Why are people so drawn to making horror films when they start out?

A couple of the scenes flashback to the asylum before it's in ruins but it's pretty easy to duplicate those rooms as new for the before scenes. I want it to have a real DOOM video game feel.
 
Josh, Any type of genre film helps in the distribution game. Horror comedy can be hit or miss. Tucker and Dale did very well from what I hear. But thrillers and low budget action films also can do well. Family films also do very well, there is a shortage of content there for sure. The stuff to stay away from if you are in the micro-budget world are drama, and comedy. Those genre's are tough without "name" actors.
 
Sheldon Charron said:
Well I've been researching locations. Here are some pics I found that I want my location to look like inside:

...
Click to expand...

As long as there's a bikini clad 'inmate'... I'll give it a look...

But on a more serious note... while it may give the mood of a film 'for free', some of those shots seemed like they may have danger lurking at every opportunity... and not for the characters in the film story... hey... a film crew that shoots in an abandoned insane asylum, and during the shoot, the crew goes mad... not only do you get the horror trope, you get the movie in a movie trope...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
As long as there's a bikini clad 'inmate'... I'll give it a look...

But on a more serious note... while it may give the mood of a film 'for free', some of those shots seemed like they may have danger lurking at every opportunity... and not for the characters in the film story... hey... a film crew that shoots in an abandoned insane asylum, and during the shoot, the crew goes mad... not only do you get the horror trope, you get the movie in a movie trope...
Click to expand...

While they say that movies about making movies don't sell, I'd watch that one. :)
 
Sheldon Charron said:
Well I've been researching locations. Here are some pics I found that I want my location to look like inside:

View attachment 68984View attachment 68985View attachment 68986View attachment 68987View attachment 68988View attachment 68989View attachment 68990
Click to expand...

Holy cow!!! My very first job (Intern) on a "Real" movie was what I latter called on my resume, "Art Department Prep"... I scrapped paint and swept the floors in an old asylum just like that! It was for the movie "Hellmaster", starring John Saxon, shot at the Clinton Valley Center Hospital, an asylum built in 1878 in Pontiac Michigan. The place was very creepy and I bet I still have lead from the paint dust in my body!!.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165489/

http://histori"ADMIN NOTE: I AM SPAM. PLEASE REPORT ME."c.8m.com/menu.html

I never did see that movie!
 
Оnly in the US, horror, zombies etc. rule. Not in Europe, very rare, not in India. People are drawn to something of a "higher" substance. WHy? I guess there is a developed sub culture for such a film in the US.
 
Here is an interesting article that discusses the rise of low budget direct to video horror films in the '80s and '90s.

http://www.fearnet.com/news/news-article/lawless-land-direct-video-micro-budget-80s90s-cinema

While that article is about the rise of low budget horror films during the "Home Video Revolution", I think we are still riding that wave as it has morphed into the DV Revolution, the HD Revolution, the DSLR Revolution and now the Internet Distribution Revolution.
 
Oleg, Also don't forget in those countries there is often much greater access to public funds for film that have more of a social and artistic merit. Young American filmmakers don't have that luxury. We do probably have more access to private equity, but those investors expect results. And I would disagree, I think horror has a pretty broad world wide fan base. If it didn't all of those buyers every year at AFM would tell us to make something else.
 
Yeah, isn't that one of the big reasons? Boobs, gore, etc. translates across language/cultural barriers, whereas an audience liking something like a comedy or drama may depend very specifically on being part of the culture around which it's based?
 
Right you are Josh. But guys it is the wild wild west right now when it comes to making films. With all of the emerging VOD and online markets, the only key is building your audience. Build, build. build a fanbase for the type of film you want to make, and you can make any film you want.
 
I can tell about Russia overall, imho, there really few horror films shown in theaters, in proportion to all distribution, compared to other genres, theatrical or tv, dvd, cable..
action, thrillers yes, couple of Russian horror films supported by big companies failed to draw the audience..

I guess we do not really have subculture developed for that, and possibly life is more like "horror", compared to the US, where life is abundant on consumer level, (art does not want to imitate life).

I do not see too much horror coming from Sundance, mostly melodramas, currently, correct? Talking about what is being made by low budget film makers..
 
iamWZA said:
Maybe if you're one of those people you could shed some light.
Click to expand...

What everyone else has said.

(I think) the original inspiration was Night of the Living Dead: the idea is that the story is a bunch of people holed up in a derelict building (cheap). You don't even need to think of the antagonist's motivation that much.
 
OlegKalyan said:
I can tell about Russia overall, imho, there really few horror films shown in theaters, in proportion to all distribution, compared to other genres, theatrical or tv, dvd, cable..
action, thrillers yes, couple of Russian horror films supported by big companies failed to draw the audience..
Click to expand...

