gables. His MC's all strike me as wimps with really poor descriptive abilities. I once wrote a parody of a Lovecraftian narrator being driven into the darkest pits of terrified insanity by an edited-for-television showing of A Nightmare On Elm Street.

Apologies to mod.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 6, 2013)

Ovaraptor said:


> I am also worried that peoples fears have shifted from surviving in a universe full of misery and destruction eliciting elements. Sigh. . . times have truly changed. I mean. I still find the idea of going bat guano crazy to be a terrifying concept. . . that and being torn to pieces by non-earth born things. :>



Do you not watch any modern horror? Prometheus could quite possibly be one of the biggest Lovecraft influences ever, aside from The Thing (John Carpenter).


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 6, 2013)

In response, Felsheater. I do not own a television. So, no.  And my budget precludes buying things so I _am  _woefully out of touch with the whole modern scene.


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 6, 2013)

Oh. Any links on the forum anyone has to some decent Gothic horror or just some good, old fashioned nightmare inducers would be appreciated. There is far to much fantasy mixed in with the horror on the forum. Might be it needs its own slot since it is such a large demographic.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

Real horror is psychological and not based on gore and fear of being cut or shot. With apologies to Leyline, he's wrong imo. The point of Lovecraftianism, the horror, is in the essential littleness of man, the apex predator. It's difficult to convey that properly. King tried in Under the Dome and failed utterly. It isn't about being torn to pieces by some unearthly power. It is in trying to understand that one was not the object of that predation, one was merely there when it happened. People are so inner-directed that this doesn't even register.
Quite true that Lovecraft's writing style is outdated. It was when he was writing...I agree with Dale. People are desensitized nowadays, and the genre is diluted by so much crap that terror/slasher drivel passes for horror. There's a boom in gore and in splatterpunk, and in the type of low-rent thrills purveyed by such as Poppy Brite or the faux-travelogues of Anne Rice.
The horror for me is that people take that kind of garbage seriously.
King is a fantasist, not a horror writer. He knows as much about the genre as anyone, but his plots and critters are as pedestrian as I've ever seen. Barker's work, Ramsey Campbell's work, they're closer to the vein. Go find In the Hills, The Cities and see if that doesn't give you a frisson of excitement. Read The Doll Who Ate His Mother, watch Cronenberg's The Brood or Videodrome. Read Ellison's Croatoan. That's horror.

Links: The Reader's Guide to the Cthulhu Mythos start there.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 6, 2013)

My two pieces of heavily influenced Lovecraft are titled: _Dwellers in the Dark _(also on MotleyPress.com for October submissions) and _Nanzagoth_. Another would be _Carrion Princess_, but I haven't looked at these stories in a long time...most likely their not worth your time to read, ha-ha!

You really need to get in-line with the modern world before you criticize the horror movement. 

Alien
The Thing
Prometheus
Phantasm
Baby Blood (Arthur Machen influence)
The Damned Thing (Masters of Horror)
Pro-Life (Masters of Horror)
The Fly
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (especially 78' remake)
The Blob
The Deadly Spawn
The Faculty

and on
and on
and
on

There are so many Horror films with a supernatural element it's not funny. I don't know of that many novels of modern horror though because I don't read it.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

the Complete works of H. P. Lovecraft

Blackwood Stories: Short stories, novels, literature

Bierce and others: Short stories by Ambrose Bierce [Category: Short story]

That should keep ya busy for awhile


----------



## Leyline (Jan 6, 2013)

moderan said:


> Real horror is psychological and not based on gore and fear of being cut or shot. With apologies to Leyline, he's wrong imo. The point of Lovecraftianism, the horror, is in the essential littleness of man, the apex predator. It's difficult to convey that properly.



Oh, I understand that. It just doesn't bother me, even slightly. It's an obvious fact of the universe, to me. It's like being afraid of the inevitability of death or the cold of winter or other basic facts. I suppose there are some that walk around assuring themselves that they are the 'apex predator' or something, who might be disturbed by something that explains they aren't. But I'm not one of them, so it doesn't do a thing to me.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

Leyline said:


> Oh, I understand that. It just doesn't bother me, even slightly. It's an obvious fact of the universe, to me. It's like being afraid of the inevitability of death or the cold of winter or other basic facts. I suppose there are some that walk around assuring themselves that they are the 'apex predator' or something, who might be disturbed by something that explains they aren't. But I'm not one of them, so it doesn't do a thing to me.


Ah, but, that's YOU. You are not the masses, mein freunde. Folks that puff themselves up over the markets and crap like that are more prone to that particular delusionary set. Take away their god and see what you have.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 6, 2013)

Trying to term _Real Horror _is impossible. Moderan, you're definition of real horror only being psychological is preposterous.  

You site Cronenberg and Barker, but what about Douglas Buck or Karim Hussain or the slew of violent, but semi-psychological horror coming from Europe like Haute Tension, Inside, Martyrs, or the social-political Frontiers? 

Sometimes people take extreme film at surface value, bat an eyelash and call it trash without looking at it any deeper. There is a lot of trash, yes, but you can't limit the definition of real horror to just psychological.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

No less preposterous than you're typography. Show me something real horrifying that doesn't work on a psychological level.
Want some real horror? I once woke up in a room, unable to move, with wires coming from my body, hallucinating like mad, with an oxygen mask over my face. I couldn't scream, and there were people in my face. That's horror on a very personal level. 
I know of the people and things you're talking about, and they work on a psychological level. You can't escape that.


----------



## dale (Jan 6, 2013)

to me, the difference between horror now and horror then is the concept of "outside evil". lovecraft was a rabid xenophobic, as
were many people during his time. he was able to translate this "fear of the outsider" better than anyone. now, we live in a very
diverse and global society, so the "fear of the outsider" isn't really prevalent. horror today is more of a fear of our own reflections.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

You're gonna tell me that people today aren't xenophobes? Wait, what?


----------



## dale (Jan 6, 2013)

moderan said:


> You're gonna tell me that people today aren't xenophobes? Wait, what?


a few are. but it's not really an issue like it was then. i personally may be a bit xenophobic, but i'm not really the poster
child for the social norms in this country.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 6, 2013)

Horror: an overwhelming and painful feeling caused by something frightfully shocking, terrifying, or revolting.
Horrify: to distress greatly; shock or dismay.

The majority of people consider _Srpski Film _a piece of violent trash, a film made by boys being naughty for the sake of being naughty. I now see the psychological elements in it, but they're not apparent. 

Others would say _Aftermath _is the same, I beg to differ, but only because I can see the psychological side. 

However, since the idea of _real horror _is as subjective as finding psychological elements in violent films, you can't say that only real horror is psychological. I believe it takes both...you sited Barker, a man that created Hellraiser that thrives on both the fear of the unknown psychologically and the fear of physical torture and pain.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

dale said:


> a few are. but it's not really an issue like it was then. i personally may be a bit xenophobic, but i'm not really the poster
> child for the social norms in this country.


I disagree. This is one of the most violently xenophobic nations that has ever existed. And it continues to be that way. Go look up hate crime stats. I'll wait. Think about crowds applauding the death of Osama bin Laden, and why.



FleshEater said:


> Horror: an overwhelming and painful feeling caused by something frightfully shocking, terrifying, or revolting.
> Horrify: to distress greatly; shock or dismay.
> 
> The majority of people consider _Srpski Film _a piece of violent trash, a film made by boys being naughty for the sake of being naughty. I now see the psychological elements in it, but they're not apparent.
> ...



Hellraiser's critters are literal depictions of certain states of madness. I am simply stating that you don't get "real horror" without that personal psychological element. Fear is part of that. Fear is a psychological condition brought on by chemical changes. The "little death", n'est-ce pas?
You know what's horror to me? A child of mine reading Twilight and liking it. My rabbit chewing my oxygen cord in half. The prospect of electing a Republican administration that wants to cut my benefits, leaving me unable to breathe.
I dunno what a Srpski film is. More to the point, I don't care. Grossout isn't horror to me. It doesn't scare me like the prospect of suffocation or brain death.


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 6, 2013)

I must interject because I am drunk and have not followed through on the conversation. If you site Barker then you musts understand that the fact that you were there in the first place is the driving motivation and existence for the cenobites. You actually have to request their intervention. Weather you know or not what you are doing. That I believe is the essence of Lovecraft. While his universe is unknowable you ultimately go looking for an answer which brings you to the conclusion. I am working on something right now that is about a man trying to build a grave he thinks is worthy of him, as a pauper but encounters much more than he bargained for. It shares similar traits with another lovecraft story about a man who goes into the west to investigate a haunting and winds up underground. And while the similarities strike me now and some revision will be required I think It will stand alone.


----------



## dale (Jan 6, 2013)

moderan said:


> I disagree. This is one of the most violently xenophobic nations that has ever existed. And it continues to be that way. Go look up hate crime stats. I'll wait. Think about crowds applauding the death of Osama bin Laden, and why.


i think people applauded his death because he was said to have mass murdered a few thousand americans. and "hate crime" stats
are bogus. anytime a white person assaults or kills a minority, the race-baiting al sharpton's of the nation scream "hate crime", even though
other factors were actually the cause. no other country in the world has the diversity of america. this is probably the LEAST xenophobic country
on the planet.


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 6, 2013)

But as I watch the conversation unfold I see now that 'real horror' is highly if not entirely dependent on the subject as they perceive it. And while Lovecraft touches all of us at least some then we must recognize that we are all xenophobic to a point. Change always brings pain and death. It is learning to live with pain and death in whatever for it comes at us, with just a touch of grace. . . or mad shrieking. . .


