Horror movies of today (mostly remakes) vs old horror movies - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Howdoulikemenow333 · 05-01-2005, 08:33 PM

What is this with a the horror movie remakes,Amitville Horror,House Of Wax,etc, can't some one do a orginal horror masterpeice like Friday the 13th,or Frankenstien,instead of Frankenfish.Movies like the old dracuala,Wolfman,The Thing, so on. Those movies were classic,and now The War Of The Worlds is coming. With Tom Curise.Bring back the horror classics no more remakes. I think the producers and directors wants to find new talent and put the newest actors in the remakes of old horror movies. Like they did Amitville Horror.How ever they have done orginal horror lately with BoogeyMan,Hide and Seek,The Village,house Of Wax.(well that is a remake,but tottaly differnt from the orginal.)

Belair · 05-02-2005, 05:13 AM

I think todays horror movies are alot scarier,and more gruesome than older ones.

Rhiannon · 05-02-2005, 12:45 PM

the movie "darkness" was scary! There were little dead kids crawling on the ceilings like spiders

Mysty Eyes · 05-02-2005, 01:05 PM

Current day "horror" flicks frequently resort to grusome slash-n-gash bloody gore. This is rarely important, IMO. And not particularly scary. This kind of film is more of a shock than truly frightening.

A truly horrific story involves a lot of intellectual and emotional terror. A good sample of a relatively recent film of this type is "Identity" starring John Cusack. While this film does have blood and gore, it is not the main part of the fear-factor. The really scary part is in the anticipation, confusion, and psychological tension.

In some cases a remake can be a good thing. For instance, if you are making a film that uses special effects then current day movie magic can make for a really neat movie. One of my favorite old-time movies is "The Haunting" starring Julie Harris. Several years ago they made a remake, with Catherine Zeta-Jones. I like this one as well, because the effects are really good... and they didn't mess too much with the story. I still prefer the older version, however.

Why they remake classics that have no particular need for FX is a mystery to me. And foolish. And a waste of time and money. Can anybody say... "Psycho"???
*coughcough*

Nighthawk76 · 05-02-2005, 02:08 PM

I think that horror movies nowadays rely more on cheap thrills and gore then on actual suspense. I don't think this is really the fault of the filmmakers, they are only responding to what the audiance wants. And I think that a good percentage of today's movie going public are impatient. They want things to be quick. They don't have the energy or the attention span for well cunstructed suspense sequnces.
I know of people who complian that they don't like the 1976 film version of Carrie because they didn't like to have to wait to see the bucket of pig's blood drop onto Carrie's head. What is brilliant about the prom scene in Carrie is how Brian De Palma sets up the scene leading up to the pulling of the string to get the maximum suspense out of the scene. He shows the audiance where all the key players are and what their relationship to each other is. We learn exactley how Chris and Billy are going to pull off their prank at the same time that Sue figures it out. The camera takes on her point of view as we and she see the rope leading from under the standes, up the side of the stands and to the bucket in the rafters. And just like Sue we the audiance are like "Oh, that's how it is going to be done." And the fact that we as the audiance have this information and Carrie, Tommy and almost everone else at the dance dosn't we know what's going to happen. We just don't know when it is going to happen or if anyone else is going to figure it out. That is suspense. However I know quite a few people who have seen this film and say that they hated the whole set up and just wanted to see the blood drop on Carrie.

dandelion wine · 05-02-2005, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAX

I think that horror movies nowadays rely more on cheap thrills and gore then on actual suspense. I don't think this is really the fault of the filmmakers, they are only responding to what the audiance wants. And I think that a good percentage of today's movie going public are impatient. They want things to be quick. They don't have the energy or the attention span for well cunstructed suspense sequnces.
I know of people who complian that they don't like the 1976 film version of Carrie because they didn't like to have to wait to see the bucket of pig's blood drop onto Carrie's head. What is brilliant about the prom scene in Carrie is how Brian De Palma sets up the scene leading up to the pulling of the string to get the maximum suspense out of the scene. He shows the audiance where all the key players are and what their relationship to each other is. We learn exactley how Chris and Billy are going to pull off their prank at the same time that Sue figures it out. The camera takes on her point of view as we and she see the rope leading from under the standes, up the side of the stands and to the bucket in the rafters. And just like Sue we the audiance are like "Oh, that's how it is going to be done." And the fact that we as the audiance have this information and Carrie, Tommy and almost everone else at the dance dosn't we know what's going to happen. We just don't know when it is going to happen or if anyone else is going to figure it out. That is suspense. However I know quite a few people who have seen this film and say that they hated the whole set up and just wanted to see the blood drop on Carrie.

