Old Horror = New Fantasy

Since this movie in particular has aspects of science, then I think it would be sci-fi these days.

The bottom basically fell out of the horror market sometime in the late 80s or early 90s--I think because of that, a lot of what was marketed as horror before then is now being marketed as "dark fantasy." Fantasy sells better than horror does, nowadays.

Genre's about marketing, for the most part. I wouldn't take such classifications too seriously.

Horror

Nateskate said:

In my mind, old horror movies would not fit into new horror Genre. That's why I'm posting this here.

My favorite all time "Old Horror" movie is "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" Anyone else here remember this classic?

That movie had so many cool scenes and the best Horror actors of all time.

You can comment on the movie, or the question, "Would Old Horror movies fit better in the "Fantasy/Sci Fi" Genre than in todays Horror Genre?

Click to expand...

I love "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein," but I never considered it a horror movie. I think of it as pure comedy. That's one of the funniest movies I've ever watched. If anything, It's a parody of horror movies.

agreed, it's a comedy. i never bought into the science-fantasy thing, either, though. i've argued up and down that 'star wars' is science-fiction, *not* fantasy. it's amazing, though: you can proffer the best argument in the world replete with supporting facts and *still* people will refuse to budge off this one, lol.

anyway, sometimes these classifications can actually be a little tricky, like in the case of the original grimm fairy tales, which are full of violence and bloodshed, some of it creating very graphic images. and those were children's stories? lol. to offer an opinion, i think the old horror movies are still horror movies. in not sure what other real context you can think of them as. that said, the original 'mummy' was horror, but the brendan frasier version, i think, is pure action/adventure along the lines of indiana jones.

it's funny: no one in their right mind would consider 'love at first bite' a horror movie, but had you shown that to an audience in 1931, they'd probably be fainting in the aisles, lol. maybe one thing to consider is the era in which the old movies were shown: is it fair to impose our modern 'sensibilities' and 'standards' on those movies? certainly, those movies terrified/inspired generations of writers/artists/etc., and they still have the same elements of modern horror, eh? the one thing i see off-hand that could be argued to call them 'new fantasy' is the supernatural/magickal things about the characters-- and that's different than freddy kruger how?

i guess that leaves only the creature from the black lagoon and the invisible man as the only real horror movies of that era. oh, and jeckel (sp) and hyde. well, maybe frankenstein. perhaps the wolfman, but that's pushing it. dracula and the mummy are screwed, though.

at any rate, i don't believe in politically correctness and parcing genres into fifty sub-divisions. i give 'em 'paranormal romance' and 'historical so-and-so,' but those are the last ones i recogonize as legitimate off-shoots. i honestly think the last thing we need to see is 'vampirical sub-culture/para-historical young adult.' susan powter said it best: 'stop the madness!'

Horror

preyer said:

agreed, it's a comedy. i never bought into the science-fantasy thing, either, though. i've argued up and down that 'star wars' is science-fiction, *not* fantasy. it's amazing, though: you can proffer the best argument in the world replete with supporting facts and *still* people will refuse to budge off this one, lol.

anyway, sometimes these classifications can actually be a little tricky, like in the case of the original grimm fairy tales, which are full of violence and bloodshed, some of it creating very graphic images. and those were children's stories? lol. to offer an opinion, i think the old horror movies are still horror movies. in not sure what other real context you can think of them as. that said, the original 'mummy' was horror, but the brendan frasier version, i think, is pure action/adventure along the lines of indiana jones.

it's funny: no one in their right mind would consider 'love at first bite' a horror movie, but had you shown that to an audience in 1931, they'd probably be fainting in the aisles, lol. maybe one thing to consider is the era in which the old movies were shown: is it fair to impose our modern 'sensibilities' and 'standards' on those movies? certainly, those movies terrified/inspired generations of writers/artists/etc., and they still have the same elements of modern horror, eh? the one thing i see off-hand that could be argued to call them 'new fantasy' is the supernatural/magickal things about the characters-- and that's different than freddy kruger how?

