The "Teeny-Bopper Horror" Discussion

[WesReviews]

I started a thread about this subject over at the Friday the 13th Message Board and have gotten some interesting replies, so I thought I'd see what you guys have to say on the matter.

I felt compelled to start up a thread regarding many of the board members' attitudes toward what they refer to as "teeny-bopper" horror movies of today.

Now, most old-school horror fans seem to hate modern films, because they claim that they target the "teeny-bopper" crowd. What many of you don't understand or are choosing to ignore is that almost ALL horror films target this crowd. People in their 30's and 40's and on don't go to horror films as much as people in their teens and 20's.

It's not often that a horror film transcends age groups, but these films have always been "date movies". Even in the 1950's, now-classic horror movies like The Thing From Another World, Creature From the Black Lagoon, and Them! were meant to be "date movies". There is absolutely no difference in the intentions of the directors of these three movies and the directors of modern horror films. Have the styles of "teeny-bopper" or "date movies" changed? Yes. Have they become more commercial? Yes. But all movies have changed, you can't criticize the horror genre for the one thing that made it popular in the first place.

Even bolder, more edgy independent horror filmmakers who are looked upon by horror fans as gods...like the ones who made the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre...intended to target the teen drive-in crowd. Does the fact that it was aimed at teens make it any less of a horror movie? No. It was a good, solid horror movie. In regard to the newer movies, a lot of you are blaming the target audience for something that is the filmmaker's fault. If you don't like a movie, it's the filmmaker's fault. Not the target audience. Filmmakers can make horror films just like they always have (including targeting a teen audience) without playing down to anyone. To say the fault in today's "lesser" horror films is due simply because they target the "teeny-boppers" is ridiculous. Horror films (Hollywood AND Independent) have ALWAYS targeted this crowd. From 'serious' horror like The Exorcist and The Hills Have Eyes, to more campy fare like Happy Birthday to Me and Terror Train. They were all meant for roughly the same crowd. The date crowd. Because a sizable population of people dating are teens, I guess you could label these films "teeny-bopper" films. But by labling some "teeny-bopper" and not others, you're choosing to ignore the facts that nearly all horror films were meant for this crowd.

Many of you act like the targeting of teens is a brand new fad in the horror genre. It isn't. The slasher boom of 1981 is proof of this. Subsequent booms in horror have been proof of this...Scream and The Blair Witch Project being the most recent.

The slasher boom caused by Friday the 13th was no different than the one caused by Scream. If anything, the one caused by F13 was much, much, much worse. Look how many slashers there were after F13...House on Sorority Row, Terror Train, Graduation Day, Happy Birthday to Me, My Bloody Valentine, Just Before Dawn, Curtains, Tourist Trap, Silent Night Deadly Night, New Year's Evil, The Initiation, The Intruder, Hell Night, To All a Goodnight, Night School, Cutting Class, The Deadly Intruder, Nightmare, Class Reunion Massacre, Silent Scream, He Knows You're Alone, Terror on Tour, Final Exam, Prom Night, The Burning, Madman, The Prowler, Maniac, etc, etc, etc.

In the wake of Scream, all we've had is...Urban Legend, Urban Legend 2, I Know What You Did Last Summer, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, Valentine, and a few foreign slashers (namely Austrailia's "Cut" and Germany's "The Pool"). Yes, a lot were released to make a quick buck in the wake of Scream, but not NEARLY as many as were made to cash in on Friday the 13th.

But why do people criticize the films following Scream, while hearalding the films that came after Friday the 13th...which, in all honesty folks, are no better than any of the modern stuff... as classics? People who can put films like Night School, Final Exam, and Prom Night on pedestals while condemning films like Valentine, Urban Legend, and I Know What You Did Last Summer...well, I just don't understand it. Urban Legend, Valentine, and IKWYDLS aren't the best slashers around, but they are faaaaaar from being the worst. Rent Fatal Games, from 1985, then tell me how bad the new stuff is. :)

I think it boils down to a generation gap that some of us can't get over. People today think..."Their" slasher movies suck, but "ours" don't. That is total BS. I'm from the latter generation of slasher fans and I'm here to tell you that I can sit and enjoy the modern slashers for what they are, just as easily as I can the older slashers. There is no difference in them. And honestly, the modern ones are technically better made.

