from TMe: Screenwriter FAQ:
'Horror and Thriller Don't's
Don't kill an animal on screen. It just isn't done, not by good directors. It's a cheap and repulsive way to get an emotional effect. I will generally stop reading a screenplay where this happens.
While it is perfectly all right to have an undead creature strangle the department store Santa to death under the neon lights, less cartoonish violence, especially when directed against the weak (women, children, pets) often throws the reader and the audience out of the movie. So, for example, if you have a physically abusive husband who's going to get his just desserts later on, you should not show him beating his wife on screen. You don't show a rape on screen. You never show someone hurting (as opposed to frightening) a child on screen. It is classier and more effective to show the aftermath of extreme violence than the violence itself.
You can, if you must, kill your animals off screen, but personally, I prefer a movie in which the pets have the sense to snarl at the vampire and run away.
Don't start the movie with a horrifying sequence that turns out to be someone's dream. It isn't original at all.' ~
elsewhere on this site it also says, paraphrased, 'rules are made to be broken, do so at your own risk.' good advice. still.... i think there *can* be a lot of power in showing some of the 'weaker' things getting clobbered. there are plenty of movies where women are smacked around, but i've never seen anything like james woods and sean young in 'the boost,' where he just simply beats the holy hell out of her in a cocaine fit and it's just like 'whoa!' effective? most definitely. when i was a kid, i saw this one thing, and i don't even know if it was a movie, t.v. show, or what, but i remember the father picking up his baby, just months old, and in a rage gives it a punch that sends it flying across the room. that was simply nightmarish and something that sticks to me to this day, that something i saw back in the 70's. we see pets get clobbered in a comic effect all the time. okay, those are horror movies (though the effect can be horrifying), and it's something i wouldn't want to see all the time, but it *can* work. if you consider how deer have such a nice, cute and cuddly reputation, watching the deer attack in 'the ring two' may dispell some of their reputation. (despite the ridiculousness of a bunch of pisssed off deer attacking a car ala 'jurassic park', it was an okay scene.) there's some room to play there, i think, although, yeah, it's probably best advised that pets get killed off-screen. (note that in most videogames, wandering chickens make for highly entertaining target practice.)
i agree wholly with the idea of dream sequences. DO NOT HAVE THEM!!! what turns out to be a dream is not only incredibly obvious, but it's often the scariest part of the movie except (hopefully) the end. i think they're in there just to have *something* scary to watch in the meantime. generally, dream sequences are pointless. again, since i just watched it last night, i'll refer to 'the ring two''s dream sequence: it was good... and utterly pointless. all hack writers rely on the dream sequence not only to put in something scary, but to kill some time. imagine for a moment any movie whose dream sequence turned out to be what actually happens to the characters. that would kick asss. here you'd be waiting for them to wake up, having seen a horror movie before and knowing how these things are 'supposed' to go, then the movie never goes back. you'd be surprised, and that's partially what is supposed to happen.
this belongs more in my 'cliche' thread, but you see it quite often now, where a little girl stands in background just watching you. creepy? can be. i guess. it was... the first thousand times i saw it. of course, you have to allow it for 'the ring,' which was practically the movie's scariest parts.
i think that's where we're at with 'good' horror movies right now, that creepiness factor. it's good b/c it's effective, it's bad b/c it's being overdone in a lot of high-end movies. often, these movies are remakes of japanese horror movies. 'the ring,' 'the grudge,' 'dark water'.... i doubt we'll see 'premonition' in american form only because the premise of newspapers foretelling the future was already the basis of a t.v. show on CBS several years ago. other than that, i could see it being remade.
what makes good horror.... today, i feel, it's all about being creepy. throw out sex and gore, the trend tends to be going for a pg-13 audience, which pissses me off b/c that's saying a movie is too scary for a twelve year old but not scary enough for an eighteen year old. the content of a movie is important to me. otherwise, right now, it's about being creepy, which in a roundabout way suggests it's all about mood and atmosphere. if the movie draws you into the character, you should feel every bit as stalked at they do.
plenty of movies have sounds or music or some weapon that identifies that horror is around the corner. jason's 'ch ch ch' was brilliant. freddy's got his razor glove. michael myers has that one song, forget the name of it offhand. dark vader's got his breathing. jaws' fin would come out of the water. plenty of villains, in other words, have a gimmick of some kind. not saying these are great movies by any means, just that the villians are important to the story, too, and by not giving them motivations and personality through whatever means you feel is needed, you're missing out on half of what's scary about the movie a lot of times. ghosts may be the exception here, but not always. plenty of characters get a 'cold chill' when in the presense of a ghost.
i have a definition of good and great. interested in writing a good horror flick? follow the trends. it may even turn out great. 'great' encompasses most everything, and certainly all of 'good' (in that what makes 'good' watchable ten years from today).
for me, perfect pacing goes into great movies in general. this is why, i feel, a major reason why horror sequels are so bad in general, because there's an entirely different pace to follow once the audience already knows who freddy kruger is. i'd have to do the math, but i'd say off the top of my head those slasher movies make up for it with a high body count. without pacing, a movie like 'the others' would be a disaster in every sense, as would 'the sixth sense.'