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 6, 2013)

The difference between horror then and horror now?  In old horror movies there was a sense of a hero element that someone felt fear for others more than fear for theirself.  Now most horror movies is all about saving their own butt first.  

Speaking of xenophobia, have you guys seen the new movie coming out called "Branded?"


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

Friend of mine publishes this:Lovecraft eZine


----------



## dale (Jan 6, 2013)

moderan said:


> Friend of mine publishes this:Lovecraft eZine


i've been accepted for publication there. he hasn't got my story in an issue yet, though.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

dale said:


> the blacks call themselves that word, also. are there racist people in america? of course there are. but what i'm talking about is that *america
> is surely the least homogenous nation on the globe*. and for being as diverse as we are, we get along in relative harmony. you look at the ethnic and
> racial mixture in this country. no other country has that. none.


We don't really...but you don't accept the data so I'm not going to argue that point further. Enjoy your blinders.



dale said:


> i've been accepted for publication there. he hasn't got my story in an issue yet, though.


Congratulations. It's a good market.


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 6, 2013)

Don't know how to quote someone else but dale has a point. Just look at Russian. Specifically St. Petersburg. Those are hate crimes. Our bar fights pale in comparison to the Swastika executions that take place there.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

You're looking through too narrow of a lens.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 6, 2013)

dale said:


> the blacks call themselves that word, also. are there racist people in america? of course there are. but what i'm talking about is that america
> is surely the least homogenous nation on the globe. and for being as diverse as we are, we get along in relative harmony. you look at the ethnic and
> racial mixture in this country. no other country has that. none.



I have to disagree with you here.  Have you ever heard of the Basques?  It's a group of people that live between France and Spain.  They have a culture that is made up of both French and Spanish origins.  Despite that, they are not accepted in France or Spain.  How odd is that?  I think the United States has made leaps and bounds as far as being a melting pot of people and having acceptance.  You have to realize, 200 years is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the history of the world.  In that time, a race of people has gone from primarily being property, to having a President of their descent in the White House.


----------



## squidtender (Jan 6, 2013)

*​Alright, lets get back to the discussion of horror. We're getting off topic. *


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 6, 2013)

Suddenly it is a commentary on race and equality. :>


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 6, 2013)

Ovaraptor said:


> Suddenly it is a commentary on race and equality. :>



Your post isn't as good as mine.


----------



## dale (Jan 6, 2013)

Ovaraptor said:


> Suddenly it is a commentary on race and equality. :>



well, it's also a topic on lovecraft and what drove the passion of his work. so it kind of fit. but yeah....it was slowly turning
into a "debate forum" discussion. and that forum is gone.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

Certainly there was an element of xenophobia in Lovecraft's work, and there's little doubt that such drives a lot of horror in media. Not just within the genre, but in general media.
It's manifest in daily life, in many forms.
Fear is a driving force in plenty of advertising. Feel free to think of your own examples-they are manifold and plentiful.
One can go to the literature, and quote from "Supernatural Horror in Literature", one of HPL's finest works, or from "Danse Macabre", one of King's finest, or from penetrating analyses by some of weird filmdom's finest minds, John Carpenter, Wes Craven, Sam Raimi in the modern age, or Hitchcock, James Whale, et al...and you're going to find some common threads.
One of the most common is the power of suggestion. Val Lewton didn't have many cats in "Cat People", but the shadow of one on the wall created the sense of foreboding that earmarks horror in any medium.
So, I say to you again-horror is essentially psychological. 
A friend of mine maintains that people are far scarier than any critters (referring to the Lovecraftian beasties that I made a sorta living writing at that time). And she's probably right. But "real horror" is in the mind of the beholder-so to speak. I'd say that's where the actual discussion concluded.


----------



## Leyline (Jan 6, 2013)

All horror does work on a psychological level, FE. It takes place in our heads. It can't take place anywhere else.

The only story that has truly disturbed me in years is Neil Gaiman's "Keepsakes And Treasures: A Love Story." Seriously disturbed, lay awake that night. But I was also pissed off at him because it was a trick, and a nasty one. But I can't fault him: he played a game with my brain and it worked. I kind of hate him for it, even as I respect him for a game well played. For a couple of hours I had to give him props for turning me into a horrified child again, even if it was by working a trick on the adult level of my brain.

It kind of sucks to be an adult.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

It surely does. And Gaiman knows what he's doing. Sometimes I lay awake and think of things like "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream". I mean, really...I adapted some of that idea for a little piece called "The Inner Dark".
The Ramjac Corporation scares me. The dumbing down of the public on all continents, and the inability of those who have been subjected to and infected by the mass media to understand their deficiency, that scares me. Would that we could contract to send them on a one-way journey to Mars. But, alas, we cannot. Polymath isn't my best subject.
Prescription drug commercials, the prevalence of dumba** "memes" in social media, those are pretty scary too.
But nowhere, nothing, scares me like having to be a grownup, and to be responsible for others.


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 6, 2013)

It was getting out of hand. With no fault laid at anyone's door step. Just needed some fast tracking.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

In the end...the real scary bit, it's about powerlessness. The inability to affect one's fortunes. That's what HPL had to say. That's what King says, and then tacks on the generic Gordon Dickson-patented The Essential Wonderfulness of People Shall Overcome It All ending.
Powerlessness.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 6, 2013)

Leyline said:


> All horror does work on a psychological level, FE. It takes place in our heads. It can't take place anywhere else.



I agree, but there is also a physical fear there too, of pain, of dying. 

It's hard to explain what I mean. If you wanted to be technical about it, everything is psychological, mental, because our brain controls everything. But, in film , and in words, physical fear always accompanies the psychological. 

Personally, slasher, gore, whatever is as real as any horror to me.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 6, 2013)

moderan said:


> In the end...the real scary bit, it's about powerlessness. The inability to affect one's fortunes. That's what HPL had to say. That's what King says, and then tacks on the generic Gordon Dickson-patented The Essential Wonderfulness of People Shall Overcome It All ending.
> Powerlessness.



I can get behind this fully.


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 6, 2013)

I really think that we as a group, even though I may not be the strongest writer in the group define culture, It is up to the visionaries to establish what the world means. Politicians, money-men, they don't mean anything. It is our job to guide and caroom the people to a goal that is acceptable. and we are the first casualties.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I can get behind this fully.


Had to keep the pot boiling for a while to render it down.


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 6, 2013)

That is where we differ. The idea that the general 'goodness' of humans will overcome is ridiculous. Human, pinned to the wall will bite and cut his way out with no regard for the person standing next to him. Humans are not unique. Just a chain in the evolutionary ladder.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

We don't differ about that at all...at least, speaking for myself. You don't understand the reference, is all.


----------



## the antithesis (Jan 6, 2013)

dale said:


> but the reason it may seem "generic" today moreso than then, is because the
> basic fears of society today are more inane and socially self-inflicted.


No, I think that what gets labeled as "horror" in the mass media really isn't horror. It looks like it at a glance, but it's been defanged. For instance, zombies used to be horror of losing your soul. Later, Romero's ghouls took over and then it because a different kind of horror where people you once knew and loved could turn on you and become a monster. Also it becomes a great, unstoppable shambling horde you could never escape. Some say this newer "zombie" is cheaper than the older zombie, but people don't believe in or care about souls anymore, so zombies adapted. But even the horror of this has be mellowed from the visceral fear of being eaten alive to inane questions of "what would you do in a zombie apocolypse" and the cathartic thrill of blowing the heads off family and coworkers with a shotgun because they were zombies, so that makes it alright. It's not a scary thing anymore. 

And this is what's happened to horror. It looks like it's supposed to be scary, but is it really?


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jan 7, 2013)

H.P. Lovecraft's conceit was that there are things that don't obey our understanding of the universe and can collapse individuals and society into insanity and ruin purely through their existence. He kept up a sense of unease in all of his pieces, a sense that the characters could, at any point in time, forget how to be human.

"One of my strongest and most persistent wishes [is] to achieve, momentarily, the illusion of some strange suspension or violation of the galling limitations of time, space, and natural law which forever imprison us.”

Strangely enough the only piece of modern work I've read that truly addresses the significance of this is... Homestuck? Wow, seriously Staff Deployment? You're bringing Homestuck into this? Yeah of course, have you seen  Jade: Wake Up, cause that delirious biznasty just superdevolves into super-unleaded Nightmare diesel, eh? Why yes, I have indeed seen it, mostly because I'm talking to myself. It's been a pleasant conversation, dear chap. Tally ho.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 7, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> H.P. Lovecraft's conceit was that there are things that don't obey our understanding of the universe and can collapse individuals and society into insanity and ruin purely through their existence. He kept up a sense of unease in all of his pieces, a sense that the characters could, at any point in time, forget how to be human.
> 
> "One of my strongest and most persistent wishes [is] to achieve, momentarily, the illusion of some strange suspension or violation of the galling limitations of time, space, and natural law which forever imprison us.”
> 
> Strangely enough the only piece of modern work I've read that truly addresses the significance of this is... Homestuck? Wow, seriously Staff Deployment? You're bringing Homestuck into this? Yeah of course, have you seen  Jade: Wake Up, cause that delirious biznasty just superdevolves into super-unleaded Nightmare diesel, eh? Why yes, I have indeed seen it, mostly because I'm talking to myself. It's been a pleasant conversation, dear chap. Tally ho.




It sounds as if you are saying horror has made a 360 leading back into psychological horror verses gore horror.  So the new age horror is nothing more than a revamped Orson Wells radio hour?  Freddy Kruger has been replaced by Alfred Hitchcock again?