If WE have grown up, it's our fault. Not the filmmakers. They're just doing business as usual.

Any thoughts?

[hell ya!]

Originally posted by WesReviews
I started a thread about this subject over at the Friday the 13th Message Board and have gotten some interesting replies, so I thought I'd see what you guys have to say on the matter.

I felt compelled to start up a thread regarding many of the board members' attitudes toward what they refer to as "teeny-bopper" horror movies of today.

Now, most old-school horror fans seem to hate modern films, because they claim that they target the "teeny-bopper" crowd. What many of you don't understand or are choosing to ignore is that almost ALL horror films target this crowd. People in their 30's and 40's and on don't go to horror films as much as people in their teens and 20's.

It's not often that a horror film transcends age groups, but these films have always been "date movies". Even in the 1950's, now-classic horror movies like The Thing From Another World, Creature From the Black Lagoon, and Them! were meant to be "date movies". There is absolutely no difference in the intentions of the directors of these three movies and the directors of modern horror films. Have the styles of "teeny-bopper" or "date movies" changed? Yes. Have they become more commercial? Yes. But all movies have changed, you can't criticize the horror genre for the one thing that made it popular in the first place.

Even bolder, more edgy independent horror filmmakers who are looked upon by horror fans as gods...like the ones who made the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre...intended to target the teen drive-in crowd. Does the fact that it was aimed at teens make it any less of a horror movie? No. It was a good, solid horror movie. In regard to the newer movies, a lot of you are blaming the target audience for something that is the filmmaker's fault. If you don't like a movie, it's the filmmaker's fault. Not the target audience. Filmmakers can make horror films just like they always have (including targeting a teen audience) without playing down to anyone. To say the fault in today's "lesser" horror films is due simply because they target the "teeny-boppers" is ridiculous. Horror films (Hollywood AND Independent) have ALWAYS targeted this crowd. From 'serious' horror like The Exorcist and The Hills Have Eyes, to more campy fare like Happy Birthday to Me and Terror Train. They were all meant for roughly the same crowd. The date crowd. Because a sizable population of people dating are teens, I guess you could label these films "teeny-bopper" films. But by labling some "teeny-bopper" and not others, you're choosing to ignore the facts that nearly all horror films were meant for this crowd.

Many of you act like the targeting of teens is a brand new fad in the horror genre. It isn't. The slasher boom of 1981 is proof of this. Subsequent booms in horror have been proof of this...Scream and The Blair Witch Project being the most recent.

The slasher boom caused by Friday the 13th was no different than the one caused by Scream. If anything, the one caused by F13 was much, much, much worse. Look how many slashers there were after F13...House on Sorority Row, Terror Train, Graduation Day, Happy Birthday to Me, My Bloody Valentine, Just Before Dawn, Curtains, Tourist Trap, Silent Night Deadly Night, New Year's Evil, The Initiation, The Intruder, Hell Night, To All a Goodnight, Night School, Cutting Class, The Deadly Intruder, Nightmare, Class Reunion Massacre, Silent Scream, He Knows You're Alone, Terror on Tour, Final Exam, Prom Night, The Burning, Madman, The Prowler, Maniac, etc, etc, etc.

In the wake of Scream, all we've had is...Urban Legend, Urban Legend 2, I Know What You Did Last Summer, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, Valentine, and a few foreign slashers (namely Austrailia's "Cut" and Germany's "The Pool"). Yes, a lot were released to make a quick buck in the wake of Scream, but not NEARLY as many as were made to cash in on Friday the 13th.

But why do people criticize the films following Scream, while hearalding the films that came after Friday the 13th...which, in all honesty folks, are no better than any of the modern stuff... as classics? People who can put films like Night School, Final Exam, and Prom Night on pedestals while condemning films like Valentine, Urban Legend, and I Know What You Did Last Summer...well, I just don't understand it. Urban Legend, Valentine, and IKWYDLS aren't the best slashers around, but they are faaaaaar from being the worst. Rent Fatal Games, from 1985, then tell me how bad the new stuff is. :)

I think it boils down to a generation gap that some of us can't get over. People today think..."Their" slasher movies suck, but "ours" don't. That is total BS. I'm from the latter generation of slasher fans and I'm here to tell you that I can sit and enjoy the modern slashers for what they are, just as easily as I can the older slashers. There is no difference in them. And honestly, the modern ones are technically better made.

