Horror Debates

Hey HBA Members!

So with our number now at an amazing 468 (at the time of writing), we have truly become a hub of Horror blogging talent and opinions, so with all these fresh faces joining since our last round of debates, what better time to bring them back, to once again debate the hot issues currently pestering our Horror loving community.

So to kick things off, I'm going to ask you all now for your debate ideas, which can cover any aspect of horror and you can get more of an idea of previous debates by clicking on the tab below.

In the meantime please feel free to post your ideas for debates in the comments section below.

Horror Debates: Should The Infected Be Considered Zombies?

Modern Horror has been a cause for much debate with the evolving nature and terminology of the classic zombies. Today's debate focuses on the recent trend in the fast-moving undead which have recently taken on the title "The Infected." L. Cass from Zen and the Art of Zombies has posed a striking argument in favor of The Infected joining our zombie brethren under one giant undead umbrella, while Elwood Jones of From the Depths of DVD Hell has countered with a strong case for why the two should be considered separate factions in the ongoing war against the living:

Should "The Infected" Be Considered Zombies?

----------------------------------

Yes - L. Cass:

Definitions of zombie on the Web:

• A dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force
• A god of voodoo cults of African origin worshipped especially in West Indies
• automaton: someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic way
• several kinds of rum with fruit juice and usually apricot liqueur

Let’s forget about the fruit juice for now.

Asking whether the infected can be considered zombies in the traditional sense, as in a dead body that has been brought back to life by supernatural forces, then the definition does not fit at all.

In fact classifying zombies to the exact definition of the word, would make our zombie movie lists very short.

In ‘Night of the living dead’ fresh corpses rise up to consume the living, but these corpses were believed to be brought back by radiation, and not Voodoo or the supernatural.

So ‘Night of the living dead’ doesn’t have zombies?

A lot of words gain a broader and sometimes all together different definition when they partake to a particular subject, as in this case to zombie movies.

In a sense the horror movie zombie relates to the 3^rd definition of the word i.e.

• automaton: someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic way

Though the Zombies in “Night of the living Dead” were initially risen corpses, the zombie disease itself is spread to new victims through bites. The components inside the zombie that cause them to rise from the dead are passed on through the saliva and blood in these bites, similar to how some known infections are actually spread. The bite sometimes acts to even accelerate the body towards death, then reanimating the corpse. Making the time spent alive after the bite, an incubation period of sorts.

The infection in ‘28 Days later’ is spread exactly the same way, except the Rage Virus doesn’t wait for the body to die before it takes effect. Also unlike the ‘Living dead’ zombies that seek living flesh, those infected with rage have but one primal instinct and that is to kill everything that is not them.

When it comes to it, what defines a zombie, regardless if it’s the "28 days later" type, or the more traditional "Of the Dead" type, is that the body lacks the higher functions of the brain (emotion, thinkings, facebook abilities) and rather concentrates on extracting your guts out as painfully as possible

As zombie movies evolve, so do the trends associated with them. In the early days of zombie cinema, there was a strong fascination with the occult. Most of the dead were forms of ancient evil or voodoo monsters, seeking to destroy the living. As the atomic age dawned, we were introduced to zombies that are brought forth by radiation.

In this genetically enhanced world, the infected are the latest trend of horror innovation, and have every right to be considered zombies.

--------------------------------------------

No - Elwood Jones:

“The Infected” should not be considered to be zombies, even though they rightfully belong in the same sub-genre as their zombie brethren. Bizarre thinking I know but please allow me to explain.

Zombies are the re-animated bodies of the dead, which straightaway eliminates the infected, from being considered zombies due to the key fact that they are not actually dead, were as the infected are still alive, driven into a frenzy by the disease they carry, breaking them down mentally to the most primal of instincts, which as a result means that they share several of the same qualities as Zombies.

The infected being comparable to zombies, really came to the forefront, thanks to Danny Boyle’s “28 Days Later” which despite being marketed as a Viral thriller, thanks to horror at the time being a dirty word, was truly a zombie movie, with Boyle in various interviews comparing it to the essential zombie movie “Night of the Living Dead” while stating that zombies were just easy too to escape due to their shuffling nature, while making it kind of clear that he’d never seen “Return of the Living Dead” which was the first film to feature running zombies (as well as the lust for brains).

It could be argued that the term “The Infected” could also be applied to Zombies, seeing how the zombie infection is passed, though being bitten / scratched by a zombie, but it is only after death induced by the virus that someone actually becomes a zombie, were as with the infected the result is almost immediate, with victims being turned into frenzied beasts often within seconds. This infection also works the two very differently, with the zombie virus taking control of key parts of the brain to stimulate movements in the limbs, while pushing the zombie to continually feed and seek out a food source, where as the various viruses which create the infected, as I stated already breakdown the human mindset to it’s most primal instincts, via way of creating a chemical imbalance in the brain with one of the most obvious differences being a overwhelming desire for violence with a lack of desire to feed on flesh, meaning that if isolated they will starve to death in a few months, were as zombies can continue to live without needing to feed.

