It's hard to scare people nowadays [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

Greenwolf103

10-07-2004, 12:27 AM

I was reading this article at Writer Online about horror poetry ( www.writeronline.us/artic...-terri.htm (http://www.writeronline.us/articles/article-terri.htm) ) and there was a quote by horror writer Brian Knight in there that said:

Horror poets have it much harder I think. Horror is one of the strongest base emotions, but we live in a world that has been desensitized to a great degree. I know - I watched my two-year-old daughter laugh her head off during the "Pea Soup" scene in The Exorcist .

Coincidentally, my 15-year-old nephew did the same thing!!

It's true, though. We have a hard time trying to scare people with horror writing. We have to try harder to really set the mood, use new scare techniques, new monsters and new twists on old scary elements. Sure people's nerves get touched when we use innocent children, mortality, diseases and such to scare them with, but I think that's starting to become old, too.

What do you think?

spooknov

10-07-2004, 01:29 AM

I agree. When the remake of Psycho came out my son was around two. My mother nearly had a heart attack when she found out I'd watched it while my son played in the middle of the living room. He watches most horror movies with me (sans sexually explicit/highly gorey movies) and for the most part, he doesn't get scared.

But, in the same token, I enjoy the challenge. Yes, it's getting harder by the day to scare the audience. But, when you do it and do it well, IMO it's that much more satisfying.

macalicious731

10-07-2004, 02:17 AM

I think there's a difference in horror as a written genre and the one in visual (film) form. I think part of the problem with scaring people in horror movies is the continual advancement of special effects. The "pea soup" scene from _The Exorcist_ is easily laughable, I think, because these days the special effects are much more seamless. (By the way - the re-released version of the movie with the "spider crawl" down the stairs scared the crap out of me.) The same thing happened with me when I watched Hitchcock's _The Birds_ for the first time. I just thought the whole thing was hilarious.

This goes for any genre, too. It's easy to distinguish special effects from the 80s, even the 90s, as the ones that are used in films today.

Jamesaritchie

10-14-2004, 07:28 AM

I love horror fiction and horror movies, but I haven't had either frighten me since I was seven years old, and that was 44 years ago. I read horror fiction for the same reason I read western fiction or fantasy fiction or any other fiction. . .I want a good, rousing adventure, good characters, etc.

I think horror writers pay far too much attention to scaring the reader. It's the character in the story who should be scared, not the reader.

It ain't real, folks, and once you're old enough to understand this, there isn't a reason in the world it should frighten anyone.

Greenwolf103

10-14-2004, 09:48 AM

It may not be real but there are times that we, as readers, can relate to some aspect of a horror story.

For example, I remember being scared to death when I read The Amityville Horror. A lot of that fear came from having lived in a haunted house (CREEPY!!) and so I could relate to it in some way.

Brian Knight

02-03-2005, 07:55 AM

Well, wadaya know, I didn't think anybody had read that interview.

Incidentally, the daughter who laughed during the Pea Soup scene is a few years older now, and scares very easily now.

Weird.

Brian Knight

CourtneyAllisonMoulton

02-03-2005, 09:50 AM

I agree...

I think that with movies, it's because we have a very high standard on what is able to frighten us. The graphics have to be as believeable as possible, seamless, and shocking. I will admit, the spider crawl down the stairs in The Exorcist scared the living HELL out of me. Still does..It's so..creepy.

Very few movies or books actually frighten me. As recent examples, Saw was just awful. I wanted to leave during that because it was so boring. The Grudge was awesome. Frightened me, fascinated me, and captivated me.

Everybody is different.

I am excited about new movies coming out though. Boogeyman, White Noise...

LiamJackson

02-04-2005, 07:32 AM

I think many of us have a certain affinity for the old conventional horror story, and we continue to search out new twists on old themes. Unfortuantely, when any subject is exhausted, it's...exhausted.

There are many scary things running amok in todays world. Things that don't include wolf folk, vampires wearing black capes, or radiation-enhanced bugs aka "THEM." Many of the truly scary things transcend the boundaries of social acceptence. And, many writers won't touch those subjects out of respect for the more stable social mores.

Lots of scary things lurking in the shadows...and some even move about in broad-open daylight. The challenge for the current and future generations of horror writers is to use these themes in mainstream or genre literature in such a way the work is deemed socially acceptable. The material is there. The approach isn't refined, yet.