i guess that leaves only the creature from the black lagoon and the invisible man as the only real horror movies of that era. oh, and jeckel (sp) and hyde. well, maybe frankenstein. perhaps the wolfman, but that's pushing it. dracula and the mummy are screwed, though.

at any rate, i don't believe in politically correctness and parcing genres into fifty sub-divisions. i give 'em 'paranormal romance' and 'historical so-and-so,' but those are the last ones i recogonize as legitimate off-shoots. i honestly think the last thing we need to see is 'vampirical sub-culture/para-historical young adult.' susan powter said it best: 'stop the madness!'

Click to expand...

I don't really know how I'd classify it, but the original Frankenstein movie scared the bejeebers out of me. I was only eight or nine years old, and when I went to sleep that night I dreamed about it.

Specifically, I dream I built this massive bomb shelter deal to protect myself from the monster. I was inside, bolting the door closed, when I heard a sound behind me. I turned around and the monster was standing right behind me. I woke up screaming.

The Creature From the Black Lagoon also gave me nightmares at that young age, though Frankenstein was king.

I absolutely did not want to go out of teh house after dark for months after watching Frankenstein. Trouble was, as a young lad we had an outhouse. Dark or not, when you gotta go, you gotta go.

I suppose, in the end, if it scares me enough, I classify it as horror.

Yup. Anything with Vincent Price scared the living daylights out of me when I was a kid. The biggie was "The Fall of the House of Usher."

As for genre-splicing, the original Alien is a perfect example. Is that a sci-fi film or a horror film? Obviously, it can be considered both, but what do you do to describe it to people? No wonder marketers are always coming up with new sub-genres to describe these hybrids.

Oh, and Star Wars as fantasy? I guess a case could be made because of the Jedi element.

Horror

ChunkyC said:

Yup. Anything with Vincent Price scared the living daylights out of me when I was a kid. The biggie was "The Fall of the House of Usher."

As for genre-splicing, the original Alien is a perfect example. Is that a sci-fi film or a horror film? Obviously, it can be considered both, but what do you do to describe it to people? No wonder marketers are always coming up with new sub-genres to describe these hybrids.

Oh, and Star Wars as fantasy? I guess a case could be made because of the Jedi element.

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, Vincent Price! I loved the man. One of my favorite actors. But when I was a child he scared me to death.

Funny, but I was sitting here thinking about "Alien," wondering how I'd classify it. I guess I'd call it either science fiction or horror, depending on who I was talking to.

ever see 'the raven' with vincent price? it was jack nicholson's first movie. it was just an entertaining movie from what i remember of it. cheesy f/x, but, hey, it's an old flick. love that movie. wish they'd do a remake, but hollywood today would just screw it up with tons of unnecessary cgi. i do, however, attribute my macabre fascination with graverobbers to this movie. i doubt it's possible for me to write a book *without* a tomb raiding scene, heh heh.

Jamesaritchie said:

The Creature From the Black Lagoon also gave me nightmares at that young age, though Frankenstein was king.

Click to expand...

Oh, you had to bring up the Creature! My uncle had an old film of it (before VCRs) and we watched it one night. I was only about six or seven. What were my parents thinking!

When Alien first came out on video, by chance I saw it at a relative's New Years Eve party. They thought all the kids had fallen asleep, but I was such a quiet kid, I often got overlooked. I was too scared to tell anyone I was there watching. I couldn't watch the Alien movies until recently.

Late night

Nateskate said:

The worst thing was that they only played those old horror movies at 2 and 3 am, when you were exhausted and open to suggestion. I'd sneak downstairs and watch them as much as possible. So, as a kid, you'd be wiped out, and certain there were monsters in the bedroom.

I can't even remember the shows now. One was Creature Feature, I think.