The other main difference between the two is the method of dispatching, with the infected easily killed with any large amount of trauma, caused to their bodies, while zombies can only be stopped by destroying the brain.

Still though they might not be zombies, I’d still consider the infected as being part of the same genre, in much the same way as the early zombies seen in films such as “White Zombie” which were seen as slaves doing their masters bidding, with Romero and Fulci turning them into the flesh eating horrors, most recognisable and in a way it could be seen that the infected are merely the next evolution of the zombie mythos, even though elitists will always wish to mark a line between the two groups.

--------------------------------------------

Excellent arguments gentlemen, thanks again for your contributions! Now is your chance to chime in on the debate, be sure to leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments below, and stop by Zen and the Art of Zombies as well as From the Depths of DVD Hell to check out L.Cass and Elwood's fantastic blogs!

Artwork Provided By: L. Cass

Horror Debates: Fast Vs Slow Moving Zombies

Gone are the days when a zombie's speed had to be recorded using a sun dial! Tonight's debate is over the current trend in Horror, where the once sluggish zombies have now picked up tremendous speed. Bill from Radiation-Scarred Reviews will be defending the fast-moving zombies of the past decade, while ratof13 from The World of Disgruntled Monkey will come to bat for the classic slow-moving zombies:

Should Zombies Be Fast Or Slow Moving?

------------------------------

Slow Moving - ratof13:

When I was a little boy going through school I was big, honestly now at 28 I’m still rather big but damn it there are just too many tasty things in this world. Still in school there were two things that kept me going no matter how bad the taunts got, I was actually a fast sprinter that could easily out pace my would be bullies, and secondly in case of a zombie apocalypse I could not only outrun a zombie but leave plenty of food between me and it. Now it’s the present and thanks to such movies as the Dawn of the Dead remake and 28 Days Later one of those comforts are a thing of the past. What am I supposed to do? Eat healthy and exercise so I can regain my advantage? Hell no instead I’m just going to complain that Hollywood has got it all backwards.

The origins of zombie if my research serves me correct, is all about Voodoo and how a Bokor (sorcerer, wizard, etc) would hypnotize a corpse into his or her service to perform various menial tasks. They weren’t the sharpest tools in the shed but they got the job done. The zombie was seen as a horrendous fate, a by product of the real monster the Bokor and as such were never a real threat like the vampire, ghoul, etc. There are also versions in book and movies that deal with zombies as living victims hypnotized, and in this dream state they are slow and unresponsive kind of like the zombies we all know and love.

But to be honest it’s not really the history that makes me prefer the slow zombies to the fast zombies but what the two really represent. The slow zombie in my mind has always represented the inevitable depressing ending of humanity. Zombies were never the real threat but just a background to allow the real horror of human nature take place; if people just worked together the zombies would be taken care of. The slow zombie also sometimes represents a fate that can’t be escaped. Yeah you survive and live till you die a natural death but you become a zombie anyway in the end, sucks to be you. Zombies don’t have to be fast as they are like the ocean, wave and wave will come and in the end it’s the humans who change not them. It’s inevitable and that’s frightening.

Fast zombies seem to really be a response to the need in movies to be more exciting, more fast paced. While I will not ever say that the remake of Dawn of the Dead is a bad movie I don’t really think that fast zombies have added anything crucial to the genre and may have taken away a deeper meaning that older zombie movies have. That’s not to say fast zombie movies are bad but just that they might be the lesser of the two.

Fast Moving - Bill:

So, zombies. Right now, in early 2010, I feel like we're reaching a point of saturation with the walking dead -- they're in our cinemas, our comic books, our parodies of Jane Austen novels. Simply everywhere. Everyone has their favorite take on zombies, be they voodoo-induced, radiation-awoken, or disease-carriers. From what I've seen, however, there's one aspect of zombies that arouses more debate than any others: Whether they move slowly or quickly. Slow zombies are the classics -- WHITE ZOMBIE, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, DAWN OF THE DEAD. And those are the original NIGHT and DAWN, mind you, not the remakes! Fast zombies are a more modern take, originating in 1984's NIGHT OF THE COMET and 1985's RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD, continuing on into 28 DAYS LATER, ZOMBIELAND, etc.

There's a fair degree of thought on the side of slow-moving zombies -- rigor mortis and decayed muscle would both slow a zombie's movements, for example. However, on the side of fast-moving zombies we have pure primal terror. To take a step back for a moment, back in time...there are a number of sort of primal fears in the human psyche, most of them leftovers from our earliest primate ancestors. Snakes and spiders are two of the biggest -- fearing them and their potentially-lethal bite was a survival mechanism. Fear of death is a big one, on a more metaphysical level, and I think is the primary fear that zombies play on, but with fast zombies we overlay that with an ancestral fear of predation.