If WE have grown up, it's our fault. Not the filmmakers. They're just doing business as usual.

Any thoughts?

I complety agree with you. I never understood why people would call today's slashers "Teeny bobber" at all. What you think, there was no teens in the older slasher movies?

[Dave]

I have no problem with "Teeny-Bopper Horror". My problem is with "Screamy-Bopper Horror" (© Horrordvds.com - :D). More specifically, my problem is with shit like Scream that makes fun of the horror genre.

Scream: "Here, watch us succeed! We'll take the cast of present day 90210, throw them into a 'horror' movie, make fun of the horror genre, and watch the cash flow in."

Of course horror movies, most often filled with nudity and gore, are going to be aimed at young people. That's fine. Friday the 13th IS a horror movie. Sure, 5 sequels later with the same thing happening over and over may not SEEM very scary, but it at least doesn't deliberately and directly make fun of the genre. Scream is just a spoof.

There are still GOOD present day horror movies that don't resort to the 90210 cast and don't resort to making fun of the genre. Examples: Frailty, DellaMorte DellaMore, Dagon.

There are no good modern day slashers. Scream doesn't deserve to be put into that category. Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X are disgraceful simply because they are bad movies that broke the standard formula. Not just broke it, but took a flying leap from the standard formula. Lets keep Jason in his own body and lets keep Jason on planet Earth. That's all I ask.

[Grim]

I like Scream, but after that I think it was down hill.

[Cujo108]

I absolutely love VALENTINE, CHERRY FALLS, THE POOL, and the FINAL DESTINATION films, but I hate most of the other recent slashers, as they just aren't fun, and are really quite lame. As for SCREAM (aka the annoying bore), I've said why I hate it before, and its not because its a "teenybopper" film. I've never used that stupid arguement.

[Eddie Quist]

Sure, horror movies have always been marketed to teens, but I don't think the genre has ever been in such a watered-down, moron state as it is today. There has never been such pandering on the part of the studios to appeal to the Christina Aguilera/John Mayer crowd...

Everything gets watered down to the point of total shit eventually.

:bs:

[dvdasia62]

I've never knocked "Scream" because it was a teeny-bopper horror film. I knock it because it sucks.

[Dave]

Originally posted by dvdasia62
I've never knocked "Scream" because it was a teeny-bopper horror film. I knock it because it sucks.

:lol:

Well said!

[2D4EVER]

Originally posted by Eddie Quist
Sure, horror movies have always been marketed to teens, but I don't think the genre has ever been in such a watered-down, moron state as it is today. There has never been such pandering on the part of the studios to appeal to the Christina Aguilera/John Mayer crowd...

Everything gets watered down to the point of total shit eventually.

:bs:

AGREED! :banana: :banana: :banana:

[mcchrist]

I have no problem with "Teeny-Bopper Horror". My problem is with "Screamy-Bopper Horror" (© Horrordvds.com - :D )

Never said more elegantly!

[maybrick]

Originally posted by Cujo108
I absolutely love VALENTINE,

I don't know how anyone in their right mind could defend this piece of shit. :rolleyes:

Definitely the worst slasher since Scream, even overriding IKWYDLS.

[David666]

I've never understood the sentiments either, and the more it gets discussed the more convoluted and hypocritical the anti-modern-slasher fanatics seem.

Once one of their arguments is pointed out as ridiculous or just plain stupid then it changes. No one seems to use the TV celebrity argument any more... and that was the number one argument not too long ago.

I prefer the modern slashers. I prefer the younger casts opposed to the 40 year olds playing teenagers in the slashers of yesterday. I prefer the hip, more in tune with pop culture characters then the dumb asses of yesterday. I prefer quality writing opposed to inferior, eye-rolling enducing scripts. I prefer actors who can actually act. I prefer directors with a reverence for the genre (Wes Craven and Jamie Blanks) opposed to assholes who hate the genre but use it to advance their carreers (Jack Sholder, Rachel Talalay) . In short, I prefer Scream over Friday the 13th part whatever; Urban Legend over Halloween 4 or 5 or 6 or 8, and most definatly prefer I Know What You Did Last Summer over Slumber Party Massacre.