Thoughts or comments?

maestrowork

02-04-2005, 11:28 AM

A lot of horror revolve around technologies. And that's something that keeps evolving over time... but that might step over to sci-fi...

MacAl Stone

02-04-2005, 01:54 PM

The whole science/technology-as-terrifying thing has been around a long time, though. In many ways, that's what Frankenstein was about.

Dean Koontz does a lot with the idea of science-run-amok creating monsters. Also government-run-amok.

Both of those themes are awfully close to home, lately. *sigh*

maestrowork

02-06-2005, 12:35 AM

How about an evil cat named TEN who's been assimilated by a computer virus that wipes out... gasp!... your entire soul!

:lol

There's your idea. No charge.

drgnlvrljh

02-06-2005, 01:02 AM

:eek :eek :eek :eek :eek

You know my cats?!

MacAl Stone

02-06-2005, 01:10 AM

Heh--funny guy, Ray.

Lorrie--he's talking about MY cat (who's name really IS Ten, and no, it isn't a Borg reference--it's a long story)

:b

drgnlvrljh

02-06-2005, 11:24 AM

he's talking about MY cat (who's name really IS Ten, and no, it isn't a Borg reference--it's a long story)

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

That's okay, I'm fairly convinced that all cats are secretly making plans to take over the world through mind control, anyway.

BTW? I'd love to hear the story of TEN the cat!. ;)

Summonere

02-18-2005, 06:02 AM

Puddle Jumper

02-18-2005, 09:17 AM

I think it depends upon the person, their age and their exposure to movies and so forth and their ability to comprehend. Kids are going to be the easiest to scare. Granted a 2 year old isn't going to understand scary things on tv like a 6 year old would and most 15 year olds are going to understand that what their watching isn't real.

That being said, the kinds of movies or stories that scare me are things that I believe could happen. A serial killer, for example, as long as the killer is human and not some weird monster like in Jeepers Creepers. Movies like Jeepers Creepers to me is too unbelievable that it isn't scary. But that's how my mind works when there would be something that might seem scary, I tend to rationalize it and laugh at it. Actually, I laughed during the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" just because it all looked so unbelievable, which might have been due to the graphics looking unreal to me.

Books don't scare me that much unless I'm reading when I'm really tired.

MacAllister

02-19-2005, 12:50 AM

Summonere said:the primary tool of the fright trade has been too often ignored and mishandled, that being atmosphere. When the atmosphere of a story has been properly developed, the reader is likewise effectively prepared to be scared.

Amen--I couldn't agree more. A fine example of this is the Kubrick version of "The Shining"--the drive up to the Overlook is one of the creepiest scenes ever. The sound of Danny's tricycle tires in the Overlook hallway underpins the background music while we see the car...Right there, you are cued that this is gonna be scary.

I'm going to have to rent it again, I can tell. Haven't watched it in years.

I wonder if we think of horror movies too much as a frame of reference, and the genre should step outside that cinematic relationship, to work at its best?

Summonere

02-19-2005, 03:21 AM

MacAllister:

While you're at it, you might also try a copy of Ridley Scott's Alien. Notice, for instance, the long silences and how the camera moves in scenes in which absolutely nothing is going on. This points to one of the problems modern Hollywood seems to have with achieving atmosphere: it takes time. It takes deliberate attention. Woe betide the director who wants to turn in a movie a few (or several) minutes of such material over limit.

Kevin Yarbrough

03-07-2005, 11:02 PM

Greenwolf103:

I don't think it's so much that it's difficult to scare people nowadays, but rather that the primary tool of the fright trade has been too often ignored and mishandled, that being atmosphere. When the atmosphere of a story has been properly developed, the reader is likewise effectively prepared to be scared. The degree to which you willingly suspend your disbelief while reading a story relates directly to the degree to which it will move you, whether to horror or hope or despair.

LiamJackson:

"There are many scary things running amok in today's world... many writers won't touch those subjects out of respect for the more stable social mores."

What are you talking about, eh? For example?
Abuse of all kinds come to mind when I read this. In some of my stories I tend to use sexual abuse on teenagers because it is a dark side of our human nature that is more real than any goblin or ghost. It shows just how evil we humans can be and what the outcome of the abuse can have on children when they get older. I have a story in the Share Your Work section that delves into this. Take a gander at it and see what you think.