Where do you categorize M. Night Shamahlan stuff?


----------



## Cornelius Crowe (Jan 7, 2013)

I hate coming late to an interesting discussion; it's like coming late to a party and finding all the other guests already drunk. :sour:



Leyline said:


> Oh, I understand that. It just doesn't bother me, even slightly. It's an obvious fact of the universe, to me. It's like being afraid of the inevitability of death or the cold of winter or other basic facts. I suppose there are some that walk around assuring themselves that they are the 'apex predator' or something, who might be disturbed by something that explains they aren't. But I'm not one of them, so it doesn't do a thing to me.



I think you are a rare exception.  I'm not bothered by my irrelevance to the universe, either, but it scares the living **** out of the vast majority of the human race.  I am a palaeontologist, by profession, and I have spent most of my adult life studying and teaching evolution.  It still surprises me, although it no longer should, that so very many people are terrified by the concept of Natural Selection because it means that not only are we humans not the product of special creation, set apart from all other living things, but also that we are not the pinnacle of evolutionary advancement.  We are, at best, an insignificant twig on the tumbleweed of life.  This frightens people down to their core, and, as a species, we hate what we fear.  The anger I've been subjected to, the potential for violence, all because of fear of an idea is profoundly disturbing.

Religious fundamentalism is mankind's response to cosmic horror.  Leyline, I assure you that we are in the very small minority of people who can face the reality of nature without constructing supernatural safety nets to make ourselves feel better.  I don't personally understand what is so scary about lack of higher purpose and eventual oblivion, but there is a great deal about human nature that I don't understand.  I think that's why I'm drawn to horror - it's a way to study the human condition.

Lest my comments draw the ire of the devout, let me assure you that I am not attacking anyone's belief system; I'm making an observation of human nature as it pertains to Lovecraftian horror.  I feel I ought to make this disclaimer since it's very easy to derail a conversation once you bring religion into it, but I'm not sure how we can discuss cosmic horror without doing so.

***Mod Note: Post edited to remove profanity. ***


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 7, 2013)

*picks up a rock* Let's stone him!


:glee:


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Where do you categorize M. Night Shamahlan stuff?


Sleep-inducing.



Cornelius Crowe said:


> I hate coming late to an interesting discussion; it's like coming late to a party and finding all the other guests already drunk. :sour:


One of the "guests" already confessed to being drunk. "Out here in the desert, we are stoned, immaculate."
From my point of view-Everybody Loves Raymond is horrifying. Much more so than the essential cosmic insignificance of the ego. And I am powerless to prevent that.



Lewdog said:


> *picks up a rock* Let's stone him!


Heretics should be burnt, not stoned. They enjoy being stoned-see my above comment


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> H.P. Lovecraft's conceit was that there are things that don't obey our understanding of the universe and can collapse individuals and society into insanity and ruin purely through their existence. He kept up a sense of unease in all of his pieces, a sense that the characters could, at any point in time, forget how to be human.
> 
> "One of my strongest and most persistent wishes [is] to achieve, momentarily, the illusion of some strange suspension or violation of the galling limitations of time, space, and natural law which forever imprison us.”


Strictly speaking, it wasn't ALL of HPL's pieces. It was a good deal of them, but the poetry, early prose poems and early Dreamlands stories didn't yet address that sense of unease, merely reflected the strangeness he was trying to project, inspired by the work of Lord Dunsany and possibly Robert W Chambers. Some of his letters address the growing knowledge of his craft and his mythopoetic approach. The Cthulhu pantheon (Yog-Sothotherie, he termed it) grew out of the Gods of Pegana, who correspond roughly to the Outer Gods of Lovecraft's Dreamlands.
It was only at about the time of the Nameless City (written 1921) through the Festival (written 1923) that he began roughly codifying his mythos. It was never fully realized. He enjoyed the ambiguity. This link shows the chronology of Lovecraft's Yog-Sothotherie tales-it can easily be seen that they grew in complexity and ambition as the years went on and he acquired more skill and more correspondents.
The underlying conception of "cosmic horror" has informed a good deal of media content since that time...conceptions as varied as HR Giger's Alien and plush Cthulhu have developed from those conceits.
What Lewdog has termed "New Age" horror doesn't partake of that banquet. There's very little that's cosmic about the Hills Have Eyes or the Last House on the Left, or the never-ending Saw franchise, or Hallowe'en/Friday the 13th/whatever else fits there slasher flick. They're just mundane...no more cosmic than a run-of-the-mill ghost story. Privately I call this the "I Dismember Mama" school, and shun it.
Lovecraft had more in common with Olaf Stapeldon, in that he expanded the scope of what "horror" could be, beyond the simple universal principles of the previous writings in the field, utilizing state-of-the-art science (Dreams in the Witch-House, The Colour Out of Space) and a juxtaposition of the familiar and the outre to create his nightmare scenarios. Most of the time, nobody won. The "monsters" were simply diverted, and often by accident.
His stories were often more about mood than anything else, a technique he borrowed from Poe. Although he, of the Big Three (Clark Ashton Smith and Robert E Howard are his best-remembered contemporaries) was probably the worst technically, he achieved effects that had seldom even been hinted at before (MP Shiel and Arthur Machen made strides in those directions) and that influenced the field he worked in, forevermore.
I find it interesting that what he wrote is so poorly understood. And so liberally borrowed from. I'd think he'd enjoy best Alastair Reynolds' far-flung physics-based adventures but there are hundreds of excellent works that draw directly from his artesian well of the unconscious.
And his characters didn't forget to be human. King Kuranes was a ghoul who was once a man. So was Richard Upton Pickman. They were all too human, and immensely fallible. They didn't understand what they were up against, and they tried, and failed, almost every time, _often in italics_.
Without Lovecraft, there may not have been any Martian Chronicles, or Twonkies, or Hungry Moons. Conan may have been a barber, or a Berber.
It'd be a poorer world. And that would be horrible.


----------



## 2pebbles (Jan 7, 2013)

I'd say that whatever 'real horror' is, it is subjective to the individual, but ultimately fear is a response of the the mind so you could say it psychological horror is true horror in that respect. When I consider the inevitability of death and mankind's insignificant place in the great unknown, I derive more comfort than fear. I'm not sure why. Maybe because, from that perspective, my own personal baggage seems null which is liberating.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 7, 2013)

the antithesis said:


> No, I think that what gets labeled as "horror" in the mass media really isn't horror. It looks like it at a glance, but it's been defanged. For instance, zombies used to be horror of losing your soul. Later, Romero's ghouls took over and then it because a different kind of horror where people you once knew and loved could turn on you and become a monster. Also it becomes a great, unstoppable shambling horde you could never escape. Some say this newer "zombie" is cheaper than the older zombie, but people don't believe in or care about souls anymore, so zombies adapted. But even the horror of this has be mellowed from the visceral fear of being eaten alive to inane questions of "what would you do in a zombie apocolypse" and the cathartic thrill of blowing the heads off family and coworkers with a shotgun because they were zombies, so that makes it alright. It's not a scary thing anymore.
> 
> And this is what's happened to horror. It looks like it's supposed to be scary, but is it really?



Romero's zombies were all about politics, not simply being eaten alive. 

And, for the record, there are many great zombie films, and horror films still being made...you have to look for them. I'll bet you never saw a trailer on cable television for _The Dead _but that is one of the best new zombie film's I've seen in a long time, very reminiscent of Fulci.



Lewdog said:


> Where do you categorize M. Night Shamahlan stuff?



In the trash.



moderan said:


> What Lewdog has termed "New Age" horror doesn't partake of that banquet. There's very little that's cosmic about the Hills Have Eyes or the Last House on the Left, or the never-ending Saw franchise, or Hallowe'en/Friday the 13th/whatever else fits there slasher flick. They're just mundane...no more cosmic than a run-of-the-mill ghost story. Privately I call this the "I Dismember Mama" school, and shun it.



Though you might shun the horror films in the slasher, ultra-violent, extreme, exploitation, whatever areas of the genre, that doesn't mean they're no less horror. A murderous home invasion in my opinion is much more horrifying than a monster from the cosmos, because the home invasion is real, and can happen. Watching the original Hills Have Eyes, Last House on the Left, or I Spit On Your Grave give the viewer a gritty, full-frontal insight into the monster called man.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 7, 2013)

I do say I fear the unknown, but I am scared of spiders, snakes, and flesh eating beetles.  I don't roll with the Blue Oyster Cult, as I don't fear the Reaper.  I've been to the edge of death and come back from it.  I do however fear being helpless and being tortured.  I am scared of crossing over water, especially on high bridges.  I know its odd to say I fear one thing, but say I am scared of another, it just seems like a different feeling to me.  They don't seem synonymous.  It's also odd of me to fear things that can lead to my death, but I don't fear death itself.  I've come to the realization I am an odd bird, but I am guessing you guys already knew that.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 7, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Romero's zombies were all about politics, not simply being eaten alive.
> 
> And, for the record, there are many great zombie films, and horror films still being made...you have to look for them. I'll bet you never saw a trailer on cable television for _The Dead _but that is one of the best new zombie film's I've seen in a long time, very reminiscent of Fulci.
> 
> ...




WoW lots of hate for M. Night Shamahlan.  I think he has some good movies.

Did you guys know that Sam Ramey and Bruce Campbell are doing an "Evil Dead" remake?  Yep I read it the other day.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 7, 2013)

Ovaraptor - 60 posts in less than a day - this place is amazing isn't it?

