Somebody explain horror to me

[Altorin]

horror is cathartic. You experience fear in a safe environment. You get the adrenaline pumping and the fight or flight response without being in any real danger.

However, it's definitely not for everyone. It's like hot peppers. In fact, I'd say it's identical to the appeal of hot peppers. Both allow you to feel discomfort in safe environments to experience the body's built in reactions to discomfort, usually a shot of adrenaline and maybe some dopamine.

But both are certainly not for everyone. Some people hate being scared, or can't stand the pain of hot peppers enough to feel that relief that everything will be ok.

 

[Strain42]

snip

I disagree that "most" horror films fit into those stereotypes though. Even going with Western examples you have a variety of films that try to build an atmosphere as opposed to be random scare tactics that get parodied. The Strangers, Paranormal Activity, Insidious are a few recent examples of this. Sure, some do. I won't argue that point. But you seem to be basing your dislike of an entire genre based on the few cliché ideas that are often used. That's like disliking all FPSes because "most" are brown shooters.

As for the villain "winning" I still claim it's not always the case. Your examples of comedy horror films where everything ends up nice and back to normal doesn't counter that point. Pretty much ever slasher film ever ends with the villain dead. The basic story is normally "evil rises, kills many people, gets defeated". This is visible from the classics (The Exorcist, The Shining, Psycho etc) up to the more modern equivalents (Scream, Friday the 13th etc). Sure, in some instances the "villain" does win (The Strangers and a few others) but its hardly the normal ending.

As for the asian audience being bored of their own formulaic plot devices, well that's kind of irrelevant. I never said foreign films were inherently better, I just mentioned a few that came to my head. Extra Credits did a decent video on why eastern horror is scarier to a western audience, I was merely corroborating their assessment.

I never said I disliked horror simply because of those trends. I happen to dislike those trends, but like everything there are exceptions. I found it peculiar you used Friday the 13th as an example in your favor since Jason has been brought back more than almost any slasher, if not the primary example of this trend (even in the most recent film, they kill him but he stills shows up at the end) Keep in mind that when I say "the bad guy wins" I'm not simply saying that they kill the good guy.

If I can use a not so horrific horror film as an example here, The Little Shop of Horrors (the musical remake, not the original) There are two endings to this film. The original, which ended with the plant eating Audrey and Seymour and eventually multiplying and essentially taking over the world, even ended with the plant breaking through the movie screen and eating the audience. In the ending most people know because...well...it's the one in the movie, it actually does end with rainbows and sunshine. They kill the plant, Audrey and Seymour are together, they're in love, and they move into their new home together.

Then the screen pans to reveal a little version of the plant in the garden, the plant faces the camera and gives a little smile. Even though Seymour and Audrey defeated the plant and are together now, that one little thing at the end sends a message "This is not over." (even if it was) which is still technically counted as "the villain winning" And that's something a lot of horror films do. Take Freddy for example. How many of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies have ended with Freddy being killed, but then being shown to be alive at the end of the movie? I know at least three if you count Freddy vs. Jason. Even in really bad horror films like Drive Thru that's a pretty common thing for horror films to pull.

I'm not saying ALL horror films do that, I haven't claimed that once. You can name exceptions to some of the more common trends all day, and I can agree with them all day. It doesn't change the fact that they are, for the most part, in the minority of the genre.

It's no different than if someone were to say "I hate rom-coms because they usually have the two people end up together in the end" I could give a list of romantic comedy movies that end with breakups or other circumstances that involve the male and female lead not ending up together, but they're not the most common occurrences.

Also, I didn't say that you or anyone else inherently found Eastern horror films to be better, I was simply pointing out that while a lot of Western audiences love Eastern horror films for doing something different, a lot of that is because...well...it's different to them, while a lot of Eastern Audiences could be tired of similar trends they're used to seeing in their movies as well (I also saw that episode of Extra Credits)

 

[webby]

snip

Jason is brought back to life a lot but every single film still ends with him being beheaded or buried or at the bottom of the lake or frozen or, well, you get the idea. Sure, you know a sequel will probably be made eventually but is that still "winning"? At the end of the film he is no longer a threat, job done. Knowing a remake could well be made is not the same as the villain winning, and the ridiculous occurrences they have to formulate to bring him back to life each time is obscene and is one of the reasons people mock those films. Taken on their individual merits Jason is neutralised comprehensively at the end of each film. I feel that is an apt description of a villain "losing".