I also find it very difficult to be scared anymore. And that saddens me. I have yet read a book that scared me and only a few movies have made me jump in the past decade. I think we have all been desensetized to horror. We know that the monsters aren't real and that mindset makes it very hard to be scared. I find it much easier to scare people with real life situations and a bit of the supernatural thrown in than just have a monster jump out at you. We need to find a new way to scare people.

I do need to mention that little rhymes seem to be really spooky. Remember the little girls singing about Freddy Krueger?

"One, two Freddy's coming for you."

That got me and it still is a bit freaky. Boogeyman has something like that as well. I do agree with whoever said that when childen are involved it makes it spookier.

Alphabeter

03-08-2005, 12:56 AM

There was a movie called Mr Boogety (could be spelling that wrong) and later a sequel Bride of Boogety that were ABC Movie(s) of the Week (used be on at 7/6 pm Sunday evenings for the Whole Family).

They were about a family moving into a house in an old New England town. Father opens a joke store and somehow angers a ghost (of the house or town I'm not sure. I was like ten when these came out.) named Boogety who takes him over and tries to destroy the town during the big carnival.

They think they exorcise him in the first, only to have his long-lost love inhabit the human wife in the second and try to bring back her little brother as their love child (did I mention I was little?).

These were funny, scary and stupid in a big bow. And if I watched them today I would probably still be as scared as I was those two weeks many moons ago. But watching the remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) a few days ago had me laughing like I was watching The Mask.

Good horror (for me) is about building suspense with imagery, sound and sound characters. A good plot helps too. But if I can't see myself in there, doing those things, then I'm not scared. If I'm going "oh please, I would so not go up the stairs with the knife-wielding killer when the front door is wide open" then I am not scared.

I can be scared with a tap and a creak. But I will laugh at a bucket of blood. Unless I'm wearing a pink dress on an old gym stage.

:Sun:

MacAllister

03-08-2005, 07:15 AM

Hmm..I've missed the Mr. Boogety movies.

Thought Wes Craven's Scream was friggin' hysterical, though.

Fractured_Chaos

03-09-2005, 01:28 PM

Actually, I laughed during the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" just because it all looked so unbelievable, which might have been due to the graphics looking unreal to me.

You know, while Sam and I were watching that, we were making horrible jokes about survival of the fittest, and the stupid people who left the library. At one point we decided that the best thing to do, was to let the stupid people go, let the get flash-frozen, and when the smart people needed food, they had it available to them.

OKay, I know...that was sick and twisted. But really, neither of us could take that movie seriously!

Wolfyn0911

03-15-2005, 08:07 PM

Y'know it's funny that you say that about "The Day After Tomorrow", because I saw it and felt that the theories and thus the disasters were all too real, all too possible. I won't go so far to say that I was scared, but I did offer a healthy portion of respect and attention -- for the most part. To be brutally honest, I tend to respect the hollywood vision of disaster, ever since the brutal attacks of 2002, which initially made me think of movies like Independence Day -- that is until it came crashing home to me how completely real and true those tragic events were.

I think that answers the original thread as well -- we may seem jaded and experienced, immune to the shock of horror, but IMHO I think that's because we are so good at compartmentalizing and annexing "horror" and attrocities away from us and our everyday lives. We may not fear vampires or witches or soul-stealing cats, but only because we call them other things now. Blood-thirsty monsters are now called psychopaths or serial killers, and those that would steal innocence and violate sanctuary are called rapists or child-molesters. In short, I doubt seriously that we have become less fearful or lack some quality necessary to feel terror. Rather we hide well behind thin veneers of civility and rationality, cowering under the protection of "it's not going to happen to me", when in fact the monster could be just around the corner. Or waiting in your mirrored reflection.

MacAllister

03-16-2005, 03:17 AM

It seems like there is an upswing in conspiracy-theory based chillers, too. At least, that's my general impression.

QuietDreamer

03-17-2005, 04:19 AM

Horror. I love it. What makes something scary? The mood, the atmosphere, it has to surprise us, yet it has to be at least 'almost' beliveable. The problem with horror movies (most, not ALL) is the fact that it isn't really a story anymore. It's a story set to a 'formula.' What's in this formula? A series of rehashed ideas, in fact, I'll make a list.

Chris' list of horror cliches (That if he sees again he'll puke.)

#1) The girl running from the monster/killer, trips and falls and gets butchered.

