|
Post by GL on Apr 28, 2008 10:21:45 GMT -5
Ok, just to clerify:
Pretty much every single decade has had a genre-defining classic: 1920s-Nosferatu 1930s-Dracula or Frankenstein 1940s-The Wolfman 1950s-Hardly any were made, void 1960s-Psycho 1970s-Halloween 1980s-Friday the 13th 1990s-Scream
So, which do you think, when looking back at the genre as a whole in the future, which one is going to be pointed at and dubbed the film the defined this particular decade?
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Apr 28, 2008 11:10:44 GMT -5
First of all, I disagree with the 1950s, there were some fine creature features made during that time. And while most of them were a horror science fiction mix, they fit the time they were made perfectly. My pick for the '50s would be Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Also I would hate to think of an inferior remake being the genre defining classic of today. In fact, I am not sure most of the movies that have been made lately won't just be forgotten. Because so many of them ARE so forgettable. I'm partial to The Mist, but not sure I can choose it because it so is not what horror seems to be about these days. More than likely, it will be Saw, I'm NOT a fan, find it boring and ridiculous, but others don't seem to agree and it just seems to be the most obvious answer at this point. Excellent thread by the way!
|
|
|
Post by CK on Apr 28, 2008 11:17:00 GMT -5
Well IMO I dont think it has been made yet. There IMO has to be a key element to make it a represenative of its decade. But if something really special doensnt come along I wouldnt be suprised if it is Saw.
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Apr 28, 2008 11:51:45 GMT -5
Good prediction CK. I agree with you.
I don't agree with you because I liked Saw, I agree with you because it was clearly the most influential (speaking of the mainstream) horror film this decade, kicking off that whole "torture" film genre in megaplexes.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Apr 28, 2008 12:03:41 GMT -5
I agree with you because it was clearly the most influential (speaking of the mainstream) horror film this decade, kicking off that whole "torture" film genre in megaplexes. That's why I say Saw as well. Did I mention I didn't like it...haha....but of the choices its probably the one that will be remembered because of that very reason. But maybe CK is right, and it just hasn't been made yet.
|
|
|
Post by CK on Apr 28, 2008 13:35:32 GMT -5
I have only seen the first one, not even the entire way through even. But I liked what I SAW, no pun intended. But never really bothered with the others. But know this EVEN if another franchise killer were to come along, it is a safe bet we would be bitching about it being cliche.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 28, 2008 13:55:00 GMT -5
I didn't pick based on status in a franchise. After all, the great films on your list from decades past (HAlloween especially) were not made initially with the intention of generating awful ripoffs and mindless sequels. That is merely the punishment we get for being a none too demanding audience and spending our good hard earned money on crap.
I also disagree with F13 for the 1980's. Yeah there are a lot of them, but they are all just markedly inferior Halloween ripoffs. Nothing genre defining or even particularly interesting about them. For my money, the 1980's were better defined by Nightmare on Elm Street. It also devolved into trashy sequels, but at least it began as an excellent film. F13 didn't even do that. (IMHO of course. Well I am lying by calling it a humble ioinion byt hey)
As for this decade, I think its a toss up between THe Descent and 28 Days Later. I thik I'm gonna go with 28 Days LAter for reviving the zombie genre, and introducing us to fast zombies (for better or worse). Oh, and for reinstating intelligent writing and political subtext into horror. Let the ignorant masses praise Saw. I've had my fill of trash. I want art
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Apr 29, 2008 10:20:42 GMT -5
I love The Descent and 28 Days Later....BUT....I just don't think they are about what this decade is going to be remembered for. The films may be, but I just don't think they epitomize what horror is about these days, or the direction it is heading in. Maybe I am just cynical...haha. I agree about Friday the 13th by the way, but also can't deny that even though I don't care for it, and I think it is pretty bland and uninteresting, it made an impact on the horror audience and the films that were being made at the time. Just like Saw has. Unfortunately...lol. I wouldn't have chosen it either, but I can see why others would.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 29, 2008 10:32:08 GMT -5
For me, there's only one choice on there, and as much as it pains me to say it, I think it's going to be The Ring. Firstly, without it, we wouldn't have two trends currently going in cinemas:
The PG-13 entry for the tweeners built around one recognizable "pretty face" that is terrorized but never really in trouble
The Asian remake
Both of these are attributatble to The Ring's success, and while Saw clearly has it's imitators (the sequels, Turistas, Captive and Hostel and it's sequel to an extent) most of those flopped and disappeared quite rapidly, and now we can barely remember when they came out.
However, if it weren't for The Ring, we wouldn't have- Dark Water, Pulse, Shutter, The Eye, One Missed Call, The Messengers, The Grudge, The Grudge 2 and the upcoming versions that will be released later this year.