You use "Little Shop of Horrors" and describe an ending that wasn't even released and therefore has no bearing before stating that you class the plant as not being extinct as winning. Personally I'd still say the plant lost there but that's a simple matter of semantics so we will move past that. It also only makes sense that Freddy can't be killed, he's a dream at the end of the day. How do you kill a dream?

You act like I'm naming a select few films and ignoring the majority, that is not my intention. I'm saying that in the majority of movies, when taken on their own merits, the villain is neutralised and everyone (who survives) lives happily ever after. For every 1 film in which the villain is able to cause issues after the credits I can name a handful where they can't.

A comparison to rom-coms is ridiculous. Comparing the perhaps 40% trend of villains living to the 99% trend in rom-coms of the characters getting together is spurious.

I also never said that you implied that I thought Eastern horror was better or that you said all horror films perform these trends. I'm saying your belief that the majority of horror films ending with the villain still able to cause mischief is wrong and that using gore/startle tactics is an inherently American trend and basing your view on horror movies on this small cross section of society is inevitably going to lead to a skewed opinion on horror films.

This opinion is also not an accurate representation of all horror. I have seen horror films from many parts of the world and what you claim are events that occur in the majority of horror films are very rare in certain parts of the world and aren't even the majority in popular western horror movies.

 

[IndianaJonny]

Ambience; it's treated with more respect here than in any other genre. Hence why 'good' horror encapsulates the "show, don't tell" principle so well.

 

[Strain42]

For every 1 film in which the villain is able to cause issues after the credits I can name a handful where they can't.

And thus I feel like this is where our little back and forth will come to an end, because I could say the exact opposite of that and it would hold just as true. (The key difference being here that I'm mainly discussing big picture Hollywood releases while you seem to be focusing more on the entire genre, past and present, all over the world. Which I do give you kudos and acknowledgments for)

Yes, Jason dies in a lot of his movies, and yet almost all of the movies still end with him killing someone after that happens. It's not an uncommon occurrence. I understand that they mainly use it to set up a sequel, but it still doesn't change the movie that it happens in.

You used Paranormal Activity as one of your earlier examples, but do you remember how that film ended? I won't go into it because I don't know how to use spoiler tags, but that's hardly a "happily ever after" ending. Most of the surprise elements from that movie came simply out of not knowing what the film was going to pull off (MovieBob's Escape to the Movies on both PA1 and 2 cover this stuff pretty well)

I'm not even saying that all horror films SHOULD end with happy endings because we get enough happy endings from films in other genres. All I know is that right now, when I go to a horror film, I can usually guess the ending, and on the rare occasions where I don't guess right, I'm at least in the ball park.

In the end it really boils down to you and I having clearly different views on the subject, and it doesn't really do either of us much good to continue arguing the issue. Like you even said before, some of the stuff just comes down to semantics.

Edit Note: I hope this argument hasn't come across as me going "No, you're wrong" because I do acknowledge a lot of your points, and I am aware of a lot of movies that are exceptions to this rule, and none of what I've been saying here was my attempt to say that the horror genre is BAD. I was merely pointing out some common themes that I personally was tired of seeing. In fact right now Joss Whedon is working on a horror film called The Cabin in the Woods in which he promises to make a horror film with characters the audience will actually care about. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Therumancer]

I've never really been in to horror and I simply don't understand why anybody else is.
What is the entertainment factor in having the living shit scared out of you?

Yes, I have played Amnesia. I'm about 2-3 hours into it. However, I've been there for weeks and I don't really want to go back to it.
It's not a bad game, in fact, it's really good. It does what It's trying to do very well, It's just that what it does is not very appealing to me.
It's scary as fuck and last time I checked, humans don't like being afraid.

So, anyone here able to explain the appeal horror to me?

It's not something that can be explained easily. It's like asking why someone likes chocolate ice cream beyond all other flavors, when say you prefer vanilla beyond all others. You either "get" it, or you don't. It defies proper articulation despite attempts to do so.

That's incidently one of the problems with horror. Horror is by it's very nature a negative experience, so as a result very little REAL horror is produced for fans, because it freaks people out that don't appreciate the genere, and there is little way to really defend it for them. It's a sad state of affairs, yet one we need to deal with. Most things called horror are thus little more than shock/startle experience, or by nature ridiculous beyond belief to avoid upsetting anyone which defeats the purpose.

