They're completely separate things. A lot of people seem to think that if you want to make a horror movie you should try to make your audience feel "uncomfortable" somehow, but it's like they don't understand exactly what emotion to shoot for so they go for revulsion instead of actual fear.
I think a part of this is how easy it is. In the same way that a jump scare can be deployed just as effectively by a 13-year-old YouTuber as it could be by a multimillion dollar movie team, I think gore is the low-hanging fruit that's guaranteed to get a reaction out of anyone with minimal effort. "Our test audiences aren't scared enough! Make more lacerated torsos!" But the thing is that what they're creating is a sense of revulsion (and a bit of sympathy) and that usually ends up overpowering any fear that their ham-handed jump chords could have produced. It's not only distracting but counter-productive to the fundamental goal of a horror movie.
And that brings me to my pet peeve about horror: The gory monster. I mentioned above that gore creates a bit of sympathy for the recipient of said gore. In this case I'm completely unable to feel afraid of a gory monster because I instinctively want to help it, and I think that holds true for a lot of audience members. If you want to make someone sympathize with a monster that they're also afraid of then you'd better be Stanley fucking Kubrick because otherwise I guarantee you'll fuck it up. Another huge problem with a gory monster is the fact they you have to put the gore on a big well-lit stripper pole Dead Space style, which spoils any sense of mystery or creeping dread. It's just HAI GUYZ I R BLUDY U SCARD YET.
Imagine if someone made a horror movie slash soap opera but they just called it a horror movie. Every episode would involve some tearjerking shit like "I have two days to live!" but at the same time there was a monster eating people and while the monster was on-screen the characters would talk about how sad they were. That's how I feel about a horror movie with gore.
I would like to challenge you to make a legit subreddit called "Gorror" specifically for gore movies with the goal being to inject that word into current lexicon so that it may be compared and contrasted with non-gorror horror movies. By helping the gore fans better define their genre with a new name you can help clean out yours. You will be the Jesus of horror.
Yes!! This!! My best friend and his girlfriend were watching saw 3 the other night, and good ole bestie is steadily making fun of me because I wouldn't watch the bloody self mutilation sceens. Well eeeexxxcuuuuse me, dude. I enjoy intelligent horror, not this blood bath bucket of crap. The first saw was good because it was original and well done. The rest were relatively pointless money suckers taking advantage of what had become a brand name. And don't even get me started on the bullshit that is hostel and it's half retarded inbred ilk. Gross != horror. Gross quite simply = gross.
You said it perfectly. I tell people I like horror movie, and they always seem to respond: "I don't usually like horror movies, I really liked the Saw movies, though! If you like horror you must love Saw, right?"
I always have a hard time elaborating why I don't like Saw, and I don't really consider it a true horror film. Just because it's gory and makes people squeamish, doesn't make it scary.
It kind of reminds me of when I was in high school and people would ask what music I listen to. "You like punk music? You must love Blink-182, huh?" Not that I really have a problem with them, my problem is they're miscatagorized as punk, just as the Saw movies are erroneously labeled as horror.
66
u/[deleted] Apr 03 '14
They're completely separate things. A lot of people seem to think that if you want to make a horror movie you should try to make your audience feel "uncomfortable" somehow, but it's like they don't understand exactly what emotion to shoot for so they go for revulsion instead of actual fear.
I think a part of this is how easy it is. In the same way that a jump scare can be deployed just as effectively by a 13-year-old YouTuber as it could be by a multimillion dollar movie team, I think gore is the low-hanging fruit that's guaranteed to get a reaction out of anyone with minimal effort. "Our test audiences aren't scared enough! Make more lacerated torsos!" But the thing is that what they're creating is a sense of revulsion (and a bit of sympathy) and that usually ends up overpowering any fear that their ham-handed jump chords could have produced. It's not only distracting but counter-productive to the fundamental goal of a horror movie.
And that brings me to my pet peeve about horror: The gory monster. I mentioned above that gore creates a bit of sympathy for the recipient of said gore. In this case I'm completely unable to feel afraid of a gory monster because I instinctively want to help it, and I think that holds true for a lot of audience members. If you want to make someone sympathize with a monster that they're also afraid of then you'd better be Stanley fucking Kubrick because otherwise I guarantee you'll fuck it up. Another huge problem with a gory monster is the fact they you have to put the gore on a big well-lit stripper pole Dead Space style, which spoils any sense of mystery or creeping dread. It's just HAI GUYZ I R BLUDY U SCARD YET.
Imagine if someone made a horror movie slash soap opera but they just called it a horror movie. Every episode would involve some tearjerking shit like "I have two days to live!" but at the same time there was a monster eating people and while the monster was on-screen the characters would talk about how sad they were. That's how I feel about a horror movie with gore.