Fast zombies combine our fear of dying and our fear of being chased down by wolves.

While slow, shambling undead we could perhaps flee from long enough to find a safe bolt-hole and plenty of ammunition, giving us a comfort zone, fast zombies deny us that. Fast zombies are on you, clawing and biting, before we have time to react, and forget about running. Even if they aren't faster than you (and they probably are), you'll tire before they do. With fast zombies, you have no real hope of survival beyond simply dumb luck. And that's not something you can ever count on.

-------------------------------

Excellent contributions gentlemen, thanks for your time and effort in this week's debate! Now is your chance to chime in and voice your opinion on the topic! Be sure to comment below with your thoughts.

Horror Debates UPDATE!!

For those of you that have already signed up, we forgot to reiterate that the maximum word count for the debates series is 500 words, so if you have begun writing, please be sure to follow this simple guideline for all fairness. Also, please remember that the debates are a friendly open forum, so as always be polite and professional in your arguments! There are still several slots open to anyone interested in joining in this round of debates, the registration is now open to all members including those who have written in the last series, so please check the previous post if you are interested in joining in!

Horror Debates Line-up #2

Alright, looks like we have a good number of participants ready to roll for the second set of debates! Here are the match-ups that have been assigned so far:

-Should zombies be able to move fast?
Yes: Bill (RSR)
No: ratof13

-Who made the better zombie films: the Americans or the Italians?
Americans: OPEN!
Italians: OPEN!

-Which is the more definitive zombie film: Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the Dead?
Night of the Living Dead: Mark (RMR)
Dawn of the Dead: TimTE01

-Should 'infected' be considered zombies?
Yes: L.Cass
No: Elwood Jones

There are still three slots open for this round! Anyone interested in signing up for any of the remaining slots, shoot in a comment quickly to snag your place. If you have already been assigned a partner, get writing and send in your submissions to horrorbloggeralliance@hotmail.com and we will begin posting the results shortly!

Sign up for the Horror Debates Series 2

We were blown away at the phenomenal response everyone received in the first round of Horror Debates hosted by the Horror Blogger Alliance over the past month! Everyone submitted thoughtful and concise arguments in a friendly forum, and we are very grateful for all of the hard work from the contributors and positive responses from your fellow HBA members. As such, we are now happy to announce the second round of Horror Debates with a brand new set of topics! We are looking for volunteers to take on the following zombie themed topics:

-Should zombies be fast moving?

-Who made the better zombie films: the Americans or the Italians?

-Which is the more definitive zombie film: Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the Dead?

-Should 'infected' be considered zombies?

We are going to need two debaters for each topic defending each of the various arguments.

With so many members now belonging to the HBA, we ask that the members who participated in the last set of debates hold off on entering for a few days until others have had the chance to enter, after which time we will be opening up registration for any of our members! Thanks again, and we look forward to the next round.

Horror Debates: Is Dario Argento Overrated?

What better debate to kick off the new week than a debate over another one of the Masters of Horror? Tonight's arguments are being posed by LoTTD member and fellow blogger TL Bugg from The Lightning Bug's Lair and James Gracey of the esteemed Behind the Couch (also the author of a new book on the man himself). The question at hand?

Is Dario Argento overrated?

No - TL Bugg: When this debate about Argento was proposed, I knew I had to jump in on this one. As a latecomer to the Italian films, it has only been in the last couple of years that I started catching up on those films. While I started with Fulci’s Zombi 2 and Martino’s Cannibal God, I chose to begin watching Argento with Opera, a film I had serious problems with. While it was a well made film, the metal soundtrack that the killer seemed to carry around with him bugged the crap out of me. I’ll admit it, after that film, I wondered what the fuss about Argento was.

Being a brave fellow I decided to go back to the beginning and check out his first giallo The Bird with the Crystal Plumage. After taking in this deftly wound thriller, I started to see why people were crazy for him. Then I watched Susperia. After drinking in every frame of the 98 minute film, it all began to become clear. Not only was he a filmmaker of great skill who could utilize a rich color palette and amazing camera movements, but he was also a great storyteller. As soon as the film ended, I pushed play and watched it again because I didn’t want to miss a single frame. (When I bought a large LCD TV recently, it was the first film I had to see.)

These two films illustrated how Argento had taken the marriage of art and horror that Mario Bava had pioneered to a whole other level. Bava’s films may have looked lush and colorful, but Argento was using the colors to move the narrative forward. It was unlike anything I had ever seen. As I carried on watching his catalog I was equally blown away by films like Deep Red, perhaps the greatest film to carry the giallo label, and Tenebre, a departure from the gloomy color bathed films as Argento proved that horror could happen in the brightest of places.