I remember reading (decades ago) a story where a person was strapped down, a rat placed on their stomach, a metal bowl placed over the rat and tied in place, then hot coals were placed on top of the bowl. The idea was that the heat would drive the rat to eat through the person to escape.  To this day, even though I now realise that the rat would drown, this horrifies me.

I heard a BBC radio play about inmates in a home for the blind who were terrorised by the staff. The story concluded with a power cut, the staff were rounded up into a room and a week later they were released. They could see they had a choice. One way led to starving dogs. The other to a small tunnel with razer blades imbedded in the roof.  I had shivers for weeks. When I saw this play on television I barely batted an eyelid.

Television/film has made the horrific everyday. Decades ago I was frightened of witches. Nowadays I have lunch with a 'coven'. 

So my point is that the adaption of horror for the visual media has made it mundane. Watch a 60's horror and there is little blood. Watch a 2010's horror and the actors are drowning in it. Humans have the ability to adapt to what they experience and we have. 

If you want true horror read about the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 7, 2013)

dolphinlee said:


> Ovaraptor - 60 posts in less than a day - this place is amazing isn't it?
> 
> I remember reading (decades ago) a story where a person was strapped down, a rat placed on their stomach, a metal bowl placed over the rat and tied in place, then hot coals were placed on top of the bowl. The idea was that the heat would drive the rat to eat through the person to escape.  To this day, even though I now realise that the rat would drown, this horrifies me.
> 
> ...



There was a movie with rat under the metal bowl.  It was a mob boss doing it to a dirty cop.  I think it was "2 Fast 2 Furious."


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Jan 7, 2013)

For me, personally, I've never been quite so frightened than when reading a horrific thing that tweaked my own imagination. I love horror movies more than puppies, but I've rarely been frightened by them. It's the visceral vicariousness, the excitement, the creepy imagery of the horror film that floats my boat. But if I want to be scared, I read. Or watch the news, maybe


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Though you might shun the horror films in the slasher, ultra-violent, extreme, exploitation, whatever areas of the genre, that doesn't mean they're no less horror. A murderous home invasion in my opinion is much more horrifying than a monster from the cosmos, because the home invasion is real, and can happen. Watching the original Hills Have Eyes, Last House on the Left, or I Spit On Your Grave give the viewer a gritty, full-frontal insight into the monster called man.



Sorry. Tortured syntax aside, I find those movies "horrible" rather than "horror". They lack any imagination. Yeah, they could happen. You can't really say that a monster from the cosmos can't happen, just that it hasn't in your experience.
A previous poster mentioned Torquemada and the boys. There's an example of what you're talking about. That's just goresploitation. It gives you more of an insight into that monster called the bad film-maker. If I'm gonna go there, I'd as soon watch something about Charlie and his Family or Ed Gein. At least them folks were real.
Otherwise, you're talking about the same level of viewership that thinks the Punisher is an effective hero symbol. Appalling. Intellectually bereft, morally repugnant, artistically stunted.


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 7, 2013)

Whoa, now. The punisher is wish fulfillment in the highest sense, justice for those who are denied righteous action or comeuppance. The punisher is an anti-hero or maybe a reluctant hero is a better term. The makers of the comic and movies give us a chance to vicariously experience something we would all like to do; unless, of course, you have buried your instinct and intuition under a mound of 'civilization'.  
    Drawing lines of comparison between Pinhead and Manson to Castle or Batman is either inadequate or off the mark completely.


----------



## Cornelius Crowe (Jan 7, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> For me, personally, I've never been quite so frightened than when reading a horrific thing that tweaked my own imagination. I love horror movies more than puppies, but I've rarely been frightened by them. It's the visceral vicariousness, the excitement, the creepy imagery of the horror film that floats my boat. But if I want to be scared, I read. Or watch the news, maybe



Horror is a loaded term; one that I've long thought should be discarded.  The only thing I've ever read that's actually _frightened _ me is the news.  I love the genre, but I don't read horror novels or watch movies to be scared - that's beyond their capacity to deliver, so maybe we should find a more suitable label.  At its heart, I think the 'horror' genre is that branch of speculative fiction that explores the most visceral aspects of human psychology.  It may be one of the most important branches of literature for understanding who we are.

By claiming to write horror, we're setting ourselves up for failure if we don't actually scare anyone.  That's pretty darned hard to do, and I'm not sure that's the point, anyway.  Is it really important that horror fiction actually be scary, or is it more important that it explores the fears we share and drags them into the light?


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

Cornelius Crowe said:


> Horror is a loaded term; one that I've long thought should be discarded.  The only thing I've ever read that's actually _frightened _ me is the news.  I love the genre, but I don't read horror novels or watch movies to be scared - that's beyond their capacity to deliver, so maybe we should find a more suitable label.  At its heart, I think the 'horror' genre is that branch of speculative fiction that explores the most visceral aspects of human psychology.  It may be one of the most important branches of literature for understanding who we are.
> 
> By claiming to write horror, we're setting ourselves up for failure if we don't actually scare anyone.  That's pretty darned hard to do, and I'm not sure that's the point, anyway.  Is it really important that horror fiction actually be scary, or is it more important that it explores the fears we share and drags them into the light?


I would say the latter...I'm not a horror writer but an sf writer. Both are offshoots of the larger set speculative fiction or fantasy. But I agree wholeheartedly with the above.



Ovaraptor said:


> Whoa, now. The punisher is wish fulfillment in the highest sense, justice for those who are denied righteous action or comeuppance. The punisher is an anti-hero or maybe a reluctant hero is a better term. The makers of the comic and movies give us a chance to vicariously experience something we would all like to do; unless, of course, you have buried your instinct and intuition under a mound of 'civilization'.
> Drawing lines of comparison between Pinhead and Manson to Castle or Batman is either inadequate or off the mark completely.


You mean wish fulfillment in the _lowest_ sense? The Punisher isn't at all reluctant. He enjoys killing those he deems enemies of society like those who killed his family. My instincts and intuition function very well, thank you, and those words don't mean what you have them cast in context to be. Drawing sarcastic quotations around "civilization" just propounds the ignorance embodied in that statement.
Castle and Batman are the same beast. Punisher was explicitly invented to be the most extreme and realistic form of the Bat mythos. Shooting people individually isn't something I'd like to do, despite my misanthropy and penchant for apocalyptic fictions.
You don't seem to understand the arguments I've put forth. Good thread topic though.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 7, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Did you guys know that Sam Ramey and Bruce Campbell are doing an "Evil Dead" remake?  Yep I read it the other day.



So pointless...the original is perfect.



dolphinlee said:


> I heard a BBC radio play about inmates in a home for the blind who were terrorised by the staff. The story concluded with a power cut, the staff were rounded up into a room and a week later they were released. They could see they had a choice. One way led to starving dogs. The other to a small tunnel with razer blades imbedded in the roof.  I had shivers for weeks. When I saw this play on television I barely batted an eyelid.



Tales From the Crypt, 1972



moderan said:


> Sorry. Tortured syntax aside, I find those movies "horrible" rather than "horror". They lack any imagination. Yeah, they could happen. You can't really say that a monster from the cosmos can't happen, just that it hasn't in your experience.
> A previous poster mentioned Torquemada and the boys. There's an example of what you're talking about. That's just goresploitation. It gives you more of an insight into that monster called the bad film-maker. If I'm gonna go there, I'd as soon watch something about Charlie and his Family or Ed Gein. At least them folks were real.
> Otherwise, you're talking about the same level of viewership that thinks the Punisher is an effective hero symbol. Appalling. Intellectually bereft, morally repugnant, artistically stunted.



You sound like a member of the PRMC now.

I don't see how goresploitation (as you call it) is any less intellectual than say, Rats in the Walls...with a main character's cat called a vulgar name for an African American. I enjoy the story-trash cinema and Lovecraft are equally enjoyable for me-but c'mon, we're discussing Horror here, and you're treating it like people treat Faulkner and Shakespeare, like it should have "class".

Horror is supposed to be scary, suspenseful, shocking...even...appalling. I think gore films handle the shock and appall quite well.



EDIT: Aren't you forgetting that these old Horror writers were considered low-brow in their time? You're doing the same thing with modern Horror.


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> You sound like a member of the PRMC now.
> 
> I don't see how goresploitation (as you call it) is any less intellectual than say, Rats in the Walls...with a main character's cat called a vulgar name for an African American. I enjoy the story-trash cinema and Lovecraft are equally enjoyable for me-but c'mon, we're discussing Horror here, and you're treating it like people treat Faulkner and Shakespeare, like it should have "class".
> 
> ...



Oh please. Unimaginative is unimaginative. I'm not equating modern "horror" with pulp fiction (though a good deal of that was tasteless as well, so were panels from EC's stuff or Warren's stuff). I'm saying that (to me, and you're obviously forgetting that this is all subjective) goresploitation films are no more imaginative than documentaries about major surgery, and might as well be. Such things are more powerful in the realm of the imagination, rather than spelled out. Val Lewton's shadow of a cat on the wall is scarier than the yards and yards of intestines in a Romero film (though I enjoy some of Romero's satirical approach).


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 7, 2013)

Really? You threw Romero in there? If you see his films as nothing but gore for the sake of gore then I already know why you feel as you do. He is probably one of the more intelligent in the Horror realm.


----------



## Leyline (Jan 7, 2013)

Oh, come ON, FE. Romero is a frigging hack. _Land Of The Dead_ is one of the worst movies I've ever seen: an odious message movie with a horrible message about how communism is totally misunderstood. Eat my shorts, Romero.


