Horror-Guns- Blood and more blood!!

abalex

abalex

Well-known member
What ups everyone!!

This is just something so we can talk about it.

Why does everyone keep making more movies about Horror, killing , guns and why not , Zombies? ( talking about movies from this site and out there in hollywood)

Don't take me wrong, I love some of these styles but just.....Why do film makers love this stuff so much?

I'm comparing these movies just to give you and example;

Down of the dead , Reservoir dogs, and many more VS Life as a house, Real women have curves, In America, Garden State and many more( according to their styles)

I don't want to offend any comrade here. I respect whatever style you like. But I started to watch the last movies I mentioned, being garden state one of top ten. And they seemed so simple and you actually end up learning something, a movie that actually makes you feel something......( I cried, but I'm still a macho man!!)

So if you wanna talk about this go ahead and kill me!! I just want to know what you guys think about this, cause I'm working on a family oriented movie.

Again, nothing against likes or styles!!!

Good night!
G.
 
Guns are a very handy prop. They are also an excuse for bad filmmaking somethimes:

A gun adds drama to a scene, making it easier for the director. I love using them! :thumbsup:

I watched a really good documentary on TV last night. Part of the BBC's One Life series. They are all about real life problems and dramas. I think that personal drama is better as a documentary on TV. If I am making fiction, I want to make something that isn't about real life. Like Jurassic Park :grin:
 
Yep, but remember:

Guns are cooooooool! Especially silenced pistols! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
 
hilarious.. lol
ive often asked myslef the same question as the original poster. i too have seen my fair share of all those types of films, but it does seem that thaters about 1 in 10 indy people who are not making one along those lines. anyway guns in a film dont always have to be the focus. sometimes they can just be a part of the story. if the story calls for a gun or lots of guns, ..or blood, it doesnt mean its bad, it just means you have a gun as a prop, or blood in the scene.. its only when people start focusing on the props instead ofthe story that things go sour. .. like"oooh .. look at how cool this gun or guy with the gun is .. lets show a closeup of the gun.. or lets show him in cool action gun pulling poses for a few minutes and such) those things have their time and place, but its never in place of a decent story or actually having something meaningfull to say. if you want to make a film worth anything in the end. .. all IMHO of course. theres plenty of films with that stuff in it that are good.. point is that those things take a back seat to backup a great story almost all of the time in the ones that are good.

look at saving private ryan.. or other films which have plenty of guns.. and plenty or blood.. gladiator or other sword war movies are basically the same thing but with swords. they are good films. point is they dont focus on the weapons .. because the weapons are not a story.. and dont contribute to the story in and of themselves. you dont see closeups of people pulling thier guns in SPR .. cause it focuses on the people in the story.. not the props.. and not how cool they think someone with a big gun is.. you dont see overly done dramatic cool wanna be shots of them in slow mo pulling their gun out and cocking it and saying things like ." time to die mo-fo". why.. cause they made a real film based on a real story instead of what the above posts say and i agree with in trying to cheat and put a gun in and somehow the gun will make your film dramatic or cool. .. anyway same goes for blood. blood isnt the focus in SPR although theres alot of it in it. its just matter of fact or part of the story that needed to be told. anyway.. blah blah blah... ive seen plenty of popcorn munchers that focus on all the wrong things. would i watch them again.. no. do i thin they were good fims.. no. and your question as to why so many filmmakers (primarily of course being guys) focus on those genres.. well ..alot of people are violent and like violent things. doesnt mean thats all there is to them though.. look at danny boyle..both "28 days later" .. and now "millions". theres different sides to people. and the only tie when it gets really sad for me personally is when people only sing the same tune over and over.. if violence is the ONLY thing someone has to offer even for lack of actually having a decent story to tell anywhere in it.. im not a fan of sensless violence. but some stories require it. if the story is also sensless and without meaning though.. well, ive stated my opinion, but of course its all in the eye of the beholder.
 
But think how much better The Bridges of Madison County would have been if Meryl had been kidnapped by hippy-dippy anti-war goofs and Clint had to trade in his camera for a .44 and then go rescue her.

Dan
 
GenJerDan, That is so true I would love that version of the movie. I think that they are just fun movies that people like so when you go to make a movie you look ok what are some movies that I like and what do they have in them. Guns,Bad guys,dead people,Naked girls. ECT
But not everyone thinks like that
 
Well there is another reason sooo many movie made by people, for instance here, feature guns blood violence ect. The answer is there is a market for it. Walk through the video store and see how many low budget "Garden States" you see on the straight to video shelves cpompared to horror and violence, specifically urban crime films. The later have a huge audience. If you make a horror or urban film for a few thousand and know how to market it to the right distributors you might actually get it picked up and sold, AND make some money back for you and any investors AND get to make another film.

I mean the only thing better then making movies is actually getting paid to make them. Now many here, perhaps even the ones making little viloent films might have greater aspirations, but if you can hone your skills on well.. crap, why not. We all have bad movies in us, lets get them out of the way.

