digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at ew.com

Stephen King: Why Hollywood and Big Studios Can't Do Horror

ew.com — Looking back at the dozen films that truly scared me, is that most really good horror films are low-budget affairs with special effects cooked up in someone's basement. Horror is an intimate experience, something that occurs mostly within oneself, and when it works, the screams of a sold-out house are almost intrusive.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dha07030, on 07/05/2008, -6/+11We all know you need 100 million to make a good movie, geez

    /s
    • Shipyaad, on 07/06/2008, -0/+8I'll make a good movie for $5000. I mean $100m.
      • 1timeuser, on 07/06/2008, -3/+7Give me $100M and I'll make a good movie for $5000... and if you don't like it ***** you cause I'm rich.
    • sinurgy, on 07/06/2008, -4/+3I get ya but it doesn't hurt to pay for a decent actor or actress here and there. The Others with Nicole Kidman was one of the scarier movies I've seen in 10 years and I thought she did a brilliant job. Though even with her salary I imagine it was a very cheap movie to make so point still taken.
      "What do you mean, I am your daughter?" (still gives me chills)
    • dsmx, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4Things that are scary are not on the screen for most of the movie, the fear of the unknown is scarier than seeing what it is that is scaring them. It's why low budget horro films are scary because they can't afford to put the thing that is scaring them on screen for more than a few minute so they rely on atmosphere, lighting, noises stuff like that to create a feeling of terror in the film not special effects as hollywood would use.
    • Uiaccsk, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1best sarcastic comment all day. dugg up.
  • danharlow, on 07/05/2008, -27/+11Hey King, here is your next book title : 'The Hand That Bites My Employer'

    Mr. King, you would not be nearly as well off if studios had not paid you those handsome royalties for their next big budget features of your books. You would still be making a living just writing books, teaching English and settling for bleacher seats at Fenway Park for your once a year pre-season game.

    Also, I'm sick of you hating on Kubrick's "The Shining'. Yeah, I know you didn't mention that film (or it's crappy remake) in this article but still, you need to get over it and come to grips with the fact his movie was better than your book. I mean, come on, he didn't exactly have billions of dollars laying around to adapt your tired old novel about a drunk who beats his wife and blames it on the booze - he did it on the cheap just like Romero would have.

    Still, I do agree that small budget horror films are superior to big budget affairs so we're cool on that part. :)
    • Ricky81682, on 07/06/2008, -1/+18Wow, bitter, table of one. I'm pretty sure King has made plenty of money regardless of the ones made into movies. He does have a talent.
      • danharlow, on 07/06/2008, -12/+7Kubrick > King
        I suppose the truth is bitter.
      • 1timeuser, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2I suppose danharlow is bitter and opinionated.
    • mtrip, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4If King had never made any of those movies he'd still probably have 9-10 figures in the bank. You have no idea how well those books have done...he doesn't need hollywood, hollywood comes to him.
    • DaHuuuuuudge, on 07/06/2008, -0/+6The expression is "Do not bite the hand that feeds you."

      What the hell does "the hand that bites my employer" mean? Hands do not bite.
    • Niightwitch, on 07/06/2008, -2/+4Don't you dare badmouth Stephen King - he's written some of the scariest stuff I've ever read and I'm very picky when it comes to horror. "Salem's Lot" still scares me, no matter how many times I read it. Those publishing houses ought to be glad they had a writer of his caliber.
      • BloodyPath, on 07/06/2008, -2/+1then you need to read more variety and less "NYT Bestsellers"

        the public will always choose the banal over the truly frightening.

        congratulations on showing us which set you belong to.
    • ohmahgawd, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2I at least agree with you on "The Shining". Kubrick's movie outdid King, and I just feel that's why he's been resenting it so much. Ever see King's mini series, also called "The Shining"? To me that felt like vomit in the back of your throat, it wasn't bad enough to end up in the toilet, but it was pretty ***** close.