Or they'll look at Carrie, any movie made before 1990 and go, "Uhh, that was dumb. Was I supposed to be scared?" Yes, you were. Sorry that your plot and scares weren't handed to you during the first 20 minutes but guess what? They weren't supposed to be.

Very well said, Michael, and I fully agree. It bothers me that audiences today, or at least the majority, are so damn impatient. Like you said, their attention span is pretty much out the door. It's like, "I don't waaannna wait. I want it right now! Now, now, now." In Carrie, sure we "have to wait" but you tell me that once we do make it to the prom and we watch her and Tommy Ross slowly making their way up the steps to that jaw-dropping moment... that it wasn't worth it. Amy Irving herself said that was the whole point of the movie. That is what everything is leading up to. You're supposed to wait. It seems like in the last 10+ years, Hollywood has been treating their audiences like they're stupid. Let us sit back for an hour and a half, let us use our imaginations, quit resorting to special effects that are so blatantly obvious it's almost funny, look back on those horror/suspense films you used to release in theaters. My cousin thought the original Psycho was hilarious and yet, the remake was one of the scariest movies she'd ever seen. Now, I realize that everybody's tastes are different and we're all allowed our opinion but how in the world does that even make sense? I thank God I wasn't brought up on the Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer movies. I've been a fan of horror and suspense since I was a little girl, and I'm still not jaded.

Dean Winchester · 05-02-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan Norton

Or they'll look at Carrie, any movie made before 1990 and go, "Uhh, that was dumb. Was I supposed to be scared?" Yes, you were. Sorry that your plot and scares weren't handed to you during the first 20 minutes but guess what? They weren't supposed to be.

yea, I see people say this about Halloween all the time. But I think one of the reasons Halloween was such a great and rewarding horror film is because all the scary stuff (save the opening murder and Annie's death in the car) doesn't happen until the last 15 mins of the movie, and then it's nonstop.

Nighthawk76 · 05-02-2005, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan Norton

Or they'll look at Carrie, any movie made before 1990 and go, "Uhh, that was dumb. Was I supposed to be scared?" Yes, you were. Sorry that your plot and scares weren't handed to you during the first 20 minutes but guess what? They weren't supposed to be.

Very well said, Michael, and I fully agree. It bothers me that audiences today, or at least the majority, are so damn impatient. Like you said, their attention span is pretty much out the door. It's like, "I don't waaannna wait. I want it right now! Now, now, now." In Carrie, sure we "have to wait" but you tell me that once we do make it to the prom and we watch her and Tommy Ross slowly making their way up the steps to that jaw-dropping moment... that it wasn't worth it. Amy Irving herself said that was the whole point of the movie. That is what everything is leading up to. You're supposed to wait. It seems like in the last 10+ years, Hollywood has been treating their audiences like they're stupid. Let us sit back for an hour and a half, let us use our imaginations, quit resorting to special effects that are so blatantly obvious it's almost funny, look back on those horror/suspense films you used to release in theaters. My cousin thought the original Psycho was hilarious and yet, the remake was one of the scariest movies she'd ever seen. Now, I realize that everybody's tastes are different and we're all allowed our opinion but how in the world does that even make sense? I thank God I wasn't brought up on the Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer movies. I've been a fan of horror and suspense since I was a little girl, and I'm still not jaded.

Thanks for the kind words as always, Kate.

Nighthawk76 · 05-02-2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffySlayer79

yea, I see people say this about Halloween all the time. But I think one of the reasons Halloween was such a great and rewarding horror film is because all the scary stuff (save the opening murder and Annie's death in the car) doesn't happen until the last 15 mins of the movie, and then it's nonstop.

One thing that I've always liked about the original Halloween is that I find all three girls to be very believable. When the film came out in 1978 many critics claimed that the girls were all stereotypes, but I feel that they were very realistic characters which makes it much easier for the audiance to identify with them.

