Just What Does a Horror Fan Want?

[old-boo-radley]

I gazed around the web, reading reviews of Renny Harlin's Exorcist: The Beginning. A positive review was rare to find, but I was excited to see the film, a few people I know raved about it pretty highly. I bought it tonight and popped the sucker in. I would be lying if I said I didn't love what I saw. The film is definately the most beautiful looking film I've ever seen, I really dug Renny's direction. I found the film to be interesting throughout and apart from a couple scenes that came off as a bit silly (but, hey, what movie doesn't have these?), and I began to think...

What the fuck do we, as horror fans want?

Horror aficionados are the first people to bitch about studio intervention on films, bitching about the way a studio handled a DVD release, etc... Warner opted to fire Paul Schrader and bring in Renny Harlin because the film didn't have enough blood and guts and scares. Of course, for some reason a lot of fans seemed to believe their intelligence was insulted when this announcement was made. Why does Warner believe we're a bunch of bumbling idiots?

Well... maybe they don't. We bitch when a movie is released in a cut form on DVD. A hell of an uproar was recently raised when a string of horror movies suddenly went PG-13 instead of R. If a movie is too talky, we bitch about that. Well, when Schrader was fired... people began bashing the studio for apparantly (from what I've ever heard, anyways) being talky and tame. Yeah, the same people who were outraged that their precious R rated movies were getting cut to PG-13 bash a movie for upping the ante.

Warner couldn't have thought we were sheep or unintelligent or they wouldn't have got the great cinematographer and director that they did to put the movie together. I truly hope Schrader's version is great. I will buy it when it comes out, but to bash the blood and guts of this film is like when the snooty critics say "I don't know why anyone would ever want to watch a popcorn flick." You could argue that you don't want Exorcist movies into the popcorn flick realm (although I don't believe it is in that realm to begin with). I know another movie that lacked blood and guts, and it was called, "The Exorcist 2: The Heretic." Sad thing is with the backlash against the film, I truly believe people will say the Schrader cut is better no matter if it is or it isn't, just to give the studio a "fuck you" out of spite.

I don't mean to be a smart-ass, I've been guilty of this just like everyone else, but given these factors... how can we fans honestly expect studios to figure us out?

-------------

Just to point out a thought on a couple sentences of Rhett's review of The Exorcist: The Beginning.

From the review:
"All of Reagan’s dirty cuss words have been recreated again in The Beginning, but they seem so much more forced and so much more empty. Compared to a quote like “shove your rotten cock up her juicy ass” from The Beginning, Reagan’s “Fuck me! Fuck me!” spiel in the original sounds surprisingly tasteful."

The original had a 12 year old girl masturbating with a crucifix while she said "Let Jesus fuck you, let Jesus fuck you. Let him fuck you." I don't think you can compare the two in vileness

[hellraiser40]

what does a horror fan want?

- gore and bloody murders, but not too much or the shock value goes out the window
- great acting and a good and original story with believable twists

i think, that like every film genre, great horror films play on the emotions of people. if people aren't emoted, the movie loses already much of the attention of the audience.

when i think about an example, i think Cronenberg's The Fly. It has a simple story, but with an original content. It has great acting, which make you feel for the characters and go along with them. It has great gore and grue. And, most importantly, it plays on the emotions of people. I always found the ending very sad, with a feeling of pity for, what is actually only a fake dummy, the 'monster'. How much I like horror films like 'My Bloody Valentine', 'Nightmare City' and others, they sometimes lack the emotional factor. Which of course doesn't mean that those cannot be enjoyed, which they surely do. But that extra step, that makes a 'good movie' into an 'exceptional movie' is most of the time missing.

[dwatts]

Hilarious post!

I don't mean that as an insult, by the way, I mean it truly made me cock my head to the side and go... "Hmmmmmmmmmmm." Brilliant stuff.

You see, we're in a trap. What do we want? Stuff like the stuff we like. However, we also demand originality. So it's got to be different - BUT THE SAME!

We yearn for classic days to be relived, for many people here that seems to be the 80's. However, i tends to be whatever you saw when you were growing up - so if you grew up in the 80's, you like those films. For me it was the 70's, which I prefer (if talking generically, I don't want to dismiss any good films here) over any other decade. I am aware though that I grew up going to the cinema during that time, watching a ton of horror on TV and tape.

Anyway, anything that recreates that 70's feel would work for me.

As far as "what do you want" goes, I'd say I would just like a few more unexpected moments, some surprises. I want say, a slasher without TOO many cliches. I want some intelligent dialog. I want some FX that don't look like they were created on the Xbox. I want to be surprised, taken off guard. I want horror treated as as primo cinema, great FILMAKING.

I have not seen the Exorcist movies yet, not seen the DVD for sale. I might, though I'm not too interested in the series to be honest. As I did recently for "Halloween Resurrection", it might be itneresting for you to write a positive review of this maligned movie and putting it in the "readers review" section.