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

Of course, that's exactly what I said *performs eyeroll* cuz chitlins. You don't think Romero is over-the-top? Or is that you don't understand the point about the power of imagination?
Audiences in the 30s gasped when Chet Gould showed a bullet passing through the head of one of Tracy's villains. It was seen as unnecessary then, and is still unnecessary. Paucity of imagination is why gore is so successful. Not to mention How I Met Your Mother, which is a horror in and of itself, but also a complete digression from the main point.


----------



## dale (Jan 7, 2013)

Leyline said:


> Oh, come ON, FE. Romero is a frigging hack. _Land Of The Dead_ is one of the worst movies I've ever seen: an odious message movie with a horrible message about how communism is totally misunderstood. Eat my shorts, Romero.



yeah. but many horror films and books have a social or political subtext like that. invasion of the body snatchers comes to mind.
which to me, seems like an anti-communist theme. (even though the author said it wasn't)


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Jan 7, 2013)

I enjoy a little gore myself, being a horror nut and all, but I don't find gore scary. I like good-old fashioned campy gore, like Carpenter's The Thing, Dead Alive, Dawn of The Dead, Story of Ricky, or Evil Dead 2. I enjoy the art form of the special effects in those older films. Gore is moving into the cg realm now, and I think that's cheap. I like practical effects.

I don't care for torture porn gore, though, like Martyrs or A Serbian Film. My gore has to be tongue-in-cheek, not soul-crushingly depressing. Hostel or Saw are not scary movies. They are simply disturbing.

Halloween and the Fog are nice, creepy flicks, and they have little to no gore in them. 

There;s a big difference between being grossed out by something, or losing sleep over something that haunts you. Fulci's Zombie (Which I saw at the drive-in when it was released (I'm old!)) just makes me raise an eyebrow or laugh at the audacious gore. The guy standing in the corner at the end of The Blair Witch Project still creeps me out. And he don't have no intestines hangin' out or nuthin'


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 7, 2013)

Leyline said:


> Oh, come ON, FE. Romero is a frigging hack. _Land Of The Dead_ is one of the worst movies I've ever seen: an odious message movie with a horrible message about how communism is totally misunderstood. Eat my shorts, Romero.



And what about Night, Dawn, and Day of the Dead? What about Martin? What about The Crazies? Romero is no hack.

This is, after all, subjective. 

I consider myself a hardcore Horror fan, period. I love a great sixties flick (especially anything by Mario Bava) as well as a good 80's slasher, a 90's low budget sci-fi horror and even modern, push you to your limits and crush your soul flick. 

And, above all the gore, there are some very, very deep messages in these modern violent films. Martyrs is a great example. A harder one to understand is Srpski Film (which took me awhile to find, but I did), but the message is still there, and it's very serious and more profound than any gothic horror. 

Douglas Buck's Family Portraits is also another great example of art in over the top violence.

If you would like to see serious film fanatics delving into the deeper meanings in films, check out the-mortuary.com for a lot of great discussions on topics like this.


----------



## moderan (Jan 8, 2013)

Really? Very, very deep messages? Like what, cinematic backward-masking? Do tell.
And don't you mean "under" all of the gore? What's the deep serious message? That people are ugly underneath, prone to vicious vicissitudes? Oooo, new one. I bet William Golding never thought of William Shakespeare thinking of Homer thinking of that.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 8, 2013)

moderan said:


> Really? Very, very deep messages? Like what, cinematic backward-masking? Do tell.
> And don't you mean "under" all of the gore? What's the deep serious message? That people are ugly underneath, prone to vicious vicissitudes? Oooo, new one. I bet William Golding never thought of William Shakespeare thinking of Homer thinking of that.



So the question I pose to you, with the unbelievable success of franchises like "Friday the 13th," "Nightmare on Elm Street," and others, was it that society has been dumbed down to the point that movies like that are what it takes to entertain horror fans, or were these types of franchises what actually dumbed down society in the first place?  Are movies like "Psycho" too high-brow to be successful?  I mean Vince Vaughn and Ann Heche didn't exactly make a hit film in the remake, yet they continue to do remakes of movies like "Halloween" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre."  

With all the said, are there any movies you think today cross both realms of psychological horror and the gore-fest horror of today?  Personally I can think of at least one, Rob Zombie's "House of a Thousand Corpses", and then it's sequel "The Devil's Rejects."


----------



## moderan (Jan 8, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> So the question I pose to you, with the unbelievable success of franchises like "Friday the 13th," "Nightmare on Elm Street," and others, was it that society has been dumbed down to the point that movies like that are what it takes to entertain horror fans, or were these types of franchises what actually dumbed down society in the first place?  Are movies like "Psycho" too high-brow to be successful?  I mean Vince Vaughn and Ann Heche didn't exactly make a hit film in the remake, yet they continue to do remakes of movies like "Halloween" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre."
> 
> With all the said, are there any movies you think today cross both realms of psychological horror and the gore-fest horror of today?  Personally I can think of at least one, Rob Zombie's "House of a Thousand Corpses", and then it's sequel "The Devil's Rejects."



Nothing wrong with the first coupla Freddies...after that they went for the cheap instead of exploring what such a creature from the id would really be capable of. Systematic dumbing down has been taking place since the 40s (that we know of). Most Roger Corman or William Castle flicks are just as dumb, just not made with an overattention to the karo syrup.
Rob Zombie has a clue. The first couple of Hellraisers are probably where I draw the line. Once Barker left off being directly involved, the "artistic" content of the series went away too. The first couple of Saws had plenty of moments of truth, but then the formula started outweighing the content. The movies reacted to the popularity of splatterpunk with predictable results when they found that the Faces of Death audience had pocketbooks too.
That line is where Cronenberg lives. I think some of his stuff is brilliant. Videodrome is in my top ten. The original Tales from the Crypt movie was right there, and that was a while ago. Gus van Sant's Elephant steers clear of the gore and has a couple of important things to say. There are more, but they're exceptions.
When you're used to the kind of carnage and body counts you get in first-person shooters, your sights are correspondingly adjusted upward.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2013)

A great film to use is Srpski Film, because it is the most soul crushing film you can watch.

The film, on the surface, looks like the most appalling and violent film to date. However, underneath (fine, whatever) is a message depicting the Serbian government. It shows that they are willing to do anything, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g, to get what they want, to dehumanize, control, destroy, etc. Serbians that have seen the film said they got it instantly, it's the rest of the world that struggled. 

How about Peckenpah's Straw Dogs? That was remade into a pile of trash, something that completely destroyed the struggle between Dustin Hoffman's character and Susan George in the film. A film that shows in utter perfection the struggle between the sexes. 

Martyrs, I feel was a great film, one that really asked the question of "where's God?"

How about Thriller? Another battle of the sexes, only opposite of Straw Dogs.

Then, Romero's zombie films, which have some of the best racial, consumerists, rebellious messages in them over all other Horror films. 

What about Cannibal Holocaust? Nekromantik? Aftermath? Subconscious Cruelty? Flower of Flesh and Blood? 

You seriously find nothing redeeming or artful in extreme cinema? I can tell you this much, Lovecraft never engaged me like some of these modern films have. I have never been left feeling utterly hopeless or sick to my stomach after reading Lovecraft, but rather indifferent. Isn't the idea of Horror to inflict emotion, any kind of emotion?


And besides all of this, where is it in the Horror Handbook that states all Horror should be intelligent? 

Horror films rarely ever get the tag "genius," so if your too inclined for a splatter-fest, then perhaps your just not that into Horror.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Jan 8, 2013)

I agree that A Serbian Film and Martyrs are very expertly made films with compelling messages. They are challenging art.

But for me, just personally, I like my horror moving in a more fantastic realm, like Lovecraft. The events in A Serbian Film, Martyrs, the Saw movies, and the Hostel movies are within the realms of possibility. People can, and probably have done those kinds of things to one another. I believe in man's inhumanity towards man. I've seen it, heard about it, read about it. I don't really need those themes illustrated to me all that much. They are important messages, to be sure, but I just get a little disturbed seeing such a realistic portrayal of those horrors. If I want to educate myself on the horrors of mankind, I'd rather watch a documentary or read a book.

But then movies that take a realistic approach to the fantastic don't bother me at all, other than maybe creep me out here and there. Near Dark, American Werewolf in London, or Day of The Dead are decent examples of that. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I'd rather watch Creature From the Black Lagoon or The Funhouse than Excision or VHS. Of course I watched Excision and VHS because I'm a horror geek

Then there's over-the-top gore extravaganzas. I think these are a blast. But the reason is that they are not believable. I don't believe in Sumatran Rat-Monkey bites producing zombies, nor do I believe in zombies. So I think Dead Alive (Braindead) is fun for the crazy story and outlandish gore. It's fun, and it doesn't pretend to be something especially important or relevant.

Romero did have plenty to say in his zombie films, but he delivered that medicine with a lot of gory sugar. There was fun to be had in Dawn of The Dead, in watching it. A lot of new horror movies have have important messages, but they aren't a lot of fun. Recent exceptions are movies like Grindhouse or Cabin In The Woods, but flicks like these don't come down the pike often enough.

What's better? A Serbian Film or Cabin in The Woods? It all just comes down to personal taste, really, if you want to be diplomatic about it. They are both well-made films. But for me, just personally, one is not fun and the other one is.


----------



## moderan (Jan 8, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> A great film to use is Srpski Film, because it is the most soul crushing film you can watch.


So why is it good? Why is soul-crushing a positive?



FleshEater said:


> The film, on the surface, looks like the most appalling and violent film to date. However, underneath (fine, whatever) is a message depicting the Serbian government. It shows that they are willing to do anything, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g, to get what they want, to dehumanize, control, destroy, etc. Serbians that have seen the film said they got it instantly, it's the rest of the world that struggled.