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember Creature Feature. We also had late Friday night horror movies with a host called "Sammy Terry," a play on "cemetery." He dressed like a vampire, and had a laugh that could scare a zombie. He scared me more than most of the movies.

Raven

preyer said:

ever see 'the raven' with vincent price? it was jack nicholson's first movie. it was just an entertaining movie from what i remember of it. cheesy f/x, but, hey, it's an old flick. love that movie. wish they'd do a remake, but hollywood today would just screw it up with tons of unnecessary cgi. i do, however, attribute my macabre fascination with graverobbers to this movie. i doubt it's possible for me to write a book *without* a tomb raiding scene, heh heh.

Click to expand...

I loved "The Raven." My wife and I were just talking about it the other day. But I had no idea it was Jack Nicholson's first movie. I haven't seen it in years and years. I wonder if I can rent it somewhere? I'd love to see it again.

My problem with cgi is that it took often takes the place of good acting and good storytelling.

Jamesaritchie said:

I loved "The Raven." My wife and I were just talking about it the other day. But I had no idea it was Jack Nicholson's first movie. I haven't seen it in years and years. I wonder if I can rent it somewhere? I'd love to see it again.

Click to expand...

I just searched Blockbuster's site and they have it listed. Comedy of Terrors/The Raven. I think I'll look for it next time I'm there. I love Vincent Price movies.

Edited to add: Of course I just checked their "my store" availability and none of the ones near me carries it.

*nostalgic sigh*

No-one today carries that sinister elegance that actors like Vincent Price, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing had in spades. The show I remember as a kid was called "Monster Movie Matinee" on Saturday afternoons and they played all those creepy old films. That's where I discoverd Frankenstein, Dracula and the Mummy. (Frankenstein could easily be considered science fiction, I think.)

I was about six when my folks first let me start watching them and those movies totally spazzed me out. I would end up jumping from halfway across the room that evening to get into bed, because I was convinced some scaly arm would reach out from underneath and snag my ankle if I got too close.

The frog-in-a-blender gore-fests that pass for horror today absolutely suck by comparison.

one of the effects horror movies had on me when i was a child was i couldn't sleep with any limbs hanging off the bed. i also developed this fear of falling asleep with my arms or legs crossed, lol. that's a weird one, though.

just watched an old VP movie the other day, 'twice-told tales,' made in '63, the same year as 'the raven.' VP certainly was a busy man in his career. then again, he didn't have to exactly study-up on most of his roles, lol. 'TTT' was three hawthorne stories. the stories themselves were really good, but the acting was laughable and the effects even worse (except for the house of the seven gables collapsing, which was kinda impressive considering the time).

ya know, a lot of these movies could be remade into really creepy flicks. problem is, hollywood remakes one and it turns out to be 'the house on haunted hill,' an absolutely horrible remake. how many times do the romero's and the raimi's have to prove you don't need a huge budget and big-name actors to scare the hell out of people? i think it was 'the house on haunted hill' that had liam neeson in it, and the only thing scary about that mug is his overrated acting.

House on Haunted Hill

preyer said:

one of the effects horror movies had on me when i was a child was i couldn't sleep with any limbs hanging off the bed. i also developed this fear of falling asleep with my arms or legs crossed, lol. that's a weird one, though.

just watched an old VP movie the other day, 'twice-told tales,' made in '63, the same year as 'the raven.' VP certainly was a busy man in his career. then again, he didn't have to exactly study-up on most of his roles, lol. 'TTT' was three hawthorne stories. the stories themselves were really good, but the acting was laughable and the effects even worse (except for the house of the seven gables collapsing, which was kinda impressive considering the time).

ya know, a lot of these movies could be remade into really creepy flicks. problem is, hollywood remakes one and it turns out to be 'the house on haunted hill,' an absolutely horrible remake. how many times do the romero's and the raimi's have to prove you don't need a huge budget and big-name actors to scare the hell out of people? i think it was 'the house on haunted hill' that had liam neeson in it, and the only thing scary about that mug is his overrated acting.