Now the most recent of these films I have mentioned was 1982’s Tenebre, and it is when you get into the late ‘80’s and beyond that Argento’s reputation begins to suffer. If you sit down and watch dreadful pap like The Card Player or The Phantom of the Opera, then there’s good reason to doubt that it could even be the same Dario Argento. (Though I thought his 2 Masters of Horror episodes, Pelts and Jennifer were amongst the best of that series.) Because of missteps like the aforementioned films and, more recently, Mother of Tears and Giallo, people are ready to write Dario off. Doing this does a disservice to the incredible material he produced in the ‘70’s and the legion of film makers that he influenced including directors as diverse as Wes Craven, Quentin Tarantino, and Gaspar Noe. Few directors cast a shadow of influence so wide, and fewer have so many great films in their catalog at all.

Is Dario Argento overrated?

Yes - James: For years now Dario Argento has been riding on the coattails of the success of his earlier work. Like so many horror directors who experienced their heyday in the Seventies and Eighties, his more recent output marks him as a director whose work as a whole is at best wildly uneven and at worst shambolic, dated and utterly redundant. Indeed the last ‘great’ film mentioned in the counter argument was released in 1982. Over twenty years ago!
Famed for his lurid giallo movies, Argento works almost exclusively in a subgenre that was not only specific to Italian cinema, but whose influence and popularity was basically specific to a certain timeframe too - namely the Eighties. It was unable to obtain any sort of legacy other than one of nostalgic curiosity.

One of Argento’s characteristic traits is his unflinching ability to churn out the same entourage of ideas, images and stories time and time again. And again. His repertoire is severely limited, and nowadays this is even more glaringly obvious because the stylistic excesses he once lavished upon his early works are now completely absent, thereby ensuring the revelation of the threadbare narratives and stories more obviously than ever before. Pretty colours and fancy camera work does not a good film make.

Of course allowances can be made and excuses proffered in defence of the man who directed one of the most influential, daring and unique horror films of all time: Suspiria. Much like Tobe Hooper though, (both directors are often mentioned in the same breath as examples of filmmakers who all too briefly exhibited something truly original and startling in their early work but never came close to truly realising their full potential throughout the remainder of their strangely vacuous careers) Argento has never come close to equalling the impact of Suspiria or Deep Red. One or two great titles from years ago is not enough to ensure one’s presumed greatness or relevance is maintained. Argento is a director who has long since been thought too highly of, his films thought way too much of and whose reputation has been built up more than it ever had any right to be. Audiences are constantly let down by each new film - the culmination of this crushing disappointment perfectly exemplified by the latest plunge in his already long-sagging career: Giallo.

Let’s face it - he is an overvalued has-been.

The critical acclaim of the likes of Deep Red or Suspiria has ensured the vast majority of his more or less unimpressive body of work has been overprized; his lasting influence magnified beyond any level of credibility. He has never exceeded the expectations lavished upon him by adoring fans, the likes of whom constantly jump to his defence by citing the likes of Suspiria as justification for his continued overestimation.

Argento was once so keen to be aligned with other horror directors such as Wes Craven, John Carpenter, George Romero and Tobe Hooper. Well now is clearly is - and he can take his place with pride amongst these other ‘luminaries’ as a horror hack who has really lost his touch and is even less relevant now than he was back then.

--------------------------------------

Thanks for the fantastic arguments gentlemen, and we now hand the debate off to you! Voice your opinions on the great (or overrated) Dario Argento in the comments below, and don't forget to pre-order your copy of James Gracey's book today at Amazon.com:

Horror Debates: Is “Torture Porn” a Derogatory Term?

Our forth installment of Horror Debates sure is a scorcher! Torture Porn swept the nation a few years back and here to debate whether or not the term “Torture Porn” is derogatory or not, is Zach S. from Z for Zombies and Awkward Creations, going head to head against Mattsuzaka of Chuck Norris Ate My Baby and Paracinema…The Blog fame. Aaaand, we’re off!

Is “Torture Porn” a Derogatory Term?

“No” Zach:

Torture Porn. Say it out loud. Even if you’ve never seen a selection of this genre you immediately know what it is about, and you desperately want to find out more. Cinematically Torture Porn punches you in the gut and never apologizes for it. These two buzz words now replace the tired moniker of “slasher” as the quintessential means of describing the most gruesome horror films nowadays. And for a genre that rarely sees major studio backing, its word of mouth that separates the pop favorites from the cult classics. Horror is meant to be unsettling, unnerving and it’s really only these films that push the envelope that can jolt the most jaded of viewers. This is the direct result of graphic content being graphically depicted. Many argue that Torture Porn comes at the price of sacrificing storyline and character development for unflinching ultra-violence and gratuitous nudity, but you get exactly what you pay for; the last true incarnation of truth in advertising. This phrase, meant to embattle movie goers, has spurned the general populace into thinking the term Torture Porn is a slap in the face to their proclivities to witness such acts. I say Torture Porn is the last battle cry for what can be cinematically tolerated in a free society.

