Bite Me (2008) - The horror genre has officially lost its class.

[Marklevitz]

I just saw the worst movie ever made... it's called "Bite Me", and it was done by some people in Michigan.  A friend of mine was in the movie, so I went to the premiere to support her.  This movie was soooooooooooo bad!!!  Seriously, they have a MySpace page if you want to check it out... but there's really no need.  Just take my word for it, this movie is unwatchable!!!

And, is it just me, or is anyone else getting tired of heavy metal music and pools of blood ruining horror films?  This genre has completely lost it's class!  Has anyone ever seen the original "Nosferatu"?  Why don't they make horror movies like that anymore?  Remember when blood actually meant something?  Ahhhh!!!  I hate stupid horror films... seriously... in our next episode of "B-Rated", I'm going to address a lot of these issues... so I hope you'll watch.  I'm scatter brained right now, though.  I want the gothic themes of horror to resurrect themselves.  I'm tired of sexy teens being chased in the woods!!!  I want castles and stuff!  I want movies to stop using heavy metal music, and go back to "Swan Lake".  Okay, I'll get off my soapbox, now!   

[AnubisVonMojo]

I think the class went out of the horror genre when Paris Hilton was cast in a remake of House of Wax...   

[ulthar]

Why don't they make horror movies like that anymore? 

Short answer: marketing.

Longer Answer:

The bean counters and powers that be in the major studios tend to follow formulae that have produced healthy returns on investment in the past.  They don't care about "art."

Also, movie making is not an industry friendly to risk taking, which I hold as further evidence that the "art" (which often is risky by definition) does not matter.

When someone DOES take a risk, it generally gets hammered.  My example:  THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. This movie was new and innovative, and the makers took artistic risks.

Yet how often have we seen folks call this risk a collosal failure?  Boring, unscary, pointless and annoying are descriptions I've read about BLAIR WITCH.  To me, this is a travesty - it gives negative feedback to anyone wanting to take a risk and furthers the notion that the "only right way" to make a movie is to give people what they EXPECT a horror movie to be.

John Carpenter fought this with both HALLOWEEN and THE THING.  Earlier in his career, Carpenter took risks (heck, hiring Rob Bottin as FX leader for the THE THING was a risk and Carpenter knew it, but he wanted to give the lad a chance to see what he could really do with some budget behind him), and it was only much later that he began to be respected for what he accomplished with those risks.

It's a slow moving industry; it does not like change.  It cares almost nothing about quality.  If stupid teens running in the woods, heavy metal soundtracks and over-the-top gore put fannies in the seats before and made $$, that's what they'll do again.

By the way, if you want a FUN movie with those three as key elements, check out BIKINI BLOOD BATH.  It's a hoot.

[Jack]

I don't know if Blair Witch is such a good example of why money hungry studios don't take risks.  It cost $60,000 and has grossed over $140,000,000.  

Sorry, I'm in a snippy mood right now, or so my wife has just informed me 

[moman]

I also think it's harder to have a good horror movie with modern production values (not impossible). Older stuff was grittier and that usually suits the theme of these movies.

[ulthar]

I don't know if Blair Witch is such a good example of why money hungry studios don't take risks.  It cost $60,000 and has grossed over $140,000,000.   

I was speaking more in terms of "fan response" than financial returns.  If you look on just about any "what movies do you REALLY hate" thread on this forum alone, BWP is mentioned.  Fan reaction for the movie included some highly scathing remarks.

So, while we don't have to drool over over every indie project no matter how bad, I think keeping an eye on the bigger artistic picture is a worthy goal.  If small timers, like the ones mentioned by this thread's author, continually read negative reactions for every low budget project, well, who would want to take risks in such a critical environment?

Back on track of the OP's question:

Let's face the fact that today's movie audience is FAR FAR more critical (in a negative sense) than the audiences of the 50's.  Movies were a fun diversion back then and I don't think people, kids and teens especially, nitpicked every little detail like they do now.