Dave thinks Scream makes fun of the genre and the fans. I don't. I think that a film directed by, produced by or written by someone who hates the genre makes fun of it and the fans! Scream was written by and directed by two people who have openly declared a love of the genre and a respect for the fans. That is not something that can be claimed of any of the Friday the 13th sequels' directors or writers. In many cases (Jack Sholder-of NOES part 2- for example) the director and writer will openly discuss their lack of respect and hatered for horror and its fans. That is completly offensive to me and more of an afront to me and the genre I cherish then Scream could ever be, or for that matter then even Valentine could ever be.

[Joel Groce]

If we're talking about slashers of the late 70's/ 80's compared to now - there is no comparison... why the fuck would I want to watch a watered down - beautiful girls, but no one takes anything off - trendy people populated piece of shit 90's slasher - I miss the whole "exploitation" factor that is definitely missing these days - and that is really the main reason (and lack of skin!!!!!:D ) Of course I'm sure some of it is due to the generation gap - damn some of you people are missing out!

[WesReviews]

I actually DO like Valentine quite a bit. Of all the recent slashers, it's the only one I really enjoy. Though the Urban Legend movies and I Know What You Did Last Summer had some decent kills (i've not seen I Still Know... so i can't vouch for it) I thought Valentine was fun. It's easily the most similar to the early 80's slashers. It had a great musical score by Don Davis, a great costume for the killer, some inventive, but bloodless kills (thanks to Warner Bros. NOT the director. Warner cut the film AFTER it had recieved it's R rating with all the gore intact. Blame Warner for this one being dry, not the director) and the ending was a lot of cheesy slasher fun. Reminding me of Alone in the Dark

I can see how people would dislike I Know... and Urban Legend (i hated the revelation of the killer...simply stupid) but Valentine is an 80's slasher through and through. It even had great poster art, and you never see great slasher poster art these days. It's not a classic movie, but it's no worse than some of the older ones we all love from the early 80's. :)

[onebyone]

I like all sorts of horror movies and don't remotely care about the genre. Some Teeny-Bopper movies are great (Scream of which I adore. So shoot me. :fire: ) and some suck (Disturbing Behavior, Halloween Resurrection). You can say the same about any genre of movies, no reason to dismiss them all.

Now, if we are going to compare 70s/80s slashers to the ones that come out today, I am all about the older ones. There is no doubt we get less nudity and a hell of a lot less gore now, which is a crying damn shame. Give me blood and gore and drunk, pot smoking teenagers any day of the week over most of the modern horror movies.

[Dave]

Originally posted by David666

Once one of their arguments is pointed out as ridiculous or just plain stupid then it changes. No one seems to use the TV celebrity argument any more... and that was the number one argument not too long ago.

Ummm, how has my argument changed? My argumnet for disliking Scream has not changed. If you like watching movies that open insult and laught at you as a horror fan, that is your choice. My opinion remains the same.


I prefer the modern slashers. I prefer the younger casts opposed to the 40 year olds playing teenagers in the slashers of yesterday.

What are you talking about? Friday the 13th? They were all young adults playing camp counselors. In Nightmare on Elm Street, if one can consider that a slasher, most of the victims did seem as if they were really young (early 20s at best).

Please give specifics as to which movies and which characters had 40 year old actors playing teenagers. I honestly can't think of the movie(s) that you are referring to.

Regardless, older people (mid-20s, early-30s) playing young teens is nothing new. It bugs me too.


I prefer the hip, more in tune with pop culture characters....

I see. Throw a knife and hockey mask onto the 90210 set and David is happy. :lol:

I prefer quality writing opposed to inferior, eye-rolling enducing scripts.

Then how can you possibly like Scream? You aren't actually saying that pile of fly infested monkey shit has a good script, are you? If so, all I can say is: :lol:

I prefer actors who can actually act.

Now that is something you definitely do not get in Scream.

I prefer directors with a reverence for the genre (Wes Craven and Jamie Blanks) opposed to assholes who hate the genre but use it to advance their carreers (Jack Sholder, Rachel Talalay) .

