The debate "There are few scary horror movies and none of them are from the 21st century." was started by
November 26, 2018, 6:50 am.
By the way, Jakellutis is disagreeing with this statement.
18 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 26 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Jakellutis posted 1 argument, MrShine posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 2 arguments, Jakellutis posted 2 arguments, SMNR posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Dushonjj2, MrShine, A_communist94, byniched and 14 visitors agree.
Jakellutis, TheExistentialist, SMNR, TJ, Daisythecat and 21 visitors disagree.
Kneejerk responses may be considered fear, but terror doesn't exist in the bang, only in the anticipation of it. I believe that part of the issue here isn't the props, in some cases CGI, and in many cases music
If you look into reification, you will notice that music is placed with themes. If the theme is missing, then it is associated with the factors around it and not the purpose itself. If you use scary music to start anticipating fear, it tips the horror hand too early and prematurely 'shoots'. In fact, you might ask yourself what you should be expecting to fear. Unknown fears can be good, but are not nearly as potent as known fear. Music isn't there for the sake of being there, it is constantly interpreted even in it's absence.
I do think camera techniques and practical effects have come a far way, and in a way stay true to the original methods. CGI is often times good and often not noticed until it is done poorly, yet it also can fail to ground itself in reality. Compare the 1984 Nightmare on Elm street to 2010, there is a scene where Kruger pushes his head out a wall to look at Nancy. One is Fantastic, and the other shows more Freddy but looks real ugly. I think it is because they use a prop it looks like he would 'pop' the wall while the other pushed too fast and tipped it's hand. A background isn't so hard, but at the point of living things and Gore "emulated" and "lurid" effects will do a hell of a lot better than fleshy, dark sequences.
I can't blame story too much, nothing is every completely original but I do think when two out of three important factors are neglected, the story simply won't have the right balance to support itself among characters, themes, music, props... what else does a theater have? It'll be there even if I can't properly articulate it, so the unintentional will draw away from what's most important.
That's true, perhaps my standards for good horror are just different than most.
Scary is a derivative term of fear and therefore innate to personal opinion. Horror as a genre has evolved with special effects. There have been many movies with great critiques and positive review. The classics can always be admired.
Then I'll see, you may be right.
then you should definitely watch "Hereditary". Fits everything you describe. Fantastic flick
This might be personal opinion, but scary as in, having an eerie ambience and spooky settings, mysterious, relatable characters, and a creative well written storyline with a twist, villain/s that are not understood.
Most horror movies have a generic storyline with dumb dialogue, monster/s, blood and gore, jump scares and screaming, frantic unlikable characters.
It's hard to find quality horror these days.
I'd argue that "Hereditary" is a pretty good "scary" movie; widely acclaimed for being disturbing. By what standard are we comparing "scary" anyway? Is "Paranormal Activity" not as "Scary" as the "Blair Witch Project"? If not, by what standard?