According to webster’s dictionary horror is defined as a shuttering; the strong feeling caused by something frightful or shocking; shuddering fear and disgust; terror and repugnance. In turn Wikipedia says that a horror film is a movie that strives to elicit the emotions of fear, horror and terror from viewers. Let’s be honest guys, to us fans horror just isn’t as scary as it use to be. Read more.

Follow up:

Is our favorite genre fading or are we just too desensitized? Do scary movies still adhere to these definitions? We’re going to attempt to solve these questions but we warn you, the answers may be more frightening than the scariest horror movie.

History and our personal experiences show that we as people love entertainment and controlled excitement. Being scared is one of those exciting feelings that most of us don’t experience on a daily basis unless it’s supplied to us from an outside source like sports, TV or film. This shortage of a particular feeling creates a demand much like that of a drug. Some can resist it while others over indulge it. Being scared is no different in that it produces addictive characteristics. It’s all about that feeling we get like when our pulse races or when the hairs on the back of our necks stand up. Most of you reading became horror fans at some point (except for the few of you born into it via horror parents) and we were scared out of our minds after watching a scary movie for the first time. I’m sure most of us can still remember that first horror movie. Still, no matter how scared you were and how many times you peed the bed you would always build up the guts to watch another and then another seeking the feeling and thrill of being scared. Still, before long you find yourself needing something harder and more extreme to satisfy your desire and sooner or later you don’t get that same feeling from watching scary movies anymore. At this point you’re pretty much hooked and a horror fan is born . . . or are you something else?

In our opinion, the horror film genre has the hardest job in cinema. Not only is it judged as a film but its success depends on the audience’s immersion into the story. “Hold on a sec!” you say. “All movies depend on that.” This is very true but it’s even more important to horror than other film genres because the way to feel those scary vibes or creeps can only come from a viewer’s submission to the cinematic experience. Let’s dig a little deeper.

If you’re trying to watch a flick in a noisy theater or goofing with your friends it’s hard to get scared with all the distractions. However, if someone is alone in their house at night with the lights out it’s a completely different experience. Again, to be scared horror demands at least a large portion of your attention and needs you to be nearly completely immersed into the film in order for the scare ploys to invoke those exciting feelings. If you aren’t engrossed then you receive nothing. So environment is everything. If you’re with a group of talky friends in a packed theater you are more than likely going to be distracted. Distractions are the horror of horror. They kill a horror movie’s suspense. Other film genres don’t suffer (as much) from our A.D.D. tendencies and can often still reach their goal of making us feel all mushy, wanting revenge against the bad guy or jerk that tear. Meanwhile Horror’s entire goal is to frighten. The horror movie’s main purpose has failed when it can’t deliver this to its fans and more importantly, the general audience.

Horror is the only genre that has a difficult time properly catering to its fan base in a theater because we (the fans) are so desensitized due to the advancement of special effects and same old scare tactics. Where general audience members still cringe we horror fans cheer (or use to cheer). When action, western or romance fans watch a film (regardless of how effective it is) the genre theme is still present while a horror movie’s goal to scare has all but vanished within its fan base because the effectiveness has worn off. If it can’t frighten us is the horror genre theme nonexistent? The purpose to scare and that feeling is something horror fans so rarely feel anymore. Has our horror drug been so abused that our urges can no longer be satisfied? There are several different roads we can take concerning this issue and we’ll discuss a few.

It happens occasionally but the appearance of a truly scary movie is few and far between and the experience is rarely shared by the horror community as a whole again due to different viewing environments. Take Paranormal Activity for example. Some horror fans found P.A. to be the first scary movie they’d seen in a decade. The use of handy cam tricked us into subconsciously thinking we were watching something more real. This helped lure us into the cinematic environment and we surrounded ourselves with the make-believe story. However, others found it completely lame and they felt very disattached from the film. As a horror fan you rather got it or you didn’t.

We think the torture porn phase was trying to address this issue of a disjointed community by unifying the fan base with disturbing imagery tabooed by society. If we can’t scare fans then we’ll gross them out and make them turn away from the screen. Yes, it’s a similar shock effect however it’s not because we are scared but because we don’t want to puke on the guy’s lap sitting next to us. Although it may have worked at the very beginning (and currently still works for the general audience) it proved to be no substitute for what fans wanted.

Where Robert Englund in the Krueger make-up use to keep us sleepless on school nights during our childhood . . . his burned face is now as normal to me as any person I pass on the street. Maybe it’s just part of maturing and changing . . . leaving behind those feelings we once experienced from watching a scary movie in our youth only to so desperately want to relive them. No matter what we do we just can’t find them. I remember my mother talking about watching the Universal classics and how they would freak her out by likes of the wolfman, mummy and so on. We owe them so much and they will always be held with the utmost respect but are they still scary to horror fans today? Do they make you toss and turn at night? Well, if seeing acid pumped into a guy while he melts doesn’t phase you then I doubt Karloff and Lugosi will give you sleepless nights.