#2) Or you trip and get back up, you think he may be catching up so instead of running more, you decide to hide behind a tree (genius idea) and suddenly, the monster/killer appears behind the other side of the tree and nabs you.

#3) The killer is chasing you, you're running, he's walking, yet he always manages to catch up. I'd find it a bit more scary if he were running at me like a bat out of hell. I understand that a walking killer seems more scary then someone running to most people, but it doesn't really make sense. I mean honestly, the guy is trying to kill you, not take a stroll in the frickin' park!

#4) "The Fake Scare" Y'know, the part where they think the killer is in the closet and they slowly open it up and get scared by something that falls out or scared by a friend that grabs thier shoulder. There is also the "Double Fake Scare" inwhich you think it's a fake scare, but it's really the killer/monster.

#5) This has been said before but the "Killer is dead, but not really dead part." If I don't see this in a movie, I find myself scratching my head thinking "Man, that monster/killer is actually pretty weak."

#6) Making the characters in the story like mindless sheep incapable of common sense. I really hate this. It always seems there is one hero surrounded by her group of moronic friends that get butchered one by one.

There are more, but these are the main ones I can think of. The reason we aren't scared anymore is because we know at least one or these tricks will be used and a part that is intended to be scary now just becomes predictable and boring. So please, if you're writing a horror script, do your best to leave these things out or at least be a little more creative in where/how you place them.

I find books more scary than movies because of the fact that you can use your imagination to fill out the scene and humans, as you know, will let horror and thier imagination scare the crap out of them. (I'm sure it's happened to most of you at least once, you just got done reading your new horror book and decide to sit it down and get some rest. While laying in your bed you begin to think about the things in the book and the things that will happen and then you realize something "Could I be next?" Better turn on the light.

Chris

Rob-rite

03-17-2005, 05:31 AM

Yeah, I agree. The psychological aspect of modern horror fiction is fast becoming it's last haven. I suppose the reason is because 'real life' horror is brought to you on the news almost every day, in technicolour and cinemascope (to coin a Drifters classic).
I mean, last night I watched the documentary "Blackhawk Down" and those guys went through some pretty horrific sh*t. The movie portraying that incident was - in my opinion - poor in it's efforts and was nowhere near as dramatic. That was '93 and look what's happened in the world since.
In most peoples minds there's nothing more horrifying than passenger-jets crashing into buildings or massive waves destroying hundreds of miles of coastline killing countless thousands of people.
Not related to horror fiction you may say, but it does - as someone mentioned earlier - desensitize us until we end up thinking, "Oh, come on - is that the best you can do!" while reading a book or watching a movie.

Kevin Yarbrough

03-17-2005, 04:51 PM

Chris, don't forget that the peple always run upstairs or downstairs instead of breaking the door or window out.

I never use any of those things that you mentioned in my books. I hate them. Also what I really hate is when you can figure out who/what the killer is and why they are doing it before half-way through the movie.

I really liked the "Final Destination" movies. None of the boring cliches and really interesting kill scenes.

QuietDreamer

03-18-2005, 05:19 AM

*adds that to his list* I enjoyed the Final Destination movies as well, I thought it was a very unique and clever movie. The whole horror cliche has done something good for me though, it has inspired me to start work on my current WIP, a horror spoof that makes fun of the horror movie genre as a whole. (Unlike the Scary Movie series which spoofs particular movies.) After I complete it and register it with the WGA, I'mma ask everyone to critique it at the screenplay subforum. Can't wait for everyone to see it.

Chris

CACTUSWENDY

03-18-2005, 05:00 PM

I thought White Noise was a bust. Sorry I wasted the money to see it. It was an interesting concept but this movie missed it.:Shrug:

BlueTexas

03-19-2005, 05:18 PM

I thought White Noise was a bust. Sorry I wasted the money to see it. It was an interesting concept but this movie missed it.:Shrug:

I was so dissapointed with this movie. I loved the concept, being a ghost enthusiast myself, but they lost me at the grief therapy with a snowy TV scene. And the whole demon thing at the end...very very dissapointing. I thought the end was wholly unsatisfying...horror should leave you feeling a bit spooked and wondering 'what if', imo. This left me wondering what else I could have done with my $20.

It was a lot like reading Death Comes for the Arch-Bishop. Halfway through I wondering why I was still reading it!

jdkiggins

03-20-2005, 01:27 AM

Yes, I think it is getting harder to scare people. With so much violence on the news, people have become numb, and not too much surprises anyone anymore.