      But I don't agree on your assessment that King would not have been well off if the big studios weren't helping him along with adaptations, etc. He was doing well without them, and would still be considered the king of horror. So really he has all the right here to complain about how terrible hollywood does horror these days--which I totally agree with.
  • conradsalvador, on 07/05/2008, -0/+46I agree with Mr. King.
    You don't need a ton of money to make a great horror film.

    Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Night of the Living Dead were all shot on a small budget and each and everyone of these entries are considered Horror classics. They all scared the crap out of me with their originality and vision.

    All of these films have been modernized with remakes that are just complete garbage. These original films made me go to sleep with the lights on. The remakes and sequels had me waiting for the lights to go up at the movie theatre.
    • norman619, on 07/06/2008, -15/+1This from an over rated horror writer.
    • wylddog, on 07/06/2008, -0/+11are you sure you dont get scared anymore because your older and wiser?
    • decyx, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5Actually, most Hollywood horror movies ARE made on a small budget; $30M or less is considered cheap in Tinseltown, especially when you consider the potential return on investment from ticket sales, DVD purchases, and future TV releases.

      The fact that horror pictures are cheap to produce, have a built in audience and don't need a huge star to draw attention is part of the reason there's so much crap in the genre; it's a double edged sword. On one end of the spectrum, we have low budget gems like the already mentioned Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Night of the Living Dead while on the other, we have pretty much everything that's been adapted from Asian cinema by Vertigo Entertainment (The Grudge, The Eye, Shutter).

      Stephen's heart is in the right place and I deeply share his sentiment regarding the lack of good contemporary horror flicks, but the man knows twiddly ***** about film making. A smaller budget =/= quality. By that logic, the Sci-Fi channel would be rolling in Emmy Awards by now.

      "most really good horror films are low-budget affairs with special effects cooked up in someone's basement or garage."

      I wholly disagree with this. Did he watch The Boogeyman? That was one of the worst looking creatures ever concocted and it did nothing to enhance the film (I sincerely regret watching that piece of ***** btw if anyone's curious). Good horror films rely on the audience's imagination to fill in the blanks. Jaws, for example, didn't even show the entire shark until the last third of the film.
      • hamdogger, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2@decyx

        Sorry for being stupid, but what do you mean by "...horror pictures...have a built in audience..."?

        I'm not trying to insult you. It's just very late here, and I can't figure it out.
      • angelrendon, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2@hamdogger

        I think he means the audience sitting in a theatre for a horror movie self selects itself to a certain degree.
      • decyx, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2@hamdogger

        Have you ever heard the phrase, "If you build it, they will come"? Well, that's how it works with horror films. To give an example of a franchise with a built in audience, I'll use "Star Wars." If, say, George Lucas happened to put out another sequel tomorrow, people would go out to see it, rain or shine. The horror genre is the same in many respects. There are plenty of people out there who would pay $10 to watch a ***** ghost flick. Hollywood producers know this so they exploit it.
    • CiXeL, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2hollywood is starting to learn somewhat such as with i am legend
      you could see the plot line as a very realistic scenario
      and they utilized your imagination to imply things such as when his wife and daughter are taking off in a helicopter and you see the other helicopter spinning out of control towards them.
      if you could load a movie chock full of those 'implied' scenes youd have a winner.
      • sneakeykop, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1

        ^^ Agreed...the suspesion of reality has to be realistic in order to scare the shiat outta of you..IMO
    • ATLien74, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Normally I don't like remakes, but I liked the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, especially the prequel Texas Chainsaw Massacre the Beginning. R. Lee Ermy was an awesome crazy ass Sheriff.
  • Shiftgood, on 07/05/2008, -2/+39Korea can do horror. has anyone seen "A tale of 2 sisters"? Im 26 and i was doing the thing where i cover my face with my hands and watch thru the cracks in my fingers.
    • dha07030, on 07/05/2008, -1/+10That made me crack the ***** up!
    • gl77, on 07/06/2008, -1/+27"A Tale of 2 Sisters sounds like a nice low-budget korean porn flick to me.....
      • estacado, on 07/06/2008, -1/+16Being a porn aficionado, K-porn is better than J-porn, especially soft porn. Koreans know how to inject sensuality into their porn. The Japs... well the Japs are the Japs.
    • renemartini, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Ohh that movie was good, I see that Korean and Japan are coming out with good horror films and Korean with better soap operas (coming from a Hispanic who knows a lot about Spanish Soaps)
    • jgtg32a, on 07/06/2008, -6/+2***** the Koreans, I just can't do their *****.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2I've got it on DVD, thank you very much.
  • Dumbledorito, on 07/05/2008, -6/+45King skips over one key element that made a lot of his movies bad: The director has to make you care about the victims or there's even less of a reason to care about their ultimate demise.