So if that’s the case and we aren’t being scared anymore is the horror genre dead? In a sense it’s the only film genre that’s self-destructive. The more we watch the more accustomed we come to the grizzled images of monsters and maniacs almost to the point where they become equal with super heroes. If the feeling of being scared has vanished what foundation do horror movies still have? It’s almost a paradox, a black hole or a dog chasing its tale. The more we watch the more we desire and the more we can’t have causing us to watch more and desire more. It’s like horror movies have us in check dang it! It’s an endless cycle but where’s it spiraling to? Well, we’ve got a pretty good idea.

We’ve already talked about the individuals who watch horror repeatedly eventually becoming desensitized and in turn they are actually bringing about the demise of horror (to themselves at least). Where do we go from here? Well, right now they are remaking every horror film known to man attempting to tap into those childhood memories but it’s ultimately just backfiring. You can’t progress by going backwards. They are only stalling and just aggravating the horror community as a whole. Other films like Saw and Hostel are great film history examples. As previously discussed, after what seemed like a billion Scream knock-offs things went more violent. If they can’t get us to jump in our seats anymore then they’ll make something so disgusting that we’ll have to cover our eyes. This strategy was effective for a while but now I can down a bowl of spaghetti with meatballs while watching Saw. Crap, I’ll even eat pudding while watching Dead Alive. So is there an actual objective limit to horror? Is there going to be a time when our society says enough is enough or will the general audience eventually catch up and fall victim to a desensitized state also? So far it would appear that the masses are following in our footsteps. More and more is becoming acceptable to the American and worldwide viewer ship. The MPAA isn’t nearly as strict as it once was. Don’t believe us? Remember when Hitchock would have his actors neck and rub their faces all over each other to simulate making out to get around the onscreen kiss regulations? Compare that to the recent Friday the 13th remake that featured a soft core porn scene – and they were stupendous! I know that’s a sexual content example but I think it’s a nice parallel with the evolution of cinema scare and thrill tactics. Do we see a pattern?

If anything history shows that we will want more and Hollywood is certainly trying to satisfy our unquenchable habit. Anymore, scary video games have a much better chance at getting a reaction out of me and why you ask? It’s simple. Video games are much more interactive. Still, don’t count Hollywood out because they have an answer to this. With the more recent digital takeover of film making, 3D has been resuscitated to make films not so much about story but about the “experience”. You think Avatar is doing so well because of its Dances with Wolves story line? It’s killing at the box office because it sucked people in. Seriously, people were contemplating suicide because Pandora didn’t exist. It was that real to them. Still, with everything else 3D will too wear out its welcome and another (possibly virtual reality?) will takes its place one day. So where does the evolution end? Maybe it’s not an evolution to the future but a devolving to the past. What’s to stop us from one day becoming a society of Roman spectators watching gladiators brutally kill each other with the blood splattering the faces of the crowd? Is that what it’s going to take to make us shudder? Will we need real people killed right in front of us to satisfy these feelings because cinema will no longer seem real enough to scratch that itch? Explain the steady increase in UFC’s (Ultimate Fighting Championship) popularity? Hey, I love the octagon too but it makes you wonder. Is history repeating itself? Using the same analogy but in a different context, it’s like a dog chasing its tail. The more we watch the less we get. By evolving we are actually devolving.

Let’s go back to that definition of a horror film; A movie that strives to scare. Is this a correct definition? I’ve heard many say, “A movie that does scare”. Which is it? Is it still horror if a film can’t evoke fear from its fans but at least it’s attempting to? Is this effort good enough? Obviously it’s good enough for the general audience who often don’t need a new definition but this raises another question. Is a scary movie considered horror if a fan isn’t scared by it but a non-fan is? More importantly, is a movie considered horror if it repeatedly (through-out its running time) scares children? Remember, what frightens one person might not the next due to personal experiences and environment. As far as my 5 year old nephew is concerned Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is horror because it features dementors, werewolves and many horror elements. He hides his eyes every time those scenes hit the screen. However would I or you call Harry Potter a horror movie just because it scared us in our youth? Probably not. Still, to my nephew it’s horror.

We’ve got two definitions for you, objective and subjective. According to Webster’s objective is of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. In simple terms, the grass is green rather I think it is or not. However, subjective defined by Webster’s is existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought. Pretty much subjective is a matter of opinion expressed by self-aware thinking beings – that would be humans.

So is horror subjective or objective? That could be the most difficult and nasty question to ask concerning our genre. If it’s objective then there’s a standard enforcing the limits. But who is the author of the limits? Surely it’s us, society. However, history has shown that society’s limits for horror have changed over time and varies from one individual to the next. We’ve shown that what a general moviegoer or child believes to be scary is often not shared by horror fans – this makes horror subjective yet we all make up society that sets the objective standard. So if society is the author of horror’s objective definition what is a horror film? Is it a movie that scares (objective facts) or attempts to scare (subjective opinion)? We think Wikipedia’s definition is right on and the latter is the best description of the genre. However, with no objective limits outside a subjective society there are no true universal limits and our fear of repeating history looks more likely.

Despite that depressing conclusion and no matter if we horror fans only get one movie that manages to scare us and bring back those addictive feelings of the past . . . is it really worth it? Knowing the circular path we walk and hanging in there year after year to get so few real scary moments that depend on so many factors? Screw it . . . we’re addicted. ABSO-FREAKN-LUTELY it’s worth it!!!!