And thanks again for an interesting post

EDIT: Just to illustrate the problem we have:

--when i think about an example, i think Cronenberg's The Fly. It has a simple story, but with an original content. It has great acting, which make you feel for the characters and go along with them. It has great gore and grue. And, most importantly, it plays on the emotions of people.--

See, I really don't rate The Fly at all, I reckon the original was way better. We're so hard to please

[old-boo-radley]

Originally Posted by dwatts

I have not seen the Exorcist movies yet, not seen the DVD for sale. I might, though I'm not too interested in the series to be honest. As I did recently for "Halloween Resurrection", it might be itneresting for you to write a positive review of this maligned movie and putting it in the "readers review" section.

Interestingly enough... I found Halloween Resurrection to be at least acceptable last time I watched my DVD! I hated it in the theatres. Webcam stuff hurt my brain. I may just have to do that sometimes in the wee hours of tomorrow morn when I get off work. Although, I am not sure I am trying to preach the word about how much I enjoyed the movie, I just am interested in trying to figure this mess of what people want out... because we can't decide obviously.

And... shit, they have Exorcist 1-3 box set at Wal-mart and they'll for damn sure have 4 there... treat yourself to a gift today and pick it up.

One beef I have with reviewers is when they bring up the "Father Merrin struggling with his faith" and how it was downplayed in Harlin's movie. In my opinion, the fact that he concerned himself with child who was killed because he wouldn't choose is a much more interesting of a concept and one that a helluva lot more people could try to identify with or at the very least feel more emotion to. People are so bitter today towards religion, a slow study of a man dealing with his faith would bore the people, in my opinion... for what it's worth.

I suppose it's worth 1/100 of a cent... just like all the McDonalds coupons.

As powerful as the relationship between Damien and his mom was in the original, I think the demon haunting Merrin about the small child is a much more ruthless act, and one that definately makes the audience closer to Merrin. Of course, Schrader's could have been full of this as well. But if Schrader dwelled on this stuff for the entire length of the feature, the pacing could grow as tedious as the first half of the original Exorcist.

Sure, no one brought that up, but I enjoy talking to myself.

[dwatts]

Nah, it's clear you've got a lot to say about these films... I want those reviews though to see what you've got. Don't be lazy. As for Resurrection.... you're soooooo wrong.... what the hell did you want from a "Halloween" franchise flick?!?!?!?

[Ash28M]

I really hated the Exorcist: The Beginning when i saw it in the theaters. It felt like i was watching the Mummy returns or some crap like that. What i want is a film with relentless horror that is not afraid to take risks , Or a film that gets me into an uneasy state and then goes for that primal feel. What i hate is jump scares that have no reason for being there. Don't insult me with crap like that. If your going to have a jump scare create it because it adds to the film not just to put it in there. An original story is a bonus but that's not really what i care about as longs as you introduce something i didn't expect, even in familiar concept. I want to get to know and care about the characters. I don't want CGI unless i can't tell it's CGI. I really don't care how good it looks ,it looks FAKE! I want suspense and i want to feel uncomfortable while watch the film.The best example of recent horror films that "got" it and for all different reasons are The Blair Witch Project that movie tapped into my primal fear like few films have. Haute Tension took a familiar concept but gave me relentless horror from start to Finnish and May i got to care about the main character and was taken by the hand and shown what it would be like to be her. I want the beggining of When a stranger Calls I want the Prom Scene in Carrie and the Door slamming shut in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I want to fell uncomfortable like Reagan stabbing herself self yelling obscenities in the Exorcist or feel like I'm in a nightmare like in Suspiria.I don't want to forget about the film a second after i saw it. What was Exorcist: The Beginning about again?

[soxfan666]

one thing i usually look for in a horro movie is the chance to be scared. I very rarelly am scared but at least present the chance. I liked the Dawn of the Dead remake because it was intense. To me thought of waking up in chaos and seeing the zombies that can attack in a flash was very effective. Exorcist the beginning was very slow and never presented any chance for genuine scares. I also didnt care about any characters. Movies are character driven (even horror movies) and if i dont care about anybody then i wont be able to care about the movie. But, there are many nights i just want to see a bunch of gore, kills and tits.

[Dave]

I too enjoyed this movie and will probably pick it up on DVD. It has faults, but it's a keeper for me. It's funny because I remember reading all the negative reviews on it. When I watched it, I kept waiting to NOT like what I was seeing, but it never happened.

[WesReviews]

I'll agree on Exorcist: The Beginning.

I think a lot of people were unfairly harsh on it because there was this supposed "better" version that the studio didn't want us to see. Many of the same people who criticize Harlin's movie here also claim The Ring Two is "boring". For ALL it's faults (and there are many) Ring Two was never boring to me. If that constitutes "boring", I'd really hate to be around if and when some of you see Schrader's cut. Because odds are, it's something like The Order (or maybe worse) or else, Warner Bros would have released it.

Do you honestly think Warner Bros. would sit on a slow, but atmospheric honestly "good" Exorcist movie if they had one? Hell, that right there describes the original Exorcist. Face it, folks...Schrader likely didn't deliver. Did we really need another movie like The Order? I'll stick GLADLY with the rockin' flick Harlin gave us.

