Is a New Genre Diverging From Horror?

[Oke-Doke]

I just started thinking about this after seeing and reading about a few films such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre the Beginning, Slither and The Hills Have Eyes series. Namely these movies have the elements of classical horror but have darker aspects as well. I suppose they play on fear but a different kind of fear. The films appear to value a gory torturist death more than a suspensful one and want to physically disgust the audience more so than scare them. Protagonist in the films attempt to sexually assualt or molest the antagonist and the events are partially or fully depicted on screen as well. If the producers and directors continue down the current trend it seems like they will be so different from traditional horror that it must have its own catagory to better corner its niche. What say you all?

[DWEarhart]

Corporate Horror.

They don't want to scare you, just entice you enough to spend the cash.

That's all I can think of right now.

[Infra-Man]

Corporate Horror.

They don't want to scare you, just entice you enough to spend the cash.

That's all I can think of right now.

That's a good name. I'd say Glossy Grindhouse -- attempting to emulate the brutality of exploitation horror but with the unmistakable veneer of Hollywood.

EDIT: I guess it's an apt name since Oke-Doke mentioned two movies that are remakes or relaunches of existing horror franchises. Maybe go with the portmanteau "Glosshouse"?

[lonewolf23k]

It's more of a modernization of classic 70s-80s Gore-Horror, really.

[Captain_Video]

Torture Porn is the name of the new genre.

They really have very little in common with the grindhouse movies, as it is a kind of faux grit, the seventies/eighties horror wave would also at least have an original title.

Ultimately "Saw", "Hostel" and the remakes, can't stand up to the original wave, there is nothing quite as nasty as the dinner table scene in the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", by the end you are screaming for the girl to run, also that movie was a far better essay on the meat industry than almost anything to come since, "people are meat too y'know"....the remake barely goes into this at all.

I love that horror is so popular, but its a shame that it doesn't have a point other than glossy faux gritty torture thrills.

The old movies where often legitimately low budget, the reason why the few excelled was because the film-makers may have lacked funds, but they had inginuety and a flair for storytelling, gritty sixteen millimeter film was not a style choice, but a necessary evil, in fact due to lack of budget the original movies are often not as gory as people remember "Texas Chainsaw" should be a PG if rated based on content...it was all about fear and going where people felt uncomfortable, breaking the taboos.

If you like the new horror I urge you to see the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "The Hills have eyes", "Cannibal Holocaust", "Henry portrait of a serial killer" and of course "The Evil Dead", that should be a good starter and I assure you, you will love them.

This too shall pass.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

It's more of a modernization of classic 70s-80s Gore-Horror, really.yeah what this guy said.

[DWEarhart]

It's more of a modernization of classic 70s-80s Gore-Horror, really.

True, and when the suits noticed the amount of money made from these types of films, originally, they thought it was the violence that drove people in. They weren't wrong, but they missed a few things as well.

When those movies were first made they were raw, and working on shoe-string budgets. THAT was magic; real magic. No computers, just blood, sweat, and tears. This newer form of the genre is “glossy”, as Infra put it, and made with far higher budgets and gadgetry than the originals of the horror genre ever did.

Is Hollywood wrong in doing this? Are they wrong in capitalizing on others ideas and work, tweaking it, and gaining from it? No. Hollywood is a business, and in business one’s job is to make and save money. You may have a task and a title, but the only job is to make and save money, and the remakes and restarts are quick ways for studios to scrape up some cash.

People become emotionally attached to films, but in my experiences none more than horror and sci-fi fans such as me. Some of these remakes are good, such as the Hills Have Eyes, and some are just adequate, like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but some individuals, and it’s usually horror purists (again, like me), are just not as involved with this newer version as they are with the originals. Also, if a theatrically released horror movie is bad these days, it's not bad because it's cheesy awful, it's bad because it really is just plain awful, ala Cursed.