Oh, you are fucking killing me here David. :lol:

Wes Craven is a total sellout. Look at all the Wes Craven presents bullshit. He doesn't give a rats ass about the genre. He cares about fatening up his bank account. His last half decent movie was New Nightmare.


Dave thinks Scream makes fun of the genre and the fans.

Correction - Dave KNOWS Scream makes fun of the genre and the fans.

I don't. I think that a film directed by, produced by or written by someone who hates the genre makes fun of it and the fans! Scream was written by and directed by two people who have openly declared a love of the genre and a respect for the fans.

Scream was written by a wannabe 90210 writer. Nothing more, nothing less. Williamson is a deadbeat who has yet to produce anything of value in his career.

[Horrorfan]

Ok so break it down for me people whats wrong with Screamy bopper horror since you hate it so much. Don't just tell me it sucks.I don't think it makes fun of horror films I think it pays tribute to them with all the references to horror films with in it.What is wrong with an attractive cast? Are horror films not allowed to have good looking people in the films? So dopn't just tell me it sucks. Give the reasons why it does.

[zombi3]

Originally posted by Horrorfan
Ok so break it down for me people whats wrong with Screamy bopper horror since you hate it so much. Don't just tell me it sucks.I don't think it makes fun of horror films I think it pays tribute to them with all the references to horror films with in it.What is wrong with an attractive cast? Are horror films not allowed to have good looking people in the films? So dopn't just tell me it sucks. Give the reasons why it does.

A few reasons:

- they have no gore

- no nudity

- they're not scary

- the annoying "actors"

- stupid in-jokes that aren't funny

[Mr_Man]

I'I just say one thing.

When Horror films become PG-13 ,somethings wrong. :eek:

[Grim]

Originally posted by David666

I prefer the modern slashers. I prefer the younger casts opposed to the 40 year olds playing teenagers in the slashers of yesterday.

Yeah, um, have you seen how old the cast of Return of the Living Dead is? Half of them were teenagers while it was being filmed.

As for the films of today there are plenty of older stars playing teens. You know Lochlyn Munroe? He was born in 1966, nuff said.

This is one thing I've noticed. In music, many older songs are being remade and many of the teens of today don't even know the new songs a remake. I think the same thing is happening today with movies. Like with The Ring, the remake was good, but they should be aware of the original. Alot of teens my age don't even know what the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is, so when it's released they're going to think it's some brand new movie. It's sad.

[betterdan]

I don't think I have to tell anyone why I hate modern teeny bopper shit. I simply hate it and that's that. If you want an explanation don't come asking me cause I have no obligation to tell you. Also if you like this crap you probably wouldn't understand anyways.:D

[KillerCannabis]

The difference between todays teen flicks and the teen flicks of the 80's (besides the fact that todays suck) is that the 80's had a certain "feel" to its films that made them more enjoyable. The grainy atmosphere and the cheesy acting made the experience that much more exciting. Todays flicks almost never bother with sex like the 80's did, and if they do, there's almost never nudity. And the teen casts of today are too........ shiny. I dont want to watch the cast of insert-teen-oriented-show running around pretending to be scared and getting killed off-screen since gore isnt really PC these days. I'll take ANY 80's horror flick over most of today's turds.

[jeffschmidt]

The modern, "screamy/teeny-bopper" horror films suck, in general, because, they pussy out in nearly all areas important to the slasher genre.

It's probably largely due to the social climate now as compared to the 1980s, but for fuck's sake, man! Slashers need good kills, good gore & some frickin' nudity never hurts.

I just saw Final Destination 2; now there's a modern horror movie that really delivers. It didn't skimp on the gore & it had a really cool mean-spiritedness about it. I like the first Scream ok, but tripe like Urban Legend 2 just doesn't do it for me - and I'm pretty much in their target demographic, too.

[David666]

Originally posted by Dave
Ummm, how has my argument changed? My argumnet for disliking Scream has not changed. If you like watching movies that open insult and laught at you as a horror fan, that is your choice. My opinion remains the same.