The need to shock and horrify with Torture Porn is a shot across the helm to modern cinema to not only exceed the craftsmanship of their predecessors, but to also sicken and titillate the expectations of today’s apathetic audiences. With Torture Porn the artistry of special effects is fully embraced to create the most realistic depictions of inexcusable acts. Not showing the moral consequences of these illicit actions and visually censoring them is the most detestable act of all, leaving the entire process sterilized and void of any artistic merit or redemption. The entire purpose of Torture Porn is to stimulate a reaction of repulsion and arousal. This results from a direct conflict of our inhibitions perpetuated by social norms against our animal instincts of survival. This genre serves as a counter balance to the fantasized silver screened notions of life, death and the pain depicted within more commercial films. What shocks and terrifies with Torture Porn is then extrapolated and imitated by film producers as the new standard of compliance in the world of Horror. Torture Porn has officially cemented a once softly spoken sub-genre of horror as a full blown Hollywood career maker. And if you do it to Nazis you get an Oscar nod too.

Torture Porn, is an identifiable label, has all warnings of its content and purpose in its very definition. I mean, what the hell else would you call it? This genre isn’t for the kids, it’s strictly for the hardcore. Any form of censorship that could be rallied against this breed of film by using the term Torture Porn in a derogatory fashion is immediately rendered mute. So say it loud, I’m watching Torture Porn and I’m proud!

“Yes” Mattsuzaka

What’s my all-beef patty with the term Torture Porn? Well, it’s a subject that is not quite as relevant as it was a few years back, during the height of the critically created subgenre, but what it stands for, is always pertinent to horror and its many detractors. Torture Porn was created by claimed horror fan and film-critic, David Edelstein, who described some of these films as “Movies that are so viciously nihilistic that the only point seems to be to force you to suspend moral judgments altogether.” It’s a term used to downgrade a portion of horror, saying these films are not worthy of any artistic value. It is a term used to describe a type of film that has been around for a lot longer than Hostel and that is Exploitation, which is what these films are in the end.

Why would it become a focus all of the sudden? Because these films made a splash at the box office and people were going to see them. They are no different than say, Last House On the Left, or the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, so why is this term created now? It’s a way to take from our genre with a negative tag, a tag that implies that these films are nothing more than pornography, or better yet, trash. This has been an issue that has plagued our genre of choice for many years and even films that are regarded as classics, were put under the scrutiny of critics trying to take a stance as well as make a name for themselves, by disrespecting what we hold near and dear to our hearts.

Torture Porn is a term meant to get a rise out of politicians and overzealous Christian groups, who now have a perfectly frightening and dirty sounding name for a type of film they reject, a type of film that many of these people know nothing about. Horror as entertainment has been dragged through the mud for as long as it’s been successful and it has been used as a political platform to frighten parents into keeping their children safe from the horrors of these movies by voting for them. Anytime there is a school shooting, or some child related act of violence, there is instant backlash and horror is one of the first on the receiving end.

In the 80’s, the term Slasher was meant to degrade those films of that time, even though Slasher films had been around for years already, it wasn’t until a Friday the 13th came along and became successful, that critics and do-gooders went after them. Over time, the negative term Slasher was embraced by fans, thus taking away its meaning, but Slasher is a much different in it’s description. It fits. Torture Porn insinuates that and equates the bloodletting on screen to the same release one would get sexually when watching pornographic material. It is a way of making these movies less than what they are, which is art.

----------------------------------

Now it’s your turn to weigh in on the term Torture Porn dear reader - do you think it’s derogatory, or no? Make sure to leave your thoughts and thanks to our lovely and gorgeous participants for taking part in the debate!

Horror Debates: Are Remakes Ruining Horror?

Our third debate is another hot topic in Horror, this time centering on the fashionable remake trend that has run rampant in the industry. Taking on this weighty debate are Horror Blogger Alliance members Highly Caffeinated from Horror in the Making and Elwood Jones of From the Depths of DVD Hell fame:

Are Remakes Ruining Horror?

"Yes" Elwood Jones:

If there is anyone word in the English language, which brings up the bile to the back of your throat quicker than anything else, it has to be the word “Remake”. In-fact it currently seems like the last few years have been nothing but a constant bombardment of remakes with every coming soon list causing a little piece of horror loving soul to die each time I see, which horror classic is soon to receive the sterile reworking of a modern studio system.