What the newest trend in ultra-violence shows to me, is that all the producers and studios saw with horror’s success was that blood and guts sell, and they were mostly right. That’s what sold the originals too. What they did not see was the way people watched these new intense types movies, with magnified eyes and gleeful expectations, enjoying how truly awful some of the films were because they were so undisciplined; Trick or Treat for instance, or how great they were, like the original Day of the Dead. Now, the film business has taken notice of the sentimental attachements people have, and are hoping that these folks to spend money as well, and they usually do.

Most slasher/gore/horror flicks follow the same formula be it with a male or female (usually female) protagonist left standing in the end, and on sweet occasions, the antagonist was the only one left. Occasionally, there will be a twist in the story, maybe there isn’t, but that’s how they do it. Hollywood saw this – the cheap budgets and big returns, and they attributed all success to the gore. They don't care if you love it or hate it, just that you pay to see it.

[Tobias March]

It's just repackaged Gore flicks. Like it's been said above - this was common in the 70's/80's. Only know more money can be made from it, so it's been promoted as something new.

The trailers for Hostel really pissed me - as if this was some hidden experience whatever. Blah blah - feck off :rolleyes:

[Scorpion13]

Im gonna have to jump on the "Torture Porn" bandwagon here. Thats precisely what this is.

There really isnt any kind of redeeming value to any of these pieces of crap.

But seriously, this isnt a different kind of genre than Horror, its just bad horror.

[Buzz Dixon]

They used to be called "Roughies" when they were first introduced in the late 50s/early 60s. Ain't nuthin' new -- check out Alpha Blue and Something Weird's products and you'll see oodles and oodles of 'em done back in the day. ILSA, SHE-WOLF OF THE SS is probably the most infamous example of the era, but she was a johnny (joanie?) come lately to the scene.

[DDM]

It's more of a modernization of classic 70s-80s Gore-Horror, really.

I co-sign.


Horror works best with little gore & the projected horror from the audience's minds when watching the film. Without the suspense & story, the blood & gore means nothing. Today's horror movies are not really horror since the director goes over the top with bad stories, bad actors, & just an uninspired interpretation of said script.

I also don't care for the CGI "blood." Heck, I can't stand CGI anymore because directors abuse this tool as well. In 1989, it was cool. Today, I just don't care about CGI in live action films. CGI is crutch.

[Infra-Man]

They used to be called "Roughies" when they were first introduced in the late 50s/early 60s. Ain't nuthin' new -- check out Alpha Blue and Something Weird's products and you'll see oodles and oodles of 'em done back in the day. ILSA, SHE-WOLF OF THE SS is probably the most infamous example of the era, but she was a johnny (joanie?) come lately to the scene.

I remember picking up several H.G. Lewis movies via Something Weird. Fun stuff. Wonder if anyone would be audacious enough to remake the Ilsa series. That would be interesting.

[DWEarhart]

They used to be called "Roughies" when they were first introduced in the late 50s/early 60s. Ain't nuthin' new -- check out Alpha Blue and Something Weird's products and you'll see oodles and oodles of 'em done back in the day. ILSA, SHE-WOLF OF THE SS is probably the most infamous example of the era, but she was a johnny (joanie?) come lately to the scene.

Yeah. My friend from the comic store, has many of these recorded. Are there any documentaries involving this era?

[Royal]

They used to be called "Roughies" when they were first introduced in the late 50s/early 60s. Ain't nuthin' new -- check out Alpha Blue and Something Weird's products and you'll see oodles and oodles of 'em done back in the day. ILSA, SHE-WOLF OF THE SS is probably the most infamous example of the era, but she was a johnny (joanie?) come lately to the scene.

don't forget Blue Underground, Image, Anchor Bay and my personal favorite, Mondo Macabro.

Among others.

[Royal]

Yeah. My friend from the comic store, has many of these recorded. Are there any documentaries involving this era?

There's one in post-production that's supposed to get limit release next month.

[DWEarhart]

There's one in post-production that's supposed to get limit release next month.

Excellent.