Click to expand...

The original "House On Haunted Hill" scared me about as much as any movie I'd seen up to that time. The remake was just as bad as the orginal was good.

there was another movie that was released around the same time that i'm always cornfusing 'thohh' with, but it was just as bad, if not worse. how it's possible to screw up a movie featuring catherine zeta-jones as a nymphomaniac is beyond me.

i grew up on a lot of schlock, friday the 13th, freddy, etc., type of stuff. so the older movies really had to be tight for me to be interested in that stuff, eventho i realized i was watching a better movie. that's why i'd so much like to see quality remakes of those old classics. hell, the creature could be a scary damn movie today if it wanted to be. raines, legosi, karloff... yeah, classic actors... who can't act by today's standards. *preyer ducks for cover* in other words, their stage acting really comes through in most cases.

i'm not sure how many hammer films i'd want to see redone off hand (if i want to see hammer stars at their best, i'll pop in some star wars movies, heh heh).

my latest big disappointment was 'van velsing.' jeez, what's wrong with hollywood? why can't there be any actually scary scripts made anymore? do we constantly have to rely on low budget productions like 'project greenlight' to see a filmmaker attempt to be scary in earnest without worrying what some soccer mom is going to think?

of course, the old movies relied more on fear induced by what wasn't shown than what was, which doesn't work as well now as it did then. something else i think has changed greatly is the helpless woman, who, i take it, was generally hired for her bouyant qualities and loud decibel ability. there aren't quite so many damsels-in-distress now. maybe there's just not quite so many hot-house flowers around as there used to be. (jamie lee curtis was the last great screamer, imo.)

kind of an aside, i've got a friend who used to own a video store. i asked her what kind of movies rented the best, figuring on the new releases. when she said it was the porn that paid the rent, i was hardly shocked, lol. but, then she said what made her money was the cheesy b-movies, the worse the better, horror being on top of that list. go figure. years later, i sold her stock of movies at a flea market, and i was just as likely to sell 'gator bait' as i was a 'quality' movie like 'rainman.'

preyer said:

there was another movie that was released around the same time that i'm always cornfusing 'thohh' with, but it was just as bad, if not worse. how it's possible to screw up a movie featuring catherine zeta-jones as a nymphomaniac is beyond me.

i grew up on a lot of schlock, friday the 13th, freddy, etc., type of stuff. so the older movies really had to be tight for me to be interested in that stuff, eventho i realized i was watching a better movie. that's why i'd so much like to see quality remakes of those old classics. hell, the creature could be a scary damn movie today if it wanted to be. raines, legosi, karloff... yeah, classic actors... who can't act by today's standards. *preyer ducks for cover* in other words, their stage acting really comes through in most cases.

i'm not sure how many hammer films i'd want to see redone off hand (if i want to see hammer stars at their best, i'll pop in some star wars movies, heh heh).

my latest big disappointment was 'van velsing.' jeez, what's wrong with hollywood? why can't there be any actually scary scripts made anymore? do we constantly have to rely on low budget productions like 'project greenlight' to see a filmmaker attempt to be scary in earnest without worrying what some soccer mom is going to think?

of course, the old movies relied more on fear induced by what wasn't shown than what was, which doesn't work as well now as it did then. something else i think has changed greatly is the helpless woman, who, i take it, was generally hired for her bouyant qualities and loud decibel ability. there aren't quite so many damsels-in-distress now. maybe there's just not quite so many hot-house flowers around as there used to be. (jamie lee curtis was the last great screamer, imo.)

kind of an aside, i've got a friend who used to own a video store. i asked her what kind of movies rented the best, figuring on the new releases. when she said it was the porn that paid the rent, i was hardly shocked, lol. but, then she said what made her money was the cheesy b-movies, the worse the better, horror being on top of that list. go figure. years later, i sold her stock of movies at a flea market, and i was just as likely to sell 'gator bait' as i was a 'quality' movie like 'rainman.'