And that's new? I get it without having to see the film. But then I have relatives there.



FleshEater said:


> How about Peckenpah's Straw Dogs? That was remade into a pile of trash, something that completely destroyed the struggle between Dustin Hoffman's character and Susan George in the film. A film that shows in utter perfection the struggle between the sexes.


I like Peckinpah's film. Wouldn't bother with the remake.



FleshEater said:


> Martyrs, I feel was a great film, one that really asked the question of "where's God?"
> 
> How about Thriller? Another battle of the sexes, only opposite of Straw Dogs.
> 
> ...


No, it isn't. And you go on and on about film and say nothing about literature, which is where it started. You're doing a poor job of selling the "messages" of these wonderful films. What exactly are these messages? Why do we need to see them?
The idea behind horror is to evoke emotion, not to inflict it.




FleshEater said:


> And besides all of this, where is it in the Horror Handbook that states all Horror should be intelligent?
> 
> Horror films rarely ever get the tag "genius," so if your too inclined for a splatter-fest, then perhaps your just not that into Horror.



I'm not a horror fanboy, no. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Again, I think you lack perspective. The lens with which you're viewing things is very small.
I have discriminating tastes-I'm a card-carrying grownup, and a child of the sixties. And I'm intelligent, and would like to be engaged on that level. Otherwise it's all about nerve impulses and chemical reactions. I understand that you're after the visceral. But that's not the only thing. I don't do stoopid.


----------



## Cornelius Crowe (Jan 8, 2013)

moderan said:


> I bet William Golding never thought of William Shakespeare thinking of Homer thinking of that.



This is one of the problems I have with the label 'horror.'  What is horror?  What isn't?  Where is the line drawn?  Is _Lord of the Flies_ a horror story? Is Joseph Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_?  They aren't generally regarded as such.  Why not?  How does a thriller differ from horror?  John Grisham's _The Firm_ plays upon the fear of having our comfortable, secure lives yanked suddenly from under our feet when Mitch and Abby McDeere's fairy-tale life suddenly becomes a nightmare.

Many horror stories contain a supernatural element, but this isn't mandatory, either.  I doubt that many people would argue that Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_ is a horror story, but what about Michael Crichton's _Jurassic Park_?  They're the exact same story told in different settings.

Mankind has probably been telling horror stories for as long as we've been capable of speech; it's our oldest form of literature.  Funny that it gets so little respect and has, in recent decades, often been trivialized to sensationalism devoid of story.


----------



## moderan (Jan 8, 2013)

Cornelius Crowe said:


> This is one of the problems I have with the label 'horror.'  What is horror?  What isn't?  Where is the line drawn?  Is _Lord of the Flies_ a horror story? Is Joseph Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_?  They aren't generally regarded as such.  Why not?  How does a thriller differ from horror?  John Grisham's _The Firm_ plays upon the fear of having our comfortable, secure lives yanked suddenly from under our feet when Mitch and Abby McDeere's fairy-tale life suddenly becomes a nightmare.
> 
> Many horror stories contain a supernatural element, but this isn't mandatory, either.  I doubt that many people would argue that Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_ is a horror story, but what about Michael Crichton's _Jurassic Park_?  They're the exact same story told in different settings.
> 
> Mankind has probably been telling horror stories for as long as we've been capable of speech; it's our oldest form of literature.  Funny that it gets so little respect and has, in recent decades, often been trivialized to sensationalism devoid of story.



Inasmuch as the term "horror" is applied mostly by marketing folk to have a convenient handle on product, I agree. People's own definitions vary. Lord of the Flies has horrific elements and I'd tentatively call it horror, where the Modern Prometheus has horrific elements and is imo better classed as science fiction (It's the first true sf novel to many). The Firm has that element, but I'd put it in the thriller class. *shrug*
I was thinking of the central incident in Merchant of Venice when I wrote that. A pound of flesh, and all. Labored pun.
In the end...again, it's subjective. I could resort to the time-honored Damon Knight, I-know-it-when-I-see-it but I kinda like the intellectual exercise of trying to fit the horrific into a frame. Much of it's non-Euclidean, you see, and that makes things vastly more difficult.
Is the Epic of Gilgamesh horror? That's where most of the breadbasket of civilization creation myths and stuff come from anyway. Dark fantasy? I mean, it's probably not realio trulio...you could make a case for "Revelations" as a horror story if you cared to.
*rubs chin thoughtfully*
I like the borderlands, where stuff gets all mixed up like that. Horror and sf, like Jack Finney or Alien or Faith of Our Fathers. Frankenstein, Dr. Strangelove...the midsection of 2001, when HAL starts to tilt. Clockwork Orange, all appy polly loggies, horrorshow. Dystopian sf is mostly horror. The blighted landscapes and wildly impressionist mutations are the point. The blast (or flu or what have you)is just a device.
Jurassic Park's sf. Most of Crichton's stuff is. His early competitor Martin Caidin wrote mostly sf too, before he drifted off into tvland and lost his audience. But you can see the horror in the Terminal Man or in the experiences of the Cyborg (that became Lee Majors).
Ever read John Farris? C.L. Grant? Graham Masterton? James Herbert? Those guys have been at it for a while, and they cover all the bases. Scientific horror? Sure, you got it. Supernatural, myth-based, ghost story, the Great Old Ones? Check, check, recheck. Good stuff. No lengthy series that sap the spark out of the writer. Some trilogies.
If you must do film, shoot All Heads Turn When the Hunt Goes By. The Manitou was good, the sequel not so much. But that's horror. I dunno how better to illustrate my idea unless it's just to provide examples. The Mephisto Waltz, that slow burn of a book and movie. That one's got some frights, but you have to be able to sit still for a while and soak it all in. The Invisible Man is right on the line. Nothing ever freaked me as a little'un like Claude Rains taking off that Ace bandage the first time, just unspooling that sucker. Pow!


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2013)

I'm viewing this through a small lens? This coming from someone with a very jaded opinion of horror...right. 

Watch the films or research them for a more detailed message...I'm not typing out my opinion on the films on an iPad, individually. 

I don't discuss horror in literature because I haven't read any horror from a modern writer, aside from some Stephen blah King. And when it comes to horror, the medium of film dominates.

Also, calling things you don't relate to as stupid, is yet again more proof of your narrow mindedness. But, that's my subjective opinion.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 8, 2013)

If you don't mind my interupting I would like to ask something.

Is there a basic fear that horror films are trying to 'exploit' or do different films/types of horror film aim for different fears? 

What is/are the fear(s) called?


----------



## Terry D (Jan 8, 2013)

In my opinion -- as someone who has read and watched horror for most of the past 50 years, and written it for 35 -- just getting a visceral reaction to an image doesn't qualify as horror.  Nothing about the Saw movies was remotely scary... not horrific in the least.  Horror is an emotion which happens in the head, not the stomach.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-gore and I don't shy away from it in my writing, but the blood is not the point.  If that's all I wanted I could stop and stare at road-kill for entertainment.


----------



## Cornelius Crowe (Jan 8, 2013)

dolphinlee said:


> If you don't mind my interupting I would like to ask something.
> 
> Is there a basic fear that horror films are trying to 'exploit' or do different films/types of horror film aim for different fears?
> 
> What is/are the fear(s) called?



I think that most films rely heavily on building tension to startle the viewer in ways that books can't.  Subtle use of background music to heighten tension, particular camera views, etc. slowly build up the tension, and then unleash the 'jack-in-a-box' effect to scare you.  This, and gory violence, is really about all that most films have going for them, and the last time it worked on me was when I saw _Alien_ in the theatre in 1979.  The device of having a character washing their face in the sink, then standing up and seeing the ghost/killer's reflection in the mirror is so overused that I can't imagine how anyone could be possibly be startled by it any more - yet still they persist in using it.

So, I guess shock and revulsion are the main fears that films try to exploit.  I think books often manage a more sophisticated exploration of our fears instead of continually pulling the same tricks out of the bag.


----------



## moderan (Jan 8, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I'm viewing this through a small lens? This coming from someone with a very jaded opinion of horror...right.
> 
> Watch the films or research them for a more detailed message...I'm not typing out my opinion on the films on an iPad, individually.
> 
> ...


I define mindless pleasure as "stoopid". That refers to the mindless part. You call it narrow-minded to have some sense of discrimination? And yet in the same breath you decry modern horror writing and claim that the filmic medium dominates, therefore the literature that birthed, defined, and continues to define the genre is beneath your notice? Not hard to see the contradiction there. Isn't it sorta narrow-minded to neglect other media to concentrate on one, and pursue that definition only?
"Jaded" I think what you mean is outmoded. Doesn't mean the same thing. Your command of the vernacular is astounding.
I shouldn't have to watch the films to grasp your point. You don't have to watch them or read the books to get mine. If those films have a deep, a profound, an abiding common message, then why is it so hard to think of?
Again, you speak only from a fanboy perspective. You want myself and whatever members/lurkers that are participating in (or following) this conversation, to go to other websites to view conversations because you cannot adequately defend your views, other than to hurl weak epithets.
Way to stand your ground.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2013)

dolphinlee said:


> If you don't mind my interupting I would like to ask something.
> 
> Is there a basic fear that horror films are trying to 'exploit' or do different films/types of horror film aim for different fears?
> 
> What is/are the fear(s) called?



Does a basic fear even exist? 

I don't believe there is a basic fear, and I don't think this can be answered without subjecting you to an opinion; that will most likely be biased.