Still why does any film honestly needs to be remade, especially when it has often been no longer than twenty years after it’s original release, especially when you consider that film making hasn’t really moved along that greatly in such time, apart moving further away from hands on effects to relying more on CGI effects. Still it does beg the question “if a film works the first time, why remake it?” After all if something isn’t broken in the first place why try and fix it? A question especially asked of the 1998 remake of “Psycho”, which was essentially a shot for shot remake of the original film, begging the question as to why Gus Van Sant, even choose to remake it. Is the prospect of watching a film in black and white really that daunting to a modern audience?

Still the Hollywood remake machine rumbles on, frequently adding to the increasingly sterile state of modern horror, with the current output often seeming like a GQ explosion on the screen, as god forbid the audience be exposed to realistic average looking people, which it could be argued was what was so great about the original films and something especially magnified by the recent series reboots for “Friday the 13^th” and “Nightmare on Elm St”.

Perhaps it is just that as an audience we are now to spoiled with the production quality of films that are being produced, or maybe it’s just the prospect of watching a film which is not in English that it makes it hard, for your average movie goer to watch some of these original films, especially those which are still in the same grainy prints of their original release, something that it seems the studio system feels is a justified reason for remakes, seeing how upon the release of “My Bloody Valentine” (2009) director Patrick Lussier could be found to be defending his film, by stating that it’s release had meant that the original had been given a DVD release which it wouldn’t have seen otherwise. Still this can hardly be argued as being a strong argument, for what is essentially fast cash for the studios.

Studios should be looking forward and trying to evolve on these previous films, by creating new horror legacies rather than trying to emulate and cash in on the legacy of the originals, after all “Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken” and recreating a tested classic won’t always produce the same effect created by the original.

"No" Highly Caffeinated:

Are remakes ruining horror? Simply put, Hell No.

I was a late blooming horror fan, it wasn’t until my twenties when I dived headlong into the genre. A great part of that fandom was firmly cemented by the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

In fact the TCM remake inspired me to hire out the original, excited to see what genius it was a remake of. Unfortunately, I can't report back on that, as I slept through most of it. While for its time, the original TCM was groundbreaking and terrifying, watching it for the first time 30 years after it was made however, and it was pretty dull. (ducks throwing fruit) Yes, I said it. But what this does bring up is that the remake worked. It worked in drawing in a new fresh crowd of horror fans.

These new fans grew up with MTV edits, fast paced story telling and shorter run times. But, as we once all were, they are now horror fans that will seek out their new genre of choice, perhaps some will enjoy running through the giant back catalog of horror, but either way, there are new fans for the genre we all love.

New fans means a wider audience appeal for horror films, with more horror films being released to feed that market, where is the downside? Sure, not all horror is great, but that just makes the great ones so much better.

But why remake a film instead of producing new materials? For starters, it is now a brand name. People (like myself) who had never seen TCM knew the branding, knew the premise, and so went in watching expecting good things from such a strong brand. The other strong appeal of the remake for studios is the returns. Horror in general is considered a low budget medium as you don't need known actors to sell it, unlike say with a drama, and generally getting returns on such a lower budget is easier to achieve. Box Office Mojo shows the remake of the Ring grossed almost 130 million dollars in theatres alone, and a further eleven upwards of 50 million. Those are big bikkies for horror films, and easier to grab with a safe brand.

Even those that hate remakes have forked out money to see it, furthering the studio cycle, and if they’ve not, then their biases are without backing.

We live in very different times now, and our horror films need to reflect that. Horror has and always will be a great way to express our fear of the world around us. And while relevant during Cold War times, a relentless William Shatner mask wearing psycho killing teens for what seems no rhyme or reason, in this day and age we now need to know why he is wearing the mask and why he is killing them.

But Carpenter’s film is still better.

----------------------------------

Regardless of your stance, we know that everyone has an opinion on this one, so be sure to throw in your two cents in the comments section below!

Horror Debates: Is Wes Craven a Hack That Got Lucky?

In our next debate, Carl from I Like Horror Movies will be teaming up with Rhonny Reaper from Dollar Bin Horror to cover both sides of the topic at hand. The rules as always are to keep it civil, keep it thoughtful, and keep it under 500 words:

Is Wes Craven a hack that got lucky?