Plus, we also have to thank it for bringing out the PG-13 variants- Prom Night, April Fool's Day, The Wicker Man and all of their imitators.
That, while not much better, is a much more clear-cut example of the influence it has had, and as well, it's clearly not over either as there's still some yet to come, while the Saw influences now are clearly left to it's sequels as whatever it influenced has now gone or disappeared. I think it's got a bigger, more widely-known appeal to others when it's looked back at what this decade has produced, and why I would call it the genre-film of the decade.
HNT-The reason why I said F-13th was that, 9 times out 10, you ask someone to name an 80s horror film, they're saying F-13th, while the other times is NOES, so I went with that one, even though you are right in saying that would work as well.
|
|
Conan
DWI/Evil Dead Moderator
Pennywise
Posts: 6,432
|
Post by Conan on Apr 29, 2008 16:43:02 GMT -5
Saw
|
|
Canetoad
The Prodigal Toad
HMaM member of the Month, July 2006
Cry Havoc! And let slip the cats of war.
Posts: 2,868
|
Post by Canetoad on Apr 30, 2008 3:22:25 GMT -5
Toad has to go with other (The Descent)... it is one of those rare horror films that me literally on the edge of my seat, and when we saw it in the cinema Mrs T actually screamd (she says 'squeaked' ) a couple of times. Thogh I am yet to see Inside which I have heard nothing but good things about.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on May 1, 2008 5:55:31 GMT -5
This is an interesting question and a great topic, cause although in my heart i would love to say Saw, and although it certainly has a claim to the title, i would honestly say this is a toss up between two films i totally despise..... first off.... The Texas Chainsaw Massacre kicked off the remake craze that shows no signs of abating,and certainly will be remembered for that if nothing else. but more importantly lets go back to the decade of Halloween for a moment-the70's.Although their certainly was a strong independant scene in the early 70's and of course the grindhouses, a lot of the classic horror from this era was Studio driven,in the wake of The Exorcist,Jaws, The Omen,Carrie et al. But then Halloween came along shifting the goalposts back into the independant field. Thus i think i have to say (with much dismay because i despise it and it's creator) that (sigh) HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES must be considered "this decades Halloween" Think about it before this all we had was studio driven Teen Scream clones and the soft horror of The Sixth Sense and it's ilk. but although originally a Universal project-they dropped it like a english cricketer,when they realised what it was(and yes i am taking into account it was made in 1999,but not released until 2002-3).It's moderate success ultimately paved the way for other films like the aforementioned Saw and TCM.
|
|
|
Post by 7 on May 1, 2008 7:59:01 GMT -5
That's a very valid point, Matt. I hadn't thought of that.
I suppose a movie doesn't have to be good to have an impact on the scene.
Also, GL, I had forgotten completely about The Ring. That made quite a stir (and impact) on horror when it was released.
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 1, 2008 10:16:19 GMT -5
That would certainly be true, if only the grindhouse movement that House of a Thousand Corpses was made as was a viable genre out there right now. It doesn't seem to be too strong at the moment, as beyond the sequel and an arguable connection with the "torture-porn" genre (which itself is pretty much dead and thankfully buried) and that Grindhouse feature from Tarantino/Rodriquez, I don't think there's been too much of an influence from it on the current genre scene. Most of the ones coming out seem to be in the vein of The Ring, PG-13 teenybopper films that are merely remakes of other films. That doesn't seem to be the intent of what the grindhouse would have to offer for fans, and though certainly a valid argument, one I wouldn't have made myself, I just don't see it as the influences are mostly either forgotten or have stopped being made.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on May 4, 2008 16:51:28 GMT -5
I duno, man. I see Matt's point. You are right that the grindhouse genre is not completely viable in terms of huge returns, but it did prompt a lot of films (Saw and TCM remake included) that went for harder edged gore then we had seen at the multiplex in previous decades. That said, if you are really going to talk about influences in that sense, I think that 9/11 nes footage and Iraqi beheading videos need a mention. If you look at horror through the ages, from the mysterious and evil European Dracula from the 20's, 30' and 40's as a relfection of the two World Wars, to the atomic energy subtext in so many of the 1950's creature features, it must be noted that the real catalyst for horror films is a desire to explore the shit that scares us in real life in a less overtly threatening way.
As for viability of a genre being the determinant factor, I think that it is far more significant that House of 1,000 Corpses was indicative of the turn that the genre took for most of this decade. That is not changed by the fact that the genre is finally less viable at the end of this decade any more than it is sgnificant to your recognition of F13 that throughout the 90' there was virtually no interest in making a traditional 80's slasher that didn't have any Scream irony to overlay it. In fact, if you look at the genre today, there would be no viable arket for a straight ahead slasher like F13 to get a full theatrical release. That doesn't seem to have affeced your opinion that it is genre defining, though, so I think that Matt's point still flies
|
|