How many times have you heard someone say, "That scared the crap out of me," and the next say, "Weakest film ever!" 

Personally, when the torturer got up at the end of Saw, the first time I saw it, my skin crawled because it was such a disturbing idea. Did it scare me? No, not in the sense of having nightmares, but it made me feel just as the characters did. 

Last House on the Left (Wes Craven) is a terrifying film in my opinion, because I have an underlying fear of home invasions. And, Craven captured the utter lack of humanity and sympathy in those characters better than most...the gritty filming helped in my opinion. 

One of MY all time scariest films is The Entity (original). 

There is a film for every kind of imaginable fear...if you're not afraid of it, you most likely won't enjoy it.

ALSO, we can't forget that getting creeped out and being scared are two completely different things. Almost every piece of Asian horror I have seen has creeped me out.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2013)

moderan said:


> I define mindless pleasure as "stoopid". That refers to the mindless part. You call it narrow-minded to have some sense of discrimination? And yet in the same breath you decry modern horror writing and claim that the filmic medium dominates, therefore the literature that birthed, defined, and continues to define the genre is beneath your notice? Not hard to see the contradiction there. Isn't it sorta narrow-minded to neglect other media to concentrate on one, and pursue that definition only?
> "Jaded" I think what you mean is outmoded. Doesn't mean the same thing. Your command of the vernacular is astounding.
> I shouldn't have to watch the films to grasp your point. You don't have to watch them or read the books to get mine. If those films have a deep, a profound, an abiding common message, then why is it so hard to think of?
> Again, you speak only from a fanboy perspective. You want myself and whatever members/lurkers that are participating in (or following) this conversation, to go to other websites to view conversations because you cannot adequately defend your views, other than to hurl weak epithets.
> Way to stand your ground.



Seriously man? I don't have time to keep arguing with you. It's pointless, you haven't explored any of the realms I' m discussing and never will, and I really don't care enough to keep arguing with a man of your age, belittling me in condensed paragraphs, griping about my "vernacular" in a b.s. type of conversation. Moving on.


----------



## Cornelius Crowe (Jan 8, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> There is a film for every kind of imaginable fear...if you're not afraid of it, you most likely won't enjoy it.



Here's the thing, though: fear is a very difficult emotion for a book or movie to evoke.  Maybe impossible, which brings me back to my original thesis: horror, as a genre sets it self up to fail by implicitly promising what it can't deliver.  I think that 'creeped out' is the best that can be managed.  As I mentioned earlier, I don't need to be scared to enjoy a 'horror' story, but I would like to be challenged, either emotionally or intellectually by it.

I don't watch many contemporary horror movies, and the few I've seen have been more ridiculous than unsettling, let alone scary.  I laughed out loud when I watched _The Ring_.  As a scary movie it made for great comedy, albeit unintentionally.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 8, 2013)

I do like the phrase 'creeped out.' That seems much more suitable to me.

I can see that horror movies would fail if their aim is to produce a sense of horror in the viewer. Its getting too difficult. There is so little that is new. Aliens was amazing at the time because to most of the audience the idea of gestating an alien was novel.

Saw made me laugh. Friday the 13th was ridiculous. I did jump at the end but then my reactions was 'can't they think of anything new?' It's a bit like the thing in the mirror mentioned earlier. 

What could they possible come up with next? I've yet to see a movie where the 'monster' comes up out of the toilet while you are sitting on it.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2013)

See, and The Ring creeped me out. The girl crawling out of the well really captured what the original Asian film did.

It's all subjective...there is no definite, no matter how much "authority" someone brings to the table.


----------



## moderan (Jan 8, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Seriously man? I don't have time to keep arguing with you. It's pointless, you haven't explored any of the realms I' m discussing and never will, and I really don't care enough to keep arguing with a man of your age, belittling me in condensed paragraphs, griping about my "vernacular" in a b.s. type of conversation. Moving on.


You just don't have the ammunition to get your point across adequately. It isn't about age, it's about perspective. I've explored some of those realms. I found them lacking. You haven't explored any of the literature, yet you sneer.
Toodle-oo.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2013)

dolphinlee said:


> I do like the phrase 'creeped out.' That seems much more suitable to me.
> 
> I can see that horror movies would fail if their aim is to produce a sense of horror in the viewer. Its getting too difficult. There is so little that is new. Aliens was amazing at the time because to most of the audience the idea of gestating an alien was novel.
> 
> ...




The aim now is to make you feel like you'd rather die than replay what you just saw over and over in your mind. 

I celebrate Friday the 13th as a holiday, and watch as many of them as I can...I have a soft spot for slashers, especially Slumber Party Massacre.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 8, 2013)

I think a big part of 'horror' is getting the audience to go along with something implausable, or highly unlikely. Ghosts, zombies, encountering a serial killer, these things are highly unlikely, yet I'm often still able to detach myself from the real enough to 'get into' the story, even when I know that the premise, like zombies, is totally phoney. I  really enjoyed some of the scenes in _Night of the Living Dead,_  enough to watch the whole thing, even though the music and some of the dialog were cheesy. The film had realism, and I imagined myself in the characters' predicament. _What would I do? _was an unconcious question I constantly asked myself. On the other hand, a movie like _the Innocents_ (A turn of the Screw) or _The Cormorant _I find equally entertaining in a completely different way. I don't necessarily have to imagine myself in the story, I just like watching what happens to the characters (which is comparatively, not a lot).


----------



## Cornelius Crowe (Jan 8, 2013)

dolphinlee said:


> I've yet to see a movie where the 'monster' comes up out of the toilet while you are sitting on it.



Try watching _Snakes on a Plane_ if you don't mind some silliness.  There are very few things that haven't been tried.


----------



## Cornelius Crowe (Jan 8, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> See, and The Ring creeped me out. The girl crawling out of the well really captured what the original Asian film did.
> 
> It's all subjective...there is no definite, no matter how much "authority" someone brings to the table.



I had a really hard time buying into the premise of this movie, and once my suspension of disbelief is shattered, I can't really see it as anything but a joke.  The scene in _The Ring_ where the T.V. was chasing after the person made me howl with laughter.


----------



## Cornelius Crowe (Jan 8, 2013)

Kevin said:


> I think a big part of 'horror' is getting the audience to go along with something implausable, or highly unlikely. Ghosts, zombies, encountering a serial killer, these things are highly unlikely, yet I'm often still able to detach myself from the real enough to 'get into' the story, even when I know that the premise, like zombies, is totally phoney.



I totally agree.  I'm fine with an implausible premise as long as it is internally consistent, which is to say, does it follow the rules of milieu in which it is set?  So many movies don't do this and that is what turns me off of them.  The aforementioned scene in _The Ring,_ in which a viewer had to watch a little girl on T.V. crawl out of a well and, very slowly, out of the screen became absurd once the T.V. started chasing people around.  How does that work?  Suspension of disbelief blown to smithereens.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2013)

Cornelius Crowe said:


> I had a really hard time buying into the premise of this movie, and once my suspension of disbelief is shattered, I can't really see it as anything but a joke.  The scene in _The Ring_ where the T.V. was chasing after the person made me howl with laughter.




The T.V.? It was Samara crawling out of the television. She had come for all the other victims as well...seems consistent to me.


----------



## dale (Jan 8, 2013)

Cornelius Crowe said:


> I had a really hard time buying into the premise of this movie, and once my suspension of disbelief is shattered, I can't really see it as anything but a joke.  The scene in _The Ring_ where the T.V. was chasing after the person made me howl with laughter.


i thought the ring was decent. i thought the ring 2 was completely stupid. i liked the ring for a few different reasons. but it was mainly the black and white scenes
that spooked me. for some reason, i love black and white films. it has a certain charm that draws me in.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Jan 8, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> The aim now is to make you feel like you'd rather die than replay what you just saw over and over in your mind.
> 
> I celebrate Friday the 13th as a holiday, and watch as many of them as I can...I have a soft spot for slashers, especially Slumber Party Massacre.



What's your favorite Friday? I think mine's a toss up between 1 and 6


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2013)

Definitely the first one, and the one with (is it New Blood) Corey Feldman is my second.

The first Friday the 13th is perfect. I believe that film set the standard for supernatural slashers.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Jan 8, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Definitely the first one, and the one with (is it New Blood) Corey Feldman is my second.
> 
> The first Friday the 13th is perfect. I believe that film set the standard for supernatural slashers.



Feldman's in part 4. I love the first one too. Saw it at the drive-in when it first came out. I was just a kid, so I had to sleep with the hall light on for a week!


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 8, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Definitely the first one, and the one with (is it New Blood) Corey Feldman is my second.
> 
> The first Friday the 13th is perfect. I believe that film set the standard for supernatural slashers.



Did you know there was actually a film that was going to be made that pitted Jason vs. Freddy vs. Ash from the "Evil Dead" series?  Too bad huh?  Bruce Campbell is bar far one of my favorite horror movie actors.  If you haven't see "Bubba Hotep" you should.  I am very curious to see how the new "Evil Dead" movie Sam Ramey and Campbell are working on now turns out.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 8, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> Feldman's in part 4. I love the first one too. Saw it at the drive-in when it first came out. I was just a kid, so I had to sleep with the hall light on for a week!



#4 was kind of stupid in my opinion having a bunch of troubled youth getting killed by Jason.  Jason X was the worst of the serious.  The second worst was the one with the girl who had telekinetic powers.  She tried to kill Jason with a weed whacker...really?


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Jan 8, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> #4 was kind of stupid in my opinion having a bunch of troubled youth getting killed by Jason.  Jason X was the worst of the serious.  The second worst was the one with the girl who had telekinetic powers.  She tried to kill Jason with a weed whacker...really?