Yours, but you are one of how many? Our opinions are completely different here. I do not, at all, feel that Scream is making fun of me or the horror genre. Using the cliches that have been over-played in about a million inferior films as a referance to humor doesn't equal a slap in my face. Like I said, when a director who has openly snubbed the genre but makes a genre film anyway is a slap in the face in my opinion. Sholder and Talalay have said some pretty derogatory things about horror. You should know that, Dave. Loading a movie with blood, nudity and sex doesn't make it a horror film and it certainly doesn't make it better then Scream.

Originally posted by Dave
What are you talking about? Friday the 13th? They were all young adults playing camp counselors. In Nightmare on Elm Street, if one can consider that a slasher, most of the victims did seem as if they were really young (early 20s at best).

Any of the sequels. Tina in New Blood looks like her mother's sister as opposed to being her daughter. The youngest Friday the 13th cast member.... Corey Feldman, he's the only sequeled character that appeared to be the age he was playing. No one in Halloween looked the age they were supposed to play, even Jamie Lee looked considerably older. All of the sequels (with the exception of H20 and the horrid Resurrection) are the same way, excluding Danielle Harris' character. Nancy, Tina and perhaps Depp's character looked the age of their characters in NOES... but no one else. The extras in the high school all looked like mid-30s taking night-time college courses. Did the oldest brother in The Lost Boys look like a teenager to you? He didn't to me. Evil Dead is often described as involving "teenagers." No way in hell are they teens.

Happy Birthday to Me. Teens or young adults... my ass!!! Pieces... no way those were college age people.

I didn't buy the actors ages in Hell Night or Prom Night... all of whom look much older then what they were supposed to be.

Male characters are the worst. Rarely do films actually cast younger looking guys for the roles of teens... instead they go for merely ugly (most D-grade fare like Madman and Slaughterhouse) or go for guys with completely chizeled looks and ripped bodies. I don't know about you, but I didn't know anyone in high school with completely ripped bodies... I'm not talking a six-pack with baby fat faces either... I'm talking sinewy gross guys with leather-like skin.

This is not a criticism of the modern slasher film. Everyone looks their respective character's age.

Originally posted by Dave
Regardless, older people (mid-20s, early-30s) playing young teens is nothing new. It bugs me too.

Glad to see that.

Originally posted by Dave
I see. Throw a knife and hockey mask onto the 90210 set and David is happy. :lol:

Ah-ha... that TV celebrity thing rears it's ugly head after all. Everyone's current shower-nozel-masturbatory fantasy Naomi Watts if from TV land. Most people are!!! That is the stupidest argument in this discussion, it always has been and it always will be.

Originally posted by Dave
Then how can you possibly like Scream? You aren't actually saying that pile of fly infested monkey shit has a good script, are you? If so, all I can say is: :lol:

I am. Its fun, witty and a thousand fold better then any Halloween, Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street script.

Originally posted by Dave
Wes Craven is a total sellout. Look at all the Wes Craven presents bullshit. He doesn't give a rats ass about the genre. He cares about fatening up his bank account. His last half decent movie was New Nightmare.

I think someone need to check into a few more interviews and commentaries with Craven. He's highly intelligent and does indeed have a respect for the genre. As informed as you seem to be (or even claim to be), I think you are sorely lacking here Dave. Where his "Presents" films don't take the genre to new heights... neither do any of the Friday the 13th films, Halloween sequels, NOES sequels or Hellraiser 4-whatever. He can hardly be criticised for that. Carpenter has sold out too, lending his name to some pretty bad film over the years. Stephen King has always been a sell-out. Just because its easy to pick on Craven in this post-Scream backlash, don't forget the crap many of the horror 'titans' have subjected us to.


Originally posted by Dave
Correction - Dave KNOWS Scream makes fun of the genre and the fans.

No, you think. Interesting how loudly you profess that I "think" my opinion is more valid then anyone elses, or that I can't deal with someone who's opinion differs from mine. This is proof that you are guilty of your own accusation.

Originally posted by Dave
Scream was written by a wannabe 90210 writer. Nothing more, nothing less. Williamson is a deadbeat who has yet to produce anything of value in his career.

Certainly your opinion, but it is no more valid them mine. I think Scream, Faculty and I Know What You Did Last Summer are great additions to the genre. You don't. So what? We could endlessly debate it all, but neither of us will change the other's opinion.