[Haunt]

I just started thinking about this after seeing and reading about a few films such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre the Beginning, Slither and The Hills Have Eyes series. Namely these movies have the elements of classical horror but have darker aspects as well. I suppose they play on fear but a different kind of fear. The films appear to value a gory torturist death more than a suspensful one and want to physically disgust the audience more so than scare them. Protagonist in the films attempt to sexually assualt or molest the antagonist and the events are partially or fully depicted on screen as well. If the producers and directors continue down the current trend it seems like they will be so different from traditional horror that it must have its own catagory to better corner its niche. What say you all?

hasn't there always been this split between 'thriller' and 'slasher.' the former tends to rely more on atmosphere and suspense. the latter is usually more about sexual tittilation and gore. Slither really isn't 'horror' imo. it's a sci fi comedy. or i guess it could also fall into the category of 'monster movie.' i see a new horror movie once a week. a lot of them are bad but most of them do at least one thing right. the casting and dialogue are usually where they **** up. the last one i rented had Dominique Swain in it and impressed me simply because the location was decent; Dead Mary. the gore was limited and i don't remember there being any special effects.

[david r]

The slasher films of the late 70s/1980s have lead to this wave of torture horror. Yet if you watch those earlier slasher films, they are still FAR more suspenseful than this new group.

Hollywood is not interested in "True horror". True horror might drive away viewers, and get an R Rating. Which limits the potential profit margin. Whenever a true horror gem comes along, though, it puts my faith back in the genre. The Descent did that last year.

[Royal]

thiller is the tv editted version of "horror".

It's the feel good word.

[Royal]

The slasher films of the late 70s/1980s have lead to this wave of torture horror. Yet if you watch those earlier slasher films, they are still FAR more suspenseful than this new group.

Hollywood is not interested in "True horror". True horror might drive away viewers, and get an R Rating. Which limits the potential profit margin. Whenever a true horror gem comes along, though, it puts my faith back in the genre. The Descent did that last year.

US or British version?

[david r]

US or British version?

The US version. But poster Ontir told me the British ending. It sounded much better.

[The Xenos]

It's a very good point that these films aren't breaching new territory, except now they're just more mainstream. You have mainstream audiences thinking they're hitting some new high (or low) of gore even if such things have been explored back in the 70s.

Of course, Japanese horror and gore is a whole other thing. I've seen some pretty messed up things in their comics and some of their movies are notorious. There was one of the 'Guinea Pig' film series that Charlie Sheen somehow procured an import of. Thinking it was a real snuff film, he called the FBI.

[david r]

Most horror movies now are about brutal violence. They do not even ATTEMPT to build up any atmosphere or suspense. "Saw", "Hostel" and the like are horror movies, just a more hardcore and brutal variety.

But good horror movies still get made. In the last ten years I'd say Session 9, Jeepers Creepers, The Ring, House of Wax, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead, Cube all blew me away. And put my faith that horror can still shock without gore.

[Haunt]

Most horror movies now are about brutal violence. They do not even ATTEMPT to build up any atmosphere or suspense. "Saw", "Hostel" and the like are horror movies, just a more hardcore and brutal variety.

But good horror movies still get made. In the last ten years I'd say Session 9, Jeepers Creepers, The Ring, House of Wax, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead, Cube all blew me away. And put my faith that horror can still shock without gore.

i hated the Ring but the rest i'll agree with. no 28 Days Later? no Dog Soldiers? how about Haute Tension? i also thought that American Psycho was a decent (if questionable) serial killer flick.

[Royal]

Mr. Lewis and Rue Morgue's Stuart Andrews were inspired by Schlosser's Fast Food Nation and coined the phrase "MacHorror".

[Royal]

Horror not watered down.

Like comics and pro wrestling, you got to look elsewhere for the good chit.

[david r]

i hated the Ring but the rest i'll agree with. no 28 Days Later? no Dog Soldiers? how about Haute Tension? i also thought that American Psycho was a decent (if questionable) serial killer flick.

I found 28 Days Later rather dull. I've had some heated discussions over that one. ;)

I have not seen Dog Soldiers or Haute Tension. Should I rent them?

[david r]

Mr. Lewis and Rue Morgue's Stuart Andrews were inspired by Schlosser's Fast Food Nation and coined the phrase "MacHorror".