    This is especially needed when the monster, taken by itself, is ludicrous. However, if we know Dan and Betty well enough to know that Dan now has something to live for because Betty is carrying his child, and Betty has secretly been in love with Dan and is willing to leave her husband, Bruno, for him, then we don't care that what's about to eat them is a guy in a paper-mache and rubber outfit.

    When the movie makes the monster the star, it's either science fiction or gore-porn, not horror.
    • rukeypoo, on 07/06/2008, -0/+30No. That pisses me off when the writer just sticks a pregnancy in there just to make the audience 'care'. Its a quick replacement for REAL character development/dynamic.
      • tenspeedogbb, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Granted, but it's still better than when the writer disregards any form of a plot and just has a series of increasingly more violent killings. I don't understand how anyone can watch that, but that's what the majority of big-budget horror movies are.
      • Lukesed, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Take a look at rlslog, that is what the log-budget horror movies are now too. Endless torture scenes.
      • jgtg32a, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1it is annoying when they add some small bs about a character that has no real bearing on the plot and is suppose to make us care.

        Case in point PTSD, a terrible thing, but hey give it to the guy in the movie "Hey he has 3 dimensions now not 2, 3 is better than 2 right?" see Rambo, and Snake
    • tweaq, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5So dumbledoritor, what happens to Dan and Betty? What about poor Bruno (even though he sounds like a douche). Does Dan know that Betty loves him? Does he know that she is pregnant with his child? WE NEED ANSWERS MAN!
      • CiXeL, on 07/06/2008, -2/+1yes and how does the black midget with the eyepatch juggling apples work into this?
  • YodaJones, on 07/05/2008, -3/+18Stephen hits the nail square on the head.
    • punkcat, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3the thing that tainted his review was the slight praise for The Happening.

      the movie deserves only ridicule, and i want my $11.50 back.

  • cheezintern, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3Good article...I think a really good horror flick comes down to a good quality crew making it. Money and special affects really don't do much, which is all large studios have to offer.
  • acegi, on 07/06/2008, -7/+1holywood can't do horror because they always cut to the next scene when someone's head's about to be chopped, to the man's face in pain when his arm's sliced open, and infant casualties are only referred to in dialogues
  • AlexanderZero, on 07/06/2008, -10/+5I consider Signs to be the scariest movie I've seen so far (and I don't really go out of my way to watch horror, especially since I don't have anyone who will watch it with me. Maybe this isn't the best choice, but it is my choice). A lot of people came out of that movie complaining about how not scary it was, and it's because they're just too snobby to let themselves get into the movie. Signs was absolutely terrifying because the first half of the movie was spent developing these incredibly round characters and slowly building up this unthinkable idea: that earth was being invaded. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time I watched that movie because the aliens were completely unknown, and there was nothing to say what they might be capable of. Because of that, the imagination runs wild.
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 07/06/2008, -1/+9If you thought Signs was scary...you've never seen true horror. I'm not trying to be a prick, or make fun of you, it's just fact.

      But then again, if you though Signs was scary, maybe you should stay away from the Horror genre entirely.
      • Pinkshisno, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1I'm also not a fan of horror so I do get scared easily. I don't want to watch any Korean horror movie again.
      • Niightwitch, on 07/06/2008, -2/+1I agree about "Signs", but "Sixth Sense" was one of the scariest movies I've ever seen... a great piece of horror.
      • melat0nin, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Ever heard the saying, 'to each his own'?
    • estacado, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Scariest movie for me was The Blair Witch Project. I didn't know it was make-believe when watched it. I thought it was all real. Only later that I find out it was a mockumentary.
  • Owwmykneecap, on 07/06/2008, -1/+18Because of great European and especially Asian cinema, that's less reliant on the tired BOO! formulae hollywood pump out

    and Videogames.