- - -

As for the "What Does a Horror Fan Want" question in general...I think as in the case of ANY "fanboy" scenario, they never know what they want. Comic fans want their precious characters and favorite books turned into movies, but bitch when liberties are taken by the studios when one finally does get made. Horror fans are no different.

Nice little diversions from the teeny bopper norm like Wrong Turn are completely ignored while more "fanboy"-friendly films like Shaun of the Dead are heralded with trumpets.

The PERFECT early 80's slasher homage, Valentine, gets a bashing like nothing I have ever seen...yet it isn't condescending to the sub-genre like Scream was...and it actually has atmosphere and minor scares to offer, unlike Urban Legend or I Know What You Did Last Summer. So, why did the fans...even so-called slasher fans...turn their backs on Valentine?

Because it's not something they can feel "cool" for liking.

Shaun of the Dead? "Oh yeah, great flick!" Bubba Ho-Tep? "Ah, man that flick rocks!!!111" Those are, for whatever reason, deemed "the cool ones to like". I contend to this day, if Valentine had been released as-is back in 1981...people today would be looking back on it LOVING it. Tracking down used copies on Ebay, even. It is certainly NO different or worse than any of the slasher clones from the same period that we all embrace and love.

One thing Boo touched on is that I believe is that a lot of so-called horror fans are becoming exactly like the critics they claim to hate. Watch major critics bash something like Cabin Fever (which has become a "classic" for some reason...displaying how truly in trouble our genre may be if left up to the "fans") and the fanboys come out to tear down said critic. Meanwhile, the fans in question would likely have a House of 1000 Corpses poster on his/her wall. *Sigh*

Granted there ARE bad horror films released, and we shouldn't support "crap" just to support our genre, but c'mon people. Stop going for the "cool" and support the films that DO need your support.

[Ash28M]

I think part of the problem is that in the 70's and 80's they made R rated horror films for adults. Now every horror film that comes out by hollywood is made for a 13 year old girl because restricted films don't do as well.

[maybrick]

Originally Posted by WesReviews

The PERFECT early 80's slasher homage, Valentine, gets a bashing like nothing I have ever seen...yet it isn't condescending to the sub-genre like Scream was...and it actually has atmosphere and minor scares to offer, unlike Urban Legend or I Know What You Did Last Summer. So, why did the fans...even so-called slasher fans...turn their backs on Valentine?

Because it's not something they can feel "cool" for liking.

Nope. Not true. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I turned my back on VALENTINE because it's just-plain-BAD on every conceivable level !

It's cool if you like it though.

[Ash28M]

Originally Posted by maybrick

Nope. Not true. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I turned my back on VALENTINE because it's just-plain-BAD on every conceivable level !

It's cool if you like it though.

I thought it was bad even for a bad Scream clone.

[maybrick]

Originally Posted by Ash28M

I thought it was bad even for a bad Scream clone.

Exactly. It's the only movie I've ever watched that has seriously made me angry for wasting 90 minutes of my life, and I've watched a lot of crap over the years, too!

[WesReviews]

That's the thing though...just because it was greenlit after Scream doesn't mean that it is a "Scream clone". Its actual tone had very little in common with Scream. It did cast a TV star...okay, I'll give you that one.

But in no way did Valentine play down to the audience or make jokes at the sub-genre's expense. Instead, it chose (for better or worse) to play within the rules of an early 80's slasher. The mask, the music, the poster, the kills...all of which way more in line with the direction the sub-genre was going in the early 80's than what it took in the late 90's post-Scream (which is the route Urban Legend and I Know What You Did Last Summer took). And of course, if you don't dig the early 80's slashers in general, it's likely you won't appreciate what I see in Valentine. And that's fair.

I'm not saying it's the greatest horror film of all time, folks. It's not even in my top 10 of slashers. But truly, it ain't THAT bad. Leaps and bounds more satisfying than House of 1000 Corpses or Cabin Fever...two other films made by "fans".

[Ash28M]

Originally Posted by WesReviews

That's the thing though...just because it was greenlit after Scream doesn't mean that it is a "Scream clone". Its actual tone had very little in common with Scream. It did cast a TV star...okay, I'll give you that one.

But in no way did Valentine play down to the audience or make jokes at the sub-genre's expense. Instead, it chose (for better or worse) to play within the rules of an early 80's slasher. The mask, the music, the poster, the kills...all of which way more in line with the direction the sub-genre was going in the early 80's than what it took in the late 90's post-Scream (which is the route Urban Legend and I Know What You Did Last Summer took). And of course, if you don't dig the early 80's slashers in general, it's likely you won't appreciate what I see in Valentine. And that's fair.

I'm not saying it's the greatest horror film of all time, folks. It's not even in my top 10 of slashers. But truly, it ain't THAT bad. Leaps and bounds more satisfying than House of 1000 Corpses or Cabin Fever...two other films made by "fans".

Alright Alright maybe i'll give it another shot one of these days. Although i really enjoyed House of 1000 Corpses, not so much Cabin Fever though i'll give you that one.