MacHorror is a good way to describe it. I call movies like Freddy vs. Jason or the new Black Christmas as product. Product posing as horror films, but NOT truly horror.

Most good horror comes from the fringes of filmmaking. Night of the Living Dead, Evil Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Martin, etc. come from outside the mainstream.

[DWEarhart]

I found 28 Days Later rather dull. I've had some heated discussions over that one. ;)

I have not seen Dog Soldiers or Haute Tension. Should I rent them?

I would recommend a rental on both. Dog Soldiers was quite good.

[Haunt]

I found 28 Days Later rather dull. I've had some heated discussions over that one. ;)

fair enough. it wasn't much of a zombie movie; i'll give you that.

I have not seen Dog Soldiers or Haute Tension. Should I rent them?

of course! :)

[Royal]

I found 28 Days Later rather dull. I've had some heated discussions over that one. ;)

I have not seen Dog Soldiers or Haute Tension. Should I rent them?

Yes on Dog Soldiers.

Yes on Haute Tension. Support original Aja.

Throw in Zinda Lash, Shitan, Alucarda, Cavalier, and In My Skin.

Just for starters.

[david r]

Thanks, I'll check those out.

But you know, the genre I disliked more than "torture horror" was the wink-and-nod horror fad that Scream spawned.

I just never saw the attraction. All I saw was a watering down of good horror, and every movie was the same. A group of hip teens, sprouting self-conscious hip dialogue, with lame attempts at hip humor. I remember sitting in the dark theatre, watching Scream and thinking "Wes Craven, you sell-out!" It wasn't scary. It wasn't funny. It just sat there on the screen, with it's ridiculously attractive stars and that lame "30-something middle-aged white guy" voice on the telephone. Was that supposed to be scary?

And Scream then launched all these ripoffs, that became more annoying, more deadening, more "hip" with each successive one. I'm sure I'm spitting on someone's favorite horror film, but I could not STAND those "Ha-Ha" hip horror movies of the late 90s,early 2000s. Far more than these brutal hardcore horror ones.

[mgs]

I think, like lots of others have said, there seems to be almost no point to the gore in some of today's films. Some of the directors should know that violence alone should not make a horror movie good. There's all kinds of violent movies that are not horror.

[Oke-Doke]

I think David R described the emerging genre pretty well with the term "Torture Horror". They just don't commit enough time to creating a creepy atmosphere to get your heart pumping, wondering what the next turn will bring. The few new movies I think stand outside this category include some you all have mentioned Jeepers Creepers, The Ring, etc. I also would like to add the House on Haunted Hill remake (I loved the build up before you learn the houses secrets). I admit I knew nothing about "Roughies" or Japanese horror from the 70's & 80's, that must of been some screwy stuff to make Sheen mistake one film for snuff. The pictures I think of from those years are Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Halloween and the Blob(Kind of sleept on).

[marshal99]

I have not seen Dog Soldiers or Haute Tension. Should I rent them?

Dog Soldiers is kind of low budget fare. It isn't particularly scary , if anything , it is a bit hilarious at times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uirEyRaA2B4

I thought the director's next movie after dog soldiers "The Descent" was creepier and more tense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QOHGAxs_cU

[Royal]

Thanks, I'll check those out.

But you know, the genre I disliked more than "torture horror" was the wink-and-nod horror fad that Scream spawned.

I just never saw the attraction. All I saw was a watering down of good horror, and every movie was the same. A group of hip teens, sprouting self-conscious hip dialogue, with lame attempts at hip humor. I remember sitting in the dark theatre, watching Scream and thinking "Wes Craven, you sell-out!" It wasn't scary. It wasn't funny. It just sat there on the screen, with it's ridiculously attractive stars and that lame "30-something middle-aged white guy" voice on the telephone. Was that supposed to be scary?

And Scream then launched all these ripoffs, that became more annoying, more deadening, more "hip" with each successive one. I'm sure I'm spitting on someone's favorite horror film, but I could not STAND those "Ha-Ha" hip horror movies of the late 90s,early 2000s. Far more than these brutal hardcore horror ones.