My friends laugh when I tell them I watch horror movies to make a bad day better. There’s nothing like a good scare to get the blood flowing again! Not to mention the creative juices. But I’m running out of movies to watch that I haven’t already watched a dozen times.

It bothers me, as I mentioned in the other thread, that I was bored with the movie The Grudge. Have we all become so desensitized, that very little scares us? Now, that’s scary.

Joanne

QuietDreamer

03-20-2005, 11:14 AM

Have we all become so desensitized, that very little scares us? Now, that’s scary.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Fractured_Chaos

03-20-2005, 12:40 PM

Chris' list of horror cliches (That if he sees again he'll puke.)

#1) The girl running from the monster/killer, trips and falls and gets butchered.

and 1-a) The stupid virgin (and WHY is it always the virgin? Why not the slut?) who gets herself trapped, with no escape from the killer....

Yet, miraculously lives to make a sequel!!!!!

MacAllister

03-20-2005, 12:47 PM

The stupid virgin (and WHY is it always the virgin? Why not the slut?) who gets herself trapped, with no escape from the killer....

Yet, miraculously lives to make a sequel!

Heh--because if the virgin actually got butchered, and the slut lived to see the sequel, horror fic would lose its cautionary-tale status.

I think it works a lot like urban legends: if you step outside the boundary of safe/acceptable, then you get your intestines ripped out by the boogieman.

Anatole Ghio

03-20-2005, 01:05 PM

Heh--because if the virgin actually got butchered, and the slut lived to see the sequel, horror fic would lose its cautionary-tale status.

This is what I found to be the most disturbing element of Ju-on, the lack of a moral viewpoint. One trick in horror to provide an element of safety to the reader/viewer, is to give them the out of saying, "that person brought it on themselves for doing x such thing". One example is to show two characters having illicit sex (teenagers, adulterers), just before killing them off... or to have a character go investigate a strange sound, "Hey, Mary, is it you in this dark attic in the middle of the night, while the power is out and the phone line is dead for some strange reason..."

In Ju-on, there was no right or wrong to who got killed, mainly if you went into the house, you died, no matter how good or bad you were as a person. Even people who didn't visit the house, but somehow had the rotten luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (the security guard and... SPOILER, the friend who got tricked at the very end into going to the house). To me, that is scary because it is my view of the real world; people die for no reason sometimes because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, not because they were teenagers having sex, or someone married having sex, or because they went into a dark attic in the middle of the night.

Those situations aren't scary because we know they pose no real harm... that's why it comes off flat to us nowadays -- the real world is much scarier in how random it is, and it's hard to present that in the right way, and so much easier to fall back on the same old cliched tropes.

- Anatole

MacAllister

03-20-2005, 01:25 PM

the real world is much scarier in how random it is, and it's hard to present that in the right way, and so much easier to fall back on the same old cliched tropes.

Oh, definitely. The tricky part has to do with giving readers what they want and expect, without falling back on cliches. Genre readers have a set of conventions in their heads that they expect to find within the framework of the story they're reading; it's a sort of unspoken agreement between reader and writer. They want to be surprised, though, too.

So there is a balancing act between creating tension, and still giving the reader a payoff for turning the pages and caring what happens.

Anatole Ghio

03-20-2005, 03:50 PM

Oh, definitely. The tricky part has to do with giving readers what they want and expect, without falling back on cliches. Genre readers have a set of conventions in their heads that they expect to find within the framework of the story they're reading; it's a sort of unspoken agreement between reader and writer. They want to be surprised, though, too.

So there is a balancing act between creating tension, and still giving the reader a payoff for turning the pages and caring what happens.

Yeah, it's been said the successful formula is give the reader what they want and expect, with one thing different: this is so there will still be some surprise to it.

Then when someone comes along and does a deconstruction of the form, usually they give the reader the one thing they want and expect (which is the form itself: the detective story, the ghost story, the romantic comedy), and then everything else is different... every payoff goes against expectation, every character seems a genre stereo-type but is really an ironic comment on it.

Usually, these will fail with the popular audience... and when they succeed, it means the form is about to change or diminish in importance; like, once Blazing Saddles was a hit, it meant the Western as a popular form was either going to change or diminish (diminish), and same with Bride of Frankenstein, horror was either going to change or diminish (change).