[zombi3]

Originally posted by David666
Loading a movie with blood, nudity and sex doesn't make it a horror film and it certainly doesn't make it better then Scream.

Of course it does. Who are you kidding?:D

[Dave]

Ah-ha... that TV celebrity thing rears it's ugly head after all. Everyone's current shower-nozel-masturbatory fantasy Naomi Watts if from TV land. Most people are!!! That is the stupidest argument in this discussion, it always has been and it always will be.


You're not understanding what I'm getting at. So many of these Screamy bopper slashers are literally 90210 with a knife. Fuck the actors; I don't really care about them. It's obvious they use those actors to appeal to the pre-teen screamy boppers, but I wouldn't care so much if the movie were actually good. What really bothers me is the whole environment of the Screamy bopper slasher. That is why I disliked Buffy, though I did warm to it a bit (see my Season One review) after giving it a close look. No such need with Scream. I've seen it twice and it still sucks.

Your rather pathetic argument is that these 90210 actors work great in these movies because they are in the age range to play teens. They could have <insert the most well respected actor that could still play a teen here> and these Screamy bopper flicks would still be piles of monkey shit.

[Atmims]

Scream is an alright movie. It's no where near the masterpiece some people say it is or the turd others claim it is. If Scream would have had some gruesome deaths and have been more ruthless then it would have been a great slasher. If you prefer the newer slasher over the old ones its just because you don't appreciate the brutality of the older ones. I would DEFINETLY prefer to watch Slumber Party Massacre over I Know what you did Last Summer.

[STREET TRASH]

The answer is so simple: The older slasher movies are just FUN, while today's junk comes off as pretentious, tame and more often than not, quite dull. I Know What You Did Last Summer? Where is the excitement and thrills? Prom Night beats the pants off it --- it is actually a warm, sympathetic, fun little slasher movie with a GREAT chase sequence and nice up-beat disco tunes. IKWYDLS is similar in plot, and if you think about it, is not memorable in the slightest.

All that, and Prom Night is nowhere NEAR my fav of the '80s slasher boom, and yet is light years better than today's films.

[dvdasia62]

Originally posted by David666
I am. Its fun, witty and a thousand fold better then any Halloween, Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street script.


Oh, get real chief! Your pullin' this one out of your ass.

[rhett]

I will agree with some that today's slasher movies can come across as a wee bit pretentious...but they are still good fun. I liked IKWYDLS and I thought Scream and H20 were great. Valentine? Formulaic but satisfying. I like the 80's films much more, mainly because of nostalgia and their carefree exploitive roots. Wes does make a great point though; are we bashing these films only because most of us are no longer teens?

I do think today's teeny films take a lot more flack then they deserve, but at the same time I do think that they pale in comparison to the teen films of yore.

[Paff]

My complaint about "TV actors" is not that they're untalented (I'll openly admit they're way more talented than several actors who portrayed teens in the 80s films), but rather that the films they're in are "star vehicles" first, and horror movies second. They emphasize Jennifer Love Hewitt's breasts (which are quite nice...) moreso than the horror angle.

An 80s equivalent might be if the slasher films of the day starred Michael J. Fox, Nancy McKeon etc. Those movies relied on no-name actors, because the makers of the films wanted to put people in the seats based on the film itself and not who was in it.

I haven't been in a high school in a while, but I wonder who's seeing these films nowadays. In my day, all of the girls had an "Ewwww" reaction to horror flicks. I think the inclusion of their Dawson's Creek idols make the films more accessible to the teenage GIRL. Again, the idea of watering down the genre for wider appeal is what so many of us find objectionable.

[Dave]

I liked IKWYDLS and I thought Scream and H20 were great.


Give how much I normally respect Rhett's opinion - and Karen too for that matter, since I know she likes Scream as well - I'm going to jump in here and plead temporary insanity for the both of them. The temporary insanity occurs whenever they are watching the films in question.

[maybrick]

Originally posted by Paff

An 80s equivalent might be if the slasher films of the day starred Michael J. Fox, Nancy McKeon etc. Those movies relied on no-name actors, because the makers of the films wanted to put people in the seats based on the film itself and not who was in it.