Nah man. If anyone's to blame, it's Kevin Williamson. He's the one who set it off. Wes is just trying to get paid. He's the guy who approved Aja for Hills. So he's still got a bit of stroke.

I think David R described the emerging genre pretty well with the term "Torture Horror". They just don't commit enough time to creating a creepy atmosphere to get your heart pumping, wondering what the next turn will bring. The few new movies I think stand outside this category include some you all have mentioned Jeepers Creepers, The Ring, etc. I also would like to add the House on Haunted Hill remake (I loved the build up before you learn the houses secrets). I admit I knew nothing about "Roughies" or Japanese horror from the 70's & 80's, that must of been some screwy stuff to make Sheen mistake one film for snuff. The pictures I think of from those years are Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Halloween and the Blob(Kind of sleept on).

Stick with us baby. We'll teach ya how the game is played.

[Alex]

I wouldn't go as far as to just label it bad horror.
The big budget pieces of crap are still markedly better then a lot of the low budget piece of crap horror movies (Many which are made in like a month, have a similar name and plot to a big horror movie, and exsist to trick stupid people into buying them) that come out weekly.
I don't think money and violence negate them being good, since, in my opinion (which i admit is biased against horror movies) there are so few good horror movies to begin with.

[Pól Rua]

Is a New Genre Diverging From Horror?
No.
People seem to have an obsessive need to break everything down into genres and subgenres and sub-subgenres.

No, there isn't.

It's horror. It might look a little different, but it's the same guy, with a slightly different hat on.

[david r]

I remember in 2003 when Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses was released. I recall thinking "hardcore horror is finally back", after years of those Scream films. It was a welcome return to some intense fright.

Since then, we've been inundated with these "torture horror" films. Plus, Hollywood seems obsessed with remakes. Why can't they dream up some new ideas? For every good one (House of Wax, Dawn of the Dead), we get stuck with soulless awful ones (The Fog, When a Stranger Calls, Black Christmas, Thirteen Ghosts.)

[Royal]

House of Wax wasn't good.

Watch the Price/Bronson remake or Tourist Trap.

They're much better.

[DWEarhart]

House of Wax wasn't good.

Watch the Price/Bronson remake or Tourist Trap.

They're much better.

I have soft spot for Madhouse. It was cool watching Price, Cushing, and Quarry do their thing.

[david r]

House of Wax wasn't good.

Watch the Price/Bronson remake or Tourist Trap.


Yeah, but what other movie shows an entire house melting? That was worth something. Oh, and that One Tree Hill kid scowling in every shot. Oscar worthy.

Sometimes the best horror is when you sit down thinking this is going to suck. That's what I thought when I started Session 9. A horror flick with David Caruso?? Caruso tanks every movie he's in. This'll be the same. And then it started to creep out with that huge, dark asylum. And it worked. It left me unsettled for a few days, and horror movies never frighten me.

[david r]

I have soft spot for Madhouse. It was cool watching Price, Cushing, and Quarry do their thing.

I like those old British horror movies. House that Dripped Blood, Dr. Terror's House of Horrors, Scream and Scream Again, and etc.

I have a soft spot for the Hammer Frankenstein/Dracula films. They were filled with dungeons, castles, graveyards and atmosphere that we NEVER EVER see anymore.The Dracula ones disappointed though, because Christopher Lee basically did walk-ons for most of those films.

[Royal]

Yeah, but what other movie shows an entire house melting? That was worth something. Oh, and that One Tree Hill kid scowling in every shot. Oscar worthy.



Lemme guess...wrong side of the tracks?

I do remember a movie where the house melted, I can't think of the name right now.

[Royal]

I have a soft spot for the Hammer Frankenstein/Dracula films. They were filled with dungeons, castles, graveyards and atmosphere that we NEVER EVER see anymore.The Dracula ones disappointed though, because Christopher Lee basically did walk-ons for most of those films.

Why not? Lee's the goddamn Dracula!!