"Yes" Carl:

Wes Craven is a knowledgeable, cultured, and articulate speaker that could have become a brilliant professor if he had stuck with his original profession. It was his background in Literature that drew him to THE VIRGIN SPRING, a drama based on a13th century Swedish ballad that also served as the basis for his feature debut THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT. It is this film in particular that we must now draw our focus. Many genre enthusiasts consider Craven to be one of (if not the) masters of horror, while still others place him as a talentless hack that got lucky with his first film. While that language may be harsh, the argument is not without merit. Although there are strong prevalent themes lying beneath the surface of LAST HOUSE relating back to the destruction of the nuclear family and the breakdown of civility, these themes are completely overshadowed by the abusive sex and violence the film portrays. There is very little style of substance in many of the deplorable acts, filmed in a crude “guerilla” style that lacks all of the polished professionalism of the studio system. The characters are written to such extremes as to achieve a level of comic book supervillainy. The burden of these exaggerated characterizations did not fall on the actors, but rather their creator. The characters were written by an irresponsible director that specifically engineered them to generate sensationalism and to perpetuate the perversity and gore in the script. As THE VIRGIN SPRING proved, the story was strong enough to succeed without these elements. The senseless tortures and humiliations are unnecessary additions included to upset and disgust the audience rather than seize them in a grip of suspense or terror. Cheap exploitation techniques, then, become the driving force of the film, not character or plot. Cruel characters and gore alone do not make a poor director, but when added to the weakened structure of the film, cracks do appear. Zany music, goofy cops, and an uneven blend of sadism and sitcom are just a few of the faults leading to the film's ultimate technical failure.

Craven benefited most from a genius marketing campaign and a dramatic shift in the times that brought forth a desensitized audience craving carnage and bloodshed as a cathartic release from the struggling social and political climate post-Vietnam. While he would strike gold with later hits THE HILLS HAVE EYES and A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, his spotty track record often reflects the same inattention to style and character that made films like CHILLER or INVITATION TO HELL fall flat. Were it not for the perfect timing of LAST HOUSE'S release during a period when Exploitation was a thriving new market, Craven may easily have been written off and forgotten before HILLS or NIGHTMARE were ever conceived. Luck and timing had everything to do with his future success as a filmmaker, and not skill.

"No" Rhonny Reaper:

Wes craven is a familiar name to horror fans. His legacy of films has kept him relevant to new and seasoned horror buffs, but with greatness comes scrutiny. There are those who would say he got lucky because not all of his films are good. Well to this, let me ask you, name a director who every single film they ever made you love? Carl focuses on Last House on the Left, but lets remember this was his FIRST FILM; he wasn’t a seasoned pro yet! Did Big Ben win his first super bowl, I think not! Sure Craven had some missed with films like Last House on the Left (which I actually liked), Chiller and Vampire in Brooklyn (even though I kinda sorta liked that one, don’t shoot me it was funny), but when he hit it, he fucking hit in on the bulls eye.

The Hills Have Eyes (If it wasn’t for this film, you wouldn’t have your Wrong Turns and crazy redneck films!), A Nightmare on Elm Street (come on, he created Freddy for fucks sake, the slasher that broke the strong, silent type mode!), Scream (The original 90’s slasher with my future husband, Billy! lol)…he hit it in all of these! And not only were this films great, but they reached out to THREE different generations of horror fans! Hacks get lucky once and ride of the successes of that one glimpse of greatness, Wes Craven has proved several times over that he knows what he’s doing, and does it well.

--------------------------

Join in the fun and voice your opinions on Horror legend Wes Craven in the comments below, and thanks again to our contributors in this tonight's debate!

Horror Debates: Is Pirating/Bootlegging Killing Horror?

The Horror Blogger Alliance is happy to present the first in what will hopefully be a long series of ongoing debates between members! Once again, the rules are only to be respectful, thoughtful, and to meet a 500 word limit for all fairness. Up first, B-Movie Becky from The Horror Effect and Venoms5 from Cool Ass Cinema will be taking on the following topic:

Is Pirating/Bootlegging Killing Horror?

"Yes" Venoms5:

I feel pirating, and or bootlegging does hurt horror, or any other genre for that matter. However, I feel it does far more to cripple the smaller companies than it does the big studios. The smaller DVD companies know in advance that their product caters to a limited audience. The appeal of some acquisitions will vary from one title to the next, but still, the newer releases are what most people, ie the mainstream audience, want to see.

The smaller outfits also have less chance of turning a profit versus a giant like Warner Brothers. For every obscure title they release, they will more than make up for it with a blockbuster hit such as THE DARK KNIGHT. These smaller companies generally have lower print runs which is why a lot of the titles are sometimes over $20 for a purchase. Torrents and pirates take away a portion of the pie due to the individuals who worked hard to get their releases to the already small number of fans that want them.

The bigger outfits can afford to take a loss here and there when they're going to move over a million units or more of a popular title(s). Bootleggers tapping into the bigger market is going to make a small dent, but this indenture is going to seriously cripple, if not mortally wound the little guys. So many great DVD companies have fallen over the last few years. Bootlegging isn't totally to blame, but it's clearly a problem, not just in America, but all over the world.