Caffeine King · 05-02-2005, 08:02 PM

Whoever says that today's sh*tty horror flicks are better then ones from yesteryear obviously have NO idea of what to be really scared it.

Quote:

the movie "darkness" was scary! There were little dead kids crawling on the ceilings like spiders

point proven (not to single you out) but IMO that movie was awful. I wasn't scared once. I had no idea what the plot was and then that stupid ending came...

Horror flicks of today DO NOT rely on blood & gore (how can a movie that's rated PG 13 do that?!)

Old horror flicks are by far superior because back then they were original & great! Today's suck and I think it's pathetic that we have not seen an original horror flick in quite some time!

Sad really....

dandelion wine · 05-02-2005, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffySlayer79

yea, I see people say this about Halloween all the time. But I think one of the reasons Halloween was such a great and rewarding horror film is because all the scary stuff (save the opening murder and Annie's death in the car) doesn't happen until the last 15 mins of the movie, and then it's nonstop.

I would love to see that more often - much more often - in today's horror. Even though we have a murder in the opening scene and Annie's in the car, we still have time to become involved with each other character, to have some background and suspense. All of a sudden, it's bam! bam! bam! And what still gives me the creeps is the last scene where we're taken through the house, through every room Michael has been in. Rooms we assume are safe.. but aren't, because the boogey man has been there.

dandelion wine · 05-02-2005, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAX

Thanks for the kind words as always, Kate.

You're welcome, Michael.

Howdoulikemenow333 · 05-02-2005, 10:51 PM

Micheal Myers,Jason Voorhee's made the way for slasher,flicks that involves real monsters.Jason and Micheal are real monsters,butthe first Friday the 13th was telling the story of the first Friday the 13th,when Jason monther telling how he drowned and no body saved him and two clounsers were making out.13th part 2 also told the story about Jason when he grew up,and how he was killing clounsers for the death of his monther. When Halloween was made we know that Micheal Myers killed his sister,and was locked up in a mental hospital where he was 25 years,then he escaped to kill his other sister, Dr,loomis knew all about Micheal he was studying him for years. Halloween 2 was just a bunch of killings in the hospital, it had few good sences of killings outher then that it was'nt that good. It used to be in the late 80's,90's, when teenagers would go out and party, getting drunk and throwing up, and after they mnake out the killing starts,for instance Hell Night with Linda Blair.House On Sority row,the girls had a party and the house monther or whom ever starts killing. But now days horror movies have no suspense, it's just not the same. Poltergiest had no blood, or sex, or bad language and it was a very big hit movie in 1982. Nightmare On Elm St with Freddy Kruger told how he got to be Freddy. Here are some other movied that I liked.

Evil Dead
The Thing 1982.
The war of the worlds
Poltergiest.
Nightmare before chirstmas
The night of the living dead,1969,1990.
Dawn of the dead
28 days later.

05-01-2005, 08:33 PM	#1
Howdoulikemenow333 I'M having a bad day Senior Member Join Date: Jul 05, 2003 Location: Later Posts: 1,263	Horror movies of today (mostly remakes) vs old horror movies What is this with a the horror movie remakes,Amitville Horror,House Of Wax,etc, can't some one do a orginal horror masterpeice like Friday the 13th,or Frankenstien,instead of Frankenfish.Movies like the old dracuala,Wolfman,The Thing, so on. Those movies were classic,and now The War Of The Worlds is coming. With Tom Curise.Bring back the horror classics no more remakes. I think the producers and directors wants to find new talent and put the newest actors in the remakes of old horror movies. Like they did Amitville Horror.How ever they have done orginal horror lately with BoogeyMan,Hide and Seek,The Village,house Of Wax.(well that is a remake,but tottaly differnt from the orginal.)
	__________________ I I think I'm going crazy...Oh wait a minute I am crazy.....Crazy like a fox.

05-02-2005, 05:13 AM	#2
Belair Back@SO&Loveit! Forum Veteran Join Date: Dec 13, 2004 Location: New York City Posts: 5,925	I think todays horror movies are alot scarier,and more gruesome than older ones.
	__________________ Half of Hollywood is dying to be discovered..... The other half are afraid they will be.

