How much gore should I show for this type of story?

I

ironpony

Carbonite Member
It's a cops vs. gangsters thriller. In the climax about maybe 30-60 people are killed. It's a script I wanna direct myself on my own budget so I hope to get as many actors as I can afford within the budget. They kill each other with knives, bats, blunt objects the find, etc. The thing is how gory should I show it? I could do it as gory as the recent movie Drive. In that they showed blood come out everywhere and you could hear is spewing quite loudly. My friend said I should do it more like United 93 style, and have most of the gore shown offscreen, and when it does show, show it in hints. She said even though Drive has graphic murders, it has a lot less killngs, where as I want to show 60 in 10 minutes. However, Braveheart had a lot more killing, and more graphically shown than United 93. I am not aiming to overdo it on gore, but at the same time, I don't want the audience to think I'm holding back from showing brutal violence, when I should perhaps show it like it is. Thoughts?
 
ironpony said:
killngs, where as I want to show 60 in 10 minutes. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

10 mins = 600 seconds / 60 killings = 1 killing every 10 seconds. This isn't a short film, it's a play view of a 1st Person Shooter. if you make it too gory, people will laugh. it'll be like a FreddieW video on YouTube.

Consider making it shorter. 10 mins is a long time to sit through 6 murders a minute.

IMHO.
 
David W. Richardson said:
Use all the gore you need to hide the weakness of your script and production values.
Click to expand...

Cynicism is always helpful.

@ironpony, you don't need a s..t-ton of gore to sell realism. In fact, excessive blood and gore often takes viewers out of the realism of the film. Also, blood and gore on an indie film can be a department in itself. And unless you've got a real budget, you're unlikely to find 60 extras willing to go through a painstaking makeup process in order to die bloody deaths for your micro-budget movie.

My suggestion would be to cut the body count to the lower end of 15-30, and use a little blood and only necessary gore.

-JMT
 
Your question is like a painter asking someone else how realistic or abstract his painting should be. Art is too complex to say gore good or gore bad.

Evil Dead: awesome horror movie, lots of blood and gore.
Halloween (original): awesome horror movie, no gore.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (original): awesome horror movie- its atmosphere convinces you that you saw gore when you barely did.
Day Of The Dead: awesome gore effects. love this movie! choookkkeee oonn eeemmmmmmm
Human Centipede and most Torture Porn: made by and for idiots- horror goryness at its most useless.
Scarface: Tragic, Shakespearian, super bloody ending, but most intense and gory part (chainsaw part) interestingly, happens offscreen (you feel like you saw it tho).
Tarantino movies: Goes for suspense and buildup, but gives you the shock factor too- I shot Marvin in the face! (u do later see Marvin in the trunk, and bits of skull in SJ's hair)/ Tarantino is quite blackly comic.

I say pick a movie whose "approach to violence" you like go for the same effect(s), cause its not what you do, its how you pull it off (not that I know how to pull off my ideas yet).

If you liked what they did in Drive, go for the same.

I do agree with the others that you don't need alot to shock people and less can often be more, (see scarface chainsaw scene) unless your making a more-is-more type movie, which is my point, and which is what Drive seems to be a bit of (haven't seen it yet, heard great things).
 
Last edited:
Yeah I know it's a microbudget indie but there are a few scenes where I want extras, and this is one of them. Other than a few necessary scenes, where having lots of extras make sense for the scenario, I have written most of the scenes, to have few actors in. Instead of using horror movies as an approach to gore, perhaps action thrillers are more appropriate to compare my tone too. Braveheart was a good example of a battle with lots of death. My friend said that gory deaths work better in a historical battle movie, rather than a thriller set in modern times. Not sure what her distinction on that one is though, since there are a lot of subjectives. Not sure whether to go for 'less is more' or 'more is more'.
 
I get the feeling that the idea of putting in lots of gore really excites you. So I'm wondering why you're even asking. It's your film -- do what you want.
 
Who's your audience? That's what should decide your gore level.

Deaths in themselves aren't necessarily gory - the Narnia films have some huge battle scenes but barely a drop of blood is ever seen, quite intentionally because they're made for family audiences. Other films delight in splattering the screen with realistic gore, coz that's what their audiences apparently want. And there's also stylised gore - 300 would be the obvious example - with deaths and blood galore but so stylised that it's more arty rather than gory.

If your audience is just you, then pick whatever gore level appeals to you yourself.
 
ironpony said:
Not sure whether to go for 'less is more' or 'more is more'.
Click to expand...

well you can also do a mix, or something in between.

That's why I say pick a movie you like, in the same genre, and go for a similar approach in how much you show. Then you have a starting point, some sense of what you wanna do. Right now you're suffering from indecision and lack of vision, which is the ultimate director's sin, I hear!

As for historicals, the ending of Taxi driver is pretty brutal and bloody, though they had to desaturate the blood for the MPAA. Looking back on this thread I say JMT gave great nuts-and-bolts advice- If you wanted too, you can make a little blood and a few extras go a long way.
 
Last edited:
Shoot all the gore you can, subtract what doesn't work in the edit. Test audience may help you with this.
 