    Silent hill, Fatal Frame, Clock Tower and the earlier Resident Evil games scare me more than any movie could, because I am a part of., I am in danger...

    Its the one Genre videogames have undoubtedly passed film in.
    Next up, romance...
    • lostformat1125, on 07/06/2008, -0/+8Silent Hill 2...scariest game ever
    • leuksho, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4Still think that Silent Hill 3 stands out the most. But now the series is stagnating. The fact that Team Silent is not working on Homecoming - well, I don't know what to say, it looks kind of bad.
    • jgtg32a, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3STALKER is up there too
    • Fixhotep, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3My vote is for Condemned. Awesome game. My wife couldn't even watch me play it.
      • ortucis, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Agreed. Condemned (Played it on PC) has excellent FPS 'melee' combat. The scary atmosphere and kickass AI that actually 'hunts' you works really well.
    • gryphon50, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1why are horror video games so much scarier than horror movies? I think it's because YOU have to take part in the action. You can't just hide behind your hands and or take a trip out of the room as you would during a movie. I tried to play Fatal Frame: Crimson Butterfly and I could barely make myself move from room to room.
  • diggit23, on 07/06/2008, -8/+1Has the show Entourage not taught us anything? High budget movies are investments, therefore money always comes first. Hollywood is a business and everyone wants as much as they can get. It's the way it always has been and always will be.
  • Skywise, on 07/06/2008, -14/+2"I'm going to scare the hell out of you" - Stephen King in an advertisement campaign for his movie Maximum Overdrive.

    Hey Mr. King... have a nice cup of STFU!
    • kuppoppo, on 07/06/2008, -0/+7What's your deal man? Could you ***** chill please? He's writing about scary movies. Live a little. Have some fun. Unwind. Etc.
    • Failchan, on 07/06/2008, -0/+6He had a hard drug problem at the time of filming. He doesn't even remember writing Cujo. What do you expect?
  • mooseontheloose, on 07/06/2008, -11/+2ummm has he seen saw? or hostel?
    • Lukesed, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3Those kinds of movies actually scare you? Sure, the idea of that sort of torture being inflicted on the viewer is disturbing but it does nothing like the suspense and payoff of a real horror movie.
  • jjones20, on 07/06/2008, -11/+5All of the movies I've seen with his name on them have been terrible.
    • ScottMitchell, on 07/06/2008, -0/+9Perhaps you've not seen Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, or Apt Pupil. All top notch movies. Those three stories actually come from the same collection of novellas (Different Seasons) and are definitely worth reading first and then watching.

      King is an expert storyteller. His books aren't the most thought provoking or culturally significant, but, damn, that guy is one helluva storyteller.
      • flip2trip, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Shawshank is definitely one of his best movies. I particularly enjoyed The Green Mile as well.
      • gryphon50, on 07/06/2008, -0/+0those are good movies but they're not horror movies....The horror movies made from his books still leave a lot to be desired.
      • ScottMitchell, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Gryphon50, how about The Shining? An excellent movie directed by the masterful Stanley Kubrick.
    • Niightwitch, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3I disagree, but oddly enough, the movies I've enjoyed the most of his were ones that weren't horror movies like "Stand By Me" and "Delores Claiborne".
  • etnin, on 07/06/2008, -0/+8Yeah, the Langoliers really scared the crap out of me. Way better than X-Files.
    • santaliqueur, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4We have to get away from that horrible cereal noise.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2The Langoliers was a joke, if we're talking about films. One of the worst movies I've ever watched.