05-02-2005, 12:45 PM	#3
Rhiannon oh, snap! Forum Fanatic Join Date: Jul 19, 2002 Location: middle of nowhere Posts: 11,097	the movie "darkness" was scary! There were little dead kids crawling on the ceilings like spiders
	__________________ Nothing better the feeling is so fine Simply put I saw your love stream flow

05-02-2005, 01:05 PM	#4
Mysty Eyes Dreaming... Senior Member Join Date: Feb 04, 2002 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 1,144	Current day "horror" flicks frequently resort to grusome slash-n-gash bloody gore. This is rarely important, IMO. And not particularly scary. This kind of film is more of a shock than truly frightening. A truly horrific story involves a lot of intellectual and emotional terror. A good sample of a relatively recent film of this type is "Identity" starring John Cusack. While this film does have blood and gore, it is not the main part of the fear-factor. The really scary part is in the anticipation, confusion, and psychological tension. In some cases a remake can be a good thing. For instance, if you are making a film that uses special effects then current day movie magic can make for a really neat movie. One of my favorite old-time movies is "The Haunting" starring Julie Harris. Several years ago they made a remake, with Catherine Zeta-Jones. I like this one as well, because the effects are really good... and they didn't mess too much with the story. I still prefer the older version, however. Why they remake classics that have no particular need for FX is a mystery to me. And foolish. And a waste of time and money. Can anybody say... "Psycho"??? coughcough

05-02-2005, 02:08 PM	#5
Nighthawk76 Rachel Berry Forum Celebrity Join Date: Feb 28, 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 23,254	I think that horror movies nowadays rely more on cheap thrills and gore then on actual suspense. I don't think this is really the fault of the filmmakers, they are only responding to what the audiance wants. And I think that a good percentage of today's movie going public are impatient. They want things to be quick. They don't have the energy or the attention span for well cunstructed suspense sequnces. I know of people who complian that they don't like the 1976 film version of Carrie because they didn't like to have to wait to see the bucket of pig's blood drop onto Carrie's head. What is brilliant about the prom scene in Carrie is how Brian De Palma sets up the scene leading up to the pulling of the string to get the maximum suspense out of the scene. He shows the audiance where all the key players are and what their relationship to each other is. We learn exactley how Chris and Billy are going to pull off their prank at the same time that Sue figures it out. The camera takes on her point of view as we and she see the rope leading from under the standes, up the side of the stands and to the bucket in the rafters. And just like Sue we the audiance are like "Oh, that's how it is going to be done." And the fact that we as the audiance have this information and Carrie, Tommy and almost everone else at the dance dosn't we know what's going to happen. We just don't know when it is going to happen or if anyone else is going to figure it out. That is suspense. However I know quite a few people who have seen this film and say that they hated the whole set up and just wanted to see the blood drop on Carrie.

05-02-2005, 10:51 PM	#13
Howdoulikemenow333 I'M having a bad day Senior Member Join Date: Jul 05, 2003 Location: Later Posts: 1,263	Micheal Myers,Jason Voorhee's made the way for slasher,flicks that involves real monsters.Jason and Micheal are real monsters,butthe first Friday the 13th was telling the story of the first Friday the 13th,when Jason monther telling how he drowned and no body saved him and two clounsers were making out.13th part 2 also told the story about Jason when he grew up,and how he was killing clounsers for the death of his monther. When Halloween was made we know that Micheal Myers killed his sister,and was locked up in a mental hospital where he was 25 years,then he escaped to kill his other sister, Dr,loomis knew all about Micheal he was studying him for years. Halloween 2 was just a bunch of killings in the hospital, it had few good sences of killings outher then that it was'nt that good. It used to be in the late 80's,90's, when teenagers would go out and party, getting drunk and throwing up, and after they mnake out the killing starts,for instance Hell Night with Linda Blair.House On Sority row,the girls had a party and the house monther or whom ever starts killing. But now days horror movies have no suspense, it's just not the same. Poltergiest had no blood, or sex, or bad language and it was a very big hit movie in 1982. Nightmare On Elm St with Freddy Kruger told how he got to be Freddy. Here are some other movied that I liked. Evil Dead The Thing 1982. The war of the worlds Poltergiest. Nightmare before chirstmas The night of the living dead,1969,1990. Dawn of the dead 28 days later.