Click to expand...

You'd better duck. I think those old actors were far, far better than any of today's actors. One of my biggest complaints about current movies is that it seems no one can act worth anything.

I also think fear induced by what isn't shown works as well now as it ever did, and probably better. It's just that it isn't being done because special effects for the nose picker crowd have taken over.

The closest I've seen to a throwback movie in recent years was "The Ring." Darned little, if anything, was shown in it that wouldn't have been shown in an old horror movie, and it's the only move in recent years I've seen that actually scared adults.

There just isn't anything frightening about showing the horror. Gross, yes, but not frightening.

weren't most of the classic baddies stage actors, and a few leftover from the silent screen era? both seem to be a bit more exagerated on the screen. it's rather subjective, but i and i'm guessing quite a few others see the differences in performing styles, at least in this genre, at least what was/is considered 'good.' were they 'far, far better' actors? hardly. not by today's standards, which is the point. i'm not talking about b-movie actors here. this isn't saying that tom hanks is a better actor than spencer tracy. at the same time, it's hard to find an A-list actor in a good horror film nowadaze.

i agree that what's not shown is often scarier than what is. at the same time, i want to see the monster at least in the end. a lot of times people forget that the hannibal lector character in 'silence of the lambs' got less than 16 minutes screen time. likewise, the original mummy only showed the mummy briefly, too (the first scene with the mummy i think you only even see his dragging bandages as he leaves a room). 'horror' today doesn't necessarily mean scary things as much as blood and guts. that's okay, i guess, though i don't think it's meant to be scary, really. the 'day/dawn/afternoon/midmorning/late night/whatever of the dead' was pretty scary in the day, and the better ones still hold some suspense. even 'shaun of the dead' had some suspense.

'the ring' was definitely a throwback. a great, tense movie. one of my all-time favourites is 'poltergiest,' another don't-see-'em til the end. i like the slasher flicks, too, but they're not scary to me. i think you *can* get away with showing the horror in a few flicks, 'the exorcist' (sort of) and 'alien' spring to mind (both perfectly acted). granted, you don't want to see it every five minutes, but it's rather like a mystery-- sometimes it works if you know from the start who the killer is, sometimes not. of course you've got to have both styles to keep things fresh.

i watched 'saw' last week. don't bother. not scary. it had a twist in it that was interesting, but, i don't know, it just lacked suspense to me. i missed 'the grudge,' but my wife said that was good. she's too easy on movies, though. i'd seen one awhile back with andy serkis in it that was pretty good. i wish i could remember the damn name of it, but it was about a lost group of WWI brit soldiers who find a haunted german trench. pretty good. i think they made a sequel of sorts to it, this time WWII. i'd remember the name were it not pretty generic.

i thought 'se7en' was a pretty good movie, too, though i'm rather loathe to classify that as horror. i wouldn't argue it, but it's just more suspense to me. some movies walk a fine line, eh?

"The Ring" was pretty scary and seemed quite interesting at first, but about halfway through i realized that it made no sense, and by the end i was disgusted by the senseless plot.

I didn't think The Ring was scary until the very end. But the Grudge...very suspenseful. It made my "horror movies don't scare me" husband want to sleep with the lights on that night! I hear the original Japanese version was better, but I've yet to see it.

And the first time i saw King Kong as a little kid.....sigh....I almost wet my pants...(I was very young)

:faint: To me horror is what nightmares are made of, and the 'Shinning' did the trick for me. Pet Cemtery was a mind wacker also. Horror to me is a mental thingy. I never got into the slash and gore junk very much. Took all the imagination out of it and my mind can come up with alot better horror all by it's self. I think human nature loves the scare factor and each age group has a different level of' 'need' for it. What other creature on this planet wants to be scared out of their wits?

ROFL

normally i don't make fun of typos, because i make enough of them myself, but "The Shinning" created interesting mental images.