      I hear the story was good, though.
    • spawnfree, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Langoliers, like the ending of 'IT', could only be pulled off with a NASA scale budget

  • Narthex81, on 07/06/2008, -2/+14As a fan of Mr. King I usually agree with him when it comes to his opinions on what makes for a great horror movie. However, the man needs to listen to his own advice and stop having that hack writer/director/producer Mick Garris turn his ingenious books into Made-For-TV schlock. The only good movies based on King's work have been created by major Hollywood companies for the big screen i.e. The Shining, Stand by Me, Shawshank Redemption, Misery and The Dead Zone. Yes, Hollywood has fumbled with some of his material (Dreamcatcher, Hearts in Atlantis, Pet Semetary) but I would still rather watch those films than sit through Desperation, The Stand, Sleepwalkers or any other Made-For-TV King title again (especially The Shining remake). Oh, and for those that care, Garris is currently butchering both Bag of Bones and From a Buick 8 as we speak (Tobe Hooper is directing Buick 8 so hopefully it won't be complete rubbish).
    • Fixhotep, on 07/06/2008, -1/+0I was disappointed with Desperation. Maybe it was Ron Perlman that made my anticipate it too much. But I did like The Stand.
    • random19, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I agree Narthex81, the entire time I was reading the article I was thinking "Who the ***** does Stephen King think he is trying to tell us how to fix the horror film industry?"

      The Green Mile, Shawshank Redemption, Misery, The Shining and maybe Carrie are his only real contributirns to film. Aside from that I'd say he's contributing to exactly what he's speaking out against.

      And this is coming from a fan of his books (the Tower series anyway, and The Stand).
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/06/2008, -10/+2King knows how to write horror -- the same horror story, over and over again. Actually, I'm being cruel, it is really the same *four* horror stories, over and over again, with about 200 pages of build up then 100 pages rushing to the end when he realises he's going a bit too long.

    As for King's movies, the ones he directs? Anyone seen any of 'em? They suck.
    • spawnfree, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1maximum overdrive was fun. but yeah, not scary. Mabey the lawnmower.
  • kuppoppo, on 07/06/2008, -6/+10Now I know we're all sucking Stephen King's dick already in the comments here, but I do have to say, he writes a good article.

    :-)
    • HorseloverFat8, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3Stephen King is a legend. I'm entitled to suck his dick!
      • sneakeykop, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1

        Stephen King was once a legend....he makes complete ***** now...lets be honest
  • MaliciousKitty, on 07/06/2008, -1/+6"(and the poor misunderstood thing probably needs a juicy Earth woman to make sexy with)"
    Everything is so clear now.
  • bjs3171, on 07/06/2008, -0/+28i agree with most of the article. but i don't think the x-files show was ever supposed to be a "HORROR" show. Not in the sense that they wanted you to scream. It was more like creepy sci-fi. They used horror film elements, but the stories were really more about the mystery.
  • Arcae, on 07/06/2008, -0/+14He makes a lot of really good points. I do believe that most scary movies are low budget. The only thing I really disagree with is the fact that he even hints at their being a redeeming quality about "The Happening." The only redeeming quality of that movie was that it ended. Don't mistake that for "the ending," because the ending was terrible. Just the fact that it stopped at some point.
  • albi123, on 07/06/2008, -1/+23Very true, 28 Days Later was awesome, and the second one wasn't nearly as good after being hollywoodized.
    • HorseloverFat8, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I still like 28 Weeks Later, but it definitely wasn't as good. That is, however, the way of most sequels, and wasn't necessarily because of Hollywoodisation.
      • Fixhotep, on 07/06/2008, -0/+228 Weeks Later wasn't as good as the first; they never are. But is sure was a damn good horror sequel. Not to mention John Murphy is amazing. I'll watch any movie he scores.
      • random19, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah te score for Weeks was great. And the first 10 minutes were i-n-t-e-n-s-e.
  • norman619, on 07/06/2008, -8/+6FTA: "The Happening was better than I expected, but it wasn't as scary as The Strangers."