lighting and sound is another key element. you often don't want to see the villain outright and in all its hellish glory right up front. most better horror flicks try to keep something in reserve, literally hidden in the shadows. of course, movies like 'underworld' can only keep things in the shadows for so long. i think you're going to have to 'come clean' with the vampires and werewolves a lot sooner than were it a case of a single villain. freddy was different in that he changed. jason, on the other hand, well, those movies are basically a waste of celluloid to all but the most die hard slasher fan, where lighting effects are wasted.
part of horror is suspense, so that's something to bear in mind, too. the kind of horror you're writing dictates where and when and to what degree the villain/s are revealed. you won't find many quality vampires whose powers are exposed from the get-go eventhough you'll see his face plenty of times before the end ('fright night'-- remember that one?). a legion of the undead will come into play early on, no?
horror can have social commentary. it usually doesn't, but a hidden message can work if done well. is your vampire, essentially a sexual being, reflecting society's values in any way? going against them? what is your audience's values regarding sex and how do you use your sexual creature to illustrate those? as american society becomes more and more open towards certain sexual proclivities or what have you, where does that leave your vampire? for instance, imagine real life being completely sexually free, people walking around naked and having indiscriminate sex in the park, whatever. your vampire is, ah, screwed. he's going to have to be the essense of intimacy, as opposed to how he normally is right now, being a guilty pleasure or a sexual awakening for the victim. any idiot can write a vampire who slashers and bites the hell out of people. and that vampire sucks, no pun intended. there's also been a lot made out of 'night of the living dead''s commentary. is commentary necessary? no, but sometimes it doesn't hurt. for example, zombies have lost all meaning.
'zombies have lost all meaning....' sounds silly. but, if your zombies were represenative of a type of person in some way, not only may that be more relatable, but it opens up certain avenues of storytelling. i think it was 'day of the dead' where the zombies naturally congregated around the shopping mall, for instance. what great commentary, eh?
most horror you see on the shelves at blockbuster is low-budget, generally meaning under five million dollars. some look like their budget was fifty bucks plus all the donuts you could eat. no crane shots here, and usually no pans or moving camera work save for the hand-held look which never works well and is in itself a cliche now. five million bucks is all a talented writer needs to tell a good horror story 99% of the time. it's almost as if they more money you spend on a horror movie, the chances are it's not very good. 'the haunting', for instance (i think it was called that) with liam neeson and catherine zeta-jones was a complete waste, rightfully bombing bad. now, $5 million won't buy you those spiffy f/x, but when you're spending more than that on f/x *that don't work*, you might as well spent a fraction of the money and get someone who knows how to write a scary story. ('the haunting' holds a special place in my heart as one of those movies where you scratch your head and wonder how in the hell a remake of a classic could turn out so bad, especially considering the budget and cast. for what it's worth, the remake of '13 ghosts' was much better.)
your body count is also dependant on the type of movie you have. 'the exorcist' body count was, what, two? actually it was one less if you consider the sequel had the one priest survive his fall. did anyone even die in 'poltergeist'? being savvy movie watchers, by now we all should be able to tell with nearly 100% accuracy those characters slated for death fifteen minutes into the movie. simply by virtue of how the movie carries itself is a strong indication. high body counts don't tend to be very scary, those being slashers usually. the only movie that recently surprised me body count-wise was 'shaun of the dead.'
even bad horror movies often have character growth by the end. where it fails is its plausibility, the details. 'shaun of the dead' had excellent character growth, even if a lot of happened in a rather dull second act while trapped in a pub. 'van helsing' had virtually no growth in the character when it had all the potential in the world. oh, to have been a writer on that script! to have that talent, budget, history and some really great ideas just to turn out pop sludge... breaks the heart. what could have been terrifying to the last frame was just an action-adventure, and not a very good one at that. how you can drain every last ounce of suspense from walking down a hallway full of vampire spawn is beyond me. pacing and a complete lack of seriousness killed the movie, not to mention characters who went absolutely nowhere by the end of the movie. where was van helsing's fear? or his hate, for that matter? exuding confidence in every shot gives you such a one-dimensional character it's not funny, but sad in that someone got paid a lot of money to write that drivel. alpha-males are great... in your romance novels, but even then they have fears and such. name an alpha-male in any successful (not just having made money) movie where he's the MC and there not be any fear to conquer in him. i can't think of any. even 'predator' had the MC afraid and desperate for his life.
short story long, horror writers seemingly forget that any story, horror, sci-fi, romance, whatever, is about people first, plot and setting and all that second. cliche characters separate good from really good or even great. 'final destination,' for instance, could have been much better with better characters. wes craven needs to stop writing teenagers. he got lucky with 'scream,' but generally his teenagers reek of cardboard. 'red eye' couldn't look more boring to me.
can i drone on more about this topic? we shall see.