What's With Horror Becoming So Torture Based?

[Amake]

Originally Posted by Geminex

IQ, I don't think you can generalize the movie-going public. Or any subset of society, for that matter. Y'think emotional intimacy has dropped that drastically over the recent decade?

I think I can safely say that the people who watch Saw are interested in watching Saw. And what are they if not a subset of the moviegoing demographic?

But yes, it was a pretty shoddy hypothesis. The only trend we can be sure about is that Saw and movies like it have gained popularity. Probably in large part as everyone else suggested because they're cheap to make, so a lot of them get made.

But still, quality movies do get made and they have a certain staying power. Take Pan's Labyrinth. If the market was flooded with movies of that caliber I don't know if we could take it. Or if each of them would mean as much.

[Premmy]

I think the fact that we're using Slasher flicks as an example of the "more subtle" horror of days gone by is kinda flawed. Slashers were basically taking the last ten minutes of most thrillers/ horror and injecting it throughout a movie in ten minute intervals. The idea that someone would do the same to slashers themselves, is a logical progression, not to say I don't prefer subtle horror, Saw and Hostel were'nt even frightening to me, but I think we need to use something other than Slasher Flick as our basis.

[Aerozord]

My one friend that liked Saw, said he liked it because while it was full of gore, it was gore with a purpose and was deep behind it. The sequels lost that and were just about showing people dying horribly. Dont know, didn't see any of them.

but if I may offer up another hypothesis. humans like watching other humans suffer. Reasons vary and not just from person to person but moment to moment. Initially it is something identifiable. We can relate to the character through mutual fear of what they are going through. After all its easy to show fear and pain, alot harder to realistically show love or happiness. If I showed two people enjoying a long walk, lots of people wont view that as love, but for pain all I got to do is shove a railspike through someone's eye. Not to say this is inherently lazy writing either. This is far more universal as well and hits a larger audience.

There is also the old "atleast my life is better then that" aspect. Not to mention the hype it generates causing more to see the movie.

[Bells]

since you mentioned games, i want to toss an idea here.

Do you know the "Superman Paradox" regarding video games? If you give a player a character with too much freedom or power, over time, the player WILL slide into a Dick-ish behavior.

The will go "out of character" simply because they can. Take a superman game, for example, or even a few Spiderman games... soon or later people will Toss innocent civilians into oncoming traffic simply because the option is there.

This is different than the GTA Syndromme though. That's where the character is so protrayed as "Tainted" or "Anti-Heroish" that his assholeish behaviour becomes "in context". All and all, this is still the bread and butter of any Sandbox action game.

Of course, here i'm just talking about the receive of such impulses. The people playing the game, interacting with the Scenario...

But then you also have the other side... the people making those things. And why they make those things? Because it's cheaper this way, it sells and it gets attention like a car wreck.

A fine example? God of War. It started deep and evolving, the story had purpose and "drive". From GoW2 and onwards it was less about all of that and more about the Rampant Murdering in violent ways... why? Sells more for less work.

[synkr0nized]

Originally Posted by Bells

A fine example? God of War. It started deep and evolving, the story had purpose and "drive". From GoW2 and onwards it was less about all of that and more about the Rampant Murdering in violent ways... why? Sells more for less work.

hahaha holy shit

I would never describe "ololol I kill everything I see" as "deep" or having "drive".

[Fifthfiend]

It was deep the way that Conan the Barbarian is deep. Manly, killing people, making speeches in a yurt about What Is Best In Life deep!

Basically, not deep! But in a very deep way.

[Aerozord]

something can be about murder and be deep if there is context and motive

[Bells]

Well, atl east the first one TRIED to be story-driven, it gave Kratos a sense of a persona. All the other ones tossed that right out the fucking window, no doubt. But the first one at least aimed for meaning.

[DarkDrgon]

it bugs me whenever anyone gives Saw the horror label. Its obviously a mystery story. The overall plot of the movies isn't about victims dealing with the murders/games, its about the police trying to find and stop a madman. Even the first one, which didn't have too much of a police plot had the mystery feel. The 2 were trying to figure out why they were in the game to begin with.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

I liked Saw. I don't see why people label it as horror either. To me it was always more of a thriller. I also don't see all the gruesome violence people bitch about. Sure, there is some of that, but probably much less than in those totally rad 80s flicks about Knifedude chasing Straight W. Male, Nerdy McNerd, Chick von Love-Interest and Blacky Quotameeter. I also may have been de-sensitized by the immoral plague that is video games.

Shit, this is where everyone finds out I haven't seen very many of those movies people consider classics.