- Anatole

MacAllister

03-20-2005, 04:01 PM

Hmm. I suspect you could make a similar case for Wes Craven's Scream setting up the genre for changes. That's been a few years ago, but I think the genre is still in the throes of that evolution.

Anatole Ghio

03-20-2005, 04:09 PM

Hmm. I suspect you could make a similar case for Wes Craven's Scream setting up the genre for changes. That's been a few years ago, but I think the genre is still in the throes of that evolution.

Yes, that's exactly right! That's where I was headed with that, and indeed, Hollywood cinema hasn't been producing the endless super serial killer/ Freddy Kruger monster films because they aren't the big draw like they were before. I believe the Freddy/Jason film made some money, but the whole Japanese horror in Hollywood is the result of the old genre rules not working with the public anymore... lack of relevance, as this thread brings up.

Has anyone here seen Donny Darko? I thought it was successful in many ways and although not a hit in the theaters the first time around (I think due to lack of promotion), it has become a cult classic. It's in the underground stuff that one can get hints of the new directions... a few years ago, the Asian films were only known to those really into this stuff, and now they are closer to mainstream.

- Anatole

Fractured_Chaos

03-21-2005, 10:13 AM

This is what I found to be the most disturbing element of Ju-on, the lack of a moral viewpoint.

Excellent point. And I think it's cultural, too. Both Ringu's and Ju-on's American remakes recieved such mixed reviews for that reason, I think. The Japanese culture is vasty different, in that the mindset, and the beliefs involving the supernatural do not necessarily become morality tales. American horror, however, seems to need that moral hiding in there, somewhere.

Fractured_Chaos

03-21-2005, 10:15 AM

Has anyone here seen Donny Darko?

YES! It is one of my absolute, all-time favorite movies!

QuietDreamer

03-21-2005, 10:21 AM

Same here. Great movie that for some reason came into the theaters with a whimper instead of it's well deserved bang. I'm glad to see others have seen and enjoyed Danny Darco, it's a very unique movie.

As for Jun-On, I haven't seen it... so I can't comment.
Also, has anyone saw the original Japanese version of The Ring called Ringu? (Think that's how it's spelled.) It has a slightly different ending that makes the entire movie more creepy. (Won't say out loud as not to spoil movie for people who want to see it still.)

Chris

Anatole Ghio

03-21-2005, 11:16 AM

Also, has anyone saw the original Japanese version of The Ring called Ringu? (Think that's how it's spelled.) It has a slightly different ending that makes the entire movie more creepy. (Won't say out loud as not to spoil movie for people who want to see it still.)

Chris

Yes, I have seen both versions and Ring-u is still my favorite japanese horror film, hands down, and one of my all time favorite horror films.

I don't want the film to be spoiled either, but for some reason, I can't remember how the two endings were different. Any way you can spell it out without spoiling it? If not, just put spoiler alert in all caps and then just say, as I can't for the life of me remember.

- Anatole

QuietDreamer

03-21-2005, 12:03 PM

After trying to figure out how to word it as not to ruin the ending, I have given up in frustration...heh. Patient ole' me. If you don't want the ending of the movie to be ruined, please stop reading.

The difference between The Ring and Ringu is this. In the American version, they tacked on a happy ending, however in Ringu the ending sequence goes a little like this.

After they discover that the Skeleton of Sadako and "break" the curse, they think it's all over. At Ryuji's place, Sadako crawls out of the screen and kills him. Than you discover that the only way to save a person that has been infected by "The Ring" is to make a copy of it and have someone else watch it. Reiko makes a copy of it to save her son's life... this ending is more creepy because imagine if that continued for a prolong period of time just how many copies of this killer tape would be floating around. If you were scared by the ending of The Ring, watch Ringu, it's ending (and most of the movie anyway) DESTROYS The Ring.

Chris

Anatole Ghio

03-21-2005, 12:20 PM

Bahh... I just watched the original a few weeks ago, so I thought the American version ended the same way. I have no memeory how the USA one ended, but will assume it was some tacked on happy ending.

Yet another reason why I feel the original is the better version.

- Anatole

Kevin Yarbrough

03-21-2005, 06:21 PM

What happened with Donny Darko, which I loved by the way, was that it didn't have hardly any promotion. You have to promote or it is pointless. If you never seen a trailer for a movie and then it comes to your theater how will you know what it is about? I for one wouldn't spend 10 bucks to see a movie I had not seen a trailer for.