The one with troubled youth getting killed was part 5, and yeah, that movie kinda sucked. Part 4 was the one with Crispin Glover. And yeah, Carrie Vs. Jason was kinda sucky too.


----------



## dale (Jan 8, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> The one with troubled youth getting killed was part 5, and yeah, that movie kinda sucked. Part 4 was the one with Crispin Glover. And yeah, Carrie Vs. Jason was kinda sucky too.


crispin glover always cracked me up. the horror movie "river's edge"? to me, that movie DEFINES the 80s. that's how i remember the 80s perfectly,
as far as how detached we were. i love that movie.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Jan 8, 2013)

dale said:


> crispin glover always cracked me up. the horror movie "river's edge"? to me, that movie DEFINES the 80s. that's how i remember the 80s perfectly,
> as far as how detached we were. i love that movie.



It's weird that you say that. I really identify with that movie. Not the murder part, but the endless wandering around with my buddies in the middle of the night, getting into trouble, avoiding cops, and just going home to sleep or eat.


----------



## dale (Jan 8, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> It's weird that you say that. I really identify with that movie. Not the murder part, but the endless wandering around with my buddies in the middle of the night, getting into trouble, avoiding cops, and just going home to sleep or eat.



i identify with that, and the whole mentality of the film. no one i ever hung out with never killed anyone, either. but if they
would have? our little group would have basically dealt with it exactly like that. the 80s was a time i remember of just not giving
much of a hoot about too much of anything. finding the next escape route was all there was.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> Feldman's in part 4. I love the first one too. Saw it at the drive-in when it first came out. I was just a kid, so I had to sleep with the hall light on for a week!



Like Savini said, Feldman was every monster kid growing up in that movie...plus the machete in the head at the end was amazing.



Lewdog said:


> Did you know there was actually a film that was going to be made that pitted Jason vs. Freddy vs. Ash from the "Evil Dead" series?  Too bad huh?  Bruce Campbell is bar far one of my favorite horror movie actors.  If you haven't see "Bubba Hotep" you should.  I am very curious to see how the new "Evil Dead" movie Sam Ramey and Campbell are working on now turns out.



Ash is the man.

I have seen Bubba Ho-Tep, excellent film.

Have you seen Coscarelli's Phantasms?


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 8, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Like Savini said, Feldman was every monster kid growing up in that movie...plus the machete in the head at the end was amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The mortician guy and the flying metal ball?  It's been a long time but I've seen them.  I remember being scared, yet then again they were new movies and I was like 8.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2013)

I must be the youngest one here...when I was eight, Jurassic Park was haunting me every thunder storm.


----------



## Cornelius Crowe (Jan 9, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> The T.V.? It was Samara crawling out of the television. She had come for all the other victims as well...seems consistent to me.



I didn't explain myself very thoroughly.  By consistency I mean adherence to the premise and the logic behind it.  I find that too many writers get lazy and opt for cop outs when they get themselves into tight spots instead of taking the time to think things through.  This is something that I hated about Superman comics when I was a kid.  Every time the writers got Supes into a jam and couldn't think of a clever way to get him out, they'd invent a new super power for him.  One that he, apparently, had all along but had never used before despite how handy it would have been in previous issues and will never think to use again in the future.  Drove me nuts.  I can accept the premise of Superman, but he needs to have his abilities defined.  What can he do?  What are his restrictions?  As soon as he starts spawning new powers whenever writers get lazy it violates the consistency of the premise and I can no longer buy into it.

Likewise, I can accept the premise of _The Ring_, but the writers didn't think the story through and consider the abilities and limitations of the creepy little well-girl.  Apparently she needed a cell phone, a vcr, and a television in order to get her victims.  Fine.  What happens if someone turns off the television before she gets out of it?  What if they unplug it?  What if they smash the screen?  How does that impact her?  Instead, they have the television physically chase someone into another room.  I can accept moving furniture in a movie like _Poltergeist_, but it had nothing to do with the premise of _The Ring_.  To put it simply, the writers pulled a Superman.

The _Final Destination_ movies also did this and took what I thought was an intriguing premise and turned into slapstick comedy.  I thought they had a really cool idea: that you can't escape your destiny once you're marked for death.  But the premise didn't involve ghosts or poltergeists, just the rip tides of fate that are hard to break out of.  Yet, the writers resorted to an invisible man who physically pulled the plug on a life support, turned the knob on a fellow's gas stove and lit the burner somehow, and chucked sharp objects at people.  The writers took a potentially clever story and ruined it with cheap, lazy cop-outs.  They violated the implicit physical laws of nature and the very premise of the movie.  Accidents happen, but knobs don't turn themselves on, electrical cords don't unplug themselves, etc.  Again, these are things I could accept in _Poltergeist_, where this was part of the premise, but they had nothing to do with the premise of _Final Destination_​ et al.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 9, 2013)

> Cornelius Crowe : By consistency I mean adherence to the premise and the logic behind it.  I find that too many writers get lazy and opt for cop outs when they get themselves into tight spots instead of taking the time to think things through.



I'm 'creeped out' by inconsistencies.


----------



## BenTurnbull (Jan 10, 2013)

Ovaraptor said:


> In response, Felsheater. I do not own a television. So, no.  And my budget precludes buying things so I _am  _woefully out of touch with the whole modern scene.



LIBRARIES are a wonderful thing. Okay maybe that's an understatement. Libraries are the solid rock upon which civilizations are built. Use them to your advantage. They are the single greatest tool an autodidact possesses.

More on topic with the thread, Stephen King once wrote an essay on the role of horror in society. It was beautiful, and if I ever meet him I'll be sure to tell him so right before I start throwing wild punches at him for how he ended _The Dark Tower_ series. I wish someone had told me to stop after the first book.


----------



## dale (Jan 10, 2013)

BenTurnbull said:


> LIBRARIES are a wonderful thing. Okay maybe that's an understatement. Libraries are the solid rock upon which civilizations are built. Use them to your advantage. They are the single greatest tool an autodidact possesses.
> 
> More on topic with the thread, Stephen King once wrote an essay on the role of horror in society. It was beautiful, and if I ever meet him I'll be sure to tell him so right before I start throwing wild punches at him for how he ended _The Dark Tower_ series. I wish someone had told me to stop after the first book.


i didn't think it really took off downhill until after the wastelands. the drawing of the three was probably my favorite.
but yeah, the more i read after that, the more disappointed i was. especially when he put himself in the story. that was completely cornball.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Jan 10, 2013)

I know we're careening off topic here, but have any of you read 11/22/63? Personally, I thought it was one of King's best books in years.


----------



## Leyline (Jan 10, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> I know we're careening off topic here, but have any of you read 11/22/63? Personally, I thought it was one of King's best books in years.



Yes, same here. Really enjoyed that one, more than any of his work since _The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon_.


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 10, 2013)

I am worried by no 'tipping of the hat' to At The Mouth Of Madness.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 10, 2013)

Del Toro is still pushing to adapt that to film...should be epic!


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 10, 2013)

Assuming that he adheres to the intrinsically American aspect that the movie captures. I wasn't aware he was looking to remake it. I say 'American' because I don't think the bus sequences would be quite the same. There is an innately open and expansive quality that the movie had, I think that European films are more claustrophobic in scope and if mishandled could miss the point outright. I mean, they didn't have an Old West, everything happened on their doorstep.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 10, 2013)

Ovaraptor said:


> Assuming that he adheres to the intrinsically American aspect that the movie captures. I wasn't aware he was looking to remake it. I say 'American' because I don't think the bus sequences would be quite the same. There is an innately open and expansive quality that the movie had, I think that European films are more claustrophobic in scope and if mishandled could miss the point outright. I mean, they didn't have an Old West, everything happened on their doorstep.



America wasn't the only place that had an "Old West."  Australia had their own "Old West," didn't they?


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 10, 2013)

They did. Though the fact that it was eclipsed by sheer mass compared to america. I do, look at Ned Kelly fondly as a hero.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 10, 2013)

Ovaraptor said:


> Assuming that he adheres to the intrinsically American aspect that the movie captures. I wasn't aware he was looking to remake it. I say 'American' because I don't think the bus sequences would be quite the same. There is an innately open and expansive quality that the movie had, I think that European films are more claustrophobic in scope and if mishandled could miss the point outright. I mean, they didn't have an Old West, everything happened on their doorstep.



Was this in response to me? If that's the case, who has ever put ATMOM to film?


----------



## Kevin (Jan 10, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> It's weird that you say that. I really identify with that movie. Not the murder part, but the endless wandering around with my buddies in the middle of the night, getting into trouble, avoiding cops, and just going home to sleep or eat.


 An adolescent dystopian summertime... I drove through Hollywood the other day, and there were a bunch of kids, they were homeless and druggie, and it was like a timewarp back to 1984, the plaid bondage pants, suspenders,ripped t-shirts, and I thought how strange that the fashion was still the same, and then I thought that these kids were really on the skids. They were like w***ed, and it was before noon, huddled on the sidewalk. That place has always been so hard core. At best, they could panhandle, at worst, well you can guess how it goes down from there. Their chances of survival... True life horror.


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 10, 2013)

I am drunk and can not place what I said to what I meant but if you are patient you can work it out. Wow, I so don't care. I just want to see blood running red!


----------



## Ovaraptor (Jan 10, 2013)

I know that if I were sober I could provide you with the answer you were asking for but I am too far gone.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 11, 2013)

You might have a slight problem.


----------