Plus movie like Garden State have known cast members, SAG actors to be soecific. Having shot with SAG I understand how much it can cost. Example.. We shot an HD feature for bassically $20,000 but it was with SAG on an experimental contract. What does that mean? It means everyone bigger name or no worked for scale (which at the time was $500 per person a day, that is the minimum they allowed us to pay) all on defferment. So no one gets payed until the movie makes money. Now the hard budget was $20,000 but when the film is sold, the actors will end up costing around $270,000! I actually stand to make more as an actor then I did as a co-writer and co-director. Historically, a drama full of no names is hard to sell, a Horror flick with a pretty no name girl, easy. Heck horror fans dont even care about bad acting, which makes it even more attractive an option.

I still say there is no reason not to strive and make good films within those genres, but that is a good reason why alot of people make those films. Hope that helps.
-R Michael
 
Ah, but G-rated movies sell better than any, by far. Not even close. And many, many times over that of R-rated movies.

Of course, no one who considers himself a serious, edgy director WANTS to make a G-rated movie . . . same goes for serious, edgy actors, and the self-reinforcing community around it all . . . so it’s all about what people want to make more than what people want to watch. The dollars have spoken, but the TPTB aren’t listening so much.
 
id agree with that 100%.. especially since almost all the films that are a breakthrough for people at festivals are heavily story based. theres more of a market for kiddie safe stuff, and big budget studios fight all the time for pg or pg13 ratings so that their films will sell better. like david said, i think its just a matter of where peoples interests are. people can make a great film about whatever they want. campy stuff as described in the original post seems to be easier to market for rental and such but not easy to get anywhere near the big screen. whatva though, people can make and market whatever they want. theres a market for anything and everything. it just a matter of what type of films you want to make.
 
Dunno. How many of us edgy, urbane indy types ever try?

GIVE IT TO ME, YOU MOTHER-#^#(@!!!!

I DON’T HAVE IT, YOU PIECE OF @&#&#!!!!!

Ah, the independent children’s movie. Could be an untapped well.
 
Jubal28 said:
Dunno. How many of us edgy, urbane indy types ever try?

GIVE IT TO ME, YOU MOTHER-#^#(@!!!!

I DON’T HAVE IT, YOU PIECE OF @&#&#!!!!!

Ah, the independent children’s movie. Could be an untapped well.
Click to expand...

A Bugsy Malone for the new millenium!

Dan
 
WOW!!

Thanks guys!! I really appreciated your point of view. I've red some of the posts and it really opened my mind , like a can opener.

You know, I really like bloody movies and movies where sometimes guns are the main attraction. Like sin city, 28 days latter, they're really cool movies. I really didn't know that horror flicks had that big of a market out there!! Now you got me thinking!!

Theres gonna be some days when I just want to be scared, so I watch scary movies, like scary movie 3, just kidding!! I really enjoyed your points of view.


Gracias!! Thanks guys, really.....

good night!
G.
 
As far as horror movies go, we can really blame (or thank) George A. Romero and "Night of the Living Dead" in 1968. Prior to this, almost all independent films were either very artsy fartsy (al la, Cassevettes, Kenneth Anger, Stan Brakhage) or were nudie cuties (Russ Meyers, et al...). Night of the Living Dead, from blue collar Pittsburgh, aimed at the main stream, changed that, set a new standard and established a formula independent filmmakers could follow for hoped for main stream success. With a horror film you didn't need some obscure philosophical ponderings or naked girls to make a movie (though naked girls are always a plus).

Since Night of the Living Dead, almost all "outta left field" break out horror films have used the same forumula, a small group of young people in an isolated place faces horrific circumstances. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "The Hills Have Eyes", "Friday the 13th", "The Evil Dead" and "The Blair Witch Project", as well as others, have followed this formula to break out succes. Because making a feature films is such a difficult venture, a lot of people use this horror model as their entry method into movie makeing. Unfortunately, alot of people stick with the same forumula and we get the same thing over and over and over.

As for violence, I believe that the earliest humans sitting around a camp fire at night told stories of either hunting success or victory in battle (besides the occasional "Two Neanderthals walk into a bar" stories) and this became the basis for popular story telling ever since. From Greek drama to Shakespeare to the rise of mass popular entertainment in the 19th and early 20th century this core element of violence remained. As the "penny dreadful" stories gave way to the "dime novles", which gave way to the movies this continued. In America, the most popular mass entertainment stories were westerns, who's heroes had, as a basic skill, mastery of firearms. The western "cowboys and indian" stories, evolved into urban "cops and robbers" stories and this continues to this day.
 
"To me the great hope is... people that normally wouldn't be making movies will make them and suddenly some little fat girl in Ohio will be the new Mozart and will make a beautiful film using her father's camera-corder and the "Professionalism" of movie making will be destroyed forever and it will finally become an art form."

A bit off on a tangent . . .

But I find that people who say things like this are generally the first to decry the crap which comes, inevitably, from the "democratization" of filmmaking.

Just an observation. (Not YOU, Rosestar.)
 
Jubal28 said:
I find that people who say things like this are generally the first that decry the crap which comes, inevitably, from the "democratization" of filmmaking.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine Francis Coppola sharing that sentiment with you, David.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top