Asian horror films are awesome. They bring a flair that we have been missing in horror movies. Maybe it is the elements they add or maybe it is just the culture, but whatever it is, it works.

My take on the virgin always living is this. When the killer/monster/demon/etc. was brought up by their parents they were told that you couldn't kill virgins. Sluts were OK because they are breeding like rabbits. Virgins, on the other hand, are almost extinct. Maybe when the slut is running for her/his life they are thinking "man, if I live through this I need to get laid." and then they start thinking about all the good things about sex, get flustered, and run up the stairs. The virgin is thinking "if I die, I won't ever have sex." She/he has nothing to think about in this aspect which gives them a clear head and they run outside and get in the car. Of course her/his slut friend has the keys.

Don't take any offense people, just playing.

MacAllister

03-21-2005, 09:40 PM

"man, if I live through this I need to get laid." and then they start thinking about all the good things about sex, get flustered, and run up the stairs. The virgin is thinking "if I die, I won't ever have sex." She/he has nothing to think about in this aspect which gives them a clear head and they run outside and get in the car. Of course her/his slut friend has the keys.
:roll:

jdkiggins

03-22-2005, 01:16 AM

:ROFL: That was great, Kevin.

Joanne

jdkiggins

03-22-2005, 01:27 AM

Anatole,

You're making some very insightful comments here. I like your take on different movies. And you've made really wonderful statements about moral viewpoint Great addition to this group.

Now...I'm sorry, but all this great stuff coming from you is really hard to understand when I see Fonzi's face beside your intellectual posts. :roll:

Joanne

Anatole Ghio

03-22-2005, 11:42 AM

I'm sorry, but all this great stuff coming from you is really hard to understand when I see Fonzi's face beside your intellectual posts. :roll:

Joanne

AAAAAyyyyyyyyy!!!

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/emoticonwag.gif

Anatole Ghio

03-22-2005, 11:53 AM

My take on the virgin always living is this. When the killer/monster/demon/etc. was brought up by their parents they were told that you couldn't kill virgins. Sluts were OK because they are breeding like rabbits. Virgins, on the other hand, are almost extinct. Maybe when the slut is running for her/his life they are thinking "man, if I live through this I need to get laid." and then they start thinking about all the good things about sex, get flustered, and run up the stairs. The virgin is thinking "if I die, I won't ever have sex." She/he has nothing to think about in this aspect which gives them a clear head and they run outside and get in the car. Of course her/his slut friend has the keys.

Don't take any offense people, just playing.

The funny thing is, I've heard this rationalized as the reason for the virgin characters surviving in a film. If you watch Halloween with the director's comments, that's exactly the reason John Carpenter gives for killing off the characters who were fiddling around. They were too busy trying to get the nookie to pay attention to their surroundings, so that's why they get killed.

It points out how it's just a rationalization... we want to vicariously get the sin, but also have the other character punished for daring to do something society views as wrong. It's why the gangster film is pernially popular... when the criminal is getting to the top, we get to experience it all through their eyes, and then when they get punished at the end, it restores our idea the world is a moral universe.

- Anatole

jdkiggins

03-22-2005, 11:34 PM

that's exactly the reason John Carpenter gives for killing off the characters who were fiddling around. They were too busy trying to get the nookie to pay attention to their surroundings, so that's why they get killed.

It points out how it's just a rationalization... we want to vicariously get the sin, but also have the other character punished for daring to do something society views as wrong. It's why the gangster film is pernially popular... when the criminal is getting to the top, we get to experience it all through their eyes, and then when they get punished at the end, it restores our idea the world is a moral universe.

- Anatole

I believe I read about Carpenter's reasoning for punishing those with lesser morals. I wonder if anyone has ever done a poll from readers and movie goers as to their preference of endings? Do people expect the bad guys to "always" get punished? If so, how do they feel about those cliffhangers that leave the mad serial killer alive and well to come back in a sequel? (Maybe I'll pose this question in office party to see what type of response it gets, just out of curiosity.)

There are times when I've read books that killed off the obvious threat to society, and thought, if the author had just left a touch of doubt, he'd have an opening for a new book.

Then there are some movies that go on and on, and you wonder how many times can a guy be stabbed, shot, hung, burned, buried, drowned, electrocuted, and flattened into the earth before he'll actually die. :)

Joanne