If I had to explain my own interest in it, I'd said that it largely comes down to it being an extension of science fiction and fantasy. I tend to like it when it's done well because of all the wierd stuff happening, oftentimes in a contemporary setting. What's more horror as a genere, if done right, isn't trying to pull it's punches, or merely be a thinly described catalyst for the story, because it is the story. "Ten guys go into a house and die horribly" doesn't make for a good sword and sorcery story for example, but it can be an interesting tale if told well and properly explained.

My big problem as a horror fan is that I'm also a romantic. As a result it's a rare occasion when I see a story, even horror, that doesn't have a happy ending. My personal litmus test is if someone can make a movie that is really scary and freaky, but also explain it (as opposed to being wierd for the sake of being wierd), and then wrap things up in a positive fashion, which also incidently deals with the logical problem of "if all of this happened, and everyone died because of these unspeakable occurances, how would we possibly know?" (though admittedly there have been clever ways of doing this, the "lost footage" gimmick being one of the most recent). I think it's possible to be horrifying without nessicarly leaving the entire experience on a negative or depressing note at the very end. Of course oddly enough some of my favorite works are ones with a "bad", or at least ambigious ending. I count John Carpenter's "Prince Of Darkness" and "In The Mouth Of Madness" both among my favorite works, although the first one ends ambigiously (is the guy having a nightmare, or did he actually accomplish nothing?), the second one well... it speaks for itself. Both dealt with some rather freaky concepts, and especially with "Prince Of Darkness" they were freaky because I actually wasn't expecting the movie I was seeing the very first time. At the same time however they also managed to remain very consistant within themselves and explained EXACTLY what was happening without falling into a "wierdness for the sake of wierdness" trap. If a movie can explain itself and still remain a horror scenario when you understand the threat, you have a winner.

 

[DustyDrB]

I have no clue. The very idea of something jumping out and scaring me in a game is enough to make me quit playing it for good.

 

[webby]

And thus I feel like this is where our little back and forth will come to an end, because I could say the exact opposite of that and it would hold just as true. (The key difference being here that I'm mainly discussing big picture Hollywood releases while you seem to be focusing more on the entire genre, past and present, all over the world. Which I do give you kudos and acknowledgments for)

Yes, Jason dies in a lot of his movies, and yet almost all of the movies still end with him killing someone after that happens. It's not an uncommon occurrence. I understand that they mainly use it to set up a sequel, but it still doesn't change the movie that it happens in.

You used Paranormal Activity as one of your earlier examples, but do you remember how that film ended? I won't go into it because I don't know how to use spoiler tags, but that's hardly a "happily ever after" ending. Most of the surprise elements from that movie came simply out of not knowing what the film was going to pull off (MovieBob's Escape to the Movies on both PA1 and 2 cover this stuff pretty well)

I'm not even saying that all horror films SHOULD end with happy endings because we get enough happy endings from films in other genres. All I know is that right now, when I go to a horror film, I can usually guess the ending, and on the rare occasions where I don't guess right, I'm at least in the ball park.

In the end it really boils down to you and I having clearly different views on the subject, and it doesn't really do either of us much good to continue arguing the issue. Like you even said before, some of the stuff just comes down to semantics.

Even big Hollywood releases I feel would still come out heavily in favour of "happily ever after" if viewed overall. However if what you've seen is mainly "See, we tricked you, that dude is totally still alive" then that's your perspective and I can see where you're coming from.

With the Jason thing I don't even mean him dying and then coming back to life to startle someone and kill a few more. I mean that in the last scene that shows him he is shown to be dead or trapped (supposedly) forever. In the 2nd film he is admittedly never killed, but in the 3rd hes killed with an axe, in the 4th its a machete, in the 6th and 7th hes stuck in the lake, the 8th hes melted by toxic waste, the 9th he's dragged into hell and in X he's kicked into space and falls through the atmosphere. There isn't really a hint that he's alive. After each of these points everyone who is still alive remains safe (although there are some hallucinations/dreams).

I'll be honest with you here, I can't actually remember which of the endings that I've currently seen is the "real" one for Paranormal Activity. Of the 3 though only 1 ends with the villain able to cause mischief, the others aren't happy but you'd hardly class it is a win.

Guessing the ending doesn't make a film bad though. Be it romance, action, horror or comedy, 9 times out of 10 the ending is obvious. You are right though, there are a variety of horror tropes that exist that make predictions easier.

A bit of back and forth with someone of a differing opinion is always entertaining though, if everyone always agreed where would be the fun in that? Although we really did get quite off topic here didn't we?

