Spatula
Please dont mind my reply...I didnt understand what are you eaxctly trying to say...[
] i am sorry if you got irritated with my this statment. You mean to say that more characthers should stay alive in the end of the movie???
Not at all irritated, my friend. I'm just glad someone isn't telling me to shut my piehole and get back to work.
They don't necessarily need to die at the end- but the significance of their deaths should MEAN more. I mean that in a typical movie with 5-8 cast members, there is usually only 1-2 people who "survive" whatever it is they are surviving. The problem is, those 5-6 people who die (most often violently) tend to be under-developed characters or not emotionally invested in the survivor character or the story.
I think a big part of horror is the "shock factor", or in other words, the "unexpected" (which ties into the fear of the unknown)... when people expect something to happen, it's no longer scary, so a big part of horror is doing things that are against what the audience expects... here's some examples:
Event Horizon - good example of the "unexpected" + fantastic Scifi-horror movie. Of the three characters that survive, 2 of them turn out to be the type of "underdeveloped" character I'm talking about (the black guy and the blonde scientist chick). A delightfully unexpected surprise when these characters end up surviving where others do not. Every death in that movie is also emotionally invested in some way, mainly because Lawrence Fishburn's character is such a gung-ho crew-loving captain, and when he blows himself up allowing the two stock characters to survive, it's a great payoff for the film.
I Know What You Did Last Summer - Who gives a shit about any of the characters in this movie anyway? They're a group of dull, 2-D teenage idiots running around as some killer picks them off one by one in a predictable order. Well, there's a lot of movies like this (more "slasher genre"), and they all pretty much end the same... some heroine's ex-boyfriend or secret crush kills her friends, comes after her, but is defeated by the new boyfriend in her life and the killer falls off a cliff into the sea. Then the heroine moves to Baltimore to start a new life and the last shot of the film is her in the shower as the killer pops into frame. Blah. Predictable. Stale. Maybe they intentionally make the characters bland and cliche to stand for what they think people are, but I think people relate more to unique characters... and EVERYONE should be unique in the film, since all people are unique- even the bartender in scene 22, shot b, take 3 who had his finger up his nose during the best take.
13 Ghosts - bad bad movie, but with some pretty horrific effects and an interesting but campy plot... and Matthew Lillard.. - and the problem with this movie was that the only character who could have had an emotional death was Matthew Lillard's, and while I love him in SLC Punk and some other flicks, he isn't the person who I would attach an "emotionally riveting" scene to. And the people who survive are the obvious ones- the "family unit", while the more 2-dimensional characters die off randomly. So while the visuals certainly give a shock factor, the characters who die only serve to show off fancy effects and not advance the story in a way that takes the audience on a horrifying journey. Instead, it's a bit of a camp fest, which I usually enjoy (see Evil Dead 2), but could have been MUCH more terrifying if they actually spent more time developing the characters.
That's all I can manage typing now. I just really like horror films that have unique characters facing unknown danger. That's the best way to put it. Damn it, could have saved me some ranting... next time, Gadget!!! NEEEXXXT TIIIMME!!!
Most horror films are pretty bad, and to think that someone paid -- often times a fairly substantial amount of money -- to make the film is frightening.