Nowadays, you get "the blood did not look real enough" or "who would actually DO that?" or "why didn't they just nuke the thing, I mean come ON."  Look at the critical writing style employed by most amateur web based "critics," such as in the Yahoo list posted last week.  It's all detail oriented and nitpicking has become its own hobby.  This just did not exist during the Golden Age.

To the contemporary audience, movies are no longer about "fun" and "diversion," but have to be "realistic" in some way the old films didn't have to be.  Since realistic effects are expensive, this makes it very, very hard for indies and small timers to produce anything viewed as having "value."

At least this is my take.  I've got DEVIL GIRL FROM MARS in there waiting for a viewing this weekend, so I'll continue to vote on what I value in a movie by what I rent, buy or go see.

[Marklevitz]

Ulthar is like Simon on "American Idol", I hate what he has to say, but it's so true!  I really hope things change... I love bad movies that are straight to video... I absolutely adore them!!!  But these mainstream Hollywood movies are killing me.  I want to murder whoever greenlit, "Prom Night".  I will never see that movie, and I expect everyone reading this to do the same.  Nevertheless, it's really not enough.  Maybe one day, I'll get some money and produce the kind of horror film that I want to see in theaters, and if no one goes and I loose millions, at least I made my masterpiece.  Two really great semi-modern day horror films that really come close to what I want to see more of in the horror genre are, "The Changeling" and "The Devil's Nightmare"... both SOLID works!

[Andrew]

Ulthar is like Simon on "American Idol"

I think that he is a bit more personable.  I've never had the urge to beat Ulthar over the head with a metal trashcan (and I don't even watch "American Idol").

[ulthar]

I think that he is a bit more personable.  I've never had the urge to beat Ulthar over the head with a metal trashcan (and I don't even watch "American Idol").

Ah, but you might if you ever met me in person...   

[Justy]

I also think it's harder to have a good horror movie with modern production values (not impossible). Older stuff was grittier and that usually suits the theme of these movies.

I agree with this 300%. Grainy film is not a bad thing for a horror film. I am not saying to fake it, but I am saying that I don't like the super-crisp production. Go back and watch an older film. It will have a mood that can't really be replicated.

[ulthar]

I agree with this 300%. Grainy film is not a bad thing for a horror film. I am not saying to fake it, but I am saying that I don't like the super-crisp production. Go back and watch an older film. It will have a mood that can't really be replicated.

Very true.

I've mentioned this before on this topic, and sorry to repeat myself, but you guys should give "Danse Macbre" by Stephen King a read.  It'll be worth it.

Therein, he talks of this sort of thing, and how important it is to the changing face of horror cinema.  For example, in the 'old days,' folks would never see wires holding stuff up or other fx 'mistakes' because that was the norm.  It was expected, and no one cared.

Nowadays, such things are pointed out with glee and 'documented' on IMDB as well.  King argues that it goes one step further, too.  Modern audiences often miss the underlying beauty of older horror because the notice the simplicity of the effects too much.  Their mindset has been formed by 'modern' visual clues, and the old ways are often viewed as cartoonish.

What was it Peter Johnson posted a few weeks ago about your culture influencing your perspective?  I guess it applies to 'appreciation' of movies as well....

[AnubisVonMojo]

I still maintain that Grindhouse was an amazing attempt at doing something different with theatrical horror, but sadly it too fell to the stigma that trying something new fails to bring box office success anymore. The mainstream viewing audience would rather spend their money on remakes of classics they've never even seen before rather than risk their $10 on something that might not suck. The Ruins actually wasn't as bad as I thought it would be either. Having never read the book I was afraid that it was going to be some kind of Mexican Hostel, but was pleasantly surprised to discover it's a monster movie... a monster movie with enough brain farts to make Howard Stern blush, but a decent monster movie none the less.

[Joe the Destroyer]

I think it doesn't help, either, that every movie that comes out is branded "worst movie ever."  I'm serious.  Look up every bad movie you see, especially the big budget ones, and you'll see several "worst movie ever" claims.  You have to stop and wonder how many of the people posting these have ever seen The Alien Dead, or Manos, Hands of Fate.  And, as Ulthar said, it's always something to do with nitpicking stupid little things in the movie that didn't seem realistic.