To try and correct that, horror games are played so that people who enjoy it can feel a sense of fear without actual danger. It's the same deal as rollercoasters and bungee jumping, it's not to everyones tastes but some people like death metal and that's not my cup of tea either.

 

[Strain42]

And thus I feel like this is where our little back and forth will come to an end, because I could say the exact opposite of that and it would hold just as true. (The key difference being here that I'm mainly discussing big picture Hollywood releases while you seem to be focusing more on the entire genre, past and present, all over the world. Which I do give you kudos and acknowledgments for)

Yes, Jason dies in a lot of his movies, and yet almost all of the movies still end with him killing someone after that happens. It's not an uncommon occurrence. I understand that they mainly use it to set up a sequel, but it still doesn't change the movie that it happens in.

You used Paranormal Activity as one of your earlier examples, but do you remember how that film ended? I won't go into it because I don't know how to use spoiler tags, but that's hardly a "happily ever after" ending. Most of the surprise elements from that movie came simply out of not knowing what the film was going to pull off (MovieBob's Escape to the Movies on both PA1 and 2 cover this stuff pretty well)

I'm not even saying that all horror films SHOULD end with happy endings because we get enough happy endings from films in other genres. All I know is that right now, when I go to a horror film, I can usually guess the ending, and on the rare occasions where I don't guess right, I'm at least in the ball park.

In the end it really boils down to you and I having clearly different views on the subject, and it doesn't really do either of us much good to continue arguing the issue. Like you even said before, some of the stuff just comes down to semantics.

Even big Hollywood releases I feel would still come out heavily in favour of "happily ever after" if viewed overall. However if what you've seen is mainly "See, we tricked you, that dude is totally still alive" then that's your perspective and I can see where you're coming from.

With the Jason thing I don't even mean him dying and then coming back to life to startle someone and kill a few more. I mean that in the last scene that shows him he is shown to be dead or trapped (supposedly) forever. In the 2nd film he is admittedly never killed, but in the 3rd hes killed with an axe, in the 4th its a machete, in the 6th and 7th hes stuck in the lake, the 8th hes melted by toxic waste, the 9th he's dragged into hell and in X he's kicked into space and falls through the atmosphere. There isn't really a hint that he's alive. After each of these points everyone who is still alive remains safe (although there are some hallucinations/dreams).

I'll be honest with you here, I can't actually remember which of the endings that I've currently seen is the "real" one for Paranormal Activity. Of the 3 though only 1 ends with the villain able to cause mischief, the others aren't happy but you'd hardly class it is a win.

Guessing the ending doesn't make a film bad though. Be it romance, action, horror or comedy, 9 times out of 10 the ending is obvious. You are right though, there are a variety of horror tropes that exist that make predictions easier.

A bit of back and forth with someone of a differing opinion is always entertaining though, if everyone always agreed where would be the fun in that? Although we really did get quite off topic here didn't we?

To try and correct that, horror games are played so that people who enjoy it can feel a sense of fear without actual danger. It's the same deal as rollercoasters and bungee jumping, it's not to everyones tastes but some people like death metal and that's not my cup of tea either.

Absolutely, this was a pretty fun back and forth, and I'm glad to see we were both able to keep it pretty civil and it seems like we do have a mutual agreement for certain aspects despite differing on some of the key stuff. And to my defense (although I suppose this would probably be lack there-of) I'm not exactly a horror connoisseur as it's not a genre I have a great interest in or put a lot of focus into, so I have to acknowledge I probably wasn't the best critic for this source material in the first place. Funny to think this whole thing started with my two cents about why I believe video game horror can be more thrilling than movie horror lol

Most of the horror films I like are ones that mix it with another genre, as was probably evident from most of the films I mentioned. Little Shop or Horrors, the Evil Dead series, and so on and so forth.

 

[Snake Plissken]

If a movie can explain itself and still remain a horror scenario when you understand the threat, you have a winner.

If this is your criteria, I think you'd have a ball with "Behind the Mask".

 

[tehweave]

I think the best thing I can say is: Adrenaline rush. Some people love the tension and suspense. (I DO) Those who don't... Don't.

 

[Wayneguard]

Atmosphere man. If there is anything artistic about games, it's in how a developer uses audio-visual elements to create a mood. In horror, that mood is one of tension and fear. Check out shalebridge cradle from Thief: Deadly Shadows to know exactly what I'm talking about.