    Oh god that movie stank to high heaven. Most of the people in the theater laughed in the spots they were supposed to be scared. The characters did the same lame basic horror movie mistakes and the killers seem to have gone to ninja school. The fact the King seems to have liked it to some degree is proof he's not qualified to speak on the subject of horror movies. He needs to stick to his horror novels which tend to be full of pointless cursing and are way too verbose.
    • jgtg32a, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5Hey, I'll give king the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to assume that he knew it was going to be a *****-show, and it was just slightly less ***** so he was impressed.
  • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -7/+11King was an excellent writer of short stories. Expanding each of them to 800 pages (yes, he gets paid by the word, so do the math) killed whatever respect I had for him in the early days.

    PAD PAD PAD PAD PAD....continue this for 8 pages and you'll get the idea...PAD PAD PAD PAD PAD

    PS ALIEN is a scarier and better made movie than anything being mentioned above.
    • Yukos, on 07/06/2008, -5/+5Exactly, I agree with you completely. He has become nothing more than a lame-joke
    • ScottMitchell, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2I'll agree that some of his stories were seriously padded. The Dark Tower series was about 1,500 pages too long. But some of his longer stories seemed, to me, to end too quickly. The one that comes most immediately to mind is The Stand.

      I'm not a big fan of his short stories (25 pages or less), but he writes a mean novella. His Bachman books and novellas are some great reads.
      • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Yes, if I could edit my post to say "short stories and novellas", I would. Good point.
    • 1timeuser, on 07/06/2008, -3/+1ALIEN is the best movie ever made other than Conan The Barbarian.
    • Niightwitch, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Alien is one of the best horror movies I've ever seen...after seeing it a dozen times over the years I can still pick up little things I've missed in it.

      I disagree about him padding his books (at least the ones I really like, "IT", "The Stand", "Salem's Lot")....those books didn't have an ounce of padding, and they could have gone on another 200 pages each and you wouldn't hear me complain.
    • HorseloverFat8, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3I've got to disagree with you there -- his longer books are quite often his best. Tell me which one of his short stories beats The Stand?
      • Fixhotep, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Jerusalem's Lot was better than The Stand. But I'm biased as I love Lovecraft.
      • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1"The Body" (aka the source for the movie STAND BY ME).

        QED.
    • Fixhotep, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Alien and Aliens get all the attention, and deservedly so. But people really need to try the Alien 3 special edition. They changed like 30% of the movie for the better. It really is a great movie well deserving of the franchise and it's sad that most people haven't seen the SE yet.
  • Yukos, on 07/06/2008, -9/+3If Stephen King hates how the movie industry works, then why does he continue to sell his work to third-rate producers? Besides, his writing is juvenile at best, it is impossible to make a good movie if the story is written for 10-year-old boys.
    • 1timeuser, on 07/06/2008, -1/+4How about I'll enjoy reading his books, and you quit beind a dick cheese. I know it's hard for some of you diggers, but you can at least attempt to state your opinions without making yourself sound like complete assholes.
    • supermanred, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Good thing he sold the rights to the Dark Tower series to JJ Abrams for 19 dollars, eh?
      • HorseloverFat8, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1That is bound to be awesome. :D
  • Falldog, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4Try explaining this to the studio executives who are letting Michael Bay redo The Birds, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Friday the 13th.
  • supermanred, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3Hollywood has no clue how to do horror. I remember being scared ***** by Doctor Who (BBC) when I was a kid... and that show left the "horror" part mostly to the imagination... no gore, but you knew the bad things were happening off screen, and nothing is more terrifying than that which you imagine up yourself...
  • kaskoosek, on 07/06/2008, -1/+6Evil Dead is the best horror movie I have ever watched when I was young. It haunted for 10 years after watching it.

    Have recently watched it again, it has aged a bit.
  • 1timeuser, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I am terrified of what they might do to the Dark Tower Series... They can have the last book... but god I hope they don't completely ***** up that series with there over budget ***** movies.
  • BlGBOSS, on 07/06/2008, -7/+2It's too bad the horror genre blows in general.

    You just watch a bunch of limp-dick pussies whining for a few hours, mixed in with some gore scenes and random ***** popping out of nowhere.