Since we don't seem to get much beyond Eisenstein here from Russia, the only 'horror' film that pops into my mind is:

"Вий"(1967)

Viy_dvd.jpg


In terms of 'censorship', This is what the wiki has to offer:
---
Some of the 'witch' scenes and the ending where Viy appears were toned down due to technological limitations as well as then current restrictions on Soviet film production. The directors were able to avoid the previous restrictions by using what was considered a 'folk tale'.

This was officially the first Soviet-era horror film released in the USSR.

---

In the case of Indian films, the government is highly censorious, and limits not only 'horror', but also, many 'contacts', such as a simple classic 'Hollywood Kiss' (I think they recently 'allowed' such on screen...).

Here in the US the 'requirement' for big budgeted films being targeted for PG-13 rating effectively 'censors' the material as well.
 
Guilty as charged: my first feature (non-budget) is going to be horror. Why? Many reasons. One: because it has immediate built-in tension; in a drama you need to generate dramatic tension, which is hard; in comedy, you have to be funny, which is hard; meanwhile horror gives you immediate payback - you go to a drama, and you have no idea what to expect, with horror, you know immediately. Think of it this way - go and try to make a person laugh (comedy)... it's hard; meanwhile, go behind them and scream "boo!" - they'll jump! But why do I want to shoot at such a low target? Because it's my first production and I'll have a million things to worry about, and if I can make something easier for myself, I'll do that, until I find my sea-legs.

Another reason: it can be done cheaply. An action movie is going to be more expensive, since for one thing, you can hardly make an action movie in one location. It's easier to cast - a comedy f.ex. needs actors who can be funny; a crime story needs scary looking or credible "criminal-looking" actors; horror merely needs warm bodies (and sometimes not so warm).

Another reason: you can experiment with your shooting style. With drama, you are not going to go nuts with spinning cameras and crazy lenses and angles - with horror, you can experiment. It's a great learning experience.

Finally, I am not looking for distribution or for sales - odds of which are about 0.00000000000000000000000001%. I expect to lose every penny and the only thing I'll get out of it is a learning experience (which is a LOT). But - again, the odds are tiny, tiny, tiny - but there is one micro-possibility: if well-done, it's easier to get people to watch it, including industry people - it's easier to give someone a DVD of horror than drama and expect them to watch it.
 
Any genre can be done well, no exceptions. I thought Tucker & Dale was a hilarious satire of the 'dudes and coeds in a cabin vs slasher' genre. Completely stood it on its head, and did so very cleverly. But that film took smarts to make. The wacky reversal and recombination of the victims/perps into themselves bordered on high concept, and that's far from your typical micro-indie horror flick. It was also very well acted, especially by the Tucker and Dale characters themselves, who were wonderfully bewildered by all the mayhem going on around them as they haplessly tried to do the right thing. But again, this was a *smart* horror flick, something that very few others, at any budget level, can claim.

I say do a horror film like that, and you've got something to talk about. If you go the more typical micro-indie route the best you might be able to hope for is winning the campy, low-production value fanatics, but you will be *absolutely buried* in an avalanche of competitors...
 
Horror is an interesting genre to me, particularly because I've never really been drawn to horror films themselves, but I love the genre as a filmmaker. Something about the fanatic way that horror fans embrace a good horror film intrigues me: for once, there's an audience that ACTIVELY looks for your product. Horror fans look for Rob Zombie, Sam Raimi, and Guillermo del Toro movies like hipsters look for new episodes of Dr Who and a Firefly christmas musical. While mainstream movies can do the big bucks and get you A-list status, it's the niche genres like Horror, Noir, and Sci-Fi that give you the ability to tap into a cult following who will actively search for your films.

The reason I really can't write much in the Horror vein, though, is that I don't watch enough. I have very, VERY discerning taste when it comes to Horror films. I can kill a couple hours watching a cheap thriller (*cough* every Jason Statham movie ever made *cough*), but a cheap Horror film just turns me off right away. That said, when horror is done right (Sauna, Paranormal Activity, The Others, Mama, Alien), I usually love them.

But as for the market, think about this: Jack the Giant Slayer was a PG-13 tentpole fantasy action-adventure with name actors, a rising star, a proven director, massive VFX action sequences, and a nearly $200mil budget. It's going to end its run with about $65mil domestic.

"Mama" is an R-rated horror flick shot for $15mil by an unknown director, with a brand-new female lead, and Del Toro's name attached to the project, and it made $71mil in its run.

And movies like Sauna (probably my favorite horror flick) prove you don't need tons of VFX or a cliche serial-killer slasher to make a good horror flick. Good horror is just drama with a MacGuffin that scares people.

-EMB
 
It's been stated several times already here, but Sci-Fi is also apparently supposed to be one of the potentially profitable/popular genres. I realize Sci Fi is probably much harder than horror due to many ideas necessitating special effects that are out of many filmmakers' reach at the low budget level, but to me, as a Sci Fi fan, it's also a much smarter genre (SOMETIMES! -- when it doesn't devolve into "horror with aliens"). You could always get creative and do something like Primer which had like. . .no FX.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top