I agree with most of what you're saying with exception to the above quote. I believe the movies from the 80s relied on no-name actors because they couldn't afford anyone else. If most of these producers could afford a Michael J. Fox, I'm sure they would have jumped at the chance. You have to remember that most slasher films, even Friday the 13th, were considered quickies. They really didn't take artistry that much into consideration.

[zombi3]

Originally posted by maybrick
If most of these producers could afford a Michael J. Fox, I'm sure they would have jumped at the chance.

Well at least some of them were able to afford a Michael J. Pollard.:D

[betterdan]

I'm glad they couldn't afford them. How shitty would Friday the 13th or My Bloody Valentine be with Michael J Fox in it.:lol:
Oh and for the black loud mouth comic character they seem to always have in modern so called horror movies they could have gotten Gary Coleman to be in F13 and My Bloody Valentine. See? That's exactly what they are trying to do today. It's fuckin retarded.

[JW77]

A lot of the sentiments here nail it.

Today's horror flicks are too conservative. They suffer from a lack of nudity and gore. Horror is SUPPOSED to be, on some level, about sex and violence. Even the oldest horror films, most notably Lugosi's Dracula, had a strong sexual element. And IF horror stops pushing the envelope and gets regressive, the material suffers.

The problem with "TV actors" is that they are stuck into horror films as star vehicles. As far as I'm concerned, "Scream" began this trend. And I did enjoy Scream a lot -- it was a good film, but the sequels and all of the other crap it spawned is the problem.

Not only has the MPAA gotten conservative, the studios and actors have as well. There's now a big push for having EVERYTHING be PG-13, and, unfortunatley, actresses seem increasingly reluctant to shed their clothes.

The PG-13 issue is also a symptom of Hollywood's need to try to please everyone. Movies are so expensive to market and produce that they feel the need to appeal to EVERYONE. Do that, and end up pleasing nobody. As it is, most of the new horror films are bland and over-produced.

[WesReviews]

Not only has the MPAA gotten conservative, the studios and actors have as well.
Actually, as anyone who's seen Final Destination 2 can attest, the MPAA has gotten very, very liberal lately. Of course it comes at a time when horror films aren't at their strongest, so it kind of becomes pointless. But regardless, I think they are much more liberal now than they were years ago.

I don't think studios have gotten more conservative either. They might not make gore film after gore film, but almost always nowadays, when they do use gore, it's usually quite graphic (Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart) and usually more graphic than movies of yesteryear...due to better FX, but i digress.

Actors though, yes, they have gotten conservative. No nudity clauses are abuntant in Hollywood today. However, Freddy vs Jason has Katherine Isabelle nude, as well as a LOT of gore, reportedly. So it's possible it could bring the genre back to what it once was. We can hope.

[DrJOnes666]

Personally, I think the new Horror Films are missing important things:
- an R rating (or if possible, Unrated! Damn, Re-Animator DID pull it off!) PG13 just doesn't cut it.
- Gore
- Nudity
- (s)exploitation

Some things that they do have compared to a lot of older horror films:
- better production budget
- better visuals
- better actors (and surelly, better looking ones too- they just don't want to take off their clothes ;) !)
- some very nice editing

Somethings they use too much today:
- over light night scenes
- too much cgi
- too many internet stories (Damn Halloween for going that way!)
- too clean in general. Missing some dirt in there overall.


FINAL DESTINATION 2 is THE movie today that HOPEFULLY will restore some well deserved gore factor in the horror genre, but adapted with TODAY's new way of showing a horror story. Now, bring in some nudity, and it'll be cool. LOL. (hopefully FvJ will take care of that, according to WesReviews above...)


DrJOnes666

[mcchrist]

Nah! I think with Final Destination, they're just throwing us a bone. I doubt much more will come from it... Once in a while, assuredly, but the old ways are done for as far as studios/chains go.

[r_burgos2003]

I'm just sick of the covers to the movies with everyone standing around looking at the camera. I have a bunch of posters, It goes Boy/Girl/Boy/Girl/Main actor/actress....I hate it! Who else hates this?

[Grim]

Originally posted by r_burgos2003
I'm just sick of the covers to the movies with everyone standing around looking at the camera. I have a bunch of posters, It goes Boy/Girl/Boy/Girl/Main actor/actress....I hate it! Who else hates this?

Same here. i think I did a thread about it or something similar to that.