    Though horror movies with a protagonist that knows how to kick some ass are pretty good (Army of Darkness.)
  • EssexTrain, on 07/06/2008, -0/+15I agree over all, but X-Files has almost never been horror to me, mostly sci-fi and maybe thriller
    • TheBaronRides, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3So glad someone said this, I'm a pretty big X-files fan and feel the same way.
    • themightyhlp, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3I'm with both of you on this one
    • sneakeykop, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Xfiles = horror?

      pure blasphemy
  • StanleyKoolPrik, on 07/06/2008, -7/+2Was this piece written as part of an eighth grade media report?
    • HorseloverFat8, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3Are you intentionally being an obnoxious moron?
  • xjohnmcclanex, on 07/06/2008, -6/+4buried cause The Strangers was good for the first 35 minutes of "bad guys" magically disappearing, while wide eyed Liv Tyler jerked her head around, looking for where she heard that twig snap.... and The Happening was the worst pile of ***** anyone's ever filmed in the history of moving pictures. in fact i'd rather watch 90 minutes of steaming ***** rather than ever subject my eyes to the worst film in ***** history again.

    both movies, had no *****.
    totally titless.

    i'm just sayin....
  • xjohnmcclanex, on 07/06/2008, -0/+14remember The Descent? that movie ruled.
  • M724, on 07/06/2008, -2/+1The King has spoken.
  • Rorsach, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I'm still hoping they'll do the right thing with Paranormal Activity.

    Idle hope, i know.
  • magusat999, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2He forgot to mention The Excorcist and Beyond the Door - I know he cant mention everything, but The Excorcist was the big bad back in the day, trumping all the "classics" he mentioned as horror supreme. There were a lot of children who couldn't go to sleep without a night light for a good 5 year span after that came out. There is nothing like that now - and I think Stephen is being very kind when he speaks about The Happening. I saw it and it wasn't scary at all - probably because it was based on something so ludicrous as to be too unbelievable to feel fear about.

    Another problem with modern day so-called "horror" films - they are too short. 1 1/2 hours is not enough to pack in all of the events and elements necessary to engross an audience in a story, much less horror. The movies are often slow building, but quick to end just as the story opens up. They tend to all feel the same, due to the boilerplate pacing. I often find myself muttering what is going to happen next in movies that just came out. maybe these studios need to pay more for good storytelling instead of concentrating so much on special effects. It's all getting very boresome.
  • lpse2000, on 07/06/2008, -6/+1King is overhyped. The crap that comes from him is stuff like The Mist. Probably the dumbest movie of the decade.
    • AUniquePerson, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Actually I liked that movie. It gave me the chills in a couple of places... no other horror movie has done that for me except Blair Witch.
  • t4m5t3r, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2i think the problem now is that EVERYTHING is done for profit (theres is till some rays of hope out there though), about 8 years ago, when making a movie, game or album the artist, director or whatever would be looking to "push the envelope" or create something new and exciting. Before the orgy of greed started, now NOTHING gets made unless the "suits" think theres money to be made.

    Thats why they edited die hard so they could sell it to kids, done the same with hitman, and every otehr movie out, they even paid to have the movie ratings change, remember the first harry potter movie it got a 15 rating, and as they where looking to sell it to kids, they simply changed the ratings. And now most if not all movies are simpley PG or whatever it is now, then whan a movie is getting made the suits want to add something to hook other demographics, thats why the first hulk movie sucked ass, its also why most movies suck ass.

    And again for the sake of profi everything has to be "safe", they wont even risk loosing money, thats why most movies if not every movie follow the same formula, especialy horror movies (with the exception of the one ripped of from japan) big titted girl in tight white t-shirt gets chased through forrest/ school/ abandoned hospital, factory, ect, ect, and thats me just described about 75% of horror movies right there!!

    this is a new thing though as you can see with older movies, yes some of them sucked, but some of them where awsome, now their all the same in one way or another, movies used to be an art form, now its just a way to make obscene amounts of money! (am i the only person who never wants to see another f*cking super hero movie, with the exception of dark night of course!)
    • TheBuz, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1While I agree with you that everything is done for profit, this isn't a recent occurrence. After Frankenstein came out, and made alot of money (back then it was alot anyway), they went on to make all the classic Universal monster movies. Then came the 50's giant monster movie craze, where every studio was hopping on that band wagon. In the 80's slasher films and House Party movies were coming out every weekend, all to cash in on the craze. And in the 90's to even today, everybody is milking the popularity of the SCREAM movies.