Gore is like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder. If your story dictates a gore-fest, then try to be honest about the effects, which means a decent budget for the gore/blood.

What you are proposing, that many on-camera deaths, is extremely ambitious. And may actually detract from the visual aspect of the film as being too busy. You can still "kill" all those actors, but do a few of them with all the effects and detail possible, the others......kill them in the background or on a distant shot. Otherwise, you may end up with all the cheese of "Kill Bill" but without the redeeming qualities QT brought to the film. Just keep in mind, films like the one you are talking about set a "tone" for your career. If you focus too much about the killings, and don't tell the story so that IT takes prominence, your may get to be known as the director with a "death-fetish". And that could creep people out in the future. Especially if you don't pull it off right.

60? Wow. Very ambitious indeed.
 
Last edited:
Doc Bernard said:
Gore is like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder. If your story dictates a gore-fest, then try to be honest about the effects, which means a decent budget for the gore/blood.

What you are proposing, that many on-camera deaths, is extremely ambitious. And may actually detract from the visual aspect of the film as being too busy. You can still "kill" all those actors, but do a few of them with all the effects and detail possible, the others......kill them in the background or on a distant shot. Otherwise, you may end up with all the cheese of "Kill Bill" but without the redeeming qualities QT brought to the film. Just keep in mind, films like the one you are talking about set a "tone" for your career. If you focus too much about the killings, and don't tell the story so that IT takes prominence, your may get to be known as the director with a "death-fetish". And that could creep people out in the future. Especially if you don't pull it off right.

60? Wow. Very ambitious indeed.
Click to expand...

Very good point. +1
 
Well I don't know if I want to give off too much of a death fetish. My film is a lot more serious than Kill Bill. Kill Bill was serious, but it took place in a cartoony world, where as mine is set in a much more realistic world, and has a much darker outcome.
 
I'm having trouble getting in the mindset of (a) a person directing a film (b) asking friends, and then complete strangers (on a web forum) this question.

Don't you know what you want to see, what you want your audience to feel, what the tone of the project is?

"Gore works better in historical dramas"... OK, whomever told you that, stop listening to them, now. That's just silly generalizing that absolutely can't be backed up by any sane person.

Gore works better... in movies that gore works better in. It's your movie, right? Make it yours. Have you ever heard the word "vision" used by writers, producers, directors, musicians? "Vision" is believed to be very useful in creative endeavors. what's yours?

This thread - I find it simply surreal. Not trying to be a dick - just my .02.
 
Michael Carter said:
I'm having trouble getting in the mindset of (a) a person directing a film (b) asking friends, and then complete strangers (on a web forum) this question.

Don't you know what you want to see, what you want your audience to feel, what the tone of the project is?

"Gore works better in historical dramas"... OK, whomever told you that, stop listening to them, now. That's just silly generalizing that absolutely can't be backed up by any sane person.

Gore works better... in movies that gore works better in. It's your movie, right? Make it yours. Have you ever heard the word "vision" used by writers, producers, directors, musicians? "Vision" is believed to be very useful in creative endeavors. what's yours?

This thread - I find it simply surreal. Not trying to be a dick - just my .02.
Click to expand...

I think that's a bit unfair. The dude's just trying to get some feedback, there's no need to go ape-s..t on him. Honestly, I'm kind of disturbed by how many threads are answered with little more than cynicism and mockery, particularly in the creative forums such as directing, screenwriting, etc. I thought the whole point of this site was so that a guy who was going to direct his first film could talk to others who've been there and might have some advice.

Gore is a technical aspect of a creative process. Just like profanity, just like subplots, subtext, character arcs, three-point lighting, cut-to's, dissolves, dolly moves, sex scenes, and MPAA ratings. It's easy to say "You're the director, you should know how you want your film to look." But isn't the whole point of film collaboration? Maybe ironpony has a vision of a gory, bloody shootout where 60 people die, and then he hires a Special FX super who says, "You know, I really think this film would communicate more impactfully without any gore at all. The gore could be a big distraction here." The obvious options are to ignore the guy, or find another SFX supervisor, OR take every opportunity you can find to get input and feedback, and use that input to find the best way to communicate a particular story to a particular audience.

My question is: why should he wait till he's setting up his shots to get that feedback? Preparation is the 3rd most important factor in micro budget filmmaking, behind passion and adaptability. If he's unsure whether any particular element of his film would communicate most effectively this way or that, what reason in God's green earth should stop him from asking that question on this very forum, where experienced members of the indie community can offer advice and feedback?

-JMT
 
Well my first vision was to go for the United 93 way, and do it as 'less is more'. But it seems a lot of audiences of today, are not shocked by less is more. I want my violence to shock people. Not the violence itself, but the scenario that's going on as well. And more audiences seem to be going to the Saw and Hostel movies, than compared to movies like United 93, and that's where I had doubts in my vision.
 
To the end, that they treat it as traumatizing as if it were to happen in real life. My instincts tell me though to go for less is more, so I will do that. Show it from angles where you dont' see much of everything, and only show glimpses in certain shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top