Furthermore, the bootleggers aren't totally at fault here. People buy them. They want them and don't care if their favorite film gets a legit stateside release. Then when there's no more releases, the "fans" complain. Sure, there's a select amount of buyers who are ignorant to what they are buying, but they don't know what they have in their hands is an unauthorized, non licensed release. They just buy it because it's what they want and it's cheap, too. If you were to place a bootleg (say $7) next to the legit release (say $15) on a shelf in a store, an interested or curious buyer is likely to take the cheaper one.

Because of pirating, there are a great many exploitation, horror (insert genre here), titles that will in all likelihood never see the light of a DVD player because of a number of contributing factors. The guy at home with two DVD players and or his trusty computer being one of them.

"No" B-Movie Becky:

There is a misconception that anti-piracy and copyright legislation are focused on the interests of filmmakers. However, they have become mechanisms of controlling the entertainment industry. Since nearly all the media in the U.S. is managed by a handful of companies, their lobbying power ensures their ability to control the type of media consumed. It also provides these major conglomerates a means of prosecuting individuals and artists. Not only do small violations add up to a large number in fines, but fear of prosecution adds to the atmosphere of control that is desired, creating an inevitable chilling effect on speech and ultimately, fewer means of expression. In the horror genre, the more options and the more access to different types of films, the better the genre will become.

Piracy-related loss is an industry scapegoat. Hollywood allocates more and more money to Blockbusters, consolidating studios to create mega motion pictures instead of moderately-budgeted films. “[S]ince it takes a much smaller audience to support a profitable lower-budget release, these films often focus on a relatively small demographic” (i.e. horror fans) and as a result, “the content and themes of independent movies provide a much broader spectrum of characters and issues than one finds from movies that cost $150 million to make and must be viewed…by tens of millions of consumers to return a profit.”1 The industry’s own practices are not even considered a factor in their alleged losses. Surely if internet piracy were as great of an issue as claimed, then box office numbers should give us some indication of an impact. However, they show no such trend and, if anything, show the opposite.

I believe that one of the reasons the film industry continues to succeed, despite piracy, is the growth of independent films hitting the box office as a result of an overall transformation into the digital culture. Niche audiences (dedicated horror fans) will ultimately pay to see the movies they want. Independent and foreign horror filmmakers will benefit from the exposure, fan base, and interaction created from piracy. Piracy may impact major studio films that need to make a return off immense budgets, but these are not the type of films that better the horror genre. In fact, the failure of these films may lead to an industry realization that producing creative, smaller budget films may be a better way to make a return on their investment—giving independent horror filmmakers a better shot at distribution. Paranormal Activity, for example, broke countless records, despite great amounts of piracy and screeners floating around. Horror fans will show their support for films/filmmakers they enjoy. General audiences will attend screenings if the buzz is good. Instead of focusing on piracy as a loss, Hollywood should focus on making a better experience for filmgoers, which should make horror fans and filmmakers happier in the long run.

-----------------------------------

Now is your chance to chime in on the subject! Feel free to post your thoughts on pirating and bootlegging below, and thanks again to our contributors in tonight's debate!

Horror Debate Line Up #1

Alright, looks like we have a good number of participants ready to roll for the first several debates! Here are the match-ups that have been assigned so far:

Is Dario Argento overrated?
Yes - James
No - T.L. Bugg

Is Dario Argento overrated?
Yes - STILL OPEN
No - Alec

Is "Torture Porn" a derogatory term?
Yes - Matt
No - Zach S.

Is Wes Craven a hack that got lucky?
Yes - Carl
No - Rhonny

Are remakes ruining Horror?
Yes - Elwood
No - Highly Caffeinated

Is pirating/bootlegging killing Horror?
Yes - Venoms5
No - Becky

Anyone interested in signing up for any of the remaining slots, shoot in a comment quickly to snag your place! If you have already been assigned a partner, get writing and send in your submissions to horrorbloggeralliance@hotmail.com and we will begin posting the results shortly!

Horror Debate Sign-Up

Alright everyone, let's get this party started! The HBA is looking for pairs of horror bloggers to take on the following topics for the first series of Horror Debates. These debates are meant to be friendly and fun, and should also allow for creative thinking and exploration of alternate views that the writers might not necessarily support. We ask that the arguments be kept to a maximum of 500 words in order to keep the debates as even and fair as possible, but other than that you are free to use any supporting documents, thoughts, and opinions to examine your side of the debate. What you obviously are not entitled to do is attack the other contributor, but this should not be an issue. Depending on the number of submissions, we may launch several of the same debate topics with different contributors.

For the first several rounds, we will need volunteers for both sides of the argument on the following topics:

-Is Dario Argento overrated?
-Is 20 years too soon to remake a film?
-Is "Torture Porn" a derogatory term in recent Horror?

Also, we are looking for topic submissions for future debates, so be sure to chime in below with questions you would like to see discussed. Thanks in advance for your contributions and get writing!