      There will always be trends and ***** that studios will want to follow in order to make some cash, but in between all that ***** there are some truly amazing films to be had. In the 80's in between all those ***** slashers, we got ***** Evil Dead, THE THING, BLADE RUNNER, and so on and so forth.

      So there's good stuff coming out between the cracks, you just gotta know where to look.
  • ZenMojo, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2It all boils down to this. Horror is a slow snare drum beat in military time gradually increasing in tempo. Hollywood's all about the brass section and the ***** strings. They just don't know when enough is enough.

    Now, to make up for the fact that they're catering to a kindler, gentler female teenybopper set that is easily spooked they have PG-13'd the hell out of the genre to the point that it doesn't matter one damn bit what scares normal folks. It's all just honey-glazed, neon-lit, cheap shock chords with sprinkles. The reason low budget works is because low budget feels closer to home, harder, grittier, realer. Low budget filmmakers simply work harder and the brilliant ones work harder on the script because ink on paper doesn't cost *****.
  • 808ethan, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Because big budget = big returns = even little girls and old baptist grandma's have to like it = it aint god damn scary anymore because all the good ***** ***** got censored out of it.

    ...Penis.
  • TheBuz, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1If you like small low budget Horror films that scare the ***** out of you, check out this little flick PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. I don't know when it's coming out, but it is the single scariest movie I've ever seen. And I'm jaded as all hell, nothing scares me anymore.
    • Rorsach, on 07/06/2008, -0/+0Check up on the back-story. The original Paranormal Activity isn't coming to the big screen, perhaps it's coming to dvd sometine in 2009-2010. It's been acquired by Dreamworks who want to do a remake. :(
      • TheBuz, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Oh I know. The guy who directed basically leaped frogged the entire system and is getting to do his movie again, just for the big screen and a bigger budget. But the original should be coming to dvd sometime next year.
  • spawnfree, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3you all need to see REC.
    it will bore you in places but the last fifteen minutes or so are worth the wait
    dont look for the american remake trailer because it actually spoils the ending (idiots)
    • bundwallah, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I second that. REC was awesome. Rent it, download it, whatever, just see it!! Skip the upcoming remake, the trailer does ruin it all.
  • Rudegar, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2japan makes some good ones too
    seen the ring and dark waters the org japanese versions they are a lot! better then the remakes
  • gryphon50, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1For some reason Japanese horror movies seem so much scarier than Western ones...A good example of the latter though would be "The Others," I'm not sure everyone saw it but it was really well made.
    • MattBD, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I love Japanese horror. Ringu was far scarier than any Hollywood film I ever saw - I saw it when I was 26 and when I went to bed I kept on thinking the TV was going to turn on and the girl was going to crawl out of it. That's not a film for kids. The original version of The Grudge was good too.
      • gryphon50, on 07/06/2008, -0/+0The Grudge was good. That scene of the lady crawling under the covers is not the best one to see before bed though.
  • thebrokenforum, on 07/06/2008, -1/+0Interesting article considering how many times Hollywood has botched King's stories. New horror, with very few exceptions,. cannot hold a candle to old horror. Computer animated graphics ruined the industry.
  • ThankTheCheese, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I don't know that King can throw stones here -- his books are (generally) great, but his movies are some of the worst I've seen. And he can't always pass it off to the directors -- Desperation is the most laughable horror I've ever seen, and he wrote the screenplay for that.
  • CPUYODA, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3Two words,.....Maximum Overdrive.

    King book,King directed,.......rubbish.
  • MOJIRA, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3He must have had REALLLY low expectations for The Happening in order for it to be better than he thought.
  • MrOmniscient, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2I've lost all respect for Stephen King. I can't believe he actually likes The Blair Witch Project.
    My recollection of it is much like Brian's description in Family Guy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=4Fg-Q9aIX_w
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.